This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS  ROME 005205 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
FROM U.S. MISSION IN ROME 
 
USAID FOR AA/DCHA WINTER, EGAT/ESP LEWIS 
STATE FOR EB CHASE, EB/TPP/BTT, OES/ETC; EUR/WE 
USDA/FAS FOR DHEGWOOD, SIMMONS AND BBRICHEY 
NSC FOR DWORKEN 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD EAID VT IT FAO
SUBJECT: VATICAN STUDY SEMINAR ON GMO'S SEES MORE HOPE THAN 
THREAT 
 
Refs: A) Vatican 4859,  B) Vatican 4874, 
 
      C) Vatican 3917,  D) Vatican 3584 
 
¶1.  Summary:  The Holy See's Pontifical Council for Justice 
and Peace's November 10-11 study seminar -- "GMO's: Threat 
or Hope" --found more reasons for hope than fear from its 
detailed examination of biotech foods.  The seminar was 
developed by the pro-biotech President of the Council, 
Cardinal Martino, who sought to lay a foundation for a more 
forward-leaning Vatican position on GMO's.  The seminar, 
which included both biotech advocates and opponents, 
considered the science, ethical and political implications 
of biotechnology (reftels).  It generated candid exchange of 
views between proponents and opponents, with informative and 
sometimes ironic interventions.  Cardinal Martino indicated 
to participants that the Holy See is likely to respond to 
the fruitful exchange of ideas generated at the seminar with 
a more considered position on the subject of GMOs -- which 
we expect will be more forward-leaning than previous, 
generally favorable, positions.  End summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
Day One:  The Science and Economics of Biotech 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶2.  The first session, GMOs and Scientific Research, 
included two sub-panels, "GMOs and the Contribution of the 
Scientific World," and "The Contribution of the Pontifical 
Academy for Life and of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences 
on GMOs."  Three scientists presented their views on the 
benefits and risks of biotechnology in the context of its 
historical development.  Of the three, only Dr. Margaret 
Mellon, Food and Environment Program Director, Union of 
Concerned Scientists, expressed skepticism about the 
necessity for biotech food, stating she is not convinced 
that biotech is either necessary or useful.  In contrast, 
Professor Nam-Hai Chua, a plant molecular biologist from 
Rockefeller University, New York, highlighted the virtues of 
a new transgenic rice variety.  Professor Francesco Sala, 
University of Milan, based his presentation -- and his 
belief in the need for biotechnology -- on forecasted 
decreases in available arable land and increases in 
population. 
 
¶3.  During the second sub-panel, Professor Peter Raven, 
Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden, past President 
and Chairman of the American Association for the Advancement 
of Science, and Member of the Pontifical Academy of 
Sciences, made a strong case -- based on publications of the 
Pontifical Academy and the scientific community as a whole - 
- for using and further developing biotechnology.  With 
regard to the use of GMOs as food, "there is no theory that 
contradicts the generally accepted conclusion that those 
currently in use are safe as food for human beings and 
domestic animals, and no single case of illness resulting 
from consuming foods produced by GMOs, even though billions 
of people throughout the worlds use them regularly." 
Rhetorically, he asked, "Why, then, do we keep saying, 
`Health and safety, health and safety?'"  Professor Raven 
stated that the benefits of GM technology should be 
recognized, considering the widely available and accepted 
documentation about GM technology.  For instance, the major 
decreases in pesticide application resulting from widespread 
use of GM crops are significant in the face of an estimated 
500,000 cases of pesticide poisoning and 5,000 deaths that 
result from such applications annually. 
 
¶4.  Finally, Raven stated that the controversy over GMOs has 
been used to limit trade, concluding "the drive to feed 
hungry people and to redress the morally unacceptable 
imbalances around the world should take precedence over 
other considerations, and in this case there are no valid 
scientific objections to utilizing these technologies with 
due consideration to the implications of each new proposed 
transgenic crop in the environment." 
 
¶5. The Second Session, entitled "GMOs, Food and Trade," 
consisted of two sub-panels, "GMOs and Food in Developed and 
Developing Countries" and "GMOs and Trade," and an 
intervention by the Italian Agriculture Minister, Gianni 
Alemanno.  The chair of the first sub-panel, Dr. Mahmoud 
Sohl, Director of Plant Production and Protection Division, 
Agriculture Department, FAO, characterized the discussion as 
bearing on the "molecular divide" between developed and 
developing countries.  One panelist focused on the widening 
separation between rich and poor countries and the 800 
 
 
million people who are chronically undernourished.  Another, 
Dr. Paola Testori Coggi, Director for Food Security, 
European Commission, focused on the need to develop a 
regulatory framework for GMOs, offering the EC's guidelines 
for labeling GM vs. non-GM food as being the "most 
demanding" in the world.  When asked why wine and cheese are 
not identified as containing GMOs, Dr. Coggi offered that 
enzymes are considered "trace elements," and not 
"ingredients." 
 
¶6.  More irony ensued.  At the second session Ms. Thandiwe 
Myeni, a small-scale farmer and Chairwoman of the Mbuso 
Farmers Association, South Africa, talked about her positive 
experience with GM (Bt) cotton, which resulted in much 
higher yields and significant reductions in pesticide use. 
Immediately following Ms. Myeni's presentation, Minister 
Alemanno arrived and immediately opined that, with regard to 
developing countries, GM technology is not available to 
subsistence farmers who have no use for it.  He did 
acknowledge d that biotechnology might be beneficial, but 
stated that Italy follows the Precautionary Principle. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
Day Two:  Health, Environment and Ethics 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶7.  The Third Session of the seminar on the second day 
covered the topic of GMOs and Environmental and Health 
Security.  The chair for this section was Mr. Djoghlaf, 
Director of the Division of Global Environment Facility 
Coordination of the United Nations Environment Program. 
Professor Andrea Crisanti of the Department of Biology, 
Imperial College, London, presented research being done in 
molecular parasitology on genetically modifying the species 
of mosquito that spreads malaria so that it would be 
incapable of doing so.  While this work remains very much in 
the lab at this time, he expressed hope, indeed expectation, 
that the technology can eventually lead to the eradication 
of malaria.  Comment: It was revealing that even when 
presented with a potential benefit for the developing world 
of such unmatched proportions, the anti-GMO speakers that 
followed proceeded doggedly in their insistence that the 
risks of the technology outweighed the possible benefits. 
End Comment.  Speakers from the Italian National Academy of 
Sciences and University of Tuscia spoke on the environmental 
benefits of the technology. 
 
¶8.  The Italian Minister of the Environment, Altiero 
Matteoli, delivered a strong statement in favor of GM 
technology, citing the environmental benefits it offers. 
Italy's Minister of Health, Girolamo Sirchia also delivered 
a positive statement, hedging somewhat towards cautiousness 
exemplified by labeling and precaution. 
 
¶9.  Speakers on the health implications included Dr. Harry 
¶A. Kuiper of the Institute of Food Safety (RIKILT) 
Wageningen University and Research Center, the Netherlands. 
Concentrating on the risk assessment approach used by the 
EU, he included the notion of precaution in his statement, 
but stressed that GM products are the most studied and 
understood of any food products that have been introduced to 
consumers.  He repeated to the audience that the risks of 
most conventional and traditional foods on the market are 
poorly studied and understood.  Professor Claudia Sorlini, 
Director of the Department of Food Science and 
Microbiological Technologies, University of Milan brought 
out case studies highlighting uncertainty and possible human 
health risks based upon laboratory studies showing protein 
transfer through the gut. Other interlocutors pointed out 
that these studies are, in fact, quite old and the results 
have proven to be unrepeatable in real-world experiments. 
 
¶10.  The intervention by Greenpeace International Scientific 
Advisor for GMOs, Dr. Doreen Stabinsky, centered on well- 
known and increasingly worn arguments including (a) the 
world is more complex that scientists recognize and it is 
hubris to mess with it through GM technology; (b) GMOs are 
not the answer to feeding the world and to world development 
because the problems lie elsewhere -- in economic/political 
systems; and (c) the technology only enriches multinational 
companies.  Comment: It was apparent, from body language if 
nothing else, that the anti-GMO contingent was feeling a 
preponderance of opinion in the room moving against them. 
End comment. 
 
¶11.  The final session of the meeting, Chaired by Bishop 
 
 
Elio Sgreccia, Secretary of the Pontifical Academy for Life, 
was on GMOs and the Ethical Perspective.  The two key 
speakers were priests presenting opposing ethical views. 
Professor P. Gonzalo Miranda, Chairman of the Department of 
Bioethics, Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum spoke in 
favor of GMOs.  He began by pointing out that some people 
believe genetic manipulation is, per se, an unethical act; 
that nature should not be changed in any way.  This attitude 
assumes that nature is good, per se, and that all forms of 
manipulation are evil. 
 
¶12.  However, Sgreccia continued, this religious view of 
nature is not the "anthropomorphic vision" of man and nature 
of the Catholic Church.  By returning to scripture we can 
see that man is the apex of the continuum of creation; that 
God created man and made him the custodian of creation, to 
use it for his own good and the glory of God.  "The 
victories of humanity are a glory to God." Therefore, the 
works of man are not necessarily bad, or evil.  We are 
"expected" by God to use our abilities to manipulate 
creation for our own ends and the glory of God.  The Second 
Vatican Council, he cited, said, "Man is right to feel 
superior to other living beings".  Quoting Pope John Paul 
II, "Science and technology are wonderful products of human 
creativity, which is a gift from God."  Therefore, there is 
nothing intrinsically wrong about biotechnology.  One must 
take a case-by-case view of the technology's use, weighing 
the circumstances, intentions and consequences of each 
event, in the light of its impact on humanity.  It is 
incumbent upon scientists to work for the good of humanity 
and their work should enhance the "solidarity of man." 
 
¶13.  Father Miranda went on to provide recommendations. 
First, risk assessment and management are necessary, but 
every human activity entails risk.  We need to be alert to 
the benefits, he said.  We cannot forecast all contingencies 
so we must be careful and prudent.  Benefits and risks have 
to be calculated on a case-by-case basis.  Second, justice 
and equality have to be considered.  The Church recognizes 
the function of profit -- it is not the work of the devil, 
but is necessary for progress.  Vatican II recognized this. 
However, the fundamental objective of development is not 
just profit but the service it can offer mankind. 
Therefore, the needs and rights of farmers and others 
affected need to be considered.  Monopolies, for example, 
need to be avoided, and all citizens need to be aware and 
have knowledge.  Thus labeling can be useful.  Finally, 
Miranda cautioned participants not to fall into the trap of 
believing that GMOs can solve all problems.  Other measures 
are needed to solve the problems of poor countries and 
people.  We cannot block the diffusion of technology because 
this would exhibit a lack of human solidarity. 
 
¶14.  The anti-GMO case within the Church was made by Father 
Roland Lesseps, Senior Scientist, Kasisi Agricultural 
Training Centre, Lusaka, Zambia.  (Lessups and Father Peter 
Henriot were the American Jesuits who contributed to 
creating an anti-biotech climate in Zambia that resulted in 
the government's rejection of U.S. food aid last fall.  End 
Comment.)  Lesseps' presentation began with a very different 
anthropological vision of man and nature: one in which all 
God's creatures have intrinsic value, in and of themselves, 
and that nature is not just useful to us humans but valued 
and loved in itself, for itself, by God.  Making reference 
to numerous religious sources, Lesseps built his case for 
the "sacredness of nature" and the need to "respect nature." 
The most salient quotation was from Pope John Paul II's 
World Peace Day message in 1990, which states, in part: "We 
can only look with deep concern at the enormous 
possibilities of biological research.  We are not yet in a 
position to assess the biological disturbance that could 
result from indiscriminate genetic manipulation and from the 
unscrupulous development of new forms of plant and animal 
life,." From this ethical underpinning, Lesseps proceeded to 
construct an argument against GMOs that mirrored exactly the 
standard positions of the secular community similarly 
opposed. 
 
¶15.  At the end of these presentations there was not much 
time remaining for an exchange of opinions.  The only 
exchange between the two priest presenters was initiated by 
Father Miranda who pointed out the crucial adjectives 
"indiscriminate" and "unscrupulous" in the Pope's statement 
as important qualifiers that all parties would agree with 
and that supported the need to look at events on a case-by- 
case basis. 
 
 
¶16.  The study seminar was closed by Cardinal Renato 
Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and 
Peace.  He said that the Church had been in the unfamiliar 
role as student for the last two days listening carefully to 
the information provided.  However, it cannot be expected 
that she will remain in this role for long, but rather, will 
in the near future issue a more detailed position on GMOs. 
The Church will not teach biology to biologists, but will 
instruct from its anthropological perspective as to whether 
actions are correct or otherwise. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶17.  Although no time frame was indicated, Cardinal Martino 
left the clear impression that  the Holy See intended to 
issue a formal position on GMOs --sooner rather than later. 
From the tenor of the discussion, the final presentations, 
and comments made during the proceedings, FODAG and Embassy 
Vatican believe the church will likely stake out a generally 
positive position towards biotechnology that will emphasize 
the great potential benefits for mankind.  Given the Holy 
See's desire to issue an ethical assessment, we expect the 
position could be an elaboration of the paper presented by 
Father Miranda that will stress the view that man is 
expected to manipulate creation for the benefit of mankind. 
 
¶18.  Media coverage of the Vatican event has been generally 
positive, highlighting the potential benefits of biotech 
foods to developing countries and quoting Vatican officials 
as cautioning against demonizing biotechnology and its 
applications.  Although some biotech opponents have publicly 
criticized what they claimed was a stacking of the deck with 
biotech proponents, given the preponderance of favorable 
biotech views in the scientific community, the Vatican 
certainly went out of its way to maintain openness and 
balance to opponents.  This effort to maintain balance 
strengthened the credibility of the study session, and now 
paves the way for a more forward-leaning Vatican statement. 
The Vatican's willingness to wade into this controversial 
subject in the face of considerable opposition within the 
Church, reflects the success of Embassy Vatican's efforts to 
frame this issue from a moral and ethical perspective over 
the past year and a half. 
 
Hall 
 
 
NNNN 
 2003ROME05205 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED