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

UNCLAS  VATICAN 003810 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
C O R R E C T E D  C O P Y. ADDED MISSING PARA MARKING 
TO PARA 16 & FIXED E.O. LINE (ADDED QUOTATION MARKS) 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPT. FOR EB; EB/TPP/ABT/BTT; EUR/WE 
HHS FOR FDA DIRECTOR CRAWFORD 
DEPT. PLS PASS MERCOSUR COLLECTIVE 
DEPT. PLS PASS AFRICAN UNION COLLECTIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PHUM TBIO EAGR EAID SOCI VT
SUBJECT:  MOVING THE VATICAN ON BIOTECHNOLOGY: EMBASSY 
CONFERENCE EMPHASIZES MORAL IMPERATIVE 
 
Ref. 03 Rome 5205 
 
------- 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1. (U) To build support within the Holy See and overcome 
opposition within the Catholic Church, Embassy brought 
together scientists, ethicists, and developing nation 
farmers to address a one-day conference on the moral 
imperative of using biotechnology to feed the world's 
hungry.  Scientists from the United States and Italy 
presented the facts about GMOs, their applications and 
their benefits, debunking myths perpetrated by anti-biotech 
activists.  The FDA's Acting Commissioner Lester Crawford 
addressed biotech food safety concerns, while a prominent 
bioethicist and moral theologian explained the Catholic 
doctrinal position on the use of technology for the common 
good of mankind.  Farmers from the Philippines and South 
Africa extolled the economic, social and health benefits 
they personally had experienced using GM seeds.  Church- 
based anti-GMO activists who attended the conference left 
unconverted, but with many of their arguments undercut by 
the weight of scientific evidence and the compelling 
testimony of the developing country farmers.  Media 
coverage of the event was extensive in Italy and 
internationally.  Post appreciates the support and 
assistance provided for the conference from EB, HHS, the 
Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan and FODAG Rome. 
End summary. 
 
----------------------------------- 
Moral Imperative to Feed the Hungry 
----------------------------------- 
 
2.(U) Ambassador Nicholson opened the September 24 
Conference, Feeding the Hungry, The Moral Imperative of 
Biotechnology," by observing that the suffering of so many 
in today's world of plenty was an affront to human dignity 
that presented a clear moral challenge.  To meet this 
challenge the world needed to take advantage of 
biotechnology's tremendous potential.  Criticizing Catholic 
activists who asserted during Zambia's food crisis in 2002 
that it would be better to let people starve than allow 
them to eat biotech food, the Ambassador urged the Holy See 
to use its moral voice on food safety and the potential of 
biotechnology by issuing a stronger statement on the issue. 
The Ambassador concluded that the worst form of cultural 
imperialism was to deny others opportunities to take 
advantage of new technologies to enhance the human 
condition.  The Ambassador also cited Pope John Paul II, 
who has stated that the correct application of technology 
could be a "precious instrument" in resolving the problems 
of hunger and disease. 
 
------------------------------------------- 
Dimensions of Hunger:  How Biotech Can Help 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (U) Tuskegee University Professor C.S. Prakash, whose 
research has quadrupled the nutritional content of the 
sweet potato, set the stage for the discussion by sketching 
the dimensions of the challenge facing the world in feeding 
our growing population.  While acknowledging progress as a 
result of the Green Revolution, particularly in India and 
China, Prakash noted that 800 million people go to be 
hungry every night and that half of sub Saharan Africans 
are undernourished -- a figure that will increase to 70 
percent by 2010.  Only by increasing agricultural 
productivity, he emphasized, could food needs be met.  And, 
one of the best tools to achieve this, was biotechnology, 
which could reduce loses from pests, develop greater 
resistance to drought and disease, reduce pesticide use, 
and enhance nutritional qualities of foods. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
Confronting Opponents with Sound Science 
---------------------------------------- 
 
 
4.(SBU) To make the scientific case for biotechnology, 
Embassy highlighted two of the best scientific minds on 
biotechnology, Dr. Peter Raven, a member of the Pontifical 
Science Academy and Director of the Missouri Botanical 
Gardens, and Dr. C.S. Prakash.  Bishop Marcelo Sanchez 
Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, 
and the co-host of the conference highlighted scientific 
evidence on the safety of GMOs and reiterated the Holy 
See's call for agricultural technology to be shared with 
the developing world.  At the same time, he asserted that 
intellectual property rights had to be applied in a way 
that permitted wider access to the benefits of scientific 
knowledge in the developing world.  Sanchez refuted 
accusations from within the Catholic Church that the 
Pontifical Academy had been bought by American biotech 
interests, pointing out that his academy was specifically 
tasked by the Pope with the study and debate of scientific 
issues in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom.  The study 
and debate of GMOs, he insisted, was totally consistent 
with the Academy's mission.  (Comment: Sanchez, a key 
Embassy ally in promoting a positive science-based 
assessment of GMOs from within the Holy See, received more 
than 100 e-mails from Catholics around the world 
complaining about the Academy's involvement in the 
conference. End Comment). 
 
¶5. (U) Dr. Peter Raven launched the scientific assault with 
a series of broadsides at the specious arguments emanating 
from Church circles opposed to GMOs and biotechnology.  He 
labeled as "escapist" and "absurd" the argument that food 
insecurity was essentially a distribution issue because 
there was enough food for all in the world.  According to 
Raven, there is not enough food being produced, and modern 
technologies to boost yield are essential for peoples' 
survival.  Raven also dismissed safety arguments against 
GMOS, noting that there is not one recorded case of harm or 
illness resulting from consumption of GMOs.  He pointed 
out, for the benefit of the European purists intent on 
keeping the continent GMO free, that virtually all of the 
beer and cheese consumed around the world used 
biogenetically engineered materials. 
 
¶6. (U) Turning his fire toward biodiversity, Raven argued 
that nothing is more destructive of biodiversity than 
widespread, low-yield, traditional methods of agriculture, 
and that it is highly misleading to romanticize them. 
Raven said the development of GM crops, with precisely 
determined characteristics that allow them to survive in 
the diverse places they are grown promises not only major 
increases in productivity but a greatly enhanced ability to 
preserve biodiversity.  Raven successfully linked GMOs to 
decreased pesticide use and the consequent positive effects 
on human beings and the environment, noting that millions 
of birds and animals would live and the health of hundreds 
of thousands of people would be enhanced by a reduction in 
pesticide use made possible by biotechnology.  If half the 
maize, oil seed rape, sugar beet and cotton raised in 
Europe were genetically modified to resist pests, there 
would be a reduction of more than 14 million kilograms of 
pesticide, 20 million liters of diesel, and the prevention 
of 73,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide going into the 
atmosphere, he said. 
 
7.(U) Dr. C.S. Prakash reinforced Raven's arguments with 
concrete examples of current research and GMO use.  GM 
success stories included higher yields, reduced use of 
pesticides, nutritional increases and greater product 
freshness. Prakash extolled the benefits of GM products 
that were resilient to environmental problems - drought, 
flooding, salt water, and pests -- which had great impact 
t 
on food productivity worldwide.  The future total 
elimination of natural toxins, particularly in potatoes, as 
a result of GM was another powerful example of how GMOs 
could contribute to food safety.  To advocates of the 
health advantages of non-GM products, Prakash pointed out 
that GM foods are being developed with less bad fats, 
 
 
allergens and sugars.  Prakash urged that GM seeds and 
other agricultural technology be made affordable and 
accessible to farmers in developing nations.  He said he 
advocates GMO use because it will bring sustainability, 
purchasing power and wealth.  Prakash lamented that the 
promise of GMOs has not yet been fully realized because of 
a lack of funding, constraints imposed by national 
governments, poor public perception of GMO benefits, 
activist opposition and negative media portrayals.  Prakash 
said negative media on GMOs had a direct impact on funding 
and research, limiting what should be a powerful instrument 
for the developing world. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
Real-Life Experience of Developing Country Farmers 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
8.(U) Farmers from South Africa and the Philippines 
provided first-hand testimony on the benefits of GMOs for 
the developing world.  Clearly and simply they recounted 
their stories of transition from traditional crops to GMOs, 
and how their lives and those of their families and 
communities had been enhanced.  Edwin Paraluman from the 
Philippines explained that population increases in his 
country demanded the use of biotechnology.  His corn for 
animal feed was affected by the Asian corn warm, and 
spraying with toxic pesticides had previously been the only 
method to control the pest.  The first planting of BT corn 
resulted in immediate yield increases, with his profits up 
30 percent.  As a result, he was able to buy a refrigerator 
and a motorcycle for his family.  Paraluman said 
misinformation campaigns by anti-biotechnology activists in 
the Philippines impacted in GMO use.  The campaigns were 
based on ignorance and prejudices among the general 
population, he said, including the rumor that a person 
would become homosexual through contact with GM products. 
Despite this, the use of GM seed by farmers was spreading 
as they saw first hand the economic and health benefits of 
using the product. 
 
9.(U) South African farmer Sabina Khoza said using BT 
maize had resulted not only in increased income but more 
free time due to decreased weeding and spraying.  She had 
also been able to use her profits to diversify her crops. 
GMOs had also reduced local unemployment in her village as 
new workers were hired to bring in an increased harvest and 
manage a diversified production.  Khoza lauded the 
cooperation in South Africa between officials from the 
Ministry of Agriculture, educational institutes and farmers 
through which theory and practice met to ensure sound and 
safe procedures for the introduction of GM seed use.  Khoza 
said some 75 percent of the maize now used in her area was 
GM, with 25 percent of the crop coming from traditional 
maize so that farmers in South Africa could still choose 
what they wanted to grow.  For Khoza and her farming 
colleagues, most of them women, GM maize meant greater 
safety because of less handling of hazardous chemicals. 
She said health was a major issue in South Africa, 
especially for women farmers who were responsible for the 
care of their families.  From her own experience, Khoza 
said GM seed produced a high quality product, and its use 
was wiping out pests and disease.  She acknowledged concern 
about the cost of GM seed, but added that the investment 
thus far had proven worthwhile.  She also expressed concern 
about the potential impact that the use of GM seeds could 
have on international trade with countries that still 
banned GMOs, but said she was more concerned with food 
security issues for her local community.  Khoza closed by 
saying public awareness would be the key factor in whether 
or not GMOs are more widely accepted. 
 
10.(U) Dr. Carl Pray, from Rutgers University's 
Department of Agricultural Food and Resource Economics, who 
has done extensive research on the impact of biotechnology 
on farmers in developing countries, insisted that anti-GMO 
rhetoric was way ahead of the evidence.  Pray presented his 
study of BT cotton use in China, where it makes up 60 
percent of the national harvest.  China's farmers chose BT 
 
 
cotton because it makes economic sense, he explained.  They 
use fewer pesticides - from 60 kilos per hectare to eleven 
-- and reduce spraying from twenty times per year to five. 
Although yield increased a modest 8 percent, costs were 
down due to reduced labor and pesticide costs, thus 
increasing profit.  Pray said Chinese farmers who had 
suffered nausea and vomiting after frequent pesticide 
spraying also appreciated benefits to their health of using 
cotton.  On the question of "who benefits" from GMO use, 
Pray said China's farmers garnered 80 to 85 percent of the 
benefit while consumers received none due to government 
price controls.  Seed companies received a small benefit 
from GM seed sales.  Pesticide producers were the big 
losers. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
The Theological Case for Biotechnology 
-------------------------------------- 
 
11.(U) Respected bioethicist Father Gonzalo Miranda of 
the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum told conference 
delegates that it was not the church's role to be a 
scientific arbitrator -- that was for scientists.  What the 
Church could offer, according to Miranda, was an ethical 
reflection on how man's capacity to discover should be used 
to intervene in creation.  Noting that God gave man "power" 
over nature, he said that this power is supposed to be used 
for the good for humankind - in particular to combat 
hunger and illness.  While any intervention in nature had 
d 
consequences, science had to determine and assess risks. 
The potential risks and benefits of biotechnology, 
therefore, should be ethically assessed on a case-by-case 
basis with no blanket condemnation or approval.  In the 
framework of justice and solidarity, Miranda made clear 
that if GMOs represent a true opportunity in favor of 
development in poor countries, it "would be a moral duty of 
solidarity to support their diffusion."  He pointedly 
added, "to block GMOs a priori because of purely 
ideological positions or hidden economic interests would be 
a grave injustice."  To critics of the role of 
multinational companies, Miranda affirmed the Church's 
doctrine that profit and multinationals are not wrong or 
evil per se, but that both should be at the service of 
humankind.  Miranda concluded that justice demands that the 
public be fully informed about new technologies and that 
the developing world share in development and research to 
be able to find their own solutions to hunger and disease. 
 
------------------------------------ 
Biotech Regulation:  Ensuring Safety 
------------------------------------ 
 
12.(U) Acting FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford provided a 
detailed presentation of U.S. regulatory mechanisms for GM 
foods and other products, describing the extensive testing 
process biotech foods undergo to ensure food safety.  To 
date bioengineered foods have proven to be no different 
from their conventional counterparts, he explained. 
Crawford said the FDA and other relevant government 
agencies have drawn on their regulatory experience to help 
build regulatory frameworks in other countries.  He said 
workshops have been conducted in the Russian Federation, 
Mexico and for several South East Asian nations.  Crawford 
expressed his appreciation to the Pontifical Academy for 
the Sciences and to the Vatican for their openness to GMOs 
and recognition of their potential to enhance the ability 
to feed a hungry world. 
 
----------------------- 
Debunking Biotech Myths 
----------------------- 
 
 
13.(U) Keying off an open discussion with all panelists, 
Italian biology professor from the University of Milan, 
Piero Morandini, carefully debunked some of the classic 
 
 
myths and objections surrounding the use of GMOs. 
Responding to the charge that agricultural biotechnology 
was "against nature," Morandini said that science does not 
support the notion that natural things are inherently 
superior to man made ones.  Such a position, according to 
Morandini, was essentially pagan where nature was 
considered a kind of goddess and environmentalism a form of 
religion in which man is the worst enemy of nature.  Dr. 
Morandini said arguments suggesting wealthy nations have no 
need of GMOs to increase or improve production are 
nullified by the facts.  Even Italy, where a majority of 
the population is opposed to GMOs, imports GM maize and 
soybeans for animal feed, as well as meat fed with GMO 
crops.  Taking on the charge that GMO's would diminish 
biodiversity, Morandini pointed out that preserving 
biodiversity is important, but doesn't address the fact 
that countries using indigenous varieties suffer 
malnutrition and hunger.  Since conventional crops and 
technologies have failed to provide food security, 
developing countries needed to be able to explore new crops 
that can end the cycle of bare subsistence.  Morandini 
concluded that much of the confusion about biotechnology 
within Church circles is born of ignorance and fueled by 
ideology. 
 
-------------- 
Media Coverage 
-------------- 
 
14.(U) The Conference, the third in an Embassy series of 
public outreach events that have previously addressed 
terrorism and human trafficking, garnered extensive, 
generally positive media coverage in U.S.-and Italian 
Catholic and non-Catholic media.  Avvenire, a national 
Italian Catholic daily, headlined its in-depth article: 
"GMO:  No Condemnation; Evaluate Case by Case."  The 
article led with a quote from Fr. Miranda, underlining the 
often misrepresented and misunderstood position of the 
Vatican on GMOs, emphasizing that "the Church does not 
consider genetically modified organisms as 'intrinsically 
immoral.'"  Coverage also included a pre-conference live 
interview with the Ambassador and Dr. Prakash on Vatican 
Radio, which boasts an international audience of tens of 
thousands of listeners in 40 languages, particularly on the 
African continent.  Vatican-watcher John Allen acknowledged 
Post's persistent efforts to engage the Vatican on the 
issue of biotechnology.  Pre-conference Q and A session 
with the Ambassador in the internationally distributed 
Zenit News Service, Catholic News Service and the Voice of 
America, highlighted that "despite existing prejudice and 
concerns about biotechnology in many countries, Vatican 
officials believe genetic engineering is a modern science 
tool that should be explored to address hunger and 
malnutrition in the world." 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
15.(SBU) This conference, the fourth outreach event on 
biotechnology hosted by Post over the past two years, was 
targeted at keeping pressure on the Holy See to adopt a 
stronger public position toward biotechnology and to ensure 
its diffusion among bishops in the developing world whose 
voice often plays a critical role in shaping public 
perceptions of whether a biotech food is safe to eat and 
moral to grow.  It also sought to respond to the Holy See's 
own call at the conclusion of its November 2003 conference 
on biotechnology (reftel) for further study and debate on 
the merits.  The fact that the Pontifical Science Academy 
was willing to co-sponsor a pro-biotech event with the 
United States was a major step forward, and reflects the 
growing recognition within the Holy See of biotechnology's 
potential.  This openness was reinforced last week by Prime 
Minister equivalent Cardinal Angelo Sodano's positive 
reference to the benefits of technology at the recent UN 
Food Summit in New York.  Biotech opponents, who had 
inundated the Pontifical Science Academy with angry e-mails 
 
 
prior to the conference, offered only muted criticism at 
the Conference in the face of the powerful scientific and 
personal evidence presented at the conference. 
 
¶16. (U) Embassy greatly appreciates the support for this 
conference provided by EB, the Department of Health and 
Human Services, and the Acton Institute. 
 
Nicholson 
 
 
NOTE: NOT PASSED TO ABOVE ADDRESSEE(S) 
NNNN 

 2004VATICA03810 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED