Along with his other dilemmas, Pope Benedict is also said to have a “genetically modified crop dilemma.” As New Scientist explained editorially:
In a statement condemning opposition to GM [genetically modified] crops in rich countries as unjustified, a group of scientists including leading members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is demanding a relaxation of “excessive, unscientific regulations” for approving GM crops, saying that these prevent development of crops for the “public good.”
The draft statement is the result of consultations from May 2009 by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and was released this week. It awaits approval by the full academy. It appears to echo one of the principal GM commercial advocates, Monsanto, an aggressive leader in producing plants that can stand up to super weeds.
On Tuesday, interestingly, the United States being one of those rich countries, a U.S. federal district judge, Jeffrey White, issued a ruling favorable to environmentalist suits and . . .
. . . ordered the removal of genetically modified sugar beet stecklings from hundreds of acres of farm fields, saying the U.S. Department of Agriculture improperly gave permission for their planting.
Exactly why New Scientist sees this as yet another papal dilemma is unclear, unless it is the juxtaposition of a Vatican academy vs. a U.S. judge. But best I can figure it offered a interesting headline. Papal dilemmas make for good headlines. Which exactly is why this blog carries the headline it does.
December 3rd, 2010 | 9:17 am
Well, I’m glad the headline is inaccurate! :)
I don’t have a problem with genetically modified foods per se, but I do have a problem with the idea that patent ownership of an organism gives the owners the right to control that organism’s natural reproduction, to the extent that a company like Monsanto or ADM is permitted to require farmers to destroy seed stock of their GM crops rather than replant them.
I understand this to be a standard business practice for GM seed producers, and I find it far more troubling than the genetic modification itself.
December 3rd, 2010 | 9:26 am
You’re absolutely right, it’s not the Vatican that has the problem but some of the science media – notably Andy Coghlan at New Scientist, who got this bogus story going.
The story’s based on a study week, organised by a few avidly pro-GM scientists within the Pontifical Academy, that took place over 18 months ago and which was widely covered by the media at the time.
So why the resurrection and respinning of the story now? A report on the study week has just been published – not by the Catholic church but by a pro-GM body backed by Monsanto Europe, among others, and it is this that has somehow been spun by lobbyists as claims of Vatican endorsement of GM.
The Vatican has been quick to officially deny any such thing and to point out the inaccuracy of such reports, as the Catholic News Service has made abundantly clear – also noting that there is absolutely no chance of this report being approved by the full Pontifical Academy: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004910.htm
The Pontifical Academy, in any case, does not represent either the Pope or the Vatican.
So, far from demonstrating the Vatican’s dilemmas, the New Scientist story suggests something more disturbing – the ease with which lobbyists can manipulate journalists in search of an easy headline. :)
December 6th, 2010 | 6:58 pm
Vatican blessing of Monsanto would make perfect sense, though. Monsanto was the primary corporate “bridge” to Nazi Germany, among all of the companies that did business with the Germans throughout the war. Monsanto is still a fascist enterprise. And the Pope, of course, was a Nazi youth. Water seeks its own level …
December 9th, 2010 | 11:20 am
As one of the public sector scientist and a participant to the conference, I do not understand what Coghlan got wrong. His statement <> is correct. Several newspapers run titles like “Vatican approves GM crops”, which are of course inaccurate and wrong, so the press office of the Holy See had to issue a clarification.
Moreover, the Pontifical Academy had already expressed a clearcut position in 2001:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/documents/newpdf/es23.pdf
And the PAS members with authority in Biology did endorse the present statement.
Indeed, by demanding more sensible regulation, this document is more likely to damage Monsanto than to favor it, because many more competitors would become available.
In any case, this discussion seems to me a way to avoid confronting yourself with the document itself. Do you really believe in the all-encompassing monsanto conspiration?
Why not starting with reading some Popper? Regards, P.M.
December 14th, 2010 | 1:12 pm
As a participant in the PAS Study Week, as a Catholic, and as a regular reader of FIRST THINGS, I offer several comments.
Journalist Andrew Coghlan wrote his article because the magazine NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY published a special edition on December 1 containing the Statement approved by the participants and the formal papers presented during the Study Week. Coghlan wrote because this special edition is worthwhile news about agricultural biotechnology. His article was accurate and fair, even if the headline was not as accurate. Coghlan has not been influenced; Coghlan did his journalistic job.
Focusing on the headline misses the point of the news event — the PAS conference and its Statement. The Statement from the participants emphasizes the moral obligation to use agricultural biotechnology for the alleviation of hunger and malnutrition. The 2009 Statement builds upon prior statements from other PAS conferences that also support agricultural biotechnology. Taken together, these PAS conferences show science and faith combined for the common good and in conformity with paragraphs 472-480 (on the use of biotechnology) in the Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church.
By coincidence with the publication of the Statement and papers from the PAS 2009 Study Week, a conference of Islamic Scholars in Penang, Malaysia (Dec 1-2, 2010) adopted a resolution stating that genetic modification and transgenic products are Halal and that promotion of modern biotechnology and genetic engineering are “Fardhu Kifayah” (collective obligation) for the alleviation of poverty and the promotion of food security.
I would respectfully suggest that readers of First Thoughts consult the PAS Statement and papers by going to The New Biotechnology open source Volume 27, 5, p. 445 – 717 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/18716784).
Sincerely yours,
Drew L. Kershen
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact