The Vatican and GE Food

Sean McDonagh, SSC

The most common argument from proponents of genetically engineered crops is that genetically engineered food will be necessary to feed and cure a growing world population. In 1992 Monsanto’s chief executive, Robert Shapiro spoke along these lines in a long interview with Joan Magretta in the Harvard Business Review1. He argued that genetic engineering of food crops is a further improvement on the Green Revolution that saved Asia from starvation in the 1960s and 1970s. Similar arguments have been put forward by scientists, including Professor Christopher Leaver, Professor of Plant sciences at the University of Oxford. He points to the harsh realities of global population increase and shrinking agricultural lands. He claims that the only way to feed this growing population is through the use of gene technology. He also believes that it will be more environmentally friendly as it will involve the use of fewer chemicals in agriculture2.

In August 2003 it was reported in many newspapers around the world that Archbishop (now Cardinal Martino), prefect of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said that the Vatican was preparing an official report on plant biotechnology which would come down in favour of genetically modified foods. The reason given for the Vatican’s position was that GE crops would help alleviate starvation and malnutrition3. Similar reports appeared in other newspapers in Europe and Australia. These reports alarmed bishops in many Third World countries. Bishop Dinualdo Gutierrez of Marbel in Mindanao, who has been in the forefront of a campaign to prevent the planting of Bt corn in the Philippines, implored the Cardinal not to endorse GE crops. For him and many other bishops and religious leaders in Africa, Asia and Latin America a Vatican endorsement for GE crops would strengthen the hand of transnational corporations who are browbeating Third World countries into accepting GE technology.

Critics of genetic engineering reject the argument that GE foods will stave off global famine. They also question the accepted wisdom that the impact of the Green Revolution has been entirely positive. Dr. Vandana Shiva, in correspondence with Norman Borlaug, considered by many to be the father of the Green Revolution, debunks many of the myths surrounding the Green Revolution. Dr. Shiva challenges the first myth that India was unable to feed itself until the Green Revolution was launched. She points out that the last famine in India took place in 1942 during British rule. She admits that India experienced a severe drought in 1966 and was forced to import 10 thousand tons of grain from the US. She indicts the US administration who, exploited this scarcity in its use of food as a weapon and forced non-sustainable, resource-inefficient, capital and chemical-intensive agriculture on one of the most ancient agricultural civilisations in the world. American agricultural experts like Borlaug did not introduce the Green Revolution to 'buy time' for India. They introduced it to sell chemicals to India 4.

It is also important to remember that the Green Revolutions was not simply a scientific story about hybrid crops, irrigation systems, cheap nitrogen and pesticides. John H. Perkins in his book Geopolitics and the Green Revolution recounts the environmentally destructive and

1

socially unjust aspect of the Green Revolution5. In detailed case studies Perkins insists that much of the energy behind the development of new varieties of crops stemmed from national security concerns in the U.S., Mexico, India, the United Kingdom and other countries. The theory was that, unless a growing population was able to harvest more food, there could be major security problems. They feared the rise of Marxist guerrilla movements. This led planners to focus exclusively on increasing crop yield even at the expense of exacerbating social inequity and undermining biodiversity. Curbing population growth was also a key US foreign aid objective in the 1960s and 1970s.

It is also interesting to see how foundations closely connected to transnational corporations were instrumental in promoting the Green Revolution. These include both the Ford Foundation and the Rockerfeller Foundation. Finally, proponents of the Green Revolution gloss over the fact that it has contributed to the loss of three-quarters of the genetic diversity of major food crops and that the rate of erosion continues at close to 2 per cent per annum 6.

The same 'feed the world' arguments are being recycled by the promoters of genetic engineering today. In reality famine and hunger around the world have more to do with the absence of land reform, social inequality, biases against women in many cultures, and a lack of access to cheap credit and basic technologies, rather than a lack of agribusiness super seeds. As we will see in the case of Argentina, planting GE soybeans, which is a cash crop, can even exacerbate poverty, especially for poor farmers.

Scientists dispute the claim that GE crops give higher yield.

At the moment there are no claims that GM crops give higher yields. In fact according to a study at the University of Nebraska, recorded yields for Monsanto's Roundup maize that were 6 - 11 per cent less than those for non-GM varieties. A 1998 study of over 8,000 field trials found that Roundup Ready soya seeds produced 6.7 to 10 percent fewer bushels of soya than conventional varieties7. Early in 2003 a researcher at the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex University published an analysis of the GE crops which biotech companies are developing for Africa. Among the plants studied by the researcher, Aaron deGrassi, were cotton, maize and sweet potato. He discovered that conventional breeding procedures and good ecological management produced a far higher yield at a fraction of the cost. The GE research on sweet potato is now approaching its 12 th year and has involved the work of 19 scientists. To date it has cost $6 million. Results indicated that yield has increased by 18 percent. On the other hand conventional sweet potato breeding working with a small budget has produced a virus-resistant variety with a 100 percent yield increase8.

George Monbiot points out that vast sums of public money are being spent developing GE foods, even though consumers do not want them. The reason is that funding bodies like, the Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), are stuffed with executives from Syngenta, GlaxoSmithKline, Astra-Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, Gentix plc, Millennium Pharmaceutics, Celltech and Uniliver. Even the council's new 'advisory group on public concerns' contains a representative of United Biscuits but no one from a consumer or environmental group9. No wonder organic agriculture is starved of government research funding. The Homegrown Cereals Authority lists 67 research projects

2

on its website. Only one is designed to promote and increase the competitiveness of organic farming10.

In the letters column of The Guardian on October 8th 2002, Dr. Brian Johnson wrote, I prefer the NGOs view that people go hungry because of war, poverty, greed, corruption, disease, and lack of water deprive them of buying and growing the food that is globally so abundant. To invoke the spectre of world hunger in support of crops intended to intensify agriculture is morally and intellectually bereft 11.

This fact was recognized by the participants who attended the World Food Summit in Rome in November 1996. They acknowledged that the main causes of hunger are economic and social. People are hungry because they do not have access to food production processes or the money to buy food. Those who wish to banish hunger should address those social and economic inequalities that create poverty and not pretend that a 'magic' technology will solve all the problems.

My experience confirms this approach. I lived in Mindanao during the El Nino-induced drought of 1983. There was a severe food shortage among the tribal people in the highlands. The drought destroyed their cereal crops and they could no longer get food in the tropical forest because it had been cleared during the previous decades. Even during the height of the drought, agribusiness corporations were exporting tropical fruit from the lowlands. There was sufficient rice and corn in the lowlands but the tribal people did not have the money to buy it. Had it not been for food-aid from NGOs many would have starved.

Devindar Sharma, chairman of the Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security in New Delhi, resonates with my own experience on the ground in Mindanao. He dismisses the claim that biotech food will feed the world. He told a meeting of the World Conference on Food and Farming in London in November 2002 that: claiming that bio-technology or free-trade is needed to solve the problem (of hunger) is a deliberate distortion12. He asked the audience to look at the experience of India under pressure from the WTO. 320 million people in India go to bed hungry each night, despite the fact that India has food in storage. India is also exporting food because poor Indians cannot afford to buy local food. The government of India supports this because food exports bring in much needed foreign currency. But it does not help India's poor.

Will biotech companies give GE food away free?

Do the proponents of GE food think that agribusiness companies will distribute genetically engineered food free to the hungry poor who have no money? There was food in Ireland during the famine in the 1840s but those who were starving did not have access to it or money to buy it. At a pro-GE conference in Sacrament, California in June 2003 President Bush decided to chide Europe for not responding to famine in Africa by providing hungry people with GE food. The next time he decides to lecture Europeans about responding to those in need he might do well to remember that the EU gives three times more food aid to

3

Africa than the US. The EU also provides money and resources for poor countries to sources as much food aid locally as possible. This approach supports local farmers who, once the drought is over, can return to being more productive and thus avoid the need for foreign food aid. The US, on the other hand, ships in its own food so foreign aid becomes another mechanism for subsidizing US agribusiness. This approach often undermines the livelihood of local farmers so that the country becomes dependent on imported food.

Returning to Professor Leaver's article in The Guardian, I find it interesting that he is silent about the economic and social factors, like land ownership, that gives rise to poverty and malnutrition. He confines his suggestions to hi-tech solutions, which in my experience usually benefit the better-off farmers. GE soya in Argentina has helped wealthy farmers. Is he not worried that genetic engineering will give enormous control of the staple foods of the world to a handful of Northern agribusiness companies? Most other people consider these companies to be dedicated, first and foremost, to making profits.

His claim that GE crops need less herbicides and pesticides is also questionable. A comprehensive study using US government data, on the use of chemicals on GE crops was carried out by Charles Benbrook. He is head of Northwest Science and Environment Policy at Sandpoint, Idaho. He found that when GE crops were first introduced they needed 25 percent fewer chemicals for the first three years. In 2001, 5 percent more chemicals were sprayed compared to conventional crop varieties. Dr. Benbrook stated that: the proponents of biotechnology claim GE varieties substantially reduce pesticide use. While true in the first few years of widespread planting ….. it is not the case now. There's now clear evidence that the average pound of herbicide applied per acre planted herbicide tolerant varieties have increased compared to the first few years13

Terminator gene

The development, by a Monsanto owned company, of what is benignly called a Technology Protection System, but what is more aptly called 'terminator' technology, is another reason for asserting that the 'feed the world' argument is completely spurious14. This technology, if it becomes widespread, will surely strike the death knell for the 1.8 billion small, subsistence farmers who live mainly in the Third World. Sharing seeds among farmers has been at the very heart of subsistence farming since the domestication of staple food crops eleven thousand years ago. The terminator technology would effectively stop farmers sharing seeds. Hope Shand, the research director with the Canadian ECT civil society organisation (CSO) is alarmed at such a development15. Half the world's farmers are poor. They provide food for more than a billion people but they can't afford to buy seeds every growing season. Seed collection is vital for them16. Terminator technology will enable Monsanto to control and profit from farmers in every corner of the globe. It will lock farmers into a regime of buying genetically engineered seeds that are herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant, copper-fastening them on to the chemical tread-mill.

For poor farmers in Third World countries, and the communities who depend on the food they produce, the widespread dissemination of terminator seeds will mean hunger, starvation and death. It is worth noting that the farmers of the South are the target-market for

4

terminator technology. Delta and Pine have specifically suggested that rice and wheat farmers in countries like India, China and Pakistan are a priority market. But even there the tide against GE crops may be turning in terms of consumer preference. In July 2003 thirty-two food producers in China, the largest food market in the world, announced their official commitment not to include GM ingredients17.

At an ethical level I suggest that a technology that, according to Professor Richard Lewontin of Harvard University, introduces a ‘killer’ transgene that prevents the germ of the harvested grain from developing must be considered a grossly immoral act18. It is a sin against the poor, against nature and the God of creativity. Furthermore, if anything goes wrong the terminator genes could spread to neighbouring crops and wild and weedy relatives of the plant that has been engineered to commit suicide. This would jeopardize the food security of many poor people. No wonder that there are those who consider it a form of biological warfare on subsistence farmers. If the Vatican endorses GE seeds it will also be approving this immoral technology which is, at present, central to current GE technology.

Argentina 2002

Those who are promoting GM food should look at the impact of GE soybeans on Argentina. Monsanto brought the technology to Argentina in 1996. About 90 prercent of the soya farmers opted for GE soya. As a result Argentina's soya crop has doubled to 27 million tonnes. That might seem like good news, but the social and environmental costs have been high. The growth in soya output has not come from higher yields from the GE soya but from more land devoted to soya. In fact GE soya has had a five or six per cent lower yield than conventional soya. The promised reduction in herbicide use has not materialized. If fact, many farmers are using two to three times more herbicide than they used with the traditional crop. It is estimated that costs have risen by about 14 per cent, but since overproduction has caused the price to drop the farmers are actually poorer.

The one efficiency that GE soya has brought is very worrying ecologically and socially. Everyone will admit that the agricultural practices around cultivating GE soya saved time for the GE soya farmers since they do not have to perform the traditional tasks of plowing and harrowing. What they do is to drench the land with herbicide (Roundup Ready) and then sow the soya seed directly on the land. Such methods facilitate the larger holdings and this, in turn, has put small farmers out of business. The impact on the people has been devastating. It also has had a knock-on effect on small market towns that depend for their livelihood on a thriving agricultural sector. Many people have been forced off the land and have migrated to cities where they now live in squalor in slums.

The ecological consequences are even worse. Forests are being cleared to plant more GE soya to compensate for the fall in prices. At the moment, farmers are spreading 80 million litres of herbicide on 10 million hectares under GE soya. The chemicals kill everything except the GE soya crop. This is affecting the humus quality of the soil which no longer can retain moisture. Traditionally, farmers grew soya in the summer and wheat in the winter. But now this rotation no longer happens; there is nothing but soya. This is not sustainable in the long term. No wonder that recently, one of Argentina's leading agronomists, Jorge

5

Eduardo Fuli stated that, our brief history of submission to the world bio-technology giants has been so disastrous that we fervently hope other Latin American nations will take it as a example of what not to do19.

The drive to promote transgenic food is coming, not from the farmers or consumers, but from the biotech corporations. Looking back over the last eight years from the vantage point of November 2003, it is clear that the vast majority of genetic manipulation has been undertaken for commercial gain. Friends of biotech companies in the Clinton and Bush administrations have used every opportunity to promote GE food globally. Biotech companies believe that they can make huge profits if farmers and consumers are pressurized into planting and buying GE food. This is simply greed and we should not allow any spurious arguments to obfuscate that fact. What is at stake here is not some issue of minor importance to the earth and humankind. We are talking about manipulating and controlling the food sources of our world.

Corporations exercise total control of GE crops

Support for GM crops also means supporting the patenting of living organisms - seeds and animals. I would have thought that the Vatican, in line with its pro-life policies, would be opposed to the patenting life - because of the crucial ethical issues involved in claiming to patent life. In my book Patenting Life? Stop I argue that patenting life is a fundamental attack on (the) understanding of life as interconnected, mutually dependant and a gift of God given to all. It opts for an atomized, isolated understanding of life. It is also at variance with the Judeo-Christian conviction that freedom, openness and possibility are the hallmarks of life in God’s creation 20.

Even in rich countries many farmers are opposed to patenting seeds. In Canada and the US Monsanto engaged the services of an investigative agency to gather information on over 1,000 farmers that they consider are cheating on patented seeds21. The affected farmers have coined a new word ‘bio-serfs’ to capture the feudal relationship which now exists between many seed companies and farmers. The experience of the Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, ought to alert other farmers to what can happen when seeds are patented. Monsanto filed a lawsuit for patent infringement because some genetically engineered canola was found on his land. Schmeiser is adamant that he did not plant Monsanto's GE canola. He insists that he is the aggrieved party because his non-GE seeds, which he had developed for the past 53 years, were contaminated by Monsanto's GE canola from a surrounding farm where GE canola seeds were used. In 2000 the court ruled against Schmeiser. It did not matter how the GE seeds arrived on the farm, whether by cross-pollination or whether it was blown in on the wind. The very fact that the plants were on his property meant that he was guilty. The judge ruled that all the profits from his 1998 harvest must go to Monsanto, even from the fields where no GE seeds were found.

By 2002 Schmeiser had spent $125,000 in lawyers' fees and an appeal will cost him another $50,000. Schmeister believes that Monsanto is intent on gaining complete control of the staple crops of the world by controlling seeds. In the past decade Monsanto has spent millions of dollars buying up seed companies all round the world. He points out that patents

6

have run out on Monsanto's flagship chemical Roundup Ready. However, farmers who use Monsanto's GE crops will be forced to use Roundup Ready22.

In the light of Schmeiser's experience, it is clear to many people across the world that patenting seeds and animals is now seen as a major economic, development and ethical issue. By endorsing GE seeds at this point in time the Vatican is also supporting the patenting of living organisms which runs directly counter to it's pro-life stand on so many other fronts. All GE seeds are patented.

GM food may pose a threat to human health

The simple truth is we do not know, because GR food has not been properly tested because of the farcical regulatory system on the US. This comedy of errors that masquerades as a regulatory system was lampooned by Michael Pollan in an article in the New York Times entitled, 'Playing God in the Garden' in 199823. Pollan reminds his readers that they may be eating genetically engineered soya, corn or potatoes without knowing it because biotech companies have successfully lobbied the US government to ensure that the industry would not be forced to inform the public that the food they were eating was genetically engineered24.

The author points out that one of these genetically engineered potatoes, Monsanto's New Leaf Superior potato is, itself, registered as a pesticide with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This potato has been genetically engineered to poison and kill the Colorado potato beetle. Every cell of Monsanto's New Leaf Superior contains a gene from the Bacillus Thuriengensis bacteria (Bt) which is highly toxic to Colorado potato beetles. This is why this potato is registered as a pesticide25.

While the FDA has responsibility for licensing food, the US EPA has responsibility for licensing new pesticides. According to Pollan, the EPA pesticide officials believe that the New Leaf Superior potato is reasonably safe for humans. In an experiment, EPA scientists fed pure Bt to mice without causing them harm. Because humans have eaten old-style New Leaf potatoes for a long time, and because mice are not visibly harmed by eating pure Bt, the EPA concluded that potatoes containing Bt genes are safe for humans.

When consumers go to the supermarket anywhere in the US to buy a bag of Monsanto's New Leaf Superior potatoes they will find a list of all the nutrients and micro-nutrients in the potato. They will not learn that the potato has been genetically engineered or that it is legally a pesticide. The reason for this anomaly is a bureaucratic turf war between two government agencies responsible for human and environmental welfare.

In the US, food labelling is ordinarily the responsibility of FDA. An FDA official told Pollan that FDA does not regulate Monsanto's potato because FDA does not have the authority to regulate pesticides. According to them, that is EPA's job. The farce deepens when one realises that an EPA-approved pesticide would normally carry an EPA - approved warning marker. For example, a label on a bottle of Bt will warn the user not to inhale the substance or allow it to come in contact with an open wound26. The FDA has ruled that

7

biotech foods need to be labelled only if they contain allergens or have otherwise been 'materially' changed27.

However, in the case of Monsanto's genetically engineered potato, with the Bt gene, the EPA insists that it is the responsibility of the FDA to label the item since the potato is a food and, therefore comes under the remit of the FDA. However, a spokesperson for the FDA told Pollan that it only requires genetically-engineered foods to be labeled if they contain allergens or have been 'materially changed'. In the case of the genetically engineered potato, the FDA has judged that Monsanto did not 'materially change' the New Leaf potato by turning it into a pesticide. Therefore no FDA label is required.

1 Robert Shapiro, “Growth Through Global Sustainability”, Harvard Business Review, March 2, 1992, pages 79-88.2 Christopher Leaver, "Novel ways to feed the world", The Guardian, February 17,1999, page 8.3 Richard, Ower, “Vatican Backs ‘Life-saver’ GM Crops”, The Irish Independent, August 4, 2003, page 22.4 Ecologist, Vol 27, No 5, September/October 1997, pages. 211-212.5 John H. Perkins,1997, Geopolitics and the Green Revolution: Wheat, Genes and the Cold War, Oxford University Press, New York.6 Pat Roy Mooney, "First Parts: Putting the Particulars Together", Development Dialogue, April 1998, page 70.7 "Keep Britain GM-Free", The Ecologist, July/August 2003, page 35.8 George Monbiot, "Force-fed a diet of hype", The Guardian, October 7, 2003, page 25.9 Ibid.10 Ibid.11 Dr. Brian Johnson, Letter to the Editor, The Guardian, October 8, 2003, page 25.12 Paul Brown, "Hi-tech crops 'will not save the poor'", The Guardian, November 25, 2002, page 9.13 John Vidal, "GM crops linked to rise in pesticide use", The Guardian, January 8, 2004, page 5.14 Brittenden, Wayne: ‘‘Terminator’ seeds threaten a barren future for farmers", The Independent, March 22, 1998, page 3.15 ECT was formerly called RAFI (Rural Advancement Foundation International) and is a civil society organisation devoted to Third World issues, especially those that deal with rural agriculture.16 quoted in John Vidal, "Mr. Terminator Ploughs in ", The Guardian, April 14, 1998. 17 "Companies in China clear genetically engineered food off their shelves; No-GE policy becoming strong trend in the world's largest food market", Greenpeace 18, July 2003. 18 Jean-Pierre Berlan and Richard C Lewontin, “It’s business as usual”, The Guardian, February 22, 1999,page 14.19 Sue Branford, "Why Argentina can't feed itself: How GM soya is destroying livelihoods and the environment in Argentina", The Ecologist, October 2002, page 23. 20 Sean McDonagh, 2003, Patenting Life? Stop!, Dominical Publications, Dublin. page 192.21 Cathryn Cathryn: "Seeds of Doubt", The Guardian, February 2, 2000, page 422 Interview with Percy Schmeiser, "Seeds of Discontent", WorldWatch, January/February 2002, pages 8 - 10.23 Micahel Pollan, "Playing God in the Garden", New York Times, Supplement October 25, 1998. I am using a print-out version which was circulated by the Irish environmental organisation VOICE,24 Ibid page 1.25 Ibid. page 1.

8

Furthermore, the law that empowers the FDA (the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act) forbids it from including any information about pesticides on food labels. Pesticide labels are EPA's responsibility, according to the FDA, so Pollan was right back to where he started. While two agencies quibble about who has responsibility for what, the consumer is faced with eating food that is potentially harmful. Neither agency will guarantee the safety of staple foods.

Pollan reported that some geneticists believe this reasoning is flawed because inserting foreign genes into plants may cause subtle changes that are difficult to recognize28.

The corporation that produced the potato does not feel that food safety is its responsibility either. A Monsanto official told Pollan that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products. Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe for the safety of biotech food, according to Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job29.

Apart from important decisions falling between various agencies, it is also the case that government agencies are under-resourced and therefore do not put risk-assessment high on their agenda. In 1998 the US Department of Agriculture was only spending one per cent of the funds allocated to biotechnology research to fund risk- assessment30.

Current field-testing procedures are inadequate

Researchers have also challenged the adequacy of the current field-testing procedures for the various GE crops. They argue that since the tests are designed to rule out 'gene flow' they are faulty. The field-testing procedures require early harvesting of the crop or, alternatively, culling the flowers on a crop like potatoes. Such flawed procedures cannot give adequate data to the regulatory agency to allow it to accurately assess whether there will be a major risk associated with a large scale commercial planting of a transgenetic crop. Furthermore, the fact that the experimental area is small and the time scale is limited to one or at the most a few harvests means that there is little possibility for assessing the negative impact on microorganisms, insects and plants over a longer period of time. Extrapolating to the wider environment inevitably brings considerable scientific uncertainty, given varying climatic and agricultural practices.

Most trials are designed to evaluate the agronomic characteristics (e.g. yield) rather than the ecological impact. Finally, current tests are carried out on a single GE crop. A single crop-testing regime is a very poor guide for judging the potential danger to the environment when two or 20 GE crops are planted in close proximity to each other31. Studies are currently

26 Ibid.page 4.27 Ibid. page 5.28 Ibid page 4. 29 Ibid. page 5.30 Rifkins, page 77.

9

conducted on a case-by-case basis, neglecting the potential for cumulative impacts (e.g. as ever increasing numbers of herbicide resistant crops are grown). With regard to human health, testing has, to date, relied on laboratory studies with laboratory species32.

The Guardian newspaper in Britain is one of the most independent newspapers in the English speaking world. They are not beholden to big business, politicians or a rigid ideology. Yet in 1997 two of their most respected journalists, John Vidal and Mark Milner, did a survey on the biotech industry. What they found was alarming:

A revolving door between the US government and the biotech industry.

Heavy corporate lobbying to rewrite world food safety standards in favour of biotech companies.

New laws protecting the US food industry from criticism.

Unexpected environmental problems.

Local contracts locking farmers into corporate control of production.

Attempts by the world's leading PR firms to massage the debate in favour of genetic engineering.

The use of world organisations like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to challenge governments opposing genetically modified crops. (Exactly what the US is doing now at the WTO).

Consumers being given no effective choice of foods.

Widespread fear that the economies of developing countries will be affected33.

Why was Dr. Pusztai treated so badly when he raised questions about GE potatoes?

In 1999 the research conducted by Dr. Pusztai raised questions about the safety of GE food. He is a mature and highly competent scientist who received a doctorate in biochemistry at Lister Institute. In 1963 he began working at Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland. He worked there for the next 35 years. He is credited with pioneering work in lectin research and is recognised as a world expert on this little -known protein and has published many books and articles34. Dr. Pusztai designed the feeding trials for the 1996 Scottish Office funded GM potato research. He found that when he fed GE potatoes to rats after 10 days there were major adverse changes in the kidney, thymus, spleen and gut of the

31 Ibid. page 78.32 Jeremy Lennard, "Washington Kills Global Pact to Govern GM Trade", The Guardian, 23 February, 1999, page 1433 John Vidal and Mark Milner, "Big firms rush for profits and power despite warnings", The Guardian, December 15, 1997, page 4.34 "The key players", The Guardian, February 12,1999, page 7.

10

animals. The rats' brain size also decreased. In the light of these disturbing findings Dr. Pusztai called for more research. When Dr. Pusztai went public with the results of his research he was promptly sacked by the Rowett Institute. Pusztai believes that the action was taken at the instigation of the biotech industry.

Further cause for concern

In July 2002 the Food and Safety Authority (FSA) conducted the world's first-known human GE food trial. There were 18 volunteers involved, of whom seven used colostomy bags after having their lower intestine removed. They were given a meal that included GE soya. The researchers then analysed the volunteers' stools. Among those with no lower intestine they found a large portion of GE DNA survived the passage through the small bowel. No GE DNA was found among those with a complete intestine. The findings are worrying because it means that gut bacteria could take up GE DNA35. If there is the slightest possibility of injury to human health the 'precautionary principle' would dictate that GE food should not be allowed into the food chain until much more comprehensive and independent research has been carried out.

Why is it impossible to get insurance on GE food, if it is so safe?

If GE crops are so safe isn't it astonishing that growers cannot get insurance cover. The main farming underwriting companies view GE foods much as they viewed asbestos, thalidomide and acts of terrorism in the past. A study carried out in Britain by Farm (an advocacy group for small farmers) showed that insurers feel that not enough is known about the long-term effects of GE crops on human health or the environment to warrant insuring them36. NFU Mutual one of the insurance companies most closely linked with agriculture, told Farm "NFU Mutual will not indemnify the insured in respect of any liability arising from the productions, supply of, or presence on the premises of any genetically modified crop, where liability may be attributed directly or indirectly to the genetic characteristics of the crop. In particular , no indemnity will be provided in respect of liability arising from the spread or threat of spread of genetically modified organism characteristics into the environment or any change to the environment arising from research into, testing of, or production of genetically modified organisms"37. NFU Mutual is not alone in taking such a stance towards GE crops. The Agricultural Insurance Underwriters Agency has an exclusion clause for liability arising from GE crops. It does not anticipate any change in this position in the near future38. Surely this is the most damning indictment of GE foods. If they are so safe why will no one insure them?

35 "Keep Britain GM-Free", The Ecologist, July/August 2003, page 37.36 Paul Brown, "Insurers refuse to cover GM farmers", The Guardian, October 8, 2003, page 6.37 Ibid. 38 Ibid.

11

Extensive research in Britain urges caution

In October 2003 the results of the world's most comprehensive scientific review of GE crops compiled by scientists from both pro- and anti-GE lobby was published in Britain. The group was chaired by the chief scientist in Britain, Sir David King. The report unexpectedly emphasised the uncertainties and potential dangers of the crops rather than the advantages. It urged caution and called for more studies to protect the environment and the consumer39.

The study evaluated the 3 years field scale trials on GE oil seed rape, sugar beet and corn. It concluded that GE oil seed rape and sugar beet should not be grown in Britain because of its negative impact on biodiversity. These appear to do more harm to the environment than conventional crops. GE maize, on the other hand, seems to allow for the survival of more weeds and insects and may be approved40. The commission that carried out the study recommends that farmers who are growing GE crops should set up a fund to compensate conventional farmers whose crops have been contaminated by GE crops. The biotech industry is opposed to this development41.

The research predicted that GE oil seed rape would readily cross with wild relatives creating hybrids that would carry GE genes into the countryside. These crops could become herbicide resistant and thus confirm all the fears about superweeds. Furthermore, some hybrids could be fertile. These could interbreed with other varieties of the brassica family42. Studies conducted in Britain on GE oilseed rape showed that farms could be infested with 'feral' plants for 16 years from a single crop. Only heavy spraying with chemical would kill them off 43.

The scientists were also concerned about the distance over which commercial crops could cross-fertilise with wild plants. Scientists found that GE pollen from trial sites of oilseed rape had traveled 16.1 miles. It was probably transported there by bees. This is six times the previously estimated maximum distance for such pollen to travel44 and raises the question whether it is sensible and proper to grow GE crops at all in countries which have wild relatives capable of producing hybrids. It also raises questions about the separation requirements that would be necessary to avoid contaminating conventional crops. Given the fact that oilseed rape travels six times further than previously thought in countries like Ireland and Britain organic farms would be contaminated within a few years.

Studies in Britain focused on the effect of GE crops on wildlife. One expert predicts that GE crops will cause the extinction of skylarks. One of the chemical sprays used for GE beet would wipe out a weed known as fat hen, which produces seed that are vitally important for the diet of skylarks45. According to the RSPB, other birds at risk include the yellowhammer,

39 John Vidal, "Field trials raise pressure on government" The Guardian, October 2, 2003, page 4.40 Paul Brown, "GM crops fail key trails amid environment fear", The Guardian, October 2, 2003, page 1.41 Ibid page 2.42 Paul Brown, "GM crops could create hybrids", The Guardian, October 10, 2003, page 5.43 Sean Poulter, "Polluted for Generations", Daily Mail. October 14, 2003, page 1.44 Ibid.

12

tree sparrow and corn bunting. Numbers of the latter have fallen by 95 percent in the past 25 years.

Genetic Engineering promoted by spin

Given the huge financial stakes involved in biotech crops, it is understandable that all the stops are being pulled out in this battle for control of food production. The biotechnology industry has retained the services of a global PR company, Burson Marsteller. This company specializes in crisis management and handling difficult or unsavoury situations. For example it advised Babcock and Wilcox, the builders of the Three Mile Island nuclear installation in the US, during the crisis in 1979. It also helped Union Carbide manage publicity in the aftermath of the Bhopal tragedy in India which killed over 1,500. Among its clients, in the past few decades, were the repressive regimes in Indonesia, Argentina and South Korea.

There is no demand for GE food. In Britain a wide consultation was conducted in 2003 involving over 28,000 people. There was a clear message to the British government and the retail trade. Only 2 per cent said that the crops are acceptable in 'any circumstances'. Only 8 percent were happy to eat GE food46.

The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace held a two-day consultation seminar on GE crops in Rome on November 10 and 11. A press release after the seminar stated that the Pontifical Council will not fail to offer its contribution to enlighten consciences so that plant biotechnologies are an opportunity for all, not a threat. The statement continued (The Pontifical Council will keep, among other things, three elements in mind,) : Solidarity in trade relations among nations …. Environmental safety and the health of all … (and) understanding between scientific world, civil society, and political authorities at the national and international level47. The first part of the text seems to lean towards approving GE food while the second urges caution though it overlooks the food security needs of countries which is why the Vatican is examining GE foods in the first instance. Critics of plant biotechnology were not impressed by the fact that most of the 20 speakers whom the Cardinal Martino invited were strongly in favour of GE foods. Doreen Stabinsky, a geneticist and adviser to the genetic engineering campaign of Greenpeace, told the conference that she almost turned down the invitation to speak because of the overwhelming presence of GE advocates.

Margaret Mellon, The director of the food and environmental programme at the Union of Concerned Scientists praised the Vatican for pointing to the ethical dimension of the genetic engineering debate. Commenting on that more pro-GE scientists were invited she pointed out that the scientific establishment and individual scientists have strong interests in the outcome of the debate, in particularl, in seeing that genetic engineering succeeds. She called

45 Ibid page 6.46 John Vidal, op. cit., The Guardian, October 2, 2003. Page 4.47 www.zenit.org “Prudence Urged for Genetically Modified Organism”, Vatican City, November 12, 2003.

13

attention to the huge financial gains that will be made by corporations and individual scientists.

Interestingly the few opponents of GE crops, like Fr. Roland Lessups, SJ of the Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre in Lusaka, Zambia only received the invitation to the seminar two weeks before the event. This gave him little time to prepare a comprehensive case against GE food. Besides, only speakers who had supported GE crops were invited to the press conference with Cardinal Martino48. At the Press conference Cardinal Martino seemed to put himself in the camp of those who were enthusiastic about GE foods. He stated that GE crops "should not be abandoned, even if they still need a lot of cures".

In November 2003 I sent Cardinal Martino a copy of my book Patenting Life? Stop! 49 The cardinal responded by email and stated that:In any case, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace did conduct a study seminar in which the thoughts and opinions of more than seventy people were shared. The discussion covered the fullest range of positions and provided the Pontifical Council with a wealth of information, as was our goal.

Your book Patenting Life? will help to add to that knowledge and understanding.

Please understand that it never was the intention of the Pontifical Council to use the seminar as a vehicle by which it would endorse or denounce the technology surrounding GMOs. It was our intention to become better informed on the subject50.

It is obvious that there is a clash between Cardinal Martino's perspective on the Vatican seminar and that shared by Fr. Roland Lessups, SJ, his colleague Fr. Henriot and Doreen Stabinsky of Greenpeace. Hopefully, despite the preponderance of the pro-GMO lobby at the seminar, enough doubts have been raised at the scientific, development, ethical and theological levels to ensure that the Pontifical Commission does not endorse GE crops.

As a missionary I know that many spiritual leaders working close to their people in Third World countries are opposed to GE food. 14 bishops in Brazil have appealed to the government not to sanction GE crops. They state that it is clear that large corporations will be the greatest beneficiary, with grave damage to farmers51.

I worked with the T'boli people in Mindanao for over ten years during which I came to know and respect the bishop of the diocese of Marbel Bishop Dinualdo Gutierrez of Marbel. He has led a vigorous campaign against the planting of Bt. corn in his diocese because he sees what the impact will be on the people and the land. If the Vatican supports GE foods he and many others around the world will feel that the Catholic Church has abandoned them favour of giant biotech corporations who are poised to make billions of dollars on GE seeds.

48 ColumbanDC-JPIC> columbandc@igco.org, December 11, 2003, 17.06, page I and 2.49 Sean McDonagh, 2003, Patenting Life? Stop! Is corporate greed forcing us to eat genetically engineered food? Dominican Publications, Dublin.50Renato Cardinal Martino,Pontifico Consiglo Giustizia e Pace pcjustpax@justpeace.va51 Vatican backing sparks GM row", The Guardian, August 14, 2003, page 15.,

14