Editorial: The pope's genetically modified crop dilemma
Scientists have both the right and a moral duty to be "stewards of God" by genetically modifying crops to help the world's poor, scientific advisers to the Vatican said this week.
In a statement condemning opposition to GM 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 statement was agreed unanimously by 40 international scientists after a week-long closed meeting held in May 2009 at the Vatican, convened by Ingo Potrykus. Potrykus is a member of the Pontifical Academy based at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, where he developed "golden rice", a variety engineered with extra vitamin A to prevent childhood blindness.
Although the academy has yet to officially endorse the statement, it was approved by the seven members at the meeting, including academy chancellor Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo. "The Catholic Church has 1 billion members," says academy member Peter Raven, president of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St Louis, which once received funds from Monsanto. He adds that although this global community will never have a unified official line on GM crops, "our statement is about as close as you can get to one".
Immaterial risks
The academy expressed provisional support for GM crops in 2000, but the scientists say that it can now back the technology with more confidence. The statement calls for a revision of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, agreed in 2000 to regulate the movement of GM organisms between countries.
It says the environmental risks envisaged when the protocol was drafted have not materialised, adding that regulatory hurdles make it too expensive for anyone other than large multinational firms to develop crops benefiting the poor, such as drought-resistant cassava and yams.
Also challenged is the objection made by critics of GM that, by messing with nature, genetic engineers are "playing God" (see "No uncertain terms"). The statement denounces as outdated many allegations made by GM critics. "There has not been a single documented case of harm to consumers or the environment," says Potrykus.
He and the co-authors therefore argue for relaxation of what they say are draconian regulations preventing development of crops for the poor. Potrykus says his attempts to bring golden rice to poor consumers demonstrate the scale of the problem. "It took 10 years longer and $20 million more than a normal variety to commercialise it," he says. "The time and investment required is prohibitive for any public sector institution, so the future use of this technology for the poor totally depends on reform of regulation," he says.
Anti-GM group Friends of the Earth maintains that GM crops are not the solution. "We need food and farming policies that put the needs of people before the profits of a handful of GMO companies," says campaigner Mute Schimpf.
Journal reference: New Biotechnology, vol 27, p 645
No uncertain terms
Will the Vatican back GM crops? Here are some controversial arguments from the statement
On playing God
"New human forms of intervention in the natural world should not be seen as contrary to the natural law that God has given to the Creation."
On regulation
"Overly stringent regulation developed by wealthy countries and focused almost exclusively on the hypothetical risks of genetically engineered crops discriminates against developing and poor countries. This has placed [them] at an unacceptable disadvantage."
On unpredictable consequences
"The possible evolutionary risks of genetic engineering events cannot be greater than the risks of the natural process of biological evolution or of the application of chemical mutagenesis."
On opponents of GM
"We urge those who oppose or are sceptical about the use of genetically engineered crop varieties and the application of modern genetics generally to evaluate carefully the science, and the demonstrable harm caused by withholding this proven technology from those who need it most."
On the moral case for GM crops
"There is a moral imperative to make the benefits of genetically engineered technology available on a larger scale to poor and vulnerable populations who want them, and on terms that will enable them to raise their standards of living, improve their health and protect their environments."
- Subscribe to New Scientist and you'll get:
- New Scientist magazine delivered every week
- Unlimited access to all New Scientist online content -
a benefit only available to subscribers - Great savings from the normal price
- Subscribe now!
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.
Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article
Weak
Tue Nov 30 19:55:29 GMT 2010 by James
I'm impressed that a group of scientists is capable of making theological pronouncements in favor of their occupation based on a week-long meeting.
Is ten years sufficient to have a good grasp on the dangers of a new technology? Weren't watch painters licking the tips of their brushes at ten years? And in a world of AIDS, smallpox, H1N1, and antibiotic resistance, is saying it is no more dangerous than natural process really saying anything significant?
Weak
Tue Nov 30 23:11:27 GMT 2010 by Karl
At least it seems the Catholic church is trying to take the science into account before making pronouncements on technology. Which is more than you can say for most of the anti-GM activists.
Media Treatment
Wed Dec 22 16:41:11 GMT 2010 by Comment editor on behalf of Piero Morandini
http://www.newscientist.com/opinion
I am a scientist and was a participant in the Study Week of May 2009.
I must confess that I am quite surprised by the way the media treated the issue.
First of all very few journalists, and I suspect even fewer others, took the time to read the statement and discuss its contents.
Then some newspapers ran very strong headlines like "Yes from the Vatican for GM crops", which is of course not true, as was specifically stated in the press release, which said:
"It must be understood, that statements by the participants regarding the event do not constitute the opinion of the Vatican or the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The official information, beyond any interview, is laid out in the English version of the Statement agreed upon unanimously by all participants and available in additional 15 world languages."
( http://www.ask-force.org/web/PAS-Studyweek-Leaflet-2010.pdf )
The press office of the Holy See had therefore to clarify that the statement "cannot be considered an official position of the Holy See."
At this point many claimed the Vatican had dismissed the statement, while in reality it simply reacted to the exaggerated headlines.
At this point, the real content of the document was not relevant any longer and the discussion focused on these marginal issues.
While the piece above in New Scientist was fair enough in reporting, many other websites accused the journal of planting the false story that the Pope approves GM crops (try Googling "Pope approves GM crops" and you will find thousands of websites reporting the allegation, which has no substance).
New Scientist never claimed this. It simply reported that "Vatican scientists urge support for engineered crops" - which is factually true, since the PAS members knowledgeable in biology who participated in the Study Week indeed contributed to drafting the statement and subscribed to it.
It is clear not only that most journalists did not read the statement, but that they did not read (or understand) the New Scientist article. A sharp British mind once said that truth propagates itself by reasoning while prejudice propagates itself by repetition.
The internet with the copy&paste functions has made things worse...
Best regards, Piero Morandini, University of Milan
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.