Another powerful indictment of the US-Vatican conference that takes placce this coming Friday at the Pontifical Gregorian University with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. It is entitled: "Feeding a Hungry World: The Moral Imperative of Biotechnology".

This time the criticism comes from the Exeutive Director of a leading US Catholic body, The National Catholic Rural Life Conference - "a lead voice in the United States on Roman Catholic Church policy, education, outreach and advocacy for food, farm and environmental policy".

EXCERPTS: "It appears that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has allowed itself to be subordinated to the United States Government's insistent advocacy of biotechnology and of the companies which market it.

"Why has the Pontifical Academy of Sciences claimed for itself a lead voice? Is it because among its members are leading American advocates, members close to Monsanto, a leading US biotechnology company?"
------

Comments on the Conference: Feeding a Hungry World: The Moral Imperative of Biotechnology
by Brother David Andrews, CSC, Executive Director, The National Catholic Rural Life Conference, Des Moines, IA. This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

(The National Catholic Rural Life Conference was founded in 1923. NCRLC is a lead voice in the United States on Roman Catholic Church policy, education, outreach and advocacy for food, farm and environmental policy. One former Executive Director, Monsignor Luigi Ligutti was the first representative of the Holy See to FAO. Monsignor Ligutti helped found the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. NCRLC's Board statement on Biotechnology can be found on our web-site: www.ncrlc.com )

John Paul II, Homily for the Jubilee of the Agricultural world, 2000:

"Agricultural work should be better and better organized and supported by social measures that fully reward the toil it involves and the truly great usefulness that characterizes it. If the world of the most refined technology is not reconciled with the simple language of nature in a healthy balance, human life will face ever greater risks, of which we are already seeing the first disturbing signs"

"Work in such a way that you resist the temptations of a productivity and profit that are detrimental to the respect for nature. God entrusted the earth to human beings "to till it and keep it" (cf. Gn 2: 15). When this principle is forgotten and they become the tyrants rather than the custodians of nature, sooner or later the later will rebel."

Statement from the Executive Director:

On September 24, 2004 the United States Embassy to the

Holy See will co-sponsor a conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences entitled: "Feeding a Hungry World: The Moral Imperative of Biotechnology".
http://vatican.usembassy.it/Policy/Events/biotech.asp

I wish I could be at this conference. The title strikes me with shock and awe. As the Executive Director of the 81-year-old National Catholic Rural Life Conference working locally, nationally, and internationally on world hunger, agriculture, food and farm policy, I find the title of the conference outrageous. It appears that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has allowed itself to be subordinated to the United States Government's insistent advocacy of biotechnology and of the companies which market it.

While one can understand the United States' commitment to support the profits of the biotechnology companies, it is difficult to appreciate how its "sound science" justification can be a substitute for the more value-based approach of Catholic Social Teaching. In an important book on church and state relations, "We Hold These Truths," John Courtney Murray, S.J. stated clearly that the Roman Catholic Church would never subordinate its identity to that of a particular country. Unfortunately, that is what the Pontifical Academy appears to be doing in this instance.

Of course, the United States government, in its justification, will identify the alleviation of hunger as the purpose, and will want to claim the moral voice of the Roman Catholic Church as its ally. But the Roman Catholic Church has many voices, among them bishops, laity, scientists, non-governmental organizations around the world. There are other voices within the Holy See, within the particular churches (dioceses and conferences of bishops), among the people of God. The People of God have not been without a voice in the debate over biotechnology. Ecumenical voices have been speaking as well (see our website: www.ncrlc.com, for ecumenical dialogue on biotechnology) A theology of communion makes imperative that the other voices of the Holy See, the particular churches, the people of God, not be ignored in this debate, either.

I can understand the United States not wanting to pay attention to the statement unanimously passed by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (2003), "For I Was Hungry and You Gave Me Food." The policy articulated there on Biotechnology is quite nuanced, (see our website: www.ncrlc.com for the document) unlike the claim of a moral imperative which the title that the U.S. embassy conference trumpets. The South African Bishops, Bishops of the Philippines, Bishops from Brazil, and other particular churches have spoken clearly and from a moral perspective on biotechnology. Why should one privilege the perspective of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences? And, isn't it ironic that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, founded upon a quest for truth and dialogue, should turn from its purpose of research and dialogue to one of unsophisticated advocacy? Or is the United States putting words in its mouth? It reminds me of many state sponsored universities in the United States which take funds from biotechnology companies and lose their scientific critical culture for one of uncritical endorsement of the agenda of the companies which fund their research.

There are other institutions within the structure of the Holy See, which have spoken eloquently and clearly on hunger in the world, its causes and its solutions. The leading policy position is that there is enough food in the world to feed the hungry, problems of distribution and structure are the causal factors to be considered. Why has the Pontifical Academy of Sciences claimed for itself a lead voice? Is it because among its members are leading American advocates, members close to Monsanto, a leading US biotechnology company? The Pontifical Council, Cor Unum, has represented the Holy See at the World Food Summits. During the 1999 World Food Summit in Rome, the Pontifical Council, Cor Unum provided an analysis on world hunger entitled "WORLD HUNGER A CHALLENGE FOR ALL: DEVELOPMENT IN SOLIDARITY." It uses Catholic Social Teaching to provide the framework for analysis. The theological evaluation is acute: "There are also many large-scale "structures of sin" which deliberately steer the goods of the earth away from their true purpose, that of serving the good of all, toward private and sterile ends in a process which spreads contagiously." The opposite of structures of sin, states "Cor Unum" are "structures of the common good". Surely, among the structures of sin in the world today are agro-food corporations that steer the goods of the earth toward themselves solely for profit. If one thinks that the focus of these multi-national corporations and their supporters is to cure world hunger, then one is among the most naïve on the planet. (Consult the Agribusiness Accountability Initiative, co sponsored by the Jesuit's Center of Concern and NCRLC www.agribusinessaccountability.org).

One may look elsewhere within the Holy See for an analysis of world hunger, its causes, effects, and solutions than to the advocacy of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and its ally, the United States. Among the other organizations to be considered are those which deal directly with farmers' organizations, those that grow the food. The International Federation of Adult Catholic Rural Movements (FIMARC) and the International Catholic Rural Association (ICRA), both are recognized by the Holy See. ICRA is located in the Vatican at the same Palazzo San Calisto as the Pontifical Councils Cor Unum and Justice and Peace. FIMARC is located in Belgium. Both represent associations of farmers and agricultural organizations. Both have a significant perspective on agricultural biotechnology. Has the Pontifical Academy contacted either group?

Given Catholic Social Teaching's preference for widespread participation in policy development, have even these Vatican related entities been part of the conversation? I visited ICRA this summer, and FIMARC this past spring, neither network of farmers have been part of this dialogue, although they represent millions of farmers in dozens of countries. Monsignor Biagio Notarangelo, ecclesiastical assistant to ICRA, and well known in Vatican offices, informed me that in an ethical consultation on biotechnology for the Food and Agriculture Organization, he commented that biotechnology as presently structured by the industries which foster it, would represent a new colonialism. Have ethical evaluations such as his been part of the dialogue within the Pontifical Academy of Sciences?

It appears to me that the United States government has been seeking to find a way to get the moral voice of the Roman Catholic Church to support its advocacy of biotechnology. It has found one place where Americans are members, to hook its message into the Holy See. But there are other voices within the Holy See, there are other Particular Churches (dioceses, bishops' conferences), other groups within the People of God whose voices have been excluded from this conference and who would be opposed to the lack of nuance in the exhortatory title of the conference to be held in Rome on September 24th.

The statements over the years by the Holy Father, John Paul II, have been much more cautious than the title of this conference about the alleged benefits of biotechnology: Pope John Paul II reminded the faithful that the "earth is entrusted to man's use, not abuse" (Jubilee of the Agricultural World, November 11, 2000). "This is a principle to be remembered in agricultural production itself, whenever there is a question of its advance through the application of biotechnologies, which cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of immediate economic interests. They must be submitted beforehand to rigorous scientific and ethical examination, to prevent them from becoming disastrous for human health and the future of the earth." This is far from thinking of biotechnology as a "moral imperative."

In his World Day of Peace message, January 1, 1990, Pope John Paul II had also addressed the ecological
responsibility of humankind: "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, to say nothing of unacceptable experimentation regarding the origins of human life itself. It is evident to all that in any area as delicate as this, indifference to fundamental ethical norms, or their rejection, would lead mankind to the very threshold of self-destruction." Again, we find a much more cautionary approach, emphasizing dangers rather than promise, but in no case calling biotechnology a moral imperative.

These statements alone are sufficient to give one pause. The title of the conference being hosted by the Pontifical Gregorian University, sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See, the presenters, and the purposes appear fully to me to be one-sided, overstated claims to moral and scientific truth. They need to be contextualized by a fuller voice of the Roman Catholic Church, found in other places within the Holy See, within the communion of particular Churches, and among the People of God. In that context this conference can be seen as one small voice among a larger chorus of voices. I think the larger chorus of voices takes more seriously the concerns for hunger in the world, the
concerns for the livelihoods of small farmers, the concern for the "right to food" (a right which the United States' government denies as a human right, a right which the Holy See endorses), the concerns for a healthy environment.

We have a campaign at the National Catholic Rural Life Conference entitled "Eating is a Moral Act." It is a program implementing the views of the Holy Father: The Encyclical Letter Centesimus annus (1991) by Pope John Paul II says that " a great deal of educational and cultural work is urgently needed, including the education of consumers in the responsible use of their power of choice. I am referring to the fact that even the decision to invest in one place rather than another, in one productive sector rather than another, is always a moral and cultural choice." Eating is a moral act! The public needs education to think about where food comes from, how it is produced, with what effect upon the environment, upon the poor, upon the hungry!

The United States Catholic Conference of Bishops has stated the following: "Why are consumers increasingly fearful about the quality and safety of their food? Consumers' responsibility calls for a conversion to an attentive attitude about how their food consumption choices can affect farmers, farmworkers, the poor and corporate policies and practices.

These problems are not just rural or domestic. They touch the lives of consumers as well as farmers, inner-city and suburban residents as well as rural communities. These problems certainly raise technical and political questions, but they raise moral questions as well." United States Catholic Bishops, "Food Policy in a Hungry World: The Links That Bind Us Together" November 8, 1989

Increasingly the US government is providing high subsidies for large food producers, processors and retailers while the quality of food deteriorates. Our food is irradiated, genetically engineered, doctored by taste "experts." and reduced in nutritional quality. Hunger is growing nationally and internationally, especially in agricultural regions. (N.Y.Times, December 8, 2002: "Pastoral Poverty") Obesity has become a global epidemic. Nutritionists tell us that dietary guidelines are defined more by food companies' interests in sales than by standards that would promote good health and nutrition. (See Food Politics, Marion Nestle, 2002)

Each of us is created in the image and likeness of God. The human person is sacred and is the clearest reflection of God among us. Our human dignity comes from God, not from nationality, race, sex, economic status, or any human accomplishment. The fundamental principle of respect for the dignity of the human person is at the core of Catholic social teaching. "It is central to the Church's teaching on human dignity that everyone has a legitimate claim to the goods and services required to live a truly human life. This central element underpins a set of specific personal rights that constitute the baseline against which we assess society's ability to secure them. The right to a truly human life implies the right to a diet that will sustain that kind of life. This means people need the amount and quality of food required for normal physical and human activity and development, not just for survival" United States Catholic Bishops Report of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Food, Agriculture, and Rural Concerns, November 18, 1988

The right to safe, nutritious food includes the right to ask questions about our food system. The U.S. Catholic bishops have asked: How do our food and agricultural policies enhance or diminish the life, dignity and rights of the human person? What is their impact on human life, hungry people, farm families, and the land that sustains us?

"We fear that the global food system often seems adrift without a moral compass." (see Food Policy in a Hungry World p.8)

The right to food is guaranteed by international law. The right to food includes a right to safe, healthy, nutritional food and a system which will protect health. We need to support a sustainable food system which does not distort food quality and safety provisions.

Rather than trumpet claims about the promise of biotechnology, the United States should recognize the right to food, the right of farmers to participate in decisions about the food system and policy. The United States should examine seriously its own policy of subsidies for products that cause small farmers to lose their livelihoods around the world, and through such subsidies add to the number of the hungry. The United States should examine its subsidies for corn and its products that add to a public health crisis in obesity among children in the United States. The United States has a lot of work to do on its own food policy, its own contribution to the problem of world hunger.

The Pontifical Academy for the Sciences should work with other voices within the People of God before allowing itself to be subordinated to the loud voice of the government of the United States. Such communication and conversation is part of the necessity to constitute authentic moral deliberation about the right to food and the urgent quest to solve world hunger. Such a quest is not advanced by narrow advocacy of the promise of biotechnology and claims that biotechnology is a moral imperative.