1.Father Sean McDonagh on new pro-GM Study Week in Rome
2.Full list of Study Week speakers and topics
3.An Unholy Alliance - Monsanto and the Raven 

NOTE:

The views of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences do not represent those of the Holy See, and pro-biotech and pro-nuclear interests have been using the Academy to provide a 'Vatican' soapbox for these dangerous technologies for some time.

On a previous occasion, as Fr. McDonagh notes (item 1), this even involved the Pontifical Academy in jointly running a pro-GM conference on the "moral imperative" to adopt GM with the US Embassy to the Holy See.

A key player in the Academy is Peter Raven, a Catholic scientist so closely associated with Monsanto that it used to be said that even his sex life came corporate sponsored! He's also been called "a paid traveling salesman for Monsanto". (item 3)
---
---
1.Further reflections on the GMO Conference in the Gregorian University in September 2004
By Fr. Seán McDonagh
14 January 2009
http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/index.php

[Note: Fr. McDonagh is a Dominican missionary priest and the author of "Patenting Life? Stop! Is corporate greed forcing us to eat genetically modified food?" (Dominican Publications, Dublin. 2003. ISBN 1-871552-85-0. Ӣ 14.99, available from http://www.dominicanpublications.com).]

In this column last week I recalled the presentations by three pro-GMOs at a conference entitled, "Feeding the World: The Moral Imperative of Biotechnology" organized jointly by the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome in September 2004. I will continue these reflections on that conference this week because I have just learned that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is organizing another pro-GMO Study Week, in Rome from 15-19 May 2009. The title of the 2009 Study Week is "Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development." Both Dr.C.S. Prakash and Dr. Peter Ravan will be speaking at the Study Week. On May 16th Dr. Peter Raven's topic is "Does the Use of Transgenetic Plants Diminish or Promote Biodiversity." On the following Monday, May 18th Dr. C.S. Prakash will speak on "Lessons from 25 Years of Experience." These are more or less the same topics they discussed at the September 2004 Conference.

At the conference in the Gregorian University in 2004, Dr. Peter Raven tried to persuade his audience that raising questions about the terminator gene technology was both "emotional and irrational." A company which is owned by the giant Agribusiness Corporation Monsanto developed what is benignly called Plant Technology Protection System. What Dr. Raven did not mention was that critics of the technology say that it could have a profoundly negative impact on subsistence farmers. This is why in many countries the technology was aptly dubbed "the terminator gene."

The terminator technology exposes the spurious claims of the pro-GMO lobby, that "feeding the world", rather than making astronomical profits is the primary goal of Biotech corporations [1].

If the terminator technology were to become widespread, then the added costs would strike the death knell for almost 2 billion small farmers living mainly in the Majority World. Sharing seeds among farmers has been at the very heart of subsistence farming since the domestication of plants and animals ten thousand years ago. Terminator seeds will negate all this. Farmers will be unable to save the seeds and will be forced to return to the agribusiness corporation each year. Hope Shand, the research director with the Canadian Civil Society Organisation, ECT, is alarmed by the potentially disastrous consequences of terminator technology. "Half the world's farmers are poor. They provide food for more than a billion people, but cannot afford to buy seeds every growing season. Seed collection is vital for them [2]. The obvious intent of terminator technology is to enable agribusiness corporations, such as Monsanto, to control and profit from famers in every corner of the globe. If put into
practice, terminator technology will lock farmers into a regime of buying genetically-engineered seeds that are herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant, copper-fastening them on to the treadmill of chemically-dependent agriculture.

This is probably what Cardinal Renato Martino had in mind in his interview published in the L'Osservatore Romano on 1 January 2009 when he said that, "the responsibility for the food crisis is "in the hands of unscrupulous people who focus only on profit and certainly not on the well-being of all people." He went on to say that a more just system of distribution and not the manufacturing of genetically modified foods is the key to addressing the problem. "If one wants to pursue GMOs (genetically modified organisms) one can freely do so, but without hiding (the fact) that it's a way to make more profits."

At the ethical level I suggest that a technology which, 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 act [3]. This technology is a sin against the poor and against previous generations of farmers who, from the beginning of agriculture freely shared their knowledge of plant life with their contemporaries, and with us. It is a sin against the life spontaneities of nature itself and against the God of life and all creativity. To deliberately set out to create seeds that self-destruct is an abomination that no society which calls itself civilized should tolerate. If anything went wrong the terminator gene could spread to other plants and jeopardize food security. No wonder many people look on terminator seeds as a form of biological warfare on subsistence farmers. Terminator technology has not yet been incorporated into commercial seeds,
but each year the biotech corporations try to get it accepted by regulators.

Notes:

1. Brittenden, Wayne, "Terminator seeds threaten a barren future for farmers,"

2. Quoted in John Vidal, "Mr. Terminator Ploughs in," The Guardian, 14 April 1998. page 14.

3. Jean-Pierre Berlan and Richard C.Lewontin, "It's business as usual", The Guardian," 22 February 1999, page 14.
---
---
2.THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
VATICAN CITY 2008

Study Week

Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development

15-19 May 2009 - Casina Pio IV

FRIDAY, 15 MAY 2009

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY WEEK

9:00 Welcome to the Study Week
President Nicola Cabibbo - Chancellor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo

9:20 Introduction to the Theme of the Study Week:
Unjustified Regulation Delays Use of Golden Rice for 10 Years
Ingo Potrykus - Werner Arber - Switzerland

10:00 Food Insecurity, Hunger and Malnutrition - Necessary Policy and Technology Changes
Joachim von Braun - USA
Discussion

10:40 Break

11:10 Need for an Evergreen Revolution
M.S. Swaminathan - India
Discussion

11:50 The Past, Present and Future of Plant Genetic Modification
Nina Fedoroff - USA
Discussion

12:30 Lunch at the Casina Pio IV

CONTRIBUTIONS FROM TRANSGENIC PLANTS

14:00 Tolerance to Abiotic Stresses
Luis Herrera-Estrella - Mexico
Discussion

14:40 Resistance to Biological Stresses
Roger Beachy - USA
Discussion

15:20 Improved Water Use Efficiency
Mpoko Bokanga - Kenya
Discussion

16:00 Break

16:30 Improved Nutritional Quality
Peter Beyer - Germany
Discussion

17:10 Inactivation of Allergens and Toxins
Piero Morandini - Italy
Discussion

17:50 Nutritionally Improved Agricultural Crops
Martina Newell-McGloughlin - USA
Discussion

18:30 Dinner at the Casina Pio IV

SATURDAY, 16 MAY 2009

9:00 Genes, Regulatory Signals, and Other Tools
Dick Flavell - USA
Discussion

9:40 Does the Use of Transgenic Plants Diminish or Promote Biodiversity?
Peter Raven - USA
Discussion

10:20 Break

10:50 The Path to Sustainable Yield: Opportunities and Obstacles
Eric Sachs - USA
Discussion

11:30 The Private Sectors Attitude to Humanitarian Projects
Adrian Dubock - Switzerland
Discussion

12:10 Lunch at the Casina Pio IV

STATE OF APPLICATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY

14:00 India
S.R. Rao - India
Discussion

14:40 China
Jiayang Li - China
Discussion

15:20 Africa
Ismail Serageldin - Egypt
Discussion

16:00 Break

16:30 Experience from Use of GMOs in Argentinian Agriculture ¬ Economy and
Environment
Moises Burachik - Argentina
Discussion

17:10 Intellectual Property Rights: Problems and Solutions
Anatole F. Krattiger - USA
Discussion

17:50 Ethical Arguments Relevant to the Use of GM Crops
Albert Weale - UK
Discussion

18:30 Dinner at the Casina Pio IV

20:00 Opposition to Transgenic Technologies
Ronald J. Herring - USA
Discussion

SUNDAY, 17 MAY 2009

9:00 Holy Mass

10:00 Visit to the Vatican Museums and Sistine Chapel

12:00 Lunch at the Casina Pio IV

MONDAY, 18 MAY 2009

9:00 Benefits of GM Crops for the Poor: Household Income, Nutrition, and
Health
Matin Qaim - Germany
Discussion

9:40 Developing Countries and Transgenic Foods:
Ex-Ante Economic Impacts of Biotechnology and Trade Policies
Kym Anderson - Australia
Discussion

10:20 Break

PUTATIVE RISK AND RISK MANAGEMENT

10:50 Genetic Engineering Compared to Natural Genetic Variation
Werner Arber - Switzerland
Discussion

11:30 Environmental Risks from Transgenic Plants
Jonathan Gressel - Israel
Discussion

12:10 Lunch at the Casina Pio IV

14:00 Risks for Consumer Health
Bruce Chassy - USA
Discussion

14:40 GMO Myths and Realities
Wayne Parrott - USA
Discussion

15:20 Lessons from 25 Years of Experience
C.S. Prakash ? USA
Discussion

16:00 Break

16:30 Poor Support for Agricultural Research in General, and Specifically
for the CGIAR System
Robert Zeigler - Philippines
Discussion

BIOFUELS MUST NOT COMPETE WITH FOOD
17:10 First Generation Biofuels Compete
Marshall Martin - USA
Discussion

17:50 Plentiful Second Generation Biofuels, Without Conflict to Food
Production, is Within our Grasp
Stephen P. Long - USA
Discussion

18:30 Dinner at the Casina Pio IV

TUESDAY, 19 MAY 2009

HURDLES AGAINST EFFECTIVE USE FOR THE POOR

8:00 The Political Climate Around GMOs
Rob Paarlberg - USA
Discussion

8:40 Trading in Transgenic Crops ¬ Legal-Commercial Regimes and their Food
Security Implications
Drew Kershen - USA
Discussion

9:20 Gene-Splicing is Over-Regulated, but Science Shows a Better Way
Henry Miller - USA
Discussion

10:00 Break

10:30 Financial Support of Anti-GMO Lobby Groups
Andrew Apel - USA
Discussion

11:10 Challenges and Responsabilities for Public Sector Scientists
Marc van Montagu - Belgium
Discussion

12:00 Lunch at the Casina Pio IV

WAYS TO OVERCOME THESE HURDLES
Adjust Regulation to Accumulated Experience and Knowledge

14:00 Strategies Towards Implementation; Planning For Follow-Up
Chair: Chris Leaver - Ingo Potrykus
What constitutes science-based regulation?
How to develop public understanding and how to built political pressure for
the necessary change?
¬How to approach governments, the media, the public?
¬How to organize a sustained campaign?
¬ How to find sustained financial support?
¬ How to get regulatory authorities on board?
¬ Putative lead government in Europe?
¬ Putative lead government in Asia?
¬ Putative lead government in Africa?
¬What can we learn from Argentina?

17:00 Break

17:30 Concluding Remarks
Chris Leaver - UK
Ingo Potrykus - Switzerland

18:30 Closing of the Meeting
Nicola Cabibbo - President
Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo - Chancellor
Werner Arber - Chairman of the Council

19:00 Dinner at the Casina Pio IV
---
---
3.Monsanto and the Raven - an Unholy Alliance

Peter Raven is director of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St Louis. Raven
is a passionate advocate of "world sustainability" of the sort that has GM
crops as its central element. "There is nothing I'm condemning Monsanto
for," he says. And he's praised the company's efforts to win public
acceptance for GMOs, "The company has... won many more believers around the world in what they're doing and attempting to do."

An old friend of Raven's, geneticist Wes Jackson, says of him, "I just wish
Peter was more reflective... The fact that living substance, germplasm, can
become the property of a corporation is going to come at a cost. I think the
boundaries of consideration need to be broader than Peter's willing to make
them. In a certain sense he's a paid traveling salesman for Monsanto".

Raven has good reason to smile on the company. According to Time magazine,
"When Raven first came to the garden in 1971, he had 85 employees and a
budget of $650,000. Today there are 354 people on staff, and the budget is
$20 million." That expansion has been assisted by millions from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and substantial corporate support, not least from Monsanto.

The Garden, in fact, is based in Monsanto's home town of St Louis. According to Raven there are other reasons for the strength of Monsanto's support. Although "We don't do biotech work other than bioprospecting," he says, "the basic research we do here at the Garden makes us a major resource for the biotechnology industry." Raven, together with Monsanto, was also the driving force behind a nearby plant biotech research institute on whose board he sits.

The Raven-Monsanto equation includes the Garden's multimillion-dollar
research centre - The Monsanto Center. And it doesn't stop there: the St
Louis paper, The Riverside Times, noted in 1999, "The Garden received $3
million from Monsanto in their last fundraising campaign... Monsanto also
contributed land and a large chunk of the $146 million startup money for the
Danforth Plant Science Center [a project Raven was instrumental in getting off the ground]. Monsanto matches its employees' contributions to the Garden ($225,000 last year) and contributes to the operating fund ($25,000 last year). Trustees give privately, too, and in past years the Garden has had Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro, Monsanto vice president Tom K. Smith and Monsanto research-and-development director Howard Schneiderman on its governing board. Now the Garden is collaborating with Monsanto's nutrition sector on a food library, collecting samples of all plants used worldwide as foods and medicines. (The World Resources Institute lists Monsanto as a
bioprospector since 1989 and lists its collector, as of 1993, as the
Missouri Botanical Garden.) When Confluence, an environmental quarterly,
criticized Monsanto, the Garden's PR woman pulled it from their literature
table."

At the time that was written, Raven's wife was Monsanto's Director of Public
Policy, Kate Fish, leading to jokes that even Raven's sex life came
corporate-sponsored.

Not without reason did one scientist say, "Raven glows with conflict of
interest from his perch in St Louis."

Extracted from
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=191