Vatican mulls endorsing genetically modified food

[dArKeR]

AP , VATICAN CITY
Wednesday, Nov 12, 2003,Page 7

Critics of genetically modified (GM) foods are warning that a Vatican endorsement of biotech products would be a mistake, while supporters say the Vatican is wisely gathering evidence to make an informed decision about the issue.

Participants at a two-day Vatican conference on biotech foods also questioned whether the Vatican would get a balanced view, since speakers in the pro-biotech camp dominated the discussions, reflecting the views of its organizer, Cardinal Renato Martino.

Martino, who has spoken out frequently about the potential benefits of the technology, opened the conference titled GMO: Threat or Hope by acknowledging it could have far-reaching implications.

"We are fully aware that the stakes are high and delicate," he said, citing the divide in public opinion, commercial interests and ethical questions involved, as well as "the difficulty in defining scientifically a material that is subject to evolving research."

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/11/12/2003075560

[DUreader]

1. Sounds like the Vatican mulls massive corp. cash donations

[brainshrub]

5. They would never do that.

The Catholic Church has her own money. The Church existed long before the corporations & multinationals and will out-last them as well. Speaking as a Catholic who is against GMOs: If the Church okays them I will reconsider my stance on the issue.

I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Vatican on the GMO issue because, for all her faults, when it comes to issues about the sacredness of human life the Catholic Church has one thing going for it: It is pro human-life.

Regardless of how you may feel about the issue; The Church is against the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia and birth control. The church WANTS healthy followers and a healthy planet...so if GMOs have the slightest possibility of harming either, the church will fight tooth-and-nail against it.

[Paschall]

6. Well, I dunno

I have a lot of respect for many in the Catholic Church, but I'm not sure I would put faith in its judgement on matters of science. How long did it take them to absolve Galileo for his heresy, 500 years?

[lostnfound]

13. Or, for me, reconsider stance on the Church. n/t

[Kolesar]

2. Why? So we can have 40 Billion humans on this planet?

[Atman]

3. Wha wha whaaaaaaaa?

Completely altering the genetic structure of one of God's creations is considered okay?

Hypocrisy continues to rule The Church.

[MetaTrope]

7. Not to mention the primary GMO goal is to make crops INFERTILE

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/339240.stm

:evilfrown:

[treepig]

21. selective breeding practices

have been altering the genetic structures of God's creations for thousands of years. i've never heard any complaints from the vatican.
so now that there's a different method to achieve the same outcome, i don't really know why the church would be expected to chance its stance on this issue.

[Spentastic]

26. Disingenuous

How has man been selectively introducing foreign genes?

Oh! it hasn't, has it?

[M155Y_A1CH]

28. Why do you say that

Are you ignoring cross-breeding and grafting?

[Spentastic]

29. Selective beeding

Selective breeding is not grafting.

Grafting has limited applications. Ever tried grafting a fish to a tomato plant?

It's an attempt to belittle the massive leap represented by manipulation of gene sequences. I'm ambivalent myself but things of such power normally have an element of danger. One that people seem keen to ignore for primarily commercial reasons.

[M155Y_A1CH]

30. Is that why mules....

are so stubborn?
Two different species=foreign genes.

[Spentastic]

31. Are mules sterile?

Can they pass the genes on? Can you selectively breed mules smarty pants?

[M155Y_A1CH]

32. No point in arguing

Well, I guess you have your opinion, cutie-pie.

[Spentastic]

33. Er?

Are mules viable after first generation?

Are they?

Can you combine widely different species through selective breeding?

You may be right. There's no point in arguing.

[M155Y_A1CH]

38. Does sex have to be involved?

Mules could be able to confer thier genes to the future through the miracle of cloning. Selective breeding would be accomplished by altering the initial stock.

I'll admit that mule cloning can't be carried by the wind but are we so sure that there is any danger to people in cross-pollination of GM crops. I understand that the danger is a loss of diversity of native plants. Though an important goal is to maintain that diversity, it should not be the only priority of agriculture. There are many hungry people in the world who would only benefit from bigger yields, hardier plants and reduced pesticide use.

I just don't think that the sky is falling due to GM crops. I believe it is just one more manipulation of nature to improve our ability to thrive. We have a long and honored history of changing nature to suit our needs. There have also been nay-sayers every step of the way.

[Spentastic]

39. I agree

But commercial pressures make for poor science.

Check out Monsanto for proof.

[M155Y_A1CH]

40. Good point

I feel positive about current genetic advances but....
there may be a Frankenstein lurking somewhere in our new
and improved genome.

[treepig]

34. mother nature has been selectively introducting foreign genes

from one type of organism into another for some 1.5 billion years now.

pathogenic viruses and bacteria (or even beneficial viruses and bacteria) that have multiple hosts can pick up a gene from one host, and deliver to another, even across kingdom boundaries.

most of these natural "genetic engineering" experiments done by mother nature are ultimately futile (because they confer no selective advantage to the host, and most often are actually deleterious) and the transferred genes are silenced or otherwise lost.

perhaps the bigger issue here is that by dramatically altering the environment, mankind is in essence forcing organisms to turn their own genes into "foreign" genes in order to survive (over time, the genome of an organism is essentially a blank slate, and can be turned into anything the environment demands provided that envirnmental change occurs slowly enough to allow the species in question to adapt - for bacteria that would on the scale of hours, for elephants the time scale is probably centuries.

[Spentastic]

35. Yep, that's it

Possibly destroy the environment on the basis that it might save the human race.

Seems a big risk to me.

[treepig]

37. destroying the environment is exactly what we're doing now

gm crops offer a chance to stop doing so!

(read the article in post #20)

[Jack The Tab]

4. Thank goodness! I really wanted to hear what the Vatican has to say..

about corporations patenting food.

Next I want to hear what their take on the new Joe Millionaire is..

[Abaques]

8. While I could care less about what the Vatican thinks about GM'd food...

I think that we all have to face the fact that we will all be eating GM'd food in 20 or 30 years whether we like it or not.

The world is facing a looming overpopulation issue that is simply not being dealt with and I would rather have people eat GM'd food then starve.

The science behind GM'd plants is fine, the danger is that corrupt corporations and governments that control how we will use GM'd crops. If we (as the human race) used strict controls over how GM'd crops were developed and distributed then I think there wouldn't be too many issues and the good would most likely out-weigh the bad.

The problem is that there is very strong reason to believe that the corp's and gov's in charge will not think about what is best for humanity, but what is best for the bottom line.

[Paschall]

9. "What's best for humanity..."

But many GM foods are designed to sustain MASSIVE amounts of pesticides, and--you can bet your bottom dollar--those pesticides will be used, generating massive wealth for the same industries that produced these crops. And, personally, I believe it is far too early to assume that production of these crops in normal conditions, where GM pollen can be spread by wind and insects, is without danger.

The whole GM food flap is a rerun of another scheme the agro-industry tried to pawn off as a "life-saving" plan for the planet in the 1960s: The so-called "Green Revolution." Check it out. Devastating results for farmers and farmlands, and--all told--no benefit for the hungry.

[Abaques]

10. You're talking about the politics of GM'd food still... not the science...

There is great potential for GM'd foods to provide nurishment for millions of the starving and malnurished of the world.

Thr problem that you brought up has more to do with corps that want to make more money.

As I mentioned, if done right then GM'd foods will be a godsend to humanity, but as of now, they have not been done right.

I guess that a good analogy to the point I'm trying to make is that GM'd foods are similar to dynamite: they can be incredibly useful to humanity, but if the wrong people control them, they can be incredibly destructive to humanity.

[treepig]

19. on the contrary, GM crops dramatically REDUCE pesticide use

n/t

[Minstrel Boy]

11. Given the doctrine of transubstantiation, genetic modification seems

right up the Vatican's alley.

[David__77]

12. Good. I agree with such a position.

Genetically-modified foods can save lives--that's a fact. Starvation is stalking the world's people and it has been proven that GM foods can help. We need to defend life and achieve abundance of food.

[Kolesar]

14. Quit eating meat and there will be plenty of food for the starving

Grain-fed livestock is a horrid consumer of water, topsoil and fuel. When the petroleum production peaks then wanes, nobody will be able to afford steaks, because the fuel costs will drive the cost up. Then we will all be eating vegetarian.

[Abaques]

16. Don't mean to sound harsh...

But lets live in reality. The world will not convert to veganism. End of story.

[David__77]

18. As a some-time vegetarian...

I agree that cattle-raising, for instance, is less efficient than other land uses in terms of caloric considerations per acre of land. I think many things should be considered, including algae production for protein bases and other similar things. But for most of the world, it's a matter of life and death. People in the rich countries have more freedom to pursue their ecological causes, but in the third world, there is a war to provide sufficient per capita nutrition.

[Kolesar]

23. How many cattle live in America?

The cattle and hog population in America approaches the human population, and we still have to import meat. The scale of meat production is enormous.

When England's economy collapsed after WW2, the people seldom had meat to eat. They were rationing meat into the 1950s, I recall. You had to have ration stamps. (I think that that was the origin of all the Monty Python Spam humour, their meat choice were few.) Meat is for the rich, and our prosperity will not last forever.

[NickB79]

24. Much livestock is raised where crops can't be

Consider the western US for example. There is insufficient rainfall to support any considerable grain farming without irrigation, but cattle can be grazed and brought to market on the grasslands without much input of grain or irrigation. I feel cattle grazing on the grasslands is actually preferable to crop production, as the cattle take the place of the bison that once roamed there and allow wildlife to thrive much more than they would in a constantly-plowed corn or wheat field. Ideally, we would farm bison for meat instead of cattle. Worldwide, we also eat ~80 million tons of seafood that is vital for many people's diets for sufficient protein intake. If the goal of farming is to make sure all people on the planet eat a balanced diet, you can't count out any food sources, even meat. Properly managed, meat consumption does not have to be wasteful.

Finally, this is a red herring approach anyway, since simply diverting our grain production to human use would still not feed the starving in other countries. These countries are simply too poor to import our grain (the US is already a major grain exporter for anyone who can afford it). Freeing up all that grain would reduce our prices and make US grain more affordable worldwide, but if we reduced our grain prices to that point it would bankrupt our farmers. Why would they produce food without any profits?

[Kolesar]

25. Range cattle are fed grain in winter, then sent to feedlots ultimately

The last phase of their lives is "fattening up" at a crowded feedlot near a railhead or meatpacking plant. There is no such thing as totally range fed cattle in America. All cattle consume copious amounts of grain.

[shirlden]

15. Link please

Genetically-modified foods can save lives--that's a fact.

I have been following the GM food debate for several years now. I try to read everything of substance I can find on the issue. Guess that I missed your statement. So, link please, would like to check that one out.

:kick:

[David__77]

17. So many instances...

GM foods help ward off pestilence in many cases, increase protein content to rice, for instance, and make nutritional content better. I simply don't think the alleged risks outweight what I consider the obvious benefits.

[treepig]

20. not really science, but an interesting read nonetheless

Will Frankenfood Save the Planet?


Over the next half century genetic engineering could feed humanity and solve a raft of environmental ills—if only environmentalists would let it


http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/10/rauch.htm

[monobrau]

22. Vatican to endorse Hummer, silicone breast implants

The thieves are have been in the temple for centuries. Open your eyes.

[truthisfreedom]

27. seems like the vatican would have more pertinent activities on it's sched-

ule. why not wait for a few more years until we know more about this GM issue before "endorsing" a massive experiment?

[RobinA]

36. Why???

Why, in the name of god, does the Vatican have anything to say about genetic food? Shouldn't they stick to having opinions about stuff they know about, like sex...oh...wait, nevermind.