Morning:
13°c
MPs attack 'Luddite' Charles over GM fears
Nicholas Cecil, Mark Prigg and Benedict Moore-Bridger13.08.08
MPs branded Prince Charles a "Luddite" after he launched a scathing attack on GM crops.
The Prince of Wales warned that the mass development of genetically modified crops risked sparking an environmental disaster.
But Labour MP Des Turner, who sits on the Commons all-party science committee, said: "Prince Charles has got a way of getting things absolutely wrong.
"It's an entirely Luddite attitude to simply reject them out of hand."
The MP for Kemp Town, a former biochemist, added: "The whole point about GM crops is that they are not intrinsically evil and there are circumstances where they can be of great benefit.
"Some developing countries where for instance there is a problem with drought or salinity, if you can develop salt- or drought-resistant crops there are great benefits."
Former biology lecturer Ian Gibson, Labour MP for Norwich North, said: "Prince Charles should stick to his royal role rather than spout off about something which he has clearly got wrong.
"Scientists and others who have seriously looked at the problem have found no solid evidence that GM crops affect people's health.
"Where I agree with him is about big corporations thinking they can walk through people with their products."
And Liberal Democrat MP Phil Willis, chairman of the all-party Commons science committee, said: "While I admire Prince Charles's commitment to environmental causes, his lack of scientific understanding and his willingness to condemn millions of people to starvation in areas like sub-Saharan Africa is absolutely bewildering.
"The reality is that without the development of science in farming, we would not be able to feed a tenth of the world population ... which will exceed nine billion by 2050."
Prince Charles accused multinational corporations of conducting an experiment with nature which had gone "seriously wrong". He said: "I think it's heading for real disaster. If that is the future, count me out."
The comments put the Prince on a collision course with scientists and politicians who believe GM crops could hold the key to creating cheap food sources for developing countries.
British GM researchers recently lobbied ministers for their crops to be kept in high-security facilities or in secret locations to prevent them from being attacked and destroyed.
Gordon Brown, who has urged Britons to use up leftovers to tackle food waste, has also said GM crops have a key role in boosting agricultural production and lowering the spiralling prices of food staples.
But the Prince said: "What we should be talking about is food security not food production - that is what matters and that is what people will not understand.
"And if they think also that somehow it's all going to work because they are going to have one form of clever genetic engineering after another then again count me out, because that will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time."
Charles said relying on gigantic corporations for the mass production of food would threaten future food supplies, and that small farmers would be the victims. He said: "If they think this is the way to go we will end up with millions of small farmers all over the world being driven off their land into unsustainable, unmanageable, degraded and dysfunctional conurbations of unmentionable awfulness."
Today a Defra spokeswoman said: "There is an important debate to be had on the role of GM crops in the future, and we welcome all voices in that debate."
The biotech industry says GM technology can be used to tackle hunger and poverty by delivering higher yields and reducing the use and cost of pesticides.
But green groups and aid agencies fear claims about the potential benefits are not being borne out in practice.
Reader views (22)
To Jeff from Oz.
Sorry mate, GM crops do not increase yield. Find me a single independent study that says they do and I'll find you a dozen that say they don't.
To those saying GM direct genetic manipulation is like selective cross breeding; they can insert any gene from any species whether it's animal or plant. For that to work with selective cross breeding you'd have to have cow/corn hybrids... It is completely different.
- Ian, London
To Chris from London. Of course Prince Charles is self-interested - it is in his interests for people to buy organic and, preferably, Duchy Originals produce.
- Lj, London
The World According To Monsanto, what a nightmare!
- Lisa Hicks, Louth, Lincs.
Although I'm sympathetic towards the idea of being extremely careful about releasing genetically modified plants or animals into the biosphere there really can be good reasons to do so.
There are really distasteful genetic modifications like sterile hybrids (crops don't produce seeds and farmers are forced to buy seed from industrial sources every year) resistance to certain herbicides and pesticides (e.g. Roundup). You really want to be careful with such modifications, and I agree with Prince Charles that I'd rather not have those.
On the other hand all sorts of pest-resistance traits can be built in, and tolerance for high salinity, and resistance to rot. In the end there is no real difference between crops that are improved via selective cultivation and crops that have a new gene built in. It just depends on what modification you build in.
With all respect to Prince Charles, he is not an expert in this field, and his opinions are just that: opinions. And emotional ones to boot. In raising a poorly explained spectre of "large companies threatening small farmers" he has done that particular cause a disservice. By detracting from its credibility through a loud but poorly motivated and probably also ill-considered comment. At best his credentials are that he is a wealthy land-owner who has made a commercial success of certain bio-produce, but that's it.
I don't mind if Prince Charles speaks up, as long as he knows what he's talking about.
- Golodh, London, UK
HRH is, with respect, speaking absolute nonsense. GM crops hold great promise for a better future and have already delivered significant increases in crop production. Its only the Greens who really oppose their wider introduction and that is due to them playing to their audience, not based on the science. If Prince Charles carries on like this when (and if) he is crowned King, the Monarchy is in serious trouble. The sooner Australia becomes a republic the better!
- Jeff, Hobart, Australia
Quote" If that is the future count me out." Exactly sums up my feelings about the heir to the throne.
- John Bennett, Exeter,Devon
What I'd like to know is this - who wrote your speech, Charles?
- Margot, London UK
The Prince is absolutely correct. The damage from genetically modified crops has already been done and may be impossible to undo. The argument for GM presented by Monsanto - that they are aiming to solve world hunger- is specious. They are, like all other corporations, aiming to increase their profits and to hell with the consequences. The silly MPs are simply ignorant or bought and paid for.
- John, Alexandria VA USA
I agree wholeheartedly with Prince Charles. His ideas and thoughts always seem a lot more realistic and thought through than the absolute brain dead shower that we have in Government, well illustrated by some of their recent ideas on tax, security, the Lisbon Treaty, VED bands, Stamp Duty, pensions, and so on and on and on.
- Albert Hall, hove england
This is actually one of the rare occasions, when Charles is actually talking sense.
- Kimberley, New England
The ultimate irony must be the representatives of today's Luddites, the Unions, using that word to denigrate a good-hearted man. I always thought that Luddism was and continues to be a Labour Core Value.
- Grumpy Old Man, Hythe, Kent
Many of the Labour MPs lining up to take a pop at Charles are the same ones who without question bought the line on weapons of mass destruction, and took us to war in Iraq.
- Londonken, London
But what is it doing to wildlife, including the bees, which are disappearing fast where these crops are grown in the US.
- Amadam, middx UK
I support Prince Charles wholeheartedly. There may be situations in which GM foods are useful, but as has been pointed out time and time again, once this technology is released into nature we do not know what will happen.
Plants with in built insecticide may lead to mass extinction in the insect world for example. Caterpillars which rely on the wild version of a specific crop for food before they turn into butterflies would be decimated if the insecticide gene in a commercial variety of the same plant enters the wild food chain. He also has a point with regard to reliance on large corporations for our food.
Keep talking Charles, we're listening.
- Hmmm Mmm, London
Luddites were farmers and textile workers who thought they would be put out of a job by new technology. So Prince Charles hardly qualifies as self-interested like the Luddites. I'll wager that he does not have armies of lobbyists offering entertainment and handsomely paid non-exec roles in the anti-GM movement, in contrast to the MP-ites.
No. He is concerned that we are releasing something that can not be put back in the box if we discover we have made a mistake. Unlike drugs which might kill or maim just a few thousand people if there's a little glitch, GM plants have the potential to spread unchecked across continents, resistant to all known biocides.
I don't doubt he is aware of the marginal benefits of GM crops. But the truth is that some areas of the world are more conducive to human habitation than others, so perhaps salt marshes should be left the way nature designed them.
And even if no GM foods are harmful at all, the adoption of them makes us entirely reliant on monopolistic foodtech companies. Biodiversity becomes something for the history books.
- Chris, London
"Scientists and others who have seriously looked at the problem have found no solid evidence that GM crops affect people's health."
Well, they haven't looked very hard then. I see lots of one time farmers and their families now starving because of GM crops.
- Threaded, Roskilde, Denmark
The vast majority of sensible voters in the UK would agree with the Prince of Wales in regard to GM crops. Once again big business makes the running in developing something that's not proven. So many over the years from Thalidomide onwards. Why does no one speak for us in the House of Commons?
- Mike Pepper, Duston Northants
Al Gore with a British accent?
Elite fools contaminate the social environment in America too.
Doom, gloom, why it looks like the nutty Uncle in the attic might be up for a Nobel soon!
- Fred Davis, Chiggers, Ohio
I don't see how anybody can disagree with the Prince of Wales. He is a multi-millionaire businessman who just keeps accumulating money. He never needs to wander around a supermarket trying to buy the cheapest food to feed a family while contributing to record supermarket profits. I' love to eat organic food but unfortunately my great grand-parents weren't immigrants from Germany.
- Hambledon Hill, Hammersmith
If we adopt Sydney of London's approach then we would still be living in caves. The manipulation of plant genes by means of cross breeding varieties has gone on for several millennia; GM involves much more sophisticated and precise techniques to a similar purpose. The potential benefits are enormous. Yes, there are always risks; but if you want zero risk then you will never have even the chance of progress.
Prince Charles is the man whose undue influence has given us the unscientific mumbo jumbo of homoeopathy on the NHS. Let's stop listening to the ill informed, and start looking at the hard facts. GM has been used for well over a decade in the US with not the slightest evidence of detrimental effects on human or animal health.
- Andrew, London
Unlike most of the world, but like so many advocates of small scale organic farming, Prince Charles is in the fortunate position to be able to say "If that is the future, count me out" because he doesn't depend upon the market for our financial security to such an extent. He should think about people on the breadline and those living on less than $2 a day, then perhaps his perception of the problem and favoured solutions would be more helpful.
- James Kemp, Oxford, UK
"Scientists and others who have seriously looked at the problem have found no solid evidence that GM crops affect people's health."
How long have these studies been going on for? What happens after a GM crop has established itself only to find out it was the wrong choice? The thing with GM crops is that once you adopt them there is no going back. Time and time again we find out that things we thought once was a fantastic idea turns out to hurt us. (teflon on pots and pans, lead paint, many medical drugs are banned after being on the market for years; drugs that Scientists have tried and tested etc etc.) And btw who are the "others"?
- Sydney, London
