The heir apparent to some minor European royal family has again demonstrated his lack of knowledge and trust in scientific matters. The Prince, who has previously said that he talks to plants and consults gurus, apparently failed to talk to any actual, you know, scientists who might clear up a few confusions he has. Of course the environmental extremists have leapt all over it.
He has now said this in the august paper of record in Britain, the Daily Telegraph:
The mass development of genetically modified crops risks causing the world's worst environmental disaster, The Prince of Wales has warned.
In his most outspoken intervention on the issue of GM food, the Prince said that multi-national companies were conducting an experiment with nature which had gone "seriously wrong".
The Prince, in an exclusive interview with the Daily Telegraph, also expressed the fear that food would run out because of the damage being wreaked on the earth's soil by scientists' research.
He accused firms of conducting a "gigantic experiment I think with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong".
"Why else are we facing all these challenges, climate change and everything?".
Relying on "gigantic corporations" for food, he said, would result in "absolute disaster".
"That would be the absolute destruction of everything... and the classic way of ensuring there is no food in the future," he 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 its somehow 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."
You know that when a newspaper puts one sentence in each paragraph that you are dealing with high matters of the intellect. Notice what Chas has done here: moved from "it's wrong to mess with nature" (like we haven't been doing that our entire existence as a species, and wouldn't immediately go extinct if we stopped) to "it's wrong to rely on corporations" (which is true - but has nothing to do with experimentation or genetic engineering) to "GE will cause the biggest disaster of the environment evah!" It's hysterical guilt by association.
Experiments on plant genes does no harm to soils so far as we have the slightest evidence. In fact, as Professor Pamela Ronald of UC Davis' Plant Genomics Program insists (see this Basics post, which will be included in the main Basics list soon), GE might be the salvation of soils, by reducing chemical pesticides and the need for chemical fertilisers. Ronald insists the solution is in fact GE + Organic Farming.
GE is not any more of a threat to the environment than processes that are going on naturally all the time. Genes are trafficked between species, kingdoms and even superkingdoms all the time. They do this mostly via viruses that take up genetic material from one host and carry it to another. In plants, this is so frequent that to claim GE in itself is an environmental threat is to evince total ignorance and willful stupidity.
What is a threat to agricultural biodiversity (see this blog for discussions) is the corporate control of seed stock and patents on living organisms that restrict access to the use of those organisms. This is in large part a legal problem, not an ecological one. We do need to decorporatise agriculture pretty quickly, and to produce locally for local consumption more. But none of that has any relevance to GE per se.
By ignoring facts, Chas and co are impeding solutions and the proper identification of the real problems in favour of some boogeyman of their own construction. GE is a technique, that is all. It will work well or badly depending on the case. God will not strike us down for Messing With Things Man Was Not Meant To Know.
- Log in to post comments
Word. GMO is good stuff, we just can't have Monsanto fucking with farmers.
Wait. Did he seriously just claim that GMOs are causing climate change?
That takes a special kind of stupid. I'd say the Brits should be embarassed, but given that we've got GWB, I suppose it's a push.
Well done -even in a feverish state you write well.
We did send the prince a copy of our book "Tomorrow's Table:organic farming, genetics and the future of food"
http://www.amazon.com/Tomorrows-Table-Organic-Farming-Genetics/dp/01953…
through a friend of a friend of the prince.
It doesnt seem like he has read it yet. However, given his concern for the environment and thirst for scientific information on this subject, I am sure it is on the top of his list and that soon, I too, will be drinking tea with the Prince and Eric Schlosser.
In other words, GMO is good, apart from almost all of it.
Well, quite.
Or maybe you mean research on GMO is good, just don't let Monsanto get their hands on the results. That would indeed be very nice.
BTW, given that this is a newspaper report, who knows what the prince actually said?
Because the video is up on that Telegraph site for you to see...
The scientific aspect and the corporate aspect of GMO/GE are distinct topics. If we could undercut the IP issues that allow Monsanto and others to patent facts of nature (which is something no review court ought ever have permitted. but then even the US court system is run by corporate interests these days), GE would be a very useful tool. It might even create a new Green Revolution, in terms of Organic Farming.
... and in other news today, there are reports of vast areas of the world's oceans becoming "dead zones", largely because of fertilizer in agricultural runoff waters. If agricultural research, including GMO development, can reduce the amount of fertilizer in runoff waters, it would go a long way to help stop the spread of these dead zones.
While I agree that it should not be possible to patent "facts of nature", there also needs to be ways for inventors to protect their intellectual property, or (private) investment into research and development will evaporate. The ideal solution in my mind is one where there are many strong and viable competitors to Monsanto, giving the farmer a large number of options to choose from.
Oh, OK.
Hm. Yes, up to a point. But think how suspicious you'd be if you read that sentence in an undergraduate essay.
Jason@5, he probably said just that. His credentials as a total fruit and nut case are well established.
Hm, this morning I breakfasted on toast made from genetically modified wheat, the product of a successful research programme in the Neolithic, spread with butter from a genetically modified cow, which lactates when not nursing, the product of a successful research programme in the early modern period...
Oh, you mean genetically engineered, or transgenic? OMG, frankenfoods!!!11!eleven! Yes, there is a very serious political and legal issue here, but in terms of the science, we're just applying current technologies to the questions originally addressed in the fertile crescent just after the Younger Dryas.
Hey he's a Prince- and a celeb!
So of course he's an instant expert on whatever subject crosses his mind.
You lowly subjects think your mind is equal to the Great Prince of Wales? Why, in proper times he'd 'ave your 'ead for such poppycock!
The schadenfreude part of my brain hopes that he develops diabetes and requires insulin...
In the past he's said the following;
"Mixing genetic material from species that cannot breed naturally, takes us into areas that should be left to God. We should not be meddling with the building blocks of life in this way."
Considering this sort of attitude along his long support for quack 'health' therapies it is obvious that he's not a fan of evidence based science. Mind you, stupid as his beliefs are they are not out of the ordinary in the UK. A sizeable proportion of the population think in exactly the same way about genetic engineering, alternative medicine and the like.
We'll just have to hope that the rest of the UK population don't vote for him to be the head of state when the election for the next King takes place.
By the way, why on earth did you Aussies vote to keep the British Royals as your head of state a few years back? Remember, he'll be your King too!
He won't. He's the product of centuries of good breeding, remember?
We didn't vote to keep the monarchy, we failed to vote on an alternative. Clever politics by the then PM to divide (and allow Liz to Rule). Most Australians wanted the monarchy gone.
Charles is an idiot. More importantly, he's abusing his position. He's entitled to an opinion - no matter how silly - but his position gives it a weight which is entirely unwarranted.
I'm opposed in principle to the monarchy and its trappings, but generally don't care too much - I'd still rather live in the UK than anywhere else. But this sort of brain-dead pontificating could change my mind.
I'm pretty pro-GMO (albeit anti-Monsanto) myself, but I was wondering... How do you address the argument that, although HGT and selective breeding already do what GE does, they are much less likely to introduce ecologically radical changes than we can with GE? I trust most scientists a great deal. I've notice that most molecular biologists are pretty confident about GE, and I love the tinkering in lab stage of it. But the ecologists are far from united about this. What can we do to ensure that the actual application of the products of GE are used well? Or is this as silly a question as asking "what can we do to ensure the products of selective breeding are applied well?"?
I'm cautiously pro-GMO, and pretty often anti-Monsanto - their actions are often not reassuring.
Most of the grocery store potatos we buy are genetically modified, and have been for some time. For whatever reason, they do not keep as well or anywhere near as long as non-GM potatos, which we also get a lot of from friends and relatives who garden, and I am including fresh new GM potatos in my assessment. It's possible that harvesting or transportation is to blame for this difference, but this was not a problem twenty years or so ago.
Speaking as a (now ex-pat) Brit, I have to admit my embarrassment at the ramblings of some one who might one day ascend the throne of my homeland. If it were not for their ability, as figureheads, to transcend base party politicking and provide a unifying focus for the nation - and the tourist revenue - I would be happy to see the monarchy consigned to the dustbin of history.
One of the leaders of the campaign against GMOs has been that bastion of intellectual honesty and scientific rigor, the notorious Daily Mail. Having that paper on your side should be enough to discredit any campaign beyond redemption.
Wow, my respect for Charles just tanked. The only hope for myself and others in the Commonwealth is that Elizabeth II will actuall outlive him.
You know, I'd love to see some solid debate about GM (which I support based on the evidence I've seen), but any attempt is hijacked by screeching anti-GM zealots.
The genetic engineering controversy shows that history hasn't lost its taste for irony. Thing is, the blanket opposition to GM guarantees that the only modified crops that promise huge profits for chemical companies will achieve wide-spread adoption since they are backed by organizations with the clout to defeat the environmentalists. Meanwhile, the use of plants genetically modified to actually improve human nutrition and health can be prevented because innovations like golden rice aren't typically sponsored by big corporations but by small entrepreneurs and non-profits.
I wonder if he Prince, with all his spare time waiting for Elizabeth II to surrender the throne, just has too much time to brood. Does he even have a job aside from being Diana's Widower?
For some excellent blogging on the issues of GMO by someone who actually does field research (she's a graduate researcher in Iowa, please see this by my friend Anastasia at Genetic Maize:
Their needn't be an either/or choice in producing food. As Wilkins points out, we have been messing with nature for a long, long, time. We just need to get smarter about how we do it, and stop the hysteria over GMO.
There are now developers who are following the opensource model and wresting at least some if the IP stranglehold of Monsanto and Archer_Daniels-Midland.
I think one has to accept that some will have large ecological effects, and we just try to work out which ones will benefit, and which ones will cause harm. The EU has, shockingly, taken roughly the right approach: there are a couple of EU directives that say that anyone wanting to introduce GM crops has to go through a process of risk assessment. If nothing else, this forces us to think through the effects of the GM crop seriously. IIRC there are provisions for mitigation and monitoring as well.
I'm sure we'll work out what isn't worrisome and what is, but I think we need to go through that process: then we'll have a solid scientific foundation for decision making.
Incidentally, there is a list of proposed releases of GM crops into the wild.
"How do you address the argument that, although HGT and selective breeding already do what GE does, they are much less likely to introduce ecologically radical changes than we can with GE?"
My argument is this: we need to keep the broader goal in mind: we need to improve crops in an ecologically responsible manner. Sometimes that will be through conventional breeding; sometimes it will be through GE.
In some cases GE is the most appropriate and low cost approach. For example, there was no conventional approach to control papaya ringspot virus, which decimated the industry in Hawaii. The introduction of GE papaya allowed farmers to resume production.
It is important to keep in mind that virtually all leading scientific panels that have convened on this manner (National Research Council 2004; GM Science Review 2003) have agreed that pollen drift from GE varieties now grown in the United States does not pose any conceivable increased health or environmental risk.
It is unlikely that a single transgene by itself would reduce the genetic diversity of native populations to a greater extent than is already occurring.
And in terms of genetic diversity, studies have shown there is enhanced genetic diversity in fields of BT crops than conventionally grown crops (see references in my book and blog).