Unmentionable awfulness - August 14, 2008
The views of the UK’s heir to the throne on GM crops have been spread like a nasty case of fish herpes across the internet in another example of woeful prioritising by the British media.
Prince Charles – who is for some reason not known as Barmy Prince Charlie – has taken time off from his official duties and his passion for criticising modern architecture to explain to the Daily Telegraph why he thinks GM foods are a “gigantic experiment I think with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong” And likely to lead to “unmentionable awfulness”:
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.
Naturally, the prince found some support. And equally obviously he was criticised, with various levels of disprespect.
The Telegraph, always commited to a plurality of views – and indeed to the simultaneous consumption and ownership of cake – had an opinion piece arguing against the prince on the day that it published the story, and followed up the next day with “Prince Charles accused by scientists of abusing his position over GM food comments”.
London’s Science Media Centre helpfully provided some comments by scientists:
The Prince of Wales’ statements reported in the Daily Telegraph this morning defy objective analysis. ... It is scientifically and morally indefensible not to explore, without prejudice, GM technology as one possible solution to these problems.
- Ian Denholm, head of plant and invertebrate ecology at Rothamsted Research InstituteThe Prince's ill informed and confusing statements are counterproductive to a rational debate on our food production systems."
- Giles Oldroyd, research group leader at the John Innes Centre.Prince Charles claims that GM crops will be environmental disaster. But his vision for agriculture would be a much greater disaster for the world’s poor whose primary concern is to find their next meal.
- Johnjoe McFadden, molecular geneticist at the University of Surrey.
Comments
What has GM crops to do with small farming? Small farmers worldwide are going out of business because of increase competition with more efficient farmers, and we all benefit from this by more and cheaper food.
Blaming Monsanto is bizarre: we may as well blame the Scottish landlords responsible for the Highland Clearances, or the opening up of the prairies for wrecking agriculture in New England, or US and Australian immigration policy for draining small farmers away from around the Mediterranean. The reality is that it was back-breaking work to be left at any opportunity.
It is not possible to assign any one blame for the loss of small farms: it is fantasy and self-delusion (and not a little commercial interest) to target GM and seed companies.
Why did the `Telegraph' allow the Prince to promote his organic business by knocking the competition? Politicians have to declare any conflict of interest - royalty should do likewise.
Posted by: Dave Wood | August 14, 2008 03:43 PM
I read so many articles where something distasteful is likened to some aspect of a dose of HERPES.
With so many people around the world - and especially a good friend of mine -afflicted with this disease, it is very hurtful to sufferers who read this, and insensitive of publications such as yours to joke about this curse of a disease. Wouldn't it be better for you to spend your energy promoting Researchers to come up with a cure ??
Posted by: Neville Daly | August 15, 2008 08:13 AM
In the world according to Charles, agriculture is organic and feudal. We, as peasants, toil in the fields and a third of the world's population must commit suicide so the rest have enough to eat. Is Charles a modern Marie Antoinette? Only difference is his prhase is 'Let them eat nothing'
Posted by: Graham Brookes | August 15, 2008 03:25 PM
The point Charles missed is that GM is for Monsanto to take ownership of everything.
Posted by: David Gerard | August 17, 2008 05:48 PM