Prince Charles invokes scientific backlash over GM assault

Many high profile scientists have spoken out against Prince Charles’ assault on genetic modification in farming.

Claims of “Worlds biggest environmental disaster” played down by top scientists

In an interview with the Telegraph (13th August), the prince warned the adoption of genetic modification in farming has set the world on course for “the biggest disaster, environmentally, of all time”. The prince accused unnamed “gigantic corporations” of “conducting a gigantic experiment with nature, and the whole of humanity, which has gone seriously wrong”.
In response, many in the scientific community have been quick to criticise his hyperbole. Prof Alison M. Smith OBE, research group leader at the John Innes Centre, said: “I was shocked and saddened to read what Prince Charles has said about GM crops.

“Shocked because it was so ill-informed, one-sided and generally negative. Saddened because the Prince is in a position to lead this country in solving some of the massive problems he identifies.”

She argued that he could bring together scientists, technologists and agricultural experts to catalyse constructive debate and action that would benefit both the UK and the rest of the planet. “Instead,” she said “he indulges in diatribes in which he appears to blame the problems of the planet on a single technological advance that he has completely misunderstood.”
As evidence for his stance, the prince cited environmental problems in countries which have used GM crops to increase food production. He said he had seen first hand the result of over-demand on irrigation systems and the water table in Punjab because of the hybrid seeds and grains used.
Dr Giles Oldroyd, research group leader at the John Innes Centre, said: “The Prince is really confusing the issues. He is using GM as an all inclusive term for industrialised agricultural practices. The two main issues he states are irrigation issues: in India and in Australia.

“Irrigation is not a modern practice, nor is it a practice limited to large scale agriculture. The lowering of the water table and increased salinity of the soils is a problem inherent to irrigation, either by large scale or small scale farmers. It has nothing to do with genetic modification. Indeed genetic modification has the potential to provide crop plants that can grow on these depleted soils, something that conventional agriculture will struggle to do.”

This lack of evidence is also something the environment minister - Phil Woolas – has criticised. “If it has been a disaster then please provide the evidence,” he said as he insisted the government would go ahead with trials unless scientific evidence showed they were harmful.
Despite this, it is still the case that Europe is proving more resistant to the spread of GM crops than the rest of the world, and no GM crops are being grown commercially in the UK.
Green groups including Friends of the Earth and the Soil Association supported the prince’s view that GM crops would not help to solve the food crisis. Yet many scientists think that too many of the world’s problems are being left at the door of GM.
Professor Smith said: “GM crops are not to blame for climate change, the industrialisation of agriculture, the spread of dysfunctional conurbations, the salinisation of Australia or indeed any of the other crimes of which the Prince appears to accuse them. These problems arise from a collective failure of societies - all of us - to live within the resources of our planet. To blame all of these problems on a single technology is to deny our collective responsibility for the mess we’ve created.”