Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Charles Targets GM Crop Giants in Fiercest Attack Yet
In a provocative address to an Indian audience, the Prince echoes Gandhi with a stinging attack on 'commerce without morality'.
It is less than two months since Prince Charles was on the receiving end of a fusillade of scientific, political and commentariat criticism for voicing, yet again, his concerns about GM crops and foods. He was widely accused of "ignorance" and "Luddism"; of being too rich to care about the hungry, and even of trying to increase sales of his own organic produce. It was put about that Gordon Brown was angered by his intervention.
Prince Charles has again stirred controversy with his strong views over GM crops.(Getty Images) Yet the Prince has responded by stepping up his campaign, making his most anti-GM speech yet, in delivering - by video - the Sir Albert Howard Memorial Lecture to the Indian pressure group Navdanya last Thursday. And he made it clear that he was going to continue. "The reason I keep sticking my 60-year-old head above an increasingly dangerous parapet is not because it is good for my health," he said " but precisely because I believe fundamentally that unless we work with nature, we will fail to restore the equilibrium we need in order to survive on this planet."
True to his word, he plunged straight into the most controversial and emotive of all the debates over GM crops and foods by highlighting the suicides of small farmers. Tens of thousands killed themselves in India after getting into debt. The suicides were occurring long before GM crops were introduced, but campaigners say that the technology has made things worse because the seeds are more expensive and have not increased yields to match.
The biotech industry strongly denies this, but two official reports have suggested that there "could" be a possible link.
Prince Charles expressed no doubts in his lecture, delivered at the invitation of Dr Vandana Shiva, the founder of Navdanya, and one of the leading proponents of the technology's role in the deaths. He spoke of "the truly appalling and tragic rate of small farmer suicides in India, stemming in part from the failure of many GM crop varieties".
Much of the controversy surrounds claims of failures by a Monsanto GM cotton called Bollguard. The GM company says that "farmers in India have found success" with it, and cites a survey in support. Its opponents produce evidence of their own to show the opposite.
But Prince Charles did not stop there. Broadening his offensive, he said that "any GM crop will inevitably contaminate neighbouring fields", making it impossible to maintain the integrity of organic and conventional crops. For the first time in history this would lead to "one man's system of farming effectively destroying the choice of another man's" and "turn the whole issue into a global moral question." He quoted Mahatma Gandhi who condemned "commerce without morality" and "science without humanity". He added: "One must surely ask the question whether - if only from a precautionary point of view - it might be wise to keep some areas of the world free from GM-based agriculture."
The Prince attacked the contention that "GM food is now essential to feed the world", saying that the evidence showed that modified crops' yields were "generally lower than their conventional counterparts". He called them "a wrong turning on the route to feeding the world in a sustainable or durable manner" and "a risky and expensive distraction, diverting attention and resources away from those real, long-term solutions such as crop varieties which respond well to low input systems that, in turn, do not rely on fossil fuels." There was substantial evidence "to show that a growing world population can be fed most successfully in the long term by agricultural systems that manage the land within environmental limits".
Recent research had shown, he added, that organic farming techniques had increased yields in Brazil by 250 per cent and in Ethiopia were up fivefold, while the world's biggest international agricultural study - headed by Professor Bob Watson, now chief scientist at Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs - had backed organic farming, rather than GM to tackle word hunger.
Kirtana Chandrasekaran of Friends of the Earth said: "Prince Charles is right that GM crops and industrial farming are profiting big businesses, not feeding the world's poorest."
- Posted in
17 Comments so far
Show AllPrince Charles views on GM crops has all the significance of Bono's views on 3rd. world debt relief. Even if he is correct (and in this case I think he is)his saying it automatically trivializes the issue. What a sad, dottering, quirky-looking old eccentric he has become--a living tragedy.
Poet
None of us can help how we look. (BTW, did you mean doddering? -- I assure you he is not.) How we dress is another matter; his is quite traditional, and I for one think it looks very smart.
With his background his views are remarkable, both by virtue of his having those opinions and by voicing them; and I hardly think that trivializes the issue.
to poet:
you, sir, are a horse's ass and no poet (i know it).
So if you are famous you must relinquish your right to stand up for your beliefs ?
Sorry Poet, but I have to disagree with you - on the significance of his views at least. I rather like the look, as long as his head is above the top of my screen. I really like his walking stick.
What he says about the GM crops is true, and Charles is someone with clout. He no doubt has a following, and anyone speaking out against this GM blight is, as Martha would say, a good thing.
Poet:
Your opinion about Prince Charles's sad position as a king-in-waiting has nothing to do with the weight that his speaking out against GM crops can have throughout the Commonwealth. There is still some respect for the royals, and if Vandana Shiva invited him to give the keynote, that's good enough for me, and if we are anti-GM we should not be undermining the effect of that speech.
Charles' work on behalf of architectural heritage and organic farming (in which he is heavily involved on his own neo-feudal lands) is commendable. He's not simply going around to hospital and ballet fundraisers (important as these are) and launching battleships (though I wish he could have kept his boys out of the military) but rather putting his money and his effort where his mouth is.
The voices countering corporate monoculture sales, with documentation, of a socio-ecological disaster well underway needs every voice it can get.
Thank you Prince Charles for bringing front and center the concern of so many indigenous peoples in South America as well who are experiencing genocidal conditions because of the success of the monoculture marketing/export model and failure of the hideously shortsighted self-interest (massive profit) of the GM corporations.
The indigenous peoples are 'human sheilds' in one of the most counter-productive and in many places deadly boondogles of modern history. Their constitutional rights are being trampled, leaders being murdered, an entire way of being - dismissed and eliminated through media lies, transnational interests gone grossly awry.
http://www.survival-international.org/news/3760
It is no surprise that corporate proxies in the media have gone after Prince Charles in regards to GM foods. They have done so before when he "dared" to open his mouth about generic architecture whose sole purpose was to maximize profit, lack of aesthetic appeal be damned. What should be paid attention to is who is attacking him in the media for this and who their paymasters are.
If Charles keeps voicing strong and correct opinions, showing much more leadership on this and other environmental issues, than any cabinet 'environment' ministers - I may renounce republicanism and become a royalist.
The old freak gets my respect. (He knows volumes more about agriculture, past and present than most)
Cheers!!!! for a grand example of intrigrity in the face of corporate greed!
The Independent should not be giving voice to elites. In this case, elites are the agri-corps while the prince is speaking for the people. As long as the elites' positions are portrayed by the media as legitimate, the elites will enjoy considerable advantage in their class war aggression against the people.
For years I have admired Prince Charles for seeking to overcome the innate weaknesses of his Germanic genetic pool, perhaps starting with the first woman he married! In recent years I have come to see "class warfe" as not necessarily related to how much money you have but more about your attitude toward it and whether you come down on the side of humanity in general. For example, I know a local millionaire who continues to carefully divest at the local level most of his inherited fortune---a process that his parents started. It has been said that human culture started to progress more rapidly around the time that we obtained enough "leisure time" to devote more thought to our place in the world so that for example the tribal system created shamans who learned plant medicine.
As a semi-retired investigative journalist I have been aware of the dangers of GM crops for decades now. Just for starters, as Prince Charles says, they pollute the global gene pool---and in my opinion that is Monsanto's INTENT. Take Mexico, for example, where despite a ban on GM corn, GM corn is contaminating the gene pool of highly diversified natural corn where it evidently originated, and is driving farmers off their land and into the U.S. in search of survival. (This also goes to GM PATENTS! And Terminator seeds so the crop cannot reproduce but is dependent on Monsanto---which goes to farmer suicides in India. There is an old expression: "you don't eat your seed corn," while Monsanto seeks to enslave by assuring that you don't have seed corn: you have to buy it from Monsanto. Every year! This turns Nature on her head. Related to this is the effort to kill off certain insect pests by creating sperm that cannot reproduce and flooding them on the unsuspecting pest, which then, it is hoped, dies out. This is Hubris in the extreme, AS THOUGH WE UNDERSTAND ALL THE IMPLICATIONS OF OUR ACTIONS. WE DON'T.)
I used to live in large cities in America and when I was young they were fun and I learned a lot. But as I got older it came to me that they were nuts. They are "heat sinks" that alter weather patterns and pollute the Earth. Now I live in rural Indiana, in a county where most of the farmland is still small-farmer controlled and there isn't even a "city." The county seat is an agriculture-based Town. Corn and beans rule as does the corrupt Farm Bureau. Most farmers are now planting GM corn and beans with massive nitrogen fertilizer and pesticide/herbicide inputs. A serious local issue is the desire of some guy from German who wants to do a concentrated cattle feed-lot operation here, who has many local farmers worried because of the resulting pollution. One well-meaning local farmer suggested that the German build a digester that would produce methane that could be used to power the feed-lot. This got me to thinking, WHY AREN'T WE DOING THAT IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES WITH OUR SEWER TREATMENT PLANTS, instead of flushing our toilets into a chemical bath that chlorinates the shit out of our shit, produces no energy, costs us a fortune, and still pollutes our streams and groundwater? Why? Because we have been alienated from the most fundamental relationships we have to our Planet, our excrement. Our entire national wastewater system (with a few local exceptions) is one of the most ENTROPIC aspects of our so-called "civilization" and most of us are complicit here in our long-term self-destruction.
Prince Charles understands this, probably has no investment in the global criminal enterprise that is Monsanto et al (remember Bhopal?!) and despite the depredations of the British Empire what remains of it is probably far better managed than the American Empire.
Meanwhile, almost nobody in this small town actually gardens anymore. This will change. I still do albeit not as large as I used to. I wish I had the nerve to show up at work wearing a kilt! And of course his cane is a far cry from mine...
Cheers, you all.
-30-
don't worry, the way things are going now with the world on the edge of the greatest depression ever in the history of man, no one will be able to buy GM seeds, let alone all the inputs they require in the form of fuel and chemicals.
the money'd elite forget you can't eat paper or gold, but they can still steal what food is left from us with the blackwater mercs.
If you don't already have them you may want to buy your seeds now for next years garden. The collapsing economy will result in a run on the seed stores too.
The city that I live in will be the last to get their heads out of their ass. We are in a drought situation in California. The Governor has declared an alert. However, our city still insists that we water our lawns to keep them green. If I have to water the lawn, so be it.
Shhhhhh…….therefore, I started sowing birdseed and not grass seeds. It has brought on the squirrels and I love it. It is my contribution to nature. All of a sudden, I am now getting doves. I haven’t seen doves in years. I had a blue jay come to my front door demanding that I come out and give him something. I get to hear all kinds of birds singing out front. That is my reward.
Yes, I know I looked into prairie grasses; however, you have to let grasses grow tall and not mow them every five minutes. The city doesn’t understand the “natural” look.
I would like to have some chickens. However, I know if I call city hall to see what the restrictions are, they will start watching me. Ya think I am paranoid. Maybe…..
I think we will all have to turn our backyards into barnyards. I think it will be the best use of our resources. I have started herbs in my kitchen and it is working out well.
I think His Majesty is a totally misunderstood man. Some people get stuck with their station in life.
Please do not bring Diana into this. I cried no tears for Diana. She was one dumb woman. She had it all and threw it away with her immaturity. No matter what Charles did, she could have cultivated a respectful relationship with the Queen. I know I sure would have.
What is it about some women that they think they HAVE to HAVE a man hanging on them 24/7 or they will shrivel up and die? I have friends like this and they are the most ridiculous of creatures.
So your take on the article is that it warrants an attack on someone who's been dead for more than a decade. If you didn't want Diana mentioned then why did you do so?
q