Prince Charles warns GM crops risk causing the biggest-ever environmental disaster

In what seems to me an unlikely degree of awareness and candor, Prince Charles recently came out with a scathing assessment of the impact that genetically modified crops could have on the earth, the environment, and how we approach food shortages in developing nations.

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.

telegraph + video interview

Phil Woolas, UK's environment minister and other ministers in what imo is an astonishly short sited and irresponsible response disagreed:

The Prince told The Daily Telegraph last week that future reliance on corporations to mass-produce food would drive millions of farmers off their land.

Ministers were privately furious about the attack, which they believe risks becoming a constitutional crisis. One Labour source said the Prince had “overstepped the mark”.

Mr Woolas said: “I’m grateful to Prince Charles for raising the issue. He raises some very important doubts that are held by many people. But government ministers have a responsibility to base policy on science and I do strongly believe that we have a moral responsibility to the developing world to ask the question: can GM crops help?
“It’s easy for those of us with plentiful food supplies to ignore the issue, but we have a responsibility to use science to help the less well off where we can. I’m asking to see the evidence. If it has been a disaster, then please provide the evidence.”
telegraph

All this is happening as there is a push to plant GM trees throughout the UK.

Scientists have applied to plant genetically modified trees in Britain despite fears that they will damage native wildlife, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.

Supporters of GM trees say the technology can also be used to help protect Britain's forests from disease

They have asked the Forestry Commission for permission to put GM trees on its land for an international study into biofuels. But environmental campaigners have pledged to fight the scheme.
telegraph

This comes on the heels of the UN refusing to ban planting of genetically modified trees in the wild:

Campaigners have said they will fight a UN decision that could see plantations of genetically modified trees grown in the wild.

The 150 countries that are members of the Convention on Biological Diversity - the leading international agreement for ecological governance - refused to ban the controversial trees during their conference in Bonn, Germany.
telegraph

There's a great follow up article: Why Prince Charles is right: we need GM free food and agriculture for food security which tackles some of the consequences of GM crops in India. Specifically Monsanto GM cotton and it's effect on suicides rates in rural India.

There's a really neat Q and A on Wales Online called "Behind the headlines: GM food" on the topic.

It's actually worth reading. It gives a good explanation and status report on where the UK and the US are in regards to GM foods.

[edit on 8/27/2008 by schrodingers dog]

I also wanted to include this link to New Scientist

It is a whole section of their website, continuously updated, dedicated to Genetically Modified crops and organisms. A very comprehensive and invaluable resource.

Well, he's right of course, GM foods are a huge threat to our wellbeing and prosperity. Not as a blanket rule, but there seems to be an agenda behind them. Some degree of genetic modification might be acceptable, but even that isn't really needed as we already modify the genetics naturally with selection. It's how we turned wolves to corgis.

Prince Charles talking about this makes me think of Bart Simpson saying "I didn't do it!" I think he's just glueing himself to what he knows will be the popular opinion, hoping nobody realises his bloodline is one of the most responsible for the status quo in the world today.

reply to post by Zepherian


Are we making a royal inbreeding reference on a serious thread about genetics?

My opinion is that we're opening a huge Pandora's box of unintended consequences with GM organisms.

I don't really know what "we" are doing here, but yes, I did make a royal inbreeding reference

I'm serious, we are still living in the British empire, except it's being ruled by Germans.

European royalty never made sense, trust me.

reply to post by Zepherian


And how does this help us with the trees?

Unless the royals, Austro-Hungarian or other, did something to the trees.

Well, my take on the big picture, that mother conspiracy if you will, is that a bunch of old money lunatics control way too much for their own, and our own, good. And in their powerlust they come up with a lot of nefarious and quite frankly insane programs to, as Brain said to pink, try and rule the wooooorld.

These folks control corporations, and corporations are responsible for GMO's and also for deflorestation and the lions share of pollution, both directly and because they own and suppress the patents that would help us go green.

In my honest opinion, if you solve the elitist sociopath insanity, allowing the common man to function without insane social pressures, things will get better. And nature, if it is not under attack by these morons, would snap back into it's default lush state within 5-10 years.

Originally posted by Zepherian
In my honest opinion, if you solve the elitist sociopath insanity, allowing the common man to function without insane social pressures, things will get better. And nature, if it is not under attack by these morons, would snap back into it's default lush state within 5-10 years.

The problem with this is, if because of the lack of a ban, this things could get planted on a large scale. Especially in places like Brazil where they try to battle deforestation and have a huge need for bio-fuels. Once these things are planted, no one seems to know the long term effect on the environment. A recipe for disaster if you ask me.

It all depends on two things: the degree at which they interact with classical crops, and the degree at which they will be farmed. If they don't interact and won't be farmed we don't have a problem. If they replace natural crops phasing them out as people farm mostly GMO's we have lost food independence and will be eating literally toxic foodstuffs which will turn most of humanity into subhumans. So yeah, there is potentially a huge issue.

If we take control of our democracies and legislate correctly we can focus the atention on the companies and control them, up to the point of activating suicide genes in GMO's if we have to.

So it's not necesserily doom and gloom, but there is that possibility.

We need to opt out of the elite controlled corporate economy, it's that simple. We need to go back to smaller companies that function locally so that money stays in the community and the quality of the goods is something people can be held directly accountable for without corporate liability shields. This will work against GMO's and other areas where we are being hurt, like the pharmacological industry.

One more thing on Brazil and biofuels, they don't need GMO's, they have sugarcane and could also use things like Hemp. They get 2 to 3 crops a year, if they are smart and not tied to corporate bullcrap they can get more than enough fuel for their needs out of a fraction of their arable land. Brazil could potentially be the richest per capita country on the globe, it's agriculture, the most important sector regardless of what economist morons say, is really that powerfull. And this is leaving Amazonia pretty much alone, the land under amazonia is relatively unfertile and they have much better land in the east and in south west of the country, as well as copious amounts of fresh water, as long as weather modification dosen't hit the Andes.

Originally posted by Zepherian
It all depends on two things: the degree at which they interact with classical crops, and the degree at which they will be farmed. If they don't interact and won't be farmed we don't have a problem. If they replace natural crops phasing them out as people farm mostly GMO's we have lost food independence and will be eating literally toxic foodstuffs which will turn most of humanity into subhumans. So yeah, there is potentially a huge issue.

My understanding is that the boat has sailed on this. Monsanto GM Round Up resistant soy is planted all over the US and abroad and I don't know if you read the GM "India" link I included above but the same has happened there.

If we take control of our democracies and legislate correctly we can focus the atention on the companies and control them, up to the point of activating suicide genes in GMO's if we have to.

How do we do that?
You think the solution lies here?

We need to opt out of the elite controlled corporate economy, it's that simple. We need to go back to smaller companies that function locally so that money stays in the community and the quality of the goods is something people can be held directly accountable for without corporate liability shields. This will work against GMO's and other areas where we are being hurt, like the pharmacological industry.

But like I said, this is already happening. My understanding might be flawed, but I think than other than "organic" labeled foods, food companies/farms don't even have to disclose GMOs on their products. And most farmers, including small/medium ones are attracted to the money savings that GM/livestock crops provide. Thus all the incentives are pushing against an uninformed public. And there, imo, lies the true answer to this issue. Education, education, education! And soon before it becomes a runaway process. That's why, in this case, Prince Charles has to be applauded. One of the few people with relative power but above the reach of government has spoken out. We could use a couple of people like that in the states to bring this issue to the forefront of the national consciousness.

GM crops are insane enough, but GM trees? I just dont understand....it seems as though they are trying to destroy life on earth. I am seriously wondering if David Icke is right. No human beings would take a chance on this type of thing on such a wide scale. I mean come on introducing GM trees to the wild is not much of a profitable venture so why would they do it if not to let it all go south?

Are we being taken over being aliens or what? This thing with the trees is making me wonder, I cant imagine human beings taking a chance like that. If those trees take over the ones produced by nature and then fail because of something we do not understand yet all life could be wiped out.

Who would take that chance?

reply to post by LoneGunMan


The tree plan in the UK and across europe is a plan in part and in theory to deal with insects.
Insects which by any common understanding, are part of food chains and are necessary for healthy forests and biodiversity.
I don't know if these people are aliens, I know that clear rational thought and foresight is an alien concept to them. The one thing we do know is that the decision makers are in the pockets of the multinationals. That in itself, makes them uniquely human. Selling out the future for a few bucks is not something I imagine aliens would do.


[edit on 8/28/2008 by schrodingers dog]

While I agree that we should be careful of the effects of GM crops on the environment, you must also realize that many American farmers already use GM crops especially corn, cotton, and soy because they produce so much more than regular crops.

For example, Round-Up ready crops are immune to Round-Up and can sprayed to control weeds. Herbicides can't be applied to regular crops obviously and if the weed problem gets out of control then the harvest will be poor. Poor harvest -> higher prices for consumers as well as producers.

GM crops are simply far superior to regular crops. To be truly organic perhaps we should stop using tractors in farming? Of course billions would starve but we would protect the environment. Sry for the extreme example but you get my point, its hard to argue with success.

I guess we haven't seen "The World According to Monsanto" link to video

Big big difference from GMOs to a tractor.
No tractor has even been held responsible for suicides.

reply to post by RogueX


Look up the documentary "The World According to Monsanto" they did not research and test round up or GM crops to be safe. There is a clip where George Bush Sr. is touring the Monsanto operations and one of the Monsanto people states "we are having a hard time getting this past the EPA" (paraphrased due to memory) and George replies "call my office we are in the deregulation business". This stuff is not safe. It was swept by the EPA and is a monster ready to bite us hard.

If anyone is really interested in GMO's and the international corporation power grab (Food) take a look at my thread at

www.abovetopsecret.com...'


I tracked the whole thing and it is pretty frightening

reply to post by crimvelvet


That's a really well researched and put together OP in your thread. It will take me a while to get my head around it.
But maybe you can give us your take on the OP on this thread.

Originally posted by RogueX
While I agree that we should be careful of the effects of GM crops on the environment, you must also realize that many American farmers already use GM crops especially corn, cotton, and soy because they produce so much more than regular crops.

I've read The Secret Life of Plants, which to me is a crucial book to understand what is really going on here. I challenge that biological agriculture has lower yields. What is happening is agriculture has gone lazy and into corporate and industrialized models, which manage high yields of a certain produce, but at the cost of poisoning the earth with pesticides and reducing the goodness of the foods with GM.
Organic agriculture, done right, produces higher overall yields, as you have multiple crops intertwined with a sistemic agriculture and you also have healthier livestock fed off the biomatter humans don't eat. It's sistemic and far more sophisticated that this crap that passes off as high technology. Add in a one in two thirds area crop rotation and the system is totally renewable, as even the weeds have a place, remineralizig the soil for another two years of good agriculture.
Organic agriculture is more abundant, healthier and more stimulating. What it is not is controllable by central forms of government or even directly taxable, which is why parasitic elites have always targeted the good people of the earth's ability to feed themselves.

Seriously, read The Secret Life of Plants, it is one of the most important books ever written and will change people's outlook to what agriculture, and indeed life, really is. Then they will realise just how big a sin GM can be when it breaks the unwritten rules of nature. Nature will always survive of course, because at a point it is just information in dna and self mutating, so if we destroy one biosphere in 50 million years we will have another likely different one. But we will pay with our species for destroying the biosphere that created us.

And technocratic transhumanism won't save anyone, people are fools if they go down that route.