It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Zepherian
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.
Originally posted by Zepherian
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.
Originally posted by schrodingers dog
I'll give you a little star cause you're funny, but surely this could have been handled via U2U.
Originally posted by schrodingers dog
I knew PC was an environmentalist, but a farmer? Surely not hands on.
Organic and sustainable agriculture
The Prince grows and promotes organic food, although he drew some ridicule when he joked about sometimes talking to his house plants.
In the early 1980s, the Prince moved to the Highgrove country estate in Gloucestershire, and became increasingly interested in organic farming. This culminated in 1990 with the launch of his own organic brand, Duchy Originals, the name of which reflects his title as the Duke of Cornwall. The company sells a range of more than 200 organic and sustainably produced products, from garden furniture to food. All the profits go to The Prince's Charities Foundation, raising £6 million so far. He is also patron of Garden Organic (formerly the Henry Doubleday Research Association), a campaigning UK charity dedicated to promoting organic growing and living.
The Prince regularly meets with farmers to discuss their trade. In Saskatchewan in 2001 the foot-and-mouth epidemic in the UK prevented Charles from visiting farms, however organic farmers came specifically to meet him at the Assiniboia town hall.
He is co-author, with Charles Clover, environment editor of the Daily Telegraph (London), of Highgrove: An Experiment in Organic Gardening and Farming, published by Simon & Schuster in 1993. In 2004, the Prince founded the Mutton Renaissance Campaign, which aims to make mutton more attractive to Britons and hence support British sheep farmers. He also called mutton his favorite dish.
I'm just glad he spoke up. The Telegraph seems to have a hold on this story. Is it been taken seriously in the UK or is flying under the radar?
he Agency supports consumer choice. We recognise that some people will want to choose not to buy or eat GM foods, however carefully they have been assessed for safety.
In the EU, if a food contains or consists of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or contains ingredients produced from GMOs, this must be indicated on the label. For GM products sold 'loose', information must be displayed immediately next to the food to indicate that it is GM.
On 18 April 2004, new rules for GM labelling came into force in all EU Member States. These cover all GM food and animal feed, regardless of the presence of any GM material in the final product.
This means products such as flour, oils and glucose syrups have to be labelled as GM if they are from a GM source. Products produced with GM technology (cheese produced with GM enzymes, for example) do not have to be labelled.
Products such as meat, milk and eggs from animals fed on GM animal feed also don't need labelling.
Any intentional use of GM ingredients at any level must be labelled. But there is no need to label small amounts of approved GM ingredients (below 0.9% for approved GM varieties) that are accidentally present in a food.
Taken from the FSA website
How can I stay GM free?
With GM crops used in products from plastic to pants, buying organic is the best way to avoid them, says Lucy Siegle.
There is a decidedly retro feel to the sheepish return of GM to the UK. Like the transgenic crop version of a back-to-the-Nineties album, we find ourselves transported to the high emotions of a decade ago; Prince Charles kicking off on the radio and people in jumpsuits tearing up GM test sites (this time around a Leeds University potato trial).
Pulling up GM crops is one very literal way of attempting to stay GM free, but it is ill advised. Apart from the criminal-damage issue, this type of direct action plays into the hands of the GM cheerleaders, who like to label any opposition Luddite or unscientific, which it is not. It is impossible to set out all the scientific arguments against GM here (for a summary see Forum for the Future's Five Capitals model, www.forumforthefuture.org/node/4625). Suffice to say, a decade on from the outcry that effectively placed a moratorium on GM in the UK, many reservations remain, including the thorny issue of cross-contamination of non-GM crops.
The most effective way to fight GM as an individual is via your shopping list, as it was last time, when the wholesale rejection of the Flavr Savr tomato (in which the rotting gene had been removed) meant that retailers soon lost their appetite for transgenic wares.
Admittedly, this time it's more difficult. Last year a record 282.3m acres of the world's croplands were planted with GM soya beans, corn, cotton and other core GM crops, and some 90 per cent of conventional animal feed is thought to contain GM maize. This means it's easy to unwittingly support GM, especially through cotton, bioplastics (derived from GM corn) and processed food, meat and dairy. The best defence remains organic (GM ingredients are not permitted under organic standards), and meat and dairy from retailers - notably M&S - that specify GM free.
There is one departure from the Nineties debate: GM advocates are now citing the global food crisis as motivation. Strikingly, the biotech industry seems keen to play this down. As the chairman of Syngenta admitted to the Guardian recently, 'GM won't solve the food crisis, at least not in the short term.'
But then it's not the job of transnational biotech giants to feed the world. Their job is to make money for shareholders - the combined market value of the two big rivals Monsanto and Syngenta now exceeds $100bn. A decade on, the point remains that just as Flavr Savr are not the only tomatoes, GM is not the only system for growing food in the future. In many ways it could be the worst, not least because it thrives on monocultures and threatens the very basis of our ecology.
As physicist and campaigner against the privitisation of the world's croplands Vandana Shiva (www.navdanya.org) puts it: 'In any crisis, uniformity is the worst way to respond; diversity is resilience.' You won't get diversity with GM.
Companies regularly overstate the potential gains of GM by under-reporting average yields in conventional production; activists seize on individual crop failures to propose that the whole technology is corrupt. Meanwhile, academics are partial to the big bucks that industry offers for GM research and development, and governments fear to upset their legions of small farmers.
One side paints a picture of the world's poor being denied a technology that could hugely improve lives; the other side claims industrial agriculture's heavy gun is aimed directly at it. Both are probably wrong.
Here are the ten important unanswered questions posed by the Prince:
1. Do we need GM food in this country?
The Prince: The benefits, such as there are seem to be limited to the people who own the technology and the people who farm on an industrialised scale.
2. Is GM food safe for us to eat?
The Prince: Only independent scientific research, over a long period, can provide the final answer.
3. Why are the final rules for approving GM foods so much less stringent than those for new medicines produced using the same technology?
The Prince: Before drugs are released on to the market they have to undergo the most rigorous testing...Surely it is equally important that [GM foods] will do us no harm.
4. How much do we really know about the environmental consequences of GM crops?
The Prince: Lab tests showing that pollen from GM maize in the United States caused damage to the caterpillars of Monarch butterflies provide the latest cause for concern. More alarmingly, this GM maize is not under test.
5. Is it sensible to plant test crops without strict regulations in place?
The Prince: Such crops are being planted in this country now - under a voluntary code of practice. But English Nature has argued that enforceable regulations should be in place first.
6. How will consumers be able to exercise genuine choice?
The Prince: Labelling schemes clearly have a role to play, but if conventional and organic crops are contaminated by GM crops, people who wish to avoid GM food products will be denied choice.
7. If something goes wrong with a GM crop, who will be held responsible?
The Prince: It is important that we know precisely who is going to be legally liable to pay for any damage - whether it be to human health, the environment or both.
8. Are GM crops really the only way to feed the world's growing population?
The Prince: This arguments sounds suspiciously like emotional blackmail to me.
9. What effect will GM crops have on the people of world's poorest countries?
The Prince: Where people are starving, lack of food is rarely the underlying cause. The need is to create sustainable livelihoods for everyone. Will GM crops really help or will they make the problems worse?
10. What sort of world do we want to live in?
The Prince: Are we going to allow the industrialisation of Life itself, redesigning the natural world for the sake of convenience? Or should we be adopting a gentler, more considered approach, seeking always to work with the grain of nature?