Let them eat profiteroles
Charles is misusing his wealth and status again, taking advantage of his privileged position to lay down the law on subjects he knows nothing about.
Des Turner, a Labour MP and member of the Commons science committee, said: “Prince Charles has got a way of getting things absolutely wrong.
It’s an entirely Luddite attitude to simply reject them out of hand. In some developing countries where for instance there is a problem with drought or salinity, if you can develop salt or drought-resistant crops there are great benefits.”
Oh well you see that would require thinking about specifics, and Charles doesn’t want to do that, he just wants to use his unearned unmerited authority to make sweeping unsupported evidence-free Grand Statements. He should subscribe to the WMST list, he’d feel right at home.
In a statement setting the Prince against politicians who believe GM foods will be crucial to feeding under-nourished populations in the developing world, he said: “What we should be talking about is food security, not food production – that is what matters and that is what people will not understand.”
Horrible man. ‘What people will not understand’ indeed – spoken like a true royal. He has no expertise in this subject, he’s not a trained agronomist or economist or biologist, he’s not a scientist of any kind, yet he thinks he’s perfectly qualified to tell the world what ‘people’ obstinately ‘will not understand’ no matter how many times he orders them to. What we should be talking about is not food production – no matter how many people starve while Charles cuddles his fantasies about small farms and bijou apples.
Phil Willis, a Liberal Democrat MP and the chairman of the Commons science committee, said the Prince’s “lack of scientific understanding” would “condemn millions of people to starvation in areas like sub-Saharan Africa. The reality is that without the development of science in farming, we would not be able to feed a tenth of the world population, which will exceed nine billion by 2050.”
Yes but you see that’s specifics again and Charles is your grand generalization man. He wears expensive suits, he must be right.
Ian Gibson, a Labour MP and former lecturer in Biology, said: “Prince Charles should stick to his royal role rather than spout off about something which he has clearly got wrong.”
Trouble is, Charles thinks he’s a powerful thinker, and he acts on that mistaken view.
Mark Henderson does a good job of saying how Charles gets it all wrong.
I dont think he gets it all wrong at all. I spent some time looking up his points regards India and well…he has a point. And if the GM situation is to be run by one multi he also has a point. Especially it is Monsanto. Jesus. Added to which even they make it clear GM will not solve world hunger crises. Not by a long shot.
“And if the GM situation is to be run by one multi he also has a point.”
Why would “the GM situation” be “run by one multi?”
You might as well have said “if we’re going to put anthrax in our food then it might not be such a good idea to eat it.” The antecedent is so preposterous that it really doesn’t matter what the consequent is.
I’ve never heard anyone argue against the research or production of pharmaceuticals on the basis that drug companies often act unethically.
And the point is not that GM will ‘solve the world hunger crisis’ of course, but that rejecting it in its entirety would make it a great deal worse. The point is that Charles is being childishly one-eyed: focusing on what he takes to be the danger of GM while entirely ignoring the danger of no GM.
His ‘thinking’ is much the same with alternative medicine. He’s criminally irresponsible.
Well, if the House of Windsor ever did anything good for the world, it’s that it’s irreversibly linked monarchism with buffoonery.
O.B Isnt criminally irresponsible a bit strong? it may be horse manure but its only his opinion.
Not to pick on you, Richard, but I absolutely loathe this “Well, he’s just as entitled to his opinion as you and me” sort of defense that comes up every time someone criticizes Prince Charles (or any other celebrity spouting off about things they know nothing about).
Sure, everyone’s entitled to an opinion, but “free speech” doesn’t mean “consequence-free speech” or “responsibility-free speech.” You can say whatever you want, but you can and should also be held accountable by other people for what you say. And some people SHOULD be more accountable than others – because what they say has more impact than others.
Charles is the bloody Prince of England, and for some reason that remains utterly transparent to me, many people still listen to inbred twits – er, that is, royalty. Charles ought to trouble himself to actually learn something before he makes official public statements because whenever he opens his festering gob, every news outlet in the UK and many news outlets abroad will take his pronouncements as worth repeating to the public. Yes, the damage is somewhat mitigated by editors’ and journalists’ lazy habits of including a few quotes of dissenting opinion – but the problem is, the he said/she said approach to “balance” gives false weightiness to Charles’ meritless, baseless opinions grounded in absolute ignorance.
When der Popenfuhrer decries the evil of condoms, people listen – and they die. The Catholic Church and its leader bear a significant share of moral responsibility for those deaths. Charles – thankfully – doesn’t have quite as many people hanging on his every word as the medieval-minded old fart under the tall silly hat, and considerably less actual wealth and political power, but he too bears responsibility for the likely consequences of his words. And what are those consequences? In an ongoing policy debate, Prince Chuckles has just unthinkingly, ignorantly, and foolishly thrown his political weight behind anti-GM agricultural policies that will kill people by starvation just as surely as avoiding condom use kills people by disease. Prince Charles’ political weight may be an accident of birth, and made much weightier than it should be by a lazy media which is all-too-eager to feed the ignorant public’s willingness to embrace ginned up anti-science paranoia if it gets a few more readers/viewers and advertising revenue – but he still bears responsibility for how he throws that weight around, and the consequences which follow from it.
Is he literally “criminally irresponsible,” as in accountable under the law? Of course not. But is his irresponsibility “criminal” in the sense of being a crime against decency and humanity and good sense? You betcha. He has more power over public opinion – and consequently more power over public policy and over other people’s lives – than most people have, and power comes with responsibility. Charles loves the power – he’s just so obviously thrilled that people listen to him and that he can advocate for his pet causes – but he consistently falls down on the responsibility: He doesn’t think, he doesn’t learn, he doesn’t question his assumptions, and so he uses his power irresponsibly.
Gosh, I’d hate it if someone like that had REAL political power, especially in MY country… Oh, right. Nevermind. I’ll just go cry myself to sleep now.
I dont disagree with most of what you say G. but I think you overestimate the weight people give to our beloved future kings opinion,most people (here at least) tend to regard Charles as a kind of Berty Wooster type figure with oddball ideas and pay little attention to him.
Criticism of HRH may be valid, but is it sound? He’s not a scientist, true, but, unless one can prove beyond doubt that corporations and politicians are not liars (and we don’t know which are and which aren’t, and which just lie now and again, so therefore need to ask: are they lying now, at this moment, on this issue?), one doesn’t have a satisfying argument. Ah, but scientists are . . . Yes, they’re clever people, but you then have to ask, always: cui bono? I don’t trust anyone and I am not a scientist, therefore I can have no opinion. I do know that we evolved with, for want of a better phrase, natural foods, i.e. those that are fed on wholesome muck. The foods evolved; we evolved. That does not mean to say that something deemed “unnatural” will harm us: it merely means we should be very careful and always, always ask, “Who benefits?” No argument is secure without an answer to that question.
“And the point is not that GM will ‘solve the world hunger crisis’ of course,”
No, the point is it might help but that that requires leaving science – whether funded by multi’s or not – do its job – & that’s exactly what the anti-GM lobby won’t have – the openness for a nuanced point of view & progress in the matter.
“Whot? Nuance, you say? Food security I say.” sums up the argument nicely.
Obviously one needs to be careful, it’s a great force to tinker with, evolution that is, but who says they aren’t?
The irony is that the ‘one should leave nature untinkered with’-argument is not used in another ‘pet’ subject of celebs ie threatened species, as if preserving species that are evolutionarily extinct is not tinkering with evolution.
There is a difference between “question everything” and “trust no-one”, Andy. This is why when you are sick, you go and see a doctor instead of researching your symptoms on the Internet and self-medicating. The doctor “benefits” from this behaviour, of course, as do the pharmaceutical companies.
As for “natural food”, well, I can’t begin to say how silly I find this concept. Most food we eat isn’t “natural” and has been tampered with over thousands of years. Apples? Not natural. Most meats apart from game? Not natural? Bananas? The things are not even able to reproduce by themselves! And don’t get me started about potatoes!
In a lot of ways, these GM crops, which often have been tinkered with to reduce their dependency on chemical pesticides, are more “natural” and “pure” that what you’ll find in your average supermarket trolley. We do not assimilate our food’s DNA when we eat, after all. So you can put your fears of human/soybean mutants to rest, Andy.
Monoculture and monopoly are dangerous failure points for something as important as food.
I agree that intelligent critisicm is needed and that Charles ain’t it.
Why would “the GM situation” be “run by one multi?”
Are you serious?
GM is a multi billion pound set up run by pretty much ONE organisation. Monsanto.
And anyone with any interest in this subject would have at least researched this organisation and know they are far worthier or criticism and ripping to pieces than Prince Charles.
Surely the better focus of any discussion is that Prince Charles has raised a useful discussion point on multi nationals and the set up behind GM production and to actually look at the set up?
His personal feelings about organic (and why not, it’s a worthy enough thing to promote these erstwhile small holders) aside.
The issue here is that it is Prince Charles who raised and so we must of course all …sneer.
“The point is that Charles is being childishly one-eyed: focusing on what he takes to be the danger of GM while entirely ignoring the danger of no GM”.
No that is the point you wish to create but it isn’t the point overall. This is the first time we have heard any noteworthy and prominent objections raised against multis and their practises in this field. It’s a pity the points he raised were not even scrutinised in the puerile rush to write him off.
eg it’s a pity the discussion stopped at slamming Prince Charles straight up whilst the likes of Monsanto can do no wrong then. Why? because it’s “all hail GM” – ergo end of discussion? C’mon people.
People have a right to hear all the discussions around the subject regards the food that lands on their table. As do those in the third world stripping land bare to provide the West’s animal feed.
“Horrible man”
How frikkin’ childish an argument is that. As if this one man’s opinion will go anyway to stopping the halt of progress and science. Much less in the face of big business politicised multi nationals?
At the very least his only points about water levels are in fact true. As are the facts that many in India are reverting to organic farming for a reason. And hey guess what..it’s not because Prince Charles told them to.
It’s certainly not “all hail GM”, at least not in Europe where the great majority are opposed to GM foods and where products containing GM organisms usually have to be labeled as such.
As for Indian farmers “reverting” (and that term is pure BS by the way: what they were doing before wasn’t “organic farming”, it was farming the only way they knew how. And for a lot of them it was mainly called “periodic starvation”) I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that these are not subsidence farmers but providers for the new Indian middle classes and the export markets in the West.
Look, I am all for organic produces, which may surprise you. I try as much as possible to buy organic and local myself, mainly because such products tend to come from smaller farmers and to be of higher quality (it’s a question of pride taken in what you do, not really of organic methods). But here is the catch: I can afford to. Most families in the developing world can’t. And Chuck has no inkling of what it means to be one meal from starvation.
Nice (as in nuanced) point, Arnaud, about the difference between questioning everything and trusting no one. So nuanced I can’t see it. Questioning is a form of not trusting, or putting one’s trust on hold till the evidence is in. I certainly don’t trust people who stand to make millions of dollars, such as Monsanto. HRH has got his dosh. Even if he’s misguided, at least we know he doesn’t have an interest financially in knocking GM.
As for G Tingey’s point about tools such as knives and explosives, well one of the arguments about GM crops is that they spread themselves. Knives and explosives, while they can be abused, remain where they are. The wind won’t take them from one grower’s field to another. If I were growing organically as my livelihood (we do grow stuff on our smallholding here in Wales, but only on a garden scale at the moment, and not for sale), I wouldn’t want Fred Bloggs’s GM stuff contaminating my stuff, rendering it unacceptable to Soil Association standards. It would be up to Bloggs to keep his stuff in his own fields, which, of course, he wouldn’t be able to, short of growing everything indoors. Nonetheless, the onus is on him, not on me.
I suspect there are going to be good and bad in all of this: some GM stuff, grown with A and in B, will not do any harm, in any way, to anyone; another type, grown with P and in Q, will; and there will be variants in between.
If land were used for growing sustainable crops for food instead of for money (as with the error over biofuels, which have come in for a lot of criticism), we might get somewhere. While people have money as their motive, they can’t be trusted.
As I said earlier, scientists are clever – cleverer than I – but who’s paying them? Give me a scientist who is totally, absolutely, provably independent and I’ll listen.
But what I might call the “humanist movement” will always throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to science, as if science were the new god, the answer to everything. It isn’t, and it’s all too manipulable by money interests who give not one flying fuck about a finely balanced, interconnected ecosystem that is rapidly becoming so unbalanced that weird things are happening with our weather and God knows what else.
“under the tall silly hat”
G: Entschuldigung! Erm, do you mean “the tall silly “ermine” (Mustela erminea) hat?” No offence – of course, to the short-tailed weasel.
“The Prince is quite correct to regard modern agriculture as unnatural, but the same is true of every system of agriculture that has been tried — including his beloved organic method”.
Yep, the amount of chemical pesticides, which, by farmers, are intermittently sprayed on land – in order to secure good yields at harvest time – is absolutely mind-boggling. The expense of the sprays are so astronomically exorbitant and can be enough, sometimes to even put farmers in the red.
A few days ago – Irish ‘malting barley’ farmers protested outside Dublin’s main Guinness’s brewery. It was concerning the 20% decrease – (from last year) in payments they were receiving from the company for their crops. One protester put it succinctly (to the media) “for every pint of guinness the farmer receives (a paltry) one cent.
So unnatural!
“This is the first time we have heard any noteworthy and prominent objections raised against multis and their practises in this field.”
Uh…no.
Richard, what G said. No I don’t think it’s a bit too strong. It’s not ‘just his opinion’ because – obviously – he can get his opinion into the mass media any time he wants to, which is not the case for other people, even for scientists who actually know something about the subject. You don’t know and you can’t just assume that everyone simply shrugs him off; access to the mass media is hugely powerful (that’s why advertisers and PR firms spend vast sums of money to buy it) and Charles should use his unearned merit-free privilege with much much more care than he does. There is a terrible callous mindless arrogance in the way he lays down the law on life and death technical subjects in which he has no training.
“But what I might call the “humanist movement” will always throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to science, as if science were the new god, the answer to everything. It isn’t”
What method of knowledge acquisition do you propose as an alternative? Propitiating Mother Gaia with sacrifices?
“This is the first time we have heard any noteworthy and prominent objections raised against multis and their practises in this field.”
The fact that Alison considers them noteworthy and prominent belies Richard’s portrayal of Charles as a harmless bumbler anyway.
Andy, I will use another example (since you didn’t consider my earlier one worth replying; but maybe you don’t trust your GP): global warming. I personally have no training in climatology and as a result I have to trust the scientists who tell us that GW is real and caused by human activity. Frankly the science involved is way over my head and I am also being told that there is a slight controversy on that issue.
So yes, we should question everything. Can we? Fuck no, the time of Pico della Mirandola is well past. We have no choice but to give a degree of trust to the people who have made their life’s work to study such issues. If there is a global scientific consensus on an issue (as there is about AGW) I’d find it a bit of a waste of time to spend years of research myself before modifying my behaviour accordingly. The same way I’d probably die of cancer before I had a chance to become a competent oncologist.
And that is the problem with Charles. The guy has the voice but he doesn’t have the expertise. The only thing you can find in his favour is that he doesn’t “have an interest financially in knocking GM”. That seems a bit weak, especially if like me you consider that claim false (He makes millions out of his “Duchy Original” organic brand of products after all).
Oh dzd, it’s the old “science is just another religion” trick. I have given up arguing with that…
“GM is a multi billion pound set up run by pretty much ONE organisation. Monsanto.”
So I can only assume that you support public funding for universities who want to research GM too.
OB and G – I totally agree with your opinions. Charles has a habit of talking about things he has no idea about. What makes me sick is the amount of apologists for him. When people agree with him it makes him think he is Isaac Newton. He is the only person in history to get into Uni with 2 dodgy A levels and a letter from his mum.
“People have a right to hear all the discussions around the subject regarding the food that lands on their table.”
Aye, they do alright!
People, in general, are by no one told (officially) about all the sprays and chemicals that are unendingly used on crops to boost them – before they ultimately arrive on their tables.
Law, also, allows the source only, of the crops to be by shopkeepers, etc made known to the public.
People are not either by relevant authorities told that farmers grow crops – which will at length end up on EU Mountain heaps, instead of being by the EU given to third world countries.
Farmers, too, by the EU are, by way of once yearly payments, akin to dole money forced to become caretakers only, of their land.
The big multi’s rule! It is disgraceful!
“People, in general, are by no one told (officially) about all the sprays and chemicals that are unendingly used on crops to boost them – before they ultimately arrive on their tables.”
It’s interesting you should mention this, becasue GMOs are actually better on that front than “traditionally” grown crops. Fewer fertilizers and pesticides are required, and it’s better for the ecosystem as a whole.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93310225
People’s right to hear the discussions is a red herring; there are plenty of critics of GM crops: Charles has no right to be one of them. As a royal, he has a negative right, a minus right.
As an American, can I just say how refreshing it is to witness one form of idiotic over-reverence for political authority figures that our country does not possess?
>As an American, can I just say how refreshing it is to witness one form of idiotic over-reverence for political authority figures that our country does not possess?< Over-reverence? Where would that be? Here are the responses in just the papers that Ophelia linked to: Times: “Prince Charles should keep his GM ideas to himself.”
“What is it with the Prince of Wales? He seems physically incapable of keeping his mouth shut.”
Daily Telegraph: “Prince Charles has been described as a ‘Luddite’ for his warning that genetically modified crops could cause an environmental disaster.”
“Phil Willis, a Liberal Democrat MP and the chairman of the Commons science committee, said the Prince’s ‘lack of scientific understanding’ would ‘condemn millions of people to starvation in areas like sub-Saharan Africa’.”
London Evening Standard: “Sorry, Your Highness, but science just isn’t your field.”
For another example of someone who doesn’t know what he’s talking about using his media profile to promote his nonsensical ideas, may I recommend Peter Tatchell’s latest?
Dzd quotes me as saying: “But what I might call the ‘humanist movement’ will always throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to science, as if science were the new god, the answer to everything. It isn’t” Then s/he says, “What method of knowledge acquisition do you propose as an alternative? Propitiating Mother Gaia with sacrifices?”
Oh, come on! We use science, of course, but we question it; we don’t automatically assume it’s right; we keep in mind that it’s a work in progress and always will be, since as human beings we will never, ever know it all; we proceed with caution.
As for Gaia, it’s not a bad model to help us to deal with things, just as many other scientific models are useful, too. Treated as a model, Gaia is useful, and makes us think of the planet as something interconnected, which it has to be, because that’s the way it evolved. And, yes, the Earth evolved, too, in the multifarious facets of its being, of what it is, and of course we evolved with it, as part of it, not as something independent of it. That is just fact. Facts that science tries to understand. So it’s science. And we must take the best that science can offer, but, as I say, proceed with caution.
And, no, we don’t need to make sacrifices to her/it (what a fatuous, ridiculous, brainless thing to say!). We just need treat her/it with respect, as you’d treat your fellow human beings with respect or even a machine with respect or anything else you rely on for benefit or even livelihood or even life itself. We haven’t treated the planet with respect so far. That’s why there’s a green movement. For all its faults, there wouldn’t have been a perceived need for it had we not fucked with the planet.
So, whatever the merits and demerits of GM, we seem here to have gone beyond that into a more general argument about how we treat our home. We treat it like shit at the moment. It’s about time we had a rethink and stopped arrogantly assuming that it’s ours alone, that we own it in some way only a died-in-the-wool capitalist would understand, and that it doesn’t belong to other species we share it with, and which, in turn, we rely on in symbiotic coexistence. That’s science, mate, not cuddly-wuddly, tree-hugging, hippie, pinko, poofy, touchy-feely nonsense. It’s fucking science. Get used to it.
But OB’s post wasn’t about the merits or demerits of GM and certainly not about the respect accorded to our planet. It was about Charles and his (lack of) credentials in the field. I am sure he is a fantastic guy and great at the waving and asking people how long they have been a carpenter or a plumber but he has no authority when it comes to biology or ecology.
You say it’s science, Andy, (and it is, I agree) so why trotting out the old sod every time? Show us a scientist instead, show us reliable studies about the risks of GM organisms, tell us that there a genuine scientific debate on the matter. All I hear from Charles (and you in this thread) are endless generalities.
Andy Armitage:
>..a more general argument about how we treat our home. We treat it like shit at the moment. It’s about time we had a rethink and stopped arrogantly assuming that it’s ours alone, that we own it in some way only a died-in-the-wool capitalist would understand…< “…*only* a died-in-the-wool capitalist would understand”? I see. So the non-capitalistic USSR wasn’t guilty of producing some of the most polluted areas on the planet? Oh, but maybe the USSR was “state capitalist”? Or was it a “degenerated workers state”? Answers only from genuine experts, namely old-time Trotskyists, please.
Andy, your mindset is that of the conspiracy theorist. Apparently you see capitalists behind every tree, no doubt with axes poised to cut them down, and therefore there must be something wrong wtih GMO technology.
We got ourselves into a hole because of our poor understanding of earth science. Only more science is going to get us out, not ideology and histrionic ravings about the evils of economic systems you don’t care for.
Allen Esterson: Thank you, those headlines are reassuring from a rational viewpoint (if less comforting from a purely American pov). I had been operating on the assumption that Prince Charles made those comments because a sufficient number of people were interested in them, and the only reason they would be is because he’s the prince.
Andy, Andy… (Sigh…) You were doing so well.
OK, there is NO controversy when it comes to the HIV causing AIDS “theory”. We are talking major kook territory here, even worse than the anti-MMR crowd. We are talking cognitive dysfunction on a par with holocaust deniers. We are talking crooks selling vitamin C supplements to AIDS sufferers and telling them they need no other treatments. We are WAY past sanity.
Remember what I said earlier about trust? That is the crux of the problem. I love the fact that you don’t trust doctors, you don’t trust immunologists or epidemiologists but when it comes to things that are that important you trust people who have no scientific training whatsoever like the chinless wonder of Wales or the South African president. People like you are the reason why we have celebrity endorsements of presidential candidates. I blame you for Kerry Katona and Paris Hilton…
If the opposition to GM is of the same caliber, I am afraid there isn’t much to talk about…
See http://holfordwatch.info/2008/08/20/the-elmhurst-epidemic-classic-example-of-the-cultural-and-scientific-clash-between-cam-and-medicine/#more-1107 for a story including how “scepticism” of “Big Pharma” leads to great stupidity.
(I’ve put scepticism in scare quotes because frequently, as in this case, it just means pig-headed refusal to believe anything from a particular source together with the making of claims about that source that are completely without supporting evidence.)