seeds of disaster - needs repeating - send to any list you like

[Guest guest]

Dear Sorcy,

That is such a GOOD article from the Prince of Wales. He is, actually. a

Herbalist and grows herbs in

profusion. Many species and is totally Organic..Thank you for posting

it...................Love Penny (hoisting

the English Flag ,singing " Rule Britannia " and saying Herbs not 'erbs...<grin>)

 

" Krupa, Gabrielle Ms " wrote:

 

> Seeds of Disaster

> An article by The Prince of Wales

> The Daily Telegraph, June 8, 1998

>

> Summary

> HRH the Prince of Wales, who farms organically, says the genetic

> modification of crops is taking mankind into realms that belong to God, and

> God alone.

>

> I have always believed that agriculture should proceed in harmony with

> nature, recognising that there are natural limits to our ambitions. That is

> why, some 12 years ago, I decided to farm organically - without artificial

> pesticides or fertilisers. From my own experience I am clear that the

> organic system can be economically viable, that it provides a wide range of

> environmental and social benefits, and, most importantly, that it enables

> consumers to make a choice about the food they eat.

>

> But at a time when sales of organic food are soaring, a development in

> intensive agriculture is actually removing a fundamental choice about the

> food we eat, and raising crucial questions about the future of our food and

> of our environment which are still to be answered. Genetically modified

> (GM) crops are presented as an essentially straightforward development that

> will increase yields through techniques which are merely an extension of

> traditional methods of plant breeding. I am afraid I cannot accept this.

>

> The fundamental difference between traditional and genetically modified

> plant breeding is that, in the latter, genetic material from one species of

> plant, bacteria, virus, animal or fish is literally inserted into another

> species, with which they could never naturally breed. The use of these

> techniques raises, it seems to me, crucial ethical and practical

> considerations.

>

> I happen to believe that this kind of genetic modification takes mankind

> into realms that belong to God, and to God alone. Apart from certain highly

> beneficial and specific medical applications, do we have the right to

> experiment with, and commercialise, the building blocks of life? We live in

> an age of rights - it seems to me that it is time our Creator had some

> rights too.

>

> We simply do not know the long-term consequences for human health and the

> wider environment of releasing plants bred in this way. We are assured that

> these new plants are vigorously tested and regulated, but the evaluation

> procedure seems to presume that unless a GM crop can be shown to be unsafe,

> there is no reason to stop its use. The lesson of BSE and other entirely

> man-made disasters in the cause of 'cheap food' is surely that it is the

> unforeseen consequences which present the greatest cause for concern.

>

> We are told that GM crops will require less use of agro-chemicals. Even if

> this is true, it is certainly not the whole story. What it fails to take

> into account is the total ecological and social impact of the farming

> system. For example, most of the GM plants marketed so far contain genes

> from bacteria which make them resistant to a broad spectrum weedkiller

> available from the same manufacturer. When the crop is sprayed with this

> weedkiller, every other plant in the field is killed. The result is an

> essentially sterile field, providing neither food nor habitat for wildlife.

> These GM crop plants are capable of interbreeding with their wild

> relatives, creating new weeds with built-in resistance to the weedkiller,

> and of contaminating other crops. Modified genes from a crop of GM rape

> were found to have spread into a conventional crop more than a mile away.

> The result is that both conventional and organic crops are under threat,

> and the threat is one-way.

>

> GM crop plants are also being developed to produce their own pesticide.

> This is predicted to cause the rapid appearance of resistant insects. Worse

> still, such pesticide-producing plants have already been shown to kill some

> beneficial predator insects as well as pests. To give just two examples,

> inserting a gene from a snowdrop into a potato made the potato resistant to

> greenfly, but also killed the ladybirds feeding on the greenfly. And

> lacewings, a natural predator of the corn borer and food for farmland

> birds, died when fed on pest insects raised on GM maize.

>

> Despite the vast acreages which are likely to be involved, there is no

> official requirement to monitor genetically modified commercial crops to

> see exactly what is happening. Think of the agricultural disasters of the

> past which have stemmed from over-reliance on a single variety of a crop,

> yet this is exactly what genetic modification will encourage. It is

> entirely possible that within ten years virtually all of the world's

> production of staple crops, such as soya, maize, wheat and rice, will be

> from a few GM varieties, unless consumer pressure dictates otherwise.

>

> English Nature and other official bodies have sounded warnings about the

> potentially damaging consequences for the environment of introducing GM

> crops on a wide scale. They have called for a moratorium on the use of at

> least one of these crops.

>

> Once genetic material has been released into the environment it cannot be

> recalled. The likelihood of a major problem may, as some people suggest, be

> slight, but if something does go badly wrong we will be faced with the

> problem of clearing up a kind of pollution which is self-perpetuating. I am

> not convinced that anyone has the first idea of how this could be done, or

> indeed who would have to pay.

>

> We are also told that GM techniques will help to 'feed the world'. This is

> a fundamental concern to all of us. But will the companies controlling

> these techniques ever be able to achieve what they would regard as a

> sufficient return from selling their products to the world's poorest

> people? Nor do I believe that the basic problem is always so simple. Where

> the problem is lack of food, rather than lack of money to buy food, there

> may be better ways of achieving the same ends. Recent research has shown,

> for example, that yields from some traditional farming systems can be

> doubled, and even trebled, through techniques that conserve natural

> resources while making the best use of labour and management skills.

>

> Do we need to use GM techniques at all? Technology has brought massive

> benefits to mankind, but there is a danger, especially in areas as

> sensitive as food, health and the long-term future of our environment, in

> putting all our efforts into establishing what is technically possible

> without first stopping to ask whether this is something we should be doing.

> I believe we should stop and ask that question, through a wide public

> debate of the issues of principle which cannot be addressed effectively

> through science and regulation alone. Is it not better to examine first

> what we actually want from agriculture in terms of food supply and

> security, rural employment, environmental protection and landscape, before

> we go on to look at the part genetic modification might, perhaps, play in

> achieving those aims?

>

> Obviously, we all have to make up our own minds about these important

> issues. I personally have no wish to eat anything produced by genetic

> modification, nor do I knowingly offer this sort of produce to my family or

> guests. There is increasing evidence that a great many people feel the same

> way. But if this is becoming a widely-held view, we cannot put our

> principles into practice until there is effective segregation of

> genetically modified products, backed by a comprehensive labelling scheme

> based on progress through the food chain.

>

> Arguments that this is either impossible or irrelevant are simply not

> credible. When consumers can make an informed choice about whether or not

> they eat products containing genetically modified ingredients they will be

> able to send a direct and unmistakable message about their preferences. I

> hope that manufacturers, retailers and regulators will be ready to take on

> the responsibility to ensure that this can happen.

>

> Source: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/speeches/agriculture_08061998.html

>

>

> i