Love him or loath him, Prince Charles has been airing his views again.

He reckons GM crop development risks causing the world's worst environmental disaster and that large-scale food production is going to drive small producers off their farms.

 You can read the story and see a video of Prince Charles making the claims here: http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2008/08/13/111633/video-gm-crops-could-lead-us-to-the-largest-ever-environmental-disaster-prince-charles-has-claimed.html

Perhaps if some worthwhile trials were actually allowed to take place, instead of the eco activists mowing them all down we might be able to answer the question. Although, from what I have seen, working with large scale GM farming in Australia it hasn't caused a huge environmental catastrophe, and isn't a large proportion of the US soya crop GM (i was under the impression it was)? KF - is it causing a major disaster?

Not that I can see.  Of course, I guess the long term effects are still unknown.  You are correct, a huge percent of the US soybean crop is Roundup Ready, so much so that many seed companies now offer either no conventional numbers, or just one or two.  The BBC site has a piece on this.  The comments are always so interestingly biased against Monsanto.  People forget that the real reason GM has come along is not some evil plot by Monsanto to turn the plant kingdom into mutated freaks, or world domination of food supply by Monsanto, the reason GM is here is because the consuming public demands cheap food.  GM traits allow farmers to attack problems cheaper, or at least they did.  But, one thing I am now noticing is the price we are paying for the GM seed+the product is getting awfully high.  There are so few new conventional varieties being developed that there is no competition.  Prince Charles fails to mention that crops like Bt corn reduce the amount of pesticide being used, I think that is a benefit to the environment.  For the record( I think I have mentioned this before) 100% of my corn and soybeans are Roundup ready this year, about half the corn is Bt, 50 or so acres is triple stacked hybrid. 

Also, I can tell you exactly why I was so excited to plant my first RR beans.  Our margins were very tight on crops, very tight.  We have a weed called Johnson grass, in the sorghum family that was originally grown for hay, until those of my great grandpas generation realized you couldn't ever get rid of the stuff(in some areas it is still planted, their weather allows them to kill it off).  The only good herbicides to get it with were Fusilade and Poast.  These don't touch broadleaf weeds, our other two main weeds at the time were pigweed and velvet leaf.  IF we went down with a preemerge, and came back with a post to get the grass, it ate all our profit in a normal year.  So,we tried a tank mix,but there was antagonism between the grass herbicide and the blazer and basagran for the broadleafs. So, you had to add Butyrac, the result being once you sprayed it appeared for a week or so you had killed everything including the soybeans.  Next thing you know, some of the pigweeds were coming out of it, they were put in a family all their own called Palmer Amyranth.  So, in 1996, when I was told I could get enough RR seed for 20 acres, I was ready, willing, and simply drooling over the prospect.  At the time, they were priced at normal price + $6 tech fee.  It was a miracle to behold.  Sprayed the roundup, all weeds died, beans stayed bright green and kept growing.  You didn't have to get the broadleaves sprayed at 2 inches or less, they could be a foot tall and they died.  Nobody thought Monsanto was evil back in those days.  Today however is a little different, we are seeing resistant weeds,and Monsanto is gouging us a little I think. 

I believe  that Prince Charles  is not far of, in what he is saying.

Good on him for speaking out, even though he will be cainned for it.

He has that right, rightly or wrongly. The same as every on else, even the Queen has that right, to who ever is liveing in a free society.   

I am a farmers son, of the Shirley family of  Staffordshire and Derbyshire back grounds.

I was a apperist, Bee Keeper. Now A Boiler maker welder. 

We all, of my family have got out of farming, as to the masive controls that have been brought in by the Know all,s in government depts.

 One of our Great Grand parents issued over 200 Market Charters of the 1200s 1300s. Then re ratified them in the 1600s.

This is the first time,  Not one of our family of 9 and the last of  over 9 generations of farming.

I  now live in Australia and have great conserns, to this GM cropping of plants.

FOR Once you start useing these seeds, you are locked in to the control of these seed supliers.

I believe there could be great benifits, if used properly,But just like many things that have been invented over the years since the wheel,

Things Can, also be very dangerous in the wrong hands.

I believe that this is the case NOW. 

There are great concerns over heer about this issue of Genetic Seeds.

Because who ever controls the seeds THEY then CONTROLE the Farmer and his lands with out paying one Penny or Cent.

On top of this HE has to pay for this-HIS rights being given away. JUST FOR SEED. 

The Spliting of Gens technology was first achieved at the Latrobe uni Melbourne Australia with the help of Monash uni Melbourne.

I had a friend who worked there.

He said that the rights were sold to Monsanto,  for use of the knowledge  for the betterment of farming but not control.

The trouble also is the wind and insect transfere of the pollin, to simaler plants which could and will cross breed.

So if you have a organic farmer or as I say, original farmer, who wants to us the tradional farming methods he has not got that option because of 

the things that he has no control over.

Where are is rights of control over his  lands .NONE as gone with the WIND.

 Albert Hopkins-Shirley

Apologies this will be an incredibly long post. But I thought some of you might find it interesting - it has made me smile.

Anyone who claims that the monarchy is irrelevant is wrong if the number of emails in response to Prince Charles's remarks are anything to go by.  I've had four or five today and when you lump them together you get this rather impressive array (in the interest of transparency all the 'against' responses have been gathered and distributed by the Science Media Centre which is part of the Royal Institution).

FOR HRH:

Commenting on Prince Charles' concerns over the impacts of GM crops on the environment and farmers, expressed today, Friends of the Earth's Campaign Director Mike Childs said: "Prince Charles has hit the nail on the head about the damaging false solution that GM crops present.

"GM crops will not solve the food crisis - and forging ahead with an industrialised farming system will continue to fail people and the environment around the world.

"Global political effort must be channelled into securing long lasting, green farming solutions that put people, not corporations, at their heart - and the UK Government must look at the evidence before falling for GM industry hype."

Earlier this year a UN International Assessment of Agriculture (IAASTD), carried out by 400 scientists and endorsed by 60 countries found no conclusive evidence that GM crops increase crop yields. It concluded that although the green revolution had increased crop yields, this had come at an unacceptable environmental and social cost, degrading soils, contributing to climate change and failing the world's poor. The biotechnology industry pulled out of the process when it became clear that the report would not endorse GM crops. The report stated that "business as usual is not an option" and that science and technology must be combined with traditional knowledge, working with communities on localised farming solutions.

GM Freeze Welcome Prince Charles's Comments on GM Crops

GM Freeze has welcomed Prince Charles's comments on the risks of widespread introduction of GM crops to the environment.

The group supports his view that large scale production of GM crops will not be sustainable and will lead to the destruction of rural communities.

Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said: "Prince Charles's comments are a welcome contribution to the ongoing debate about GM crops around the world.  Some of the strongest opposition comes from small and family farmers in South America and India who are already experiencing the social, economic and cultural impacts of GM crop monocultures driven forward by global corporations.  The Prince has also focused on the environmental impacts of GM crops especially on the soil.  Very little research is available on such impacts in South America where there is enormous pressure on farmers to adopt GM crops.  In this country the government decided to ban four GM crops because of their impact on wildlife.  Until very recently, research has ignored the impacts on soil and consequently our knowledge of how GM crops will impact on life below ground is very limited.

The debate about GM crops is not only about science and the Prince Charles's comments will enable the wider social, economic, cultural and political issues to get the attention they deserve".

AND NOW AGAINST CHARLIE:

Prof Alison M. Smith OBE, Research Group Leader at the John Innes Centre, said:

"I was shocked and saddened to read what Prince Charles has said about GM crops. Shocked because it was so ill-informed, one-sided and generally negative. Saddened because the Prince is in a position to lead this country in solving some of the massive problems he identifies. He could bring together our world-class scientists, technologists and agricultural experts to catalyse constructive debate and action that would benefit both the UK and the rest of the planet. Instead, he indulges in diatribes in which he appears to blame the problems of the planet on a single technological advance that he has completely misunderstood.

"GM crops are NOT to blame for climate change, the industrialisation of agriculture, the spread of dysfunctional conurbations, the salinisation of Australia or indeed any of the other crimes of which the Prince appears to accuse them. These problems arise from a collective failure of societies - all of us - to live within the resources of our planet.  To blame all of these problems on a single technology is to deny our collective responsibility for the mess we've created.

"GM technology is one of the ways in which we may be able to solve some of these problems. It is neither a magic bullet nor a cure-all. But in conjunction with advanced conventional crop breeding and more sustainable agricultural practices it may help us to grow enough food for the planet during this century. We face unprecedented climate change, population growth, and unsustainable farming practices. Our present crops will not be able to deliver the food we need in the face of these challenges. We simply cannot afford to slam the door on technologies that could alleviate these problems. Prince Charles's views seriously damage the chances of a rational debate and forward progress on these immensely important issues."

Prof Rosie Hails, ecologist at the Centre For Ecology And Hydrology, said:

"To label GM crops as either good or bad for the environment completely misses the point. Genetic modification is just one of a range of methods used to produce novel crops, and it is how that new crop is managed that will determine its environmental impact. The scientific evidence shows that some GM crops - for example those resistant to insect pests - can actually bring environmental benefits, by reducing the application of synthetic pesticides. We should maintain an open mind and assess all options if we want to develop sustainable agriculture in Europe and worldwide."

Prof Johnjoe McFadden, molecular geneticist at the University of Surrey, said:

"Prince Charles claims that GM crops will be environmental disaster. But his vision for agriculture would be a much greater disaster for the world's poor whose primary concern is to find their next meal. And that is becoming increasingly difficult as food prices have rocketed as a result of higher levels of consumption, particularly in China, loss of arable land to biofuel production and inefficient organic farming and stagnating crop yields from conventional farming. Recent studies demonstrate that GM crops can generate crop yield increases, particularly in the developing world where so much food crop ends up in the belly of an insect or destroyed by drought. Meanwhile, while much of the world starves, Prince Charles tells the poor to eat organic cake and spends a fortune converting his Aston Martin to run off ‘surplus' wine as a display of conspicuous environmentalism. Yet to drive from London to his Highgrove estate in his converted Aston consumes wine produced from about a ton of grapes, food resource that would be far better diverted to feed hungry mouths. Prince Charles showy environmentalism is a luxury that makes the poor poorer."

Prof Ottoline Leyser FRS, plant geneticist at the University of York, said:

"Almost all the public debate about GM is not about GM. There are several issues that have been muddled together, resulting in serious dangers to the future direction of agriculture. This problem is perfectly exemplified by Prince Charles's comments. He has confused the dominance of multinational companies and its consequences for food security with the use GM in agriculture. If there were a total world ban on GM tomorrow, it would have no effect at all on the dominance on big multinational companies. By confusing these two issues, the real issue is being ignored, and what is more, the potential benefits of GM are being thrown out with the bathwater. Misguidedly demonising GM results in the real issues being sidelined, creating the very problems that Prince Charles is trying to address."

Prof Jim Dunwell, biological scientist at the University of Reading, said:

"GM crops are being grown on a large scale in many countries of the world, a total of 114 million hectares in 2007, mainly in North America, Brazil and Argentina. It has been estimated recently that over the last ten years they have provided an economic benefit to the farmers growing these crops of $33.8 billion. Also the reduction of energy needed to cultivate the crops is estimated to be equivalent to taking 6.5 million cars off the roads.

"Future GM crops being tested globally include those with improved use of water and nitrogen. Of course such crops will not provide a universal answer to issues of global food security but they do represent a potentially useful addition to the range of varieties available to the plant breeder."

Ian Denholm, Head of Plant and Invertebrate Ecology at Rothamsted Research Institute, said:

"The Prince of Wales' statements reported in the Daily Telegraph this morning defy objective analysis. At a time when food prices are increasing and the supply of some staple crops is becoming limiting, it is impossible to divorce the need for food security from the need for food production, and the "environmental disasters" he alludes to have nothing to do with GM crops specifically. No scientist working in the agricultural sector doubts that the intensification of cropping over the last 50 or so years, coupled with climate change in some cases, has led to severe challenges including areas of land becoming unsuitable for the cultivation of conventional crop varieties. It is scientifically and morally indefensible not to explore, without prejudice, GM technology as one possible solution to these problems."

Dr Alan M. Dewar, independent entomologist, said:

"For a man who received a top education in one of the foremost public schools in Scotland, Prince Charles has a disarming habit of expounding the most alarming claptrap. The media of course have helped to exaggerate what he said yesterday from a molehill into a mountain.

"Prince Charles' opinions about so-called industrial agriculture are well known, so his criticisms, described in the Telegraph on August 13 2008, should be of no surprise to anyone. His comments are nothing more than another plug for his chosen method of food production, organic agriculture. It is well known that organic farming is not capable of feeding the planet - not even close, as my former boss was wont to say. At best organic food growing can only occupy a niche market for the well off in developed countries. At worst, organic farming in the poorest countries is the last resort for growers who cannot afford the alternatives - they would use them if they could. The vast majority of the planet's inhabitants are dependent on modern agricultural methods, and in many countries of the world, including some far-sighted third world countries, GM crops are becoming one of the technologies of choice for several sound economic AND environmental reasons, again all well documented in the scientific literature if the media would only take the trouble to find out about them.

"Leaving aside his tirade against large scale ‘industrial farming', it is his complete rejection of GM crops that causes me the most offence.  I have been to India, to the Punjab even, and did not see any disastrous crops. Instead I saw a well developed agricultural industry that is doing what it says on the tin - feeding the people. And let's get the facts right. The only GM crop being grown commercially in India at the moment is cotton, and GM varieties resistant to some of the insects that threaten its very survival, have revolutionised the cotton industry. Yields are up, income is up, and therefore investment is up. Pesticide poisoning (associated with conventional methods) is down, by some margin, and the whole community that relies on this cash crop benefits. Must the poor of the world suffer for ever because of the pronouncements of a very privileged gentleman, who has never seen the real countryside in any country he has visited without being accompanied by a coterie of sycophants, all trying to feed him their own narrow-minded opinions in the hope that he will support them when he is exposed to the media. It certainly works for them! Does he not know he is being used?

"Where is the evidence of failure in GM crop production? Where is the evidence that multi-nationals are taking over food production in large swathes of the world? This is just scaremongering of the highest order. Such pronouncements by a man with such a high media profile should be challenged vehemently. The public have a right to hear the truth!"

Dr. Giles Oldroyd, Research Group Leader at the John Innes Centre, said:

"The Prince is really confusing the issues.  He is using GM as an all inclusive term for industrialised agricultural practices.  The two main issues he states are irrigation issues: in India and in Australia. 

Irrigation is not a modern practice, nor is it a practice limited to large scale agriculture. The lowering of the water table and increased salinity of the soils is a problem inherent to irrigation, either by large scale or small scale farmers.  It has nothing to do with genetic modification.

Indeed genetic modification has the potential to provide crop plants that can grow on these depleted soils, something that conventional agriculture will struggle to do.

"Genetic modification is and will continue to provide valuable solutions to improve the sustainability of our agricultural systems, but maintain the yields that are essential for global food production. Genetic modification is not a threat to small scale farmers.  We function in a free market and small scale farmers, just as large scale farmers, can choose to plant GM seed or not. The Prince's ill informed and confusing statements are counterproductive to a rational debate on our food production systems."

Diana was right; - The throne should pass straight to William. There is a saying "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and be proved one." Charles would do well to heed this. He is a Marie Antoinette for our times, "Let them eat organic."

This is a man who talks to his plants. They probably talk more sense than he does. He is a couple of (GM) apples short of a picnic. How many times do I have to say this, the biotech companies will not get it wrong, because the green lobby will sue them to destruction if they do.

Interesting posts. Surely HRH can't seriously think that irrigation is a bad thing in all circumstances? And surely he cannot think that irrigation is something new and involved solely with GM? Irrigation was practised in the time of the Pharoahs. Perhaps I'm misundertanding something. He certainly seems to be lumping all manner of non GM things into the GM argument anyhoo.

I'm no expert in the field  but where does the DNA come from in these new crops? Theoretically I may not like the idea of, say, a bit of DNA from a soil bacterium being put into a plant to make it tolerant of a hitherto "total" herbicide, but if one were to take a bit of DNA from a very old variety of wheat that has very high septoria tritici resistance and apply it to a new variety of wheat to reduce the need for triazoles (and how topical is that in the EU right now!) then I don't have a problem with that. That would be an example of GM being used to shortcut conventional plant breeding techniques. 

I have to admit that I "nicked" the triazole argument from an excellent talk by Sir Ben Gill that I attended a couple of years ago. While applying wheat DNA to wheat may seem sensible, another suggested avenue of "making" leguminous nitrogen fixing wheat, while seeming a jolly good idea in reducing AN fertilser cost and environmental damage in making so much AN, it may also involve a larger amount of DNA being moved from polycotyledon plants into unrelated monocotyledon plants. I suspect that the larger the amount of DNA that is moved from one organism, not necessarily even another plant, and then put into a (another) plant, regardless of the purpose, then the greater the possibility, or even probability, of completely unforeseen side effects. A pest resistant GM soya variety was found to have a higher lignin content in the stem causing cracking from greater brittleness and higher fungal infection (New Scientist, American Edition November 20th 1999 p 25). Not a big problem here, but some would nevertheless interpret it as an "opening of Pandora's Box".

 I don't wish to say "GM all evil!" or "GM all marvellous!" but the subject is extremely complex and the media often don't let science get in the way of a good story. Of course there is much to be worried about but to dismiss the technology completely would perhaps be a bit short sighted?

just read the artical and didant understand it ver well as there are some rather big words in there that i have no idea what they mean. got the just of it any way some of his points are valid i think but the main one about CM crops  causing enviromental dissaster seems a bit pesamisti.

The media seem to have gone for the 'loony tunes' element of the Prince's argument. My concerns with GM is that, with the best will in the world, it is the major corporations who have the resource to develop GM and, like the drug companies, their prime consideration is to make money. They freely admit that any GM innovation is never a one off quick fix and the thought that they can tie up supply and the re-sowing of GM seed to which they own the rights worries me more than a little. Without government intervention I cannot see GM being more than a short term solution only available to those who can afford it.

To Isabel Davis.

Prince Charles HAS the same right AS us all, to speak, or is that another of our rights been taken away by the pollys and the Educated,s. IE EU.

As I though when I read the artical on Charlie. (He would be canned for his coments).Reading through the comments of these people (I wonder what the world will come to.)

The comments on things that he has done, or he has said, makes me think on the edicts from the Educated folks in the EU and our governments.

Such as the IDIOT,  EU edict of  electronically  tagging of Sheep in Britain and other countrys of the EU.In Scotland alone they say over "one million sheep will go" (Ref Farmers Weekly 4 July 08) and for what. "More red tape and government control for the DRs And the Profs. No wonder my family got out of FARMING.

We only have to look at the area where I come from, which is the weaver hills of Staffordshire and Derbyshire.Part of the Pennines,(Back bone of Britain)

The same will happen in the Hills, Say 300 thousand sheep lost.What about the rest of Britain.Say 2 million total lost.That is a heck of alot of food-meals lost for years to come.

We say 10 meals out of each lamb-mutton sheep that comes to 20 million  meals of top quality meat, which the country and the people would not have to buy from over seas,and not a "dept" to the country.That then means that the poor countrys would have 20 million meals that they do not have to worry about.

Oh THATS each year. Then you have the farmers children leaveing, as to nothing to earn in those hills-mountains.Which will be Wast land, That can grow food-meat and has been growing food for thousands of years. (And they say about increasing the food levels.) Now thats CLAPTRAP of the highest

order of their ?schooling system.

The real worry is that these DRs, Profs are teaching our up and coming DRs and Profs now that is a worry.

Not Charlies ideas. IF nothing else he has stired up the Irish stew and as my father use to say in his North Staffs twang, Eee lad, when you touch on the

Truth the Pollys and the educateds jump up and down.

"Oh" every one thought that Mr Joe Bamford of JCB was mad, doing what he wanted to do. But look what he and Anthony have done for the world with their Machines, (but in the right hands).

Oh they broke the desiel powered land speed record in 2006 at 350 plus, miles per hour, with engines out of the JCBs, Now that is CRAZY,but it was done, by a British company, which is proud to be British.  Oh also.  I would love to know what those people are thinking now.For sure ,Not what they were thinking including the  bloody banks who would NOT help him at the start to buy his first factory.Headquaters to day at Rocester Staffs.

Albert Hopkins-Shirley

If you do not agree with us then they think you are ?nuts,full of Claptrap,and other comments.

HRH has by ranting and making some duff assertions done himself no favours. Its amazing how many people think he's going off the rails like his old man but I think Philip's probably got a more sensible head on his shoulders when it comes to things like this.

The media coverage has been very interesting with the media dividing on the GM argument rather than along the loyalist/republican lines. The Times makes interesting reading particularly the editorial.

Overall? In my view he has done a great deal for the pro-GM argument by getting this badly wrong. Less shouting and inaccuracies could have started the much needed science-led debate on the technology. Instead its all a bit laughable.

Hareley Farmer,

Remember no one has to buy their Seed.What really strikes me as double standards with the anti GM Lobby,very similar to the TB issue, is the naivety of the the objectors and the Generaliations used to make their Claims.I think I am correct in saying that the first GM crop that was a direct intervention by man was achieved in the Second World War by the Russians and is around today and is called Triticalle.This I believe is a cross between Wheat and Rye and I have not heard of any environmental problem with this crop.Wheat its self when first Cultivated by man approx 8000 years ago was a Diploid it is now a tetraploid or a hexaploid. This has been achieved by man over a long time and we now have some wonderfull plants to grow and feed our selves on.I don't know of any environmental dissasters as yet from any Plant Breeding or Genetics but I may be wrong on that, what I do know is that there is risk with everything in our Lives and there always have been folks who have had fear of new products and systems : There was a movement in the late 19th Century to stop the use of Electricity and their Campaign Posters said "Beware Electricity kills", well we all know that today but we accept the risk and use with caution.The Anti Lobby then embark on the fear hysterria they have seen when they went to see Peter Cushing at the Cinema performing his little act creating Monsters.This they transpose to reality after too much Wine and Hey Ho the Chattering Classes are off with this Alcohol enhanced view of GM the next day and we have Articals in the Sunday Papers telling stories of these Monsters created by Scientists in White Coats with no evidence to back any of it[ Except that the Scientists name was Proff Cushing]. HRH ,and bless his Sole, is a Fundamentalist, he holds views that are derived from seeing Idyllic scenes, situations and above all transcripts from people who want him to think that life is good for these Peasants,Labourers whatever.The truth underneath this Cotton Blanket Myth is people who live very short lives in general, endure tremendous hardship with manual Labour and extreame weather, have very little Education or chance of it but they dress in colourfull clothes, smile and cannot get out of this Trap. Ask them if they would like an MF 135, a Sprayer and some GM Seed with a Gallon or two of Roundup and old Charlies Myths will condense in front of his Royal but not open Eyes.

Things could be worse though. Polly Toynbee could start bleating about this sort of stuff! There would be a fair amount of fertiliser piled high from the bovine excrement that she spouts.

HRH has a point, i think what he is getting at is if we all go GM, growing a handful of varieties, controlled by a couple of companies globally, if something goes wrong, like the joss cambier disaster of 70,s? we could starve.

there was a variety of wheat, moulin, i think in the nineties which failed to set seed.

if we all grew moulin, there would have been no harvest.

roundup is a great chemical, but if it is overused, weeds will become resistant , which is happening already.

if rr volunteers pollute your farm, you cant use roundup to dessicate.

if monsanto brought out wheat that had root noduls making nitrogen, that would be dynamite.

Isabel.

 In my humble opinion GM foods will eventually provide the solution to the impending catastrophe of famine about to descend on the human race. Those who oppose the growing and further development of GM crops are either suffering from genocidal tendencies or are simple confused people. That the heir to the throne should peddle such nonsense is both shocking and abhorrent( and yes I am a Royalist).  I hope the Queen will now ensure that the throne passes by this foolish prince and is given eventually to his son, Prince William.

Dick..

I am indeed most unfortunate in that I do not yet understand all the advantages and disadvantages of GM crops and therefore, have no opinion of my own.

I do not however, dismiss the views of Prince Charles simply because he speaks from one side of the debate. After all he has access to the best considered opinion in the land, and can call for personal discussions with any person on any subject, and so is likely to have got closer to the men and women on both sides of the debate than most of us.

To address the general issue however, if we are happy to believe that our present world evolved over millions of years through the interactions of billions of organisms in trillions of evolutionary encounters. It seems to me that we aught to exercise extreme caution in moving genes from one species to another (transgenic) and in so doing creating new species which may/may not have the recessive & regressive characteristics of naturally evolving species.

I am not anti. I am not pro. I just don't know.

I do not however, believe that scientists are Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent as I see in them my own human frailties and inadequacies. Because of this I approach their 'expert' work with utmost scepticism.

     This is a great thread that I would really like to get involved in. It has all the debate of windfarms and more! Unfortunately, harvest beckons and I am on auto-pilot with other things. However, on the face of it, it looks to me as if Prince Charles has opened the debate with a conclusion!! But I have not had time to listen to his audio.

      He is right to highlight the threats from big business. This is one reason why I am so certain that our own Governments should be fully involved in the research and control of GM crops. Trials should be in place and protestors should be absolutely forbidden to enter fields with GM trials. It is vital that we have our own work and results on GM's. We should not be relying on the word of others.

      Given proper control I feel that there is nothing to fear from GM crops. There are so many potential benefits from GM crops that to ignore or reject them could throw many a bairn out with the bath-water. I look forward to reading this thread to get a better picture of what is being debated here.

       A lighter moment, - I digress a little. Back in 2000 I was attending a meeting in which two Canadian (I think) farmers were giving us a talk on this very subject. The abuse of North American farmers by the big firms, such as Monsanto. This included such things as being locked unfairly into contracts, etc. I was sitting next to our College advisor when a young lady, 18 - 20 yrs, sat down next to me. At the same time two or three other young ladies took various seats amongst all the bemused farmers. The raising of eyebrows soon turned into a realisation that there was a possible mutiny on board. Soon the young lady beside me became very agitated and restless. She jumped to her feet and came out with a great spiel of anti GM rhetoric. When she had finished there was a resounding silence. The speakers remained silent and no one said a thing, much to the disbelief of the young lady. I leant toward her and quietly told her "this is not a pro-GM meeting".

What I find hard to take, as with most of these emotive issues where the two opposing camps seem to be completely polarised, is that the focus of the arguments are often directed at the wrong thing.  With GM, it seems that the method of arriving at a new strain of the plant is what is argued over, rather than the end result.

To my mind, whether you spend years searching for the natural sport or spontaneous mutation which gives the quality you are seeking, then attempt to breed from it or, in the case of GM, you can neatly do the same thing in the lab in a much shorter time scale is immaterial.  What matters is whether the resulting plant does what you want without a detrimental effect on the environment. 

If someone brings out leguminous wheat how will anyone be able to afford to not grow it?I like the technology,I hate the idea of being thirled to Monsanto.I totally agree with AllyR above.If governments have any thought for food security they need to be involved in GM R&D to an extent that farmers and consumers dont become slaves to the corporations.

As for Chae Battenburg---well,we all know that he believes the world should be organic,with a population to match organic production.Unfortunately this will involve compulsory sterilisation.Will he recommend his sons for the snip? Thankfully he and his family wont be owning land in Scotland for much longer.I find it disgusting that an absentee landlord should comment on anything agricultural.

Although I am growing 100% GM in summer planted crops, I can tell you that GM will NOT solve world hunger, at least not in its current forms.  Now, if they can come up with wheat and corn that fix their own N, more drouth resistance, things like that, yes, GM might.  Right now the GM crops I grow are grown because they make economic sense due to the fact I can control pests and weeds more cheaply.  I could do the same thing with non GM, it would just cost more money. 

I believe that in the case of scientific advances in human breeding, final decisions are made by groups of people from many disciplines, not just medicine, genetics and the like. Is this also the case with approvals for advanced trialling of plant material?

We grew 16ha of GM maize last year,it was the first,and only crop in our region.Our coop didn't sell any GM seed to any other members,so when the media discovered that some had been sown, all hell broke loose! It wasn't much fun listening to local radio,or reading the local paper.The antis went into overdrive searching for the field and the culprits; when they finally found a small block,they organised a demo,our union got a reception committee organised,the gendarmerie who had been keeping an eye on our fields daily,thought they had better be involved.There were 100 antis,80 gendarmes,and riot police,and helicopter,plus 120 irate farmers,we were all kept apart,It all fizzled out after a 2 hour stand off.The anti propaganda machine had also managed to organise a public meeting,with a very persuasive Professor,who used the standard propoganda tactic of humiliating anyone who dared stand up and express an opinion that differed from his.

We managed to get our maize harvested without it being damaged,there appeared to be more ladybirds and insect life in the GM crop,and the yield was similar to our non GM maize.Our pint sized President has blocked GMs for the moment,(the antis are still searching,just in case!)but we will probably be allowed to grow them soon.He is going to insist that we are insured for any future risk to the environment,-what insurance company is going to take that on at a reasonable price? Remember asbestos? Secondly the exact location of each field will be published on the internet.I can't see it being worth the hassle growing it under these conditions.

 It's about money and control. The purpose of GM crops is for Monsanto to own the seeds and exploit the farmer over. http://notnews.today.com/2008/08/17/prince-must-prove-anti-gm-claim/