The Scotsman

Why We Can't Leave The Last Word On GMOs To Prince Charles

The last word, from me, on genetically modified crops for at least two weeks and quite possibly longer, courtesy of a senior American scientist I interviewed recently.

Because it was an off the record briefing, he has to be anonymous, but he is a member of the US president's advisory committee, has been involved with GM crops since the first gene from another plant was inserted into the first strawberry, and spoke more sense than most on a subject which was given huge impetus last week by Prince Charles' decision to give his opinion.

The American professor said: "How did we get into this mess, this difference of opinion on biotechnology between the US and Britain? The US did not take GMs lightly. We decided early on that field trials should be conducted carefully and we did that. But it became clear that there was no substantial difference between modified and unmodified crops and no need for labelling.

"There has been a gross misunderstanding of that position.

It put Monsanto and other GM seed breeders into the box in which they sit now. Round the world there is confusion about GM and large scale agriculture, particularly the push back from the other side of the Atlantic in the UK.

"Any kind of agriculture is extraordinarily complex. That is the bottom line for me after a lifetime of studying it and being involved in it. There is no single answer, not huge scale farming, or genetic modification, or organic. Who is to say what is sustainable? I would like to think that if Monsanto and the other companies listen and change their approach, and if we can keep pumping in sound science, people might listen.

But whether the hostility, anger and hype can be overcome I do not know.

"Farming is hellish complicated wherever it is practised, yet we always try to solve it simply. Organic farming is not necessarily sustainable, and taking it as the solution cannot possibly be right.

"I deeply want agreement on GM, but I'm now deeply sceptical about it happening. The only sane take on biotechnology is that it's a sound and logical way to improve plant production."

Tell that to Prince Charles, with his ten points about GM.

There is no doubt that he is pressing the right buttons. He claims to have had 10,000 comments on his website about genetically modified plants, almost all worried. That is probably correct. Any article even suggesting that GMOs might have their good points will attract a response of about five to one against.

Supermarkets have taken foods containing GMO products off the shelves. Seed companies, tired of having trial plots ripped up and attacked, are pulling out of trials. Friends of the Earth was glad to point out that Scotland's farmers are pulling out of trials because of local opposition.

Why anyone should believe that Prince Charles is a voice to listen to baffles me given his track record of being out of touch with reality , but let's go through his ten points, not to refute them, but to look at his concerns.

• Do we need GM foods in this country? Answer: Not necessarily, particularly if you distrust any new technology.
• Is GM food safe to eat? As he says, there is no evidence to the contrary. The American view, and that of scientists in many countries, is that the modified plant is "substantially equivalent" to the unmodified original, with the same properties. Prince Charles says there is the possibility of unexpected toxic or allergic reactions and long-term research is needed.
• Why are the rules for approving GM foods much less stringent than those for new medicines using the same technology? The rules are extremely stringent for plant breeding.
• How much do we know about the environmental consequences? The prince uses the example of the effect of GM maize pollen on monarch butterfly larvae. Scientists reply that the larvae were given no choice of any other food in the laboratory experiment; it is also suggested that in nature the pollen and the larvae do no coincide. But swept away by the monarch butterfly lab experiment, Robin Harper, the Scottish Green Party MSP, said: "Butterflies risk being wiped out in North America by gene crops. We can't let this sort of impact happen in Scotland."
• Is it sensible to plant test crops without strict regulations in place? It depends on which side of the argument you are. Plant breeders insist that regulations are strict. What distance away from conventional crops is possible if crop trials are to be carried out?
• How can consumers exercise a genuine choice? Those people who want to make sure that they eating absolutely natural, non-industrialised real food will be denied such choice. For the above, read organic. For organic, read the fact that under present rules an "organic" food can have up to 5 per cent non-organic content. How does that square with the demand for zero-tolerance of any GMs?
• If something goes wrong with a GM crop, who will be held responsible? Will it be the company who sells the seed, the farmer who grows it or, -throwing in the emotional link as in the case of BSE, all of us? A good point, with the exception of the gratuitous reference to BSE.
• Are GM crops the only way to feed the world's growing population? GM seed breeding companies made a bad mistake in trying to sell this as their reason for being in business. We all know that a commercial company is trying to make money, not benefit the world. But he is wrong when he goes on to try and romanticise some existing, and primitive, forms of agriculture as only needing some encouragement to double production.
• What effect will GM crops have on the world's poorest countries? The prince gives the example of Christian Aid saying that GM firms are "selling suicide" when what the world needs are sustainable farming methods. The point made by some scientists is that GM crops can help to do exactly that.
• What sort of world do we want to live in? A leading question from someone as sheltered from reality as Prince Charles, but he pulls out all the emotional stops - redesigning the natural world, an Orwellian future, crossroads for humanity. The short answer is that we all want to live in a better world. Why should those who think that GM crops are a perfectly legitimate development towards that be bullied by those who object? Freedom of choice operates in both directions.