NOTE: Last week, attacks on Prince Charles by pro-GM scientists at the John Innes Centre - the UK's leading plant biotech institute - were widely reported under headlines such as "Scientists' anger at Prince's GM comments". In the following letter, Dr. Jeremy Bartlett, who gained his doctorate in plant genetics at the same institute, spells out why not all scientists disagree with the Prince.
---
---
'Top down' use of GM is no solution
Eastern Daily Press, 18 August 2008
Not all scientists disagree with Prince Charles' criticism of GM crops and intensive agriculture (EDP, August 14). I have a PhD in Plant Genetics and consider Prince Charles' comments anything but "ill informed".
The Green Revolution, with its introduction of hybrid seeds, intensive irrigation and chemical fertilisers and pesticides, brought a brief period of increased crop yields. However, in areas like the Punjab in India, this has led to water-logged and unproductive soils. Many have left the land. Remaining farmers are deeply in debt.
GM crops have been introduced in a similar top-down way, in many cases to boost the sale of herbicides. In Argentina, an increase in soya production has led to deforestation and pollution of groundwater as the use of the herbicide glyphosate has increased a massive 180 fold since the introduction of herbicide-tolerant GM crops. Resistant weeds mean that older, more toxic herbicides are being used for the first time since the 1980s. Even in richer nations, like the United States and Canada, farmers are facing numerous problems. The supply of non-GM seeds is often restricted and farmers who wish to save their own non-GM seed find that it has been contaminated and are then sued by the biotechnology companies. These farmers may well be "really astute businessmen who would not have anything foisted upon them" but this has done them no good whatsoever.
We need to work with small farmers whose techniques are not only preserving biodiversity and genetic variability but often growing more food per acre than larger farms. The recent UN International Assessment of Agriculture (IAASTD), which was carried out by 400 leading agronomists and scientists with the World Bank's help, concluded that science and technology must be combined with traditional knowledge, working with communities on localised solutions. It found no conclusive evidence that GM crops increase crop yields or are the single answer to global hunger.
Dr. Jeremy Bartlett.
- Main Menu
- Home
- News
- Articles
- Videos
- Index of speakers
- Glyphosate Videos
- Gene Editing videos
- Must see videos
- Health Effects
- Agriculture videos
- Labeling videos
- Animals videos
- Corporations videos
- Corporate takeover videos
- Contamination videos
- Latin America videos
- India videos
- Asia videos
- Songs videos
- Protests videos
- Biofuel myths videos
- Index of GM crops and foods
- Contact
- About
- Donations
- News
- Articles
- Donations
-
Videos
- Index of speakers
- Glyphosate videos
- Gene Editing
- Must See videos
- Health Effects
- Agriculture videos
- Labeling videos
- Animals videos
- Corporations videos
- Corporate takeover videos
- Contamination videos
- Latin America videos
- India videos
- Asia videos
- Songs videos
- Protests videos
- Biofuel myths videos
- Index of GM crops and foods
- Contact
- About
News Menu
News Archive
- 2023 articles
- 2022 articles
- 2021 articles
- 2020 articles
- 2019 articles
- 2018 articles
- 2017 articles
- 2016 articles
- 2015 articles
- 2014 articles
- 2013 articles
- 2012 articles
- 2011 articles
- 2010 articles
- 2009 articles
- 2008 articles
- 2007 articles
- 2006 articles
- 2005 articles
- 2004 articles
- 2003 articles
- 2002 articles
- 2001 articles
- 2000 articles
PLEASE SUPPORT GMWATCH
If you like what we do, please help us do more. You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card. Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. We greatly appreciate that as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!
Web Development By SCS Web Design