Charlie boy has ramped it up again over GM crops:
I do feel sorry for the old guffer with no job, but he’s wrong about modern architecture and he’s wrong about this. And he should butt out.
Got to give him credit for this sentence, though:
How, exactly, is he wrong? I’m not being sarcastic-I’m genuinely asking you to back up your statement-even if you AREN’T in GD.
Well, we’ve been genetically modifying food for thousands of years (in the sense of selective cross-breeding) and there’s currently over 900,000 square kilometres of ‘modern’ GM crops. If they were as dangerous and unsafe as he contends then I think we might have noticed by now.
He also seems to think that organic and / or small holder farming can feed the world. It can’t.
The problem is not that he’s wrong but that he’s in part right and has a dreadful way of expressing himself. Selective cross-breeding and exposure to mutagens are both natural ways of improving crops. Directly splicing genes - especially when our knowledge is so incomplete - risks unintended consequences. And he’s totally wrong about the small-holder farmers while being absolutely correct: one only has to look back at how farming changed in Britain a few hundred years ago, from strips to fields. Sure it sucks for the individuals in the short term, but bigger farms are more productive.
Prince Charles presents no evidence to support his claim.
He first set out his opposition to GM crops in 1998 when he said that “genetic modification takes mankind into realms that belong to God, and to God alone”.
So it’s basically a religious objection. :rolleyes:
He sounds like a bad actor in a Hammer Horror film.
Doing anything risks unintended consequences. But if it also can bring about good consequences then you proceed with caution.
And I repeat, what’s gone so horribly wrong so far?
The prince may not have, but leading accident theorist Charles Perrow, author of Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies, argues that genetic engineering presents a special danger because the way living materials propagate exponentially presents a risk that errors will run away uncontrolled. He accordingly places genetics, nuclear power, and nuclear weapons in their own category of high-risk technologies with a special risk of runaway reaction or propagation.
Sailboat
Yes, but we’ve been patenting those modifications for less than 20 years.
Since the US was founded, we’ve had tension between folks who grow the food and folks who finance the farmers. I’m guessing that tension has existed in most of the rest of the world for a long time, too. Genetic modifications that shift the balance of power toward the financiers worry me.
And there are some specific genetic modifications that also worry me–e.g., the placement of BT into crops, and its risk of breeding BT-resistant pests.
Daniel
I have concerns about this also (and the potential for pricing small farmers out of contention for high-yielding crops).
The problem with Prince Charles is two-fold - his sweeping and foolish denunciation of technology that can help us feed many millions more people, coupled with his history of fearmongering and promoting unscientific practices.
For instance, there are his pronouncements on nanotechnology and his promotion of quack cancer cures (such as the Gerson diet, which is supposed to conquer cancer through such means as coffee enemas).
Truly, Prince Charlie is the Once And Future Moron.
Horribly? Not much that we know of. Wrong? How about one of the very first major GMO product rollouts, Starlink Corn? As the flagship product of a soon-to-be multibillion-dollar industry, the single most important goal for Starlink producers was to avoid contaminating the human food supply. Frankly, they could afford even to commit the cardinal sin of business – losing money – and use Starlink as a loss leader, as long as they didn’t screw up and do the thing they assured the public they would never do, contaminate the human food supply.
It got into the food supply. Immediately. Multiple times. Made 28 people sick. Reason? Tellingly, it turned out that various people in the chain of production and distribution knowingly substituted Starlink corn for human-consumption corn to eke out a few percentage points of profit. The weakness wasn’t technological – it was short-sighted greed. Starlink turned out to demonstrate that you probably cannot trust people to meddle with the food supply, because the chain of production/distribution/sales is full of people who will knowingly risk killing you for pennies.
Sailboat
Not read the book, but the author is a sociologist. Which puts his opinion on GM on the same level as that of a “Prince” or a “Petrobey”.
Does sound like an interesting book, though.
And Starlink Corn? Your own link contradicts you, which is a bit of an odd way to post. 28 people didn’t get ill and the product was successfully removed. The worst consequence of the media hype was African countries turning down much-needed, and perfectly fine, food aid.
Oh, yes. And while I’m happy to chat GM, this was the main thrust of my pit.
Anyone got a spare guillotine?
Do you have a cite for this? All I can find online is a brief description of the Starlink event, and nothing indicating how the corn got into the food supply. Also, it appears (cited here on Wikipedia and elsewhere) that the FDA found no evidence that the Starlink protein was the cause of the illnesses. (And frankly, the only thing remarkable about 28 people getting sick after eating Taco Bell is how shockingly low the number is.)
And Charles may be a moron, but at least I learned the word “conurbation.”
No, just my memory of follwing the story in the news when it occurred.
Sailboat
No offense, but the author is highly regarded in thinking about industrial accidents and complex, high-hazard systems. That book was a seminal book in accident theory.
Sailboat
None taken.
I don’t doubt it, but we’re talking about GM crops.
Look, Perrow, if I understand correctly, seems to be saying that in any sufficiently complex system unforeseen accidents are inevitable. I’ve got no argument with this. But to use it to conclude that GM food programmes should be entirely abandoned is bizarre.
Excellent cite. Once again, did you read the link that you posted.
Conurbations? Well, at least he’s getting some good use out of the Royal Thesaurus.
Informed worry and caution is a good thing.
And apparently also an ignoramus, who thinks that uranium can exponentially reproduce itself the way living things do. Perhaps the term “breeder reactor” confused him.
My concerns about GM crops are, unfortunately, also concerns I have about modern hybrid crops as well. As agriculture gets more and more industrialized, and homogenized a lot more of the total caloric production of the world’s farms is coming from fewer and fewer strains of various crops. Monocropping is often the most efficient way to bring maximum yield from the fields, when it works. But it also can be horribly susceptible to disease. The Irish Potato Famine seems to me to be an excellent cautionary tale about the risks of monocropping.
There are any number of legitimate reasons for people to be chary with GM crops, IMNSHO. But describing the whole field as all being disasters and against nature does not meet that standard to my mind.