The Dangers of Biotechnology

by His Royal Highness, The Prince of Wales

Prince Charles vs. Downing Street

On December 1998, The Prince of Wales posted an essay questioning the safety of genetically engineered (GE) foods on his website [www.princeofwales.gov.uk]. Soon thereafter, the Sunday Express reports, Prime Minister Tony Blair (an ardent backer of Britain's biotech industries) took "the unusual step ... of phoning Buckingham Palace to advise the Prince to withdraw the website comments [and] ... to refrain from any public comments." Prince Charles (an ardent backer and practitioner of organic farming) not only refused to back down, he responded with an even longer essay in the June 1, 1999 issue of the Daily Mail. Both essays are excerpted below.

December 1998 - I believe that genetic modification is much more than just an extension of selective breeding techniques. Mixing genetic material from species that cannot breed naturally takes us into areas that should be left to God. I am not convinced we know enough about the long-term consequences for human health and the environment of releasing plants (or, heaven forbid, animals) bred in this way.

I suspect that planting herbicide-resistant crops will lead to more chemicals being used on our fields, not less. Such sterile fields will offer little or no food or shelter to wildlife, and there is already evidence that the genes for herbicide resistance can spread to wild relatives of crop plants, leaving us with weeds resistant to weedkiller .... And because the pesticide will be everywhere in the crop, it is predicted that the pests will rapidly acquire resistance to it. What do we do then? Genetic material does not stay where it is put. Pollen is spread by the winds and by insects. GM crops can contaminate conventional and organic crops growing nearby .... If something does go badly wrong with GM crops, we will be faced with a form of pollution that is self-perpetuating. I don't think anyone knows how to clean up after that sort of incident, or who would have to pay for it. (And I expect someone thought it was a good idea, at the time, to introduce the rabbit and the cane toad to Australia!)

I wonder about the claims that some GM crops are essential to feed the world's growing populations. Is the problem sometimes a lack of money rather than lack of food? And how will the companies who own this technology make a sufficient profit from selling their products to the world's poorest people? Wouldn't it be better to concentrate instead on the sustainable techniques that can double or treble the yields from traditional farming systems?

The public discussion so far has concentrated on the risks and capabilities of the technology and the effectiveness of the regulations. These things are important - as are effective and comprehensive labeling schemes to ensure that those consumers like me who do not want to eat GM foods can avoid them - but there is an important public debate needed also on whether we need GM crops at all.

Do We Need GM Food?
June 1999 - At the end of 1998, I set up a discussion forum on my website on the question of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). I wanted to encourage wider public debate about what I see as a fundamental issue and one which affects each and every one of us and future generations. There was a huge response - some 10,000 replies have indicated that public concern about the use of GM technology has been growing.

Having followed this debate very closely for some while now, I believe that there are still a number of unanswered questions, which need to be asked.

Do we need GM food in this country? On the basis of what we have seen so far, we don't appear to need it at all. The benefits ... seem to be limited to the people who own the technology and the people who farm on an industrialized scale

Do existing laws protect us? Why are the rules for approving GM foods so much less stringent than rules for new medicines produced using the same technology? Before drugs are released into the marketplace they have to undergo the most rigorous testing. Surely it is equally important that we are confident that [GM foods] will do us no harm?

What do we really know about the environmental consequences? Laboratory tests showing that pollen from GM maize in the US caused damage to the caterpillars of monarch butterflies provide the latest cause for concern. If GM plants can do this to butterflies, what damage might they cause to other species? GM maize already is being grown commercially throughout large areas of the US. Surely this effect should have been discovered by the company producing the seeds, or the regulatory authorities who approved them for sale.

Are GM crops the only way to feed the world's growing population? This argument sounds suspiciously like emotional blackmail to me. Representatives of 20 African states, including Ethiopia, have published a statement denying that gene technologies will "help farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st Century." On the contrary, they think it will "destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems ... and undermine our capacity to feed ourselves."

What sort of world do we want to live in? Are we going to allow the industrialization of Life itself - redesigning the natural world for the sake of convenience? Or should we be adopting a gentler, more considered approach, seeking always to work with the grain of Nature in making better, more sustainable use of what we have, for the long-term benefit of mankind as a whole? The answer is important. It will affect far more than the food we eat: It will determine the sort of world we, and our children, inhabit.

The full texts of both essays can be read on-line at www.princeofwales.gov.uk