I didn’t like it.
I concluded that his Duchy Originals brand was overpriced and overrated. I won’t be buying one again.
The price of food is very important to anyone who does not live like a future king. The cost of eating is rising for rich and poor alike, but it affects the poor much, much more. That’s why I found Charles’ comments today on genetically-modified food a little distasteful. More than that, I think they were utterly dangerous.
Let me explain why...
Writing in the Telegraph, Charles said that relying on gigantic corporations for food would result in an environmental disaster.
"That would be the absolute destruction of everything... and the classic way of ensuring there is no food in the future," he said.
Apparently, the big bad evil that will lead to a food-free future is genetically modified food. It will lead to the industrialisation of food supply and the destruction of the environment.
I couldn’t agree less.
Sorry Charley, but have you been talking to your geraniums again? What utter, utter tosh.
It’s a technology for the poor
Genetically-modified foods offer a real chance of preventing food poverty across the world. This is not just an honourable aim — but it is essential if we are to avoid a global food catastrophe.
The price of food is rising as demand has increased. Demand has risen because of America’s stupid biofuels policy and because the global population is rising and getting more affluent.
Affluent people eat more meat. This puts extra strain on the food availability because pigs, cows and sheep eat a lot of grain. This boosts demand further.
A vegetarian colleague of mine suggested that all this would not be necessary if the world stopped eating animals. This is probably true... but I simply do not believe that this will happen.
I certainly have no plans to give up meat... and I don’t know anyone who does.
I am not afraid of this "Frankenstein" technology. I think it will offer great benefits in the future.
Humanities graduates should not talk about science
Fear is bred from ignorance — and I feel I understand a little bit more about this issue that the average Joe.
I spent 3 years studying genetic engineering at university. Ok, I admit it was a long time ago and I moved immediately into finance once I graduated. But most journalists, politicians and royalty know significantly less about this than I do.
So, let me tell you why Charles is wrong.
If genes in staple crops are changed to allow the plants to be grown in what are marginal conditions today, it will make a massive difference to countries which currently struggle to feed themselves. The situation for these people is serious. Poorer countries are seeing their populations soar at the same time as climate change is hitting crop yields.
Let’s take a look at Africa.
In February, the USAID Famine Early Warning System Network warned that climate change could pose a new threat to Sub-Saharan Africa.
"Some of the most profound and direct impacts of climate change over the next few decades will be on agricultural and food systems."
Climate analysts predict that the warming of the Indian Ocean could result in a decrease in rainfall of up to 25% on eastern and southern Africa.
"That means that the areas that are dry will become even drier, and areas that are currently well-off will start drying up."
Decreased rainfall will lead to decreased crop yields. This will lead to starvation for many... unless yields can be increased.
That’s where genetically-modified food comes in.
The report also said that:
"A modest increase in yields of 15% [per acre] per decade could overcome the anticipated declines in production due to rainfall."
So, how can yields be raised?
Chemicals are bad
The easiest solution is to throw tonnes of fertilizer on the ground, but this has been proved time and time again to be a dumb move.
Take China, for example.
Remember the vast algal bloom that threatened the Olympic sailing events at Qingdao? What do you think caused that?
The Chinese wouldn’t admit it, but it was obviously caused by the overuse of fertilizer.
China has notoriously bad soil. To compensate for this it uses lots and lots of nitrogen-based fertilizer. When it rains, this washes into rivers — and eventually to the sea.
These extra nutrients caused algae to flourish. It’s a classic case of eutrophication.
An increase in nutrients causes algae to grow rapidly. When the algae die, bacterial decay of the waste causes oxygen to be sucked from the water.
The results of this are disastrous.
Plants die. Fish die. Crustaceans die.
The watercourse effectively becomes dead. This cuts the available supply of food even further.
It is a terrible thing to happen to an ecosystem... and it is caused by using too much fertilizer.
That’s why new technologies are needed to increase yields other than throwing potash at the problem.
Genetic modification of crops could potentially lead to:
- A higher resistance to pests and disease.
- A higher nutritional value.
- Longer shelf life leading to easier shipment.
- Better yields, allowing a more efficient use of land and the use of "marginal" land.
- Less damaging fertilizer and pesticides in the environment.
Charles’ views are the direct opposite of the international scientific community and even the government. Since 2000, 54 Genetically-modified crop trials have been allowed in Britain. They must continue.
I simply do not subscribe to the "playing with nature" argument against GM crops. Altering one or two genes to get specific characteristics is nothing new.
Farmers have been selectively crossing plants for centuries in order to select for certain traits. Dog breeders do this every day of their lives.
I don’t see Prince Charles insisting that selective breeding of corgis should be stopped.
I think that GM food offers us hope for a food security all over the world. But my major concern is that it will end up being used as a tool for profiteering by western companies. This would be wrong.
Instead, the technology should be considered as a way to avert a potential Malthusian catastrophe. Genetically modified foods could literally save the human race.
Prince Charles has got it very wrong yet again.
The price of food will continue to rise and readers of my Smart Commodities UK are positioned to benefit form this multi-year trend. Click here to find out about other exciting investments in the energy and commodity sectors.
Regards,
Garry White
Editor
Smart Commodities UK
