Phillip And Anne Approve of GM Foods "The Times" June 6, 2000
topa...@my-deja.com
June 6 2000 BRITAIN
Royal Family in conflict as Duke backs GM foods
BY RUTH GLEDHILL, RELIGION CORRESPONDENT
The Duke of Edinburgh leapt into the GM debate last night with a
wholehearted endorsement of genetically modified foods.
He said the introduction of pests from abroad, such as the grey
squirrel, had done far more harm to the environment than would ever be
caused by GM crops. The only difference between the selective breeding
of animals and creating GM food, he added, was that genetic
modification was faster.
His comments, in response to a lecture at Windsor Castle by the Chief
Rabbi, Dr Jonathan Sacks, put him directly at odds with his son, the
Prince of Wales, who is a bitter opponent of GM experimentation. Prince
Charles has repeatedly issued warnings about what he once
called "Frankenstein foods", and insists that traditional and organic
farming methods are by far the best and the safest.
The Duke's decision to join the debate - two days after the Princess
Royal had also scorned calls for a ban on GM foods - came in response
to a 45-minute talk by the Chief Rabbi, who cautioned against the
creation, not merely of GM crops, but of "genetically modified human
beings".
Prince Philip was effusive in his praise for Dr Sacks, but said he
wished he had not mentioned the GM debate.
"Do not let us forget we have been genetically modifying animals and
plants ever since people started selective breeding," he said. That
might have taken a bit longer, but was essentially the same. It was no
different from breeding fast racehorses together to try to produce even
faster racehorses.
"People are worried about genetically modified organisms getting into
the natural environment. What people forget is that the introduction of
exotic species - like, for instance, the introduction of the grey
squirrel into this country - is going to or has done far more damage
than a genetically modified piece of potato. The real point is, where
are the limits to what we do?"
Delivering the annual St George's House Lecture, Dr Sacks had said: "We
have had enormous debate recently on genetically modified food. I want
to talk about genetically modified human beings."
He welcomed the prospect that the decoding of the human genome could
ultimately lead to cures for Huntingdon's and other hereditary
diseases. "But the question is: Will we know when to stop? Will we be
able to draw the line between therapeutic and eugenic surgery?"
The sanctity of human life was rooted in the uniqueness of every human
person and one life could not be substituted for another. Outlining a
scenario in 50 years' time when a mother whose child died tragically
could go to a doctor and ask for another, identical child to be
cloned. "What would then happen in a culture where such things become
possible and even routine? What would become of love, loss and the
sanctity of human life? If persons are no longer individual but genetic
types that can be replicated at will, what then will become of our
central ethical values?"
The divisions within the Royal Family on the issue was highlighted on
Sunday when the Princess Royal took issue with her brother in an
interview published in The Grocer magazine.
Speaking in her capacity as president of the British Association for
the Advancement of Science, she said: "Man has been tinkering with food
production and plant development for such a long time that it's a bit
cheeky suddenly to get nervous about it when fundamentally you are
doing much the same thing. It is a huge oversimplification to say all
farming ought to be organic or there should be no GM foods. I'm sorry -
but life isn't that simple."
The article followed her brother's Reith Lecture last month in which he
said: "If literally nothing is held sacred any more, because it is
considered synonymous with superstition or in some other way
irrational, what is there to prevent us treating our entire world as
some great laboratory of life with potentially disastrous long-term
consequences?
"If a fraction of the money being invested in developing genetically
manipulated crops were applied to understanding and improving
traditional systems of agriculture which have stood the test of time,
the results would be remarkable."
The Duke's contribution to the debate also brought him into conflict
with MPs. Tim Yeo the Shadow Agriculture Minister, dismissed his
remarks as "complete nonsense".
He said: "I do not think Prince Philip fully understands what is really
involved with GM, it means taking genes from Arctic fish and sticking
them into tomatoes.
"I'm sorry to say that I'm on the side of the Prince of Wales rather
than his dad on this occasion and in the light of Princess Anne's
remarks at the weekend there seems to be a bit of a family row breaking
out over this."
Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, said: "I don't trust
this man's judgment at all. What does Prince Philip know about this?
What is his scientific background?
"Prince Philip goes around making inaccurate comments and he is as
wrong about this as he is wrong about the various racial qualities of
people around the planet be they Indian or Chinese people."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Irish_Val
awful lot alike.... but she is somewhat intelligent....
Now why would the two of them decide to fight Charlie in public????
What would they get from it????
I've always been told.... "Pick your battles" make sure it's worth
it.... Phillip..... he don't care..... but Anne is a bit more
cautious.....
Funny..... this battle comes right after the Queen meets Camilla at a
dinner that Phillip was "unable to attend" and to my knowledge.....
Anne didn't.....
So it seems to me that Phillip and Anne are having a go at the Queen
and Charlie...... hhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm
Seems like the battle lines are drawn....... and I see Phillip and
Anne being more ruthless.... but then again..... there is Charles'
treatment of Diana...... so....... he wins!!!!!!
Val
topa...@my-deja.com
You make some good points, but I suspect the whole GM food debate is
being promoted in the press now to make their differences look like
they are on a "higher intellectual plain" than the real problem--
Camilla the ugly.