The front page of The Daily Telegraph covers another one of the heir to the throne's occasional volcanic outbursts. This time it's against GM crops. My good friend Peter Franklin will no doubt salute Prince Charles' 'wisdom' but it's the intemperate nature of HRH's remarks that disturbs me more than anything. There's a suspicion of science and big business and a complete signing up to the global warming religion. It's fair enough for an individual to hold strong views but the heir to the throne? The great, quiet strength of Queen Elizabeth II has been her ability to stand above controversies and unite the nation. Will Prince Charles be able to hold his tongue when he likely succeeds his mother?
Fortunately Telegraph readers are treated to an excellent article by George Bridges on GM crops. George makes a powerful case for why they are necessary to feed the world's growing population:
"By 2050, there will probably be about 9.2 billion people - roughly 2.5 billion more than today. That increase alone is equivalent to the total size of the world population in 1950. If we are to put food on all our plates, global food production needs to double by 2050.
Not convinced? Consider one survey by the agricultural economists PG Economics, who studied the impact of GM crops over an entire decade - 1996 to 2006. They found that GM crops need to be tilled less and sprayed less, cutting tractors' fuel use and reducing the impact of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2006 alone, the permanent carbon dioxide savings from reduced fuel consumption since the introduction of GM crops was equal to removing 25 per cent of cars from Britain's roads for a year. Pesticide use fell by the equivalent of 40 per cent of what EU farmers spray on arable crops each year. Over the decade, as costs fell and yields rose, farmers' incomes increased by an estimated $30 billion. By 2006, most of that benefit was reaped by the nine million farmers in developing countries who were harvesting GM crops."
