Prince Charles: ‘Future of humanity’ may depend on organic farming

|

Prince Charles has warned that the ‘very future of humanity’ may depend on organic farming.

Speaking as he celebrated the 70th anniversary of the Soil Association in London, the heir to the throne insisted that eco-friendly practices, which had once seemed so controversial, were now backed by ‘sound science’.

And he warned that they may be our only hope of reversing the drastic damage being caused to the environment, which could see large swathes of farmland destroyed forever ‘within sixty harvests’.

Charles, who has long practised organic farming himself as well as being an advocate of it, told his audience: ‘So Ladies and Gentlemen, it is becoming ever clearer that the very future of humanity may depend to a very large extent on a mainstream transition to more sustainable farming practices, based of course on organic principles.

‘For instance, the impact of chemical fertilizers and pesticides on the soil biome, mirrored in our own stomachs as a result of excessive use of antibiotics, has been so devastating, that it is now being said that we only have enough fertility left for sixty harvests.’

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Prince Charles says the ‘very future of humanity’ may depend on organic farming as he warns ‘fertilizers and pesticides mean the world has only sixty harvests left’

  • Stuart Smyth

    It is lovely that Chuck has the luxury of hundreds of people to cook for him. I wonder how many days of food insecurity Chuck has experienced in his life?

    • WeGotta

      Insults.

      • Stuart Smyth

        Chuck should read the results of the WHO investigation of the 60 deaths in 2011 from people eating organic fenugreek. Organic food products are responsible for killing people every year, especially due to the presence of e coli from liquid manure sprayed on fields right before harvest. Sadly, Chuck ignores the abundant evidence of the harms, illness and death due to organic food.

        • WeGotta

          What kills the most people in westernized countries?

          • Stuart Smyth

            Auto accidents.

          • WeGotta

            Wrong. Try again.

        • WeGotta

          1 in 4 Americans die of cardiovascular disease. More than one per second every single day.

          Why do we use new technology to make those foods responsible more available, and why does the government promote them with marketing?

          $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

          • Good4U

            Well, wegutter, what would you recommend to prevent people from dying? No one in the history of life on earth has yet come up with a death prevention recipe. The sole, lingering fact that you should try to keep in your head is that people are living longer, healthier lives than they ever have in the entire course of human history. With biotechnology, people will live even longer in a health condition. But they will eventually die. I do expect to die. So should you. Whether it’s from cardiovascular disease or an auto accident, you will die too. Get used to it.

        • lajaw

          Raw sprouts, whether organic or conventional are some of the riskiest foods out there. all purchased raw sprouts should be rinsed with a mild chlorine solution. Organic food is no more dangerous than conventionally produced foods.

    • Cor Langeveld

      I wonder: I is worth to reply? Sorry, no

  • Roy Tindle

    I have had the pleasure of meeting with and talking to Charles, several times – over 20 years ago. We agreed on much about architecture, but he is not a scientist. Of course we need to reuse nutrients but organic farming only recycles that part of a crop that is not used. Only through industrial technology will we (eventually) be able to recycle those nutrients that we excrete.

    • WeGotta

      Lies.

      • Roy Tindle

        You appear to be an idiot!

        • WeGotta

          Insults, speculation.

          • Roy Tindle

            I met Prince Charles, several times, whilst running a vocational training organisation in East London. I also assisted him in setting up a new training organisation in Spitalfields. All of this is a matter of record so where are the lies?

          • WeGotta

            Here they are.

            “Of course we need to reuse nutrients but organic farming only recycles that part of a crop that is not used. Only through industrial technology will we (eventually) be able to recycle those nutrients that we excrete.”

          • Roy Tindle

            So what is untrue?

          • WeGotta

            “organic farming only recycles that part of a crop that is not used”

            “Only through industrial technology will we (eventually) be able to recycle those nutrients that we excrete”

          • Jason

            Please, explain how that is wrong.

          • WeGotta

            1. I doubt this guy knows what all organic farmers do or don’t do.
            2. Humanure. No industrial tech needed.

          • Jason

            It’s not a question of what organic farmers do. It’s a simple matter of physics…conservation of matter. Nutrients are removed from the field. They are put to use for many things… some food, some fiber, some fuel & countless industrial uses.

            Even just looking at the food… some of what you consume is used by your body. It will never make it back onto a farm field unless we start dumping our dead onto fields.

            As an FYI.. human sewage is not allowed to be used in organic farming and even if it were, would need to be processed before it were safe.

            What he stated is quite true.

          • WeGotta

            Spin. Spin. Spin. Spin. Spin. Spin. Spin.

          • Jason

            LOL… only you would call one of the fundamental laws of physics “spin”. Bravo!

          • WeGotta

            Right right, because those laws of physics only apply to organic farming and our laws prevent them.

          • Jason

            ??? You are a legitimately confusing human being.
            Of course they don’t only apply to organic farming.
            They apply to all farming. That’s why most farmers use industrial methods to recapture nutrients for use as fertilizers.
            In truth. organic farmers do too…just one step removed. Organic farmers use manures as a primary source of nitrogen. That manure most generally comes from surrounding conventional farms. And the nitrogen in that manure comes from the feed those animals ate. The nitrogen in the feed those animals ate came from synthetic fertilizers.

          • Jason

            No. As I showed you, he did not lie. Regardless, I don’t know the answers to your string of unrelated questions that follow.

          • Jason

            Feel free to show exactly where I said that.

          • Jason

            Is English your first language? I honestly do not think you know the meaning of the words you use. They are in no way connected to each other from one post to the next. You said I admitted he lied, then when asked where I did that, you post nothing about me admitting anything. You claim I lied, but have yet to post anything to the contrary. You are essentially just stomping your feet & saying “nuh-uh”.

            If you have anything to counter the information I gave you, feel free. But just saying “that’s a lie” isn’t going to cut it. Just because you’re uninformed, doesn’t mean I’m lying.

          • Jason

            You’re right… I don’t understand WTF you’re talking about sometimes. We’ve had this conversation before. You’re probably the worst communicator I’ve come across. Not only do you have no idea how the world around you works at the most basic level, you can’t carry on a basic debate at all. It is impossible to follow what ever point it is you think you’re making because you can’t construct and communicate a cohesive thought. So, yah..it is your fault.

            As to whether or not I am right, well the laws of physics say I am. If you have differing evidence, I’m quite confident you’d have provided it.

            Have a good weekend!

          • Roy Tindle

            Totally scientifically illiterate!

    • Larkin Curtis Hannah

      Just to clarify, on our home farm (where we use GE technology), we produce 15,000 hogs per year. The manure from those hogs goes into our conventional fields. So, don’t equate organic with the use of manure. Conventional farmers use it also.

  • Bill Pilacinski

    Perhaps, someone needs to make Sir Charles aware of all the organic maize that was with drawn from the British market by the UK’s Food Safety Authority (FSA 2003) and that GMO Bt maize significantly reduces the levels of these carcinogens in maize (Wu 2005 Transgen Res).

    • WeGotta

      Speculation.

  • GRH

    Charles really loves his sack of potatoes.
    Still, his personal life aside, I wonder how many man hours are needed to get a unit of produce compared to current day farmers. How much in pesticides (preferably as calculated in level of toxicity to humans and environment etc)?
    He’s so far removed from reality.

    • WeGotta

      Gossip, insults

      • GRH

        Sack of tatters, insult – yes (for humour – for those who have the appropriate sense and for those who appreciate the darker side of humour – typically British)
        .
        Gossip, no. Interesting you didn’t reply to the substance of the comment. With such brevity of reply, I can but assume you agree with those comments and felt no need to converse further.
        And I see some replies to others in the same vein. So glad you agree with us in the substance.
        Charlie is a privileged individual and insulated from the conventional world.

        Another option does occur to me however. You have feelings for Charles and that overwhelms any rational response to rational comments. Suck it up, suck it up. He’s married already, no chance for you.

        • WeGotta

          Baseless allegations.
          Innuendo.
          Speculation.

          • GRH

            Glad you were able to find a thesaurus (no it’s not a wordy dinosaur).
            Still no reply to the substance of the comment.
            Sad. (BTW, do you have small hands?)

          • WeGotta

            Gossip.

          • GRH

            I see, so asking a question is gossip?

          • WeGotta

            No. But asking certain questions is.

          • GRH

            … and avoiding the substance of the comment is deflection. Care to answer the substance of the question – a request I have made several times and have yet to receive an answer?
            I would also dispute asking a question is gossip. Passing along unsubstantiated rumours is – and that has already been acknowledged, and the reason for that already given.

          • WeGotta

            Aw, feeling lonely?

            Okay. What question? What substance?

          • GRH

            No need to project, I’m not lonely in the slightest.
            If I merely scroll back up to the start of this little discussion (it’s quite easy to do), my comments were : –
            I wonder how many man hours are needed to get a unit of produce compared to current day farmers. How much in pesticides (preferably as calculated in level of toxicity to humans and environment etc)?
            A request for reply to the substance has now been asked four times. Any chance of an actual substantive input to the original questions I posed?

          • Jason

            I do t have direct numbers but pesticide toxicity has declined over time while unit of produce has gone way up. It’s not even close.

  • Paul Montgomery

    Oh, we republicans do love this man. His stupidity is pretty much a guarantee of a republic once Ugly Betty is pushing up daisies.

    • WeGotta

      Gossip, insults.

  • WeGotta

    Such emotional outbursts from commenters.
    And on a “scientific” publication too. Tsk tsk.

    Time for some public outreach in the name of science.

    • Farmer with a Dell

      Why, then, don’t you simply bring around some good defensible science to refute the position? Oh, that’s right, you don’t do science. So, OK, don’t bother to bring around any more of your emotionally based group-think — we’ve heard it all before, and never have been impressed by any of it.

      • WeGotta

        Innuendo.
        Insults.

        • Farmer with a Dell

          Heh, no examples of supporting science…only reflexive childish grunts.

          Figures.

          • WeGotta

            Supposition.

    • Good4U

      Gutter, you must have broken out of your chimp cage again, and have gone back to flailing the air over your keyboard. How much time you have wasted. Fortunately the others who visit this site have no time for you.

  • Jason

    Interesting… He says:

    which could see large swathes of farmland destroyed forever ‘within sixty harvests’.

    Yet, here in the American Midwest, modern farming practices have had the reverse impact. Soils are far better off now than in the dust bowl era over “sixty harvests” ago. Not to say improvements can’t be made, but to make this claim ignores a whole lot of evidence to the contrary.

  • Larkin Curtis Hannah

    I am curious whether someone trained in soil science would like to chime in here. Hopefully, someone will. From my purview as a member of a family with a decent size farming operation in the Midwest, yields are increasing, compositions of the crops are not changing, soil erosion is the best it has ever been. I really don’t see a problem. I wish Prince Charles would provide us with the data from which he drew his conclusions.

    • lajaw

      Why has corn/wheat/barley protein levels dropped the last 30 years? A good organic OP corn will still test out at 12+% protein whereas the conventional GM corn will test out at around 7%.

      • Larkin Curtis Hannah

        I work with corn and do not see protein contents that low. Could you give me the source of your data please?

      • Frédéric Fred

        Please, stop repeating nonsense. There is no % protein drop over the last 30 years.
        BTW, organic grain has always lower protein contents than conventional grain, ALWAYS, because of lack of nitrogen in organic soil. Look it up in any agricultural statistics, it’s basic knowledge. Organic bread for example is horrible to look and eat, because organic wheat is too low in protein to make good bread. Again, that’s basic fact.

  • Frédéric Fred

    “Humanure”, lol, what an idiot troll you are !