Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Osborne well knows that Tories tax wealth at their peril (Financial Times)

If there are shock and awe tax cuts, there must be shock and awe tax rises too, writes Paul Goodman

2. Unemployment matters more than GDP or inflation (Guardian)

Jobless figures are the one major economic indicator that measures people, writes Mehdi Hasan. And they demonstrate the toll in misery across Europe.

3. A billion reasons to close the stamp duty loophole (Daily Telegraph)

Stamp duty avoidance by the super-rich is a scandal that is costing the country a fortune, says Boris Johnson.

4. Mr Obama must take a stand against Israel over Iran (Financial Times)

The true danger lies in the refusal to allow a viable Palestinian state, write John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

5. Who'll fight for man in street now, Cam? (Sun)

Hilton is a loss to a nation whose political elite has surrendered to unelected and unaccountable officials in Whitehall and Europe, says Trevor Kavanagh.

6. Whitehall still needs to sharpen up its act (Daily Telegraph)

The self-serving days of 'Yes Minister' may be over, but further Civil Service reform is vital, argues Peter Riddell.

7. I fear Cameron will prove to be little more than an empty suit (Daily Mail)

Steve Hilton's departure will reveal whether Dave has any political principles of his own, says Melanie Phillips.

8. What is 'soft power'? Tune in to find out (Times) (£)

Boosting the BBC World Service, not foreign aid, is the surer way to win the respect of the poor and repressed, argues Bill Emmott.

9. The police: a chance to modernise (Guardian)

This isn't privatisation: outsourcing routine jobs will save money for more urgent, difficult areas of policing, argues Ian Blair.

10. The God-given dignity to which the Cardinal is blind (Independent)

Cardinal O'Brien has not halted the onward march of aggressive secularism, but strengthened it, says Richard Coles.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Why Prince Charles and Princess Anne are both wrong on GM foods

The latest tiff between toffs gives plenty of food for thought.

I don’t have siblings, so I was weirdly curious as a kid about friends who did, especially when they argued (which was often). One thing I noticed was the importance of superlatives: of being the best child, the most right, and the first to have been wronged. And it turns out things are no different for the Royals.

You might think selective breeding would be a subject on which Prince Charles and Princess Anne would share common ground, but when it comes to genetically modified crops they have very different opinions.

According to Princess Anne, the UK should ditch its concerns about GM and give the technology the green light. In an interview to be broadcast on Radio 4’s Farming Today, she said would be keen to raise both modified crops and livestock on her own land.

“Most of us would argue we have been genetically modifying food since man started to be agrarian,” she said (rallying the old first-is-best argument to her cause). She also argued that the practice can help reduce the price of our food and improve the lives of animals - and “suspects” that there are not many downsides.

Unfortunately for Princess Anne, her Royal “us” does not include her brother Charles, who thinks that GM is The Worst.

In 2008, he warned that genetically engineered food “will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”  Supporting such a path would risk handing control of our food-chain to giant corporations, he warned -  leading to “absolute disaster” and “unmentionable awfulness” and “the absolute destruction of everything”.

Normally such a spat could be written off as a toff-tiff. But with Brexit looming, a change to our present ban on growing GM crops commercially looks ever more likely.

In this light, the need to swap rhetoric for reason is urgent. And the most useful anti-GM argument might instead be that offered by the United Nations’ cold, hard data on crop yields.

Analysis by the New York Times shows that, in comparison to Europe, the United States and Canada have “gained no discernible advantages” from their use of GM (in terms of food per acre). Not only this, but herbicide use in the US has increased rather than fallen.

In sum: let's swap superlatives and speculation for sense.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.