:00:12. > :00:16.laboratories and purple tomatoes with supposed health giving
:00:16. > :00:26.properties. On Sunday Morning Live we ask you to decide if scientists
:00:26. > :00:43.
:00:44. > :00:47.Also today, the new Premier league season is just around the corner and
:00:47. > :00:54.fans will be looking forward to seeing players like Luis Suarez
:00:54. > :01:00.playing football on the pitch rather than had ball off the pitch, but
:01:00. > :01:10.Nick Ferrari sees problems. To me, celebrating somebody who makes in a
:01:10. > :01:15.
:01:16. > :01:22.week what it would take nurses much longer to earn, we need to look at
:01:22. > :01:26.our role models. If I am going to give money to a charity, if I feel
:01:26. > :01:30.confident the leadership of that charity is right, the mission and
:01:30. > :01:36.purpose of the charity, I will be confident my money will be used well
:01:36. > :01:46.and I am likely to be more generous. My guests this week and Nick
:01:46. > :01:46.
:01:46. > :01:55.Ferrari, who developed his own one-man stage show, called The World
:01:55. > :02:05.According To Nick Ferrari. We also have Vicky Beeching, Joanna
:02:05. > :02:25.
:02:25. > :02:30.Blythman, the author of many books beefburger worth a quarter of �1
:02:30. > :02:36.million was cooked and eaten in London this week, not in a
:02:36. > :02:43.restaurant, so why was it so pricey? It was created by a team
:02:43. > :02:48.using stem cells from Carol and growing them into muscle tissue.
:02:48. > :02:54.There is quite some intense taste, it is close to meet, it is not that
:02:54. > :02:59.juicy. Science and food have been a thorny combination for many years.
:02:59. > :03:04.Amongst the developments now are genetically modified crops, which
:03:04. > :03:09.some say they can help to feed the world. Opponents to this technology
:03:09. > :03:13.say they threaten the natural environment and described them as
:03:13. > :03:19.Frankenstein foods. We will discuss the ethical issues raised in a
:03:19. > :03:23.moment, but first let's hear from a scientist creating GM food,
:03:23. > :03:29.including purple tomatoes. Professor Cathie Martin is a scientist in
:03:30. > :03:34.Norwich, currently carrying out a number of projects including
:03:34. > :03:40.genetically modified food. One of the ideas this centre is working on
:03:40. > :03:43.is to see if they can implant nitrogen storing qualities of
:03:43. > :03:49.peatlands into cereal crops. It is hoped the five-year project will
:03:49. > :03:52.have benefits for farmers in the developing world, meaning they can
:03:52. > :04:00.use less expensive nitrogen fertiliser, saving money and causing
:04:00. > :04:10.less pollution. Introducing nitrogen fixation into corn and wheat cannot
:04:10. > :04:13.be done conventionally. It has to be done by genetic engineering.
:04:13. > :04:18.Professor Martin is the lead scientist on a project where genes
:04:18. > :04:23.have been added to the common tomato, which may create extra
:04:23. > :04:31.health benefits. That has produced a crop of purple tomatoes. The reason
:04:31. > :04:35.we have done this genetic modification is to improve the
:04:35. > :04:41.content of these pigments because they have healthy properties. Let me
:04:41. > :04:46.just show you this in some more detail. This is a regular tomato,
:04:46. > :04:52.which everyone must be familiar with, and this is a purple tomato,
:04:52. > :04:58.and you can see it is full of these natural colours. We believe this is
:04:58. > :05:03.a beneficial property that will help people if we can try and produce
:05:03. > :05:08.tomatoes that are enriched so people don't have to read quite so many
:05:08. > :05:16.fruit and vegetables to get essential nutrients. The production
:05:16. > :05:25.of GM food can be a sensitive ethical area. I can understand
:05:25. > :05:28.people being concerned about what we do, and I certainly approve of
:05:28. > :05:35.regulatory scrutiny so that people can be sure that what we are
:05:35. > :05:42.producing is not dangerous and it is not uncontrollable in some way. I
:05:42. > :05:46.would like to give people the choice to choose crops, plants, food that
:05:46. > :05:51.is improved, but I don't want to force it on anyone that doesn't
:05:51. > :05:54.think it would be beneficial. Professor Martin is determined to
:05:54. > :06:02.carry on her work because she believes it holds the key to solving
:06:02. > :06:06.some of the world's food problems. Scientifically it is challenging but
:06:06. > :06:13.the potential is so huge and the benefits could be absolutely
:06:13. > :06:20.enormous. I think that is a challenge worth taking. Professor
:06:20. > :06:25.Martin on one form of food modification, so is this a logical
:06:25. > :06:32.ascent of science are slippery slope? Joanna, do you think it is
:06:32. > :06:36.going too far? Some scientists are making exaggerated claims and in the
:06:36. > :06:41.case of purple tomatoes, we already have improved purple tomato seeds on
:06:41. > :06:49.the market now that have been developed by conventional breeding
:06:49. > :06:54.methods without any risks attached to GM, which include environmental
:06:54. > :07:04.problems and risking the future security of our food supplies.
:07:04. > :07:05.
:07:05. > :07:09.is a question for the text vote - is science going too far with our food?
:07:10. > :07:19.You can only vote once. Go online to vote for free and the results will
:07:20. > :07:20.
:07:20. > :07:26.be announced at the end of the show. Nick, would you like the idea of a
:07:26. > :07:36.cultured beefburger with some purple tomato on top? No, that beefburger
:07:36. > :07:36.
:07:36. > :07:41.costing so much is nuts, or probably not because you would be allergic.
:07:41. > :07:46.If I was to say what about making your shopping cheaper, or what about
:07:46. > :07:49.stopping starvation across the world, or what about putting some
:07:50. > :07:54.nutrients into your children's food that will make them healthier, I
:07:54. > :08:03.think that is how we should be looking at the issue. In a perfect
:08:03. > :08:06.world we would all have a meadow and the children would be picking
:08:06. > :08:11.elderflowers but we all live in big cities where there isn't enough
:08:11. > :08:18.room. We cannot build more land, there will never be more land, we
:08:18. > :08:23.have got to find a solution. Vicky, I'm interesting that for many people
:08:23. > :08:32.who object, there seems to be an instinctive revulsion, why is that?
:08:32. > :08:36.Is it because it is food rather than something medical? We see this
:08:36. > :08:42.whenever science develops, we are pulsed with something initially and
:08:42. > :08:48.then it becomes normal. We saw this with heart transplants and IVF, but
:08:48. > :08:55.people are largely positive about these things now. I think part of
:08:55. > :09:05.the yuck factor might be about food produced in a laboratory. But all
:09:05. > :09:07.
:09:07. > :09:12.you have to do is look at a Coke can and the ingredients in there.
:09:12. > :09:17.was skin you were growing for medical grafting, would you feel
:09:17. > :09:23.differently to the idea of growing cultured meets? I think we have to
:09:23. > :09:29.look at the track records of the promises, the blind will see, the
:09:29. > :09:37.lame will walk, but the reality of GM crops is that they have created
:09:37. > :09:43.super weeds, super pests, they have polluted land, they have not
:09:43. > :09:49.produced the yields farmers have been promised, so I think we have to
:09:49. > :09:53.get out of our little fantasy world. Everybody wants a fairy story that
:09:53. > :09:59.makes everything all right but we have to look at the track record. On
:09:59. > :10:03.laboratory meat we know already doesn't have the nutritional
:10:03. > :10:08.qualities of conventional meat. We don't know if that will have an
:10:08. > :10:13.effect on people who eat it, but this is huge territory and I think
:10:13. > :10:20.we need to be very cautious when we decide we know better than nature.
:10:20. > :10:26.Luck how are you going to feed the world then? We haven't got enough
:10:26. > :10:34.land. People are starving in Africa. There is enough food in the world
:10:34. > :10:41.for everybody right now. Why are we giving all of this money to charity
:10:41. > :10:49.then? Even if we do create masses of food, it does not solve the problem.
:10:49. > :10:55.We have a lot of powerful companies that manipulate the supply for their
:10:55. > :10:59.profit. It is about the distribution of food and equality and public
:10:59. > :11:09.ownership of food. When you have local communities controlling their
:11:09. > :11:16.own food supply, you have a healthy system for feeding the world. At the
:11:16. > :11:20.moment... I don't understand. That is why we need crops like this, you
:11:20. > :11:25.going to an area where presumably there are parts of Africa where you
:11:25. > :11:33.cannot grow anything. If we get this right, it will be great, it will be
:11:33. > :11:40.drug resistant. Let's take the example of drought resistant crops.
:11:40. > :11:47.Conventional breeders are creating drought resistant crops. We have
:11:47. > :11:52.crops being improved, we have sweet potato with more beta-carotene, we
:11:52. > :11:56.have higher yielding wheat. In Britain, in Wales in fact we have
:11:56. > :12:04.bred potatoes which are a blight resistant, all using natural
:12:04. > :12:12.systems. I am more worried about Ethiopians. Let's bring in our guest
:12:12. > :12:16.from the international development at the Harvard Kennedy School in
:12:16. > :12:21.America. There is this concern about whether this technology is really
:12:21. > :12:27.about helping small farms in the developing world, or if it is about
:12:27. > :12:36.big companies making profits. you so much for having me on the
:12:36. > :12:40.programme. That concern was raised legitimately because the crops were
:12:40. > :12:47.commercialised by large farms. 17 years later the evidence does not
:12:47. > :12:52.support that claim. There is about 170 million hectares of GM crops
:12:52. > :13:00.grown worldwide, 52% of that is in developing countries. If you look at
:13:00. > :13:07.the economic benefits, GM crops have added nearly 100 billion dollars to
:13:07. > :13:11.agriculture. Just over 50% of that has gone to developing countries.
:13:11. > :13:17.There are about 117 million farms involved in the production of GM
:13:17. > :13:22.crops, out of that 90% is mostly farmers in developing countries so
:13:22. > :13:29.the claim it does not help developing countries is 17 years old
:13:29. > :13:33.and doesn't have support. Couldn't a lot of this be done through
:13:33. > :13:40.conventional breeding of species rather than genetic manipulation?
:13:40. > :13:48.And the fear there are unknown consequences of this, super weeds?
:13:48. > :13:58.Yes, I think this is being looked at as a general argument rather than
:13:58. > :14:03.
:14:04. > :14:10.specific modifications to solve a specific problem. It is difficult to
:14:10. > :14:15.solve a problem without going through genetic modification. You
:14:15. > :14:19.can also use non-breeding methods and that is being done. Our position
:14:19. > :14:24.is that we should leave all of the options open but the critics say
:14:24. > :14:34.let's have all of the options except technology and that is not logical
:14:34. > :14:38.
:14:38. > :14:46.in my view. It is interesting what he was saying. In India there is a
:14:46. > :14:49.different experience. If you were to speak to any scientist about GM
:14:50. > :14:58.cotton is they would speak about the disaster of cotton which really has
:14:58. > :15:05.impoverished farmers. And Indonesia this week the farmers were ripping
:15:06. > :15:15.up GM crops cause they are concerned about how it will affect their
:15:16. > :15:16.
:15:17. > :15:23.livelihood. So it is wrong to suggest that there is some empirical
:15:23. > :15:26.flawless evidence to suggest that genetic modification does work. I
:15:26. > :15:29.think that is your view and I respect that but I do not think that
:15:29. > :15:33.people in other countries, not least America where farmers are trying to
:15:33. > :15:38.get out of these crops and trying to get them labelled for consumers,
:15:38. > :15:43.because people do not want to read them any longer. Your response to
:15:43. > :15:49.that, Professor? Just to mention that specific India case. I oversaw
:15:49. > :15:54.a study down in India published by the National Academy of science. The
:15:54. > :15:58.evidence does not support that claim. In the past ten years or so
:15:58. > :16:05.evidence shows that the cotton yields have increased by the control
:16:05. > :16:07.of pests. The same farmers have had up to an eight team percent increase
:16:07. > :16:17.in their spending power. So the evidence does not support that
:16:17. > :16:21.
:16:21. > :16:26.claim. Just to interrupt, I am afraid we cannot get into details of
:16:26. > :16:29.specific evidence. But thank you very much for joining us. Tom
:16:29. > :16:36.McMillan is from the soil Association representing organic
:16:36. > :16:43.growers. It is this idea that perhaps GM science has moved on. But
:16:43. > :16:47.the fear is of it are stuck in the past? I think people have been
:16:47. > :16:52.sceptical rather than afraid, sceptical of the promises made about
:16:52. > :16:59.GM feeding the world. And also why we are being asked to grow and eat
:16:59. > :17:07.crops when the overwhelming push for the technology has come from
:17:07. > :17:14.chemical and seed companies. And that scepticism has been pretty well
:17:14. > :17:18.placed especially from the US. We have seen the emergence of super
:17:18. > :17:26.weeds resisting those herbicides. And we have some -- we have seen
:17:27. > :17:33.seat prices go up. Companies are suing farmers left right and centre
:17:33. > :17:37.when those seeds escape into the neighbouring fields. Meanwhile
:17:37. > :17:44.conventional breeding has been turning out many of the benefits
:17:44. > :17:51.that GM promised. I am totally informed by what I heard from your
:17:51. > :17:58.professor. It is interesting that where there is resistance it is in
:17:59. > :18:05.countries like America. We are all quite well off. There is this idea
:18:05. > :18:13.but perhaps GM concerns are a luxury that people cannot afford. And there
:18:13. > :18:20.is a real issue about food shortage. I think we do need to push past that
:18:20. > :18:26.yuck factor and panic. Even some of the technology used, super weeds,
:18:26. > :18:32.Frankenstein crops. We need to remember that what we are dealing
:18:32. > :18:36.with is things that will become very normal. I would compare the super
:18:36. > :18:42.weeds to the trolls of the intranet. We would not stop using the Internet
:18:42. > :18:50.because of that. Technology is more or less at neutral tool and we use
:18:50. > :19:00.it for good or bad. What would you call a weed that is resistant to all
:19:00. > :19:03.
:19:03. > :19:11.the pesticides that can be used? And new breed of weed. Can you just keep
:19:11. > :19:21.on using a stronger and stronger pesticide? Do you use a deep
:19:21. > :19:21.
:19:21. > :19:28.freezer? I can see where you are going. It is a natural thing.
:19:28. > :19:36.sense that you do use a freezer. That is an artificial argument.
:19:36. > :19:41.want to bring in someone else, the editor of GM watch which reports on
:19:41. > :19:46.concerns on GM food. Things like refrigeration are interventions in
:19:46. > :19:56.nature. And perhaps this blanket objection to bioengineering is
:19:56. > :19:57.
:19:57. > :20:07.false. I think when we are considering technologies, really I
:20:07. > :20:10.
:20:10. > :20:16.would call super weeds and toxic effects on animals, the latest
:20:16. > :20:21.evidence is... I'm not able to make out what you're
:20:21. > :20:28.saying, I'm really sorry. I think we will have to come back to that. But
:20:28. > :20:34.it is this idea, there are reasons to fear bioengineering. Because it
:20:34. > :20:39.is going into different territory. We probably would not have cars or
:20:40. > :20:44.trains, when they first invented trains everyone thought we were
:20:44. > :20:48.going to die of heart attacks. same with the invention of the
:20:48. > :20:58.printing press. The argument is about whether you are changing
:20:58. > :20:58.
:20:58. > :21:07.nature fundamentally. There are benefits in the fields of health.
:21:07. > :21:12.How do you feel about IVF? That was about playing God. What people
:21:12. > :21:15.always do as they want to change the argument. They do not want to talk
:21:15. > :21:25.about foods, they want to talk about trains. You have to look at the
:21:25. > :21:27.
:21:27. > :21:34.reality. Freezing is something that nature dolls. Ice is a natural
:21:34. > :21:40.thing. I was listening to one interview with a scientist
:21:40. > :21:46.developing cultured leather, a substitute for leather. That is an
:21:46. > :21:51.animal product but we do not eat it. I wonder if that is different?
:21:51. > :22:00.not know about cultured leather. I do know a bit about cultured meat
:22:00. > :22:07.and the muscle cells have to come from cows. And the material to
:22:07. > :22:11.encourage those to grow has to come from the foetus of cows. That is the
:22:11. > :22:16.final question, are we looking at things the wrong way round. Instead
:22:16. > :22:21.of asking how we grow warm meet artificially, Germany is talking
:22:21. > :22:28.about having one day per week that his meat free because it is so
:22:28. > :22:33.intensive. If we want to have enough protein I think we should use
:22:33. > :22:40.technology to push those boundaries. If you are a vegetarian, you could
:22:40. > :22:45.potentially eat one of these beefburgers. I am trying to work out
:22:45. > :22:50.whether I would be allowed to eat that as a vegetarian! Some comments
:22:50. > :22:55.from you at home. One saying science should not be altering nature.
:22:55. > :23:00.Another saying as long as the foods are safe and well tested which
:23:00. > :23:05.should take advantage of the technology. And another says we need
:23:05. > :23:10.all the help that we can get. This could help us in the future. The
:23:10. > :23:19.vote on this issue is open. The question is, is science going too
:23:19. > :23:28.far with our food? You can only vote once. The text number on the screen.
:23:28. > :23:35.You have around 20 minutes before that closes.
:23:35. > :23:41.Like it or not, top level football returns to action this afternoon.
:23:41. > :23:47.The community Shield kicks off today at Wembley. Fans will be relieved
:23:47. > :23:50.that they can concentrate on the action rather than transfer sagas of
:23:50. > :23:57.backbiting which have dominated the front pages recently. But do the
:23:57. > :24:03.actions of some high-level players have a detrimental effect on young
:24:03. > :24:08.fans? Nick Ferrari thinks so. It is that time of year again. The
:24:08. > :24:12.Charity Shield, the traditional curtain raiser to the Premier
:24:12. > :24:22.League, kicks off this afternoon. Now the nation can get obsessed
:24:22. > :24:23.about the offside rule. It is all pretty harmless stuff until you
:24:24. > :24:32.realise how impressionable youngsters and especially boys look
:24:32. > :24:39.up to those overpaid and often underwhelming stars. While people up
:24:39. > :24:45.and down the land play for the love of the game, the Premier League
:24:45. > :24:52.offers huge financial incentive to its players. To me celebrating
:24:52. > :24:56.someone who makes in one week what it would take a nurse six years to
:24:56. > :25:04.earn yet cheats and behaves like a small child is wrong. But to see
:25:04. > :25:10.young lads, they see them as role models. The trouble is genuine role
:25:10. > :25:15.models these days are about as rare as an England win in a penalty shoot
:25:15. > :25:21.out. Some of our politicians have been exposed as liars and crooks. So
:25:21. > :25:25.there's not much point looking at them. And as for religious leaders,
:25:25. > :25:31.congregations in many faiths are dwindling. So not much point there
:25:31. > :25:37.either. And as for those pillars of society, the bankers, that does not
:25:37. > :25:42.get started. Those young people who are part of loving and functioning
:25:42. > :25:46.families, it horribly does not matter that much. But there are
:25:46. > :25:53.plenty who are less fortunate and for them to have as role models
:25:53. > :25:56.people who seek greed as good and cheating as part of their set of
:25:56. > :26:04.skills, that is something we should all worry about.
:26:04. > :26:08.Tackling that is a goal for all of us. Do you agree with Nick? ARPA
:26:08. > :26:14.footballers a bad example to our children. Should they even be
:26:14. > :26:21.expected to be role models? You can join in the debate. Journalist and
:26:21. > :26:25.author Lucy Millard joins us. Her two young sons are big Chelsea fans.
:26:25. > :26:33.Why should we think about footballers as role models? I think
:26:33. > :26:38.children understand that racism is wrong on the pitch. Footballers I
:26:38. > :26:45.think are greedy and their agents are greedy. I think they're paid too
:26:45. > :26:52.much. But I think children do grasp, they understand the nature of
:26:52. > :27:00.the skill and the importance of turning up on time. There are some
:27:00. > :27:06.positive elements of football which children can learn from. I asked my
:27:06. > :27:13.sons, one of them is 13 and one of them is eight, I said give me a list
:27:13. > :27:20.of people you think are good role models. Obviously David Beckham.
:27:20. > :27:30.Didier job but also a good role model. He has foundations for young
:27:30. > :27:35.
:27:35. > :27:41.footballers. My youngest son bought the book by Frank Lampard. He read
:27:41. > :27:47.that on holiday. But there was an article today that he did not
:27:47. > :27:56.actually write much of the book. think that is completely irrelevant.
:27:56. > :28:05.We were at the airport and he saw that book by Frank Lampard. He read
:28:05. > :28:15.that on the journey. You can look at stories about footballers, there are
:28:15. > :28:15.
:28:15. > :28:19.all the seven deadly sins, lust and avarice. How do they seem? I would
:28:19. > :28:25.say that football is the new religion. Church attendance has
:28:25. > :28:29.declined over the years. And basically football has become a kind
:28:29. > :28:33.of pseudo- Christianity for many people with this weekend attendance
:28:33. > :28:40.and the passion. You're in the stands, hands in the air, chanting
:28:40. > :28:45.songs. And that makes the footballers basically the equivalent
:28:45. > :28:50.of priests or even gods. Should they be role models? They are. They find
:28:50. > :28:55.themselves almost as these icons and young people are looking up to them.
:28:55. > :29:01.Maybe there is a moral responsibility? What really offends
:29:01. > :29:06.me sometimes is that the football coverage in the newspapers, it will
:29:06. > :29:11.be a miracle goal, a miracle save. These are not miracles, they are
:29:11. > :29:21.overpaid people who in some circumstances are not even that
:29:21. > :29:29.good. There are too many lads standing on street corners in too
:29:29. > :29:34.many cities who do not have a role model. For so many of these kids all
:29:34. > :29:44.they see in these football players, they cheat, they spit. And they are
:29:44. > :29:46.
:29:46. > :29:52.given vast sums of money. I think it is down to the clubs to look after
:29:52. > :29:59.their players. They need to be looked after and managed. Most
:29:59. > :30:05.American footballers in the NFL have foundations. It is part of the
:30:05. > :30:15.culture of American football. cannot spell foundation, never mind
:30:15. > :30:15.
:30:15. > :30:21.have them. I suppose they have what they call football intelligence,
:30:21. > :30:26.they need guidance. I want to bring in Eric Hall, a football agent. We
:30:26. > :30:31.have been hearing about the bad things footballers do, are people
:30:31. > :30:39.like you to blame for turning them into money-grubbing louts? I have
:30:39. > :30:44.heard a lot of rubbish being spoken by your panel, a lot of jealousy and
:30:44. > :30:48.bitterness they have been talking. Of course they are going to get a
:30:48. > :30:54.lot of money, their audience is millions, not a couple of hundred.
:30:54. > :31:04.Why doesn't people like Nick Ferrari, who is an old friend of
:31:04. > :31:04.
:31:04. > :31:14.mine, how are you? They don't complain about people like tiny --
:31:14. > :31:24.
:31:24. > :31:28.like Barbra Streisand... It gets bums on seats, millions. Isn't there
:31:28. > :31:33.an argument that says if they are that popular and built on their
:31:33. > :31:39.following, they have a responsibility back? How many
:31:39. > :31:43.players do you know, maybe one or two that have got into trouble.
:31:43. > :31:48.There are million players registered as professional footballers in this
:31:48. > :31:55.country, but two out of a million isn't bad. Why should they be role
:31:55. > :32:00.models? They do their job, they behave themselves. We are going too
:32:00. > :32:04.far down the money argument, that is not the main arguments, it is how
:32:05. > :32:09.these men are held. In American football there is a sense you have
:32:09. > :32:14.got to do something with the extraordinary position you enjoy. If
:32:14. > :32:22.you have that money, you have a sense of responsibility. In a
:32:22. > :32:29.perfect world we would look up to religious leaders, or politicians.
:32:29. > :32:34.This is why these guys are important and they don't realise it. Eric, why
:32:34. > :32:40.do you think it is a bad thing they would be looked up to as role
:32:40. > :32:44.models? You are not listening, if people want to make them role models
:32:44. > :32:48.that is their decision, but they are just ordinary guys with a talent to
:32:48. > :32:53.play football and they want to win matches and get their wages which
:32:53. > :33:03.they deserve. People are paying ticket money and sponsorship money
:33:03. > :33:12.and they want to be a part of that money. In the late 70s, when my
:33:12. > :33:15.first client told me what he was earning, I was shocked. The money
:33:15. > :33:20.situation has really changed for footballers, so we will leave it
:33:20. > :33:25.there, but I want to bring in Bobby Barnes, the deputy chairman of the
:33:25. > :33:28.football players Association. I understand you are starting to run
:33:28. > :33:33.classes for players about respectable behaviour. What does
:33:33. > :33:38.this say about the profession that you feel you are having to do this?
:33:38. > :33:48.Can I just clarify that point. The lessons we are bringing in are not
:33:48. > :33:58.
:33:58. > :34:01.based on respect as such, they are based on cultural diversity because
:34:01. > :34:03.of the fact as a country we play host to something like 70 different
:34:03. > :34:06.nationalities playing in our leagues and it is important with that
:34:06. > :34:08.different mix of cultures and beliefs, it is important players are
:34:08. > :34:10.aware of what standards of behaviour are acceptable. It is aimed at
:34:10. > :34:12.eliminating any possible cultural differences that might cause someone
:34:12. > :34:16.to say something or do something that may well be acceptable in their
:34:16. > :34:22.home country. I have read the account of it and it is issues like
:34:22. > :34:27.language and racism. Is there something players are doing at a
:34:27. > :34:37.senior level in football that perhaps we are not hearing about?
:34:37. > :34:37.
:34:37. > :34:44.Rosie made the point earlier about the find -- foundations they have in
:34:44. > :34:52.the NFL. I cannot think of any other industry where employees have
:34:52. > :34:56.committed to six hours in their community per week. We have numerous
:34:56. > :35:01.player foundations set up by the players to benefit communities here
:35:01. > :35:06.and abroad, so I think it is grossly unfair to say our players don't take
:35:06. > :35:09.the responsibility of the position they are in. Most footballers are
:35:09. > :35:15.very much role models in the sense that they contribute a lot back to
:35:15. > :35:18.their communities through football in the community schemes. To say
:35:19. > :35:25.that because of a small minority of people who occasionally misbehaves,
:35:25. > :35:28.I would say in any section of society you would get that. We only
:35:28. > :35:35.get the tabloid picture most of the time, are you convinced about the
:35:35. > :35:42.other side? The community work most footballers do is community service
:35:42. > :35:46.orders after speeding. Did you mention Didier Drogba with his
:35:46. > :35:54.foundation money, he goes over like a granny on an icy morning the
:35:54. > :36:01.minute a ball is near him. He is a fantastic looking player yes, but
:36:01. > :36:04.you touch them like that and he goes bowling over. Lets not talk about
:36:04. > :36:12.individual footballers. Arsenal has a thing called a double club where
:36:12. > :36:15.you have a football lesson and you do your homework and they are
:36:15. > :36:24.funding this throughout schools in London, particularly Islington where
:36:25. > :36:30.I live. Arsenal has a real commitment. The players, I think
:36:30. > :36:37.Theo Walcott, you know, actually the players are responsible. These are
:36:37. > :36:42.boys, they are very young. Is there a kind of snobbery in the way we
:36:42. > :36:46.look at football? Plenty of other celebrities earn a huge amount of
:36:46. > :36:49.money am sometimes do responsible things with it. It might be because
:36:49. > :36:54.of the religious status of football that we put extra pressure on them
:36:54. > :36:58.but I would say social media is largely to blame for a lot of the
:36:58. > :37:02.scrutiny would put them under because we put them under a
:37:02. > :37:06.microscope, we look at everything they do, whereas I think there is a
:37:06. > :37:11.lot going on behind the scenes that isn't scrutinised - the generous
:37:11. > :37:17.giving, the memorabilia they generate and give to charity, and we
:37:17. > :37:25.just focus on the problems. don't see television presenters
:37:25. > :37:31.spitting and snarling. You do see it verbally and metaphorically. I think
:37:31. > :37:36.these young men are put under immense pressure, like they will go
:37:36. > :37:42.into a bar and there are some people whose square up to them. Men feel it
:37:42. > :37:52.is a good idea to have a fight with people like Steven Gerrard and sleep
:37:52. > :37:53.
:37:53. > :37:58.on them. They are tempted.It is like theatre, like a giant
:37:58. > :38:04.theatrical thing every Saturday. I haven't finished. They are like
:38:04. > :38:14.celebrities and film stars, and I know a bit about how film stars are
:38:14. > :38:15.
:38:15. > :38:25.treated and they are protected. Converted at all? Know, even more
:38:25. > :38:29.
:38:29. > :38:35.decided. We have these texts: Lees says role models are people who
:38:35. > :38:41.should make sacrifices for higher values, not people who kick a ball
:38:41. > :38:46.around for money. You have been voting on our question this morning
:38:46. > :38:54.- is science going too fast for food, and we will bring you the
:38:54. > :38:59.result at the end of the show. Around broke out this week after the
:38:59. > :39:03.Charity commission chairman William Shawcross said large salaries paid
:39:03. > :39:09.to charity staff could bring the charitable world into disrepute. The
:39:09. > :39:19.daily Telegraph reported on the pay within 14 different UK charities,
:39:19. > :39:27.
:39:27. > :39:33.some of whom were earning more than �100,000 a year. Sunday Morning Live
:39:33. > :39:36.has been to meet one of the people who decides how much the boss of one
:39:36. > :39:42.particular charity is worth. This charity works in more than 40
:39:42. > :39:47.countries and pledges itself to reducing poverty and helping poor
:39:47. > :39:52.communities regardless of faith. It has a budget of �50 million. The
:39:52. > :39:58.ship John Arnold, an auxiliary bishop of the diocese of
:39:58. > :40:02.Westminster, is chair of the Charity's trustees. We are in places
:40:02. > :40:12.where none of the other agencies are working and we are working with the
:40:12. > :40:14.
:40:14. > :40:18.poorest people, helping them to maintain a sustainable livelihood.
:40:18. > :40:25.Cathod's director is paid just over �90,000 a year, but Bishop Arnold
:40:25. > :40:29.does not feel this salary is at odds with its mission. Whether we like it
:40:29. > :40:33.or not, we are in a market economy which means people have expertise
:40:33. > :40:37.and they look for those skills that are required for the job to be done.
:40:37. > :40:41.On the other hand we are dealing with people who are very generously
:40:41. > :40:45.giving money to charity for the poorest people in the world and we
:40:45. > :40:52.have got to balance those things so that we make sure the money that is
:40:52. > :40:58.given is used well, and for that we need to provide a director who is
:40:58. > :41:02.able to use the money in the best possible sense. This charity also
:41:02. > :41:07.campaigns on issues related to its work. The charity employs 400 people
:41:07. > :41:13.in England and Wales and works with 600 partner organisations overseas.
:41:13. > :41:17.Bishop Arnold believes criticism of high salaries does not take into
:41:17. > :41:22.account the complexities of running such a big operation. There are some
:41:22. > :41:26.people who have been a bit concerned that maybe they should cancel their
:41:26. > :41:30.direct debit and for that we recognise their generosity in the
:41:30. > :41:35.past and I have written to them and explained to them how we come to the
:41:36. > :41:39.salary that we paid to our director, and the purpose behind calculating
:41:39. > :41:47.that salary, and also some people have been phoning to say how
:41:47. > :41:55.remarkable it is that the director is so low paid compared to other
:41:56. > :42:03.charities. Bishop Arnold says Cathod has no plans to change its future
:42:03. > :42:08.recruitment policy or pay structure. Is charity just another big business
:42:08. > :42:13.that needs the best qualified managers paid at the market rate?
:42:13. > :42:18.What do you think? Charities work with the poorest people in the world
:42:18. > :42:22.and some people think it does not sit right with these 6-figure
:42:23. > :42:28.salaries. To attract the best people to run these organisations, you have
:42:28. > :42:33.to offer a decent amount of money. One of the key arguments is that it
:42:34. > :42:37.would put people off from donating. That shows the dichotomy of either
:42:37. > :42:42.channelling money to the front line or to the senior teams, but
:42:42. > :42:49.everybody knows a good mechanic model of running an organisation, it
:42:49. > :42:54.is not a dichotomy, it is the same thing. You need the best people for
:42:54. > :42:58.the best job. Some of these charity bosses have picked up fairly healthy
:42:58. > :43:02.pay rises and yet the amount of money coming into the charity has
:43:02. > :43:06.decreased. That cannot add up. If you are running a charity and taking
:43:07. > :43:13.less last year than this year, and you still allow yourself to have a
:43:13. > :43:18.bonus and a pay rise, that is inherently wrong. I think people
:43:18. > :43:24.would have very strong views. charities do you feel it is a
:43:24. > :43:31.vocation that should be at the heart of it? I think it is disgraceful
:43:31. > :43:38.that 11 charity bosses are earning more than the Prime Minister. The
:43:38. > :43:46.chief executive of the Red Cross earns over �180,000 a year, a 12%
:43:46. > :43:50.rise on last year, and the Red Cross has had a 1% drop. These charities
:43:50. > :43:57.are not here to speak for themselves, but charities like Red
:43:57. > :44:00.Cross deal with huge amounts of money. They are not private
:44:00. > :44:07.enterprises or profits, they are charities. I think you have to
:44:07. > :44:12.question the motivation of the CEO. Is a charity is doubling its take so
:44:12. > :44:21.a man or a woman comes in and revolutionises it, why should they
:44:21. > :44:27.necessarily not be paid well? People go to work for all different
:44:27. > :44:34.reasons. Not everyone wants to do a good job just for money. Why should
:44:34. > :44:42.you not be able to do both? Because charities dependent on volunteers
:44:42. > :44:50.who do a lot of work for charities. I do a lot of running in marathons.
:44:50. > :44:53.The Macmillan volunteers are out there shaking the tins. Charities
:44:53. > :45:00.dependent on donations from taxpayers and people voluntary
:45:00. > :45:06.giving, pensioners giving a tiny amount of their miniscule income to
:45:06. > :45:16.that charity. That then go into these gross pay packets. I think it
:45:16. > :45:18.
:45:18. > :45:27.is disgusting. Well we can go now to Stephen Bubb. You called this focus
:45:27. > :45:29.on the pay a disgraceful distraction. I think it is a
:45:29. > :45:35.distraction because charities are facing significant demands on them
:45:35. > :45:40.and have falling income against rising demand. I think it is
:45:40. > :45:43.disgraceful because it implies to the public but all charity chief
:45:43. > :45:48.executives are paid these high salaries and in fact the majority
:45:48. > :45:52.are on modest salaries. But many of them are. How do you square that
:45:52. > :46:00.with the fact that these organisations rely very much on
:46:00. > :46:05.volunteers giving their time? Absolutely. There is a balance.
:46:05. > :46:10.Trustees of these large charities work across the world in difficult
:46:10. > :46:17.circumstances. We need to have to pay to get the best talent at the
:46:17. > :46:20.top. And balance that with the fact that they're working for charities
:46:20. > :46:27.where people give their money generously. I suspect that the
:46:27. > :46:32.public understand it is means and ends. The end is getting aid to
:46:32. > :46:35.people who desperately need it. If you can pay someone to improve the
:46:35. > :46:44.performance of the charity, which these people have done, I think that
:46:44. > :46:54.is a good balance. I would say with all due respect, Sir Stephen is in
:46:54. > :46:54.
:46:54. > :47:00.Cloud Cuckoo land like these other executives. He had a 60th birthday
:47:00. > :47:08.party at the House of Lords which cost �1500. Sir Stephen paid half of
:47:08. > :47:14.that. This is a voluntary organisation and he uses �750 for
:47:14. > :47:20.his own birthday party at the House of Lords. Sir Stephen? I do not
:47:20. > :47:29.think this is a story about me. The trustees kindly contributed. But the
:47:29. > :47:34.fact was that was a celebration of what the organisation has achieved.
:47:34. > :47:40.But this is a story about chief executive. But there is concern
:47:40. > :47:48.about whether there is a gravy train of people in highly paid jobs who
:47:48. > :47:56.have quite a nice cushy deal at the top. It is easy to smear people in
:47:56. > :48:03.the top jobs. That is why I think it was a disgraceful distraction. The
:48:03. > :48:08.people who do these jobs in the big charities, they do so not to line
:48:08. > :48:16.their pockets but because they do have a vocation. But they also have
:48:16. > :48:20.families. Sir Stephen, if takings are going down for the charity and
:48:20. > :48:27.the man or woman at the top continues to take a bonus or pay
:48:27. > :48:32.rise how do you justify that? interestingly the 14 charities
:48:32. > :48:37.highlighted in the daily Telegraph have a turnover of �1.73 billion.
:48:37. > :48:43.Last year they increased the amounts that they received. So that points
:48:43. > :48:50.to the fact that against difficult circumstances those people at the
:48:50. > :48:59.top have managed to bring in more money. For example Save the Children
:48:59. > :49:04.working with refugees in Syria. Thank you very much. I do think it
:49:04. > :49:14.makes me feel sick that the chief executives of Save the Children, two
:49:14. > :49:20.of them earning �160,000 and they got a bonus. How can you have a
:49:20. > :49:29.bonus if you're dealing with critically ill children, vulnerable
:49:29. > :49:36.people? I think we need to be careful. There are 163 thousand
:49:36. > :49:44.charities in the UK. �58,000 is the average salary of their chief
:49:44. > :49:51.executives. We are beginning to damage the reputation of the people
:49:51. > :49:58.who run these. I want to bring in Bishop John Arnold. He was in the
:49:58. > :50:05.film. What do you make of this moral concern about whether charities
:50:05. > :50:13.should be paying big salaries and bonuses? I think there is a moral
:50:13. > :50:19.question will stop but at the same time I do not want to generalise. I
:50:19. > :50:26.can only speak for Cafod. We do not pay our director nearly as much as
:50:26. > :50:30.other charities. What we have to do is make sure we have got the right
:50:30. > :50:38.expertise to use the money that people so generously give. And it
:50:38. > :50:40.would be silly for people to give generously and then find that the
:50:40. > :50:45.money has been frittered away and not properly accounted for at the
:50:45. > :50:51.front line. We have got a very good director in place and we paid the
:50:51. > :50:58.right salary for the job he does. Pretty much year-on-year are charity
:50:58. > :51:04.has increased the money it has two distribute. Thank you so much for
:51:04. > :51:09.talking to us on the programme. Michelle Wilmers is a journalist
:51:09. > :51:15.specialising in social justice in international affairs. There is a
:51:15. > :51:22.sense that charity bosses are being unfairly demonised. I would not
:51:22. > :51:27.necessarily agree. There may be a danger that this could be used to
:51:27. > :51:32.bash the work of charities in general. But there are all kind of
:51:33. > :51:42.issues involved. Especially in light of unpaid internships within the
:51:42. > :51:52.charity sector. The charity sector needs to attract the best talent. I
:51:52. > :51:53.
:51:53. > :51:58.think that is fine. But often the interns are not paid and so the
:51:58. > :52:04.hardest workers within the charity sector are working for no wage. I
:52:04. > :52:10.think while that is the case that these huge salaries are difficult to
:52:10. > :52:19.justify. We can speak now to a research consultancy firm for the
:52:19. > :52:22.charity sector. Is this a problem for public perception? It is a real
:52:22. > :52:29.problem in how the public see the charities. We did some research
:52:29. > :52:34.recently and three quarters of the public thought that chief executives
:52:34. > :52:39.where it at -- an administration calls. High salaries is one of the
:52:39. > :52:43.areas that they are most concerned about. When we asked if they thought
:52:43. > :52:49.enough money was going to the cause and too much on administration, they
:52:49. > :52:53.do worry about that. So this is a real concern for the public and they
:52:53. > :52:58.want to know how they can be sure that their donations are well spent.
:52:58. > :53:04.Is there a danger that charities are losing support because they behave
:53:04. > :53:10.like a business? Bombarding people with mailshots, the notorious
:53:10. > :53:15.charity mugger will stop perhaps this goes hand-in-hand with this big
:53:15. > :53:21.business attitude. I think we capture the different ways to
:53:21. > :53:27.capture people's attention to get a good message across. We need to get
:53:27. > :53:34.in there and ask people to support good causes. I think that falls
:53:34. > :53:39.dichotomy keeps being repeated. Do we want money for the front-line or
:53:39. > :53:44.for the senior staff that they are one and the same thing. You are
:53:44. > :53:50.getting aid taken to some of the most inhospitable places on earth.
:53:50. > :53:56.It is whether there is a kind of poverty industry. I think that there
:53:56. > :54:03.is. But people who work in charities, people in the public
:54:03. > :54:09.sector should want to do the job for the sake of the job and not for some
:54:09. > :54:16.enormous pay packet. People saying it is not people lining their
:54:16. > :54:22.pockets but how is �180,000 not a colossal salary? In many industries
:54:22. > :54:29.people are paid a lot more. Fundraising is jolly hard work.
:54:29. > :54:38.People will be saying I'm not giving this money. They may transfer to a
:54:38. > :54:42.local smaller charity. In many cases charities in Britain are picking up
:54:42. > :54:48.services that used to be provided by the state. That could add to the
:54:48. > :54:51.sense of unease. A lot of people will not realise that some of the
:54:51. > :54:54.charities that they support, they may want to do some research into
:54:54. > :55:01.how much the chief executives are paid. But compared to other
:55:01. > :55:09.industries, if someone running a petrol company sells more petrol,
:55:09. > :55:13.that is fine. This is people living money because they think they are
:55:13. > :55:21.helping children who are ill, helping the elderly. That is how
:55:21. > :55:26.they get their cash and the bosses need to be aware of that. And many
:55:26. > :55:30.of these bosses have had a well paid career in the private sector before
:55:30. > :55:33.and have come to the charitable sector bringing those skills. I
:55:33. > :55:39.think they should all be paid the national average and give the rest
:55:39. > :55:45.of their money to that charity. What you think about NHS bosses then who
:55:45. > :55:50.are paid big salaries? It irks me that people say there needs to be
:55:50. > :55:56.more transparency but the truth is that these salaries are set by the
:55:56. > :56:01.trustees. You can find that out on the website. There is transparency.
:56:01. > :56:07.We have to leave it there. Just a couple of quick comments. Clare
:56:07. > :56:13.saying she is appalled by both top salaries, she thinks it is immoral.
:56:13. > :56:18.And another saying that the salaries of charity bosses should all be
:56:18. > :56:25.transparent. And another saying they should be working for the love of
:56:25. > :56:31.helping people. We have to leave it there. At the start of the programme
:56:31. > :56:39.we asked if science was going too far, here is what you told us. 68%
:56:39. > :56:43.of those of you who voted said yes, things are going too far. That
:56:43. > :56:52.reflects the sense you get from reading the newspapers and media
:56:52. > :56:56.reports. I have a genetically modified dog, a pedigree border
:56:56. > :57:03.terrier. He is genetically modified. There is a panic about this
:57:03. > :57:12.unrelated to the reality of it. you convinced that all?
:57:12. > :57:16.professor, absolutely. I am amazed that we got one in three votes. I
:57:17. > :57:21.think we just need to wait and see what is going to happen in the
:57:21. > :57:29.future. When we break through this Yucca barrier and embrace progress.
:57:29. > :57:37.Is there anywhere you would draw a line? I think there's much emphasis
:57:37. > :57:42.on meat products as protein. We should think about how to view -- to
:57:42. > :57:48.feed the world with vegetable and grain product. Or all hung up about
:57:49. > :57:57.burgers. It looks disgusting but also meat products, that is not the
:57:57. > :58:02.answer. There is a whole issue about businesses, like biofuel using a lot
:58:02. > :58:12.of crops. Thank you to everyone who has taken part in the programme
:58:12. > :58:15.
:58:15. > :58:20.today. To my guests in the studio. Do not text or call the phone lines