Episode 7 Sunday Morning Live

laboratories and purple tomatoes with supposed health giving

properties. On Sunday Morning Live we ask you to decide if scientists

Also today, the new Premier league season is just around the corner and

fans will be looking forward to seeing players like Luis Suarez

playing football on the pitch rather than had ball off the pitch, but

Nick Ferrari sees problems. To me, celebrating somebody who makes in a

week what it would take nurses much longer to earn, we need to look at

our role models. If I am going to give money to a charity, if I feel

confident the leadership of that charity is right, the mission and

purpose of the charity, I will be confident my money will be used well

and I am likely to be more generous. My guests this week and Nick

Ferrari, who developed his own one-man stage show, called The World

According To Nick Ferrari. We also have Vicky Beeching, Joanna

Blythman, the author of many books beefburger worth a quarter of �1

million was cooked and eaten in London this week, not in a

restaurant, so why was it so pricey? It was created by a team

using stem cells from Carol and growing them into muscle tissue.

There is quite some intense taste, it is close to meet, it is not that

juicy. Science and food have been a thorny combination for many years.

Amongst the developments now are genetically modified crops, which

some say they can help to feed the world. Opponents to this technology

say they threaten the natural environment and described them as

Frankenstein foods. We will discuss the ethical issues raised in a

moment, but first let's hear from a scientist creating GM food,

including purple tomatoes. Professor Cathie Martin is a scientist in

Norwich, currently carrying out a number of projects including

genetically modified food. One of the ideas this centre is working on

is to see if they can implant nitrogen storing qualities of

peatlands into cereal crops. It is hoped the five-year project will

have benefits for farmers in the developing world, meaning they can

use less expensive nitrogen fertiliser, saving money and causing

less pollution. Introducing nitrogen fixation into corn and wheat cannot

be done conventionally. It has to be done by genetic engineering.

Professor Martin is the lead scientist on a project where genes

have been added to the common tomato, which may create extra

health benefits. That has produced a crop of purple tomatoes. The reason

we have done this genetic modification is to improve the

content of these pigments because they have healthy properties. Let me

just show you this in some more detail. This is a regular tomato,

which everyone must be familiar with, and this is a purple tomato,

and you can see it is full of these natural colours. We believe this is

a beneficial property that will help people if we can try and produce

tomatoes that are enriched so people don't have to read quite so many

fruit and vegetables to get essential nutrients. The production

of GM food can be a sensitive ethical area. I can understand

people being concerned about what we do, and I certainly approve of

regulatory scrutiny so that people can be sure that what we are

producing is not dangerous and it is not uncontrollable in some way. I

would like to give people the choice to choose crops, plants, food that

is improved, but I don't want to force it on anyone that doesn't

think it would be beneficial. Professor Martin is determined to

carry on her work because she believes it holds the key to solving

some of the world's food problems. Scientifically it is challenging but

the potential is so huge and the benefits could be absolutely

enormous. I think that is a challenge worth taking. Professor

Martin on one form of food modification, so is this a logical

ascent of science are slippery slope? Joanna, do you think it is

going too far? Some scientists are making exaggerated claims and in the

case of purple tomatoes, we already have improved purple tomato seeds on

the market now that have been developed by conventional breeding

methods without any risks attached to GM, which include environmental

problems and risking the future security of our food supplies.

is a question for the text vote - is science going too far with our food?

You can only vote once. Go online to vote for free and the results will

be announced at the end of the show. Nick, would you like the idea of a

cultured beefburger with some purple tomato on top? No, that beefburger

costing so much is nuts, or probably not because you would be allergic.

If I was to say what about making your shopping cheaper, or what about

stopping starvation across the world, or what about putting some

nutrients into your children's food that will make them healthier, I

think that is how we should be looking at the issue. In a perfect

world we would all have a meadow and the children would be picking

elderflowers but we all live in big cities where there isn't enough

room. We cannot build more land, there will never be more land, we

have got to find a solution. Vicky, I'm interesting that for many people

who object, there seems to be an instinctive revulsion, why is that?

Is it because it is food rather than something medical? We see this

whenever science develops, we are pulsed with something initially and

then it becomes normal. We saw this with heart transplants and IVF, but

people are largely positive about these things now. I think part of

the yuck factor might be about food produced in a laboratory. But all

you have to do is look at a Coke can and the ingredients in there.

was skin you were growing for medical grafting, would you feel

differently to the idea of growing cultured meets? I think we have to

look at the track records of the promises, the blind will see, the

lame will walk, but the reality of GM crops is that they have created

super weeds, super pests, they have polluted land, they have not

produced the yields farmers have been promised, so I think we have to

get out of our little fantasy world. Everybody wants a fairy story that

makes everything all right but we have to look at the track record. On

laboratory meat we know already doesn't have the nutritional

qualities of conventional meat. We don't know if that will have an

effect on people who eat it, but this is huge territory and I think

we need to be very cautious when we decide we know better than nature.

Luck how are you going to feed the world then? We haven't got enough

land. People are starving in Africa. There is enough food in the world

for everybody right now. Why are we giving all of this money to charity

then? Even if we do create masses of food, it does not solve the problem.

We have a lot of powerful companies that manipulate the supply for their

profit. It is about the distribution of food and equality and public

ownership of food. When you have local communities controlling their

own food supply, you have a healthy system for feeding the world. At the

moment... I don't understand. That is why we need crops like this, you

going to an area where presumably there are parts of Africa where you

cannot grow anything. If we get this right, it will be great, it will be

drug resistant. Let's take the example of drought resistant crops.

Conventional breeders are creating drought resistant crops. We have

crops being improved, we have sweet potato with more beta-carotene, we

have higher yielding wheat. In Britain, in Wales in fact we have

bred potatoes which are a blight resistant, all using natural

systems. I am more worried about Ethiopians. Let's bring in our guest

from the international development at the Harvard Kennedy School in

America. There is this concern about whether this technology is really

about helping small farms in the developing world, or if it is about

big companies making profits. you so much for having me on the

programme. That concern was raised legitimately because the crops were

commercialised by large farms. 17 years later the evidence does not

support that claim. There is about 170 million hectares of GM crops

grown worldwide, 52% of that is in developing countries. If you look at

the economic benefits, GM crops have added nearly 100 billion dollars to

agriculture. Just over 50% of that has gone to developing countries.

There are about 117 million farms involved in the production of GM

crops, out of that 90% is mostly farmers in developing countries so

the claim it does not help developing countries is 17 years old

and doesn't have support. Couldn't a lot of this be done through

conventional breeding of species rather than genetic manipulation?

And the fear there are unknown consequences of this, super weeds?

Yes, I think this is being looked at as a general argument rather than

specific modifications to solve a specific problem. It is difficult to

solve a problem without going through genetic modification. You

can also use non-breeding methods and that is being done. Our position

is that we should leave all of the options open but the critics say

let's have all of the options except technology and that is not logical

in my view. It is interesting what he was saying. In India there is a

different experience. If you were to speak to any scientist about GM

cotton is they would speak about the disaster of cotton which really has

impoverished farmers. And Indonesia this week the farmers were ripping

up GM crops cause they are concerned about how it will affect their

livelihood. So it is wrong to suggest that there is some empirical

flawless evidence to suggest that genetic modification does work. I

think that is your view and I respect that but I do not think that

people in other countries, not least America where farmers are trying to

get out of these crops and trying to get them labelled for consumers,

because people do not want to read them any longer. Your response to

that, Professor? Just to mention that specific India case. I oversaw

a study down in India published by the National Academy of science. The

evidence does not support that claim. In the past ten years or so

evidence shows that the cotton yields have increased by the control

of pests. The same farmers have had up to an eight team percent increase

in their spending power. So the evidence does not support that

claim. Just to interrupt, I am afraid we cannot get into details of

specific evidence. But thank you very much for joining us. Tom

McMillan is from the soil Association representing organic

growers. It is this idea that perhaps GM science has moved on. But

the fear is of it are stuck in the past? I think people have been

sceptical rather than afraid, sceptical of the promises made about

GM feeding the world. And also why we are being asked to grow and eat

crops when the overwhelming push for the technology has come from

chemical and seed companies. And that scepticism has been pretty well

placed especially from the US. We have seen the emergence of super

weeds resisting those herbicides. And we have some -- we have seen

seat prices go up. Companies are suing farmers left right and centre

when those seeds escape into the neighbouring fields. Meanwhile

conventional breeding has been turning out many of the benefits

that GM promised. I am totally informed by what I heard from your

professor. It is interesting that where there is resistance it is in

countries like America. We are all quite well off. There is this idea

but perhaps GM concerns are a luxury that people cannot afford. And there

is a real issue about food shortage. I think we do need to push past that

yuck factor and panic. Even some of the technology used, super weeds,

Frankenstein crops. We need to remember that what we are dealing

with is things that will become very normal. I would compare the super

weeds to the trolls of the intranet. We would not stop using the Internet

because of that. Technology is more or less at neutral tool and we use

it for good or bad. What would you call a weed that is resistant to all

the pesticides that can be used? And new breed of weed. Can you just keep

on using a stronger and stronger pesticide? Do you use a deep

freezer? I can see where you are going. It is a natural thing.

sense that you do use a freezer. That is an artificial argument.

want to bring in someone else, the editor of GM watch which reports on

concerns on GM food. Things like refrigeration are interventions in

nature. And perhaps this blanket objection to bioengineering is

false. I think when we are considering technologies, really I

would call super weeds and toxic effects on animals, the latest

evidence is... I'm not able to make out what you're

saying, I'm really sorry. I think we will have to come back to that. But

it is this idea, there are reasons to fear bioengineering. Because it

is going into different territory. We probably would not have cars or

trains, when they first invented trains everyone thought we were

going to die of heart attacks. same with the invention of the

printing press. The argument is about whether you are changing

nature fundamentally. There are benefits in the fields of health.

How do you feel about IVF? That was about playing God. What people

always do as they want to change the argument. They do not want to talk

about foods, they want to talk about trains. You have to look at the

reality. Freezing is something that nature dolls. Ice is a natural

thing. I was listening to one interview with a scientist

developing cultured leather, a substitute for leather. That is an

animal product but we do not eat it. I wonder if that is different?

not know about cultured leather. I do know a bit about cultured meat

and the muscle cells have to come from cows. And the material to

encourage those to grow has to come from the foetus of cows. That is the

final question, are we looking at things the wrong way round. Instead

of asking how we grow warm meet artificially, Germany is talking

about having one day per week that his meat free because it is so

intensive. If we want to have enough protein I think we should use

technology to push those boundaries. If you are a vegetarian, you could

potentially eat one of these beefburgers. I am trying to work out

whether I would be allowed to eat that as a vegetarian! Some comments

from you at home. One saying science should not be altering nature.

Another saying as long as the foods are safe and well tested which

should take advantage of the technology. And another says we need

all the help that we can get. This could help us in the future. The

vote on this issue is open. The question is, is science going too

far with our food? You can only vote once. The text number on the screen.

You have around 20 minutes before that closes.

Like it or not, top level football returns to action this afternoon.

The community Shield kicks off today at Wembley. Fans will be relieved

that they can concentrate on the action rather than transfer sagas of

backbiting which have dominated the front pages recently. But do the

actions of some high-level players have a detrimental effect on young

fans? Nick Ferrari thinks so. It is that time of year again. The

Charity Shield, the traditional curtain raiser to the Premier

League, kicks off this afternoon. Now the nation can get obsessed

about the offside rule. It is all pretty harmless stuff until you

realise how impressionable youngsters and especially boys look

up to those overpaid and often underwhelming stars. While people up

and down the land play for the love of the game, the Premier League

offers huge financial incentive to its players. To me celebrating

someone who makes in one week what it would take a nurse six years to

earn yet cheats and behaves like a small child is wrong. But to see

young lads, they see them as role models. The trouble is genuine role

models these days are about as rare as an England win in a penalty shoot

out. Some of our politicians have been exposed as liars and crooks. So

there's not much point looking at them. And as for religious leaders,

congregations in many faiths are dwindling. So not much point there

either. And as for those pillars of society, the bankers, that does not

get started. Those young people who are part of loving and functioning

families, it horribly does not matter that much. But there are

plenty who are less fortunate and for them to have as role models

people who seek greed as good and cheating as part of their set of

skills, that is something we should all worry about.

Tackling that is a goal for all of us. Do you agree with Nick? ARPA

footballers a bad example to our children. Should they even be

expected to be role models? You can join in the debate. Journalist and

author Lucy Millard joins us. Her two young sons are big Chelsea fans.

Why should we think about footballers as role models? I think

children understand that racism is wrong on the pitch. Footballers I

think are greedy and their agents are greedy. I think they're paid too

much. But I think children do grasp, they understand the nature of

the skill and the importance of turning up on time. There are some

positive elements of football which children can learn from. I asked my

sons, one of them is 13 and one of them is eight, I said give me a list

of people you think are good role models. Obviously David Beckham.

Didier job but also a good role model. He has foundations for young

footballers. My youngest son bought the book by Frank Lampard. He read

that on holiday. But there was an article today that he did not

actually write much of the book. think that is completely irrelevant.

We were at the airport and he saw that book by Frank Lampard. He read

that on the journey. You can look at stories about footballers, there are

all the seven deadly sins, lust and avarice. How do they seem? I would

say that football is the new religion. Church attendance has

declined over the years. And basically football has become a kind

of pseudo- Christianity for many people with this weekend attendance

and the passion. You're in the stands, hands in the air, chanting

songs. And that makes the footballers basically the equivalent

of priests or even gods. Should they be role models? They are. They find

themselves almost as these icons and young people are looking up to them.

Maybe there is a moral responsibility? What really offends

me sometimes is that the football coverage in the newspapers, it will

be a miracle goal, a miracle save. These are not miracles, they are

overpaid people who in some circumstances are not even that

good. There are too many lads standing on street corners in too

many cities who do not have a role model. For so many of these kids all

they see in these football players, they cheat, they spit. And they are

given vast sums of money. I think it is down to the clubs to look after

their players. They need to be looked after and managed. Most

American footballers in the NFL have foundations. It is part of the

culture of American football. cannot spell foundation, never mind

have them. I suppose they have what they call football intelligence,

they need guidance. I want to bring in Eric Hall, a football agent. We

have been hearing about the bad things footballers do, are people

like you to blame for turning them into money-grubbing louts? I have

heard a lot of rubbish being spoken by your panel, a lot of jealousy and

bitterness they have been talking. Of course they are going to get a

lot of money, their audience is millions, not a couple of hundred.

Why doesn't people like Nick Ferrari, who is an old friend of

mine, how are you? They don't complain about people like tiny --

like Barbra Streisand... It gets bums on seats, millions. Isn't there

an argument that says if they are that popular and built on their

following, they have a responsibility back? How many

players do you know, maybe one or two that have got into trouble.

There are million players registered as professional footballers in this

country, but two out of a million isn't bad. Why should they be role

models? They do their job, they behave themselves. We are going too

far down the money argument, that is not the main arguments, it is how

these men are held. In American football there is a sense you have

got to do something with the extraordinary position you enjoy. If

you have that money, you have a sense of responsibility. In a

perfect world we would look up to religious leaders, or politicians.

This is why these guys are important and they don't realise it. Eric, why

do you think it is a bad thing they would be looked up to as role

models? You are not listening, if people want to make them role models

that is their decision, but they are just ordinary guys with a talent to

play football and they want to win matches and get their wages which

they deserve. People are paying ticket money and sponsorship money

and they want to be a part of that money. In the late 70s, when my

first client told me what he was earning, I was shocked. The money

situation has really changed for footballers, so we will leave it

there, but I want to bring in Bobby Barnes, the deputy chairman of the

football players Association. I understand you are starting to run

classes for players about respectable behaviour. What does

this say about the profession that you feel you are having to do this?

Can I just clarify that point. The lessons we are bringing in are not

based on respect as such, they are based on cultural diversity because

of the fact as a country we play host to something like 70 different

nationalities playing in our leagues and it is important with that

different mix of cultures and beliefs, it is important players are

aware of what standards of behaviour are acceptable. It is aimed at

eliminating any possible cultural differences that might cause someone

to say something or do something that may well be acceptable in their

home country. I have read the account of it and it is issues like

language and racism. Is there something players are doing at a

senior level in football that perhaps we are not hearing about?

Rosie made the point earlier about the find -- foundations they have in

the NFL. I cannot think of any other industry where employees have

committed to six hours in their community per week. We have numerous

player foundations set up by the players to benefit communities here

and abroad, so I think it is grossly unfair to say our players don't take

the responsibility of the position they are in. Most footballers are

very much role models in the sense that they contribute a lot back to

their communities through football in the community schemes. To say

that because of a small minority of people who occasionally misbehaves,

I would say in any section of society you would get that. We only

get the tabloid picture most of the time, are you convinced about the

other side? The community work most footballers do is community service

orders after speeding. Did you mention Didier Drogba with his

foundation money, he goes over like a granny on an icy morning the

minute a ball is near him. He is a fantastic looking player yes, but

you touch them like that and he goes bowling over. Lets not talk about

individual footballers. Arsenal has a thing called a double club where

you have a football lesson and you do your homework and they are

funding this throughout schools in London, particularly Islington where

I live. Arsenal has a real commitment. The players, I think

Theo Walcott, you know, actually the players are responsible. These are

boys, they are very young. Is there a kind of snobbery in the way we

look at football? Plenty of other celebrities earn a huge amount of

money am sometimes do responsible things with it. It might be because

of the religious status of football that we put extra pressure on them

but I would say social media is largely to blame for a lot of the

scrutiny would put them under because we put them under a

microscope, we look at everything they do, whereas I think there is a

lot going on behind the scenes that isn't scrutinised - the generous

giving, the memorabilia they generate and give to charity, and we

just focus on the problems. don't see television presenters

spitting and snarling. You do see it verbally and metaphorically. I think

these young men are put under immense pressure, like they will go

into a bar and there are some people whose square up to them. Men feel it

is a good idea to have a fight with people like Steven Gerrard and sleep

on them. They are tempted.It is like theatre, like a giant

theatrical thing every Saturday. I haven't finished. They are like

celebrities and film stars, and I know a bit about how film stars are

treated and they are protected. Converted at all? Know, even more

decided. We have these texts: Lees says role models are people who

should make sacrifices for higher values, not people who kick a ball

around for money. You have been voting on our question this morning

- is science going too fast for food, and we will bring you the

result at the end of the show. Around broke out this week after the

Charity commission chairman William Shawcross said large salaries paid

to charity staff could bring the charitable world into disrepute. The

daily Telegraph reported on the pay within 14 different UK charities,

some of whom were earning more than �100,000 a year. Sunday Morning Live

has been to meet one of the people who decides how much the boss of one

particular charity is worth. This charity works in more than 40

countries and pledges itself to reducing poverty and helping poor

communities regardless of faith. It has a budget of �50 million. The

ship John Arnold, an auxiliary bishop of the diocese of

Westminster, is chair of the Charity's trustees. We are in places

where none of the other agencies are working and we are working with the

poorest people, helping them to maintain a sustainable livelihood.

Cathod's director is paid just over �90,000 a year, but Bishop Arnold

does not feel this salary is at odds with its mission. Whether we like it

or not, we are in a market economy which means people have expertise

and they look for those skills that are required for the job to be done.

On the other hand we are dealing with people who are very generously

giving money to charity for the poorest people in the world and we

have got to balance those things so that we make sure the money that is

given is used well, and for that we need to provide a director who is

able to use the money in the best possible sense. This charity also

campaigns on issues related to its work. The charity employs 400 people

in England and Wales and works with 600 partner organisations overseas.

Bishop Arnold believes criticism of high salaries does not take into

account the complexities of running such a big operation. There are some

people who have been a bit concerned that maybe they should cancel their

direct debit and for that we recognise their generosity in the

past and I have written to them and explained to them how we come to the

salary that we paid to our director, and the purpose behind calculating

that salary, and also some people have been phoning to say how

remarkable it is that the director is so low paid compared to other

charities. Bishop Arnold says Cathod has no plans to change its future

recruitment policy or pay structure. Is charity just another big business

that needs the best qualified managers paid at the market rate?

What do you think? Charities work with the poorest people in the world

and some people think it does not sit right with these 6-figure

salaries. To attract the best people to run these organisations, you have

to offer a decent amount of money. One of the key arguments is that it

would put people off from donating. That shows the dichotomy of either

channelling money to the front line or to the senior teams, but

everybody knows a good mechanic model of running an organisation, it

is not a dichotomy, it is the same thing. You need the best people for

the best job. Some of these charity bosses have picked up fairly healthy

pay rises and yet the amount of money coming into the charity has

decreased. That cannot add up. If you are running a charity and taking

less last year than this year, and you still allow yourself to have a

bonus and a pay rise, that is inherently wrong. I think people

would have very strong views. charities do you feel it is a

vocation that should be at the heart of it? I think it is disgraceful

that 11 charity bosses are earning more than the Prime Minister. The

chief executive of the Red Cross earns over �180,000 a year, a 12%

rise on last year, and the Red Cross has had a 1% drop. These charities

are not here to speak for themselves, but charities like Red

Cross deal with huge amounts of money. They are not private

enterprises or profits, they are charities. I think you have to

question the motivation of the CEO. Is a charity is doubling its take so

a man or a woman comes in and revolutionises it, why should they

necessarily not be paid well? People go to work for all different

reasons. Not everyone wants to do a good job just for money. Why should

you not be able to do both? Because charities dependent on volunteers

who do a lot of work for charities. I do a lot of running in marathons.

The Macmillan volunteers are out there shaking the tins. Charities

dependent on donations from taxpayers and people voluntary

giving, pensioners giving a tiny amount of their miniscule income to

that charity. That then go into these gross pay packets. I think it

is disgusting. Well we can go now to Stephen Bubb. You called this focus

on the pay a disgraceful distraction. I think it is a

distraction because charities are facing significant demands on them

and have falling income against rising demand. I think it is

disgraceful because it implies to the public but all charity chief

executives are paid these high salaries and in fact the majority

are on modest salaries. But many of them are. How do you square that

with the fact that these organisations rely very much on

volunteers giving their time? Absolutely. There is a balance.

Trustees of these large charities work across the world in difficult

circumstances. We need to have to pay to get the best talent at the

top. And balance that with the fact that they're working for charities

where people give their money generously. I suspect that the

public understand it is means and ends. The end is getting aid to

people who desperately need it. If you can pay someone to improve the

performance of the charity, which these people have done, I think that

is a good balance. I would say with all due respect, Sir Stephen is in

Cloud Cuckoo land like these other executives. He had a 60th birthday

party at the House of Lords which cost �1500. Sir Stephen paid half of

that. This is a voluntary organisation and he uses �750 for

his own birthday party at the House of Lords. Sir Stephen? I do not

think this is a story about me. The trustees kindly contributed. But the

fact was that was a celebration of what the organisation has achieved.

But this is a story about chief executive. But there is concern

about whether there is a gravy train of people in highly paid jobs who

have quite a nice cushy deal at the top. It is easy to smear people in

the top jobs. That is why I think it was a disgraceful distraction. The

people who do these jobs in the big charities, they do so not to line

their pockets but because they do have a vocation. But they also have

families. Sir Stephen, if takings are going down for the charity and

the man or woman at the top continues to take a bonus or pay

rise how do you justify that? interestingly the 14 charities

highlighted in the daily Telegraph have a turnover of �1.73 billion.

Last year they increased the amounts that they received. So that points

to the fact that against difficult circumstances those people at the

top have managed to bring in more money. For example Save the Children

working with refugees in Syria. Thank you very much. I do think it

makes me feel sick that the chief executives of Save the Children, two

of them earning �160,000 and they got a bonus. How can you have a

bonus if you're dealing with critically ill children, vulnerable

people? I think we need to be careful. There are 163 thousand

charities in the UK. �58,000 is the average salary of their chief

executives. We are beginning to damage the reputation of the people

who run these. I want to bring in Bishop John Arnold. He was in the

film. What do you make of this moral concern about whether charities

should be paying big salaries and bonuses? I think there is a moral

question will stop but at the same time I do not want to generalise. I

can only speak for Cafod. We do not pay our director nearly as much as

other charities. What we have to do is make sure we have got the right

expertise to use the money that people so generously give. And it

would be silly for people to give generously and then find that the

money has been frittered away and not properly accounted for at the

front line. We have got a very good director in place and we paid the

right salary for the job he does. Pretty much year-on-year are charity

has increased the money it has two distribute. Thank you so much for

talking to us on the programme. Michelle Wilmers is a journalist

specialising in social justice in international affairs. There is a

sense that charity bosses are being unfairly demonised. I would not

necessarily agree. There may be a danger that this could be used to

bash the work of charities in general. But there are all kind of

issues involved. Especially in light of unpaid internships within the

charity sector. The charity sector needs to attract the best talent. I

think that is fine. But often the interns are not paid and so the

hardest workers within the charity sector are working for no wage. I

think while that is the case that these huge salaries are difficult to

justify. We can speak now to a research consultancy firm for the

charity sector. Is this a problem for public perception? It is a real

problem in how the public see the charities. We did some research

recently and three quarters of the public thought that chief executives

where it at -- an administration calls. High salaries is one of the

areas that they are most concerned about. When we asked if they thought

enough money was going to the cause and too much on administration, they

do worry about that. So this is a real concern for the public and they

want to know how they can be sure that their donations are well spent.

Is there a danger that charities are losing support because they behave

like a business? Bombarding people with mailshots, the notorious

charity mugger will stop perhaps this goes hand-in-hand with this big

business attitude. I think we capture the different ways to

capture people's attention to get a good message across. We need to get

in there and ask people to support good causes. I think that falls

dichotomy keeps being repeated. Do we want money for the front-line or

for the senior staff that they are one and the same thing. You are

getting aid taken to some of the most inhospitable places on earth.

It is whether there is a kind of poverty industry. I think that there

is. But people who work in charities, people in the public

sector should want to do the job for the sake of the job and not for some

enormous pay packet. People saying it is not people lining their

pockets but how is �180,000 not a colossal salary? In many industries

people are paid a lot more. Fundraising is jolly hard work.

People will be saying I'm not giving this money. They may transfer to a

local smaller charity. In many cases charities in Britain are picking up

services that used to be provided by the state. That could add to the

sense of unease. A lot of people will not realise that some of the

charities that they support, they may want to do some research into

how much the chief executives are paid. But compared to other

industries, if someone running a petrol company sells more petrol,

that is fine. This is people living money because they think they are

helping children who are ill, helping the elderly. That is how

they get their cash and the bosses need to be aware of that. And many

of these bosses have had a well paid career in the private sector before

and have come to the charitable sector bringing those skills. I

think they should all be paid the national average and give the rest

of their money to that charity. What you think about NHS bosses then who

are paid big salaries? It irks me that people say there needs to be

more transparency but the truth is that these salaries are set by the

trustees. You can find that out on the website. There is transparency.

We have to leave it there. Just a couple of quick comments. Clare

saying she is appalled by both top salaries, she thinks it is immoral.

And another saying that the salaries of charity bosses should all be

transparent. And another saying they should be working for the love of

helping people. We have to leave it there. At the start of the programme

we asked if science was going too far, here is what you told us. 68%

of those of you who voted said yes, things are going too far. That

reflects the sense you get from reading the newspapers and media

reports. I have a genetically modified dog, a pedigree border

terrier. He is genetically modified. There is a panic about this

unrelated to the reality of it. you convinced that all?

professor, absolutely. I am amazed that we got one in three votes. I

think we just need to wait and see what is going to happen in the

future. When we break through this Yucca barrier and embrace progress.

Is there anywhere you would draw a line? I think there's much emphasis

on meat products as protein. We should think about how to view -- to

feed the world with vegetable and grain product. Or all hung up about

burgers. It looks disgusting but also meat products, that is not the

answer. There is a whole issue about businesses, like biofuel using a lot

of crops. Thank you to everyone who has taken part in the programme

today. To my guests in the studio. Do not text or call the phone lines