Anti-GMO Activist Recants

Freddybear writes "Former anti-GMO activist Mark Lynas, who opposed genetically modified food in the 1990s, said recently, at the Oxford Farming Conference: 'I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologize for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonizing an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment. As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely. So I guess you'll be wondering — what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.' To vilify GMOs is to be as anti-science as climate-change deniers, he says. To feed a growing world population (with an exploding middle class demanding more and better-quality food), we must take advantage of all the technology available to us, including GMOs. To insist on 'natural' agriculture and livestock is to doom people to starvation, and there’s no logical reason to prefer the old ways, either. Moreover, the reason why big companies dominate the industry is that anti-GMO activists and policymakers have made it too difficult for small startups to enter the field."

Comments

This is a rare breed of human.

[Art Popp]

Kepler figured out he had it all wrong after a career spent trying to prove bad theories (Platonic model of the universe? Really?) ... and arguably launched the age of the scientific enlightenment.

I'm anxious read Mr. Lynas' coming works.

Re:This is a rare breed of human.

[LateArthurDent]

Kepler figured out he had it all wrong after a career spent trying to prove bad theories (Platonic model of the universe? Really?) ... and arguably launched the age of the scientific enlightenment.

I'm anxious read Mr. Lynas' coming works.

I don't have mod points today, so I'm just going to add to your sentiment. I have a great amount of respect for anyone that can look at the evidence they were wrong about a particular belief, and admit to their mistake. And it only gets harder to do so the longer that belief has been held, and the greater the audience you're admitting that mistake to. This guy is to be commended for a true commitment to the truth, not to ideology.

Re:This is a rare breed of human.

[NeutronCowboy]

I don't know. The way I read it, he was first an anti-GMO crusader, and now he has become a pro-GMO crusader. Neither one I'm too fond of.

Genetic manipulation is a tool. It's neither good nor bad. There's all kinds of baggage associated with GMO (hi, Monsanto patents!), and some GM techniques I find highly questionable (plants that produce their own insecticide and which we're supposed to eat?). All are things that can make GMOs bad - but they are things that need to be considered in the context of creating GMOs, not as being a fundamental characteristic of GMOs.

I really wish that people would stop fighting over whether something is genetically modified, and focus on what the modification is, what its impact is on organisms consuming it, its impact on non-GMOs of the same family, and whether there are any patents on it that can escape into the wild (still waiting for someone to sue Gaia because she is copying stuff that someone has a patent on).

Unfortunately, I don't see too much discussion around this, and just a lot of yelling around GMO bad! GMO good!

Re:This is a rare breed of human.

[shutdown -p now]

Yeah, why would they use a terminator gene when they can make much more money by having someone plant some of their seed, and then suing the fuck out of everyone downwind of him who reserve the next year's seed from this year's harvest

Can you give any actual example of that happening? The usual case that is cited is that of Percy Schmeiser, but he wasn't sued for merely having his crops cross-polinated - he was sued for specifically harvesting seeds from those crops that he knew were cross-pollinated to plant them next year, artificially separating them from those which were not so cross-pollinated.

Re:This is a rare breed of human.

[Lorien_the_first_one]

If GMOs are really so safe, why the tremendous resistance to putting a simple label on the food?

Re:This is a rare breed of human.

[dpidcoe]

If you're referring to the california proposition from last election, I don't think many people objected to the labeling so much as the fact that the law was written by a trial lawyer to be intentionally confusing and open to abuse. It basically paves the way for ADA style shakedown lawsuits against mom and pop food producers

Re:This is a rare breed of human.

[Lorien_the_first_one]

The way I see it, is that if Monsanto or whoever is so proud of their invention, they should properly label the product so that people can make a choice. Whether or not they're informed is not really the issue since they have no way of knowing without the labeling.

From my perspective, mankind isn't even remotely smart enough to control a mistake through genetic engineering of food. Let's put a leash on this now and make them do the tests just like any other product. Let consumers decide with a label, just like any other product.

Encouraging wider adoption of GMOs through deceit is wrong.

Re:This is a rare breed of human.

[jfengel]

Because "safe" and "perceived to be safe after this guy spent two decades badmouthing it" are very different things. Consumers will avoid GMO-labeled foods regardless.

That, and the fact that there are some costs involved keeping the GMO and non-GMO streams completely separate. They've already had some notable failures in that regard.

Personally, regardless of the benefits of GMOs, and their probable safety, I don't trust Monsanto as far as I can throw them. I don't have any faith that they've done their tests properly, and I believe they're completely willing to take a $5B fine if they can take in $40B in profits before they get called on it.

Re:This is a rare breed of human.

[bdwebb]

Well since you've blown the lid off of how capitalism is evil and apparently hoarding all of the food to kill Africa and other poor nations (see, I can overgeneralize without any facts, too!), how do you suggest the food destined to be thrown away gets to Africa in a way that doesn't rape the economy of either country - teleport it?

It's not like farmers or even government officials sit down and say "we have all this extra food material that we aren't selling that starving Africans could sure use....fuck those guys though - burn it!" You are talking about average households not using all of the food they purchase and being forced to discard up to 40% of it [http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf] because it is ALREADY bad and cannot be safely eaten. I'm not saying that a significant amount of perfectly good food product does not end up in the trash because people are retarded, I'm just saying that the window of opportunity to ship that shit out to Africa without an incredible cost expenditure is very very small and has to start immediately after processing. Ultimately the evil capitalist Americans are not the only ones discarding food at a huge rate, either - this is a problem for almost every first world nation to address.

With regard to your assertion that GM crops don't have significantly higher yields, your claim is absolutely false and has no basis in scientific fact. From Monsanto (I know - somewhat biased but based off of an independent study so I put more merit in this than in what you've said because all you have is words and emotions): [http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/do-gm-crops-increase-yield.aspx]

The introduction of GM traits through biotechnology has led to increased yields independent of breeding. Take for example statistics cited by PG Economics, which annually tallies the benefits of GM crops, taking data from numerous studies around the world:

Mexico - yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybean of 9 percent.
Romania – yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybeans have averaged 31 percent.
Philippines – average yield increase of 15 percent with herbicide tolerant corn.
Philippines – average yield increase of 24 percent with insect resistant corn.
Hawaii – virus resistant papaya has increased yields by an average of 40 percent.
India – insect resistant cotton has led to yield increases on average more than 50 percent.


You may be referring to an article in UK's 'The Independent' claiming that a university study proves that yield is lower [http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html]. The author of the study has discredited this sensationalist bullshit piece of pseudo-journalism himself [http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/FILELIB.NSF/0/3FCACF5C93CFA9A18525743A006C7630/$file/Gordon_Fact_Sheet.pdf] and identified that the purpose of the study was not to study yields and that the article was in fact largely false and corrupted many statements he had made. If you're referring to that study or any of the others that anti-GMO nuts like you typically won't shut up about - I have yet to see a study that has not been disproven or is not extremely out of date. During its infancy, GM production may have been worse - there may have been modifications made that even made things inedible but this is all part of the experimental process to augment the capabilities of the food products we have to better survive and to increase yields. So we're not creating crops that can survive in the arctic tundra and yield 700% more food yet - we should just stop altogether and say "fuck it - not worth it"?

Now to discuss the India situation - you're right (at least partially) for once. In this instance, GMO has been used to control food production rather than to augment it and help with the problem. This is not an asshole USA problem - this is a problem with the Indian government assisting with exploiting

Re:This is a rare breed of human.

[Lorien_the_first_one]

Food in general isn't patented. Food in general, doesn't have genes shot through the seeds with silver particles, nor does it use viruses as a vector to intentionally insert "beneficial" genes into the host genome. So in the context of this debate, yes, the omission of a label on the food is deceit.

With regard to nuclear magnetic resonance machines, I understand what you're getting at. Magnetic Resonance Imaging is not something most people would understand. However, they are relying upon a doctor to provide them with the information required to make an informed decision about undergoing a scan for MRI.

The difference is this: at the doctors office, if I ask about it, he'll tell me what it is. At the grocery store, they have no idea what I'm talking about with respect to GMOs. If they do know, even management isn't very friendly to a discussion on the topic. I've sent emails to managers at markets and get no response on the subject. I've asked them at the market and they're ignorant on the subject, so they can't offer an opinion.

To me, it's still deceit without a label and I have a right to know so that I choose a different product if I want. But that's not fair to you because "it's great technology that deserves a chance". As far as I can tell, you don't think I can make an informed decision about it, so you want to protect me from that decision through deceit. How thoughtful.

Re:This is a rare breed of human.

[bill_mcgonigle]

I don't have a strong opinion as to whether GMO foods are dangerous or not. In fact, I think the question is wrong - it seems most likely that some modifications could be harmful while others could be harmless. I'm fairly certain that BT sprayed on an apple tree in the spring is not harmful to humans, but I'm not certain that BT-toxin expressed by the apple and present in the eaten food is harmless to humans. For some modifications it might be that both 'conventional' pesticides and GMO-expressed pesticides are both harmful, one may be more harmful than the other, or that organic is the only safe way to go. But not eating vegetables because of the price of organic may be worse. Science should inform this, but it seems to be incomplete at this time.

The separate issue of labelling has important consequences. In the US, a Natural Rights Republic, the issue of Free Speech is a very important one. It's incredibly dangerous to tread on it for some perceived short-term benefit. For that reason I'm glad the California proposition to mandate labelling failed (whether it really did or not is a separate issue). Compelled speech is one of the worst kinds of free speech infringements.

But the root of the problem lies not in compelled speech, but restrictions on free speech imposed by the FDA. It forbids companies from putting "GMO Free" on their products, so voluntary labelling can't happen. They told Polaner (All Fruit maker) that they couldn't put "GMO Free" on their strawberry spread because a strawberry is produce, "not an organism". They told Spectrum (oils refiner) that their No-GMO label would imply that there is something wrong with GMO's so they couldn't use it.

I'd like to have more information on the foods I buy at the store. It's clear that 'the market' wants to provide it. Freedom of speech isn't just a good idea, it's the Supreme Law. It's time the FDA stopped breaking it.

Re:This is a rare breed of human.

[DRJlaw]

Thanks for the red herring.

Those should be labeled too. The damn grocery store insists upon merely labeling them as "herring," or the more insidious "pickled herring."

Re:This is a rare breed of human.

[perceptual.cyclotron]

A hundred times this. I distrust GMO, but not because I distrust the technology – I think it's vital, incredible, and we've barely scratched the surface of its potentials. The race and the planet could both benefit tremendously from increased adoption of GMO tech across the board (from food to medicine to materials engineering, etc.). However, companies like Monsanto are demonstrably not trustworthy. And, indeed, the entire capitalist mindset is was makes this kind of technology so profoundly and obviously dangerous. But this has nothing to do with the science, and everything to do with cutting corners, forcing work-arounds through idiotic patenting of naturally-occurring genes, generating cheap monocultures, breeding for superficial (i.e., sellable) phenotypes like size and colour as opposed to breeding for nutritional optimality and ecological fit, etc. etc. And of course, you can take the prescient (and terrifying) perspective that Bacigalupi offers and realize that monopolizing the food market is better than sex - and the best way to do that is to patent resistance to engineered food pathogens. GMO has the potential to be a global panacea. GMO + capitalism has the potential to end us.

Re:This is a rare breed of human.

[foofish]

Newsflash: Millions of people are going to starve to death with or without GMO crops. It's not like Monsanto or ADM is just going to magnanimously ship all this extra food to Africa out of the goodness of their hearts. Producing more food does absolutely nothing to ensure that the surplus actually gets to the people who need it. One study claims that 40% of food in the US goes to waste (Link). A good chunk of this hypothetical extra GM food will probably just add to that.

Re:This is a rare breed of human.

[blackest_k]

You seem to be in favour of ignorance. The thing you are trying to ignore is People want to know!
When it comes to food no lets be more general and apply this to products in general.
place of origin - people like to support their local economy or enjoy a product from a particular region for example champagne from france or a watch from Switzerland. You might prefer Texas beef to Argentinian or Brazillian Beef.

The Organic label i am fine with that, I don't tend to buy organic food it usually costs more but there are definitely people who do and organic food also tends to be less wasteful of food as sizing is a lot looser than with your standard supermarket sizes,

Potato's can be from marble sized to a good pound or two in weight. I personally have no issue with having a single potato to peel (its quicker and there is less peel).
There are vast numbers of vegetables which go to waste if they do not match the supermarkets size guidelines. If we are talking about yield and costs to produce shouldn't we also look at sizes and blemishes, such as cracked onion skins.

Eggs can be free-range, organic, barn raised or factory farmed. do you care? maybe not. With chicken diet makes a difference, corn fed chicken has a yellow tinge to the meat and there is more meat on the bone too.

GM is another choice people want to make the same as they can look at a pack of sausages and see the E numbers they are free to choose to buy or not to buy. My personally most disliked phrase on a pack of burgers "Mechanically reclaimed meat" I also look at fat content and sugar content oh and water content too and soya content too.

I would also like to know the company producing the products name, I will not buy Sony for example a bias fairly commonly shared on Slashdot. I also will not buy from Smithfield meat or Japanese Tuna. I'd rather buy Irish Beef instead of British and support my local farmers. Your biases may vary.

My dad is allergic to gluten, want to make him ill just give him food with flour in it. It's quite handy for him to have gluten free labels on food. People do want to know what they are buying and GM is one of the things people want to know about GM crops maybe cheaper to produce due to bigger yields and less reliance on chemical fertilizers so let the price reflect that. Same with irradiated food and uht milk.

If you want to encourage people to buy GM food then first you need to give people the choice, people need to be aware that there are people eating GM food with no ill effects and that GM foods are as tasty as the non GM version if not more so. You are not going to gain acceptance of GM foods by flat out refusing to say which products are GM and which are not. By hiding the GM status of a food product you invite suspicion, if your being too cagey people will be convinced there is something wrong with GM food.

GM food needs to be marketed as such or it will always have a stigma attached to it. But lets not ignore the real reason for not labelling GM as GM. Sales would tank and corporations would lose money and who pays for the Government, Corporate Industry. In another thread there were snarky comments about people who boycott Sony (do you think Sony cares) maybe they do, maybe not, but its clear that there is an industry terrified of the fall out over GM labelling.

Refreshing

[SketchOfNight]

I find this refreshing. If only everyone would take the time to reevaluate their beliefs from time to time we might be so much better off.

Re:Refreshing

[SJHillman]

I agree. I rather enjoy listening to a well-formed opposing viewpoint. If someone makes a statement and can answer follow-up questions (particularly, "Why?"), it's usually a statement worth considering. It's unfortunate how many people can't explain why they believe something (especially in politics, but that's wandering off the point), but are still unwilling to listen to other viewpoints.

Re:Is he OK w/ Monsanto's lawsuits?

[Desler]

Most likely not. Saying that GMO is not evil is not the same as condoning Monsanto's actions in court. Strawman much?

Bin the Problems that GMO Crops Have

[eldavojohn]

Cross contamination & subsequent loss of organic certification isn't an issue then? How about Monsanto dragging innocent farmers into court?

I would personally advocate slicing GMO issues into separate bins. What you're referring to is the Intellectual Property bin which is a problem with (at least the US) most countries and the ownership (whether an instance of or the general use of) genetic material. Put all those lawsuits and patents and copyright crap in one bin.

Then you have another bin where we analyze the human element of consumption of GMO foods. What is the process to determine when something has undergone enough testing and is ready to push it forward? How many years of human trials must be held before it can be released? We do this with drugs but strangely, I haven't heard of much about this with GMO crops -- why is that?

Lastly we have a more open problem like environmental issues both surrounding the plant's effect on its environment and also the adjusted actions of the humans cultivating this crop. For example: with Roundup ready plants from Monsanto, have we really analyzed what the increased usage of chemicals like Roundup has on the immediate vicinity of the fields? Do we know that these genetic constructs that are taken from an insect and inserted into a plant do not adversely affect the pollen and have indirect affects on hay fever or honey bees? Again, how do we test this and how long should it be tested before it's pushed nationwide.

Lynas raises an interesting point I had not considered -- that my above desires for process and bureaucracy will prevent a small company from venturing into this field. On the other hand, we've been using selective breeding to move past a lot of the hurdles Lynas mentioned that GMO crops are supposed to move us even further past. It's unfortunate but this isn't a black and white issue and I'm against the unfettered proliferation of gene constructs that have been taken from other organisms and inserted into plants without sufficient testing.

The process of DNA -> Amino Acid -> Protein is still a very difficult puzzle for us as humans and I feel we should not openly experiment with inserting stuff at Point A when we don't know the full effects that yields in points B and C. I feel like there is still a lot to be achieved with selective breeding and until we have a better understanding of protein folding, we should shy away from smashing DNA into strands of plants unless it's absolutely critical to humanity. Go ahead and do that stuff in a lab to better understand it but leave it in a lab until there's a process that ensures it is safe.

Fallacy of False Choice...

[t4ng*]

I would also add that the mindless gasbag has presented a fallacy of false choice; use GMO or starve. We are told to believe that despite Monsanto's business plan of enslaving the world's farmers, that they are just doing this out of the kindness of their hearts to feed an overpopulated world. Here's a thought, reduce population growth instead. Statistics show that free access to education and contraception reduces population growth without imposing martial law. But no one gets rich off of giving something necessary away for free. So we are doomed.