Friday, January 4, 2013

An Anti-Frankenfood Activist Changes his Mind

Mark Lynas, a leader in the movement to ban genetically modified crops, has changed his mind:
I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologise 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 demonising 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. . . .
Of the anti-GM movement he says,
This was also explicitly an anti-science movement. We employed a lot of imagery about scientists in their labs cackling demonically as they tinkered with the very building blocks of life. Hence the Frankenstein food tag – this absolutely was about deep-seated fears of scientific powers being used secretly for unnatural ends. What we didn’t realise at the time was that the real Frankenstein’s monster was not GM technology, but our reaction against it.
Much of Lynas' speech is devoted to the need to use all available technology to feed our growing population. He quotes Green Revolution pioneer Norman Borlaug on this:
I now say that the world has the technology — either available or well advanced in the research pipeline — to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion people. The more pertinent question today is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use this new technology? While the affluent nations can certainly afford to adopt ultra low-risk positions, and pay more for food produced by the so-called ‘organic’ methods, the one billion chronically undernourished people of the low income, food-deficit nations cannot.
I am something of a moderate on this issue. It seems to me that the genetic modification of useful organisms is the future, and it has great potential for good. It also has potential for harm, though, and I think a rigorous review process ought to be in place to test every proposed GM crop before it is sold to farmers.

No comments: