Mark Lynas explains his turn around on GM Crops

[Nederland]

I may disagree with Mark Lynas on some aspects of global warming, but this lecture makes me a huge fan. Admitting you were wrong about something and stating that in public is the mark of true character and humility. Unless scientists are prepared to admit that they were wrong, science will never progress.

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/

<snip>

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.

<snip>

So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths.

I’d assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.

I’d assumed that GM benefited only the big companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs.

I’d assumed that Terminator Technology was robbing farmers of the right to save seed. It turned out that hybrids did that long ago, and that Terminator never happened.

I’d assumed that no-one wanted GM. Actually what happened was that Bt cotton was pirated into India and roundup ready soya into Brazil because farmers were so eager to use them.

I’d assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding using mutagenesis for example; GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.

[djean111]

1. I'll still skip as much GM stuff as I can, thanks very much.

I don't trust anyone on this, really, so safer to just avoid.

[Nederland]

4. Safer for you

Deadly to the third world.

[Downwinder]

2. So why be afraid to label GM?

Everybody likes a "New and Improved" label.

[RC]

3. Propaganda much?

I’d assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding using mutagenesis for example; GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.

Conventional modified can only modify so much, or it does not work. GM on the other hand can inject animal genes into plant cells for whatever purpose. Also the genetic variation in GM in much narrower, increasing the risk of something wiping out the entire crop, over wide areas, from one insect, blight or what ever. Or even a unforeseen mistake in the modified gene. There is much less chance of that happening with conventional, hybrid crops.

[joshcryer]

5. Once learning of horizontal gene transfer I haven't cared much about GMOs.

What bothers me about GMOs is that they're patented and can propagate the patent in the wild. It's the only case where patent propagation is done without choice. I also think that most genetic modifications are unnecessary, such as modifications to make one resilient to pesticides.

[AlecBGreen]

6. GMOs are unnecessary to feed the human population

they are also a reckless uncontrolled experiment being foisted upon us by TPTB in the name of feeding the hungry.

[joshcryer]

7. I disagree. Geoagriculture would be much more difficult without GMOs.

There are just too many varied environments and too much use of herbicides for crops to grow without GMOs there pushing them along.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Roundup_Ready_Crops

There are arguments that it's not the case, but I think the global demand for food pretty much tells the story. I would like to have seen us grow so quickly without crops that are resistant to better herbicides.

[Nederland]

8. True

So long as you don't mind converting millions of acres of currently wild savanna in Africa to farmland and destroying the habitat of the thousands of species that live there.

[AlecBGreen]

10. no that is also unnecessary

Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2013, 11:15 PM - Edit history (1)

First off, there was an article today confirming what we already know to be true: up to half of all harvested food is wasted. It is never eaten. It rots, it is eaten by vermin, or it is rejected by supermarkets for superficial blemishes. Capturing even a fraction of that would get us a long way toward feeding the hungry.

2nd - Americas diet, and increasingly that of China, is geared toward monocropping grain for feeding cattle, poultry and swine. That is an inefficient use of resources. The feed:meat conversion ratio for confinement cattle is around 7:1, meaning it takes 7 calories of vegetable protein to gain us one pound of meat. That is extremely wasteful.

3rd - The largest irrigated crop in America is sod. Lawns. It occupies THREE TIMES the area that all the corn in America does. Think on that for a minute. How many gardens could be planted in that space? During WWII, 40% of all household food was grown at home. We can do it again.

4th - Agriculture can go up, not just out. Fruit & nut trees take up little space compared to the food they produce. Cool-season and shade-tolerant plants can be planted in the understory.

5th - Discounting lawns, misused monocropped fields, and verticulte agriculture, there is a large amount of 'wasted' space in road medians, right of ways, etc. Go to Europe or Asia and you see food planted all over the place. This is how China, with 4 times our population and ONE TENTH the arable land has been able to feed itself for millenia.

6th - feed household scraps to egg layers. If every person in America fed their table scraps to a few hens instead of landfilling them, we would not need a single confinement egg factory. Not one.

There are more but that should suffice for now. We can feed the global population without GMOs and without tearing up virgin savannah.

[Nederland]

11. All true

At least, everything you said sounds perfectly plausible to me. However, your solution requires massive changes in how people current do things. I don't see that happening, but as soon as you get the world to live and eat the way you want it to, I'll be all in favor of getting off GM crops. Until then, I will continue to maintain that using GM crops is good for the environment because they increase production and reduce the amount of land needed to grow food.

[AlecBGreen]

12. why wait?

do what YOU can do and try to get others to follow your lead. Plant a garden. Eat a vegetarian dinner once a week (Meatless Mondays). Patronize local producers and small farmers. Join a CSA. Raise a few hens and feed them your scraps. When I survey the high hurdles to changing our food production system, it gets very discouraging. The obstacles seem insurmountable on a national level. But rather than say 'its hopeless' Im committed to doing what I can and hoping that others will do the same. Join me

[Nederland]

14. And opposing GM crops?

Is that something you would expend any energy on?

[NoOneMan]

13. This would all require we changed our habits

Do you know why diet pills sell so well that promise you can leave your ass glued to the sofa?



BTW, nice list. Good summary! Changing our food systems can't happen soon enough

[FogerRox]

9. Kinda funny here

And quite ingenuine:

I’d assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.

What fool in their right mind would think that in the first place? This of course side steps the issue of increased roundup resistance found an easy dozen weeds.

Then there's the failure of Monsantos beetle resistant Corn, it shows up after 7 years, not really long enough for a good return. It also is a bad precedent, that a GM crop is not full proof, will we see further insect resistance in other crops? Then theres the issue of monocultures, they are a single point of failure.

ANd gee whiz the heritage seed market for home gardens has done real well.