Perhaps nothing is more telling about one’s intellect and character than changing one’s mind.
After all, changing your mind about something suggests you have given
it thought and that maybe, just maybe, you’re first thoughts were
incorrect.
Mark Lynas has given a lot of thought to genetically modified (GMO) corn. And he’s changed his mind.
Lynas, author of three books, including Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet,
is generally recognized as one of the founders of the anti-GMO movement
in the mid-1990s and a vocal critic of GM technology. He now says he
was wrong.
Last week at the Oxford Farming Conference in the United Kingdom, Lynas delivered remarks that began with an astonishing apology.
“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 demonizing an important technological option which can be
used to benefit the environment,” Lynas said.
“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 all 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.”
That’s a startling admission from one who is at least partially
responsible for many countries either banning or squelching GMO
production and research. Unfortunately, the backlash against Lynas has
been predictable. His website was crashed with comments from around the
globe, mostly from critics. In short, he went from a founding father of
the anti-GMO movement to a Benedict Arnold.
But that’s just a knee-jerk reaction from those who fail to read
beyond the headlines of Lynas' apology. Certainly no one with Lynas'
credentials and commitment to a cause as important as environmental
activism would make such a reversal in ideology without careful
consideration. Indeed, Lynas’ mind was changed by studying the facts
about GMO and accepting the science. Here’s what he said:
“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.”
Lynas’ embrace of peer-reviewed science is heartening for those of us
hoping for a more logical and less emotional debate about agriculture
on this side of the Atlantic.
“The GM debate is over,” Lynas said. “It is finished. We no longer
need to discuss whether or not it is safe…You are more likely to get hit
by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food.”
