# More ... > Beekeeping and the environment >  Leading Environmental Activists Confession: I Was Completely Wrong To Oppose GMOs

## Jon

Interesting:




> If you fear genetically modified food, you may have Mark Lynas to thank. By his own reckoning, British environmentalist helped spur the anti-GMO movement in the mid-90s, arguing as recently at 2008 that big corporations selfish greed would threaten the health of both people and the Earth. Thanks to the efforts of Lynas and people like him, governments around the worldespecially in Western Europe, Asia, and Africahave hobbled GM research, and NGOs like Greenpeace have spurned donations of genetically modified foods.
> 
> But Lynas has changed his mindand hes not being quiet about it. On Thursday at the Oxford Farming Conference, Lynas delivered a blunt address: He got GMOs wrong. According to the version of his remarks posted online (as yet, theres no video or transcript of the actual delivery), he opened with a bang:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...was_wrong.html

----------


## prakel

Well, if the report is 'right' (I would like to see an accurate transcript) I can only salute his courage in publicly presenting his changed views; remembering always that I'm assuming -to some extent- that this isn't some cleverly engineered stunt by someone who feels a need reinvent himself in order to generate a new wave of publicity.

----------


## Jon

Enrolling for celebrity big brother would probably be an easier option in terms of reinventing yourself!

The problem with GM food at the moment is who's in charge and can they be trusted,  ie companies like Monsanto who appear to have a virtual monopoly in certain areas at this point?
The frankenfood argument is only used by the seriously ill informed these days.
The technology itself is really clever and could be the answer to a lot of food supply and pesticide issues if managed responsibly.

----------


## prakel

> Enrolling for celebrity big brother would probably be an easier option in terms of reinventing yourself


Maybe this is his opening gambit aimed at getting the invite!

Cynical I suppose, but alarm bells ring for me when I read:




> "....and he's not being quiet about it....
> delivered a blunt address....
> opened with a bang..."


Not the typical backfoot behaviour of someone who's now convinced that he's been publicly talking bull for the greater part of his adult life.

----------


## prakel

> The problem with GM food at the moment is who's in charge and can they be trusted,  ie companies like Monsanto who appear to have a virtual monopoly in certain areas at this point?


While I understand this concern I think that it's widely misused by certain people. If there's value in the technology -which I believe there is- then it needs to be implemented by someone, which is always going to be the problem; the 'anti' groups will always challenge the organizations (irrespective of whether they're commercial or governmental) which are pushing the boundaries and investing in further developing the technology because that's the easiest rallying call they have _"These greedy people are really bad and want to control YOU"_.

----------


## gavin

Well, I'm with 'Matt', a commentator in the discussion on Mark Lynas' own site where he gives a transcript of the talk:

_Lets hope the world gets a little more rational in 2013._ 

The transcript is here:

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lec...013/#more-1058

and the video of the talk is below.  A fascinating account of a journey from blind campaigning to pragmatic rationality and I commend it to everyone.

----------


## James O

That link doesn't work for me.
There is a transcript here

http://www.ofc.org.uk/files/ofc/pape...conference.pdf

----------


## Jon

Farmers weekly has covered this as well.

----------


## gavin

> Farmers weekly has covered this as well.


It seems that he's not planning to take things lying down ....

'Mr Lynas replied: "Comparing me with rapists is disgusting and offensive. You are a reactionary fraud and an enemy of the poor."
Mr Lynas said he refused to be intimidated by the emails he had  received. Supportive messages far outnumbered those criticising his  conversion to GM crops, he added.

 But he warned that he was prepared to publish some of the hate mail  online - including the names and computer addresses of those who sent  it.

 "I don't want to play the victim here - I couldn't care less about the nutters really."

 He added: "To everyone sending me hate mail: I may post your messages, emails and IPs in the public domain. Just so you know."

----------


## Jon

Fair play to him.
There's no shortage of internet warriors who hide behind anonymous usernames and dish out dogs abuse.
At one level that 'shill' stuff is hilarious but on another level it is seriously offensive.
It seems to be a staple of the self styled eco warriors to infer that anyone who disagrees with their groupthink must be in the pay of 'Big Ag'
I don't know anything about Mark Lynas but he hit the nail on the head when he said he changed his mind when he started reading - and reached a point where he actually understood the science.
As Richard Dawkins says, reason is the biggest enemy of the fundamentalist.
One thing which bugs me is how a bunch of reactionary science deniers are allowed to act as if they were the rightful owners of the environmental movement.
It's my movement as well and I am interested in getting to the truth around issues like GMOs based on the best available evidence.
Same goes for 'natural' beekeeping. No one person has the exclusive right to define what natural is but some act as if they were appointed from above to dish out the way and the truth with regard to looking after bees.
Natural beekeeping belongs to all of us beekeepers.

----------


## prakel

Mark Lynas 'Hardtalk' interview on iplayer, not sure how long the link will work:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01qcj5x/

----------


## Jon

More from mark Lynas in the Observer today on an article about GM Golden Rice.




> "The first generation of GM crops were suspect, I believed then, but the case for continued opposition to new generations – which provide life-saving vitamins for starving people – is no longer justifiable. You cannot call yourself a humanitarian and be opposed to GM crops today."


Another from one of the scientists involved in its development.




> "All the time we have been required to show that there are no risks associated with growing golden rice, but at no point did we get a chance to point out its benefits. Everything is about risk assessment and nothing is about benefits assessment."


An alternatate view from John Vidal in the same article




> Instead, the business is in the grip of a few global chemical companies who make their profits mostly from the sale of the chemicals they engineer their seeds to resist. After 30 years of public relations and backing by governments, the crops are still not trusted and food safety concerns will not go away.


Vidal highlights how Monsanto has poisoned the public perception with it sharp practice but this paragraph caught my eye:




> In five years' time, it is possible someone will manage to engineer GM crops to "fix" carbon and eliminate the need for pesticides. If the crops can then be seen to be without risk and be for the benefit of the public rather than for sheer corporate profit, then even organic farmers should not oppose them.


Really? Are we anywhere near that and did he not mean to say nitrogen rather than carbon?

And he concludes:




> As it is, I fear GM has proved beneficial for the few but held back the real debate on how to grow food without harming the environment or people.

----------

