• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anti-GMO activist admits he was wrong

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,083
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Leading Environmental Activist’s Blunt Confession: I Was Completely Wrong To Oppose GMOs

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:

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.​

:clap:
It takes a big person to admit that he was wrong. This is not typical human behavior.
 
Well done Mr Lynas. It takes a big person to do that.
 
Sent this link to 2 people who have tried to convince me of the "evils of GMO's!!" for years. I bet they handwave it away as being either a CT or he was "paid off".
 
Here's an interview where he talks about GMOs and nuclear power. I think the fact that his arguments are so non-novel just gets me annoyed with the whole situation. Here's a guy who had a crap understanding of an issue, got to play "journalist" about it, and now gets more press for his new book when he realises he was talking out of his ***.
 
Mark Lynas is the author of a great book.........The God Species. It is a "must read" book for all with any interest in the environment.

This thread is a little late to the party. The book has been out for years!

Mike
 
Most of the food we have been eating over the last 100 years were a lot different when humans began farming. This includes most of the animals and plants. So to say a food is not genetically modified is to talk rubbish.
 
Most of the food we have been eating over the last 100 years were a lot different when humans began farming. This includes most of the animals and plants. So to say a food is not genetically modified is to talk rubbish.
Those food crops have not developed a self-extinguishing gene so that you have to buy fresh seed from the inventor of the self-extinguishing seed.
 
Those food crops have not developed a self-extinguishing gene so that you have to buy fresh seed from the inventor of the self-extinguishing seed.
So? Don't use that seed if that's an issue. And what farmers grow their own seed anyway?

I think most hybrid crops are the same way.
 
Plus that's not really a "GMO" issue, that's an "ethics" issue or a "Monsanto" issue.
 
I don't think so. You can sell whatever you want.

The ONE big stink that came up, was when that guy claimed seed from passing trucks ended up on his farm and Monsanto sued him for using their seed without paying for it and won.... I thought that was kind of a crappy thing to do.

Some people take issue with Monsanto for making their seed not usable the next year. I think that if you don't like it, then buy somebody elses seed.

Not taking a position here, just presenting the idea that the issue with non regenerative seed isn't a GMO issue. perhaps I should have chosen better words
 
I don't think so. You can sell whatever you want.

The ONE big stink that came up, was when that guy claimed seed from passing trucks ended up on his farm and Monsanto sued him for using their seed without paying for it and won.... I thought that was kind of a crappy thing to do.

Some people take issue with Monsanto for making their seed not usable the next year. I think that if you don't like it, then buy somebody elses seed.

Not taking a position here, just presenting the idea that the issue with non regenerative seed isn't a GMO issue. perhaps I should have chosen better words

There were a few cases like that. In at least one the farmer had RoundUp ready seed contaminate his field. Monsanto didn't care. Then the farmer super dosed the field with RoundUp to kill all the crop he actually paid for leaving only the spilled crop. That they had a problem with.

If I remember correctly in other cases Monsanto has been a, um, corncob in the backside.
 
The ONE big stink that came up, was when that guy claimed seed from passing trucks ended up on his farm and Monsanto sued him for using their seed without paying for it and won.... I thought that was kind of a crappy thing to do.
Actually, it was worse than that. Monsanto's POLLEN contaminated his seed crop.

Some people take issue with Monsanto for making their seed not usable the next year. I think that if you don't like it, then buy somebody elses seed.
Unless Monsanto can prove that there is no earthly way for the pollen from any of their suicidal crops to get into anybody else's crops, they farm that **** on the moon where it won't bother anybody else. Until then, they are endangering the human race and have no right to do it.

Not taking a position here, just presenting the idea that the issue with non regenerative seed isn't a GMO issue. perhaps I should have chosen better words

Yes, it is, actually.
 
lol, no it isn't, your statement about "harming the human race" is laughable!!! bwahahahahahaha!!!

I'm seriously laughing out loud!!!!!!
 
lol, no it isn't, your statement about "harming the human race" is laughable!!! bwahahahahahaha!!!

I'm seriously laughing out loud!!!!!!
If Monsanto's suicide gene gets into the genome of a regionally-adapted, tradition seed stock of corn, it reduces the possibility of recovering viable populations of corn if Monsanto's **** goes viral. It should never be permitted within 1000 miles of a unique variety of corn. People will starve if that suicide gene spreads.
 
Those food crops have not developed a self-extinguishing gene so that you have to buy fresh seed from the inventor of the self-extinguishing seed.

Some people take issue with Monsanto for making their seed not usable the next year. I think that if you don't like it, then buy somebody elses seed.

If Monsanto's suicide gene gets into the genome of a regionally-adapted, tradition seed stock of corn, it reduces the possibility of recovering viable populations of corn if Monsanto's **** goes viral. It should never be permitted within 1000 miles of a unique variety of corn. People will starve if that suicide gene spreads.

You do know that, despite all the wild accusations and hysterical claims by kooks, there is no "terminator gene" in any Monsanto products? Indeed there is a public pledge on their website (since 1999) stating they will never commercially implement such genetic use restriction technology (which BTW they didn't invent).
More more information on the "great terminator technology hoax" I refer you to Ronald Herring's 2006 paper on this particular bit of woosteria.

While there are a number of reasons to criticise Monsanto this isn't one.

As for requiring farmers to buy new seeds each season, this is already a necessity for hybrd crops anyway.
 
No. This is GREAT!

To all the detractors who knew better than this guy, let me just say, I used to believe all kinds of anti scientific woo and like our friend in the OP I too came around to the precepts of science and what it actually means by way of climate science. I first came to JREF because I wanted to know what real sceptics had to say about AGW, through my exposure to scepticism I was - to use a woo phrase - turned on to what science is. It made me question no end of crap that I'd previously accepted, I ended up rejecting a lifetime of hippie upbringing (my Dad, who I worshipped, was an astrologer for crying out loud), it made me question and investigate.

I think it is FANTASTIC that other people are experiencing the same thing - confronted with lies and denial - don't just challenge the woo they are confronted with but open their eyes to everything else.

This is an amazing evolution of thought, that is probably happening to many, many other people. This is amazingly positive and nobody should be derogatory towards someone who has had this Road to Damascus moment. It's really beautiful and, for me, is demonstrative of the power of rational thought. Once you turn on it is impossible to cling to old notions of denial. Everyone should be applauding this guy and sharing the story as one of positivity.

oit's GREAT he is geting media attention, because it will only make other people question their own beliefs.

I can't express how joyous this makes me feel! Mahybe tomorrow I'll try to come up with a more in depth and rational dissertation on why this is so good. But in the meantime...
heart.gif
heart.gif
heart.gif
heart.gif


The world is progressing and this is SUCH a beautiful thing! :) :) :)
 
Actually, it was worse than that. Monsanto's POLLEN contaminated his seed crop.
Almost certainly not. The origin of the farmers' original herbicide-resistant canola plants was never established but, as he found them along a roadside growing amongst weeds that he was spraying, it was much more likely to be spilled seed than wind-spread pollen. Monsanto sued because the farmer, knowing exactly what they were (his neighbours were already using Monsanto canola), then used the seeds from them for his next harvest.
Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser
 
Most of the food we have been eating over the last 100 years were a lot different when humans began farming. This includes most of the animals and plants. So to say a food is not genetically modified is to talk rubbish.

That's an etymological fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

"Genetically modified" in this context refers to foods produced using biotechnology.

No foods we ate prior to 1994 were produced using biotechnology.

You never ate a single GMO food prior to 1994.

Edit: I apologize--the first GM food crop hit the market in '94--I put '96 earlier. Fixed it.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom