Environmentalist Admits He Peddled Anti-Science AntiGM Myths

[Lord Zentei]

Linka

Somewhat to the discomfort of his green comrades-in-arms, British activist Mark Lynas has been evolving in his views on various environmental issues lately. For example, Lynas now admits that he was wrong when declared that biotech crops posed significant risks to people and the natural world. In a speech delivered yesterday at the Oxford Farming Conference Lynas declared:

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.

Discovered science? Well, better late than never. Lynas goes on to admit:

...in 2008 I was still penning screeds in the Guardian attacking the science of GM – even though I had done no academic research on the topic, and had a pretty limited personal understanding. I don’t think I’d ever read a peer-reviewed paper on biotechnology or plant science even at this late stage.

Obviously this contradiction was untenable. What really threw me were some of the comments underneath my final anti-GM Guardian article. In particular one critic said to me: so you’re opposed to GM on the basis that it is marketed by big corporations. Are you also opposed to the wheel because because it is marketed by the big auto companies?

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.

But what about mixing genes between unrelated species? The fish and the tomato? Turns out viruses do that all the time, as do plants and insects and even us – it’s called gene flow.

To some extent this old news. Last year, I wrote a column reviewing Lynas' new book, The God Species, in which I welcomed him to the "Reality-Based Community." If only somehow we could get Lynas' fellow activists to actually read science and accept the broad scientific consensus on the safety of biotech crops.

Via Slate.

Well, it's something. Hopefully this will reduce the GM-paranoia of at least some environmentally conscious people. Or, at least it will convince people on the fence. Now if only this sort of thing could happen more often, and to more things people have baseless fears about.

[Guardsman Bass]

Good for him, and that's he trying to make up for his prior opposition.

I'm looking forward to reading that book. Six Degrees was his prior book (about global warming), and it was really good.

[cosmicalstorm]

It's very rare for people to actually change their mind on a subject.

[Iron Bridge]

It doesn't surprise me at all. "Environmentalists" are usually ideologically/religiously driven, not scientifically driven. This is unfortunate because some of the issues on which they monopolise public discourse are actually important.

[UnderAGreySky]

It doesn't surprise me at all. "Environmentalists" are usually ideologically/religiously driven, not scientifically driven. This is unfortunate because some of the issues on which they monopolise public discourse are actually important.

What surprises me is that he was willing to say "mea culpa" in public. It is very rare to see that side. The only recent example I can think of is that climate sceptic who, using Koch brothers' funding, came over to realise that global warming is man-driven.

[Iron Bridge]

Agreed, I give this man 100x more respect than the masses who never admit they are wrong.

[Metahive]

It doesn't surprise me at all. "Environmentalists" are usually ideologically/religiously driven, not scientifically driven. This is unfortunate because some of the issues on which they monopolise public discourse are actually important.

I have this crazy idea, why don't you throw some facts and evidence behind yet another sweeping, insulting generalization you make about an entire group of people? How about that, shit-for-brains?

[cosmicalstorm]

I have come into contact with many environmentalists who seemed to use the issue as a smoke-screen for their own agenda, which seems to be to deconstruct western society. I have no illusion that they are representative of all people who care about the environment. Furthermore I don't doubt that humans are causing massive devastation to the global ecological system.

[Metahive]

I have come into contact with many environmentalists who seemed to use the issue as a smoke-screen for their own agenda, which seems to be to deconstruct western society. I have no illusion that they are representative of all people who care about the environment. Furthermore I don't doubt that humans are causing massive devastation to the global ecological system.

People exploiting noble causes to achieve misguided goals are nothing out of the ordinary, but Lead Brick went the extra mile and insinuated that these are the norm when it comes to environmentalism. Let's see if he can put some evidence behind that.

[Slacker]

I have absolutely no problem with GM food. I have a tremendous issue with the business practices of Monsanto, however.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And for better or worse Organic is now Synonymous with Higher Quality. If you want food that tastes good you buy organic. Not because it's organic, but because the level of effort put it manufacturing it generally results in the use of better ingredients and more careful production, with superiour overall taste. A lot of people now buy organic because it's the cheapest food that actually tastes good. -- which unfortunately perpetuates the notion that it is intrinsically healthier.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It doesn't surprise me at all. "Environmentalists" are usually ideologically/religiously driven, not scientifically driven. This is unfortunate because some of the issues on which they monopolise public discourse are actually important.

Entschuldigung?

How many environmentalists do you actually know? Have you ever met...any biologist ever? We tend to be both environmentalists and scientifically driven. The problem you have is one of not realizing that environmentalists don't all go to the same meetings. Some are indeed Luddites, many of us are not. Even so, there are issues with gm crops. They are just not the same issues the Luddites rant about. Crop contamination is one, but only because of copyrights. Genetic modification to resist pesticides is problematic because it encourages pesticide use (good for crop yield, bad to everything else), and just makes farmers more reliant on Monsanto. If the plants made their own, which is possible and not even restricted to BT. You get more target specificity but it does not maximize monsanto's profits. Another's is what tends to be modified. Moving around a protein coding sequence is one thing. Moving a gene that creates a toxin in the form of a regulatory micro RNA element while not inherently dangerous, is got subject to testing rigorous enough to figure out what their effect on humans would be, and because unlike proteins they survive digestion, they are a thing that needs to be looked at more carefully.

in summary. You are simply wrong in assuming environmentalists are not scientifically driven, many of us are. There are several actual professions such as environmental science and all of biology where the individuals involved are both.

And yes, many issues are actually important, and...oh wait, they are dealt with by environmentalists and scientists. So fuck you.

Oh, And even the Luddites are useful. They force us to ask the question "should this be done?" And force us to not be an echo chamber.

[Iron Bridge]

There's a big difference between and environmentalist and environmental scientist. I am talking about the big pressure groups and political parties like the UK Greens.

[fordlltwm]

There's a big difference between and environmentalist and environmental scientist. I am talking about the big pressure groups and political parties like the UK Greens.

I think the type of "enviromentalist" that Iron Bridge is talking about is the lets jump on some bandwagon and go protesting every week with a different flag type, several friends of mine have turned into them over the years and despite being well educated in the most part, they absolutely refuse to even discuss their ideals, and end up becoming motivated by politics rather than science, cue them becoming vegans because of global warming by cows and then eating soya beans from the deforested Amazon. If questioned on the origin of their soya muck will demand you prove that that exact carton of soy milk came from a deforested area, despite being willing to ignore the slight issue of the cow fart global warming only applying to corn feed lots in U.S. and not other methods of rearing such as hill farming.

[Alyrium Denryle]

There's a big difference between and environmentalist and environmental scientist. I am talking about the big pressure groups and political parties like the UK Greens.

Really? Any idea how much activism and lobbying we do? There is the union of concerned scientists, a huge number of conservation groups (turtle trust, various groups opposing rattlesnake round ups, save the frogs. That just off the top of my head), need I go on?

Face it, you made a generalization that does not hold water, just admit it and move on.

[Broomstick]

And for better or worse Organic is now Synonymous with Higher Quality. If you want food that tastes good you buy organic. Not because it's organic, but because the level of effort put it manufacturing it generally results in the use of better ingredients and more careful production, with superiour overall taste. A lot of people now buy organic because it's the cheapest food that actually tastes good. -- which unfortunately perpetuates the notion that it is intrinsically healthier.

Bullshit.

Or were you being sarcastic in that post? I can't always tell from just text.

For damn sure it's never cheap, at least not in my area. The only cheap organic food around here is what comes out of backyard gardens. I seriously question if it's really "superior" in any way, or just perceived to be by folks who don't want to admit they've overpaid for food.

[Simon_Jester]

There are brick-stupid environmentalists out there, but they're not the ones setting most of the agenda of the movement. There are exceptions to that rule, but not enough to justify condemning "environmentalism" as such.

Bullshit.

Or were you being sarcastic in that post? I can't always tell from just text.

For damn sure it's never cheap, at least not in my area. The only cheap organic food around here is what comes out of backyard gardens. I seriously question if it's really "superior" in any way, or just perceived to be by folks who don't want to admit they've overpaid for food.

Ahem.

Broomstick? I think this has to do with different standards of what 'good food' means. Duchess is saying that organic food is "the cheapest that actually tastes good." Possibly for a picky definition of "good." She is not saying that organic food is "cheap" in an absolute sense.

And she is (I presume) excluding processed junk food from that consideration. Junk food is tasty if you like sugar and salt, and it's cheap... but it's junk.

As to the quality issue, Duchess may be getting different organic food (different parts of the country?) And it occurs to me that you won't see 'organic' food stuffed with preservatives or almost-as-good-as-the-real-thing substitutes to increase its shelf life, which is an issue with a lot of ordinary stuff and may affect taste and perceived quality.

[Broomstick]

Most of the year in my area the only "organic" food you'll see comes from far away and, with no preservatives, may or may not be high quality by the time it reaches the public. I also think the "taste better" thing is highly subjective and, as I said, may well be an effect of people wanting to believe they got more quality for the higher price.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Perhaps, but I discern an objective and very real difference between say generic store-brand and high-end equivalents.. And also a distinct and very real difference between generic store-brand and organic food. The organic food tends to be slightly cheaper than the high-end non-organic food, so I buy it in preference to the high-end non-organic to save a little bit.

There are foods where real, serious objective differences can be discerned, at least by me and those in my social circles I eat food with, between salsa which basically tastes like tomato paste with spices added, which has no distinct tastes in the vegetables, and has a shelf life of months, and an organic kind which has a shelf life of a couple weeks and which has identifiably different tastes between vegetables and different textures. I also find superiour quality for example here in a local brand of pickles which are crunchier, with better texture, than standard brand ones at the store.


I suspect a great deal of this is that food texture is such that I find some dishes inedible which have ingredients identical to other dishes I will eat, for example, pasta--if it is cooked past al Dente (and I honestly prefer it harder than Al Dente), I can't eat it, period. Texture is a big deal to some people, even though the flavour shouldn't be difference, and organic food tends to, simply because of the shorter shelf life, not be soaked into an incoherent gloop with no texture differences by the time you eat it.

Now, maybe it's just that there used to be better-but-not-premium brands and they sort of lost their lustre because people expected food commanding that sort of premium to be organic, and it's strictly a marketing motivation that makes the foods classified as organic rather than anything to do with their quality... So what, though? That still leads to organic food being preferable.

[Broomstick]

Perhaps, but I discern an objective and very real difference between say generic store-brand and high-end equivalents.. And also a distinct and very real difference between generic store-brand and organic food. The organic food tends to be slightly cheaper than the high-end non-organic food, so I buy it in preference to the high-end non-organic to save a little bit.

OK, I never said I was comparing "generic store brand" with "organic food" (which label is nebulous and poorly defined anyway). And I'm interested in how you "objectively" determined these differences. Double-blind taste tests? Nutritional analysis? What method(s) did you use?

There are foods where real, serious objective differences can be discerned, at least by me and those in my social circles

So.... what you implying by this? That you and your social circle have good taste and everyone else is an uncouth barbarian? Is that really how you wanted to phrase that?

I suspect a great deal of this is that food texture is such that I find some dishes inedible which have ingredients identical to other dishes I will eat,

That has more to do with preparation and cooking than it does with whether the raw ingredients are organic or not.

Texture is a big deal to some people, even though the flavour shouldn't be difference, and organic food tends to, simply because of the shorter shelf life, not be soaked into an incoherent gloop with no texture differences by the time you eat it.

Oh, so that's where the confusion comes in - I was referring to the actual fruits and vegetables, not the pre-processed meals and condiments you are.

[Spoonist]

I'd side with Duchess on this one Broomy. But I think it highly depends on where one lives.

Here in scandinavia, if you want high quality vegetables & fruit you don't really have a choice as a consumer. You go with Eco/Green/Organic, not because of those things but due to them having higher standards and willngness to put cost into the product since they can charge higher prices.
You simply can't find that with "ordinary"/GM stuff.
The difference is huge especially in traditional european vegetables like tomatoes and cucumber.
Lots of high end restaurants have to do the same. Sometimes they can get direct delivery from a farm, but that is the exception to the rule.

Me, I think some part of it is the selection of high-yield breeds over tasty/high-quality ones. If you are aiming for a mass market it doesn't really matter as much how your cucumber tastes as long as it doesn't go bad. While if you produce for a smaller market then taste suddenly matters for repeat customers.

[Lagmonster]

I think Duchess is almost certainly wrong about organic food tasting better objectively. From tests I've been shown, a) food tastes better if you think it should, and b) food tastes better if you enjoy eating it.

In fact, the effects of tests like this are apparently so easy to reproduce that I seem to recall Penn and Teller fooling a crowd of organic shoppers into thinking that regular food tasted better if they thought it was organic, in addition to demonstrating that, for the people they tested, they could not consistently discern the differences by taste alone.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think Duchess is almost certainly wrong about organic food tasting better objectively. From tests I've been shown, a) food tastes better if you think it should, and b) food tastes better if you enjoy eating it.

In fact, the effects of tests like this are apparently so easy to reproduce that I seem to recall Penn and Teller fooling a crowd of organic shoppers into thinking that regular food tasted better if they thought it was organic, in addition to demonstrating that, for the people they tested, they could not consistently discern the differences by taste alone.

Results from studies tend to vary, especially with regards to what "type" of food is being used in the comparison. However, it seems that, in general, while studies show that there isn't a perceptual taste difference between organic and non-organic food in general, tests restricted to fruits and vegetables tend to agree that the organic versions taste better. Produce seems to be the one category where the organic is usually considered to be preferable (which makes a certain intuitive amount of sense, although this doesn't protect the consumer from food simply being labelled as organic when it isn't - and yes, I know there are regulations as to what can and cannot be labelled as such, but there are innumerable loop-holes).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I am not arguing that organic food actually tastes better than non-organic food in general, just that it's slightly cheaper than its taste-equivalent in non-organic food, okay? You should really note the rather substantial difference between those two statements. Furthermore, I don't regard it tasting better as a result of its being organic, as I also said, which seems to be ignored in the rush to condemn. I'm saying it tastes better because more care and effort was put into it, just like I think the same thing about Kosher food, even though I am manifestly not an observant Jew who thinks Kosher is important for some other reason. The same with halal food--when I live near a market I go out of my way to shop there for meat--despite also manifestly not being an observant muslim.

Then we have the second reason in favour of Organic food: On average it uses less energy than regular food, and reducing the energy consumption and carbon emissions that are usually the result of them of the western world, where we have this luxury, is a big responsibility of all of us, and does a great deal to aid the Third World. Therefore I've always and will continue to support "GM Crops + Organic Farming Techniques and Principles" to maximize yield while minimizing CO(2) release and energy consumption.

[the atom]

I think Duchess is almost certainly wrong about organic food tasting better objectively. From tests I've been shown, a) food tastes better if you think it should, and b) food tastes better if you enjoy eating it.

I don't know about that. When I visited my dad for the summers, I always immensely preferred organic fruits and juices despite the fact that I quite flatly ignored all his nonsensical jabber about all the special benefits it was supposed to have over regular fruit.