Calling out the anti-GMO conspiracy theory

Since Mark Lynas gave his speech in Oxford in January supporting GMOs he has been subject to a co-ordinated campaign of intimidation and hate, mostly via the internet.

He’s not giving in to the bullies.

. . . I have been encouraged by emails and other support from globally-renowned scientists who are experts on this issue, and who all said basically the same thing to me: ‘You think you’ve got hatemail? Welcome to my world’.

I think these scientists are the unsung heroes of this saga. They carried on with their important work and tried year after year to fight against the rising tide of misinformation, while people like me were belittling and undermining them at every turn. I won’t mention names, but they know who they are. Some of them are here today, and I would like to give them my deepest thanks.

So for me also there is also a moral dimension to this. The fact that I helped promote unfounded scare stories in the early stages of the anti-GMO movement in the mid 1990s is the reason why I now feel compelled to speak out against them. I have a personal responsibility to help put these myths to rest because I was so complicit in initially promoting them.

My activism, which I wrongly thought of at the time as being ‘environmental’, has done real damage in the world. For me, apologising was therefore only the beginning. I am now convinced that many people have died unnecessarily because of mistakes that we in the environmental movement collectively made in promoting anti-GMO fear. With that on your conscience, saying sorry and then moving on is not enough. Some restitution is in order.

Following a decade and a half of scientific and field research, I think we can now say with very high confidence that the key tenets of the anti-GMO case were not just wrong in points of fact but in large parts the precise opposite of the truth.

This is why I use the term conspiracy theory. Populist ideas about conspiracies do not arise spontaneously in a political and historic vacuum. They result when powerful ideological narratives collide with major world events, rare occasions where even a tiny number of dedicated activists can create a lasting change in public consciousness. . .

. . . The anti-GMO campaign has also undoubtedly led to unnecessary deaths. The best documented example, which is laid out in detail by Robert Paarlberg in his book ‘Starved for Science’, is the refusal of the Zambian government to allow its starving population to eat imported GMO corn during a severe famine in 2002. . . .

Thousands died because the President of Zambia believed the lies of western environmental groups that genetically modified corn provided by the World Food Programme was somehow poisonous. I have yet to hear an apology from any of the responsible Western groups for their role in this humanitarian atrocity.

Friends of the Earth was one of those responsible, and I note that not only has no apology been forthcoming, but Friends of the Earth Europe is still actively promoting GMO denialism in the EU in a new campaign called Stop the Crop. Check out their Youtube video to see how they have learned nothing in ten years.

Another well-known example is that of Golden Rice, genetically modified to contain high levels of beta carotene in order to compensate for the vitamin A deficiency which kills hundreds of thousands of children around the world and blinds many more every year. One study on the prospects for Golden Rice in India found that the burden of vitamin A deficiency could be reduced by 60%, saving 1.4 million healthy life years.

Here the actions of Greenpeace in forestalling the use of golden rice to address micronutrient deficiencies in children makes them the moral and indeed practical equivalent of the Nigerian mullahs who preached against the polio vaccine – because they were stopping a lifesaving technology solely to flatter their own fanaticism. . .

I think this campaign is shameful and has brought the entire environmental movement into disrepute, with damaging consequences for the very beneficial work that many environmentalists do. Greenpeace’s campaign against vitamin A-enhanced Golden Rice should therefore be cancelled, and I call on everyone concerned about children’s health to lobby Greenpeace and demand that this happens immediately and without delay. . .

The anti-GMO campaign is based one motion not science.

It has an anti-business campaign which is not supported by facts.

GMOs aren’t a magic bullet that will end world hunger but they are one of the tools that will help feed the world.

Anti GM resolution progress or regress?

Whangarei District Council has voted to investigate regulating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) through the District Plan in conjunction with other councils in Northland and Auckland.

There’s nothing wrong with caution. But discussion suggests that rather than recognising a need to progress carefully  this is a step towards banning GMOs altogether:

“At the very least, we need GE to be a prohibited activity until the liability issues are resolved, and preferably, prohibited for good,” Cr. Deeming said.

Whether this is progress of regress depends on whether genetically modified produce is the means to a better fed world with healthier people or a blind leap into darkness.

Public opinion seems to go for the latter yet in the widest sense genetic modification is just what happens naturally through reproduction. However, the intervention of scientists has sped up the process so changes which used to take place over generations can be achieved in a much shorter time and that’s what’s fuelling fears that the stuff of science fiction nightmares might soon be unleashed on an unsuspecting world.

Biotechnological developments ought to be an improvement on nature because they allow a far greater degree of precision in determining the outcome. So in human terms, for example, instead of the lottery we now face when we have a baby we could pick the best of both parents to produce healthier and more talented offspring: the shape of his teeth and the quality of mine; his spelling, my grammar; his musical ability my …

The idea of such designer babies might be amusing in theory but in practice it’s only a small step away from the Nazi idea of producing a super race. However, does the risk of genetic modification being used in this way mean we shouldn’t allow its development when it might also be harnessed for good to circumvent hereditary illnesses?

There are probably enough ethical guidelines in medical science to safeguard the use of biotechnology with people but it’s not so easy to draw lines between benefit and risk in agriculture.

On one side there’s evidence of an increase in not only yield and quality but also health giving characteristics, for example animals with less fat and more protein or a super tomato with more of the caratoid which protects against cancer. We could also get improvements in flavour and while the thought of chocolate flavoured broccoli doesn’t do much for me I can see advantages in vegetables which appealed to children more than junk food.

The potential gains appear to outweigh the risks in these examples.  But there are fears the technology which does this could also result in environmental mayhem as genes from animals and crops bred for a specific purpose transfer to other species with potentially disastrous consequences.                                                                

People on both sides of the argument use history to back up their case: miscalculations about the dangers of DDT, dioxin and mad cow disease are reminders of what happens when science gets it wrong; but there are equally compelling examples when science has got it right such as vaccinations which have rid the world of small pox and reduced the risk of polio.

The debate in New Zealand isn’t just about consumer choice, it’s also about the future of farming.  Do we exploit the fears to sell our GM-free produce at a premium or embrace the new technology in the hope it will give us productive and marketing advantages?

There is no certain answer because there are both risks and benefits in whatever we do. But while concern is understandable and caution essential, I wouldn’t want to see a complete moratorium on biotechnological development.

There’s no progress without risk. I

I’d be prepared to take the risk of experiments with proper safeguards if it increased production and/or meant food which now needs to be sprayed or drenched  with potentially toxic substances could be bred to resist pests and disease in the first place.