Photo courtesy of The Globe and Mail

In writing about the pro-biotech speech by British environmental activist Mark Lynas, during which he publicly apologized for years of anti-biotech activities, Canadian commentator Margaret Wente says the tremendous stir it caused may mark a turning of the tide of public opinion.

“People are hungry to hear from a new generation of environmental moderates who value science and pragmatism over ideology and absolutes,” Wente wrote in her column in The Globe and Mail, Canada’s largest national newspaper. “They want to hear from those like Mr. Lynas, who think technology can be a force for good, and want to find practical approaches to environmental problems.”

Lynas himself sees a shift in opinion, Ms. Wente wrote, quoting him from an interview.

“Something has moved in the terms of this debate,” she quoted Lynas as saying. “It’s like the cresting of a wave. It’s as if everyone has simultaneously realized that the anti-GM movement doesn’t actually have anything backing it up,” he said. READ MORE »

British author and environmental activist Mark Lynas has publicly apologized for his past role in “demonizing” genetically modified crops, saying that he has come to realize that they are safe to eat and are essential to feeding a growing world population.

“For the record, here and upfront, I apologize for having spent several years ripping up GM crops,” Lynas told the Oxford Farming Conference in England Thursday.  “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.”  Text and video of his presentation are available here.

Lynas is the author of “The God Species: Saving the Planet in the Age of Humans” (published by National Geographic) and other books on environmental challenges. 

“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,” Lynas said of his participation in attacks on GM test plots, a common feature of British anti-GM activism.  “I now regret it completely.”

Lynas said he educated himself on science as part of his study of climate change and came to realize that the arguments against GM crops are mainly “green urban myths.”

“I’d assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding,” Lynas said.

“The GM debate is over,” he said.  “It is finished. We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is safe - over a decade and a half with three trillion GM meals eaten there has never been a single substantiated case of harm. You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food.”

“So my message to the anti-GM lobby, from the ranks of the British aristocrats and celebrity chefs to the US foodies to the peasant groups of India, is this,” he said.  “You are entitled to your views. But you must know by now that they are not supported by science. We are coming to a crunch point, and for the sake of both people and the planet, now is the time for you to get out of the way and let the rest of us get on with feeding the world sustainably.”

Requiring labels on foods with genetically modified (GM) ingredients is unnecessary and presents no benefit for consumers, an editorial by the Hartford Courant—the nation’s oldest newspaper—states.

“The fight against genetically modified organisms is fueled more by fear and guesswork than by responsible evidence,” the article says. No credible scientific studies have shown that GM crops present a greater health risk than conventionally produced crops, it points out citing the position of the American Medical Association.

Furthermore, it says that labels are unnecessary because consumers can already identify GM foods: “These days, it’s a pretty safe bet that if you buy virtually any processed food, GMOs played a part in its manufacture; no label is necessary. Those who want non-GMO foods may look for the “USDA Organic” label, which indicates that no genetic modification took place.” Read more.

Crop biotechnology is desperately needed to meet problems of drought, saline soils, loss of farmland, rural poverty, and population growth, according to Neal Carter, an orchardist and bioresource engineer who has developed a non-browning apple.

“It’s a huge challenge, and biotech crops are leading the way in allowing us to address it,” Carter said in a talk at a TEDx conference. Carter’s company is bringing out the Arctic Apple, which doesn’t turn brown when sliced.

Carter took on the claims by biotech opponents that the technology is unsafe, pointing out that the food safety of genetically engineered crops has been affirmed by the American Medical Association, World Health Organization, and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, among other distinguished groups.

Biotechnology reduces food waste, makes better use of water, increases yields, improves farmer income, and improves people’s lives, Carter said.

A video of his presentation is available here.

While innovation is recognized as an important element for America’s manufacturing and information technology sectors, it also plays a critical role in advancing U.S. agriculture and making our farmers the most productive in the world. This was the theme of Agriculture: Growing Innovation & Opportunities, a conference hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today in Washington.

Conference speakers cited several innovations in agriculture that enable farmers to grow more food on less land, with fewer inputs and a smaller environmental footprint. These include better soil management practices, improved water conservation methods, the use of GPS technology and other smart applications, better nutrient management systems, and the development, maturation and utilization of agriculture biotechnology crops.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said innovations in crop genetics helped farmers cope with last summer’s drought. “We just suffered through the most serious drought that this country has faced since the 1930s. Had we faced this drought without seed genetics, we would have seen serious crop losses. We still had a corn crop ranked in the top 10 in productivity in U.S. history. And it’s a result of seed genetics and innovation. And it’s a result of farmers embracing new planting technologies that allow us to preserve and conserve water resources and still maintain and provide a crop,” he said. READ MORE »