GM activists ‘must accept their role in causing hunger’
Comment Brian Henderson
It takes a brave man to admit that he’s wrong – but apparently it requires an even braver government or major organisation to do the same.
That was certainly the view put forward by author, environmentalist and former anti-gm crop activist, Mark Lynas, in a well-argued talk to the Scottish Society for Crop Research last week.
Terming the widespread movement against the use of scientific techniques such as gene editing a form of superstition, he said that the Scottish government’s outright opposition to genetically modified crops flew in the face of Scotland’s proud scientific tradition.
Lynas changed sides in the debate over genetic modification after he “discovered” scientific methodology a few years ago – and famously issued a fulsome apology to the farming and science communities at the Oxford Farming Conference in 2013 for his previous actions in tearing up GM crops and demonising the technology in the 1990s.
Explaining his change of mind, he said that at the turn of the century his campaigning and writing had moved to focus on global warming. As part of this, he found himself investigating the denial which is widespread amongst the far right in the US that human activity is a major player in driving climate change.
Part of this investigation involved working with climate scientists, which led him to learn about scientific methodology, where evidence is logically scrutinised and conclusions drawn and tested.
0 ‘Superstitions’ against GM crops could cost others dear
As an arts graduate, he never had a grounding in how science relies on hard evidence, academic research and peer review – and this began to sow seeds of doubt in some of the claims of the anti-gm lobby.
When he was subsequently asked to write a standard piece for the Guardian on the dangers of GM crops, he realised that rather than being based on facts, much of the anti-gm lobby’s thinking was based on hearsay, opinion, half-truths and green urban myths.
After investigating the facts with his eyes opened to science, he soon realised that the GM lobby’s approach, backed up by a dogmatic ideology, was effectively thwarting an incredibly useful tool for helping to feed the world.
But while such shortsighted approach might possibly be forgivable in individuals, he said, large organisations such as Greenpeace – and especially governments – should not be swayed by such specious and populist arguments.
Criticising the Scottish Government for “hiding behind the ignorance of the general public” he said claims that outlawing GM crops added to the country’s “clean green” image were patently false – as the denial of the technology was dramatically hindering the development of genetic resistance to pests and diseases and, as a result, forcing ever greater reliance on chemical control methods.
Within Scotland’s scientific community, he pointed out, the government’s outright opposition to GM crops was also likely to lead to a brain drain, hence his jibe that the approach was tarnishing Scotland’s reputation in the field of scientific endeavour.
But it is on the wider front that this dogmatic approach is most harmful. In any realistic assessment, Scotland – and the many other countries adopting a similar approach across Europe – is unlikely to go hungry because of what Lynas termed “this superstitious approach”.
However, with new GM work offering plants which are more tolerant to drought or more resistant to pests and diseases, the reluctance to adopt the technology in developing countries, especially many African nations, is leading to needless hunger and malnutrition.
And with the most frequently used argument coming from third world governments for this reluctance of uptake hinging on the reasoning that “if it isn’t good enough for European nations, why should it be used by us” – the lobbying groups and governments of rich European nations who have shunned GM crops should take responsibility for this suffering.