Why We Got It So Wrong On GMO's

That's the subtitle of a new book, Seeds of Science, by Mark Lynas, a former anti-GMO activist for Greenpeace, who is now an advocate for the safe use of GM technology.  This is a point I've been making for some time.  I am of course a strong environmentalist but I've long believed that we need GM methods in order to have any hope of feeding the 8 billion people that will be on this planet by 2050.
Seeds of Science: Why We Got It So Wrong On GMOs


Lynas' book has just been reviewed in the latest issue of Science (behind paywall).  The review explains how his views have completely turned around about GMO's.
Most major global scientific organizations have firmly stated that science backs the efficacy and safety of genetic engineering.  Yet in the minds of many, consuming food with a GM organism (GMO) - free label is a must. So what went wrong?  Lynas argues that applying GM technology first to herbicide-resistant crops was a mistake that aligned the chemical manufacturing industry--which was already regarded with skepticism--with the burgeoning technology.  If pest-resistant crops that allowed farmers to apply few chemical pesticides had been introduced first, the narrative might have been different.
And Lynas argues that activism has made the problem worse.
Lynas points out efforts by Greenpeace have created a system in which "only the most profitable mass-market global commodity crops have been worth investing in.  Activism has been the most successful in locking out small and public sector players ... thus cementing exactly the monopolistic situation that many campaigners say they are fighting against."
In the end, Lynas draws a line in the sand.  If Greenpeace and other environmental advocacy organizations are going to fight the use of genetic engineering in agriculture, the old arguments--that GMO crops are unsafe for consumption or ecologically hazardous--need to be abandoned.  We have already wasted 20 years fighting over a mere seed-breeding technique that--used sensibly and in the public interest--can certainly help global efforts to fight poverty and make agriculture more sustainable.  Let's not waste 20 more.
 Just remember, 8 billion people by 2050 have to be fed.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Alaska Crushes Record For Hottest December

The World My Grandchildren Will Inherit