Time to call out the anti-GMO conspiracy theory (Mark Lynas)

[wtmusic]

Mark Lynas speech hosted by the International Programs – College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (50th Anniversary Celebration) , and the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future, Cornell University

"I think the controversy over GMOs represents one of the greatest science communications failures of the past half-century. Millions, possibly billions, of people have come to believe what is essentially a conspiracy theory, generating fear and misunderstanding about a whole class of technologies on an unprecedentedly global scale.

This matters enormously because these technologies – in particular the various uses of molecular biology to enhance plant breeding potential – are clearly some of our most important tools for addressing food security and future environmental change.

I am a historian, and history surely offers us, from witch trials to eugenics, numerous examples of how when public misunderstanding and superstition becomes widespread on an issue, irrational policymaking is the inevitable consequence, and great damage is done to peoples’ lives as a result. "

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/

[BanzaiBonnie]

1. Wow.

Sorry, but I know real farmers. I'm still not buying what he's selling.

[Fumesucker]

2. Monsanto only wants what is best for us

We are just too stupid to realize it.

/snark


In the absence of the profit motive gone feral I think genetic modification could be a very good thing but as soon as you bring the overwhelming desire for vast quantities of money into things they become corrupted very quickly.

[wtmusic]

3. Agree.

I've read two of Mark Lynas's books and he's a good writer and has some good ideas. With GM we part ways on ethical grounds:

1) Patents shouldn't apply to sterilized seed. You buy the genome once, you get it forever - anything else is ransom.
2) GM of animals (as in Aquabounty salmon, which is so big it's nearly immobile) is cruel.
3) GM differs from hybridization in that hybrid DNA has thousands of altered DNA proteins, where GM may have as few as one. Do these additional alterations serve a beneficial purpose for survival of the plant (and it's nutrients)? The subject is not well understood, but natural selection would support that conclusion. Could crops with altered GM DNA have disadvantageous characteristics we don't know about, which could spread to hardy existing strains essentially "poisoning" their genome? Of course.

[pscot]

4. As I understand it, there are 2

arguments against genetically modified foods. Number 1, they are bad for us in terms of their effect on the organism. I don't understand why that's true, or how it works. Number 2, they are bad environmentally because they may spread to native plants and animals, thus contaminating the biosphere with unpredictable results. This seems more plausible, and in the case of corn appears to be happening already. Corporate control of the food supply is another issue, but that horse left the barn long ago.

[wtmusic]

5. IMO, corporate control of the food supply is not a bad thing.

Monopolization of the food supply is something else altogether.

[pscot]

6. Monsanto's pressing of GMO crops

is certainly monopolistic. If their approach were less anal, there'd probably be less pushback.

[wtmusic]

7. Making GMO seed sterile crosses the line.

[Tumbulu]

8. Time to call out "scientific" products

Whose manufacturers refuse to allow them to be properly tested by third parties.

Scientists test things. Business people who have tried to get away with not testing the products have simply sabotaged the future of the entire technology. Shameless business practices have ruined the reputation of brilliant scientists and incredible technicians... Really this is what is shameful.

[gejohnston]

9. simply calling it "a conspiracy theory"

doesn't make it untrue.