CFFO: The GMO Debate Takes a New Turn

The traditional debate between proponents of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) technology and its opponents has taken an unexpected turn. Mark Lynas, formerly one of Britain’s strongest opponents of the technology, has made an about face and is now embracing its potential as a tool to feed the world in a sustainable fashion. Time will tell if this is an impactful shift or a blip on the radar of this discourse on relatively new technology.

Lynas professes to be an environmentalist who believes that everyone in the world deserves a healthy diet. His gut reaction to GMO food in 1995 was a natural adversity to a large American corporation that was altering the genetic makeup of species in an unnatural way – simply put, humanity had acquired too much technological power and the risk was too great. He then helped wage a fairly successful campaign using the term “Frankenfood” to scare people around the world away from its potential.

The tipping point for Lynas was an examination of the science behind GMO. His pro-science stance with regards to climate change and his anti-science approach to GMO became an inconsistency in his thinking that he could no longer ignore. When he began to examine his assumptions against reality, he was disabused. For example, GMO cropping leads to reduced pesticide use, and additional dollars accrue to farmers with increased yields and reduced input costs.

Humans are a tool-making species – turning to science has repeatedly been our path to solving problems. He now rejects much of the organic movement as a simplistic one that chose to stop adopting technology at 1950 as a matter of principle. He compared it to the decision of many Amish farmers to draw a line on technology, but with the key difference being that the Amish accept the limits for themselves while the anti-GMO movement is striving to force those limits on everyone.

Lynas acknowledges that the organic movement has strengths that should be considered on a wider basis. Organic farming has innovated in its own ways in the areas of good soil management techniques, with intercropping and companion planting, recycling nutrients and on-farm diversity. Application of these innovations can improve the resilience of agriculture.

Lynas’s assessment of the big picture is that three billion hectares of rainforest, savannahs and other natural heritage have been spared conversion to farmland thanks to modern agriculture, while feeding three billion more people than in 1950. He states the GMO debate is over – three and a half trillion meals without a single case of substantial harm. On the other hand, malnourishment caused by failing to meet the challenge of feeding 9 billion people by 2050 will cause wide spread harm.

Lynas’s shift in thinking may mark a turning point in the debate around genetically modified food. From my perspective, there are strengths and weaknesses inherent to any approach to agriculture. Farmers with an open-mind and an innovative approach can draw from the best in each approach and strengthen the productivity, resiliency and sustainability of their farms.

Source: CFFO