Former GMO Critic's Change

DES MOINES (DTN) -- Mark Lynas is making the rounds with presentations and talks about his conversion from a hard-core anti-biotech activist to a pro-biotech advocate.

A British author and environmentalist, Lynas gained his reputation in the 1990s as a leader in European campaigns against genetically engineered crops. He helped build resistance to GMOs that remains entrenched in Europe today. There are online videos of Lynas throwing a pie at an author who wrote an environmental book Lynas and others opposed. Lynas also personally destroyed several experimental crops.

"We were determined to vandalize every crop for countries to remain GMO-free," Lynas told members of the Iowa Farm Bureau on Wednesday at the group's annual meeting.

In January 2013, Lynas publicly came out and reversed his position on biotechnology. As an environmentalist, Lynas then began to argue he and others were counterproductive. "Now, I'm trying to put right some of the things I was involved in," he said.

Lynas, 41, is a visiting fellow at Cornell University's Office of International Programs, now working with the Alliance for Science, a project created to focus on encouraging more public, open dialogue about the science behind biotechnology. The project is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Lynas has been grilled on British television for changing his views. Interviewers argued that if Lynas had been so shallow and wrong before, why would anyone listen to him now? Lynas countered by maintaining he had failed to conduct proper research on biotechnology before taking his stand against the technology.

He now argues science is about changing your mind with changing evidence. "That's really what happened to me," he said.

Lynas said he was studying climate change and his work on the issue forced him to reconsider the role of biotechnology in protecting the ability to grow food in a hotter climate. Lynas noted major scientific societies around the world have concluded climate change is occurring and humans are influencing climate change because of higher greenhouse-gas emissions. Those same scientific groups also have concluded biotechnology is a safe way to adapt crops to changing growing conditions.

"The scientific evidence was very clear on this that crop improvements by modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is quite safe," Lynas said. "There's no room for dispute on this if you are on the right side of science."

Craig Hill, president of the Iowa Farm Bureau, said Lynas' discussion with Farm Bureau members was meant to show what happens when you take the emotions out of the biotechnology debate and examine the science. With regards to climate change, Hill said people can agree there is climate change. However, Hill said he thinks there is still more open debate on the degree people are contributing to climate change because of fossil fuels.

"Maybe we are having an effect. What is the effect? Well that's not so clear in science what the effect is," Hill said. "Can man reverse that? And even if we do in the U.S. change our methods and become more green-conscious, and reduce our carbon load will other countries? Does that mean China will, the Pacific Rim or India will? They are going to double their petroleum consumption in the next few years so can we have any effect on reversing this increase of carbon in the atmosphere? That's unknown and I think that's where farmers are. We know climate change exists. That's a no-brainer. It's valid, but what effect we are having as humans, how significant is it? Can we reverse trends? Can we change man's activities? That's where I think we differ in opinion."

Most environmental groups opposed to biotechnology also are adamant that people must take action to respond to the science on climate change. Lynas called that a "completely inconsistent position." He would like to see action taken to reduce reliance on fossil fuels globally, but also encourage biotech crops as a way to intensify crop production on current farm ground rather than expand area as population increases.

Some key biotech projects are being held up or fought globally by activists. That includes work in England to create insect-resistant wheat, as well as camelina with boosted levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

"Do you want to improve farming?" Lynas said. "Do you want to make farming more environmentally sustainable? Do you want to support scientific innovation and research that can improve agriculture? The answer for most people would be 'Yes.' "

He noted biotech opponents have effectively exported fear from European countries to farmers and residents in Asia and Africa. That mindset, driven by propaganda, has effectively blocked marketing crops such as bananas that are resistant to a bacterial wilt and cassava that resists a browning virus. Work on ring-spot-resistant papaya has been shut down in Thailand as well.

Lynas' conversion led to a backlash from his former environmental colleagues. Anti-GMO groups now call Lynas "a shill" for biotech companies. One anti-GMO activist, Vandana Shiva of India, compared Lynas' new advocacy for biotechnology with someone who encourages people to rape.

"You cannot have a debate when you have got people with this extreme viewpoint," Lynas said.

Chris Clayton can be reached at chris.clayton@dtn.com

Follow him on Twitter @ChrisClaytonDTN

(SK/CZ)

Copyright 2014 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.