Blog
Former Lead Anti-GMO Activist Says Science Changed His Mind
From NPR:
“For years, British environmental activist Mark Lynas destroyed genetically modified food (GMO) crops in what he calls a successful campaign to force the business of agriculture to be more holistic and ecological in its practices…
Earlier this month he went in front of the world to reverse his position on GMOs.
At the Oxford Farming Conference in Britain, Lynas apologized for helping “to start the anti-GMO movement” and told his former allies to “get out of the way, and let the rest of us get on with feeding the world sustainably.””
Listen to the full NPR Story here
07 Mark Lynas from Oxford Farming Conference on Vimeo.
Forbes: Anti-GMO Junk Science
This is a disturbing story about the abuse of the power of journalism and the trust of the public by one of the most, if not the most, influential food writers in the world.
Michael Pollan is a big deal, arguably more influential on agriculture policy than the Secretary of Agriculture. He is the author of five books, all best sellers, professor of journalism at the University of California-Berkeley and one of the most cited commentators on food related issues in the world, with more than 330,000 followers on Twitter, many of whom consider him a hero. Although the public perception of him is just the opposite, he is not a reputable science journalist or—by his own admission—an objective reporter—on organics or agriculture. Even more startling, Pollan admits—brags even—that he manipulates high profile stories on organics and crop biotechnology, particularly at the New York Times—and that the papers editors are willing dupes.
These are strong allegations, but they are not mine; they are Pollan’s own words. Read on.
Set the Record Straight
We are going to set the record straight:
Let’s take a look as some of the most outrageous statements that pro-labeling supporters are claiming, and are passing along to our legislators and to the public.
Claim: GM Crops create superweeds
The Reality: This is False. From the year 1980 to 1994 when engineered crops became prevalent there were 13 documented herbicide resistant crops per year, after 1994 there have only been on average 11 cases per year. Which shows a decrease in ‘superweeds’ since GM adoption.
However we must also point out that this is another non scientific claim, because there is no ‘scientific definition’ of a ‘superweed’. We assume that the pro-labeling activists mean ‘weeds that are resistant to herbicides’. This is something that as you should note, farmers have been struggling with for years and year, much longer than the GM debate. Herbicide resistant weeds are not a GM crop problem, they are a herbicide problem.
Categories
