
Mark Lynas, environmentalist who opposed GMOs, admits he was wrong. - ssclafani
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admits_he_was_wrong.html
======
graeme
His views are insubstantial. His main argument is that his previous ad hominem
positions were not sufficient to condemn GMOs (correct) and that GMOs haven't
caused any problems yet.

He has not presented evidence that GMO's are safe. He has two main arguments:

1\. Trial and error crossbreeding affects entire genes. 2\. Viruses sometimes
spread genes from one organism to another.

First, trial and error crossbreeding isn't likely to produce anything
catastrophic. We've been interbreeding plants for milennia. Current techniques
may be more risky, but generally speaking it should be hard for plants to
produce a horrid mutation based on natural interbreeding mechanisms.

Second, just becauses cross species gene transfers do occur doesn't mean that
it's safe when we do it. If such transfers have occurred in nature for a long,
long time, then it's safe to say that nature has created pathways that are
safe. Our pathways are new.

I'm making a Talebian argument here. Nature is a VERY complex system. When we
mess with it, we make incremental visible gains, and run the risk of large,
invisible losses.

It means nothing to say that GMOs haven't caused harm yet. All it would take
would be ONE catastrophic GMO plant to cause large amounts of damage. By
definition, we won't be able to foresee this until it happens.

HN is a very tech positive community, and also a community that's very aware
of the complexity of large system, and their fragility when meddled with. When
considering GMOs, many forget complexity due to a pro-technology attitude.

~~~
bascule
I'm curious what sort of realistic disaster scenario you think might occur due
to cross-species gene transfer (and for that matter, purely synthetic genes)
in GMOs, and how the existing safeguards are inadequate against it. Normally
I'm against FUD, but please, go nuts, so long as there's a reasonable chance
of it occurring (i.e. we're not talking about a mad scientist who wants to
create man-eating plants)

~~~
DanBC
Weed-killer resistance transfers to a weed, helping boost it to invasive
species?

Some mutation makes crop more vulnerable to a particular plant virus,
destroying 80% of that crop in EU or US?

A huge multinational wants to include "TERMINATOR GENES" in their crops to
make sure the cropped seed cannot grow; environmentalists freak out at the
name and oppose that; the multinational doesn't include that gene but now
inspect the fields of people on the route of seed delivery and if they find
any gene-manipulated crop (which is probable from wind-blown seed) they sue
the farmer into oblivion.

~~~
cpeterso
> Some mutation makes crop more vulnerable to a particular plant virus,
> destroying 80% of that crop in EU or US?

This is already a risk because industrial agriculture is optimized for
monocrops.

~~~
graeme
This is like arguing that it's ok to build houses that won't resist
hurricanes, because they're already vulnerable to fire.

GMO risks present an additional risk over already problematic agricultural
practices.

------
cromwellian
Plant breeding has always been tinkering with the genome, why aren't people
scared of it? Read the Wikipedia page on the various ways plants are bombarded
with radiation, mutagenic chemicals, have nuclei fuzed with electricity, et al
in "non-GMO 'organic'" plant breeding.

Why is the more error prone process, in which we are ignorant of the
mechanism, presumed safer?

If we invented a machine which randomly bred plants, sampled their DNA, and
tested for the modification of a single gene, or infected plants with
naturally occuring bacteria or virii and waited for an inter-species transfer,
would you find this less scary than a process which uses a petri dish and a
pipette?

There's a continuous gradient between the way people bred, modified, and
selected plants thousands of years ago up until today. Our precision and our
knowledge has gotten a lot better.

The only reason at all to trust maize, or other human domestic modifications,
is simply because they've been around for a long long time and so you can
infer safer because if there was something dangerous, it would have shown up
already.

Or, are we simply ignoring dangers that have already existed but become
desensitized to them, like gluten issues, or lactose intolerance. Our diet has
changed radically since the invention of agriculture, and in a way, much of
man's early experiments at domestication of plants, our first "GMO" so to
speak, may have had unforseen circumstances.

But we brush it all off, yet people are hypersensitive to any minute
theoretical issue that could happen with GMO, real or imagined.

This boils down a lot I think to human emotion, and our notions of disgust
with respect to food. We like what is common and fear the unknown.

~~~
manicdee
Take the International Rice Organisation's IR8. It was supposed to be a
miracle rice that yielded double the rice of existing strains. Introducing
this rice meant farmers had to use pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers
which had not previously been part of their practices. The herbicides and
pesticides killed the local ecosystems including secondary crops which used to
grow alongside the rice in paddies.

The IR8 was certainly higher yield when fed properly, but under-performed
without that industrial support. That industrial support costs money: so the
farmer has to produce more rice to pay for the materials required to produce
more rice, in what is essentially a net loss situation.

What price to you put on the sound of frogs singing in the rice field? What
value is there in being able to drink or swim in the water downstream without
fear of poisoning?

------
A1kmm
I think that the real problem is the false dichotomy between 'all GMOs are
bad' and 'all GMOs are good'. There is clearly a middle path - 'some GMOs are
safe, and some aren't, and whether release is acceptable depends on the
organisms, the genes, the methods used, and the level of testing done'.

I don't think putting herbicide resistance genes into plant species that don't
already have them is a very good idea, because it is a short term solution
(selective pressure on weeds will eventually create the same thing anyway),
has other environmental costs (the evidence last time I checked is that while
glyphosate breaks down quickly, if it gets into waterways in the short period
before it has broken down, it can cause considerable damage), and even without
any form of gene transfer can end up as a weed (the definition of a weed is a
plant growing somewhere where it is unwanted - GMO corn in a GMO soy field is
a weed).

Even worse applications can be imagined - for example, imagine a cultivar of
corn with genes for a drug, where the corn is toxic because of high levels of
the drug - would you want that growing in the next field over from where the
corn you are going to eat grows?

I think that it is right for reasonable precautionary measures to be in place
whenever substantial genetic engineering of plants is going on, whether it is
through transgenic methods, through mutagenically exposed plants, or even
through selective breeding combined with sequencing, because there are still
high risks.

It is the extreme positions of absolute prohibition or absolute acceptance of
all GMOs which are irrational.

~~~
celiac
The unconditional opposition to GM food takes scrutiny away from selective
breeding, which may itself be harmful in some instances.

------
politician
If he's changed his mind based on facts, then I'm happy for him. However, the
implications of Monsanto's Terminator seed technology (DRM for plants) is so
sweeping and, frankly, frightening that whatever time society wasted due to
the anti-GMO activism was worth it.

Does anyone really think that if we didn't make a stink about GMO that they
wouldn't have gone full steam ahead?

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technol...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology)
wherein we learn that Monsanto acquired the company that did the initial R&D.

~~~
andylei
> the implications of Monsanto's Terminator seed technology (DRM for plants)

what do intellectual property laws have to do with being pro or con GMOs?

~~~
politician
It's an analogy to help people familiar with DRM understand what Monsanto's
tech is without having to read the wikipedia entry: DRM _is to_ digital
content _as_ Terminator seed technology _is to_ plants.

------
baddox
I'm always surprised and intrigued when people switch from being vehemently on
one side of a debate to the other. I'm reminded of televangelist Pat Robertson
claiming that the Earth is way more than 6,000 years old:
[http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/pat-robertson-
chall...](http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/pat-robertson-challenges-
creationism/)

~~~
cpeterso
One of my favorite conversation prompts is to ask people, "what have you read
recently that changed your mind about some issue?" People happily reinforce
their own cognitive dissonance with internet "news bubbles" and echo chamber
forums. Letting your mental guard down to fairly reevaluate your own beliefs
is an unfortunately rare event.

------
aroberge
A superficial reading of the news would lead one to believe that Monsanto ==
GMO, and I believe a lot of people are swayed to be in the anti-GMO camp by
the bullying tactics of Monsanto.

------
droithomme
Never heard of this guy.

Along the line of the argument, "John Smith, leading health care reform
advocate, admits health care reform is unnecessary." And "Renowned atheist, on
deathbed, admits atheism was a mistake." At least with the atheist guy I had
heard of him.

So it is an 'appeal to authority' argument, but it's not even an authority who
many people have heard of, and fewer still have ever thought of as an
authority on the topic, and in fact who it looks like the side he is now
aligned did not consider to be an authority until he said he now agreed with
them.

Also the article's suggestion that this guy created GMO criticism and without
him no one would have asked questions about GMO safety is absurd. Lots of
people have reasonably been asking those questions. It's absolutely not
something that one person created out of nothing and became the undisputed
world leader as if he is some kind of pope. The article reads a lot like
propaganda trying to create a straw man leader and then watch as the straw man
commits suicide.

Another problem is the conflating of criticism with attacks/vilification, and
the ad-hominem use of claiming critics are anti-science: "To vilify GMOs is to
be as anti-science as climate-change deniers". This is the opposite of
reality. It is very science oriented to ask about risks and be as interested
in long term safety trials as we are with pharmaceuticals.

(To be clear, I am not getting to pros or cons of the argument, just noting
this article makes a poor argument.)

~~~
dizzystar
Just because you never heard of him doesn't mean the kings in Africa who
banned GMOs have not.

~~~
droithomme
What evidence is there that they have? This person is not the cult leader he
claims to be.

These kings in Africa you mention generically with no specifics, perhaps they
read journals? Even if it is established these scores of kings each met with
this fellow personally, went elephant or cheetah hunting together and had some
laughs, it indicates little about the motivations of these supposed and
possibly fictional kings in passing their dictates, edicts and proclamations.

Vazquez et al. Intragastric and Intraperitoneal Administration of Cry1Ac
protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody
responses in mice. Life Sci. 64, no. 21 (1999): 1897–1912.

Vazquez et al. Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response
induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice. Brazilian
J. of Med. and Biol. Research 33 (2000): 147–155.

Vazquez et al. Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and
mucosal adjuvant. Scandanavian J. of Immunology 49 (1999): 578–584.

Burns, J.M. 13-week dietary subchronic comparison study with MON 863 corn in
rats preceded by a 1-week baseline food consumption determination with PMI
certified rodent diet #5002. (Monsanto Co. report, Dec 17, 2002).

Assessment of additional scientific information concerning StarLink corn
(FIFRA scientific advisory panel report, No. 2001–09, Jul 2001).

Seralini, G., Cellier, D., & Spiroux de Vendomois, J. New analysis of a rat
feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal
toxicity. J. archives of Env. Contam. and Toxicology (Springer, New York).

Malatesta, M. et al. Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical
analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean.
Cell Struct. Funct. 27 (2002): 173–180.

Vecchio, L. et al. Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on
genetically modified soybean. Eur. J. of Histochem. 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec
2004):449–454.

Oliveri et al. Temporary depression of transcription in mouse pre-implantion
embryos from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. (48th Symposium of the
Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore, Italy, Sept 7–10, 2006).

Ermakova, I. Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high
mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies. Ecosinform
1 (2006): 4–9.

~~~
dizzystar
Are you saying that the pressures from people like this aren't causing
California counties to ban GMOs? I think it's a great thing that someone who
has been focusing on this stuff for 16 years is finally coming to terms with
the consequences of his writings and actions. The fact that one person turned
around is a good sign, IMO.

Yes, much ink has been spilled about the dangers of GM soy and soy in general.
The issue that the article suggests is that people not only form opinions on
food based off of no evidence, but even go so far as to expound their
influence in matters that are not trivial. It's easy for Americans to pass up
food, but a kid who is starving in Africa and eating Cow dung isn't given this
option, and starving these children based on belief and no science is just
morally wrong.

I'm looking up some of those articles as well. The one point of interest, for
those who are only looking at the titles and seeing "danger," this is from the
abstract from Burns, J.M.:

 _The results of the 13-week subchronic feeding study show that rats fed diets
containing corn event MON 863 grain responded similarly to rats fed diets
containing the nontransgenic control LH82 x A634 grain and diets containing
grain from reference control nontransgenic commercial corn varieties. There
were no test article-related changes based on the evaluation of survival,
clinical signs, body weights, body weight changes, food consumption, clinical
pathology, organ weights, and macroscopic and microscopic pathology._

So, thank you for showing some balance in your suggested readings. This stuff
is really complicated and I hope people like you lead the charge in the future
of all of the world's food choices. Unfortunately, I don't think this will
happen and we'll be fed BS by make-believers and lawyers.

------
celiac
As someone who is totally dependent on a gluten-free diet to avoid constant
sickness, the idea of people tinkering with food proteins is horrifying. If
it's employed for very particular, controlled reasons then so be it. But there
is the potential for immense hubris here. Note that when I went to the doctor
some years ago and told them I was sure bread was making me sick they told me
I was wrong because I tested negative for Celiac disease.

------
iand
Site is down due to overload. Here's the paper:

[http://www.ofc.org.uk/files/ofc/papers/mark-lynas-lecture-
ox...](http://www.ofc.org.uk/files/ofc/papers/mark-lynas-lecture-oxford-
farming-conference.pdf)

Here's the video:

[http://www.ofc.org.uk/videos/2013/mark-lynas-changing-
perspe...](http://www.ofc.org.uk/videos/2013/mark-lynas-changing-perspective)

------
Tloewald
So was this guy also involved in hosing food irradiation? The insane campaign
against food irradiation -- thanks to which we continue to eat all kinds of
unnecessary preservatives -- was what led me to abandon Greenpeace.

------
jkat
If you can separate GMOs from the more evil commercial activities revolving
around them (patents, seed control, ...), then I don't get it.

I'm not saying that's an easy separation to make, but science and technology
will continue to move forward. If it brings about our end, so be it. You can
say the same about a lot of different technologies. It just happens to be the
dangerous phase we are in (transitioning from a Type 0 to a Type 1
civilization on the Kardashev scale).

------
graeme
Google Cache:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HiRysAG...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HiRysAG22wAJ:www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-
to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk)

I'll post my comment separately once I've looked at it.

------
noiv
I was fascinated by reading Marc's 'Six Degrees' and would still recommend it.
Now I wonder how far he is away from saying climate change isn't happening at
all.

~~~
cheeseprocedure
I take it you didn't actually _read_ his paper.

"What you don’t have the right to do is to stand in the way of others who hope
and strive for ways of doing things differently, and hopefully better. Farmers
who understand the pressures of a growing population and a warming world. Who
understand that yields per hectare are the most important environmental
metric. And who understand that technology never stops developing, and that
even the fridge and the humble potato were new and scary once."

[http://www.ofc.org.uk/files/ofc/papers/mark-lynas-lecture-
ox...](http://www.ofc.org.uk/files/ofc/papers/mark-lynas-lecture-oxford-
farming-conference.pdf)

------
dgbsco
Clearly GMO advocates have never seen Jurassic Park.

~~~
spot
because movies are a great way to make policy decisions.

------
ScotterC
Original Speech <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5007853>

------
manicdee
Feral Roundup Ready™ crops are all the argument I need. GMOs are bad, mostly
due to the unintended consequences.

------
KerrickStaley
I don't understand why people distrust GMOs. GMOs make food production more
efficient; what's bad about that?

------
latinohere
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I know enough to know that we don't
know enough. Too many times we've done things that in hindsight should never
have been done had we had more information. I fear this may be one of those
times.

~~~
tonyarkles
How do we get that information if people are running around burning these
crops to the ground?

