As I was taking notes on Mark Lynas’ video presentation, I noticed he kept reiterating the fact that he did no academic research into the study of biotechnology or plant science before making his political and ideological opinions against crops of GMO origins. He also explained why big companies get such a bad image when it comes to farming with biotechnology- the individuals, such as himself before, would complain about how bad this new approach would be versus the conventional way crops have been grown with fears that were more like myths. For instance, in this presentation, Mark mentioned that he read corn needed less insecticide versus his initial thought process that believed GMO crops would need more. It is important to remember a statistic he mentioned, that by 2020, agricultural producers will need nine billion people with the same size land, water available, and less materials to accommodate feeding more. Without agricultural innovation being created by people like Norman Borlaug who focused on the genome of domestic crops, there will not be enough time or crops available to feed the population- this makes biotechnology the only way to stay on track.
Additionally, there was an explanation about why it is that biotechnology can only be utilized by big name companies. The reason being that many people, much like how Mark Lynas used to be, have false or uneducated ideas relating to what the biotechnology has to offer and complain with myths that could potentially harm the consumers without any scientific proof. Mark mentioned, “…$139 million to discovering a new crop trait to go to full commercialization…” It costs more time and money with more complaints without scientific research because people against the idea of using biotechnology do not like this way of producing crops versus the conventional way. It was said that there are more chances of an individual being hit by an asteroid than to get harmed from a GMO product. This goes to show there is only fear in those who do not use scientific knowledge to back up their concerns. Overall, the farmers should be allowed to choose their preferred way of growing because they have a better insight in how the food can be grown productively, optimize the results when harvesting, and are open to biotechnology for a better future in providing food for people in the end.