After watching the video of Mark Lynas at the 2013 Oxford Farming Conference, I have more hope in education than I had before. Mark Lynas is a prime example of someone who was anti-GMO and anti-Science. He was against technology that he did not understand, and used misconceptions and fear to alter peoples perspectives of a technology that was supposed to help save the world’s declining agriculture. Due to climate change, increasing population, and declining soil nutrition, Agriculture faces more challenges than ever before. Mark Lynas was again against GMO’s because of his lack of understanding of them. Through education he was able to deepen his understanding of how GMO’s work, and how they effect the world. I think that now more than ever, he is an incredibly powerful and influential position in the environmental and agricultural world. He was anti-science himself, and through education he was able to stand up for what was right. I think that he is able to reach out to more people, and change peoples’ minds about GMOs because he was once a non-believer. I think that he will bring a down to earth perspective, and will be able to relate to people who are still against this technology. He had an incredibly grounded reason of why he changed his mind from anti to pro. He read peer-reviewed papers, and read articles, and did research, and he attended appropriate conferences. Through this education and new-found knowledge he was able to support a technology that is helping to save the world. GMO’s are creating plants that are stronger against environmental stresses such as pests, and hot weather, and they are also creating plants that are richer in nutrients and helping humans stay healthy. I commend Mark Lynas for his research and his search for the truth!
Category Archives: Topics for Discussion
Conflicted about Mark Lynas
I am 100% for the use of GMOs. In my last 4 semesters here at UD, I have used this topic for research papers, speeches, and even made my own website about them. I love when he says that he was foolish for being anti-GMO just because they were supported by a big corporation. I feel as though this is why most people are against GMO, and they do not know enough about them to support that opinion. I feel as though he definitely makes a successful case for his change of heart for the way he now views GMOs.
The conflict I feel comes from when I forwarded this video to my dad, who feels very strongly against GMOs. Throughout my experience in the Plant Science major, I have learned a lot about the benefits and technology that goes into genetically modifying crops. He on the other hand, is having a harder time believing me. When I sent him this video, he was a little upset with me that I did not do my research about who Mark Lynas was, and he shared with me what he found. When he looked Lynas up, he found articles about his positions on nuclear power and global warming, with nothing about the anti-GM movement, which is very interesting, seeing as though he claimed being a leader of it. He also found a list of 10 people to be an “ambassador” for this campaign to better the image of GM crops in society’s mind, Mark Lynas being on it. This was just a little weird, and I appreciated my dad sharing this with me. All in all, I loved seeing a video of someone saying how they regret being on the other side of an argument I feel very strongly about.
Mark Lynas at 2013 Oxford Farming Conference
When I began listening to Mark Lynas speech at the 2013 Oxford Farming Conference it didn’t take too long to learn what his position on GMOs was, however, I wasn’t quick to judge. Being that I am for GMOs I expected to find myself a bit agitated when he confessed to aiding the startup of an anti- GMO movement. It was quite apparent that Mark spent a significant part of his life campaigning against GMOs and believing the assumptions he suspected of what GM’s contributed to. I appreciated Mark stating his position and beliefs on GMO’s prior to when he realized he was listening to myths. He took the time to state what he previously held true about GM’s and then went on to correct his assumptions. One of the assumptions Mark discussed was, “I’d assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals”. Directly following this statement, he remarked, “It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide”. It is evident that Mark carefully analyzed what he may have put out to his followers back when he has against GM’s. He is now correcting his misassumptions and delivering out the actuality of what GM’s are to inform those who he misinformed. I believe Mark Lynas is a great example of what many people first think of GMO’s unfortunately unlike Mark many people don’t do the correct research on GMOs so they fall for the myths that exist of them. This video should be spread and shown to students so the misconceptions that are out there about GMOs are reevaluated. People need to understand that GMO’s are essential in agriculture because it allows more production of food which, ensuring more people can be appropriately supplied and fed.
Mark Lynas – 2013 Oxford Farming Conference
I once heard a quote from an anonymous source that said, “to admit that you were wrong is to declare that you are now wiser than you were before.” This holds especially true for Mark Lynas, an environmental activist who focuses on the impacts of climate change as well as GMOs, or Genetically Modified Organisms. For many years, Lynas was anti-GMO – he believed it was against nature, assumed it would increase the use of chemicals, that it would only benefit large companies, and various other so-called “green urban myths.” But in 2013 at the Oxford Farming Conference, Lynas himself admitted that he was wrong in his beliefs. When it came to climate change, he would use science as evidence to prove that it did indeed exist, though when it came to GMOs he followed his personal beliefs. After doing thorough research, Lynas came to his own conclusion which was entirely different from the point of view he had only 5 years before. He shared that he once believed that genetic modification would increase the use of chemicals, and later learned that genetic modification could increase resistance to pests and disease, therefore reducing the use of chemicals; he believed that GM was only beneficial to big businesses, while in actuality billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs; Lynas assumed that GM was dangerous, and later learned that it was much safer and significantly more precise that conventional breeding.
Through analyzing his beliefs, doing his own research from trustworthy/science-based sources, and admitting to the public at one of the largest agriculture-based conferences in the world that his beliefs were wrong, Lynas seems to have set a precedent that more people should follow. That being: do not be afraid to admit that you may not be knowledgeable about a specific topic. It is never too late to stop learning, and by doing so you can come to a more accurate conclusion regarding the topic at hand – regardless of whether or not your opinion on the matter changes. In my opinion, it takes a strong individual to stand up for their beliefs; it takes an even stronger individual to change their beliefs when faced with new found information.
Switching Sides
As an environmentalist, Mark Lynas assumed he should be against genetically modified organisms, GMOs, because of course, the environment is natural and nothing about the term “genetically modified” really screams “natural.” However, with more research he realized that these genetically modified products are more in favor of the environment than he realized, and therefore he began to accept and fight for their use. I really appreciated listening to Mr. Lynas’ speech because it brought the science out in front of the understandingly intimidating name. I think a lot of people get hung up on the terminology of GMOs, and that prevents them from educating themselves further on the topic.
The analogy that Mr. Lynas’ drew between supporting the idea of climate change and supporting the idea of genetic modifications is really important. One cannot believe in science in some aspects, yet denounce it in others. Many people are starting to agree that science supports climate change, and that we, as a society, should recognize it as real. However, science also supports the benefits of genetic modifications, yet not as many people are willing to agree. The increased yields, the ability to apply less pesticides, and the ability to withstand environmental effects such as droughts are proven benefits of GMOs that research has supported. Because he believed in climate change and supported it so passionately, Mr. Lynas’ knew he needed to give the same effort to his opinion about GMOs. Upon doing so, he realized he was misinformed and changed his opinion, which I believe was justified.
Mr. Lynas may have been a bit blunt in his discussion, but I do think that his points were well supported and are needed as an educational tool. Surely, if one were looking for information to form an opinion about GMOs, this video would be a beneficial source, but one should also look at other resources before completely forming his or her opinion. Personally, I have always been pro-GMO and as a supporter it is important to educate those around me. However, I think there is most likely more research to be done involving GMOs, which can hopefully provide reason to gain more public support. Mr. Lynas is right in that people are nostalgically looking towards old farming practices while the world around them is developing and changing, so why shouldn’t agriculture be allowed to progress into the future as well?
Technology is OUR Future
Technology has evolved in every aspect over the years. Today, we all own some form of technology to benefit our lives. I mean who else ever imaged having a computer at their fingertips? Even our farms have evolved with technology. From the structures to the sprayers to the seeds, technology has benefited not only the farmers life, but every person on this Earth. Technology has allowed farmers to grow more food with less land.
According to Hoober’s Employees, it all begins with the seed. Seeds are genetically modified and selectively bred to produce a better product. This process will was discussed to our classes previously and will have a post of it’s own in the near future.
Next, technology benefits begin with a seedling to the end product that is harvested. In the beginning a planter, which plants the seeds, has evolved in a variety of ways. Today a planter can turn off rows that are already planted and the tractor can drive itself with an operator in the seat to have straight rows. Then, the sprayer has changed. A sprayer puts herbicides, pesticides and other products that plants needs. 99% of the liquid coming out of a sprayer is water! Technology has allowed no overlap to occur which economically keeps the exact amount of products needed on the field, which allows for no runoff. Lastly, combines which harvest the crop has the same monitor as the planter and it can harvest the same exact way it is planted with the GPS system. My classmates and I experienced this first hand on our field trip to Hoobers in Middletown, DE.
Now these are only a few changes that has allowed technology to change our lives. Many other pieces of equipment allow farmers to feed our growing population, such as drones, computers, soil types, etc. From now on think about how well technology has benefited you from all aspects!
The GMO controversy
In January, 2013, environmentalist and author Mark Lynas, a self-proclaimed founder and activist for Europe’s anti-GMO (he uses the term GM) movement, spoke before the annual Oxford (UK) Farming Conference and announced a 180 degree change in his opinion about GMOs, and disassociated himself with the anti GMO movement (whom he calls “antis”) that he helped grow into a successful protest movement. His remarks, recorded and presented below, explain his reasons for his change in attitude. Read the >>>Transcript Mark Lynas 2013 Oxford Farming Conference.
The use of genetically modified organisms, commonly referred to as GMOs, is highly controversial topic. Lynas’s speech, the transcription of which can be found on his website (if you’d like to read along), sent shock waves across the agricultural sector and has received world-wide attention.
What do you think of his position? Does he make a case for his change of heart and the way he now views GMOs?
CSA’s
Unfortunately due to obligations at work I was not able to make it to this week’s field trip. However, after reading a few of my fellow students’ posts I understand that Fifer’s Orchards is a CSA. This peaks my interest as I have a somewhat mixed idea of what exactly a CSA is. In this case the Fifer family business sends out monthly/weekly boxes full of fruit and other produce grown by in the orchard and in turn the community pays for this and the orchard is supported for the most part. In other scenarios a CSA is simply a community garden maintained by the community in areas where fresh produce is a scarcity and not within economical means. Thirdly in rural areas (more specifically Madison County, VA) the community owns a plot of arable land and a farmer is brought in to work that land for the community.
In my opinion, no matter what form its in, a CSA is a good thing. Both the community and the farmer is benefiting almost regardless. In all three scenarios the community is receiving fresh produce that is guaranteed to reach their table when previously it may not have been. In the first and last CSA style the farmer is guaranteed both a market and land to work. In the second option people who may have never known the origin of food or the importance of agriculture are exposed to this lesson.
Thinking about the TTP
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), we have all heard so much about it in this election cycle, but most people don’t know what it truly entails. It is an agreement among 12 nations that have an attachment to the Pacific Ocean, however, this does not include the major export hub of China. Nothing is official yet with this agreement yet people are ardently in either support for or against it.
There is an awful lot to talk about what is in this agreement and in my humble opinion I do not have much knowledge of multinational trade deals so I will try and interpret what I can and give some of my opinions. From a human rights standpoint, this agreement would be good since it outlaws child labor. It also offers minimum wages, benefits, and worker safety programs. I think those are great things and I can’t believe that child labor is still allowed in countries. However, I have also discovered something that the critics of it have also pointed out: if a country decides to try and change policy to help favor their our nation it could give the major corporations the right to sue them. I am afraid that this might give big businesses too much power.
I think that the TPP has its flaws, but also has some pretty good benefits as well. With our near-future U.S. administration being anti-TPP as a platform I have serious doubts about the TPP actually happening, but I have faith that an agreement could be made in the future that will carry some of the positives from the agreement in the future. I recommend trying to learn as much as you, the reader, can about it and making your own well-informed decision.
Thoughts on The Trans-Pacific Partnership
TPP stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership and it is very controversial. There are twelve countries bordering the Pacific Ocean that are involved in TPP including the United States. TPP’s goal is to eliminate taxes and other trade barriers on American products to make it easier for American entrepreneurs, farmers, and small business owners to sell Made-in-America products abroad. By increasing our trade with the other countries involved in TPP, we are bettering our relationships with other places overseas and forming allies.
One of the many problems with TPP is that it contributes to income inequality. The higher-paid workers and owners will receive more of the income gains. Also, people are afraid that jobs will be lost to countries involved in TPP. There are some workers in other countries that are more willing to work for lower salaries. Jobs will be shipped overseas and our wages in America will be lowered. Another concern is involving the pharmaceutical industry and individuals who need medicine. TPP will make it more difficult for people to obtain medicines affordably. There are also threats to wildlife and the environment which is concerning. Many people also feel like TPP was created in extreme secrecy and the negotiations were kept from the public.
The way that TPP seems is that it mostly helps big businesses and large corporations. It does not protect the environment or help people with job stability, which are two things that are important. The commitments to improve labor rights and environmental practices are vague and should have been worked on more in this partnership. In the coming year with the change in power for the United States, it will be interesting to see if TPP will be supported or not.
Guest Lecture Dave Mayonado
Dave Mayonado is a technology development representative for the Monsanto Company. Mr. Mayonado elaborated on the different opportunities he is presented while at his job. Mr. Mayonado explained to the class about a few of products that the Monsanto Company offers and a brief overview of their purpose. He mentioned that his job however as much as he enjoys it, he said his greatest fear is that he goes to work not completely sure if or what he will be doing or if he will have a job. As these type of thoughts would generally scare most people Mr. Mayonado explained that he enjoys the opportunity to explore all aspects of the agriculture industry. Mr. Mayonado stressed the importance of due diligence when talking about new technology in the agriculture sector.
Mark Lynas and GMOs
Mark Lynas makes a good argument for the benefits of GMO’s and I thoroughly agree with him. The backlash directed towards GMOs is lead by the elite few who have the privilege of being able to choose between “Natural” and genetically modified. Unfortunately, the general public still has a lack of knowledge regarding GMOs and their benefits. Most people are scared of GMOs, and have the right to be, because they are uneducated on their benefits and how genetically modified actually works. In the year 2050 there will be over 9 billion people to feed on less ground, new and innovative ways of growing crops to feed the hungry will have to implemented and GMOs will lead the way, so long as the rest of the world accepts them.
Lynas could have explained his reason for switching his opinion a little better though. He was very focused on explaining the benefits of higher yields and what other countries think of GMOs, which is a good argument, however he should have described how genetic modification works more thoroughly. He also should have explained his reasoning for beginning his research rather than his explanation being that someone commented saying that he should.
Monsanto’s Dave Mayonado
The final guest speaker to visit Plant Science 167 was Dave Mayonado from Monsanto. Mr. Mayonado is responsible for developing products on the East Coast and marketing them to farmers while also directing research on the weeds in the Mid-Atlantic area. He talked about the new biotechnology that is being developed by Monsanto and their competitors. This includes GMOs and all the different types of seeds and chemicals that are being developed and marketed for different areas and applications. One of the newest and most exciting projects according to Mr. Mayonado is RNAi, or RNA interference. RNA interference cancels genes to help them fight disease compared to GMOs which add genes to the organism. RNAi is used in plants but is being researched on its benefits in the medical arena. Dave Mayonado’s take home message was always be flexible, his degree was in chemistry and had no knowledge of agriculture until he did a summer internship working with weeds on Virginia Tech’s research farm. He said the key to being successful in industry is being able to handle change and be responsible for your actions.
TPP – Trans-Pacific Partnership
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, was a secretive, national trade agreement between 12 Pacific Rim countries, not including China, that would have extended restrictive intellectual property laws across the world and rewrite the rules on its enforcement. Intellectual property is any invention or product that results from an individual’s design, the individual has the right to the design which allows them to apply for a patent, copyright, etc. The TPP was designed to ease trade between the countries that ratify it, in a perfect world it would reduce tariffs, support the creation and retention of jobs, and promote good governance. Many, however feel that the TPP will only protect large corporations who have a lot of power already, due to the fact that the trade committees are made up of large corporation representatives. The TPP has been met with a lot of opposition from both sides of the political arena. This is due mainly to how complicated the agreement is. The document itself is 5600 pages long and encompasses topics from tariff barriers to currency manipulation. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is another topic of hot debate that has far more grey area than it does hard facts. It takes due diligence to be able to form a well rounded opinion of the agreement.
Response to “The GMO Controversy”
What do you think of his position?
I agree with his position completely. I believe that people who are lucky enough to be able to choose to not eat GMOs have the right to choose, but they shouldn’t stand in the way of people who need GM crops from getting them. Like he said, the population by 2050 cannot be sustained on organic farming and GM crops are absolutely necessary for feeding the growing population.
Does he make a case for his change of heart and the way he now views GMOs?
I felt like he could’ve explained his change of heart more. The statistics he explained were worthwhile and convincing of the point that GM crops are not bad for us and will actually provide the much needed support for our growing population. But, I don’t think he went into enough depth of why and how he had a change of heart. Just saying that someone commented on his post and it made him go research isn’t enough evidence to make him truly look distinguished and to convince nay-Sayers that he truly has changed his opinion and isn’t just getting paid to support GM producing corporations.