Listening to Mark Lynas not only discuss how his opinions on genetically modified crops have completely changed but also to hear him apologize for bashing on on GM crops was quite interesting to hear. I think it is rare to hear such a strong shift from anti-GMO to pro-GMO. The basis of his switch was, in summary, due to the lack of science that supports GM crops are harmful. It was also aided by his recognition of what is actually causing the problems that people think GM crops are causing. The one point that really stuck out to me was when he said the threat of starvation and world hunger is much greater than the threat of consuming a GM product. Mark Lynas was a prime example of how someone can make an incorrect assumption based on social movements/lack of education on the subject. In his case though, he sought out the correct information and realized his prior opinions were completely invalid to what science was actually saying about GM crops.
My view on genetically modified crops is that they are a safe and sustainable way for farmers to produce the food that needs to be produced to feed the ever growing population. That being said, I don’t think organic farming is a bad thing either. I think organic farming is great, but not sustainable for the population. I also agree with the logic behind Mark Lynas’s opinion. I wouldn’t be in support of something that I thought had a chance of hurting people. Also from a farmer/producer standpoint, we would not grow a crop that would harm our consumers. In the end the consumer is who is determining our profit, so why would we produce something that would be harmful to them? That is why I support GM crops.
what is GMO? this doubt must exist in many people’s head. I had it in my mind too before I watch this video. People are really careful about what they are eating nowadays. If you they are not sure about the certain part, like GMO food, they will keep their old pattern instead of trying new food material. Mark Lynas did not believe the GMO before he did research about it. He spends a lot of time to prove one of the biggest concern in the world. so he makes people believe how good GMO food is and he did contribute a lot to the agriculture. We need people like him to stand out to tell the public what is right or wrong. what is GMO? GMO is the genetically modified organism. Since the earth is changing due to the human activities, new plants are designed by humans to adapt the new environment, which helps us to solve food insecure problem.
Recently, there have been many controversies concerning Genetically Modified Organisms – whether they are safe, whether organic is healthier, and/or whether products containing GMOs should be labeled. Although it has been proven that GMOs are safe for consumption and just as healthy as organics, we have not come to a conclusion of whether or not GMOs should be required to be labeled on packaging. However, I believe that the introduction of GMO labeling will cause all sorts of chaos. The average consumer does not know much about GMOs, what they are and how they benefit them. With the GMO label, this will put consumers in a state of panic because they will associate the label with a negative connotation that is often portrayed on social media platforms and through word of mouth. The implementation of GMO labels will also cause a rise in prices due to the need for new and improved labels – which will come at the consumers expense. Although consumers have a right to know how their food is processed, produced and get to them, I don’t believe that it is important for this label. GMOs have been proven by over 200 research studies to be safe for consumption, so why is there a need for this label? Theres not. Overall, this new label mandate would be a disaster that could easily be prevented.
Genetically Modified Organisms have greatly impacted the world we live in today both positively and negatively. Everyone has their own opinions based on GMO’s and that is completely okay. I think that GMO’s have been a blessing in disguise to be able to go into an organism and be able to turn off certain genes to make them undesirable to pests. With the power of controlling genes, you are also able to increase how much the orgamism produced and farmers can increase their yield. While this is amazing to feed more people with the same size plants some individuals may get a wrong impression of how this can be harmful to yourself and the ones around with the chemicals that have been put into the organism. Everyone has different opinions on the view of GMO’s but little to say. They have given the future hope and promise to feed the world for many more years to come.
Food labeling is currently a big topic in the agriculture and food industry. Many people have conflicting opinions about it. I think that there are definitely some pro’s and con’s to enhanced food labeling. Some of the pro’s include more transparency to the consumer regarding what is in what they are buying. Consumers will know exactly what they are purchasing, and can make a more informed decision. People who are allergic to certain things will be safer, and people who are trying to buy healthy products will be able to do with more certainty. Some cons include producers losing profits depending on what is in their product. People who do not grow organically may lose sales because of some of the things they use in their products. GMO products and other agriculture methods may scare off consumers if they are uneducated, which would hurt agricultural producer’s sales. As you can see, there are many pro’s and con’s and factors that need to be taken into account when thinking about introducing enhanced food labels and making new rules about them.I think that this is a very interesting argument, and am interested to see the extent to which enhanced labels are implemented, and the reaction from consumers and producers.
Food labeling is a topic that is being debated by farmers and states. Many states such as Maine and Connecticut have passed laws that require such labeling if other nearby states put one into effect. Vermont is the first state to require such labeling. This can be a huge impact on food companies because of the negative opinions that consumers have about GMO’s. Not only that, but the cost of labeling products is extremely expensive and can be a confusing process. Labels may be eye-catching for consumers, but are actually stigmatizing healthy foods. GMO’s are necessary, but many people lack the education about GMO’s which in turn means that they fear what they don’t know. This is dangerous because this can lead to the spread of false information and a pandemonium that has no basis in anything of knowledge. GMO laws will cost consumers billions of dollars. For example, the Vermont GMO law will cost Maryland consumers a total of $1,564,040,500 a year and Maryland families an average of $1,082 a year. Labeling is not necessary and is costing consumers and food production companies money that should be used for other necessary things. Labels are often misinterpreted, which means that consumers are buying things thinking that the label means one thing, when in reality, it means something totally different.
Dave Mayonado gave a great lecture about agriculture and one of the most controversial companies around, Monsanto, where he is a technology development representative. He talked a lot about GM crops and biotechnology, which is huge in todays politics and public perception. He explained how safe, but also necessary gmo’s are in todays agriculture. Many people don’t know exactly what gmo’s are, or the good they do, such as lower pesticide application rates. Many crops are now being modified by “silencing genes”. Monsanto became successful early because of cell biology research starting in 1972 and round-up ready crops in 1996. Monsanto has many seed brands such as Asgrow, DeKalb, Channel, and Hubner seed. Monsanto has the fewest employees compared to other agricultural companies, but has made many more advances in technology. Annually, Monsanto invests 1 billion+ in research and development, 400 facilities and 60 countries, and $14.86 billion is sales in 2013. It was a great experience to hear Dave Mayondao’s lecture and to learn more about such a controversial company.
Dr. David Mayonado from Monsanto provided great insight on what exactly GMOs are and why they are so important. He explained how intensive research and the adoption of new technologies constantly help to improve and increase production. With the implementation of always improving mechanical, chemical and biological tools, US crop productions have increased greatly. He explained to us exactly what a GMO is – the making of a copy of a gene for a desired trait from one plant or organism and then using it in another plant. These products have found to increase yields while directly decreasing the need for pesticides, herbicides and insecticides. The best part about GMOs that is often misunderstood or mislead, is that they are completely safe for human consumption – with over 2000 research studies to back this up. Dr. Mayonado also covered RNAi Technology and how gene silencing presents the possibility of turning off specific genes – which could potentially have many practical agricultural applications. It was fascinating to get a scientific lesson and perception behind GMO’s and this lecture helped me to further understand them and their importance.
I learned a lot from Mark Lynas’ speech at the Oxford farming convention. Like him, I did not know very much about GMOs when I first heard about them. I was also skeptical that they may not be a good thing. But after hearing his lecture, I feel much differently. Especially after he explained how much more food the world will need by 2050, all the while producing this food without using much more land, water, pesticides/fertilizers that could hurt the environment. Clearing more land would also increase global warming, and complicate an already difficult and changing climate globally. GMO’s could definitely be a viable source of the food that the world will need. By tinkering with the genes of crops, we could be able to get a higher yield and healthier fruits and vegetables to feed an ever increasing population. I enjoyed the lecture given by Mark Lynas and got a lot of useful information about GMOs.
Whether you agree with genetically modified crops or not, everyone should watch Mark Lynas’s lecture at the Oxford Farming Conference. He was against GMO’s for years before discovering the science behind it, and admitted he assumed it was bad because it was under Monsanto, a big American business. After doing research, he realized GMO’s were actually beneficial, required less pesticides to be applied, were safer the traditional modified crops, and were necessary to feed the growing population on the amount of land we have. GMO’s have tremendously helped developing countries who need larger yields and more nutritional content. GMO’s also benefit the farmers rather than the big companies, contrary to what most people believe. Mark Lynas did a great job of explaining his ignorance to GMO’s and explaining that when you understand the science behind it, that they are necessary and beneficial.
What do you think of his position? Does he make a case for his change of heart and the way he now views GMOs?
GMO’s will always be a constant controversial topic because of the idea that farmers and corporations are essentially changing the physiology of a plant. When an audience reads about GMO’s, they often form an opinion based on the headline of an article, of the opinions of others, and most of the times these headlines and opinions are extremely misleading. To fully form an opinion, whether that be for or against GMO’s, the reader must become informed through different scientifically based arguments. Mark Lynas explains that before he changed his opinion on GMO’s, he found himself constantly defending himself using scientific arguments for other types of controversial subjects. He realized that if he was backing up his arguments with scientific data, why wasn’t he doing that with GMO’s. He developed his opinion because of the preconceived idea that all corporations are lying, scheming, money hungry entities that only look out for themselves. After realizing that he may not be correct in the way he formed his opinion, he decided to research and look at the scientific data. His initial belief was that GMO’s required more pesticide and insecticide, however, he realized that because many GMO’s such as pest-resistance cotton and maize actually require little to no pesticide. He realized that most of his arguments had no basis and he once he realized the facts, he changed his opinion drastically. Once he changed his opinion, he was then able to argue with facts instead of baseless statements. His current position is what I believe to be correct. GMO’s are essential in developing countries. GMO’s allow small farmers to create bigger yields with a small input and help feed rural villages. Without GMO’s, many under-developed countries would struggle to feed their community members.
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 has done a total 180 on how he views the importance of GMO’s. One of the first things he says as he starts his speech is ” I want to start with some apologies which I believe are most appropriate to this audience. For the record, here and upfront I would like to apologize for having spent several years ripping up GM crops… starve the anti-GM movement back in the 90’s… demonizing an important technological option which can and should be used to benefit the environment.” Lynas completely regrets the counterproductive path he has chosen and he regrets it entirely. He discovered science and the importance of GM’s for today’s uprising population. When he first heard about GM’s he thought that it was just a “big AMERICAN corporation with a nasty track record putting something new and experimental into our food supply.” With me being a former vegan and only wanting to eat some of the most pristine vegetables I too was afraid of GMO’s and if they would damage my body. Over time throughout several hours of research and my Agriculture class that I am currently taking through the University of Delaware, my professor has enlightened me on how much he GMO’s have impacted the world! I am a strong supporter of GMO usage in today’s crops. Without them, we would not be able to feed today’s population along with our aminals to get other products from. In the rest of the Lynas’s speech, he explains how with the GMO’s can help the world and should be approved all around.
After listening to the Mark Lynas lecture about his change of thought on GMOs I strongly believe everyone involved in the GMO controversy should listen to his explanation and new thoughts on GMOs. I am in full support of the use of GMOs and agree with Mark Lynas change in approach. I respected how Mr. Lynas first took the time to explain why he was against GMOs in the first place and I believe many people have the same thinking processes as he did when he first heard of the use of GMOs. He explained how he thought GMOs were just being used by a big American corporation with not much thought and that it would go horribly wrong in the long run. He then explained how he had actually never done research in the field till later and then discovered that GMOs were a necessity for humankind and the growing population. Mark Lynas makes a very strong case for his change of heart by evaluating how he first approached the situation and then how he learned more about all the benefits of GMOs. Throughout his lecture he explains all of the reasons he now supports the use of GMOs including that GMO crops actually need less chemicals, it was benefiting farmers instead of big companies and finally he explained how it is actually a safer and more precise way of growing crops. I believe many people who are against the use of GMOs have not done research in the field and assume right away its bad like Mark Lynas did at the beginning of his career. I want to spread the knowledge of GMOs being safe and a necessity to farming with the growing population. I thoroughly enjoyed hearing Mark Lynas lecture and am happy to see someone who was against GMOs spreading his new-found knowledge and supporting them.
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.