Shekhar Gupta : Tue Nov 26 2013, 16:35 hrs
Mark Lynas
An early member of anti-GM movement, Mark Lynas made a turnaround early this year. Speaking to The Indian Express Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta, on NDTV 24X7, Lynas says science won him over, explains how GM myths take root, and flays activists for denying farmers the right to make choices
You used to sneak into people's farms and burn crops because they used genetically modified technology. And then suddenly, sometime early this year, you made a complete turnaround. An environmental activist in some ways, the founder of the anti-GM movement...
Not the founder, I was one of the early members. But this was a very broad, diverse coalition which involved Prince Charles, the right-wing press, the middle-class people. I look back and I think, 'What went wrong?'. How come we all came to believe something which was not just incorrect but the precise opposite of the truth the scientists were telling us? It took me 10 years to really understand that the science wasn't supporting what we as activists were saying. And that was a very long process, a difficult process. I think it has cost me, if not credibility, a lot of grey hair.
You are a brave man.
I am (taking on ideology) in some ways because the environmental movement has an ideological opposition to genetically modified crops. It is not based on science, it is not based on any rational assessment of risks and benefits. It is something about the fear of new technology, the fear of the 'new'. And when these fears become widely believed, people believe all sorts of myths about GM being poisonous, about causing sterility. And the scientists cannot understand why these myths have become so pervasive. They are now worldwide.
Describe this ideology and compare this with religious ideology, as you see it.
There is big suspicion that there is something about GM technology that is going to bring multinationals to enslave farmers. The other is that there is something inherently dangerous about GM. Because it is a powerful technology. We can see scientists moving genes from plants into animals because, of course, all living things share the same genetic system of DNA.
But this ideology is not limited to GM. Like all religious ideologies have multiple demons, so does this.
Yes, the ideology is to some extent anti-progressive and anti-development. The insistence is that farmers, in developing countries in particular, should not have access to new technology, to new crops which are more productive. There is also an opposition to hybrid crops, to mechanisation.
The pesticides...
The pesticides, true. One of the things I like about GM is that it enables us to reduce the use of pesticides.
Is there sufficient evidence that GM reduces the use of pesticides? Bt cotton...
The whole point of Bt cotton is that it has a genetic structure which enables it to target the pest itself. So, when the pest goes into the cotton plant, only the pest dies. If you are spraying it, you can imagine, all the insects die. That affects the birds, it affects biodiversity more widely.
What was the scientific evidence on which you based your opposition to GM food?
I did not base my opposition on scientific evidence, that is the point. And so it was when I started writing scientific books that I realised there was a conflict between my pro-science position on climate change and my anti-science position on biotechnology. I then had to change my mind to become pro-science across the whole board. Because I was getting my information from activist groups, like most people do, like the media does. Activist groups were telling me that there was something evil...
On these issues, let me tell you, media around the world does not want to be confused with facts... So were you misled? Were you lazy?
I think I was ignorant, misinformed, I will put it that way. I never knowingly made a statement I knew was incorrect. I wouldn't say I am a liar because I didn't say something I knew to be untrue. What I was doing was repeating the myths which had already been stated numerous times by Greenpeace and other organisations. Because I was an environmentalist. How many environmentalists can you get to walk down this path and tell you a scientific perspective on GMOs (genetically modified organisms)? Almost none. This is a major failing of the environmental movement which has done so much
good in terms of deforestation, over-fishing, biodiversity...
And climate change... Where you are still pro-science.
I am like that (clasping hands) with Greenpeace on climate change. That is why I cannot understand why they have a pro-science position on climate change and an anti-science position on biotechnology, where a vast majority of scientists would say they are talking rubbish.
When you made this turnaround, one of our most prominent and respected activists, Vandana Shiva, said you speaking thus was like giving rapists the freedom to rape.
I cannot see why you describe Vandana Shiva as either prominent or respected. I mean she does knowingly make statements which are clearly inaccurate and incorrect about farmer suicides and other assertions about Monsanto, BT cotton... I mean not just wrong, I would say those were lies... To compare GMOs with that (rape) was obscene, offensive and a betrayal of humanitarian and moral values.
But Shiva is well meaning. Why is she doing it? She is not an enemy of India or Indian farmers.
I think she is. Her insistence on only the traditional on how farmers should live denies the ability of children in rural areas to ever improve themselves, to be rocket scientists, or whatever. How is it that somebody who never gets proper education because they only have traditional cultures and values — they can never even leave the village — get to change the world?
...I am no expert but some of the Indian farmers I have spoken to have said we want the choice to grow new technologies. She and the activists are just trying to ban all of these new crops. That is a denial of choice. I would not even say I am pro-GM; I am pro-choice. Farmers should have the choice to benefit from modern science, just like everyone else.
Some people say you took a lot of money from 'evil' MNCs.
That is not true.
Why should I trust you now, if you now say that everything you told me all these years was nonsense?
Would you trust somebody who can change his mind according to changing evidence, or would you trust somebody who holds on to the same position no matter what the evidence says?
John Maynard Keynes said this: 'When facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?'.
That is the problem we have. The people who project themselves as leaders have to create an image of infallibility, and so they can never admit to doing wrong. They can never admit to doing a U-turn. But actually, a U-turn makes sense if you assess the science and you find your policy is wrong.
You talked about the ideology and science of climate change and GM, and you said the opposition to GM is a mix of Leftist and anti-corporate ideologies. Where does the campaign on climate change come in? A lot of that is also anti-corporate and that is also Left.
The environmental movement so quickly accepted the science on climate change because it appeared to conform to pre-existing ideological positions, which were anti-big business, anti-fossil fuel companies, and actually the fossil fuel companies are causing the climate change. But on biotechnology, the anti-corporate agenda didn't fit the science because the science says genetic modification is safe, and can be used to benefit the environment.
And then you have a funny situation where the ideologies of the Left oppose GM food but the ideologies of the Right deny climate change.
Unfortunately in these things there are clear political boundaries... It is the ideology which defines the scientific perspective.
Are you trying to persuade anybody in India?
I am here with the Borlaug Global Rust Initiative, which is a meeting of scientists from across the world looking at a problem of wheat rust, which is potentially a huge threat... UT-99 can affect all the varieties which have been yielding such good returns for the last several decades. Scientists have identified the genes which can protect and can give rust resistance. But unless you can use GM technology to get them into wheat, we cannot use this.
Are you meeting anyone in the government?
The Agriculture Minister. I am not meeting Jairam Ramesh, whom I have crossed swords with. I thought his moratorium on BT brinjal was a betrayal of scientific values and a failure of personal leadership.
Why do you say so?
Because he was given a choice between superstitions on one side and scientific evidence on the other. He chose superstitions because it was the populist thing to do. And, obviously, he is the kind of politician who only thinks about the next election. But politics is about leadership. You have to assess the evidence, you have to form a judgment about what is right and then lead people on that basis. Ramesh was just behind everybody, trying to take a safe space.
I will put in one disclaimer on his behalf: he has never fought an election and is unlikely to fight one. But he did quote a bunch of experts or scientists.
These are scientists who would have been brought to the fore by activists. I could name at least five scientists who do not believe in climate change. Would that mean there is a 50:50 debate on this issue? No, it means that 97, 98 per cent of scientists say that climate change is real and only a tiny percentage says it is not. It is the same with biotechnology. You can find one or two scientists but most of them have activist backgrounds and do not actually have the credentials of being scientifically active.
When you made your turnaround, Ramesh told The Indian Express that he did not take you seriously in any case.
Which is fine. But I do not think he takes science seriously, which is much worse... He has a mandate as an environment minister to do what is best for environment. It is clear that GM crops can actually reduce pesticide use... Had BT brinjal been commercialised, there would have been less pesticide residue in the brinjal product.
Do you believe it would make all the native varieties of brinjal extinct?
I can't see why that is even logical. Why should that happen? What is going to make them go extinct?
Maybe because BT brinjal will be so profitable
, they will stop growing any other variety.
So Ramesh is saying you cannot use a technology that works because those that do not will disappear. How useful is that?
Why are you so sceptical of organic agriculture?
Because I think biotechnology is the only system that can make organic agriculture work. We can have crops that protect themselves through their own genetics and biology. So when a pest attacks, the crop can kill the pest. At the moment, as an organic farmer — my father is one — you basically plant your crop and you pray, because if the pests come, you either squeeze them with your fingers or there is nothing you can do. Insisting that when there is a food supply crisis, we should all go organic is not just absurd, it is also morally reprehensible because we need more food, from lesser land.
But there are arguments. They will take you to certain specific farms and show you organic farming led to rising yields.
These are very, very high labour. So literally, if you have one person for one square metre, you can get a very high yield on a mixed farming system. But that is not how we feed billions of people in mega-cities, on mechanised farming, which need tractors over large areas.
You have used really rude descriptions for organic food.
The problem is with the conceptual level of organic. It is based on, what I call, naturalistic fallacy — so everything natural is good and everything artificial is bad... In fact, there was a disease outbreak of E.coli in organic bean sprouts in Germany in 2011, which killed 50 people. Now imagine if a GMO crop had killed 50 people. The media would have gone crazy. This almost made no headlines.
Much of the GM opposition is actually coming from Europe. I suspect a lot of the soyabean soil we import from the US is GM, but nobody tells us.
Yes it is Europe more than the US. But if you look at the funding source of many of the activist groups, they claim to be representing the farmers or Indian perspectives or African perspectives. All their money comes from Switzerland, from the UK, and from Germany. And so I question, whose ideological perspectives are being represented by these activists who say that they are supporting nationalist agendas but are actually supporting organic agendas or traditionalist agendas based on romantic misconceptions held in Europe, rather than the countries themselves.
And why is Europe so romantic?
Because we have a post-colonial guilt syndrome. So we are just protecting the 'traditional', protecting 'traditional values' and so on. That way we will shovel money about. As the former colonisers of this country, that makes us feel less guilty.
And you say again that there is no scientific evidence that GM technology causes harm.
Not even so much as a headache or stomach ache. There has never been a substantiated case of any impact on human health.
And the other bugbear of activists, nuclear energy? I notice you are taking on many demons at the same time.
Nuclear power is the safest form of power generation developed. I say this and people look at me like 'you are crazy'. But that is the reality... We cannot solve climate change without nuclear energy.
But when such a pro-science country like Germany bans nuclear energy, how do you persuade us Indians?
Germany has a strange position on this. I think it goes back to the war. They somehow identify nuclear with Adolf Hitler... But that does not apply to the rest of the world. India now has the choice between large-scale use of coal and large-scale use of nuclear. If it goes for coal, then the Maldives will sink and the rest of the climate is going to be pretty screwed worldwide.
One can agree with you or disagree with you, but the essence of science is questioning an argument. The essence of ideology is the opposite.
I would never say all GM crops will always be safe. If you can show conclusively that a certain crop poses health dangers, then absolutely we should not use it... It does not make sense to ban an entire technology on the basis of some purported risk and some unspecified data in the future.
Transcribed by Aslesha
