SA’s moratorium on genetically-modified crops has been labelled ‘nothing short of a national embarrassment’ by British author and environmental activist Mark Lynas.
Mr Lynas presented a talk “Seeds of Science - why we got it so wrong on GMOs” to the National Press Club last week.
In the 1990s, Mr Lynas was at the centre of the anti-GM movement, organising groups of campaigners to take political action, wrecking GM crops and even attempting to steal Dolly the Sheep.
But Mr Lynas underwent a scientific conversion and changed his mind on the issue.
“I reached the conclusion that moral outrage was no substitute for scientific evidence,” he said.
“My dilemma was that – having moved from environmental activism to writing books on climate change - I spent a huge amount of time defending the notion of scientific consensus.
“A recent statistic shows that 97 per cent of climate scientists and climate science publications support the hypothesis that humans are changing the climate and I believe a similar level of consensus exists around the issue of GMO safety. That’s what forced me to change my mind.
“In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science released a statement – it was absolutely clear, and unambigiously so, that GMOs were safe.
“So I didn’t feel it was consistent for me to speak to the general public and say ‘listen to scientists on climate change but ignore them on GMOs’.”
Mr Lynas said he was feeling optimistic about the future for GMs.
“I think the science side is winning the war of words on GMOs,” he said.
“Some of the major environmental groups have made it quite clear that they’re moving away from anti-GMO activism.
“The American group – the Environmental Defense Fund – has released a statement saying it believes biotechnology is a legitimate tool in the effort to make farming more sustainable.”
Mr Lynas said there had been hundreds of safety studies done on GMs.
“Data shows GMOs have helped make environmental improvements,” he said.
“Herbicide tolerance is a problematic issue – in terms of how general public perceive it and how it comes across to consumers - but the big story with GMOs is how it’s reduced pesticide use. As an environmentalist, that’s something I’d want to celebrate.
“If you look at BT (Bacillus thuringiensis) crops around the world, they have reduced insecticide applications by about 40pc.
“In Australia GM cotton has brought pesticide applications down by nearly 90pc. As an environmentalist, how can I doubt this is a move in the right direction?”
Mr Lynas said while environmental groups seemed to be moving away from the anti-GM debate, there was a danger from the anti-science movement.
“We’re seeing an anti-vaccine movement, the new government in Italy is no longer making childhood vaccinations mandatory,” he said.
“In Japan, the HPV vaccine that protects women against cervical cancer was being adopted at quite a high rate. It’s now almost 0pc because of so-called victims saying they developed illnesses from it, and that’s been circulated on the internet.”
Mr Lynas said there was a lot of anti-GMO hysteria and myths circulated.
“The most extreme example I came across was in Tanzania,” he said.
“I was talking about GMOs and an activist said there was a gay gene in maize, which had been put there to turn African children homosexual, as a conspiracy to stop them reproducing.”
Mr Lynas said a key lesson he learnt in the past five years was that access to biotechnology was a social justice issue.
“Farmers in developing countries should be able to access this technology,” he said.
“Countries like Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania are facing important challenges, with new diseases threatening their staple crops.
“Banana bacterial wilt is affecting farmers in Uganda. Green cooking banana is a staple food there and Ugandan scientists, working in international partnerships, have developed a transgenic resistant banana. Why is it not able to get out to farmers? Because anti GMOs groups have demonised the technology.
“Some of the poorest farmers in the world are prevented from benefitting from the use of GM crops because of so-called environmental groups.
“I want farmers in Africa to decide whether to adopt these crops, not outsiders like anti GMO groups.”
Mr Lynas said a positive overeseas example came from Bangladesh.
“In Bangladesh, farmers grow a lot of eggplant, it’s one of the most important culinary staples,” he said.
“They’re accustomed to spraying the crop with pesticides up to 100 times during the growing season.
“Having a BT GMO version is a huge benefit to them. There’s now 30,000 farmers across Bangladesh who are growing BT GMO crops and have been able to do so because their government allowed them to go forward.”
Mr Lynas said the battle to defend science goes on including in Australia.
“There’s still moratoria in SA and Tas, I believe that’s nothing short of a national embarrassment,” he said.
“There’s no scientific reason whatsoever to forbid farmers from being able to make their own choices on what they grow.
“Allowing anti-GMO activists to dictate agricultural policy is a bit like putting anti vaccinators in charge of the health service – you’re not going to get a good outcome.
“The rejection of evidence implied in the policy making sends an extremely poor signal about the standards of evidence that politicians use.”
Mr Lynas said it would be great if Australian farmers could lead the pro-science conversation.
“Farmers are trusted voices, people have a lot of respect for farmers, so it should be farmers that lead this debate,” he said.
“If farmers in SA are saying ‘why is there a moratorium that prevents us from growing crops that can help us reduce pesticide consumption’, with that message, we might make some progress.
“I think the voices of farmers are trusted and respected and it should be farmers that get out there and make the case that they should have the freedom to plant the crops they choose.”
