Former GMO Activist: Sorry, I was wrong.

A news article caught my eye, that former anti-GMO activist had been forced by the work he was doing to examine the science behind GMO foods, and that the science changed his views.

I know it won't be very popular here on ATS, but the entire transcript of a speech he made a few days ago is worth reading.

For the record, here and upfront, I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s,

what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.

So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths.

So my message to the anti-GM lobby, from the ranks of the British aristocrats and celebrity chefs to the US foodies to the peasant groups of India is this. You are entitled to your views. But you must know by now that they are not supported by science.

reply to post by alfa1


Maybe he was told the REAL reason for the GMO designs, are they designed to be sustainable through some cosmic particle blast they expect to hit the planet, or is hitting the planet.... there may be a reason that we are unaware of.

Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by alfa1

 

Maybe he was told the REAL reason for the GMO designs, are they designed to be sustainable through some cosmic particle blast they expect to hit the planet, or is hitting the planet.... there may be a reason that we are unaware of.

or that cyanide will be beneficial to future generations of humans as our DNA evolves

reply to post by alfa1


what i dont like about the whole gmo thing is when we try and fight nature, nature is going to win eventually, just as with vaccines, nature has got more experience than us and is still trucking. maybe we should try and work as part of nature instead of against it.

I'd be interested in actually hearing about his SCIENCE lol.

Shill alert.

I think the main problem is that he clearly believes that science is correct. How much of science stands from twenty years ago? Ten? Popular science is for dolts. The real stuff changes daily and no self-respecting scientist would ever call it infallible. Anyone who thinks it is is really just following another dogmatic religion.

Well, for one thing, I don't think people really understand where the actual danger in GMO crops lies. It is not so much the act of genetically altering the plant (which only changes a few or so genes anyway, not the entire plant). The real danger lies in creating a mono-crop or plant species which lacks the natural genetic variation to deal with a parasite, virus, bacteria, fungi or whatever. No natural genetic variation--no ability for the crops to adapt to novel natural threats in time to survive total population collapse. The result? We all end up starving.

But now that the variation against threats is no longer being handled by the natural means of plant variation, but bioengineering by humans instead, then any threat to a mono-crop species (such as corn) had to be met by human ingenuity or else the plant species will fail, totally. And that is the real threat. Not so much what it does to our body, but what it does to the plant species as a whole. What if we aren't able to bio-engineer an effective defense in the near future? That is the inherent risk and its a dangerous game for us to play.

-Ghoster

reply to post by alfa1


all that rambling with inserted selling points seemingly cribbed from monsanto brochures
he also seems to have a need to be acknowledged by academia
:shk:

repeat after me : "sellout", "co-opted", "bought and paid for"

LL y'know you just show up in threads and it's like you've got a list of already posted threads, debunking material,etc

couldn't you do any research to see if this guys prior activities got him in trouble with the law/authorities?


where's the science, other than vague generalizations,
in this puff piece about "an anti-science kook who's "seen the light"" and publishing his act of faith online?

what about all those experiments showing organ damage that are conveniently not accepted by mainstream corporate whore scientism?

explain how is eating pesticide filled corn [maize] healthy and good for you?

monsteranto spent most of the 20th century poisoning the ecosystem, poisons and toxins that are still around and now seeks to forcibly poison, via contaminated food intake, the human race. this is not mentioning the uber-psychopathic goal of gaining a monopoly on all foodstuffs. that's like claiming a monopoly on rainwater, the air, and soon our very genomes.

one final question: are you really this dumb, regarding the way things are on this planet?

get it through your head, these people are monsters,[and you surely are aware of the proper response when a monster appears] and are the successors of the nazis openly practicing eugenics and genocide hidden behind their veils of corporate secrecy.



cant wait to see or obtain a list of all their stockholders

...and a hunting i will go...

Originally posted by ObservingYou
I'd be interested in actually hearing about his SCIENCE lol.

Shill alert.

LL
better make that a double

The science is precisely the reason why the anti-GMO movement is so strong. Arpad Pusztai, an extremely credible scientist, back in 1998 released the results of a feeding trial showing the clearly harmful results. Then he was fired. Proof that with GMOs, industry-sponsored science is completely subservient to politics.

Jeffrey Smith wrote an excellent book detailing the precise scientific reasons why GMOs are unnatural and hence unfit for consumption, or even releasal into the wild. There is no way to recall them, if their "product" is shown to be dangerous. I think the OP has been suckered by an industry liar.

Total psyop, whats more the anti-gmo movement has nothing to do with british aristocrats lol.

First you pay someone to pretend they are against GMO, then you pay them a bonus to swap views and now all you need to do is to make it public in the news.

Then sheep who cant think for themselves who are on the fence about GMOs will say "bahhhh lets follow that one".

Hope that helps you see the light.

Originally posted by Son of Will
The science is precisely the reason why the anti-GMO movement is so strong. Arpad Pusztai, an extremely credible scientist, back in 1998 released the results of a feeding trial showing the clearly harmful results. Then he was fired. Proof that with GMOs, industry-sponsored science is completely subservient to politics.

Jeffrey Smith wrote an excellent book detailing the precise scientific reasons why GMOs are unnatural and hence unfit for consumption, or even releasal into the wild. There is no way to recall them, if their "product" is shown to be dangerous. I think the OP has been suckered by an industry liar.

Jeffrey Smith: everything you have to know about dangerous genetically modified foods - YouTube

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by alfa1

 

what i dont like about the whole gmo thing is when we try and fight nature, nature is going to win eventually, just as with vaccines, nature has got more experience than us and is still trucking. maybe we should try and work as part of nature instead of against it.

If by nature winning, you mean that ill have to donate my ashes to mother earths next big life cycle?... Ill go hang with GMO.

I think it is awful what we have done on a moral philosophy level, but the truth is we got the brains to outsmart this rock, lets use it.

Originally posted by ObservingYou
Shill alert.

If so, he's been a long time in the making.

1998
Writes a piece damning those evil seed companies, the patents they create, and the corrupt methods they use to gain power.

1999
He's a leftist speaking out against evil capitalism.

1999
As a representative of "corporate watch", signatory to a protest letter to the POTUS.

1999
Cited as the UK editor for oneworld anticorporate leftist online magazine, for a fairer and greener world.

2001
Writes an anti-GMO piece for Greenpeace that speaks about the successes of farmers in Bangladesh rejecting GMO seeds and going back to more traditional farming methods.

2004
An environmentalist, written a book warning us about global warming.

2008
Being an environmentalist, warning us about the consequences of global warming.

2011
Cited by a poster in an ATS thread as one of the good guys, in the fight against corruption.

reply to post by alfa1


Exactly. His change of heart is most curious - all I'm saying is GMO's are far from good for your health, we all know this.

When I get home and stop posting from mobile, I'll see if I can further investigate this puzzle.

yes i trust monsanto with my life, i would never in my wildest dreams, think that a multi billion dollar industry would do anything that could harm me or the planet i live on, they are very trust worthy people.

reply to post by ObservingYou


This guy is a fraud, why? He is a climate change activist!!!

Mark Lynas (born 1973) is a British author, journalist and environmental activist who focuses on climate change. He is a contributor to New Statesman, Ecologist, Granta and Geographical magazines, and The Guardian and The Observer newspapers in the UK; he also worked on the film The Age of Stupid. He was born in Fiji, grew up in Peru and the United Kingdom and holds a degree in history and politics from the University of Edinburgh.[1] He lives in Oxford, England. He has published several books including Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet (2007) and The God Species: Saving the Planet in the Age of Humans (2011). He has stated "I think there is a 50-50 chance we can avoid a devastating rise in global temperature."

Source

So it appears this Al Gore puppet, is now an expert in crops???

This is pure baloney!

Why no mention of how Monsanto puts farmers out of business and steals their homes?
What, no mention of super worms???

Get real OP, this is pure horse manure!

reply to post by alfa1


this is just my personal opinion but i can feel the difference from eating organic fruits and vegetables (which taste better) and gmos, gmo foods dont sit very well in my stomach plus they taste like metal plus all those pesticides and herbacides cant be good for you, any academic who says this is good you might wanna check the paper trail see where they get there money cause if there funded by the corporations they don't care about the peoples well being, when will people see most academics, politicians, most of the medical field dont give a # about you its about profit and in the higher echelons its about depopulating the earth just look at agenda 21 or codex alimentarius

ya' can't eat science.

Please, show me the tangible yield increases via GM crops, maybe i'll consider the point about 'world hunger', until then i'll call it PR.


i've started a couple of threads on the topic and i haven't seen any consistent mention of increased yield. Please note that yield is only part of the story, so if you actually reduced herbicide and pesticide use while suffering a small yield penalty, it would probably be worthwhile. You see, the trouble is that these GM seeds are typically used to allow for more herbicide use (roundup ready) while the alleged reduction of pesticide use in Bt. cotton merely changes where it is produced, which reduces your options, because it will always remain present and you can no longer apply just on demand. pests adapt quicker to a constant stimulus, like what happened in India (bollwom attack)

considered inadequate:

www.scidev.net...


on yields:

www.independent.co.uk...


PS: just so you know, i'm not against GM organism use in properly run bioreactors, despite what happened with typtophan supplements in 1989, although the whole cover-up aspect cleary shows that ulterior motives are in play. The emisode also goes to show that quality control issues existed (that have never been remedied, btw: www.nytimes.com...)

www.aquarianonline.com...

www.lightparty.com...



Neither do i believethat GM crop use will likely result in a catastrophe where mutant crops eat their farmers or poison millions of people, there might be failed harvests, like in South Africa or China

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.digitaljournal.com...

it's unlikely to be affect the food supply more than continuing biofuel production, which is the real problem in so many ways., see www.abovetopsecret.com... for more.

No, the immediate and often overlooked problem is that farmers are systematically addicted to expensive seeds under abusive contracts, even if only a percentage falls for this, their land will subsequently fall into the hands of large agribusiness, which will spread like cancer, like it happened in Argentina, for example. www.abovetopsecret.com... Few of these issues are a technological side effect of GMOs, it's mostly the legal consequences of increased control that are doing all the harm, but does that aspect really matter?

Furthermore, where are the huge advances they promised in the early 90s? still the same portfolio as far as i can tell, RR + Bt. in various crops like when they started 20 years ago. that's the bleeding edge for you...


you might also want to peruse the following thread how such 'implicit commercials' are created:

www.abovetopsecret.com...