What do you think?
Rate this book
Seeds of Science: Why We Got It So Wrong On GMOs
"An important contribution to an issue with enormous potential for benefiting humanity." Stephen Pinker
The inside story of the fight for and against genetic modification in food, from someone who's been on the front line of both sides of the argument.
Mark Lynas was one of the original GM field wreckers. Back in the 1990s--working undercover with his colleagues in the environmental movement--he would descend on trial sites of genetically modified crops at night and hack them to pieces. Two decades later, most people around the world--from New York to China--still think that "GMO" foods are bad for their health or likely to damage the environment. But Mark has changed his mind. This book explains why.
In 2013, in a world-famous recantation speech, Mark apologized for having destroyed GM crops. He spent the subsequent years touring Africa and Asia, and working with plant scientists who are using this technology to help smallholder farmers in developing countries cope better with pests, diseases and droughts.
This book lifts the lid on the anti-GMO craze and shows how science was left by the wayside as a wave of public hysteria swept the world. Mark takes us back to the origins of the technology and introduces the scientific pioneers who invented it. He explains what led him to question his earlier assumptions about GM food, and talks to both sides of this fractious debate to see what still motivates worldwide opposition today. In the process he asks--and answers--the killer question: how did we all get it so wrong on GMOs?
The inside story of the fight for and against genetic modification in food, from someone who's been on the front line of both sides of the argument.
Mark Lynas was one of the original GM field wreckers. Back in the 1990s--working undercover with his colleagues in the environmental movement--he would descend on trial sites of genetically modified crops at night and hack them to pieces. Two decades later, most people around the world--from New York to China--still think that "GMO" foods are bad for their health or likely to damage the environment. But Mark has changed his mind. This book explains why.
In 2013, in a world-famous recantation speech, Mark apologized for having destroyed GM crops. He spent the subsequent years touring Africa and Asia, and working with plant scientists who are using this technology to help smallholder farmers in developing countries cope better with pests, diseases and droughts.
This book lifts the lid on the anti-GMO craze and shows how science was left by the wayside as a wave of public hysteria swept the world. Mark takes us back to the origins of the technology and introduces the scientific pioneers who invented it. He explains what led him to question his earlier assumptions about GM food, and talks to both sides of this fractious debate to see what still motivates worldwide opposition today. In the process he asks--and answers--the killer question: how did we all get it so wrong on GMOs?
304 pages, Paperback
First published April 5, 2018
About the author
Mark Lynas
20 books79 followersMark Lynas is a British author, journalist and environmental activist who focuses on climate change.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews
July 12, 2026
How did a leading anti-GMO environmentalist like Lynas change his mind? Lynas tells the story of how he changed his mind and how he dealt with critics after his conversion. Lynas argues that much of what the anti-GMO argues, that GMOs are bad for the environment and for our health, are not factual. He was surprised to learn that, in Africa and India, GMOs have been found to be a boon for farmers there. Interviews he conducts with citizens are shown in the book.
I’ll admit, I first found out about Lynas when I discovered that he threw a pie at Bjorn Lomborg’s many years ago. I know he apologized, but that’s such a funny piece of lore.
I’ll admit, I first found out about Lynas when I discovered that he threw a pie at Bjorn Lomborg’s many years ago. I know he apologized, but that’s such a funny piece of lore.
March 13, 2019
An interesting take on the controversy around genetically modified crops by a man who was once an anti-GMO activist who flipped to the opposite side when he learned more about the science behind them. Poor messaging and communication at the outset allowed a false narrative about the safety of these products to take over, which was unfortunate. However, the larger debate now is about who controls these products, who has access to them, and how that affects global food supplies. Fascinating stuff.
December 22, 2018
Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
I’m pro-GMOs, so you could say it’s typical that I’d like this book, and I’m really the only kind of audience it would reach — but I think Lynas is genuinely attempting to dispell myths and introduce other people to the actual science behind GMOs, for all that. He was himself once very much anti-GMO, and participated in the crop destructions and demonstrations against people who tried to grow genetically engineered crops in the UK; he was “converted” by actually looking into the science behind it, and finding that behind the scaremongering, there’s very little real science.
He does also (perhaps somewhat weirdly) mount a defence of Monsanto; some aspects are like a case study of the problems of GM crops in action, but at other times he seems to be conflating the rise of GM crops as a whole with Monsanto — not quite the same thing; one doesn’t need to defend Monsanto to prove that GMOs are no threat. (Although he’s also not wrong that many of the kneejerk claims against Monsanto are on shaky ground. For example, the idea that Monsanto deliberately sell sterile seeds in order to force farmers to purchase new seed every year. That idea is just poor understanding of genetics: the second generation of seed may not actually carry the Roundup-resistant gene, in the same way that the seeds of hybrid crops don’t necessarily breed true.)
Lynas writes well and clearly, and often evocatively; his struggle with becoming pro-GMO isn’t drawn out in angsty detail, but it’s plain that it wasn’t an easy change for him and that he made the decision based on facts he could no longer ignore. Perhaps for some people, his presentation of the known facts will be enough to tip the scales. I’m somewhat doubtful (I think a lot of people who are anti-GM will automatically reject this book as being by a sellout, particularly because of the defence of Monsanto), but maybe it’ll help. If you’re on the fence, it should definitely help to clarify your views.
I’m pro-GMOs, so you could say it’s typical that I’d like this book, and I’m really the only kind of audience it would reach — but I think Lynas is genuinely attempting to dispell myths and introduce other people to the actual science behind GMOs, for all that. He was himself once very much anti-GMO, and participated in the crop destructions and demonstrations against people who tried to grow genetically engineered crops in the UK; he was “converted” by actually looking into the science behind it, and finding that behind the scaremongering, there’s very little real science.
He does also (perhaps somewhat weirdly) mount a defence of Monsanto; some aspects are like a case study of the problems of GM crops in action, but at other times he seems to be conflating the rise of GM crops as a whole with Monsanto — not quite the same thing; one doesn’t need to defend Monsanto to prove that GMOs are no threat. (Although he’s also not wrong that many of the kneejerk claims against Monsanto are on shaky ground. For example, the idea that Monsanto deliberately sell sterile seeds in order to force farmers to purchase new seed every year. That idea is just poor understanding of genetics: the second generation of seed may not actually carry the Roundup-resistant gene, in the same way that the seeds of hybrid crops don’t necessarily breed true.)
Lynas writes well and clearly, and often evocatively; his struggle with becoming pro-GMO isn’t drawn out in angsty detail, but it’s plain that it wasn’t an easy change for him and that he made the decision based on facts he could no longer ignore. Perhaps for some people, his presentation of the known facts will be enough to tip the scales. I’m somewhat doubtful (I think a lot of people who are anti-GM will automatically reject this book as being by a sellout, particularly because of the defence of Monsanto), but maybe it’ll help. If you’re on the fence, it should definitely help to clarify your views.
June 29, 2018
*I received a free copy of this book from the publisher through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.*
Seeds of Science gives a comprehensive overview on the current debate about GMOs, where the debate is at currently, the history of GMOs, and his own conversion from being anti-GMO to pro-GMO.
GMOs are a HOT topic–you can’t go anywhere without running into someone who has an opinion (usually a very steadfast, fiery one) on whether or not they’re good, whether or not we should be eating organic, etc. I appreciated this book for breaking down the history of how they came to be and why we might be so reluctant to adopt these foods into our society. It was incredibly interesting and I feel much more informed on the topic. Aside from the science, Lynas also goes through various areas that are trying to adopt GMOs and how the process works (or lags), which I found fascinating.
I’ve always been neutral on the topic of GMOs, since I don’t feel as though we really have enough information to make a judgment about them either way, so I was a good target audience for this book. Not super anti-GMO, but not super pro either. Of course, by reading this book, I lean more towards pro-GMO (I’m all for ways that can help countries and people avoid starvation), but I’ll still be keeping an open mind as research develops, something that Lynas also says is an important thing to do.
What really endeared this book to me is that Lynas dedicates a section talking about how debate, logic, and arguments work in our brain. He admits to being biased and even points out which argumentative tools he uses in the books. He also breaks down why it’s so hard to get people to change their mind on things. This, above all, sold the book to me. I love a person who is transparent about what their goal is and how they’re going about achieving that goal–especially since I couldn’t help but wondering how Seeds of Science presented the facts, versus what facts anti-GMO groups are operating on, and how might Lynas be smoothing those over? The fact that he points out he’s biased made me trust the book a little more and trust Lynas’s agenda.
Despite this book being rather informational and technical, this is an easy read. It flows nicely, and Lynas gives it a personal character by tying the information to his own thoughts, beliefs, and experiences. If I were teaching a history or science class in high school, this would be in my classroom, for sure. It could even work as a book to use in a curriculum about GMOs to spark a larger debate amongst students. And even if you’re not looking for curriculum stuff, this is an intriguing read that gives a lot of information about the topic in general. Definitely recommend.
Also posted on Purple People Readers.
Seeds of Science gives a comprehensive overview on the current debate about GMOs, where the debate is at currently, the history of GMOs, and his own conversion from being anti-GMO to pro-GMO.
GMOs are a HOT topic–you can’t go anywhere without running into someone who has an opinion (usually a very steadfast, fiery one) on whether or not they’re good, whether or not we should be eating organic, etc. I appreciated this book for breaking down the history of how they came to be and why we might be so reluctant to adopt these foods into our society. It was incredibly interesting and I feel much more informed on the topic. Aside from the science, Lynas also goes through various areas that are trying to adopt GMOs and how the process works (or lags), which I found fascinating.
I’ve always been neutral on the topic of GMOs, since I don’t feel as though we really have enough information to make a judgment about them either way, so I was a good target audience for this book. Not super anti-GMO, but not super pro either. Of course, by reading this book, I lean more towards pro-GMO (I’m all for ways that can help countries and people avoid starvation), but I’ll still be keeping an open mind as research develops, something that Lynas also says is an important thing to do.
What really endeared this book to me is that Lynas dedicates a section talking about how debate, logic, and arguments work in our brain. He admits to being biased and even points out which argumentative tools he uses in the books. He also breaks down why it’s so hard to get people to change their mind on things. This, above all, sold the book to me. I love a person who is transparent about what their goal is and how they’re going about achieving that goal–especially since I couldn’t help but wondering how Seeds of Science presented the facts, versus what facts anti-GMO groups are operating on, and how might Lynas be smoothing those over? The fact that he points out he’s biased made me trust the book a little more and trust Lynas’s agenda.
Despite this book being rather informational and technical, this is an easy read. It flows nicely, and Lynas gives it a personal character by tying the information to his own thoughts, beliefs, and experiences. If I were teaching a history or science class in high school, this would be in my classroom, for sure. It could even work as a book to use in a curriculum about GMOs to spark a larger debate amongst students. And even if you’re not looking for curriculum stuff, this is an intriguing read that gives a lot of information about the topic in general. Definitely recommend.
Also posted on Purple People Readers.
January 21, 2021
I am not sure how I ended up buying this book - probably because I wanted to ensure that I was reading all sides of the GMO debate. Or perhaps because I thought Mark Lynas
could help me navigate the various ethical and moral issues around GMOs and the science. Maybe this was too big an ask or maybe I just could not sufficiently move away from my genuine fear that as humans we have stuffed up so much of our planet with “good science or economics” because we are largely unable to understand the complexity of the world we live in and the sometimes awful consequences of well motivated actions. For me this fear is intrinsic to my concern around GMOs but more to my lack of trust that we actually understand what we are doing in the long run when we put GMOs into the world. Anyway with this as background, I found Lynas’ writing to be excellent and his reasoning easy to follow but the book felt like a cross between an apologia and a scientific marketing brochure on GMOs. I was not convinced and it stirred up probably more concerns than it alleviated for me. Still it is worth reading and I wish I had time to dig into the extensive reference list provided.
could help me navigate the various ethical and moral issues around GMOs and the science. Maybe this was too big an ask or maybe I just could not sufficiently move away from my genuine fear that as humans we have stuffed up so much of our planet with “good science or economics” because we are largely unable to understand the complexity of the world we live in and the sometimes awful consequences of well motivated actions. For me this fear is intrinsic to my concern around GMOs but more to my lack of trust that we actually understand what we are doing in the long run when we put GMOs into the world. Anyway with this as background, I found Lynas’ writing to be excellent and his reasoning easy to follow but the book felt like a cross between an apologia and a scientific marketing brochure on GMOs. I was not convinced and it stirred up probably more concerns than it alleviated for me. Still it is worth reading and I wish I had time to dig into the extensive reference list provided.
June 1, 2023
Lynas was on the front lines of the anti-GMO movement when it started, until he learned for himself the GMO science, its actually effects on health, land space, and starvation in other countries.
He explores the process of making GMO plants, GMO's history and the history of Monsanto, the reasoning of feeling and science to decide about GMOs and politic issues. Everything from the ecosystem of monarch butterflies to the politics in African governments, conservation of land space and reduction of harmful chemicals is explored in this book. Lynas conducts interviews from farmers, scientists, and activists alike all from diverse countries.
Not only do I feel so much more educated on the truth and goodness of GMO's from a source that explores the good and bad but, I also feel so motivated to be educated of the world around me.
Thank you Mark Lynas for working so hard to make a credible, interesting book and for inspiring me to ambitious learn truth continually, even if wrong at first!
He explores the process of making GMO plants, GMO's history and the history of Monsanto, the reasoning of feeling and science to decide about GMOs and politic issues. Everything from the ecosystem of monarch butterflies to the politics in African governments, conservation of land space and reduction of harmful chemicals is explored in this book. Lynas conducts interviews from farmers, scientists, and activists alike all from diverse countries.
Not only do I feel so much more educated on the truth and goodness of GMO's from a source that explores the good and bad but, I also feel so motivated to be educated of the world around me.
Thank you Mark Lynas for working so hard to make a credible, interesting book and for inspiring me to ambitious learn truth continually, even if wrong at first!
June 28, 2018
This remarkable account of a path through activism is persuasive and profound. Lynas started as an anti-GMO activist until he was called out on hypocrisy: he ridiculed climate change-deniers for ignoring science, and he realized he had never taken a good look at the science on GMOs. So then he changed his mind, lost a community and friendships in the process, and became an activist for the promotion of GMOs. Then, in writing this book, it seems like he went through another transition. He is still a staunch supporter of GMOs. He still believes that opposition to GMOs has literally caused many deaths, especially in Africa and India. But he changed his stance on how evil his opponents are. He does everything he can to acknowledge their worries and moral objections and discuss them without name-calling, which, from the sound of it, is new to him (he refers to instances in the past when he has engaged in some pretty nasty name-calling). Both of those changes are refreshing.
I've been vaguely aware of GMO protests in the past. Science has shown them to be safe and effective and to benefit the environment and quality of life when they are applied. But often getting new foods to the agricultural market is hampered by activists burning fields, or otherwise throwing fits. This has all been worth scarcely more than a shrug in my book because I haven't thought much about the consequences. But Lynas makes a strong case for caring. GMO technology exists to make agricultural plants drought-resistant, disease-resistant, and higher in nutrition, and those in drought-ravaged regions (yes, this is linked to climate change!) are suffering for lack of these crops. European activists think they are working to preserve a noble way of traditional African life. Lynas and many African farmers he talked to think that the activists are holding Africa down, denying it access to modern agriculture. His most important chapter on this topic is entitle "Let them eat organic baby corn", based on an episode in which starving people in Zambia were denied access to GMO-based food aid from the US for several reasons, one of which was that the GMO corn seed might contaminate the GMO-free organic baby corn crop being produced there for export to Europe. Ick. Reading through these chapters made me physically ill. Surely we can do better as humanity as a whole.
Lynas is not a scientist. He's an activist who works with scientists, and most of his book is about history and politics, very people-centered. History of GMOs, history of the activism against them, and the history of associated companies, especially Monsanto, frequently referred to as the most evil company in the world. He tries to cut through myths to get to the truth. Monsanto isn't as evil as we all got used to thinking it is. But the entire GMO market is not as democratic as we would like it to be, either. There are still questions about how the world should handle agriculture, but this book makes a good case that it should include GMOs. Lynas talks about the questions that are left unanswered, the questions that are urgent, the process of science running up against the processes of politics, and the mess that we're in right now.
It's a fascinating read. I'm not sure whether it'll convince anyone dead set against GMOs, but if you're interested in GMOs or science in society in general, I highly recommend it.
I got a copy to review from Net Galley.
I've been vaguely aware of GMO protests in the past. Science has shown them to be safe and effective and to benefit the environment and quality of life when they are applied. But often getting new foods to the agricultural market is hampered by activists burning fields, or otherwise throwing fits. This has all been worth scarcely more than a shrug in my book because I haven't thought much about the consequences. But Lynas makes a strong case for caring. GMO technology exists to make agricultural plants drought-resistant, disease-resistant, and higher in nutrition, and those in drought-ravaged regions (yes, this is linked to climate change!) are suffering for lack of these crops. European activists think they are working to preserve a noble way of traditional African life. Lynas and many African farmers he talked to think that the activists are holding Africa down, denying it access to modern agriculture. His most important chapter on this topic is entitle "Let them eat organic baby corn", based on an episode in which starving people in Zambia were denied access to GMO-based food aid from the US for several reasons, one of which was that the GMO corn seed might contaminate the GMO-free organic baby corn crop being produced there for export to Europe. Ick. Reading through these chapters made me physically ill. Surely we can do better as humanity as a whole.
Lynas is not a scientist. He's an activist who works with scientists, and most of his book is about history and politics, very people-centered. History of GMOs, history of the activism against them, and the history of associated companies, especially Monsanto, frequently referred to as the most evil company in the world. He tries to cut through myths to get to the truth. Monsanto isn't as evil as we all got used to thinking it is. But the entire GMO market is not as democratic as we would like it to be, either. There are still questions about how the world should handle agriculture, but this book makes a good case that it should include GMOs. Lynas talks about the questions that are left unanswered, the questions that are urgent, the process of science running up against the processes of politics, and the mess that we're in right now.
It's a fascinating read. I'm not sure whether it'll convince anyone dead set against GMOs, but if you're interested in GMOs or science in society in general, I highly recommend it.
I got a copy to review from Net Galley.
May 15, 2021
This is a truly eye-opening book. Reading it has made me realise just how many negative myths and misconceptions about GMO products I was exposed to when growing up – and the political interests behind them. Lynas works through the issues fairly and methodically, giving plenty of space to show both sides of the argument, even though the topic is contentious and emotionally-charged. It's also very easy to read (at least until the last couple of chapters, which get a bit more dense and philosophical).
It's hard to get over the ingrained preconceptions that GMOs (and especially Monsanto) are evil and cancerous. But Lynas makes a convincing, well-sourced argument, showing step by step how little evidence there is that GMOs have any adverse health effects. He also shows the growth of the anti-GMO movement, and how it is ideologically driven rather than science-based. By the end most readers will find themselves raging against Greenpeace and other NGOs who have deliberately ignored the science to keep GMOs out of circulation, despite the potentially enormous benefits to the climate and the rural poor in developing countries.
The central point of the book is this: when environmentalists are so quick to condemn climate change deniers for cynically ignoring the scientific consensus, how can they totally ignore the science on GMOs?
A brilliant read. Highly recommended.
It's hard to get over the ingrained preconceptions that GMOs (and especially Monsanto) are evil and cancerous. But Lynas makes a convincing, well-sourced argument, showing step by step how little evidence there is that GMOs have any adverse health effects. He also shows the growth of the anti-GMO movement, and how it is ideologically driven rather than science-based. By the end most readers will find themselves raging against Greenpeace and other NGOs who have deliberately ignored the science to keep GMOs out of circulation, despite the potentially enormous benefits to the climate and the rural poor in developing countries.
The central point of the book is this: when environmentalists are so quick to condemn climate change deniers for cynically ignoring the scientific consensus, how can they totally ignore the science on GMOs?
A brilliant read. Highly recommended.
June 11, 2022
Because of my job I knew most of the pro-GMO arguments, but really appreciated looking at the other side. The moral aspects of the anti-GMO stance were particularly interesting
September 6, 2022
Amazing book that gives such a great overview on the entire history on the debate of GMOs and its current impact on the world to this day.
November 10, 2023
Good read, really makes you understand the reality of GMOs not just the propoganda thats spread by many conspiracy fanatics, thanks Mark
June 12, 2018
Fascinating read. I like growing heirloom plants for the novelty of them, but have discovered many do taste different from the mass grown ones I can buy in the store. I rarely buy locally out of season fruits and vegetables, but not due to fear. I think there is a place for GMOs, as I realize that in order to feed the world, heirloom foods are not going to do the job. As for "all natural" and "organic" as labels- I just grit my teeth and define the words when someone spouts them at me.... Mark Lynas, I feel gives a fair treatment of the subject. And everyone who eats should read this book. it may save them some money. Kudos to the author!
I received a Kindle ARC from Netgalley in exchange for a fair review.
I received a Kindle ARC from Netgalley in exchange for a fair review.
September 28, 2023
Definitely won't be the last book I read on GMO controversy and gene-editing as a whole. Also found good candidates for future/further reading.
June 21, 2018
Mark Lynas has provided a worthwhile book from a number of perspectives. He describes his personal journey from farm- and science experiment-wrecking thug to someone who values the facts and evidence about plant science today. He looks at his own motivations and examines the reality of the tribal adherance that was keeping him from understanding the issues before.
He also provides an excellent overview of the history of opposition to the DNA modifications of plants and animals that are instructive to place us in the context we find ourselves today. Their songbook remains nearly the same--lawsuits and fearmongering. And he illustrates how the opposition has found themselves stuck in that same place now, with no mechanism to update their stances based on new information.
There's also a valiant attempt to consider the reasons that anti-GMO folks remain in their defensive crouches. Certainly I don't think this case was made--the examples he gave showed that the issues were the same GMO-as-proxy-for-other-things-you-dislike that currently fogs all discussions on this (patents, monocultures, corporations, herbicides--none of which are unique to GMOs). He tries to offer a GMO olive branch to opponents, and we'll see if anyone responds.
It was a lively read, with fully sourced details, and firmly grounded in science. Worth your time if you are trying to understand where we are on the issues of GMOs and the ensuing drama. I just wish it provided more guidance on how we can really move forward on contentious issues like climate, vaccines, etc. We can't wait for everyone's conversion tale.
Full disclosure: Mark Lynas is an acquaintance of mine, and I was given the book at a book launch event.
He also provides an excellent overview of the history of opposition to the DNA modifications of plants and animals that are instructive to place us in the context we find ourselves today. Their songbook remains nearly the same--lawsuits and fearmongering. And he illustrates how the opposition has found themselves stuck in that same place now, with no mechanism to update their stances based on new information.
There's also a valiant attempt to consider the reasons that anti-GMO folks remain in their defensive crouches. Certainly I don't think this case was made--the examples he gave showed that the issues were the same GMO-as-proxy-for-other-things-you-dislike that currently fogs all discussions on this (patents, monocultures, corporations, herbicides--none of which are unique to GMOs). He tries to offer a GMO olive branch to opponents, and we'll see if anyone responds.
It was a lively read, with fully sourced details, and firmly grounded in science. Worth your time if you are trying to understand where we are on the issues of GMOs and the ensuing drama. I just wish it provided more guidance on how we can really move forward on contentious issues like climate, vaccines, etc. We can't wait for everyone's conversion tale.
Full disclosure: Mark Lynas is an acquaintance of mine, and I was given the book at a book launch event.
July 21, 2019
A good reminder that GE technology itself is not inherently 'bad'. Rather, we need to look at how we're using a technology to consider if it's 'good' or 'bad'.
Some of my favorite excerpts:
I began to see that scientific knowledge is cumulative: it is built up slowly like a house made of bricks. Sometimes individual bricks need to be relaid or taken out and replaced altogether, but overall the wall generally continues to rise. Only rarely does it get entirely demolished and rebuilt thanks to a paradigm-changing discovery such as plate tectonics or evolution by natural selection.
As late as 2007, 3,950 tonnes of DDT were sprayed in developing countries, according to the UN.
One meta-analysis has shown at least that the majority of profits from GMO crops are retained in developing countries.
More than a quarter of farmers surveyed in one study reported experiencing multiple health effects, including headaches, eye and skin irritation, vomiting or dizziness attributable to pesticide use.
Perhaps the best - or worst - that can be said is that Monsanto is a key part of an agricultural system that a lot of people find objectionable, and sometimes for good reason. But GMOs of any sort, and the companies that develop and promote them, need to be looked at in the context of the political system that they are deployed within. While Roundup Ready soy might have helped privilege bigger farmers in North and South America, this experience would not necessarily be repeated with Bt brinjal in Bangladesh, nor with other GM crops being developed specifically to address poverty in Africa and elsewhere.
Oxfam's Position on transgenic crops: https://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/ox...
So to accuse opponents of GMOs as being generically 'anti-science' makes no sense at all to George. I think that was a ridiculous designation ... it's a bit like saying that people who are anti-chemical weapons are anti-chemistry, or who are opposed to nuclear annihilation are anti-physics. GM, like washing machines or cars, is a technology, and we have to make a political decision - which in an ideal world would be a democratic decision - as to whether we want to sue it or not and the extent to which we want to use it or not and how we want to use it or not.
Large scale monoculture expansion, driven by world market dynamics and financial interests, tends to deepen the concentration of land ownership, limit equitable access to resources, degrade the environment, harm the health of the local population, create exploitative working conditions and put at risk the traditional livelihoods o small-scale farmers,' Oxfam's report concludes.
The nuclear reactor can only exist in a centralized state with large amounts of centralized power because you need to defend it, you need security infrastructure, and all this stuff. The technology cannot be a democratized technology, it requires centralized systems. And I sort of feel that's true for biotech too, the technology's constitution lends itself to being best exploited by well-capitalized institutions. (Ryan's note: Relate this to the future of clean meat. Might it only exist in a centralized state, putting all smaller/decentralized livestock farmers out of business?)
If the experience of modern society shows us anything, it is that technologies are not merely aids to human activity, but also powerful forces acting to reshape that activity and its meaning.
If you accept the existence of automobiles, he wrote, this also implies road infrastructure, an oil industry, as well as 'a sped-up style of life and the movement of humans through the terrain at speeds that make it impossible to pay attention to whatever is growing there.
It's not always useful to see things from the short term point of view of an individual, and the promises they've been told, it's often better to zoom out and ask how does this change agriculture, how does this change farming systems over a period of time and then where does the individual find themselves?
We live in an unjust world, and if we're introducing a powerful technology into that unjust world we're probably going to exacerbate that injustice, unless e're very, very, deliberate in trying to attach that injustice.
I do not see why we should reject all Ge because its technology might, one day, permit such perversion of decency in the hands of some latter-day Hitler - you may as well outlaw printing because the same machine that composes Shakespeare can also set Mein Kampf. If we could, by transplanting a bacterial gene, confer disease or cold resistance upon an important crop plant, should we not do so in a world where people suffer so terribly from malnutrition?
Interestingly, mutagenic crops are included in organic systems: they are not subject to the same ban as GMOs
I do not object to the GE of crop plants because these are already largely human creations. My concerns stem more about technology interfering with nature in a more direct sense. I am more worried about having GMOs in my local woodland that I am about having them in my food.
The only argument that can really be raised against GMOs in general is the 'unknown unknowns' concern, that there might be some inherent danger or damage to the genome due to the introduction of recombinant DNA.
Aquabounty GE salmon: Atlantic salmon with GH from Chinook salmon. More growth, less feed, less pressure on wild fish stocks.
Forget about ever persuading anybody of anything through reasoned evidence and force of argument. If you ask people to believe something that violates their intuitions, they will devote their efforts to finding an escape hatch - a reason to doubt your argument or conclusion.
A 2014 meta-analysis, combining the outputs of nearly 150 separate peer-reviewed studies, concluded that GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%, globally.
One global study estimated that the worldwide adoption of GM crops led to savings in 2015 of about 26 million tonnes of CO2, thanks to fewer insecticide sprays and the soil carbon storage improvements associated with no-till GM crops.
In a 2015 study the Pew Research Center found that there was a wider gap between the general public and the scientific community on GMOs than on any other area of equivalent controversy, from vaccines to evolution to nuclear power.
Reducing global meat consumption could be the most significant factor of all in protecting natural ecosystems. If you select options where the whole world has a diet as meat-intensive as the U.S., you get a litter error message: "Your pathways uses more land than the world has available. Please change your settings".
Some of my favorite excerpts:
I began to see that scientific knowledge is cumulative: it is built up slowly like a house made of bricks. Sometimes individual bricks need to be relaid or taken out and replaced altogether, but overall the wall generally continues to rise. Only rarely does it get entirely demolished and rebuilt thanks to a paradigm-changing discovery such as plate tectonics or evolution by natural selection.
As late as 2007, 3,950 tonnes of DDT were sprayed in developing countries, according to the UN.
One meta-analysis has shown at least that the majority of profits from GMO crops are retained in developing countries.
More than a quarter of farmers surveyed in one study reported experiencing multiple health effects, including headaches, eye and skin irritation, vomiting or dizziness attributable to pesticide use.
Perhaps the best - or worst - that can be said is that Monsanto is a key part of an agricultural system that a lot of people find objectionable, and sometimes for good reason. But GMOs of any sort, and the companies that develop and promote them, need to be looked at in the context of the political system that they are deployed within. While Roundup Ready soy might have helped privilege bigger farmers in North and South America, this experience would not necessarily be repeated with Bt brinjal in Bangladesh, nor with other GM crops being developed specifically to address poverty in Africa and elsewhere.
Oxfam's Position on transgenic crops: https://www.oxfam.org/en/campaigns/ox...
So to accuse opponents of GMOs as being generically 'anti-science' makes no sense at all to George. I think that was a ridiculous designation ... it's a bit like saying that people who are anti-chemical weapons are anti-chemistry, or who are opposed to nuclear annihilation are anti-physics. GM, like washing machines or cars, is a technology, and we have to make a political decision - which in an ideal world would be a democratic decision - as to whether we want to sue it or not and the extent to which we want to use it or not and how we want to use it or not.
Large scale monoculture expansion, driven by world market dynamics and financial interests, tends to deepen the concentration of land ownership, limit equitable access to resources, degrade the environment, harm the health of the local population, create exploitative working conditions and put at risk the traditional livelihoods o small-scale farmers,' Oxfam's report concludes.
The nuclear reactor can only exist in a centralized state with large amounts of centralized power because you need to defend it, you need security infrastructure, and all this stuff. The technology cannot be a democratized technology, it requires centralized systems. And I sort of feel that's true for biotech too, the technology's constitution lends itself to being best exploited by well-capitalized institutions. (Ryan's note: Relate this to the future of clean meat. Might it only exist in a centralized state, putting all smaller/decentralized livestock farmers out of business?)
If the experience of modern society shows us anything, it is that technologies are not merely aids to human activity, but also powerful forces acting to reshape that activity and its meaning.
If you accept the existence of automobiles, he wrote, this also implies road infrastructure, an oil industry, as well as 'a sped-up style of life and the movement of humans through the terrain at speeds that make it impossible to pay attention to whatever is growing there.
It's not always useful to see things from the short term point of view of an individual, and the promises they've been told, it's often better to zoom out and ask how does this change agriculture, how does this change farming systems over a period of time and then where does the individual find themselves?
We live in an unjust world, and if we're introducing a powerful technology into that unjust world we're probably going to exacerbate that injustice, unless e're very, very, deliberate in trying to attach that injustice.
I do not see why we should reject all Ge because its technology might, one day, permit such perversion of decency in the hands of some latter-day Hitler - you may as well outlaw printing because the same machine that composes Shakespeare can also set Mein Kampf. If we could, by transplanting a bacterial gene, confer disease or cold resistance upon an important crop plant, should we not do so in a world where people suffer so terribly from malnutrition?
Interestingly, mutagenic crops are included in organic systems: they are not subject to the same ban as GMOs
I do not object to the GE of crop plants because these are already largely human creations. My concerns stem more about technology interfering with nature in a more direct sense. I am more worried about having GMOs in my local woodland that I am about having them in my food.
The only argument that can really be raised against GMOs in general is the 'unknown unknowns' concern, that there might be some inherent danger or damage to the genome due to the introduction of recombinant DNA.
Aquabounty GE salmon: Atlantic salmon with GH from Chinook salmon. More growth, less feed, less pressure on wild fish stocks.
Forget about ever persuading anybody of anything through reasoned evidence and force of argument. If you ask people to believe something that violates their intuitions, they will devote their efforts to finding an escape hatch - a reason to doubt your argument or conclusion.
A 2014 meta-analysis, combining the outputs of nearly 150 separate peer-reviewed studies, concluded that GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%, globally.
One global study estimated that the worldwide adoption of GM crops led to savings in 2015 of about 26 million tonnes of CO2, thanks to fewer insecticide sprays and the soil carbon storage improvements associated with no-till GM crops.
In a 2015 study the Pew Research Center found that there was a wider gap between the general public and the scientific community on GMOs than on any other area of equivalent controversy, from vaccines to evolution to nuclear power.
Reducing global meat consumption could be the most significant factor of all in protecting natural ecosystems. If you select options where the whole world has a diet as meat-intensive as the U.S., you get a litter error message: "Your pathways uses more land than the world has available. Please change your settings".
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 4, 2021
Here's information on an "authority" in the anti-GMO movement.
https://allianceforscience.cornell.ed...
Update 2/14/21
I was just reading an article on Science-Based Medicine about the COVID quacks who call themselves America's Frontline Doctors and came across a mention of Whale.to, a site where the really out-there cranks have entries. I wondered if Jeffrey Smith has a page, and indeed he does. http://www.whale.to/b/smith_jeff_h.html
Where did I encounter the name Jeffrey Smith? A video that featured him was posted in advance of an event of a discussion group called "philosophy and critical thinking." I attended that event, where I was blindsided by anti-GMO nutters. I've since learned that "critical thinking" (like "skeptic") has been appropriated by anti-science cranks and conspiracy theorists. The organizers of the group are well-meaning but misguided. I promptly left it.
Update 10/4/21
The video that I mentioned above was filmed at an event of an organization called The Truth About Cancer. Here's a recent article about them. ("Truth" is another word that has been hijacked and tortured beyond all recognition by the FUD*-mongers.)
https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/p...
*fear, uncertainty, distrust
https://allianceforscience.cornell.ed...
Update 2/14/21
I was just reading an article on Science-Based Medicine about the COVID quacks who call themselves America's Frontline Doctors and came across a mention of Whale.to, a site where the really out-there cranks have entries. I wondered if Jeffrey Smith has a page, and indeed he does. http://www.whale.to/b/smith_jeff_h.html
Where did I encounter the name Jeffrey Smith? A video that featured him was posted in advance of an event of a discussion group called "philosophy and critical thinking." I attended that event, where I was blindsided by anti-GMO nutters. I've since learned that "critical thinking" (like "skeptic") has been appropriated by anti-science cranks and conspiracy theorists. The organizers of the group are well-meaning but misguided. I promptly left it.
Update 10/4/21
The video that I mentioned above was filmed at an event of an organization called The Truth About Cancer. Here's a recent article about them. ("Truth" is another word that has been hijacked and tortured beyond all recognition by the FUD*-mongers.)
https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/p...
*fear, uncertainty, distrust
July 17, 2024
نبذة:
يعطي الكتاب توضيح عن النباتات المعدلة وراثيًا تعريفها وظهورها وسوء الفهم الذي لاحق ظهورها وكذلك يحكي لنا الكاتب كيف انه كان يهاجم المحاصيل الزراعية المعدلة فقط لجهله بإهميتها إلى جانب تظليل الأفراد من جانب الإعلام والمؤسسات المختصة بالنباتات التي من المُفترض انها تساعد على زيادة انتشار هذه التقنية المفيدة جدًا وكذلك يوضح لنا الكتاب عن صعوبة انتشارها في البلدان النامية والحظر الحاصل بالبلدان نتيجة التظليل إلى جانب التعقيدات والموافقات التي تستغرق عقود..
رأيي:
من افضل ما قرأتُ يوضح بشكل شامل كل ما يتعلق بهذه التقنيات الجديدة والتي اثبتت نجاحها في التجارب القليلة التي زُرعت خلالها، حرفيًا الكتاب غني بالمعلومات والصدمات التي جعلتني في رهبة من التظليل والكذب في سبيل اعاقة مثل هذه الزراعة المفيدة وخاصة في بلداننا التي تعاني من العديد من المصاعب وبالنسبه الي اعتقد بإن الحظر على هذه البذور قد يضعف اقتصاد البلدان المستفيدة من شحة الموارد والأطمعة في البلدان الأخرى وبذلك من مصلحتهم ان يتم اعاقته ولا ينجح على المستوى الدولي لكني كذلك استبشر خيرًا في المستقبل في وجود من يوصل مثل هذه الأمور بصورة جيدة للجهات المعنية وخاصة في العراق..
يعطي الكتاب توضيح عن النباتات المعدلة وراثيًا تعريفها وظهورها وسوء الفهم الذي لاحق ظهورها وكذلك يحكي لنا الكاتب كيف انه كان يهاجم المحاصيل الزراعية المعدلة فقط لجهله بإهميتها إلى جانب تظليل الأفراد من جانب الإعلام والمؤسسات المختصة بالنباتات التي من المُفترض انها تساعد على زيادة انتشار هذه التقنية المفيدة جدًا وكذلك يوضح لنا الكتاب عن صعوبة انتشارها في البلدان النامية والحظر الحاصل بالبلدان نتيجة التظليل إلى جانب التعقيدات والموافقات التي تستغرق عقود..
رأيي:
من افضل ما قرأتُ يوضح بشكل شامل كل ما يتعلق بهذه التقنيات الجديدة والتي اثبتت نجاحها في التجارب القليلة التي زُرعت خلالها، حرفيًا الكتاب غني بالمعلومات والصدمات التي جعلتني في رهبة من التظليل والكذب في سبيل اعاقة مثل هذه الزراعة المفيدة وخاصة في بلداننا التي تعاني من العديد من المصاعب وبالنسبه الي اعتقد بإن الحظر على هذه البذور قد يضعف اقتصاد البلدان المستفيدة من شحة الموارد والأطمعة في البلدان الأخرى وبذلك من مصلحتهم ان يتم اعاقته ولا ينجح على المستوى الدولي لكني كذلك استبشر خيرًا في المستقبل في وجود من يوصل مثل هذه الأمور بصورة جيدة للجهات المعنية وخاصة في العراق..
September 6, 2018
I want to backhand all the smug, rich, well-fed European activists in the face with this book.
July 24, 2021
In this book, Mark Lynas makes some very good arguments as to why we should be making more use of GMOs. However the subtitle of the book "why we got it so wrong on GMOs" is very misleading - he actually goes into very little detail about what we got wrong and why.
This is mainly a combination of history book and memoir - so we learn the history of GMOs as well as the history of the anti-GMO movement and Lynas's involvement in it, until his Road to Damascus conversion to a GMO evangelist, and his subsequent work in support of GMOs.
On the need for GMOs, Lynas is extremely convincing. Referring primarily to the Global South, and in particular East Africa, Lynas describes the huge human cost of "business as usual" - failed harvests and famine. He talks to small farmers who would love to be able to switch to GMO, but are prevented by regulations which have largely been forced on these countries by interfering Westerners. He gives examples of how adapting crops for drought-resistance, or resistance to specific pests and diseases, could save entire harvests. It's hard to dispute that GM could save lives in many such cases. However very little consideration is given to alternative approaches - recent developments in permaculture and agroforestry which point the way to a more sustainable future. Admittedly such approaches are likely to be harder and slower to implement than GMO, but they also avoid some of GMOs potential risks.
It is on those risks that Lynas is weakest. He repeatedly implies that such risks are low or zero, but produces very little evidence to back this up. Along the way he destroys some myths about GMOs - in particular, I had not realised that GMO seeds are _not_ infertile - farmers do not need to come back each year for new seed - and neither are they a license for the seed companies to print money in perpetuity - indeed, patents on early GMO seeds have already expired, meaning that these seeds can be more widely and cheaply produced. However some of his statements appear contradictory - GMO seeds are not infertile and yet there is little or no risk of them interacting with other species; GMOs can greatly reduce the need for herbicides, and yet they can be bred to be herbicide resistant so that large quantities of Glyphosate can be used to raise monoculture crops.
The biggest failing for me is that nowhere does Lynas address the question of unintended consequences - while we can examine and test certain aspects of GMOs and say "yes, that's safe", there is by definition no way of knowing in what unexpected ways the largescale adoption of GMOs may affect the environment, the economy, or society. It might be that we consider such risks worth taking, particularly given the desperate need to "fix" agriculture in the Global South, but given the scale and potential impact of such wholescale tampering with our food supply, it seems sensible to act very cautiously.
At one point in the book my heart rose as I thought that Lynas was about to address my primary concern: "the only argument that can really be raised against GMOs in general" he writes "is the 'unknown unknowns' concern". Finally, I thought, he gets it! In the remainder of the sentence though he goes on to define the "unknown unknowns concern" as "some inherent danger of damage to the genome due to the introduction of recombinant DNA".
Mark Lynas does not know what the word "unknown" means. And that, for me, makes this book - as interesting as it is - a failure.
This is mainly a combination of history book and memoir - so we learn the history of GMOs as well as the history of the anti-GMO movement and Lynas's involvement in it, until his Road to Damascus conversion to a GMO evangelist, and his subsequent work in support of GMOs.
On the need for GMOs, Lynas is extremely convincing. Referring primarily to the Global South, and in particular East Africa, Lynas describes the huge human cost of "business as usual" - failed harvests and famine. He talks to small farmers who would love to be able to switch to GMO, but are prevented by regulations which have largely been forced on these countries by interfering Westerners. He gives examples of how adapting crops for drought-resistance, or resistance to specific pests and diseases, could save entire harvests. It's hard to dispute that GM could save lives in many such cases. However very little consideration is given to alternative approaches - recent developments in permaculture and agroforestry which point the way to a more sustainable future. Admittedly such approaches are likely to be harder and slower to implement than GMO, but they also avoid some of GMOs potential risks.
It is on those risks that Lynas is weakest. He repeatedly implies that such risks are low or zero, but produces very little evidence to back this up. Along the way he destroys some myths about GMOs - in particular, I had not realised that GMO seeds are _not_ infertile - farmers do not need to come back each year for new seed - and neither are they a license for the seed companies to print money in perpetuity - indeed, patents on early GMO seeds have already expired, meaning that these seeds can be more widely and cheaply produced. However some of his statements appear contradictory - GMO seeds are not infertile and yet there is little or no risk of them interacting with other species; GMOs can greatly reduce the need for herbicides, and yet they can be bred to be herbicide resistant so that large quantities of Glyphosate can be used to raise monoculture crops.
The biggest failing for me is that nowhere does Lynas address the question of unintended consequences - while we can examine and test certain aspects of GMOs and say "yes, that's safe", there is by definition no way of knowing in what unexpected ways the largescale adoption of GMOs may affect the environment, the economy, or society. It might be that we consider such risks worth taking, particularly given the desperate need to "fix" agriculture in the Global South, but given the scale and potential impact of such wholescale tampering with our food supply, it seems sensible to act very cautiously.
At one point in the book my heart rose as I thought that Lynas was about to address my primary concern: "the only argument that can really be raised against GMOs in general" he writes "is the 'unknown unknowns' concern". Finally, I thought, he gets it! In the remainder of the sentence though he goes on to define the "unknown unknowns concern" as "some inherent danger of damage to the genome due to the introduction of recombinant DNA".
Mark Lynas does not know what the word "unknown" means. And that, for me, makes this book - as interesting as it is - a failure.
May 11, 2023
BOOK REVIEW #8
I usually avoid books by science journalists because, unlike scientists, they don't go straight to their points. They chatter about their travel to many different countries and meeting scientists as if they are writing travelogue. To me, it's a waste of my time and papers. And when the author mentioned on the first chapter that he holds a degree in history and politics, I'm skeptical on the quality of this book.
However, I continue reading and oh boy, I'm glad that I did!
Prior to reading this book, I was very much aware of the benefits of genetic engineering. Lynas mentioned a 2014 meta-analysis of 150 separate peer-reviewed studies which shows that "GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37 per cent, increased crop yields by 22 per cent and increased farmer profits by 68 per cent globally." Nothing new there.
But I learnt, through this book, the extent that anti-GMO activists go to stop mass production of GMO food. They physically destroyed fully grown crops, lie that pig gene is used to create GMO food, lie that eating GMO food would cause homosexuality, cancer, sterility, autism and so on. And the mastermind behind all these nonsense are large American-based and European-based organizations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Organic Consumers Association.
I can't help but feeling angry throughout this book because the science is clear : GMO is safe. WHO, NAS, AAAS, the Royal Society, AMA, African Academy of Sciences and many others confirmed this but somehow, those lunatics still perpetuate idiotic myths. Worse still, the victims of these scare tactics aren't those wealthy Western activists but farmers and the poor in Africa, Asia and South America. Without GMO, we can't feed Africans that would balloon from 1.2 billion right now to 2.5 billion by 2050.
One reviewer in Goodreads commented that Lynas do not have to defend Monsanto in this GMO debate. I disagree. GMO and Monsanto, to the general public, are the same thing. Plus, Monsanto is a very misunderstood company. To see someone finally defending it is refreshing.
⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐
Read from May 4-11
I usually avoid books by science journalists because, unlike scientists, they don't go straight to their points. They chatter about their travel to many different countries and meeting scientists as if they are writing travelogue. To me, it's a waste of my time and papers. And when the author mentioned on the first chapter that he holds a degree in history and politics, I'm skeptical on the quality of this book.
However, I continue reading and oh boy, I'm glad that I did!
Prior to reading this book, I was very much aware of the benefits of genetic engineering. Lynas mentioned a 2014 meta-analysis of 150 separate peer-reviewed studies which shows that "GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37 per cent, increased crop yields by 22 per cent and increased farmer profits by 68 per cent globally." Nothing new there.
But I learnt, through this book, the extent that anti-GMO activists go to stop mass production of GMO food. They physically destroyed fully grown crops, lie that pig gene is used to create GMO food, lie that eating GMO food would cause homosexuality, cancer, sterility, autism and so on. And the mastermind behind all these nonsense are large American-based and European-based organizations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Organic Consumers Association.
I can't help but feeling angry throughout this book because the science is clear : GMO is safe. WHO, NAS, AAAS, the Royal Society, AMA, African Academy of Sciences and many others confirmed this but somehow, those lunatics still perpetuate idiotic myths. Worse still, the victims of these scare tactics aren't those wealthy Western activists but farmers and the poor in Africa, Asia and South America. Without GMO, we can't feed Africans that would balloon from 1.2 billion right now to 2.5 billion by 2050.
One reviewer in Goodreads commented that Lynas do not have to defend Monsanto in this GMO debate. I disagree. GMO and Monsanto, to the general public, are the same thing. Plus, Monsanto is a very misunderstood company. To see someone finally defending it is refreshing.
⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ⭐
Read from May 4-11
January 8, 2020
This is a book that should be read by anyone who is anti-GMO who has an open mind. Lynas was about an extreme anti-GMO activist as you could find, to the point that he participated in direct actions to destroy experimental plants in test plots in the UK. As is typical of many environmentalists, he has also been concerned about climate change as well. As a writer he became deeply interested in climate change and dug deeply into the topic, reading many papers by climate scientists, as well as all the IPCC reports. One of his books about climate change even won the Royal Society Science Books Prize.
As a recognized expert he was asked by the Guardian to write an anti-GMO article. Feedback to the article from many readers, who were science literate, criticized him for the article, noting how it was not science-based. As a result, Lynas decided to take a closer look at GMOs, and like he did for climate change, dug into the scientific literature to try and see what the scientists themselves had to say about GMOs. To his surprise he discovered that the scientific consensus is that the GMOs are definitely not dangerous to human health, and in many ways they have the potential to solve a lot of environmental problems (instead of causing them like many anti-GMO activists claim). After much study he realized how wrong he had been to oppose GMOs and is now much in favor of their use.
Much of the book is an overview of how the anti-GMO activists have ruined much of the potential benefits that might have been reaped from GMOs, had they been fully implemented. he also spends considerable time trying to show why anti-GMO activists remain opposed to GMOs. A very insightful book. I hope more people with open minds decide to read it.
As a recognized expert he was asked by the Guardian to write an anti-GMO article. Feedback to the article from many readers, who were science literate, criticized him for the article, noting how it was not science-based. As a result, Lynas decided to take a closer look at GMOs, and like he did for climate change, dug into the scientific literature to try and see what the scientists themselves had to say about GMOs. To his surprise he discovered that the scientific consensus is that the GMOs are definitely not dangerous to human health, and in many ways they have the potential to solve a lot of environmental problems (instead of causing them like many anti-GMO activists claim). After much study he realized how wrong he had been to oppose GMOs and is now much in favor of their use.
Much of the book is an overview of how the anti-GMO activists have ruined much of the potential benefits that might have been reaped from GMOs, had they been fully implemented. he also spends considerable time trying to show why anti-GMO activists remain opposed to GMOs. A very insightful book. I hope more people with open minds decide to read it.
June 26, 2021
A contemporary perspective on GMOs by an oxford dude who passionately opposed them in the mid-90s, but has come around to a more centrist, pro-GMO position. He staunchly advocates for more evidence-based environmental activism.
At the start of his pro-GMO expose he is super gung-ho; stating case study after case study that could have improved lives had not the irrational opposition of groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth shut them down. Virus resistant papaya, drought resistant maize, pest-resistant eggplants etc etc. I feel like this part explained to me the source of tension I felt between environmental groups and scientists, at times. As well as trying to explain the scientific benifits of using GMOs in food crops, Lynas focuses on explaining why he thinks public opinion diverged from scientific consensus. GMOs are a highly technical thing to produce, yet it seems like the loudest voices in the conversation about them are not the people who understand them, and their risks, best. Rather, they are the advocacy groups which developed hard-line positions early on when more was uncertain, and then stuck to those positions despite changing evidence and technology.
Very interesting. Scientists will like the middle section where he bangs out all this pro-GM evidence. They might find the last section a little wishy-washy. I was kind of feeling that way, but then I remembered that “wishy-washy” is what, as scientists, we need to get better at. We need to engage in discussions that don’t necessarily lead to specific outcomes or objective conclusions. It’s heathy to try to take in other perspectives, and try to walk the fine line of centrism every now and then.
At the start of his pro-GMO expose he is super gung-ho; stating case study after case study that could have improved lives had not the irrational opposition of groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth shut them down. Virus resistant papaya, drought resistant maize, pest-resistant eggplants etc etc. I feel like this part explained to me the source of tension I felt between environmental groups and scientists, at times. As well as trying to explain the scientific benifits of using GMOs in food crops, Lynas focuses on explaining why he thinks public opinion diverged from scientific consensus. GMOs are a highly technical thing to produce, yet it seems like the loudest voices in the conversation about them are not the people who understand them, and their risks, best. Rather, they are the advocacy groups which developed hard-line positions early on when more was uncertain, and then stuck to those positions despite changing evidence and technology.
Very interesting. Scientists will like the middle section where he bangs out all this pro-GM evidence. They might find the last section a little wishy-washy. I was kind of feeling that way, but then I remembered that “wishy-washy” is what, as scientists, we need to get better at. We need to engage in discussions that don’t necessarily lead to specific outcomes or objective conclusions. It’s heathy to try to take in other perspectives, and try to walk the fine line of centrism every now and then.
July 21, 2026
TLDR
A book that, to start, makes you wonder if this is a one of a kind true confession from somebody who has changed their mind, or if it be a confession written under duress. The unease dissipates as time goes on and information to absorb is fed at a steady pace.
Overview
Speed of Reading
[♦] Zoom!
[ ] Comfortable
[ ] Slog
Thought Provocations (AKA Need-To-Stop-Moments)
[ ] Constant contemplations
[♦] Pondering Pauses
[ ] No thoughts, book empty
Relevance to Proposed Topic
[♦] To the point
[ ] Wanders here and there
[ ] We lost the plot, Bob
Validity of Knowledge (to the best of my ability)
[♦] On point
[ ] It looks questionable to me.
[ ] Misinformation cheesecake
Writing Style
[ ] Brevity Champion
[♦] Comfortable companion
[ ] Prose
[ ] Technical mumbling
Unchallenged/sneaky -isms?
[♦] Refreshingly few
[ ] Yeahhhhh…
[ ] How did this get published
Favourite Quote(s)
Final Thoughts
A refreshing read, all things considered. I learned a lot and yet didn't feel overwhelmed.
A book that, to start, makes you wonder if this is a one of a kind true confession from somebody who has changed their mind, or if it be a confession written under duress. The unease dissipates as time goes on and information to absorb is fed at a steady pace.
Overview
Speed of Reading
[♦] Zoom!
[ ] Comfortable
[ ] Slog
Thought Provocations (AKA Need-To-Stop-Moments)
[ ] Constant contemplations
[♦] Pondering Pauses
[ ] No thoughts, book empty
Relevance to Proposed Topic
[♦] To the point
[ ] Wanders here and there
[ ] We lost the plot, Bob
Validity of Knowledge (to the best of my ability)
[♦] On point
[ ] It looks questionable to me.
[ ] Misinformation cheesecake
Writing Style
[ ] Brevity Champion
[♦] Comfortable companion
[ ] Prose
[ ] Technical mumbling
Unchallenged/sneaky -isms?
[♦] Refreshingly few
[ ] Yeahhhhh…
[ ] How did this get published
Favourite Quote(s)
“If the Bt brinjal seeds do indeed fail at some point in the future - as the activists claim they must - then no doubt the farmers will just as quickly give them up. The crucial thing is that this should be their choice, not mine or Greenpeace’s.” p 122
“So should there be limits on genetic engineering? Of course, just as there should be limits on any human interference with the world around us. Exactly where these limits should be established is a moral rather than a scientific question.” p 227
Final Thoughts
A refreshing read, all things considered. I learned a lot and yet didn't feel overwhelmed.
November 13, 2021
I'm unsure about the function of this book.
Was it:
1. To convert anti-bitoech people? I think it'd fail as it provides ample evidence of the safety and suitability of GMOs to fulfill the order they promised ~40 years ago, while most anti-gmo ppl are not so for the lack of evidence, but with other considerations entirely.
2. To provide a confidence boost to the supporters of the technology? Sure - it provides ample evidence (Esp with references) about the potential benefits and proven safety of biotech foods. But what's the value is preaching to the choir? I wouldn't know.
3. To provide insight into the truly relevant concerns of select anti-gmo activists for the pro-gmo crowd to consider and use as a realistic conversation starter? That could've been it! A gold mine - insider knowledge in what makes deniers of the tech tick so proponents can learn to talk and not shy away or worse talk down to them. But this was only about 1 chapter of the whole book towards the end. I wish it was more the focus of it. It was truly interesting and valuable!
All in all I enjoyed the book, but I desperately wish it had a different focus.
Was it:
1. To convert anti-bitoech people? I think it'd fail as it provides ample evidence of the safety and suitability of GMOs to fulfill the order they promised ~40 years ago, while most anti-gmo ppl are not so for the lack of evidence, but with other considerations entirely.
2. To provide a confidence boost to the supporters of the technology? Sure - it provides ample evidence (Esp with references) about the potential benefits and proven safety of biotech foods. But what's the value is preaching to the choir? I wouldn't know.
3. To provide insight into the truly relevant concerns of select anti-gmo activists for the pro-gmo crowd to consider and use as a realistic conversation starter? That could've been it! A gold mine - insider knowledge in what makes deniers of the tech tick so proponents can learn to talk and not shy away or worse talk down to them. But this was only about 1 chapter of the whole book towards the end. I wish it was more the focus of it. It was truly interesting and valuable!
All in all I enjoyed the book, but I desperately wish it had a different focus.
July 12, 2018
I am a scientist, so I am very happy to see scientific evidence being used to make decisions. Lynas is a particularly interesting figure, since he moved from being an anti-GMO activist to a GMO supporter once he looked at the scientific evidence and the consensus reports of scientists. He provides all of those sources of information here. There were several chapters that were too painful for me to read, in particular about the successful efforts of anti-GMO activists to prevent use or even trials of GMO crops in third world countries. How misguided. Any sympathies that I had as a liberal supporting Greenpeace are gone. Strangely, the anti-GMO movement has been more successful in Europe, Asia, and Africa, than in the United States, where almost all cotton, soybean, and corn is GMO. Lynas does not discuss this. It seems especially strange given the US anti-science attitudes, but perhaps capitalism is a greater force in this right-of-center country.
September 30, 2019
A quick and important read. Chapters 5, 6, and 8 stand out. The most important contribution is the discussion in chapter 5 (and really chapter 6) indicating that the anti-GMO movement (which clearly originates in the western world and probably mostly within a narrow socioeconomic band) has had a profoundly harmful impact on poor people of color in the developing world -- see chapter 6 especially, entitled, Let Them Eat Organic Baby Corn -- and his descriptions of the real-world impact in Africa, based on his travels, is really intense and moving. Chapter 8, What The anti-GMO Activists Got Right, is important -- and it's key that he includes it -- especially the argument that public policy discussions need to account for how new technologies affect the balance of power, and his concession that some opponents of GMO really do understand the science but are focused on different issues.
Read
September 4, 2021I admit that this was a case of reading someone who's worldview closely mirrors my own: an environmentalist who is skeptical that GMOs are a problem. So perhaps I'm simply confirming what I want to believe, but hopefully the author's history in terms of having changed his mind because of the science gives him a bit more credibility.
Overall, I walked away from this book feeling confirmed in my thoughts that GMOs are not that big of a deal--in food crops but realizing I actually want to read a book about industrial farming, as I kept hoping the author would continue past "GMOs are not the issue" into the realm of "the real issue is"... But that was really not what this book about.
I really appreciated the last couple of chapters. The discussion of why many thoughtful environmentalists feel as they do about GMOs was very insightful--and especially environmentalists's concern with the way that GMOs can add to already skewed global power dynamics.
Overall, I walked away from this book feeling confirmed in my thoughts that GMOs are not that big of a deal--in food crops but realizing I actually want to read a book about industrial farming, as I kept hoping the author would continue past "GMOs are not the issue" into the realm of "the real issue is"... But that was really not what this book about.
I really appreciated the last couple of chapters. The discussion of why many thoughtful environmentalists feel as they do about GMOs was very insightful--and especially environmentalists's concern with the way that GMOs can add to already skewed global power dynamics.
July 10, 2018
Excellent book on GMOs, from science to politics
I enjoyed this book. Author Mark Lynas tells a great story about the science, ethics and politics of GMOs. As a former anti-GMO activist, Lynas provides great insights. He explains the science of GMOs very well as he does most of the issues he discusses. His discussion of group-think is fascinating and important, and applies equally as well to climate change deniers and antivaccine activists. Another reason the book is so good is that it follows Lynas's transition from anti-GMO activist to a pro-science advocate. He is a great writer and the book was hard to put down. I strongly recommend this book.
Disclosure: I received a complimentary copy of this book via Netgalley for review purposes.
I enjoyed this book. Author Mark Lynas tells a great story about the science, ethics and politics of GMOs. As a former anti-GMO activist, Lynas provides great insights. He explains the science of GMOs very well as he does most of the issues he discusses. His discussion of group-think is fascinating and important, and applies equally as well to climate change deniers and antivaccine activists. Another reason the book is so good is that it follows Lynas's transition from anti-GMO activist to a pro-science advocate. He is a great writer and the book was hard to put down. I strongly recommend this book.
Disclosure: I received a complimentary copy of this book via Netgalley for review purposes.
September 19, 2024
I'm not super into the writing style, also find it slightly cringey from time to time the way the author namedrops official agencies and glorifies scientists, but I was very very interested in the subject matter. It is always so cool to me when somebody publically changes their mind. The author even goes so far as saying in one of the later chapters that , which is just wow, super cool.
And maybe it's my own tribal instincts but I do think the author gives the other side too much credit. Like, Greenpeace should really have to grapple with the idea that their whole GMO campaign might have been enormously net negative and they don't get to write it off by having noble intentions to begin with.
And maybe it's my own tribal instincts but I do think the author gives the other side too much credit. Like, Greenpeace should really have to grapple with the idea that their whole GMO campaign might have been enormously net negative and they don't get to write it off by having noble intentions to begin with.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews