Background
A lot has been said and written about Mark Lynas since his infamous speech to the Oxford Farming Conference in January. To the pro-biotech community, he’s their latest hero: a self-declared “leader” of the anti-GMO movement who “suddenly discovered science” and now offers his unwavering support to genetically-modified crops. To others he’s a “traitor” to the environmental movement.
I’m not going to spend a great deal of time re-hashing this debate, except to note that the text of his speech and his subsequent reaction to any criticism of it makes it quite clear to me that his change of opinion amounts to more of an ideological flip-flop than the “discovery of science” that he purports to have made. How else could one explain the rather facile repetition of the favourite talking points of the biotech industry, coupled with completely unscientific, unfounded, and inflammatory attacks on organic agriculture? Surely a truly scientific mind could develop a more nuanced position?
The William A. Stewart Lecture
Regardless, Mark Lynas has now become somewhat of an institution (along with his eponymous .org website with its prominent “donate” button). In late January, Ontario’s Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program (AALP) announced that it was bringing Lynas to Ontario to give its biennial William A. Stewart Lecture. AALP, in its own words, is “a 19-month executive development opportunity for men and women actively involved in Ontario’s agriculture and food industry. Its aim is to provide our industry’s current and emerging leaders with the skills, knowledge, broad perspective and positive attitude needed for the future.” The Lecture is one of its premier “fund-raising and friend-raising” events.
Now, I am a graduate of AALP, having completed Class 9 in 2003. The experience had a profound and lasting effect on my life, and I’m proud to have been a part of it. Imagine then my consternation when this announcement was made. In my opinion, AALP has always stood for unity and cooperation across all sectors of agriculture. At a time when agriculture sorely needs to work together to face the challenges and opportunities of the future, giving voice to Lynas’ ill-informed rhetoric and vitriolic attacks seems like the antipathy of these goals and values, serving only as a divisive force. After expressing my concerns to the AALP leadership, I was assured that the program “supported choice and open discussion” and does “not take a stand on any particular issue.”
Oddly, however, AALP has consistently promoted the event with the phrase:
You may not recognize the name but this global leader who formerly opposed GMOs recently publicly reversed his position on the importance of technology and modern agriculture at a conference in England in early January 2013.
The obvious implication here is that opposition to GMOs is a denial of the importance of “technology” and “modern” agriculture. This is clearly false, given the vast array of technologies available to today’s farmers, along with the fact that a wide variety of production methods manage to coexist in the present-day era. I would hesitate to accuse AALP of a deliberate bias, but the squarely “in-the-box” perspective of this statement is quite disappointing.
I am certain AALP could have found a speaker who would have highlighted the importance of the massive range of technologies and wide diversity of modern agricultural systems available to us, but alas, it is what it is, and tonight, April 4th, will see Mark Lynas give his speech in London, Ontario. Reportedly he is to speak on what it means for a leader to reverse an earlier-held position and the impact and meaning of such a shift in opinion.
A Proposal
Considering all this, I have a suggestion for those in attendance. Complete the following two thought experiments and then answer the last three questions:
- While you’re sitting and listening to Lynas talk, imagine for a moment that you are listening to a former executive of Monsanto, who has recently recanted his support of GMO crops, begged forgiveness for all the misdeeds of his former employer, and now promotes organic farming with all the zeal of a religious convert.
- Every time you hear the word “GMO”, replace it with “organic,” and vice versa.
- Would the speech seem fair and unbiased either way?
- Would farmers of all stripes feel accepted and included in this room?
- Is this an example of leadership you would strive to emulate?
I hope that the answer to all three questions is yes. I sincerely wish that this event doesn’t end up representing a significant missed opportunity to promote unity and true leadership in Ontario’s agricultural community. Please let me know: I’d welcome any comments, especially from those who attend the speech – I look forward to your feedback and discussion.
The Fanning Mill 
Anastasia
April 4, 2013
I don’t know if it’s fair to judge Mark Lynas on the text of one speech. Perhaps he was still just starting to understand things, or perhaps he was being over enthusiastic, or perhaps he didn’t expect quite that much attention. Who knows? I’m willing to give him some leeway here – in part because I hope no one would ever judge me on one speech or one blog post!
Who should be leaders in agriculture? I don’t know if activists like Mark Lynas are the best people for that role. Activists can help provide context and input about non-ag things but really it’s farmers and agronomists, plus soil, plant, and animal scientists, economists and a few other experts that should be leading the charge for new techniques and such. What activists are really good at is helping us to think more about the big picture – as long as they don’t get stuck on bad information.
Here’s hoping Lynas’s understanding of ag is broader than what he said in that one speech. From limited interactions that I have had with him on Twitter, I think there’s more there than one speech – here’s hoping it comes out during this talk 🙂
LikeLike
Rural Ontario Institute
April 4, 2013
Rob – thanks so much for initiating dialogue on tonight’s Wm A Stewart Lecture speaker, Mark Lynas. As an alumni of the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program (AALP) you are very aware of the program’s intent to provide perspective and dialogue on a variety of issues. We are looking forward to tonight’s keynote address and also to a presentation tomorrow by the Organic Council of Ontario.
LikeLike
songberryfarm
April 4, 2013
Thanks for your comment. For the information of my readers, I’ll mention that AALP is a program run by the Rural Ontario Institute.
I’m hoping for a lively discussion here following tonight’s keynote, and I’d also welcome reflections on tomorrow’s presentation by the Organic Council at the same time. Have a great time – I wish I could join you in person!
LikeLike
savvyfarmgirl
April 5, 2013
Throughout the presentation, I didn’t get the impression that Mark was against organic or promoting GMO as a better alternative. His argument was about how the science behind GMO is as sound as it is for climate change and this technology should not be dismissed. He says himself he got caught up in the movement as a college student who wanted to be a part of something and didn’t spend the time to research the facts. It certainly was not a “vitriolic attack” on anything except making quick judgement. He repeatedly asked for open minds and consideration of facts around issues. Something I think many of us could do more often.
To me, AALP did not imply anything with their description of his speech. He said himself the anti-GMO movement he was involved with in the UK, was as much anti-corporate and anti-technology as it was against GMO’s. You can disagree with this, but AALP took it right from his mouth, they did not try to create any leading perceptions.
For me, the world is not black & white and I appreciated the message he delivered to this tone. I consider organic to be as much an option and choice for people and farmers as GMO’s are, and I believe there is as much science behind organic as there is GMO’s. What I find perplexing however, is when people argue the science behind one and dismiss it behind the other.
LikeLike
songberryfarm
April 5, 2013
Thanks, I appreciate your perspective. I’m glad to hear that he appears to have toned down the vitriol and is calling for a balanced consideration of all the facts.
I especially like your comment that “there is as much science behind organic as there is GMOs.” Like you, I get very frustrated when people try to cast the debate as a choice between being pro-GMO and being anti-science or anti-technology. Too many people fail to recognize the possibility of being anti-GMO and pro-science/technology at the same time (and this includes people on both sides of the issue). But, as I tweeted last night, if you’re going to be anti-technology, you’d better be prepared to subsist on hand-gathered nuts and berries! That’s the core to my objection of the way AALP described his speech – it implies a false dichotomy where one cannot be pro-technology or part of “modern agriculture” without also being pro-GMO.
Thanks again for taking the time to contribute to the discussion!
LikeLike
Christina Mol
April 7, 2013
I just got your tweet about thoughts on this lecture and after this long emotional weekend of AALP graduation, I am a proud graduate of AALP Class 14. I am going to attempt a somewhat (hopefully) coherent reply. I have worked in both the organic and GMO sides of agriculture and now believe that we need to have open minds on both sides of the coin. I am currently a PhD student in Biotechnology at Lakehead University, studying phytostabilization of closed mines. As a lifelong learner, I am very open to new information if it has the proof to back it up. My work has a vision for the future that makes this world a better place for all.
Mark mentioned early in the speech that he was told not to share views on ag but how his views changed over time. He studied history and politics in his earlier years and has a background in climate change. Through the research on climate change, he discovered science and believes it offers an objective window to truth. He believes we do not stop learning after school but have a steeper learning curve now. One of the new things to learn is genomics. He said, “Scientific discoveries should be valued when contradictory to your current views.” Also “Do not force your worldview on other people” and “stand up for an evidence based world”. My big take home message was truth is based on evidence, not the person who shouts loudest. He also mentioned that we should teach more critical thinking in the humanities like we do in the sciences.
In many definitions of leadership, there is always a vision for the future. I believe that was somewhat missing in Mark’s session on stage. I asked what his next “cause” might be since he has investigated climate change and now GMOs. He answered that he did not know because you cannot predict the future. I am not sure if I liked that answer. Warren Bennis said “Leadership is a function of knowing yourself, having a vision that is well communicated, building trust among colleagues, and taking effective action to realize your own leadership potential.” I think that Mark has the first one. I am not so sure about the other parts of this equation. Perhaps we will see this develop in time.
A true leader admits when they were wrong. Mark said that if you have given misinformation in the past, you have to set it right. He said to call them out in the most direct way possible, but I think there has to be a way to not be aggressive or militant about sharing your beliefs with others.
My two cents: First Lady Rosalynn Carter said,” A manager takes people where they want to go; a great leader takes people where they do not necessarily want to go but ought to be”. We need to make agriculture a place where everyone can farm in a way that is right for them and their operation. Make their own choices on technology and be proud to produce products that feed the bodies and souls of the people on this planet. We need to build our industry up without tearing our fellow farmers down. We need to speak with one voice and support each other even if you do not agree 100%. I encourage people to be open and honest. One way we can take part in this movement is to join into the Ag More Than Ever campaign (http://www.agriculturemorethanever.ca/). Tell your story in a positive way and show the world how farmers live and produce.
LikeLike
savvyfarmgirl
April 18, 2013
I couldn’t agree more with Christina – “We need to build our industry up without tearing our fellow farmers down. We need to speak with one voice and support each other even if you do not agree 100%.”
Unfortunately, it seems we too often find it easier to tear down others’ industries in an effort to reinforce our own as better or more sound. The reality is, the entire industry is interconnected on many levels and an integrated industry, where many different methods can be practiced is the healthiest and most vibrant agriculture industry for this country. As my Operations prof said today in class – the opposite of integrated is disintegrated. We can all agree we don’t want agriculture in Canada to disintegrate.
LikeLike
John Greig
April 8, 2013
Thanks for providing a forum for debate Rob.
I think Mark Lynas is reasonable in his presentation. He isn’t anti many things, other than perhaps dogma and ideology which create barriers to discussion and adoption and walls around certain groups.
He certainly isn’t against reductions in chemical use on farms or against organic farming. His father farms organically. He did say that it made sense to him that his father could solve several problems and get a more predictable crop and feed more people if he were able to use a GMO to control some sorts of pests on his farm – without having to resort to chemicals to do so.
His call is for people to investigate themselves, to create a capacity for the population to evaluate science so they can make informed decisions. He’s now a big reader of peer reviewed studies to make up his own mind – something not everyone has the capability or the time to do.
If anything he is inclusive in his message. He just claims that the tradition from which he came and the box which most people on the radical environmental fringe place themselves, is not inclusive, and is in fact, exclusive of reviewed and accepted science.
LikeLike
songberryfarm
April 8, 2013
Thanks for your comments, John and Christina. (And congratulations, Christina, on your recent AALP graduation!). I completely agree with the calls for more inclusiveness (see a related blog post here).
I’m also a big fan of sound science: we just need to recognize that everyone has certain biases, and science and scientists are by no means immune from this fact. John makes a good point about the challenges of going to scientific sources to make up our own minds, which is why I think it is critically important for people to investigate both sides of an issue, and have open discussions with those with whom they may disagree. Unfortunately, too many people tend to spend most of their time reinforcing their own beliefs, rather than testing those beliefs against their critics. A great source of solid information and discussion on the science behind GMOs (albeit with its own bias) is the Biofortified blog. Most people there to be quite willing to engage in reasonable discussion on the issues.
Based on the comments so far, it appears that Mark Lynas gave a pretty balanced presentation. However, I’ve received private reports indicating that he once again took the opportunity to compare the German organic bean sprout contamination with Chernobyl. Wouldn’t a rational, scientific approach be to place this incident in context with other food safety issues? Raising the spectre of a nuclear disaster, with its widespread, long-lasting effects on people, property, and the environment does not provide a valid comparison. Instead, as others have noted to me, it creates the wrong impression, and could even be called fear-mongering. It’s hard to understand how this could not be seen as a divisive statement, rooted in ideology rather than science.
As Christina mentioned, I’m going to continue to call out people like Mark Lynas on misinformation and misleading statements and ingrained biases, hoping to continue moving the discussion forward! I’m glad that people have been able to draw positive messages from his presentation, and I appreciate people here taking the time to share them.
LikeLike
Ag-West Bio (@agwestbio)
June 25, 2013
I appreciate this debate too – thanks Rob. I know Mark has been under fire by anti-GM people since he took the stage at the Oxford Farming Conference in January. From what I’ve seen (in that talk and others that followed) he promotes doing your research, being open-minded and not just following blindly. I don’t take out of it that he is anti-organic – although he can’t see the logic behind not using GM technology when it has been proven to be safe by so many researchers (and not only corporate research). I’m really looking forward to meeting him when he comes to Saskatoon Sept. 24 – I’m sure there will be lots of questions for him.
LikeLike