Mark Lynas - Environmental campaigner and author HARDtalk

BBC website of course. You can get to me and most of the team on

not just in religion but in scientific debate as well. Take my

guest today, Mark Lynas, a veteran green activist who led a campaign

to vandalise experimental genetically modified crops. Well,

that was then. Now he says GM technology is entirely safe and a

necessity i necessity io feed the planet. He's made a similar U-turn

on nuclear power as well. He said he has jumped ideology in favour of

hard science. Is it really as Thank you very much. Let's start

with your very high-profile recent renunciation of you're pretty much

lifelong commitment to campaign against genetically modified food

production. It is it fair to summarised by saying that you have

concluded that everything you used to think was entirely wrong?

the most part, yes. Unfortunately most of my objections turned out to

be based on Urban myths which were endlessly recycled within the

environmental movement, which I was obviously a part of. It came when I

was advocating for climate change science as a writer on that issue

and defending the scientific consensus on climate change when it

was pointed out the scientific consensus on the safety of GM crops

was just as strong and being argued by the same academic institutions

and I was forced to change my opinion. I find it very hard to

believe that your activism was based on nothing more than as you

put it Urban myths. Let's not forget you were one of the leaders

of the anti-GM campaign in the UK, you lead a sit in of the company,

you lead a group of people that destroyed and tried to rip up GM

crops in experimental test fields. That can't all been based on urban

myth? This was 15 years ago in the mid- Nineties and this was a very

new technology which was a powerful use of biology that haven't been

done. There were genes being taken across the species barrier and we

saw it as something potentially highly polluting and dangerous to

the environment. But you can't have seen it that way just because other

people told you it was so. You must have done some research? Believe me

I didn't and nor did anyone else to my knowledge. You've got to

understand how this works. When you're a campaigner you spend a lot

of time with others like you and you live in an intellectual Buddle.

I have written already that I haven't read a single peer reviewed

scientific paper about biology or plant science in general until at

least five or six years after we started this campaigning. My

information came from Greenpeace and the green NGOs. That leaves

your personal credibility in shreds? I'm not proud of having

thought that way and having participated in a campaign which I

think has done real damage and has spread a lot of misinformation,

which is still informing public policy. Leave aside the specific

issue, but you're ashamed of the entire approach that you took? Your

complete lack of international rigour. I made a public apology to

farmers in the UK and other countries about this. I went on the

record in a speech to say I was sorry to contributing to starting

his movement and destroying crops in fields. I met some of the

individual farmers as well whose crops I did destroy. But you are

after all Mark Lynas, your intellect presumably hasn't changed

very much, if you were so wrong, incompetent and shallow in the past,

why should we believe your any different now? All the more reason

for me to change my mind. I'm not asking you to believe me as some

sort of great scientific authority, I'm not a historian or biologist.

What I've tried to do is to try and reacquaint myself with scientific

consensus on this issue. If I'm going to defend peer reviewed

science on climate change and deforestation and other

environmental issues I have to the same on nuclear and Gian. I want to

talk to you about the science as you see it and I try to understand

it on GM and on nuclear. But before that I want to pick away a bit more

at York and youth system. This doesn't seem to be about

reinterpreting science -- your value system. It seems to be about

a change in political and ideological mindset. As recently as

2008 you said this about the hubris of mankind. "The technology is

moving in entirely the wrong direction", specifically about GM,

"Intensifying the nature when we should be striving for a more

holistic and ecological approach". Was that wrong as well? It was

quite a lot of waffle and the comments on line underneath that

article in 2008 in the Guardian forced me to look again at that

issue. One of the people road, and I can remember the exact words, if

you're against big corporations for opposing GM, are you against the

wheel because of the automotive industry? There were logical

fallacies underpinning that position. Your value system has

changed. You used to worry about human beings playing God, now you

think it is the right thing for people to do? It's not that. The

principles underpinning my naturalism are the same principles

I hold today. -- At dualism. I'm talking about environmental

sustainability in general. You were talking about globalisation for a

time, you wrote a very powerful piece in the late 1990s describing

a powerful Coalition of multinational corporations on a

collision course with strong social movements. The interests you said

are utterly UN reconcilable. I don't know where you got that one

from? It is from Her First stop white I am still pursuing

sustainability as much as I can. Do you embrace multinational

corporations? Not necessarily. One of the things I would love to see

him the GM sector is a more open approach where public-sector

scientists working on environmental technology and developing new crops,

which can be offered to poor farmers patent free, without the

fees that are generally attached, I would like to see more of that.

want to come to patents and copyrights and how international

firms focus on that to make money and improve their bottom line. A

final personal thought, we have characterised this series of U-

turns that you have made. You must have lost a lot of friends? It is

fair to say I have lost a few friends. I'm still in touch with

some people from those early days of the anti-GM movement. Do they

say in all honesty, Mark, we feel a sense of betrayal? Some do say that.

Others say we respect what you're doing and others have shared my

transformation. What's interesting to me is how the mainstream

environmental movement is not coming out and saying we're still

anti-GM, there's been no comment from Greenpeace or other big

environmental groups. I don't think I'm completely alone. There's been

a wider transformation as people have become more acquainted with

the science. We didn't know 15 years ago what we now know. We have

had hundreds of independent studies about the safety of GM. So the

jury's in but it wasn't back then. That brings us to the science, your

adamant the jury's in. Is there a danger of Mark Lynas exercising

some hubris right now, when you said in this big renunciation

speech the other day, "The debate is over. We no longer need to

discuss whether GM is safe."They are a lot of highly qualified

scientists who still disagree with you, though? You have to look at

the scientific consensus, the same as on climate change. For one

example, the American Association for the advancement of Science,

when the debate was going on about GM labelling in California, they

made a clear statement that there's no evidence GM is any less safe

than conventional crops. What about the concerned scientists? Some of

the scientists who do work for it have come out against you. The

original takeaway is that you have learned to respect the signs. If

you have learned to respect the science, when people out there are

very well-qualified to talk about plant biology and genetics in a way

you are not and will never be a. They are doing what I'm complaining

about, they have attacked the scientists when they make

statements they disagree with on GM. If you're going to defend the signs

and say there's a scientific consensus then you have to take it.

-- the science. You can't pick and choose because it fulfils an

ideological function to protect your positions from 20 years ago. I

could change my mind today. I'm not a scientist, I can just read around

the issue and try to make sense of it. What I see for example are

geneticists like David Suzuki in Canada who said we have no idea

what the long-term consequences of these genetic manipulations will be.

Right now, he says, we're unwittingly part of a massive

experiment. He is another environmental campaigner. You have

got to be able to quote to mead scientists that are disinterested.

A scientist who has a strong opinion is automatically

discredited? They have got to be clear that they are independent.

But you are dismissing campaigners even though they are scientists?

I saw a climate change of scientist on the front line campaigning for

an issue then I would take a second look at their work. John van DeVere,

at the University of Michigan Department of the ecology and

university biology. He says your speech and the ideas it was based

upon a suggests, "Mark Lynas has discovered high school biology but

now it is time for him to go to college". That is a throwaway

rhetorical statement. He is a sign his to frankly is being somewhat

contemptuous of your ability to grasp these issues surrounding

genetic engineering and the genome -- scientist. But the real

scientist doing genetic work have told me privately they are in

support of this. I have had support from the Gates Foundation, the

plant science groups in the UK, some GM workers. Even from the

chairperson of the Board of the American Association for the

advancement of Sciences. People in those reputable organisations, if

they told me I was wrong, I would listen, not the campaign groups.

Moore, Richard Long wanting, as a geneticist of some repute, who said

recently that he compared the work on the genome that's obviously

underpinning GM food production, he compared it to work we now have on

the ecosystem where we know how the introduction of a new species

can have unforeseen and catastrophic impacts on an

ecosystem, the same can apply to a genome. Potentially but you have

got to understand how it is done. We don't know yet? It is powerful

technology and that's why it is all tested Independent they.

Just as these effects only were seen over 20/30 years, we don't

know the impacts of these genetic engineering of plants will be.

that mean we should stop? We have got to feed and 1.5 billion more

people in the next few years so we have got to take some risks and we

have got to innovate and use the technologies that have become

available because of the advancements science has given to a

us. Let's move away from the dangers or otherwise of genetics,

let's talk about the practical reality of whether genetically

modified and engineered seeds and plants do actually boost your olds,

as you say. Washington State University found that since 1996

the use of herbicides have actually gone up. Your argument with

suggested should go down because these new plants are much more

The plant can protect itself. It has BT within the planned.

Herbicide tolerance is different. The point of that is you can spray

the crop and the crop remained undamaged. It depends on the

chemicals you use. That is a very singular approach. It is not

something that his particular X -- particularly exciting. I am more

interested in reducing pesticide use. What about this. Grain crops

have increased, much more than the yield boost we saw from the use of

GM across North America. I don't think that is true. There was a

trial in Australia recently which discovered the 30% yield. I knew he

would come up with that but in North America at the boost is not

the same. They are not intended to increase yields. If we are talking

about herbicide tolerance, they have been intended to increase the

ability of farmers to deal with weeds in the field. The pest

resistance genes actually have increased yields because you get

less damage from pests or you use insecticides. I am more interested

in using what we have more intensely and sustainably, which

means using less chemicals and improving yields. We do not have to

expand far land and thereby destroy the rainforest. But what we see in

North America, where GM crops are the norm, particularly corn and

soya, we use more use of monoculture than ever before.

don't want to see that. It is something we should improve on

enormously. But the way that monoculture was done before, it is

not as if the funds were going before they discovered GM corn,

they were using vast quantities of chemicals, worse than the ones they

are currently using. The point is to reduce and eliminate some of the

more toxic pesticides. And you can do that with GM, because the plant

can protect itself. This is what is important. The work done on GM

wheat, which activists tried to destroy, the plant produced a

pheromone. The aphids smelt danger and he did not have to spray it.

The point is to develop applications that are sustainable.

You keep using the word sustainable but in the end a lot of the logic

from your argument depends on the notion that we can feed the nine or

ten billion that will soon be upon us more effectively. I have not

heard you get explain how that Matty Veale the blues to that you

think is around the corner is going to happen. -- that massive deal to

boost. If you think of threats farmers have to face, particularly

in places like Africa, they would love to have more of drought

tolerant crops, that would increase the yield in bad years. There has

been talk of this magic crop for a long time. Where have we seen in

Africa the use of drought tolerant crops? This is precisely why we

need to have more work done on this. If you go to jail for ten years in

Kenya if you develop bio technology outside of the laboratory. -- you

can go to jail. We desperately need to focus Jehan innovation on

applications which can be of benefit to poor farmers. -- Jian

innovation. A final point. It is interesting you mention Kenya and

the fact that they are not keen on GM. You criticised India as well.

The Indian government. As you put it, you say the government in India

is enthralled to backward looking ideologies. Isn't that a bit unfair

and patronising, given India has some very well qualified scientists

who have just come out and said they are not happy with where GM is

going and they want to see some trials suspended? That would be

patronising if I addressed that to the Indian government. I addressed

it to a particular minister. Actually, the minister mac has been

very positive and has helped lead this debate. -- Prime Minister. And

the agriculture minister went on the record last week and said they

desperately need GM in India. my point... They are the relevant

people. But if you are opening an - - an important debate, that we have

to listen to the signs. In India today, a lot of very important

scientists still have grave doubts about GM and you can't dismiss that.

I would not dismiss it if I was hearing it. Many scientists have

contacted me, trying to get me to speak to them about this. I have

had farmers' groups desperate for me to speak to them. I am more

interested to listen to what they say in India. People contacting me

from Punjab, where the birds are coming back because they are using

less insecticides. And in fact an Indian farmers Group yesterday

published in the Journal that they have sequenced the chick pea genome

and can develop more desirable traits in that, which is important

for South Asia. Switching to another issue upon which you have

campaigned for many years. You have made it to turn. Nuclear power. You

are against it, now you are for it. Was the motivation for that change

because you we considered the signs all because you looked at the big

picture of climate change, which you are very concerned about, and

you decided that for pragmatic reasons you needed to find a way of

changing your opinion on a power source which is low in carbon

emissions? The latter. When you campaigned against nuclear power

because it was not safe, you are not saying it is now safe? It is

pretty much the safest option on the table. Some studies show it is

safer than solar power. Hang on. Why did you ever campaign against

it? I didn't really do that. I was in the environmental movement and

everybody was against nuclear. Because your views are so loosely

founded! Loosely held and strongly argued. I look back on the first

couple of climate change books. -- looked back. I do not mention it at

all in the first one and in the second one I said it was low carbon

but it has these issues as well. Now that you have switched and you

are for nuclear, because of the way you see the whole climate change

problem, it seems to me again you are glossing over certain problems.

For example, on the safety issue, he went to Chernobyl not long ago

and he said, it is not so bad. Only 50 people died. He said when you

were there, you saw birds, insects, like exploding. If you look at the

scientific research suggesting, for example, up to 25,000 excess cancer

patients by 2065, there is a real problem. Of course there is a real

problem and I am not trivialising. What happened at to Noble is a

catastrophe, with an enormous release of radiation. -- Chernobyl.

It had no containment building. What happened there should never be

repeated and should not have happened. Fukushima is on a

different scale altogether. You -- they took a fish out of the senior

Fukushima which had 2,500 times acceptable levels of contamination.

That is also a serious problem. I spoke to refugees there. Nobody has

received a dose of radiation from Fukushima which is likely to cause

cancer, neither the public nor the workers who were involved. Again,

if you can hear this without it seeming like I am trivialising it,

it is imported to keep it in perspective. People die in coal

mining disasters, when oil rigs blow up, all sources of energy have

-- have issues. This has not happened at Fukushima. Nobody died.

What I would say is that it seems to me you have made a massive

journey from being a campaigner for whom politics is important, he now

seemed to say politics should not count at all. But surely it counts

a lot on nuclear issues, the Germans for example have withdrawn

and it has become problematic in Japan. You can't dismiss people's

feelings and fears. I don't dismiss them but what is happening in

Germany, they are building more coal-fired power stations. They

kill hundreds of people from pollution and it will increase

their emissions. They'd just commissioned a new power station

about five months ago that was opened by the Environment Minister.

They are installing a lot of wind and solar as well, which is a good

thing. I wish they were doing that and keeping the nuclear onboard

because they could reduce their emissions. That is what the world

needs, a reduction. Indeed, perhaps that is a controversial statement

in itself. Finally, do you believe your new face in hard science is

shared by the general public? -- face. Problem -- people have

problems with risk analysis, what is most risky, what is good for the

planet. I don't think organic food the planet. Some of these are