<i>So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths.<p>I’d assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.<p>I’d assumed that GM benefited only the big companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs.<p>I’d assumed that Terminator Technology was robbing farmers of the right to save seed. It turned out that hybrids did that long ago, and that Terminator never happened.<p>I’d assumed that no-one wanted GM. Actually what happened was that Bt cotton was pirated into India and roundup ready soya into Brazil because farmers were so eager to use them.<p>I’d assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding using mutagenesis for example; GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.<p>But what about mixing genes between unrelated species? The fish and the tomato? Turns out viruses do that all the time, as do plants and insects and even us – it’s called gene flow.</i>
Site crashed. PDF here: <a href="http://www.ofc.org.uk/files/ofc/papers/mark-lynas-lecture-oxford-farming-conference.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ofc.org.uk/files/ofc/papers/mark-lynas-lecture-ox...</a>