Greenpeace protesters in hazmat suits destroy a crop of genetically modified wheat at the CSIRO experimental station at Ginninderra.
Credit: Greenpeace
by Wilson da Silva
GREENPEACE WAS ONCE a friend of science, helping bring attention to important but ignored environmental research. These days, it’s a ratbag rabble of intellectual cowards intent on peddling an agenda, whatever the scientific evidence.
It was once the most active, independent and inspiring civilian group for the environment. Whether riding zodiacs alongside boats carrying barrels of toxic waste to be dumped in the open sea, or campaigning against CFCs and HFCs that were depleting the ozone layer, Greenpeace did admirable work.
But in the last decade or so, Greenpeace abandoned the rigour of science. When the science has been inconvenient, Greenpeace chooses dogma. Which is why it has a zero-tolerance policy on nuclear energy, no matter how imperative the need to remove coal and gas from electricity production. Or why it is adamant organic farming is the only way forward for agriculture, when organic could not feed the world’s population today.
And why, in the early hours of July 14, a group of Greenpeace protesters broke into a CSIRO Plant Industry experimental station at Ginninderra, north of Canberra, and destroyed an entire crop - half a hectare – of genetically modified wheat.
Greenpeace has always been media savvy, but over the past decade this has become an addiction, leading it to launch campaigns that generate lots of publicity, but have doubtful merit: witness its attacks in 2007 on Apple’s iPhone as being toxic and hazardous. It later admitted these had been exaggerated, and that it had targeted the iPhone in order to grab headlines.
The CSIRO break-in was also a stunt, complete with hazmat protection suits and the ever-present video camera to record the action.
No GM wheat has been approved for human consumption in Australia, but the CSIRO did have permission to conduct trials. And what was so ‘toxic’ about this wheat strain it had to be destroyed? Its genes had been modified to lower its glycemic index and boost fibre content, creating bread and other wheat products that would improve bowel health and nutritional value.
Greenpeace has lost its way. Its former glory rested on the righteousness of its actions in support of real evidence of how humanity was failing to care for the environment. Now it is a sad, dogmatic, reactionary phalanx of anti-science zealots who care not for evidence, but for publicity.
Natural, not GMO
Foods which come from plants and animals have been treated with chemicals via fertilizers, pesticides and, in addition, for animals, through antibiotics and manufactured feed. Those same foods are further treated, before they get to the shelf, by adding preservatives and other unnatural flavours, colours and whatever it takes to sell more and profit.
And so people, unable to buy or afford natural, fresh, organic foods that are in themselves nutritious and well-balanced, are eating food not much more nutritious, as the saying goes, than the box they are packed in.
And so we have a society of people developing diabetes and other degenerative diseases.
I wonder if it is not more useful - rather than humans trying to improve on nature to "fix" the problem with chemicals and manipulation of the natural, making obscene profits in the process (Monsanto) - to instead look at how to treat the problem of human disease with natural diet and nutrition solutions, rather than decide that, for example wheat, needs to become something that is not actually wheat. Where does it all end before we realise step back and assess the damage we are doing to our natural world?
Natural is for hunter-gatherers.
"decide that, for example wheat, needs to become something that is not actually wheat."
Do you think "wheat" existed before humans started farming wild cereals and genetically modified them by artificial selection?
Wheat and other cereal crops
What bothers me is that farmers are being forced to buy genetically modified seed (pest resistent or faster growing)from large corporations. I know that American farmers are being sued out of existence by Monsanto because they keep and plant their own seed stock instead of buying it from Honsanto who own the rights to genetically modified seed, thus creating a monopoly while making extinct the strains which are tastier or have a greater food content. Madness!but the law protects and even encourages the practise. Personally, I have given up on the systems we have created to serve us. We now serve the systems which ultimately will stifle and corrupt the meaning of our existence. If we stand any chance of a future beyond this planet which gave birth to us, whe will need to start dismantling these systems which are retarding our progress.
Stop telling fibs!
No-one is forcing anyone to buy anything, including GM seed or GM products.
I'm sick and tired of all the lies and subtle half truths being peddled the so called "Green Movement".
There is nothing green about ignorance.
There is nothing green about all the people who starve in Africa and Asia because of an ignorant first world "debate" about GM crops that is preventing the development of GM foods that could feed these people.
How many people have to die for lack of a wheat or maize plant that can resist witchweed, or provide an adequate level of Vitamin A intake? GM crops could do so much to alleviate global starvation. Learn a little before making such dumb claims please!
What is natural?
If humans didn't try to improve on nature we'd still be living in caves for our short, ignorant, and fearful lives. I assume you do?
The problem with this comment is on an artificial idea of 'natural'. Do you really think Australia was covered in 'organic' wheat fields, organic cattle stations (organic hospitals and schools?) *before* even the arrival of Aborigines some 40-100k years ago (I forget the latest estimates)? And do you really think that wild wheat, before it was domesticated, was exactly the same as it is today, even your prized 'organic' wheat?
While of course some fertilizers and 'unnatural' additives have been shown to cause problems, the way to deal with this is to look at the evidence and say "this is fine for consumption, this is not". That's called 'science'. Making broad philosophical statements about modern society being inherently bad and mysteriously causing diabetes (which, incidentally, low-GI wheat would help counteract) and other modern diseases is not helpful to such a discussion.
What is wrong with GM food.
You don't even understand that genetic modification has been happening for years in the form of artificial selection. Wheat that is grown on farms is nothing like the wild wheat that has was originally cultivated 10,000 years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_of_wheat what we are doing now is no different than artificial selection, it is just more advanced. Have you ever seen what an apple was before the Romans artificially selected it? you wouldn't even recognise it. Or what a wild banana looks like?
GM food is not harmful to the natural world, and can benifit us greatly and provide better sustenance for humans all around the world, meaning we will be able to use less land to grow more food, and possibly help to feed people who are starving around the world.
GM food not dangerous?
Give me a break. Can you imagine what might happen if a genetically modified food crop pollen were to contaminate unprotected fields? Survival depends on diversity. GM food crops require years of careful study to make sure harmful reactions are not sparked in the organism consuming it. Have you ever wondered why there is such a huge rise in the incidence of food related alergies in the past few decades? and once crops are contaminated by danderous mutations, how do you put that "genie" back in the bottle?
Lux
It's really easy to talk all that s#@t when you're not hungry.
The real problem is ...
Overpopulation.
Why is it that we are so tardy in accepting this truth of our times?
GM and scientific research are not the problem.
Hunger vs overpopulation
Hunger is NOT directly related to overpopulation. We can produce enough food for 9 billion (or even more) people on this planet. Food distribution and security are the main issues.