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…
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 …
Greenpeace also claimed that CSIRO were being secretive about the trial, when in fact, this has been on their webpage for yonks, answering all of the questions there may have had. One of the most ridiculous concerns is that someone could make a profit from the wheat. This, more than anything, explains Greenpeace’s stance – it’s not about human health or science, it’s about capitalism.
The Greenpeace model for ethical food production, it appears, is the model that is doing such great things for North Korea – they would rather see someone starve than someone else make a profit in the process.
However, this was only one of their most ridiculous concerns.
Another is that genetic modification is not proven to be safe. This is a ridiculous assertion, because you also cannot prove that water or air is safe – sometimes it’s not. That’s why you have experiments, so you can learn more about the world around you. This particular test was about creating a grain with more fibre that would benefit diabetics.
But Greenpeace’s concern that takes the cake is the claim that CSIRO should not conduct the experiment because it is untested. At this point, words fail. Let’s leave that once again to Wilson da Silva:
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