Tim Lambert comments on Greenpeace sabotage of a CSIRO experiment on GM crops. Sadly, Greenpeace has become an openly anti-science organisation.
I agree with everything Tim says, but I’d add something more on the politics of this action. This kind of criminal vandalism, in the “right” cause, appeals to the juvenile instincts that nearly all of us retain to some extent, but it has repeatedly proved disastrous for the left, and the environmental movement. It’s worth comparing this kind of action to civil disobedience protests, where people put themselves on the line and openly invite arrest. If these guys had any desire to promote genuine debate they would turn themselves in and defend their actions in open court.
Given the embrace of anti-science and anti-rational views by the political right, it is important that the left and the environmental movement should dissociate themselves entirely from this kind of action. It will be a long time before Greenpeace can regain my support, if they ever do.
John Quiggin 
A problem with Greenpeace is that it is not a democratic, membership-based organisation, but a kind of green SAS controlled by an unaccountable management. This, I think, lends itself to a certain high-handedness and what Marx termed “Blanquism” rather than an approach based on mass movement building and persuasion. One example is that Greenpeace refused to allow its UK employees to join the relevant trade union unless and until that union adopted Greenpeace policies on the environment lock, stock and barrel – despite the fact that the union in question was one of the best in the UK on environmental issues, and was doing as well as it could given the diversity of its members’ views and interests on environmental issues.
That was a weak knee-jerk reaction. Greenpeace explained their action based on:
1) substantial international bans on GM
2) denial of information they had requested
3) links to Monsanto and the subverting of Australian research to corporate interests.
There is no general “anti-science” element in Greenpeace’s motivation. This is a deliberate diversion.
The contamination issue is extremely valid, and is based on a lot of scientific data.
Tim Lambert doesn’t address this point.
Chris Warren
1. What countries ban GM R&D? It is legal in Australia and is nationally regulated very thoroughly. Many countries don’t allow GM crops; Australia does.
2. Can we believe Greenpeace? Do we know the details? Did it ask for access to IP-type information? By its acts, Greenpeace is a criminal organisation; only if one believes that the end justifies the means can one accept its actions as other than criminal.
3. Are these grounds for criminal activity? CSIRO works with many companies; is this grounds for destruction of its property, which is the property of all Australians, given that CSIRO is in the public sector?
iain, ‘Contamination’ is an issue for all crops. It is addressed by all grain handlers. Problems will occur, but to my knowledge no GM-crop-producing country has lost markets because of GM admixture.
Finally, destroying crops designed to be used for human testing contradicts the goal of getting GM products tested to prove them safe or not. 300M US inhabitants have been eating GM food ingredients on a grand scale for over 15 years, and no GM-caused disease has arisen. Perhaps GM food causes obesity? (Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.)
@O7
1) Check Greenpeace press releases
2) Can we believe Monsanto-linked secretive commercialised CSIRO boffins?
3) Painting “No War” on the Opera House was also ‘criminal activity’ – so what?
Any science that is driven by secretive, commercialised entities and with links to bad corporate citizens – such as Monsanto – should be challenged on this basis, and not cloaked with some vain cry of science.
All that CSIRO had to do was provide the information when requested. They did not. They played silly capitalist games.
Tough luck CSIRO. If you want to do real science – do it out in the open.
I don’t agree with Greenpeace’s actions here, but it’s not “anti-science”. Support for genetically modified products isn’t “pro-science” either. Growing GM crops isn’t “science”, it’s commerce. Being for or against genetic modification are both values-based positions, determined by one’s attitudes to risk, the natural world, and technology. “Science” isn’t for or against genetic modification. It’s neutral.
As someone who doesn’t agree with Greenpeace’s methods – which are patently illegal, if Greenpeace doesn’t agree to release every bit of information to me that I request, does that mean I have the moral right to burn down one of their offices Chris?
Science isn’t “for” or “against” genetic modification, Tim.
However, their campaign against GM foods is in large part based on the claim that GM foods – as a whole – pose an unacceptable risk to human health. This is unjustified based on the current state of the science.
@BigBob
Yes, provided, like Greenpeace and ‘No War” activists, you face up to the consequences of your action.
But judging by the inanity of your comment – you do not have this fortitude.
@Robert Merkel
You missed the point. Everyone has the right to campaign against anything they like.
The destruction of the CSIRO crop was not driven by a simple campaign against GM foods, but two additional factors super-added onto the base.
Now – if you do not know what these two additional factors are, then you are barking at shadows.
@Robert Merkel
Yes, that’s what I said. In precisely those words. Glad you agree.
Chris, they have the right to campaign against anything they like. But damned if I’m going to give much credence to them.
And with respect, that’s bollocks. They’re blanket anti-GMO, and they choose particular targets purely on a tactical basis.
But the claim was that Greenpeace are anti-science, Tim. And I think that case has been pretty well made.
What’s worse is that the Greens are intimately linked to the Greenpeace thugs:
“ACT Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury used to work for Greenpeace and says he is not surprised the group has taken such action.
“It’s always very controversial these sorts of actions, but you have to stand up for what you believe in sometimes,” he said.
….
Mr Rattenbury says Greenpeace has a track record of breaking the law to highlight problems.
“I’ve certainly been involved in action in the past where Greenpeace has broken the law and that has been necessary to highlight what we’ve considered at the time to be a greater issue than perhaps a simple trespass,” he said.”
This is a massive own goal for Greens and the likes of Andrew Bolt will use it each and every time the Greens say they are on the side of science. Way to go, dummies.
Greenpeace destroyed a scientific trial. That is anti-science. No ifs, no buts. If a bunch of AGW delusionists started destroying weather stations no-one on the left would dispute such behaviour was anti-science.
You are playing games – if some partisans destroyed Nazi “scientific” experiments on POW’s would this be anti-science????
If Rainbow Warrior disrupts Japanese whaling – is this anti-science????
The destruction of CSIRO-Monsanto crops is not anti-science. It is anti a particular secretive and commercialised construction of science.
By all means research whatever you like, but do it honestly and openly.
Chris Warren- enough with the dishonesty. I don’t think even Greenpeace are arguing that Jews, dolphins or whales were killed or in any way harmed by the GM crop trial. The particulars of much of science is “commercialised and secret”. This hardly justifies thuggish vanadallism of legal crop trials that may eventually contribute to world food security. Blather about the evil Monsanto is dull and irrelevant.
Greenpeace should be prosecuted.
I’m not convinced, Robert. I still think that view equates a pro-genetic modification view with being “pro-science”, which I do not think is the case. I do remember thinking the Greenpeace “frankenfood” campaign a few years ago was pretty extreme, but on the other hand I wasn’t particularly across the details of that controversy and I was more uncritically pro-GM in those days than I am now. I couldn’t honestly say that my view on that campaign then was a well-informed one. There are other issues on which Greenpeace has been demonised and accused of being “anti-science” but has turned out to be right.
I think accusing one side of being “anti-science” in a debate like the one over GM, which is fraught with complex issues relating to values and in which the actual scientific issues are of comparatively lesser importance and prone to distortion by both sides, is nothing more than propaganda. I don’t think the uncritical proponent of GM have science on their side any more than the vehement opponents do.
Oh lord.
Here is the OGTR Risk Assessment and Management Plan for the CSIRO crop trial. Hardly a “secret“.
Greenpeace are quite right to protest the buffer zone on scientific grounds. I’m not sure why Tim Lambert selectively refused to address this point?
The European Union recommends buffer zones in the order of 5km. The 500m buffer zone, (as highlighted in the article), along with no security, is a joke.
It is a problem that needs to be highlighted and addressed, and thankfully organisations such as Greenpeace do this.
What is worse is that many GM crops are planted with little to no effective buffer zone at all throughout the world, meaning that non GM plants will (quite likely) all but disappear.
The idea that GM is natural and has been going on for thousands of years (as highlighted in the article) is really tedious. You will never “naturally” have fish genes inserted into strawberries, or terminator genes inserted into vitally important staple crops for humanity.
But anyway, good luck with eating your biotoxins, and good game precautionary principle.
Let me preface by saying
1. I have an open mind on the contribution GM can make to humne wellbeing. I support good independent science addressing all matters of concern — biodiversity, corss contamination and of course health impact on all living beings.
2. I’m very troubled by the marketing implications of patents on plant varieties. I’m predisposed against allowing any GM crops to be used this side of
a) adequate protection fromn cross contamination, including from trials
b) a burden of proof imposed on companies using GM to show that the appearance of their patents in other plants was not the result of, at best criminal negligence on their part.
c) serious punitive (as well as tortious) damage provision to be built into the laws covering GM in cases where patent holders cannot show that the cross-contamination was not the result of some act of omission of commission by them or their agents.
d) serious criminal penalties for vexatious litigation by patent holders
That all said, I agree that he Greenpeace action ought to be condemned. It was not merely a crime but a blunder. It may or may not be “anti-science” — I’m not too sure about that, but IMO it certainly lacked adequate warrant. There was no imminent and compelling threat to human interest, and no harm that could not have been parried by lesser means. I’m not against ignoring the law when a higher warrant applies, but this is not such a case, IMO.
I don’t agree with Professor Quiggin that this makes Greenpeace unsupportable however. Greenpeace does a great many things that ought to prompt those of us with an interest in equity and the environment to support it. I say this despite my serioius disappointment at their opposition to another issue of concern to me that others won’t have to wonder all that long to guess.
Any organisation is liable to stuff up once in a while, particularly when it is composed of strongminded people with a sense of mission, who act not to make a dollar but to pursue an ethical principle. That doesn’t get them a free pass to pull boners like this, but we ought not to condemn the whole organisation out of hand.
Blanket anti-GMO is not science, it’s religion. The idea that someone can add a gene or two and somehow create super-organisms that will escape and wreak havoc is completely out of whack with the findings of modern molecular biology.
In biology it’s tough to make something that even works, let alone works a wee bit better. If trivial genome changes could produce superorganisms it would have already happened. We humans would have been killed by triffids or else have evolved into incredibly intelligent rational superbeings. Apparently not.
The best real reason for avoiding GM that I’ve to date is to allow poor farmers in developing countries to grow premium GM-free crops that they can sell to people in rich countries who are willing to pay for the imagined benefit. 🙂
@Jim Birch
That is a key issue Jim – how do GM and non-GM exist together?
It’s like a restaurant with a smoking section, the whole restaurant becomes one big smoking section.
In general terms, your opening comments don’t seem to suggest you are too aware of terminator gene technology.
As a greenpeace supporter I find this troubling. It seems poorly thought out (biohazard gear and whipper snippers!) and damaging to their credibility. Unfortunately it makes it less likely the questions asked in their report will be treated seriously.
On the GM itself I worry most about the consequences of privatising the IP of the actual plants and animals, especially if contamination leads to IP spreading to the ‘free’ stock. I also find it very disturbing having people who should know better defend GM as being the same as selective breeding – as Iain says you can’t successfully cross breed species which takes it to a new level. My understanding is that natural mutations that are comparatively commonplace in GM are very much less likely without, otherwise all these beneficial GM products would be found naturally
gosh
thugs…. criminal… anti-science.. vanadallism…..(what?) a record of breaking the law to highlight problems…. blatherers…. massive own goal….. patently illegal…. can we believe them…. a kind of green SAS….(wow) controlled by an unaccountable management… not democratic…. blanquists….(ay? what?)
contamination.
in West Aust the patented canola has contaminated neighboring properties and at least one farmer has lost certification that ensured the highest market valuation for his produce.
canola belongs to the family cruciferae,that includes wild turnip and wild mustard and will readily cross. the weeds produced not only will be able to survive saturation spraying but will belong to monsanto.will they eliminate them?how?
Tasmania has spent the last eight or so years trying to contain the contamination produced from trials that were allowed and found unacceptable.
the canola grown last year has not been sold. apparently no-one wants it.
the state govt has sold to monsanto a 20% share in the state owned grain research body.
the trials performed were called “shonky” by one of the scientist involved.he was suspended without pay and is no longer with the (partially)state owned body.
the source of the scientific papers used to promote patented food plants and quoted to induce a favourable response to the concept of a world where the elimination of organic food grown without poisons and on a small scale is inevitable is lost in a fog of public relations.
the entwining of commercial interests into and within democratically elected state institutions is a problem that is being examined (and about time) most clearly at the moment in regard to the murdoch conglomerate,this phenomenon is not confined to the news media but as the subject under discussion here shows,the integrity of the very food we eat.
as for greenpeace…….theyv’e been at it for over 40 years.
incidentally,in 1976 the whale population was being reduced at the rate of one every 12 minutes.
happy whale watching.
credibility? where the hell has that got the left in the last thirty years,
should Greenpeace put suits on and talk technospeak and ask nicely for monsanto to give them some information until 2050 … geez, wake up
dont people understand that the time has come to start wrecking crops and smashing things up
Fran:
“Any organisation is liable to stuff up once in a while, particularly when it is composed of strongminded people with a sense of mission, who act not to make a dollar but to pursue an ethical principle. ”
Greenpeace is a secretive and undemocratic organisation that pulls stunts like this all of the time. Its members are lackeys with no say in the running or policy direction of the organisation. As it turns out, I sometimes agree with their POV but their methods are woeful and they certainly provide the right with a great deal of ammunition. The deep links between the Greens and Greenpeace is also rather frightening and it hands the right a marvellous club with which to beat lefties.
Here’s the Bolta making the most of it: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/respect_the_science_if_only_the_greens_would/
Would it be less outrageous if this happened on a Monsanto research centre, rather than at a CSIRO centre? If so, would CSIRO involvement make a difference?
@Mel
Enough with your dishonesty and troubled confusion.
No-one is arguing that Jews or whales are harmed by GM crops.
By switching like this – you only expose yourself.
Jews and whales were being harmed by so-called “science”.
This is very sad. I love science and a hero of mine is the recently late Norman Borlaug
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
GM science is amazing – we’ve been doing it since the domestication of the dog the last 10,000 years.
However, in the hands of corporate giants, this science can be bad – I urge anyone who hasn’t seen Food Inc. to do so. And I support Greenpeace in this fight against the misuses highlighted in that program.
The recent combating against the new strains of the recent re-emergence of wheat rust has been bloody amazing, using research and genetic gear that Borlaug did not have at his disposal back in his day. Research not conducted for the benefit of profit but for people. Brilliant stuff and Great Works.
The Canberra mob of Greenpeace were way off target here.
@smiths
The same, arch-reactionary arguments were used against suffragettes, chartists and populists and are always rolled out when citizens object to corruption of values, morals, economics or even science.
Seems about the best summation to me thus far.
But Greenpeace are now ‘anti-science’ and the enemy? Never to be listened to again? Give me a break!
Monbiot got the CRU hack completely wrong, and to my mind has both lost the plot with his post-Fukushima Qixotic defence of nuclear power and joined the offensively extremist fringe on Chernobyl – therefore I shouldn’t listen to this?
C’mon people, Greenpeace is huge and diverse. The world is a complex place. Did you never work in or with big campaign organizations? Crazy shit happens all the time. This means they’re wrong about whaling or the Amazon? Get a grip!
You’ll all be citing some report or other of theirs again within a year.
If your allies make stupid mistakes point it out by all means but move on. Trying to buy respectability at your friends’ expense is just doing the real enemies of science’s work for them!
And all this ‘quelle horreur! – it’s a crime!’ stuff! Am I the only one here who’s ever been arrested for standing up for what they believe in? (Several times.) As Chomsky points out, there’s no historical evidence of a positive link between behaving ‘respectably’ and political success. The opposite, if anything.
If we want to live on a habitable planet we’ve got some serious fights in front of us over the next few decades, and while (non-violent) law-breaking must always be a weapon of last resort, to renounce (or denounce) it is to risk ‘locking in failure’.
Chris @ 9,
I have a perfectly acute sense of morals that allows me to take responsibility for my actions. Frankly, it’s a guiding principle of my life. I asked you a question that did not resort to desperate name calling, as you couldn’t do likewise, I can only assume you don’t believe in civil discourse.
To the point at hand, as far as I can tell, Greenpeace and the activists involved have not surrendered to the police. Therefore, I can only conclude that they are not taking any responsibility whatsoever for an illegal act.
If they truly believed in the spirit of civil disobedience, they would have stayed on site and allowed themselves to be arrested.
Umm… can I say that while I condemn the Greenpeace action, I have no faith in or support for the CSIRO study either, given that the CSIRO has been forced to bow to commercial interests since the Howard years? A plague on both Greenpeace and Monsanto. And there’s the question of power differential too; Monsanto has much more power to impose its will on us than Greenpeace does, however annoying or jejeune GP may occasionally seem. Therefore my plague on them would be greater, with extra boils.
Let’s dispel the Monsanto bit straight up – this trial was not a Monsanto joint venture with the CSIRO. It was a CSIRO trial plot. Anyone mentioning Monsanto in relation to this crop is totally incorrect.
@ Chris Warren.
You claim the moral high ground for “science”?
An attack like this intimidates scientists. It shuts down research. It belittles the efforts of scientists conducting series research. Who should decide what scientists research? You? Greenpeace? Creationists? Climate sceptics?
For years I ran a blog called Watching the Deniers (Google it), directly challenging the work of “climate sceptics”. I’ve fought in the (cyber) trenches for a long time against one anti-science movement. I’ll happily fight any other.
All I can say I am deeply alarmed by the mirroring of language and semantics used by Greenpeace and supporters of this attack and just how closely it models climate sceptics own language.
You said: “The destruction of CSIRO-Monsanto crops is not anti-science. It is anti a particular secretive and commercialised construction of science.”
So attacks like this are justified?
In late 2009 hackers broke into the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia with the intention of discrediting the work of climate scientists. It was an illegal act, that damaged science and the reputation of scientists (see what happened to poor Phil Jones, an honest and good man).
I’m sure there are many you feel the hack was “justified”.
You claim: “The same, arch-reactionary arguments were used against suffragettes, chartists and populists and are always rolled out when citizens object to corruption of values, morals, economics or even science.”
The corruption of science?
I point you to the recent Heartland (right wing think tank) conference in the US called “Restoring the scientific method”.
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-undermining-science-name-scientific-method
Yes that’s right: the biggest argument of sceptics is that science has been “corrupted” by “big money”. They argue greedy scientists after research grants and banks looking for easy dollars of ETS have corrupted science. Sound familiar?
So are CSIRO scientist the dupes of evil corporations (you say) or the agents of sinister world wide plot to tax us back into the stone age and turn out the lights (climate sceptics).
You claim: “You are playing games – if some partisans destroyed Nazi “scientific” experiments on POW’s would this be anti-science????”
You claim: “Jews and whales were being harmed by so-called “science”.”
Let’s ignore you resorting to Godwin’s law, always the sign of a weak argument (“But Hitler and or the Nazi’s was/did XYZ!”. Hitler was a vegetarian you know, OMG vegetarians must be Nazis! No?)
The Holocaust was perpetrated by the racist vision of an evil totalitarian regime. It has nothing to do with science. The medical experiments where barbaric. Claiming the moral high ground by using the Holocaust is poor form indeed.
Look at how Australia’s scientific community is responding to the actions of Greenpeace: with condemnation.
We’re in the midst of the CO2 tax debate, with News Corp running a blatantly anti-government campaign and Abbot scaring the population witless… oh and the runaway greenhouse effect really starting to kick in… and Greenpeace go and score this “own goal”.
Thanks Greenpeace.
You’ve made being progressive, liberal and pro-science that much harder.
BigBob, I can find nothing in the OGTR docs to suggest it’s a joint venture. Except perhaps the commercial in confidence paras, But I can’t imagine how positive outcomes of such research could possibly be used without the license of the patent holder. CSIRO using the research to develop an equivalent would seem almost certainly to infringe patent. What would be the next step if outcomes were positive? I can’t see how this can be anything except research on the patent holder’s behalf. Therefore I find it curious that it is apparently not a joint venture.
Now assuming there is no non disclosure agreement on the results I can see a public interest in having CSIRO conduct the research so we have some confidence in methodology and so negative outcomes can be fairly reported.
But otherwise it seems to be at best CSIRO doing fee for service work, at worst CSIRO greenwashing Biotech companies’ research.
This strays off topic, but it relates to my earlier question about whether we would respond differently if a monsanto operated crop was similarly destroyed.
Personally I’m still unsure how to react to this, I think it was foolish, but I’m starting to have doubts.
@iain
I agree that the protection of of people who want to sell into a GM-free markets is an issue. It’s really only a problem where GM and GM-free versions of the same crop are grown in the same regions and mechanisms can be found for dealing with it, like choosing one or the other.
Other issues that are important are producing enough food for the worlds poor, adding micronutrients to crops, and producing crops that can produce in otherwise infertile environments. GM technologies have the potential for massive improvements in survival and food security of the worlds poor and I really wouldn’t like to see these activities curtailed to suit the irrational beliefs about GM of some rich westerners – who aren’t threatened by starvation . The Wikipedia article on Golden rice show an interesting case study.
I’m not sure what you are getting at wrt terminator technologies. I don’t like IP in general and think it should be limited but I don’t think it forms a decisive reason for avoiding GM. Thomas Pogge has an interesting proposition for rewarding the development of life saving/enhancing products that avoids the ‘my IP, you die” problem: Transcript/podcast that I love to see take off.
I’d like to point everyone to the marvelous BBC documentary, “Science under attack” hosted by Sir Paul Nurse, Nobel Prize winner and current
http://www.filmsforaction.org/Watch/BBC_Horizon_Science_Under_Attack/
Synopsis:
“Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse examines why science appears to be under attack, and why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded – from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS.
He interviews scientists and campaigners from both sides of the climate change debate, debunks the ClimateGate fiasco and travels to New York to meet Tony, who has HIV but doesn’t believe that that the virus is responsible for AIDS.
This is a passionate defence of the importance of scientific evidence and the power of experiment, and a look at what scientists themselves need to do to earn trust in controversial areas of science in the 21st century.”
It’s an hour long, but for the GM debate start watching at 49:50.
Yes, science is controversial. The results will challenge not only the likes of Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones, but even the most well meaning, left-leaning progressives.
And on The Conversation by Chris Pearson: http://theconversation.edu.au/greenpeaces-gm-vandalism-bad-for-farmers-bad-for-science-bad-for-australia-2349
“…All the research staff working in my program are on short-term contracts, which is the nature of scientific careers these days. They need to continually produce research to further these careers.
For them, the loss of a field trial could mean the difference between a new grant and leaving science.
For postgraduate students, the situation is even more difficult. Typically, current postgraduate students only get two field seasons to complete their research. The loss of a field trial can have an enormous impact on their ability to complete their degrees on time.
Third, in addition to the hoped-for results, research trials can produce new leads in areas not originally considered. These leads can open up new possibilities for doing things better and more efficiently.
The trial that was destroyed had been assessed by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) as not posing a significant risk to humans or the environment. The GM material was not going in to commercial food or feed production, and was restricted to a small area from which it was unlikely to escape.
Researchers conducting these trials are required by the OGTR to implement multiple strategies to manage potential risks of movement of genetically modified material from the trial site.
Ironically, the actions of the Greenpeace activists have greatly increased the risk that genetically modified material from the trial will escape into the environment.”
@Helen
With the greatest respect Helen (and that’s not the least bit disingenuous because for as long as I’ve read your posts at LP I’ve been impressed) I think that unless you have some direct insight into this particular study suggesting that it was in some sense poorly or unethically conceived or implemented, then you ought not to condemn CSIRO.
CSIRO, as far as I can tell, is an organisation that deserves respect. It deserves more support and independence than governments give it, but within the constraints applying, it does a high quality job and has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever acted unethically in its research.
Context is important.
Because this is not an issue about science.
Or at least just science.
It is far more a political issue than anything else.
Criminality is irrelevant [except for the purpose of consequence].
It was, once upon a time, criminal to attempt to free slaves, to attempt to give women the vote, to attempt to free Jews, to attempt to reclaim common land that had been expropriated from the peasantry ……and so on, you get the idea.
Being a crime doesn’t necessarily make a particular action unethical. Just illegal.
Conversely being legal doesn’t necessarily equate to ethical.
Here is a link to an article that claims that Monsanto paid poor people to protest against anti-GM actions.
Is that ethical?
Is that criminal?
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/parade011905.cfm
Similarly [?] we have an article that cllaims that governments and industry and the law are failing the public when it comes to GM laws and science.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/15/gm-regulators-pesticides-safety
“A study showing the presence of GM pesticides in the blood points to the remarkable complacency of global safety regulators”
I’m not a fan of Greenpeace.
Neither am I a fan of Monsanto.
Nor do I give CSIRO much time on occasions, sometimes yes, but not always.
There can be more than one villain in a morality play.
@Michael Marriott
A minor correction: that should be Chris Preston, who is an agricultural science professor, not Chris Pearson, a reactionary culture warrior and columnist who knows about as much about science as I do about Mongolian equestrian practices.
@Michael Marriott
I am not sure if I followed all of your rant and I am not interested in bizarre fabricated excursions into such concepts as “vegetarians must be Nazi’s”.
If I thought scientists were conducting unethical experiments then I would support computer hackers getting the evidence to expose them (or covert taping or video-taping etc).
Your wild linkage to Phil Jones makes no useful point. The data that was hacked was then misrepresented by denialists. The data was then released which should have occurred earlier.
The destruction of CSIRO-Monsanto crops is not anti-science. It is anti a particular secretive and commercialised construction of science. But more than this, the Greenpeace action was not even against GM crops because, if this was the case, this would have occurred earlier. The Greenpeace action was the result of a failure by the powers-that-be to provide the information when asked.
I thank Chris Warren #5 and more, for your explanations and defence. I too, had only seen 1 angle, tyvm.
@Tim Macknay
Thanks Tim, reality is restored 🙂
Also, I spent a little time in Mongolia but can’t assist you on their equestrian practices.
Right, so the moonbeam brigade (Chris Warren and Helen) think Monsanto is an omniscient and secretive organisation that kills suffragettes, Jews, dolphins and whales. For this reason, we can’t trust them and their employees deserve to be covered with boils.
Have I missed anything?
@Fran Barlow
I’d like to add my support for everything Fran said at #22. Except of course for her “serioius (sic) disappointment at their (Greenpeace’s) opposition to another issue of concern to me that others won’t have to wonder all that long to guess.” (my brackets) 🙂
@Chris Warren
Wow! Can anyone destroy other people’s stuff if requested information is not supplied, or does this only apply to Greenpeace?