Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
Greenpeace has also supported the rejection of GM food from the US in famine-stricken Zambia as long as supplies of non-genetically engineered grain exist, stating that the US "should follow in the European Union's footsteps and allow aid recipients to choose their food aid, buying it locally if they wish. This practise can stimulate developing economies and creates more robust food security", adding that, "if Africans truly have no other alternative, the controversial GE maize should be milled so it can't be planted. It was this condition that allowed Zambia's neighbours Zimbabwe and Malawi to accept it."[119] After Zambia banned all GM food aid, the former agricultural minister of Zambia criticized, "how the various international NGOs that have spoken approvingly of the government's action will square the body count with their various consciences."[120] Concerning the decision of Zambia, Greenpeace has stated that, "it was obvious to us that if no non-GM aid was being offered then they should absolutely accept GM food aid. But the Zambian government decided to refuse the GM food. We offered our opinion to the Zambian government and, as many governments do, they disregarded our advice."[121]
Greenpeace on golden rice
Greenpeace opposes the planned use of golden rice, a variety of Oryza sativa rice produced through genetic engineering to biosynthesize beta-carotene, a precursor of pro-vitamin A in the edible parts of rice. The addition of beta-carotene to the rice is seen as preventative to loss of sight in poverty stricken countries where golden rice is intended for distribution. According to Greenpeace, golden rice has not managed to do anything about malnutrition for 10 years during which alternative methods are already tackling malnutrition. The alternative proposed by Greenpeace is to discourage mono-cropping and to increase production of crops which are naturally nutrient-rich (containing other nutrients not found in golden rice in addition to beta-carotene). Greenpeace argues that resources should be spent on programs that are already working and helping to relieve malnutrition.[122] The Golden Rice Project acknowledges that, "While the most desirable option is a varied and sufficient diet, this goal is not always achievable, at least not in the short term."[123]
The renewal of these concerns coincided with the publication of a paper in the journal Nature about a version of golden rice with much higher levels of beta carotene.[124] This "golden rice 2" was developed and patented by Syngenta, which provoked Greenpeace to renew its allegation that the project is driven by profit motives.[125] C.S. Prakash, director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University and president of the AgBioWorld Foundation, expressed the opinion that "[c]ritics condemned biotechnology as something that is purely for profit, that is being pursued only in the West, and with no benefits to the consumer. Golden Rice proves them wrong, so they need to discredit it any way they can."[126]
Although Greenpeace had stated that efficiency was its primary concern, as early as 2001,[127] statements from March and April 2005 also continued to express concern over human health and environmental safety.[128][129] Greenpeace has opposed releasing golden rice to fields as opposed to farming in greenhouses, which according to golden rice developer Ingo Potrykus, limits the amount of material needed for human safety testing.[130]
Patrick Moore says that the very reason for malnutrition is that the families cannot afford much else than rice.[131] According to Adrian Dubock, golden rice would not cost more than ordinary rice and now vitamin A deficiency is the main reason for blindness and responsible for 28% of child mortality.[132] Now vitamin A deficiency blinds and kills at least hundreds of thousands of children every year.[133]
On July 14, 2011, Greenpeace paid the reparations when its members broke into the premises of an Australian scientific research organization CSIRO and destroyed a genetically modified wheat plot that would have a lower glycemic index and hence benefit people who are diabetic. The sentencing judge, Justice Hilary Penfold, accused Greenpeace of cynically using junior members to avoid custodial sentences, while the offenders were given 9-month suspended sentences.[22][23][24]
On August 8, 2013, an experimental plot of golden rice by International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines was uprooted.[134][135] Mark Lynas, former anti-GMO activist, reported that the action was in reality carried out by a group of 50 anti-GMO activists.[136] Greenpeace representatives defended the vandals.[133]
Jim Peacock (former chief scientist of Australia and president of the Australian Academy of Science) accused Greenpeace of being anti-science and spreading misinformation immorally.[137]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#Genetically_modified_organisms_.28GMOs.29
= new reply since forum marked as read
