Greenpeace raided!

It’s true, there are other biotech companies patenting food crops, they are on the Monsanto ‘to buy soon’ list. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I’ve had a couple of sav-blancs.

fgzk said :

[

The genes and modification are secret. Its a trail of a secret thing.

Yeah right. Don’t tell any of your numpty mates fgzk, but all the information you could want is freely available here:

http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/map

If you follow the links, you can find out what genes are involved in the trial in more detail than you could understand, who is doing it, the purpose, the size and location of the trials, and much else that I’m sure you don’t want to know.
But as I say, don’t tell anyone, ’cause ‘it’s a secret’..
___________________________________________________________________________________

But I’m confused. All this fuss is ostensibly about GM, but all the talk is about a great American multinational bogeyman (Monsanto). So I ask you:

Is Monsanto the actual target of this campaign, and if so, why the smoke and mirrors with the GM?

If the real target is GM, not Monsanto, why does that company feature in all Greenpeace publicity about this event when it has at best a tenuous relationship to the trial that was destroyed?

Could it possibly be that this is more about ideology than any genuine concern for health and safety? Surely not.

Oh and one more thing….I’m not against GM crops at all based upon what appears to be currently known. I’m concerned about the complete control of a food source by a profit motivated company. The endpoint of patents on GM crops is that one day, you will only be able to buy a monsanto seed, it produces for one season and natural, self reproducing varieties of the plant will have long been bred out of existence.

Hey Ergo, go read the book, but I should have been clearer about my point. Gene patents on food is a dangerous slope. When a farmer can’t do anything but buy monsanto’s (or any company’s) seed because last year’s seed is deliberately sterile then why is this a good thing? Does anybody think that a monopoly on global food production is furthering the human cause? I realise there is a world out there, sorry for gloating about my mostly free veggies, I think it’s trendy to save money on food I can grow myself.

I don’t have a particular interest or view regarding GM crops – but this has interested me enough to do some reading. On that front Greenpeace have probably achieved their objective in raising awareness.

What’s challenging is that whilst my awareness has been raised, it has (further) negatively impacted on my view of Greenpeace. Trespass and property destruction is not exactly a peaceful message – and clearly an unacceptable escalation in the way which they (like all other lobby and interest roups) should interact with Government and Corporate entities. Setting the GM issue aside for a moment, how might we view the Shooters Party breaking into the Police compund and “re-distributing” surrendered or seized firearms?

This kind of escalation is not productive, or required, in Canberra (or Australia). Frankly, Greenpeace are fooling themselves if they think this action is beneficial or sustainable here, or within the international community. I’m sure some of us will remember the last time there was an “escalation” in the interaction between Greenpeace and the French Government. Life jackets anyone?

fgzk said :

CSIRO says “various gene combinations in the trial were subject to commercial-in-confidence agreements to protect the interests of various government research agencies and a US company, Arcadia Biosciences.

The genes and modification are secret. Its a trail of a secret thing.

Greenpeace implies that nobody knows that the reserach is being carried out. It does not imply that specific gene manipulations are being kept secret. The specific details of any new research, in any area, are kept secret. It’s normal so that perhaps the organisation can later derive some benefit from the work. It works this way even inside a university. The people that need to know, including regulators, do know.

Check out the details of the licence, specifically, the full risk assesment. There are many details in there that suggest a fair amount of transparency. The same information is available for all trial sites, even those for Monsanto!

p1 said :

fgzk said :

The genes and modification are secret. Its a trail of a secret thing….

Do the Colonels Secret Herbs and Spices (commercial in confidence, just like the exact mix of flavours in Coke), make any trial of new food and beverages they undertake “Secret” by your reasoning?

Yes.

fgzk said :

The genes and modification are secret. Its a trail of a secret thing….

Do the Colonels Secret Herbs and Spices (commercial in confidence, just like the exact mix of flavours in Coke), make any trial of new food and beverages they undertake “Secret” by your reasoning?

puggy said :

fgzk said :

That’s the thing with “pure fact’s”. They don’t exist.

The facts I’m refering to in this case are, for example, Greenpeace’s claim that the trials are secret. They are not and information on these experiments has been publically available since 2009 (when the original licence was issued). There is also the claim that the wheat will be fed to humans without trials on animals. That is a false claim. It is this type of thing that tarnishes this particular action. I can agree that “facts” about the benefits of GM and the like are very much debatable.

I read the things about potatoes in Russia and well, I don’t know what legislation they have in place to regulate GM experiments and trials. If it’s lax, it makes it easier to launch protest action as well as do dodgy GM work. However, I do know we have legislation in Australia to tightly regulate GM experiments and trials. It’s prosecution under this legislation that Greenpeace is banking on avoiding because they attacked a government organisation (because of the cost, the bad look if a government goes after a “mum” etc.). The trespass and damage stuff is, no pun intended, small potatoes.

Ok from the top.
Puggy said” Greenpeace’s claim that the trials are secret.”

CSIRO says “various gene combinations in the trial were subject to commercial-in-confidence agreements to protect the interests of various government research agencies and a US company, Arcadia Biosciences.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/gm-wheat-trial-begins-amid-secrecy-20110527-1f8hl.html#ixzz1Snyi0H00

The genes and modification are secret. Its a trail of a secret thing.

Puggy said “There is also the claim that the wheat will be fed to humans without trials on animals”

Trials on animals have already taken place. I think the point of this trial is to feed humans. It would be hard to prove if the same genes being used have been trailed on animals as the gene modifications are secret.

CSIRO is a legitimate target.

nobody said :

There have been a few stories on this subject in The RiotACT recently, and they have attracted a lot of negative reflexive comments, almost like a flock of Tony Abbott parrots.

Yeah, that’s not pejorative at all.

1. A lot of the “negative reflexive comments” relate to Greenpeace’s methods, rather than the GM wheat debate itself. Maybe they should think about that when they’re formulating their strategy.

2. Why do you assume they’re reflexive? For all you know, the people commenting have doctorates in the relevant field. I, for one, am limiting my comment on GM wheat itself, because I know I’m not an expert and am instead (gasp) trusting our scientists and regulatory bodies, who are experts, to get it right.

This article in Wikipedia has interesting arguments for and against GM Wheat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenic_wheat

I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen a Wikipedia article with a “For/Against/Conclusion” format before. Doesn’t seem very encyclopedic, though I’m sure that many wars of ideology were waged to get it to this point.

There have been a few stories on this subject in The RiotACT recently, and they have attracted a lot of negative reflexive comments, almost like a flock of Tony Abbott parrots.

This article in Wikipedia has interesting arguments for and against GM Wheat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenic_wheat

fgzk said :

That’s the thing with “pure fact’s”. They don’t exist.

The facts I’m refering to in this case are, for example, Greenpeace’s claim that the trials are secret. They are not and information on these experiments has been publically available since 2009 (when the original licence was issued). There is also the claim that the wheat will be fed to humans without trials on animals. That is a false claim. It is this type of thing that tarnishes this particular action. I can agree that “facts” about the benefits of GM and the like are very much debatable.

I read the things about potatoes in Russia and well, I don’t know what legislation they have in place to regulate GM experiments and trials. If it’s lax, it makes it easier to launch protest action as well as do dodgy GM work. However, I do know we have legislation in Australia to tightly regulate GM experiments and trials. It’s prosecution under this legislation that Greenpeace is banking on avoiding because they attacked a government organisation (because of the cost, the bad look if a government goes after a “mum” etc.). The trespass and damage stuff is, no pun intended, small potatoes.

fgzk said :

Sure all that sounds good but here is my take on what you are seeing. The facts presented are Greenpeace’s facts. Had it not been for the “action” we wouldn’t be debate/learning about facts now. The tie-vac (hazmat) suits used have been used in almost every action Greenpeace has done. Its a way of presenting an image for the camera, bit like a signature. The risk of contamination is from the outside, in. Its a controlled environment to protect the crop. The crop wont escape till it forms seeds, so no need to worry about inside, out contamination. No need to get upset about contamination at all.

That’s the thing with “pure fact’s”. They don’t exist.

That’s really a question for the philosophers, but I think it’s fairly safe to say that facts do exist. The fact that they don’t suit a particular person or organisation’s world view or propagandist message doesn’t make them any less factual.

Puggy ” The lying is much of why I said this action is “ball-less”. I could respect it if it was based on pure fact. I could even respect it if they reacted to others highlighting specific mistruths in their report. I could respect it if they wore proper hazmat suits and showed their “decontamination” area in their video. As it stands, the stunt risked undesired spreading of GM material, which I would have thought would be a primary concern for Greenpeace.”

Sure all that sounds good but here is my take on what you are seeing. The facts presented are Greenpeace’s facts. Had it not been for the “action” we wouldn’t be debate/learning about facts now. The tie-vac (hazmat) suits used have been used in almost every action Greenpeace has done. Its a way of presenting an image for the camera, bit like a signature. The risk of contamination is from the outside, in. Its a controlled environment to protect the crop. The crop wont escape till it forms seeds, so no need to worry about inside, out contamination. No need to get upset about contamination at all.

That’s the thing with “pure fact’s”. They don’t exist.

GP has done other “actions” on the wheat trials in Australia. I seem to remember some Tie-Vac suited activists standing in fields of wheat on the news. That would have to be Greenpeace.

Puggy here is a link to another trail conducted by Monsanto in Russia where Greenpeace and other consumer groups mounted a protracted and immensely frustrating campaign.

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice16Feb2007.htm

fgzk said :

“Why is it not possible for me to be against GM, yet disagree with what Greenpeace has done? “

Its totally possible, in fact it appears to be what you have written. Greenpeace has not “done” anything new in its action. This is what Greenpeace does, use direct action to highlight an issue. CSIRO quite accurately described it as a media stunt. Its not a ball-less act as you claimed. Its a carefully considered, planned and executed action, targeting a huge, resourceful, ruthless multinational. Its been doing actions against Monsanto for over 20 years. I think that takes balls and deserves some respect.

“Has Greenpeace ever attacked Monsanto’s canola GM trial sites (outside of this campaign about wheat) and if not, why not?”
You are familiar with google. Short answer…. yes they have.

I asked about Greenpeace and Monsanto because I couldn’t find anything through Google. I should have been specific that I meant any action in Australia as well. As far as I am aware, this action against the CSIRO GM trial site is the first “direct action” against any GM trial site in Australia (I am happy to be corrected though). I do think they picked a soft target in a readily accesible small-scale site run by a government research institution. They did not target a multinational. The link from Monsanto to CSIRO is by proxy and not by hard evidence.

The lying is much of why I said this action is “ball-less”. I could respect it if it was based on pure fact. I could even respect it if they reacted to others highlighting specific mistruths in their report. I could respect it if they wore proper hazmat suits and showed their “decontamination” area in their video. As it stands, the stunt risked undesired spreading of GM material, which I would have thought would be a primary concern for Greenpeace.

Phemie said :

Kiron2222 said :

As much as I think Greenpeace are pretty crazy, on this I totally support them, keep Monsanto the hell out of Australia.

Monsanto Australia is a reputable and respected agri-business in Australia. Like Greenpeace it is the Australian component of a global company. Unlike Greenpeace is does not mask as a charity. Unlike Greenpeace it does not commit acts of vandalism. Unlike Greenpeace its PR machine is not a predatory beast.

Your first two points are good, but….. Greenpeace is not a charity. Monsanto and Nufarm have both knowingly committed huge acts of vandalism. For decades they knowingly pumped toxic waste into our sewerage systems, streams, rivers and oceans, in the name of profit. Monsanto is very much a predatory beast all over. That’s how they make profit. Saves being a lemming.

Kiron2222 said :

As much as I think Greenpeace are pretty crazy, on this I totally support them, keep Monsanto the hell out of Australia.

Monsanto Australia is a reputable and respected agri-business in Australia. Like Greenpeace it is the Australian component of a global company. Unlike Greenpeace is does not mask as a charity. Unlike Greenpeace it does not commit acts of vandalism. Unlike Greenpeace its PR machine is not a predatory beast.

puggy said :

fgzk said :

It would be good if you actually new some history of Greenpeace Australia’s actions. At least when they protest they give information about the issues rather than just the dribble about nailing balls.

Its funny how some of you buy into the “feeding the world” requires we shop with Monsanto. I suppose it comes back to a “mix of half-truth, exaggeration and appeal to ignorance” that is presented by Monsanto and its sales staff.

Perhaps your comprehension skills need a little work, but my post agreed with the previous poster regarding Monsanto. I’ve had a look at Greenpeace’s lastest video an their site and though compelling, it still contains mistruths. This is my greatest beef with what they have done. There is nothing opaque about the CSIRO’s work. All information about it is publicly available. The licence under which they are carrying out the work (that yes, you can read) describes the fact that the wheat will be/has been tested on animals before carrying out small-scale human feeding trials on volunteers. If Greenpeace believes that this is not the case, there are ways to raise a violation of the licence with government agencies, and raise public awareness, that don’t involve criminal activity.

The report released by Greenpeace in early July was used as justification for this action. They were told that the report contained inaccuracies and mistruths. However, they still went ahead with their action against the CSIRO without allowing a right of reply to the report to correct any inaccuracies.

Regarding the link between CSIRO and Monsanto and NuFarm, a couple of board members doesn’t prove any deleterious link. Links with industry in any Government agency are part of the norm. Monsanto can go jump as far as I am concerned, but the action against the CSIRO needs to be justified by something other than a tenuous link.

Why is it not possible for me to be against GM, yet disagree with what Greenpeace has done? Why the assumption that because I oppose the action, I must be in love with Monsanto? Has Greenpeace ever attacked Monsanto’s canola GM trial sites (outside of this campaign about wheat) and if not, why not?

“Why is it not possible for me to be against GM, yet disagree with what Greenpeace has done? “

Its totally possible, in fact it appears to be what you have written. Greenpeace has not “done” anything new in its action. This is what Greenpeace does, use direct action to highlight an issue. CSIRO quite accurately described it as a media stunt. Its not a ball-less act as you claimed. Its a carefully considered, planned and executed action, targeting a huge, resourceful, ruthless multinational. Its been doing actions against Monsanto for over 20 years. I think that takes balls and deserves some respect.

“Has Greenpeace ever attacked Monsanto’s canola GM trial sites (outside of this campaign about wheat) and if not, why not?”
You are familiar with google. Short answer…. yes they have.

hoody said :

Good read I had just lately: Bring on the Apocalypse: Six Arguments for Global Justice, by George Monbiot. Amongst the topics covered is GM crops and why? Global food crop monopoly. Maybe he’s a crank, maybe he’s on someone’s payroll, but maybe he has a point. Seems to me we’ve done ok without GM foods so far, where is the compelling argument for it? Re: Monsanto, refer to the above… Global food crop monopoly. Maybe I’m slightly paranoid, we grow heirloom vegetables and save some money each year. I don’t know, but trust Monsanto?

To say that “we’ve done ok” with regard to global food supply diplays a breathtaking ignorance of the situation in the world beyond your trendy veggie patch. Not saying that GM crops are necessarily the best solution, but there’s a compelling argument in favour of looking for a solution.

Ahhhh homegrown terrorism…Why are we in Afghanistan again? What does ASIO do exactly?

fgzk said :

It would be good if you actually new some history of Greenpeace Australia’s actions. At least when they protest they give information about the issues rather than just the dribble about nailing balls.

Its funny how some of you buy into the “feeding the world” requires we shop with Monsanto. I suppose it comes back to a “mix of half-truth, exaggeration and appeal to ignorance” that is presented by Monsanto and its sales staff.

Perhaps your comprehension skills need a little work, but my post agreed with the previous poster regarding Monsanto. I’ve had a look at Greenpeace’s lastest video an their site and though compelling, it still contains mistruths. This is my greatest beef with what they have done. There is nothing opaque about the CSIRO’s work. All information about it is publicly available. The licence under which they are carrying out the work (that yes, you can read) describes the fact that the wheat will be/has been tested on animals before carrying out small-scale human feeding trials on volunteers. If Greenpeace believes that this is not the case, there are ways to raise a violation of the licence with government agencies, and raise public awareness, that don’t involve criminal activity.

The report released by Greenpeace in early July was used as justification for this action. They were told that the report contained inaccuracies and mistruths. However, they still went ahead with their action against the CSIRO without allowing a right of reply to the report to correct any inaccuracies.

Regarding the link between CSIRO and Monsanto and NuFarm, a couple of board members doesn’t prove any deleterious link. Links with industry in any Government agency are part of the norm. Monsanto can go jump as far as I am concerned, but the action against the CSIRO needs to be justified by something other than a tenuous link.

Why is it not possible for me to be against GM, yet disagree with what Greenpeace has done? Why the assumption that because I oppose the action, I must be in love with Monsanto? Has Greenpeace ever attacked Monsanto’s canola GM trial sites (outside of this campaign about wheat) and if not, why not?

puggy said :

Kiron2222 said :

As much as I think Greenpeace are pretty crazy, on this I totally support them, keep Monsanto the hell out of Australia.

Agree on Monsanto, but please provide direct evidence of Monsanto’s involvement in the experiment being conducted by the CSIRO at the Ginninderra Station. And “it’s obvious” doesn’t cut it.

Anyway, why didn’t Greenpeace go target one of Monsanto’s or Bayer’s actual trial sites, where you know, they are actually testing herbicide resistance instead of trying to improve nutrient content. It’s because they don’t have the balls to go up against the multis because they know they would get nailed to the wall. Instead they selectively target a Government organisation that they know is less likely to prosecute to the full extent of the law (beyond just the trespass etc, I’m talking GM laws) because nobody in government has any money at the moment.

It would be good if you actually new some history of Greenpeace Australia’s actions. At least when they protest they give information about the issues rather than just the dribble about nailing balls.

Its funny how some of you buy into the “feeding the world” requires we shop with Monsanto. I suppose it comes back to a “mix of half-truth, exaggeration and appeal to ignorance” that is presented by Monsanto and its sales staff.

“Seems to me we’ve done ok without GM foods so far, where is the compelling argument for it? ”
————————————————————
100 years ago, you would have been saying “seems to me we’ve done all right without these new-fangled motor cars/penicillin/space exploration and (insert your choice), where is the compelling argument for it?”

The creepy thing about Green Luddites is that better producing crops mean less damage to Gaia, but they prefer low yield crops fertilised with cow poo that would feed less people and use more land. Apparently, reducing the population through starvation by increasing the cost of food is the path to Nirvana. If it means that we all have to work in the fields to feed ourselves, it will be good for our souls. Shades of Mao’s Cultural Revolution (which ran a similar line and resulted in the deaths of millions of people).

These people are fruitcakes, but as some of them currently run the Federal government, we should not be complacent.

Dont you love that the video on their website expresses concern that CSIRO had not tested their products on animals first!

Kiron2222 said :

As much as I think Greenpeace are pretty crazy, on this I totally support them, keep Monsanto the hell out of Australia.

Agree on Monsanto, but please provide direct evidence of Monsanto’s involvement in the experiment being conducted by the CSIRO at the Ginninderra Station. And “it’s obvious” doesn’t cut it.

Anyway, why didn’t Greenpeace go target one of Monsanto’s or Bayer’s actual trial sites, where you know, they are actually testing herbicide resistance instead of trying to improve nutrient content. It’s because they don’t have the balls to go up against the multis because they know they would get nailed to the wall. Instead they selectively target a Government organisation that they know is less likely to prosecute to the full extent of the law (beyond just the trespass etc, I’m talking GM laws) because nobody in government has any money at the moment.

Good read I had just lately: Bring on the Apocalypse: Six Arguments for Global Justice, by George Monbiot. Amongst the topics covered is GM crops and why? Global food crop monopoly. Maybe he’s a crank, maybe he’s on someone’s payroll, but maybe he has a point. Seems to me we’ve done ok without GM foods so far, where is the compelling argument for it? Re: Monsanto, refer to the above… Global food crop monopoly. Maybe I’m slightly paranoid, we grow heirloom vegetables and save some money each year. I don’t know, but trust Monsanto?

justin heywood said :

nobody said :

This video is Greenpeace’s view of GM wheat.
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/photosandvideos/videos/Australias-Wheat-Scandal-/

nobody said :

This video is Greenpeace’s view of GM wheat.
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/photosandvideos/videos/Australias-Wheat-Scandal-/

Well if that video is the best Greenpeace have got then I can see why they’re scaremongering rather than encouraging sensible debate.

I’m intrigued that Greenpeace’s support base is generally on the ‘progressive’ side of politics, yet on the GM issue they use a mix of half-truth, exaggeration and appeal to ignorance that would make a hard-core climate-change denier proud.

The debate has moved on to taking direct action. That’s what Greenpeace does.

“mix of half-truth, exaggeration and appeal to ignorance” That’s Monsanto on a good day. You should buy some shares in them. You’d get on great.

justin heywood said :

nobody said :

This video is Greenpeace’s view of GM wheat.
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/photosandvideos/videos/Australias-Wheat-Scandal-/

nobody said :

This video is Greenpeace’s view of GM wheat.
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/photosandvideos/videos/Australias-Wheat-Scandal-/

Well if that video is the best Greenpeace have got then I can see why they’re scaremongering rather than encouraging sensible debate.

I’m intrigued that Greenpeace’s support base is generally on the ‘progressive’ side of politics, yet on the GM issue they use a mix of half-truth, exaggeration and appeal to ignorance that would make a hard-core climate-change denier proud.

+1 to that!!

nobody said :

This video is Greenpeace’s view of GM wheat.
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/photosandvideos/videos/Australias-Wheat-Scandal-/

nobody said :

This video is Greenpeace’s view of GM wheat.
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/photosandvideos/videos/Australias-Wheat-Scandal-/

Well if that video is the best Greenpeace have got then I can see why they’re scaremongering rather than encouraging sensible debate.

I’m intrigued that Greenpeace’s support base is generally on the ‘progressive’ side of politics, yet on the GM issue they use a mix of half-truth, exaggeration and appeal to ignorance that would make a hard-core climate-change denier proud.

This video is Greenpeace’s view of GM wheat.
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/photosandvideos/videos/Australias-Wheat-Scandal-/

As much as I think Greenpeace are pretty crazy, on this I totally support them, keep Monsanto the hell out of Australia.

imo just confiscate everything, including computers, climbing equiptment, lightbulbs etc untill its all being forensically examined. that will slow them down.

OverLord said :

Seized some bags of plant material maybe? Good work.

Yeah, but it was for personal use. 🙂

Seized some bags of plant material maybe? Good work.