14 July 2011

Greenpeace chop down the CSIRO's wheat patch

14 July 2011 | johnboy

The ABC reports that Greenpeace activists have hit the CSIRO’s genetically modified wheat crop here in Canberra:

In the early hours of this morning a group of Greenpeace protesters scaled the fence of the CSIRO experimental station at Ginninderra in the capital’s north.

Greenpeace says activists were wearing Hazmat protective clothing and were equipped with weed string trimmers.

They say the entire crop of genetically modified wheat has been destroyed.

Join the conversation

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

Classified1:18 pm 16 Jul 11

Watson said :

Classified said :

Disinformation said :

Dear Greenpeace.
I have unleashed some Genetically Modified lawn in my front and back yard.

You know what to do.

Stuff that, get emo grass.

(It cuts itself).

lol! (How long have you had to wait to use that one in an RA post?!)

Quite a while! 🙂

Admittedly I saw it posted somewhere else (can’t remember where) and lol’d myself!

Watson10:03 am 16 Jul 11

Classified said :

Disinformation said :

Dear Greenpeace.
I have unleashed some Genetically Modified lawn in my front and back yard.

You know what to do.

Stuff that, get emo grass.

(It cuts itself).

lol! (How long have you had to wait to use that one in an RA post?!)

Classified1:19 am 16 Jul 11

Disinformation said :

Dear Greenpeace.
I have unleashed some Genetically Modified lawn in my front and back yard.

You know what to do.

Stuff that, get emo grass.

(It cuts itself).

Disinformation11:17 pm 15 Jul 11

Dear Greenpeace.
I have unleashed some Genetically Modified lawn in my front and back yard.

You know what to do.

vg10:45 pm 15 Jul 11

zippyzippy said :

vg said :

Be clear about a few things. They aren’t environmentalists, they are vandals and criminals, and they weren’t wearing Hazmat suits, paper suits stop f all. They were wearing overalls and masks to disguise their identities as they don’t really have the courage of their convictions

Wait, that is wrong. Greenpeace totally own up to their criminal actions. It’s civil disobedience for a cause – they have no problem claiming it and you’ll see them in court. You can disagree and think that it’s stupid, but they do have the courage of their convictions.

Please don’t offer up that vomitus as an excuse. I don’t see any of them on TV admitting their crimes, and they hide themselves under ‘Hazmat’ clothing (Hazmat my ass). You will see them in court when the Police lock them up, not because of their courage.

If they were courageous about it they would have marched in when people were there.

They are crooks. Paul Watson’s influence never really left

Kalfour9:41 pm 15 Jul 11

Thoroughly Smashed said :

GM plant research isn’t destroying the environment or causing human or animal suffering. There isn’t even an ethics issue like there would be with animal research. Haven’t these jerks got something worthwhile to fight?

The Frots said :

As for the crops themselves, my knowledge of GM crops is limited. I have no idea whether they are bad, good, carbon loaded or will make me glow in the dark if I consume them. But, really, how bad can they be and what is the CSIRO purpose in developing them (in secrecy apparently).
Can anyone explain such things for a luddite?

The problem with GM isn’t really that they’re ‘dangerous’ – although there is sometimes a risk that you could have an allergy to a GM food that you wouldn’t otherwise have an allergy to because they’ve altered the proteins or something. It’s the way the entire industry is built around the food.
For one thing, making crops herbicide resistant is greatin some ways. But once you have a herbicide resistant crop, it’s very difficult to manage if it goes feral – I believe we had that issue with feral canola a few years back.
There was one case that I heard of where a crop went into a neighbouring farm (that was farming the same type of plant) and went feral, but when the farmer tried to harvest and sell the crop, he was sued for selling a copyrighted food product.
And because the entire GM industry is funded by large companies, there is always the question of ethics. A company’s main goal is to make money, so there is often concern that the produce has not been properly assessed before it’s put on the market.

That being said, I don’t believe that Greenpeace acted sensibly or productively in any way in this case. They seem to be hurting their own cause.

LSWCHP9:18 pm 15 Jul 11

Jethro said :

Why do most commentators on here not acknowledge the possibility that it is possible to disagree with Greenpeace’s actions AND believe that Monsanto is pure evil?

That’s me. Greenpeace idiots, in this case. Monsanto have some useful products, but their business ethics…well…nobody wants to end up in a lawsuit.

LSWCHP9:10 pm 15 Jul 11

Stevian said :

Classified said :

Mosanto own CSIRO do they? Or perhaps they have a controlling interest? Unfortunately it seems you’re an idiot.

Monsanto have their grubby little paws on everything, as a shill like you knows only too well. You’re the idiot, if you think anyone belives otherwise. Shills and dupes that’s all you are

Dude, this is wrong. You need to take a few deep breaths.

LSWCHP9:09 pm 15 Jul 11

Stevian said :

Erg0 said :

Chaz said :

Seems like a lot of people don’t understand why Greenpeace has gone in and hacked up the crops. Look at the research being done on GM crops and the effects it has on the environment & animals that feed on it. It is quite obvious that GM foods are not safe for human/animal consumption.

Do you mean the kind of research that the CSIRO was doing, until it was destroyed?

But it’s not CSIRO, that’s a lie

As I’ve posted elsewhere, I’ve known some of the blokes doing this work for nearly 20 years, and they’ve been with the CSIRO all that time. They are far from puppets of Monsanto and the other chemical companies. They are distinguished and highly regarded members of the Australian scientific community. In this case you simply have no idea of what you’re on about.

my10cents7:42 pm 15 Jul 11

So there is a lot of comment on how unsafe this GM crop was and how potentially dangerous it is to our wheat and agriculture industry, our family and our health coming from Greenpeace. In the Canberra Times today a Greenpeace spokesperson re-assured us that the activists who entered the site and, in the interests of us all, destroyed this GM crop were “well trained in decontamination”. I am sure the pro activist commenters would agree and highlight that this is why they were covered from head to toe in protective equipment which was supposedly “decontaminated” by these well trained ‘agents of nature’.

Could one of the pro activist commenters, or even better Greenpeace themselves, please explain to me why on their slide show of “we are so good” photos, the idiot holding the camera has plunged their BARE hand into the dirt and taken a photo, with dirt up to their knuckle, holding one of these ‘the world is ruined’ GM seedlings.

What guarantee can GP give that the person behind the camera stupid enough to enter a supposedly hazardous environment with little to no protective gear and dumb enough to plunge their hand into the dirt has not removed into the outside environment one of, or part of these plants.

If I were a local produce grower I would be rather peeved at Greenpeace. For the sake of a media grabbing stunt they have potentially compromised the very thing that they claim to be trying to protect. It’s akin to the “28 Days” movie where the opening scene has “activists” freeing disease riddled rapid monkey’s that go ‘apeshit’, kill the activists and destroy the world by spreading a virus turning man (and woman) kind into undead flesh eating zombies (a flick not for the kiddies).

Nice work from the mothers who are not dumb brigade of GP. Note to GP: Please remove these genius’s from the “free the deranged rapid monkey’s” contact list as I have not stocked up on the number of tinned beans required for the walking dead armageddon they may unleash.

Hopefully the camera person did not walk from there picking his nose or handing out bare handed high fives to his colleagues, and hopefully Ms McCabe didn’t go home and make lunch for her children.

Seriously amateur job, utterly misguided and irresponsible. Any validity they have hoped to achieve for their argument is void now. Maybe the Canberra Times should re-contact the GP spokesperson and ask her to explain the bare hand grab AND re-assure the Canberra community properly that they have not compromised our community and region with this apparently evil and contemptuous experiment.

Classified1:18 pm 15 Jul 11

Stevian said :

shadow boxer said :

zippyzippy said :

Snave81 said :

I was just wondering if all the Greenpeace supporters commenting on here are using solar power, or some other renewable power supply, to power the computers they use to provide comments. Hopefully they’re not using fossil fuels to spread their environmental message.

Ugh, this is the kind of comment people always throw at environmentalists, as if it wins the argument somehow because ”oh, you’re just a hypocrite, you love fossil fuels” (or whatever). I’m not going to list all my personal circumstances (but I do try very hard as an individual to do what I believe is right). But here’s what I think anyone who makes this argument should consider:

Any environmentalist is a hypocrite. They have to be because of the way society is set up. It’s not possible to do everything purely ethically when our society is geared around doing things in a different way (unless you basically opt out of society). Environmentalists generally argue that things need to change at the systems level. For eg. Australia is very much organised around cheap fossil fuels and supplying all our energy needs using fossil fuels. Environmentalists say we should change that paradigm so that we are based around renewables. The fact that in the meantime they go to work and use computers and the computers are built from resources that are mined, and the computers use electricity from fossil fuels etc does not void their arguments! In order to argue for better environmental outcomes, you don’t have to martyr yourself by trying to eliminate everything single behavior that could possibly make you a hypocrite. (but of course there are many things that individuals can and should do).

Also, sometimes you can do things that might be seemingly hypocritical because you’re trying to achieve something that will help overall. Eg. Everyone attcked Al Gore for jetting around the world with his inconvenient truth message because planes are so polluting. But i think it’s ok, because he was making such a big impact in terms of advancing the debate, educating and mobilizing people etc.

Anyway… It’s just that someone always skips off the actual debate topic to say something like ‘but the computer you’re using uses fossil fuels!’ (so you’re green arguments must be bunk).

Nice try at rationalising but it sounds like you are an environmentalist as long as it doesn’t inconvenience you.

I live in a solar powered cave, wear leaves, and walk everywhere. Do I pass muster?

That’s why I love you.

Stevian1:09 pm 15 Jul 11

shadow boxer said :

zippyzippy said :

Snave81 said :

I was just wondering if all the Greenpeace supporters commenting on here are using solar power, or some other renewable power supply, to power the computers they use to provide comments. Hopefully they’re not using fossil fuels to spread their environmental message.

Ugh, this is the kind of comment people always throw at environmentalists, as if it wins the argument somehow because ”oh, you’re just a hypocrite, you love fossil fuels” (or whatever). I’m not going to list all my personal circumstances (but I do try very hard as an individual to do what I believe is right). But here’s what I think anyone who makes this argument should consider:

Any environmentalist is a hypocrite. They have to be because of the way society is set up. It’s not possible to do everything purely ethically when our society is geared around doing things in a different way (unless you basically opt out of society). Environmentalists generally argue that things need to change at the systems level. For eg. Australia is very much organised around cheap fossil fuels and supplying all our energy needs using fossil fuels. Environmentalists say we should change that paradigm so that we are based around renewables. The fact that in the meantime they go to work and use computers and the computers are built from resources that are mined, and the computers use electricity from fossil fuels etc does not void their arguments! In order to argue for better environmental outcomes, you don’t have to martyr yourself by trying to eliminate everything single behavior that could possibly make you a hypocrite. (but of course there are many things that individuals can and should do).

Also, sometimes you can do things that might be seemingly hypocritical because you’re trying to achieve something that will help overall. Eg. Everyone attcked Al Gore for jetting around the world with his inconvenient truth message because planes are so polluting. But i think it’s ok, because he was making such a big impact in terms of advancing the debate, educating and mobilizing people etc.

Anyway… It’s just that someone always skips off the actual debate topic to say something like ‘but the computer you’re using uses fossil fuels!’ (so you’re green arguments must be bunk).

Nice try at rationalising but it sounds like you are an environmentalist as long as it doesn’t inconvenience you.

I live in a solar powered cave, wear leaves, and walk everywhere. Do I pass muster?

shadow boxer12:48 pm 15 Jul 11

zippyzippy said :

Snave81 said :

I was just wondering if all the Greenpeace supporters commenting on here are using solar power, or some other renewable power supply, to power the computers they use to provide comments. Hopefully they’re not using fossil fuels to spread their environmental message.

Ugh, this is the kind of comment people always throw at environmentalists, as if it wins the argument somehow because ”oh, you’re just a hypocrite, you love fossil fuels” (or whatever). I’m not going to list all my personal circumstances (but I do try very hard as an individual to do what I believe is right). But here’s what I think anyone who makes this argument should consider:

Any environmentalist is a hypocrite. They have to be because of the way society is set up. It’s not possible to do everything purely ethically when our society is geared around doing things in a different way (unless you basically opt out of society). Environmentalists generally argue that things need to change at the systems level. For eg. Australia is very much organised around cheap fossil fuels and supplying all our energy needs using fossil fuels. Environmentalists say we should change that paradigm so that we are based around renewables. The fact that in the meantime they go to work and use computers and the computers are built from resources that are mined, and the computers use electricity from fossil fuels etc does not void their arguments! In order to argue for better environmental outcomes, you don’t have to martyr yourself by trying to eliminate everything single behavior that could possibly make you a hypocrite. (but of course there are many things that individuals can and should do).

Also, sometimes you can do things that might be seemingly hypocritical because you’re trying to achieve something that will help overall. Eg. Everyone attcked Al Gore for jetting around the world with his inconvenient truth message because planes are so polluting. But i think it’s ok, because he was making such a big impact in terms of advancing the debate, educating and mobilizing people etc.

Anyway… It’s just that someone always skips off the actual debate topic to say something like ‘but the computer you’re using uses fossil fuels!’ (so you’re green arguments must be bunk).

Nice try at rationalising but it sounds like you are an environmentalist as long as it doesn’t inconvenience you.

zippyzippy12:40 pm 15 Jul 11

Snave81 said :

I was just wondering if all the Greenpeace supporters commenting on here are using solar power, or some other renewable power supply, to power the computers they use to provide comments. Hopefully they’re not using fossil fuels to spread their environmental message.

Ugh, this is the kind of comment people always throw at environmentalists, as if it wins the argument somehow because ”oh, you’re just a hypocrite, you love fossil fuels” (or whatever). I’m not going to list all my personal circumstances (but I do try very hard as an individual to do what I believe is right). But here’s what I think anyone who makes this argument should consider:

Any environmentalist is a hypocrite. They have to be because of the way society is set up. It’s not possible to do everything purely ethically when our society is geared around doing things in a different way (unless you basically opt out of society). Environmentalists generally argue that things need to change at the systems level. For eg. Australia is very much organised around cheap fossil fuels and supplying all our energy needs using fossil fuels. Environmentalists say we should change that paradigm so that we are based around renewables. The fact that in the meantime they go to work and use computers and the computers are built from resources that are mined, and the computers use electricity from fossil fuels etc does not void their arguments! In order to argue for better environmental outcomes, you don’t have to martyr yourself by trying to eliminate everything single behavior that could possibly make you a hypocrite. (but of course there are many things that individuals can and should do).

Also, sometimes you can do things that might be seemingly hypocritical because you’re trying to achieve something that will help overall. Eg. Everyone attcked Al Gore for jetting around the world with his inconvenient truth message because planes are so polluting. But i think it’s ok, because he was making such a big impact in terms of advancing the debate, educating and mobilizing people etc.

Anyway… It’s just that someone always skips off the actual debate topic to say something like ‘but the computer you’re using uses fossil fuels!’ (so you’re green arguments must be bunk).

zippyzippy9:53 pm 14 Jul 11

longshanks said :

zippyzippy said :

Hey, the law isn’t always right and people in power aren’t always working in the best interests of the majority. I’d say it’s a good thing that someone willing to stand up to that is in our parliament. And if we didn’t have people using civil disobedience all through history, we’d be screwed.

As for the GM issue, just go to greenpeace’s website and look at some of the info. They’re highlighting a serious issue.

And it’s not not quite right to say they’re attacking scientists. They are attacking specific, very dodgy looking partnerships between scientists and big biotech companies like monsanto. In fact you will find that there are many many objective scientists saying there are some big problems with the way we’re going with GM foods.

What a load of crap. Who do you think will be most affected by what these numpties have done? Monsanto? Or the scientists, who have invested so much time and effort into the development of these crops? You can disagree with what they’re doing, you can disagree with who they’re doing it with, you can disagree with who will benefit at the end of the day – but that does not give you the right to destroy other people’s work and property.

What’s more, taxpayers help to fund the work of the CSIRO – and as a taxpayer I’m pretty p*ssed off that something which I helped to fund has been destroyed a bunch of rabid left wing activists masquerading as an environmental movement.

And as for your ridiculous statement about ‘objective scientists’ – either you accept the weight of scientific opinion or you don’t. The majority of scientists across the world believe that GM foods are completely safe for human consumption, just as the majority of scientists across the world believe that human-induced climate change is real and something needs to be done about it. One of my biggest problems with the Green movement is that they tend to shout about scientific opinion when it suits them, and conveniently ignore it when it doesn’t.

And don’t get me started on the following bit of advice – ‘just go to Greenpeace’s website and look at some of the info’. Sure, by all means have a look at some of the most subjective, sensationalised, and ideologically skewed ‘information’ that’s out there. But then why don’t you also have a talk to an expert working in the field to find out the facts – there’s a bunch of them up at CSIRO, and I know for a fact that they are happy to explain to non-scientists just how important this work is, because I made the effort to get off my arse and actually ask them some questions.

Of course, that was before the Green-pissants ran amok with their whipper-snippers, so they might be a bit less receptive at the moment…

Ok, I won’t have some big forum-fight with you – Just want to clarify a couple of things though.

I’m just saying go and have a look at some of the info greenpeace is providing. It is pretty revealing. You might think it’s ideologically skewed etc – but it does raise some serious questions; the other side of the story. Greenpeace have been good at doing this in the past and they’ve exposed some really dodgy stuff. I saw a greenpeace report last year on gm, which I think was called ‘eating in the dark’ (or something like that). I don’t think you should just dismiss it as sensationalist nonsense; it had some concerning stuff in it. Greenpeace aside, you just need to look at the careful approach Europe is taking to gm foods compared to Australia; that’s enough to raise some worries.

The other thing is the issue about scientific opinion. It is easy to make it look like ‘the left’ (or ‘the rabid left wing activists’ as you put it!) greenies’ are picking and choosing their science – yes to climate change science, no to gm science. People questioning gm seem to parallel climate skeptics in some ways. But that is way off.

In both cases activists are honouring the precautionary principle and they are focused on protecting the environment and human health. Re climate change they say it is too risky not to act on climate change etc. Re gm, they are saying it is too risky to be cavalier with gm foods. (remember there have been a variety of contamination incidents, studies showing negative effects of gm on animals, gm products banned in other countries but permitted here). It’s a consistent approach that prioritizes people and the environment. They’re saying that in the area of climate change, we have to speed things up and get active – there’s an urgent need to act. In the area of gm, they’re saying we have to slow things down and be careful- there is not an urgent need to act but it is being pushed anyway with potential damaging effects.

And in both climate change and gm science, the role of big companies is important. In climate change you have companies with vested interests (big oil etc) linking up with scientists and research bodies to produce ‘climate change sceptic’ results. In gm, you have big companies with vested interests linking up with scientists and research bodies to produce pro gm results. You have to question that. Unlike climate change science, Pro gm science isn’t a mainstream scientific opinion, rather it is being pushed hard by pockets of the scientific world that have am special interest.

Anyway, sorry, I said I would clarify a couple of things but then I actually ended up banging on quite a bit!

longshanks11:26 am 14 Jul 11

zippyzippy said :

Hey, the law isn’t always right and people in power aren’t always working in the best interests of the majority. I’d say it’s a good thing that someone willing to stand up to that is in our parliament. And if we didn’t have people using civil disobedience all through history, we’d be screwed.

As for the GM issue, just go to greenpeace’s website and look at some of the info. They’re highlighting a serious issue.

And it’s not not quite right to say they’re attacking scientists. They are attacking specific, very dodgy looking partnerships between scientists and big biotech companies like monsanto. In fact you will find that there are many many objective scientists saying there are some big problems with the way we’re going with GM foods.

What a load of crap. Who do you think will be most affected by what these numpties have done? Monsanto? Or the scientists, who have invested so much time and effort into the development of these crops? You can disagree with what they’re doing, you can disagree with who they’re doing it with, you can disagree with who will benefit at the end of the day – but that does not give you the right to destroy other people’s work and property.

What’s more, taxpayers help to fund the work of the CSIRO – and as a taxpayer I’m pretty p*ssed off that something which I helped to fund has been destroyed a bunch of rabid left wing activists masquerading as an environmental movement.

And as for your ridiculous statement about ‘objective scientists’ – either you accept the weight of scientific opinion or you don’t. The majority of scientists across the world believe that GM foods are completely safe for human consumption, just as the majority of scientists across the world believe that human-induced climate change is real and something needs to be done about it. One of my biggest problems with the Green movement is that they tend to shout about scientific opinion when it suits them, and conveniently ignore it when it doesn’t.

And don’t get me started on the following bit of advice – ‘just go to Greenpeace’s website and look at some of the info’. Sure, by all means have a look at some of the most subjective, sensationalised, and ideologically skewed ‘information’ that’s out there. But then why don’t you also have a talk to an expert working in the field to find out the facts – there’s a bunch of them up at CSIRO, and I know for a fact that they are happy to explain to non-scientists just how important this work is, because I made the effort to get off my arse and actually ask them some questions.

Of course, that was before the Green-pissants ran amok with their whipper-snippers, so they might be a bit less receptive at the moment…

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Professional Services

RSM

We share skills, insight and resources, as well as a client-centric approach that's based on a deep understanding of your business.

Find out more

Community Club

Canberra Southern Cross Club

We're proud to give you a place where friends and family can come together for good food and great entertainment.

Find out more

Insurance Brokers

allinsure

Allinsure has been a trusted insurance advisory to thousands of Australian business owners for almost 20 years.

Find out more

Mortgage Brokers

Clarity Home Loans

A passionate team of Canberrans helping other Canberrans secure their home loans. No frills, no commissions, no brainer.

Find out more

Lawyers

Kamy Saeedi Law

When you need a criminal or commercial lawyer, you don’t want to take any chances. You want someone in your corner that you can trust like your life depends on it - because it does.

Find out more

Lawyers

MV Law

Through a spirit of entrepreneurialism, collaboration, and future-forward thinking, MV Law have earned an industry-leading reputation.

Find out more

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more