14 July 2011

Greenpeace chop down the CSIRO's wheat patch

| johnboy
Join the conversation
99

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

99
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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!

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?!)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thoroughly Smashed2:50 pm 15 Jul 11

puggy said :

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.

Well, I hope they have a lot of money in the bank, as not only have they broken trespass laws and the like, but the very legislation specifically put in place to avoid uncontrolled spread of GM test crops. There are some very hefty fines associated with this.

I give Greenpeace this though: They have balls. They release a factually incorrect report a couple of weeks ago and then follow it up with criminal activity justified by those incorrect “facts”.

I wonder if CSIRO can recover the costs of restarting the research from them too…

Details of the “secret” trials that have been available since 2009.

I’m sympathetic to Greenpeace’s point of view, but not when so much of what they have said about it is just plain wrong.

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.

Well, I hope they have a lot of money in the bank, as not only have they broken trespass laws and the like, but the very legislation specifically put in place to avoid uncontrolled spread of GM test crops. There are some very hefty fines associated with this.

I give Greenpeace this though: They have balls. They release a factually incorrect report a couple of weeks ago and then follow it up with criminal activity justified by those incorrect “facts”.

shadow boxer2:01 pm 15 Jul 11

lol, we don’t really have a dress code, you can usually spot us as the one with the arse out of our pants from funding other peoples flights of fancy

shadow boxer said :

It depends, do you earn enough that you have to subsidise other peoples pink batts, solar feed-in, carbon tax, plastic bag ban, windmills, unecomic public transport, water buy back, green loans, green start and the recently cancelled co2 buy back.

If you do you can join us as the greenest of the green, we meet in the bar after work on Fridays

I’m afraid I wouldn’t pass the dress code. Sorry

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.

shadow boxer1:22 pm 15 Jul 11

It depends, do you earn enough that you have to subsidise other peoples pink batts, solar feed-in, carbon tax, plastic bag ban, windmills, unecomic public transport, water buy back, green loans, green start and the recently cancelled co2 buy back.

If you do you can join us as the greenest of the green, we meet in the bar after work on Fridays

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.

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

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?

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?

Sounds much the same as nationalists then.

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.

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).

Classified said :

Stevian said :

Classified said :

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

Oh, and referring to me in the plural was also kinda amusing…

I was refering to you and the rest of your Monsanto rah-rah squad,

Would you like to enter into a physical relationship with me?

And I’m of course referring to the love kind, rather than the hate kind…

Stevian said :

Classified said :

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

Oh, and referring to me in the plural was also kinda amusing…

I was refering to you and the rest of your Monsanto rah-rah squad,

Would you like to enter into a physical relationship with me?

Classified said :

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

Holy crap, you’re absolutely right! I asked the guy who leans in my bathroom window filming me in the shower each night who he worked for, and he said “Mosanto, yo”.

On a more serious note, time to change the tinfoil hat – the current one is starting to get a bit scruffy.

You know I’m right. The shills are crawling out of the woodwork now
http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/

Classified said :

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

Oh, and referring to me in the plural was also kinda amusing…

I was refering to you and the rest of your Monsanto rah-rah squad,

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.

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

Isn’t this great. Unsubstantiated claim followed by abuse.

Source perhaps? Or does everyone ‘just know this’? Kinda like ‘the vibe’ hey?

I suppose I underestimate the human capacity for self delusion:
http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/
Just a sample of the benevolent and good actions of Monsanto.

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

Oh, and referring to me in the plural was also kinda amusing…

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

Holy crap, you’re absolutely right! I asked the guy who leans in my bathroom window filming me in the shower each night who he worked for, and he said “Mosanto, yo”.

On a more serious note, time to change the tinfoil hat – the current one is starting to get a bit scruffy.

never underestimate the mendacity of a small businessperson who thinks no one is watching.

Mothy said :

Let’s play a game, it’s called “count the bigs”;

zippyzippy said :

…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..

So its the size of the companies that’s a problem for you?

Just so you know, this is where all that “leftie” labelling comes from.

Yeah, I suppose that’s a lot of bigs. But the companies i’m thinking of – and you can’t deny that there’re a lot of them that have done crap things – tend to be the big ones. At least they’re the ones that have done the most notable crap.

johnboy said :

zippyzippy said :

Oh yeah, and this wheat was about creating ‘monsanto super nutritional bread’, not about feeding the starving etc.

because more nutrition from the same grain grown has no benefit to the poor?

Well, it puts it in some context at all. It’s not a trial that is focused on solving the food problems of the poor. I don’t know this for sure of course, but based on the history of gm development and of biotech companies’ involvement in developing products, I would say they’re probably developing a bread to patent and sell in supermarkets – not to benevolently help the starving.

westonresident said :

They’re growing the wheat to be more resistant to disease! How is this a bad thing?!
This sort of technology can obviously go a long way in our own country, but what about developing and third world countries?

Introducing the cane toad to control pests was also a wicked idea of course. And if it seems like a good idea, you should just go with it.

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

Let’s play a game, it’s called “count the bigs”;

zippyzippy said :

…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..

So its the size of the companies that’s a problem for you?

Just so you know, this is where all that “leftie” labelling comes from.

johnboy said :

zippyzippy said :

Oh yeah, and this wheat was about creating ‘monsanto super nutritional bread’, not about feeding the starving etc.

because more nutrition from the same grain grown has no benefit to the poor?

Or anyone else…?

zippyzippy said :

Oh yeah, and this wheat was about creating ‘monsanto super nutritional bread’, not about feeding the starving etc.

because more nutrition from the same grain grown has no benefit to the poor?

Oh yeah, and this wheat was about creating ‘monsanto super nutritional bread’, not about feeding the starving etc.

I have been meaning to mention: if those are hazmat suits, the spray painters in the city will be in luck if there is ever a bio-weapon attack on Canberra…

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!

Stevian said :

Classified 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?

This research could have provided valuable information, but thanks to greenpeace’s stupidity the opportunity is lost.

Monsanto have lost a small fraction of their billion. My heat bleeds. You’re the stupid one.

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

Thoroughly Smashed8:35 pm 14 Jul 11

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Okay so from what I’ve read, a couple of things went wrong here. The trace impurities that caused the disease were already being produced in the system, but were simply produced in greater proportions by the GM bacteria. The filtration system was inadequate because, surprise surprise, the manufacturer wanted to save some money. It was an accident waiting to happen, and I wonder whether it wouldn’t have happened anyway even if GM wasn’t involved.

Although that contradicts the provided link. Certainly, we have to be careful, which, back to the topic, is why we do research. If ignorant fools don’t get in the way…

Stevian said :

No one want to have our food supply controlled by multinationals any more than it already is. You have a vested interest in genetic patents no doubt.

Don’t want them controlling you? Buy from someone else. Don’t run around like clowns destroying any heretical products that don’t fit into your world view. Use your dollars to support products you want.

Chaz said :

It is quite obvious that GM foods are not safe for human/animal consumption.

There is ZERO scientifically reputable evidence that any unintended harm has come from the effects of the GM components of GM foods anywhere in any product. Billions of meals are served every year with GM products, billions of people eat them, there are millions of acres of plantings, and 0 effects.

p1 said :

Stevian said :

Classified 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?

This research could have provided valuable information, but thanks to greenpeace’s stupidity the opportunity is lost.

Monsanto have lost a small fraction of their billion. My heat bleeds. You’re the stupid one.

I don’t get it. Are you convinced that there is absolutely no possibility that any genetically modified plant can ever be of any benefit to humanity?

Not if Monsanto have anything to do with it.

Thoroughly Smashed7:13 pm 14 Jul 11

DarkLadyWolfMother said :

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Postalgeek said :

The main contention with GM crops is that its a bit of a pandora’s box. Bacteria and viruses are used to modify some crops and may create new diseases.

Bacteria and viruses aren’t the bogeymen that people seem to think they are. Has there been any occurrence of such a thing happening? I find this exceedingly unlikely.

Some interesting, if heavy, reading about one incident (The Showa Denko Tryptophan Incident): http://www.psrast.org/demsd.htm

Okay so from what I’ve read, a couple of things went wrong here. The trace impurities that caused the disease were already being produced in the system, but were simply produced in greater proportions by the GM bacteria. The filtration system was inadequate because, surprise surprise, the manufacturer wanted to save some money. It was an accident waiting to happen, and I wonder whether it wouldn’t have happened anyway even if GM wasn’t involved.

Apologist mode again. This is why we have very strict regulations on the food and pharmaceuticals industries, rather than simply running screaming when something goes wrong. If we did that we’d still be back in the stone age.

Thoroughly Smashed6:45 pm 14 Jul 11

DarkLadyWolfMother said :

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Postalgeek said :

The main contention with GM crops is that its a bit of a pandora’s box. Bacteria and viruses are used to modify some crops and may create new diseases.

Bacteria and viruses aren’t the bogeymen that people seem to think they are. Has there been any occurrence of such a thing happening? I find this exceedingly unlikely.

Some interesting, if heavy, reading about one incident (The Showa Denko Tryptophan Incident): http://www.psrast.org/demsd.htm

Cheers. Allow me to drop into apologist mode and suggest that these are the kind of incidents that occur, but lead to improved safety in all fields of engineering.

Thoroughly Smashed6:44 pm 14 Jul 11

Stevian said :

p1 said :

I wonder why they didn’t just spray the crop with RoundUp™?

Owned by Monsanto, the GM crops are resistant.

I think it’s fair to say the joke went right over your head.

Greenpeace. Most Aussies want to save the whales, which is fine. But these guys increasingly look like a bunch of ex-commies.

Stevian said :

Classified 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?

This research could have provided valuable information, but thanks to greenpeace’s stupidity the opportunity is lost.

Monsanto have lost a small fraction of their billion. My heat bleeds. You’re the stupid one.

I don’t get it. Are you convinced that there is absolutely no possibility that any genetically modified plant can ever be of any benefit to humanity?

westonresident6:09 pm 14 Jul 11

They’re growing the wheat to be more resistant to disease! How is this a bad thing?!
This sort of technology can obviously go a long way in our own country, but what about developing and third world countries?

p1 said :

I wonder why they didn’t just spray the crop with RoundUp™?

Owned by Monsanto, the GM crops are resistant.

Classified 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?

This research could have provided valuable information, but thanks to greenpeace’s stupidity the opportunity is lost.

Monsanto have lost a small fraction of their billion. My heat bleeds. You’re the stupid one.

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

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.

Good on these guys for doing this

+1

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.

So, let me get this straight. An elected member of our LA condones this behaviour?

And why not. No one want to have our food supply controlled by multinationals any more than it already is. You have a vested interest in genetic patents no doubt.

Can’t help but wonder what Norman Borlaug would think…

oh wait there it is in a quote right there;

The limited potential for land expansion for cultivation worried Borlaug, who, in March 2005, stated that, “we will have to double the world food supply by 2050.” With 85% of future growth in food production having to come from lands already in use, he recommends a multidisciplinary research focus to further increase yields, mainly through increased crop immunity to large-scale diseases, such as the rust fungus, which affects all cereals but rice. His dream was to “transfer rice immunity to cereals such as wheat, maize, sorghum and barley, and transfer bread-wheat proteins (gliadin and glutenin) to other cereals, especially rice and maize”.

Borlaug believed that genetic manipulation of organisms (GMO) was the only way to increase food production as the world runs out of unused arable land. GMOs were not inherently dangerous “because we’ve been genetically modifying plants and animals for a long time. Long before we called it science, people were selecting the best breeds.”

If a little learning is a dangerous thing, then sheer ignorance (of science, agriculture, the real world) can be quite safe.

Using a whippersnipper to cut a young crop of wheat in July would be much the same as letting the sheep or cattle in to graze it down and thicken it up. If they did a thorough job they may have improved the trial.

Re the hazmat suits: They either sincerely believe that GMO ‘contamination’ can stick to your clothes (the fact is you would have to transport viable seeds out to be at ‘risk’) OR they are willing to reinforce negative public perceptions with an out and out stunt. Stupid either way. Stick to what you’re good at GreenPeace, save the whales.

zippyzippy said :

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.

“the corperations will act all corperationy, and then they’ll make money” – alec baldwen (Team America)

I just wish Greenpeace would ‘respect the science’.

I wonder why they didn’t just spray the crop with RoundUp™?

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?

This research could have provided valuable information, but thanks to greenpeace’s stupidity the opportunity is lost.

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?

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.

Good on these guys for doing this

I’ve got alot of GM grass growing at my house, in both the from and back gardens. I’d be happy for Greenpeace to come around on a weekly basis and chop it all down in the name of their cause. It seems to be particularly GM’y during the summer months!!!

@ #20 Thoroughly Smashed

Patent was the word I was looking for. Somedays brain-blanks blind you to the most basic words of the English language. As for the rest of it, as I said, it’s not all proven, but they are some of the objections that have been raised.

puggy said :

Would Greenpeace like to describe how they avoided carrying GM wheat bits into the outside world in that little escapade? Did they disassemble their whipper snippers and clean each and every bit? If the concept of GM is that bad, then the concept of contamination of the wider area is so much worse. The Hazmat suits are just a stunt.

In truth, the entire sorry escapade is just a stunt. Unfortunately, it seems that they lacked the imagination to come up with a less destructive and wasteful means of drawing undeserved attention to their cause.

DarkLadyWolfMother12:21 pm 14 Jul 11

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Postalgeek said :

The main contention with GM crops is that its a bit of a pandora’s box. Bacteria and viruses are used to modify some crops and may create new diseases.

Bacteria and viruses aren’t the bogeymen that people seem to think they are. Has there been any occurrence of such a thing happening? I find this exceedingly unlikely.

Some interesting, if heavy, reading about one incident (The Showa Denko Tryptophan Incident): http://www.psrast.org/demsd.htm

puggy said :

Would Greenpeace like to describe how they avoided carrying GM wheat bits into the outside world in that little escapade? Did they disassemble their whipper snippers and clean each and every bit? If the concept of GM is that bad, then the concept of contamination of the wider area is so much worse. The Hazmat suits are just a stunt.

+1 I wondered about this too. Snippers are likely sitting in the back of a ute somewhere.

What a bunch of arseholes. Never again will I support greenpeace.

Clown Killer12:11 pm 14 Jul 11

Let get this straight people. If GM produce worries you please be honest and just admit that you are an idiot. It does the environment movement a disservice to link your stupidity with a desire to protect the enviornment.

If we’re going to smash stuff because of the patent system a government owned wheat field seems like a strange place to start.

I dont agree with how Greenpeace has gone about this, but after watching Food Inc I understand the concern for GM foods such as wheat/soy.

Would Greenpeace like to describe how they avoided carrying GM wheat bits into the outside world in that little escapade? Did they disassemble their whipper snippers and clean each and every bit? If the concept of GM is that bad, then the concept of contamination of the wider area is so much worse. The Hazmat suits are just a stunt.

Thoroughly Smashed11:49 am 14 Jul 11

John Moulis said :

Funny how Greenpeace and their ilk deplored the threats made to climate scientists and told us to “respect the science”, yet when scientists do something they don’t agree with they respond with vandalism and thuggery. Typical of the hypocrisy and moronic ignorance of the rabid green Left.

Nice of you to tar everyone who’s concerned about the environment with the behaviour of a handful of extremists.

Funny how Greenpeace and their ilk deplored the threats made to climate scientists and told us to “respect the science”, yet when scientists do something they don’t agree with they respond with vandalism and thuggery. Typical of the hypocrisy and moronic ignorance of the rabid green Left.

Thoroughly Smashed11:27 am 14 Jul 11

Postalgeek said :

The main contention with GM crops is that its a bit of a pandora’s box. Bacteria and viruses are used to modify some crops and may create new diseases.

Bacteria and viruses aren’t the bogeymen that people seem to think they are. Has there been any occurrence of such a thing happening? I find this exceedingly unlikely.

Postalgeek said :

Spliced GM crops also spread allergies from one food group to another

Adding the production of allergens is a much more complicated change to an organism’s DNA than pesticide tolerance. I find this very unlikely too but at least it sounds plausible.

Postalgeek said :

GM crops can also upset local biodiversity by altering the food chain.

I’m not sure how this can be much different from unmodified crops, which are no less a monoculture, and no more alien to the surrounding environment.

Postalgeek said :

Food also becomes copyrighted.

Patented.

Postalgeek said :

Hungry nations that grow seed from GM crops without permission are ‘pirating’ it and can face sanctions.

One way to avoid IP issues is not to violate them in the first place.

Postalgeek said :

The situation isn’t helped by companies applying pressure to replace free heirloom crops with GM crops. Look up Monsanto for further information. Films like Food Inc give you an idea of the negative side of GM crops.

If, as I suspect, there’s a fair amount of active graft involved by these companies in shifting developing countries’ agriculture to GM to lock them in, that’s unconscionable.

But that’s a failing of capitalism, not science.

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…

So given Mr Rattenberry’s comments on the ABC this morning, what do you intend to destroy because you don’t like it?

Would you go to Mr Rattenberry’s house and smash his solar panels to bits because the solar feed in tariff robs from the poor to give to the rich?

Maybe knock his whole house down because it is built on land stolen from its traditional owners?

After all, the end justifies the means.

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?

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4112 Have a read of that as well for a nice summary of the risks and benefits.

As for these protesters? Find them, arrest them, give them their day in court. GM has the potential to one day eradicate world hunger and reduce the amount of land needed for farming. If they truly cared about the environment they would be pushing arguments for reductions in pollution and urban sprawl rather then stupid stunts like this.

Brilliant idea. Let’s cost the research scientists time and money. Because they have heaps of that. Federal funding for science is booming and Australian’s take science extremely seriously, so this will really make a statement. /end sarcasm

Also, I like that they targeted the crops that are lower in glycemic index thus making it healthier for the general population, not to mention both the Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetics. And higher in fibre to help bowel health, and therefore possibly lower bowel cancer cases. Not that those problems are big in Australia or anything.

When does human health become important too? Am I just biased as both Type 1 Diabetes and Bowel Cancer run in my family so I know personally X amounts of people who’s health would have benefited from this research before this lot got happy with their whippersnippers?

Bastards.

All of my concerns with GM crops have to do with evil corporate multinationals owning our food supply (eg this).

I really like the idea of CSIRO being on the forefront of developing these things, as we have at least a little power (through out elected government etc) over how they market and control the use of anything they develop.

Every time I hear statements about the ethics and evil of genetically modifying organisms, I think of sausage dogs, and sigh.

Rawhide Kid Part3 said :

The Frots said :

On the ABC with Sollie this morning I heard the Greens Shane Rattenberry say that when he was an active member of the Greenpeace Movement he too was involved in such activities – which, as I understand, would be illegal.

So, if that’s the case……………….WTF is he doing in Parliament?

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 Frots said :

On the ABC with Sollie this morning I heard the Greens Shane Rattenberry say that when he was an active member of the Greenpeace Movement he too was involved in such activities – which, as I understand, would be illegal.

So, if that’s the case……………….WTF is he doing in Parliament?

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?

Its a bit like how we changed the breed of animals we consume for better production. So GM crops are having there genetic structures changed to produce better crops so to speak. (layman’s terms only DO NOT QUOTE)

Thanks Kid – good summary.

SSrb said :

Some explanation: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2785818.html

Cool – thanks.

There are pros and cons to GM crops. GM crops can be more resilient, remain fresher for longer, and cut down on pesticides. GM crops certainly have the potential to help stave off famine in many regions.

The main contention with GM crops is that its a bit of a pandora’s box. Bacteria and viruses are used to modify some crops and may create new diseases. Spliced GM crops also spread allergies from one food group to another, and GM crops can also upset local biodiversity by altering the food chain.

Food also becomes copyrighted. Hungry nations that grow seed from GM crops without permission are ‘pirating’ it and can face sanctions. The situation isn’t helped by companies applying pressure to replace free heirloom crops with GM crops. Look up Monsanto for further information. Films like Food Inc give you an idea of the negative side of GM crops.

Some of the objections are proven, some only theoretical.

Do I think Greenpeace’s actions are constructive? No. Is the GM industry totally benign? No.

I always wondered what freaks of nature were being engineered at the dreadfully ominous sounding ‘Ginninderra Experiment Station’.

GM wheat? I am very dissapointed, shame on you evil scientists.

The Frots said :

On the ABC with Sollie this morning I heard the Greens Shane Rattenberry say that when he was an active member of the Greenpeace Movement he too was involved in such activities – which, as I understand, would be illegal.

So, if that’s the case……………….WTF is he doing in Parliament?

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?

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.

Thoroughly Smashed10:37 am 14 Jul 11

StrangeAttractor said :

Wow, this, among other things, has changed my mind about voting Green. I’m with Erg0, prosecution for these tools.

Greenpeace, different organisation.

StrangeAttractor10:32 am 14 Jul 11

Wow, this, among other things, has changed my mind about voting Green. I’m with Erg0, prosecution for these tools.

If Greenpeace are reading this, I hear that the arboretum is chockas with genetically modified trees.

Yeah let’s f*** on some scientists. Cos they obviously add no value to the human race.

What a bunch of idiots! They grow all kinds of different experimental crops there! I hope they all die of malnourishment. Douche bag greenies.

Thoroughly Smashed10:21 am 14 Jul 11

Being sympathetic to some of Greenpeace’s campaigns, this just pisses me off. Probably more than if I were simply anti-Greenpeace.

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?

Rawhide Kid Part310:03 am 14 Jul 11

The Frots said :

On the ABC with Sollie this morning I heard the Greens Shane Rattenberry say that when he was an active member of the Greenpeace Movement he too was involved in such activities – which, as I understand, would be illegal.

So, if that’s the case……………….WTF is he doing in Parliament?

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 Frots said :

On the ABC with Sollie this morning I heard the Greens Shane Rattenberry say that when he was an active member of the Greenpeace Movement he too was involved in such activities – which, as I understand, would be illegal.

So, if that’s the case……………….WTF is he doing in Parliament?

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?

Its a bit like how we changed the breed of animals we consume for better production. So GM crops are having there genetic structures changed to produce better crops so to speak. (layman’s terms only DO NOT QUOTE)

What a pack of utter, utter tools. Here’s hoping that prosecution is forthcoming.

On the ABC with Sollie this morning I heard the Greens Shane Rattenberry say that when he was an active member of the Greenpeace Movement he too was involved in such activities – which, as I understand, would be illegal.

So, if that’s the case……………….WTF is he doing in Parliament?

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?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.