Member log in

Greenpeace's crime against humanity

Greenpeace's campaign against genetically-modified golden rice is a crime against humanity, one of the group's founders says.

Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, a former Greenpeace International director and co-founder of the group, says Greenpeace and its allies have prevented the introduction of golden rice over a decade, claiming it might have environmental and health risks.

Numerous studies show golden rice, developed by Swiss scientist Dr Ingo Potrykus and his colleagues, can eliminate vitamin A deficiency, he says.

The rice contains beta-carotene in the kernel, which the human body converts to vitamin A.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is backing field trials in Philippines and Bangladesh, Dr Moore says.

The World Health Organisation says up to 500,000 children a year go blind due to the lack of the essential nutrient – and half die within a year.

In a column in today's print edition of The National Business Review, Dr Moore says Greenpeace has aggressively spread misinformation about golden rice, claiming there are better ways to alleviate vitamin A deficiency.

He says there is "zero evidence" of possible harm from biotechnology, including genetic modification.

"It is clear by the facts that Greenpeace is guilty of crimes against humanity as defined by the International Criminal Court.

"Greenpeace claims golden rice is a failure while they are the ones responsible for preventing the cure that is so desperately needed by millions of civilians."

Elsewhere in today's new-look full colour print edition, NBR economics editor Rob Hosking reports retail banks could force Reserve Bank governor Graeme Wheeler's hand on interest rates.

Also, South Canterbury Finance liquidators have uncovered further questionable transactions which they are now discussing with counterparties to those deals.

More by NBR Online staff

Comments and questions
15

The problem is a lack of genetically-modified rice? Unbelievable nonsense.
Greenpeace AND Patrick Moore could usefully consider this view:

"In a century, we probably will be able to make quantitative climate predictions with some skill. In the current decade, we cannot.
AGW is by no means disproven by the last 15 to 18 years of arguably flat temperatures, just as it was by no means proven by the temperature rise that occurred during the ENSO event or since the end of the LIA or the Dalton minimum.
Temperature change cannot either prove or disprove the (C)AGW hypothesis, not without a full understanding of the climate system sufficient to predict what the temperature would be in the absence of extra CO_2, which we utterly lack.
All the more so since we have to understand it in the presence or absence of CO_2, soot, various aerosols of anthropogenic or natural origin, with a variable sun, varying phases of decadal oscillations, and an unknown ocean sucking heat down or delivering heat up in a global circulation process with timescales ranging from years to centuries, with land use changes and pollutants in the waters that have visible global effects that we do not yet understand, all in a highly nonlinear chaotic system with numerous feedbacks and spontaneous self-organizing stabilizing macroscopic phenomena with global impact, on a planet that is inexorably pursing an orbital cycle that completely changes the underlying “equilibrium” over time in ways we do not fully understand and cannot predict or compute.

In the meantime, prudence suggests that we concentrate on the ongoing disaster of global energy poverty first as it is a certain disaster that is happening now and forces 1/3 of the world’s population to live in near prehistoric levels of poverty and misery.
Even if CO_2 were precisely as disastrous as the worst-case CAGW scenarios suggest — which few people believe any more, including climate scientists — the impact of a 2.5-3.5 C rise in global temperature by the end of the century will be smaller than the impact of a century more of global energy poverty, even if the ocean does rise a full metre or more, even if storms do actually get discernibly worse eventually, even if there is increased desertification, none of which are currently observible.

Somewhere in the world, as I type this, not one but hundreds of millions of people are cooking a sparse day’s meal on animal dung or a small charcoal fire.
Their children are breathing in particulates and smoke and suffering from malnutrition and diseases.
Their clothes must be hand washed, if they are washed at all. They have neither fresh, clean water nor anything but the great outdoors as a sewer system.
Some two billion people will light their homes — if one can call a tin shanty or mud or grass hut a home — with an oil lamp or nothing at all tonight.
The children of those two billion people will not go to school tomorrow, cannot read or do simple arithmetic, and will go to bed hungry (indeed, live always hungry, as they do not take in enough food to support their growth).
They will grow up stunted in stature and damaged in their brains, all because they lack access to cheap electricity, running clean water and sewer facilities and clothes washing and refrigeration and schools and houses and adequate supplies of fertilizer-grown food that electricity enables.
Many will die young, or live to become “criminals” as they do what they must to stay alive, or will become cannon fodder for anyone who promises to give them a better life if they will fight and die for them.

They, not the threat of a supposed apocalypse that might or might not happen in a century, are the moral imperative of the twenty-first century. There is no need for 1/3 of the world’s population to live in squalid misery — not any more. We have the technology, we have the wealth, to utterly eliminate global poverty within a few decades. What we lack is the will and the vision to do so.

And we will never succeed in doing so at the same time we make energy more expensive and discourage its use. The poverty in question is energy poverty. Fundamentally. With enough, cheap enough, energy we can make the deserts bloom, create jobs in the heart of Africa or India or South America, bring medicine and electric lights and running water to the world.
Cheap, clean energy solves all problems; it is the fundamental scarcity."

rgb

Let them eat "golden" rice, indeed. Obscene!

Well said.

Good on you for giving this an airing. NBR have been one of the very few media outlets to have balls enough to even mention this story. Unless it has pics of Lucy Lawless breaking the law in the name of charity status, the others just don't care. 10 points you guys.

The GMO corporations, world leaders and Wall Street are pathological, as there is enough food on this planet and nobody needs to go hungry.
Farmer Brown, we could eliminate hunger now not in a few decades.

http://www.sott.net/article/256026-Insanity-Seven-million-tons-of-food-thrown-away-every-year

15-18 years of "arguably flat temperatures"? Unbelievable nonsense!

Sarah, the following is from the latest Dr James Hansen, NASA, GISS paper:
"The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of net climate forcing."

Perhaps Sarah was pointing out that the flat temperatures are not arguable, do you think?

No, she was highlighting her own ignorance that increases virtually stopped in 1998 and are still nowhere near Middle Ages, or Roman or previous "warmer" times.

Actually, I find it "unbelievable" that someone so ill-informed gets the NBR.

Greenpeace is a deceitful organisation, and causing major harm to society.

Right on the money!

All the flat-earth anti-GM nutters will be out in force on this one.

Scientists and anyone else who actually knows what they are talking about have for years been telling anyone who will listen that GM crops do not pose the risks to health and the environment that the superstitious, anti-everything, torch and pitchfork wielding mob in Greenpeace claim they do.

In fact, if you want to look at deaths due to eating dangerous food you should look no further than organics. Dozens die every year around the world from eating unsafe organically grown food, and nobody wants to talk about it, especially all the dishonest sandal and woollen cardy wearers!

Whenever Greenpeace comes up as a topic I am always reminded of the following quote from Norman Borlaug, who developed high-yielding wheat crops from which millions, if not billions, of people benefited:

"Some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for 50 years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertiliser and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things."

I would like to have given the following serious consideration, but this indigestble, one-sentence argument is too self-indulgent. It needs to be broken down into intelligible prose. Not as below. A shame.

All the more so since we have to understand it in the presence or absence of CO_2, soot, various aerosols of anthropogenic or natural origin, with a variable sun, varying phases of decadal oscillations and an unknown ocean sucking heat down or delivering heat up in a global circulation process with timescales ranging from years to centuries, with land use changes and pollutants in the waters that have visible global effects that we do not yet understand, all in a highly nonlinear chaotic system with numerous feedbacks and spontaneous self-organizing stabilizing macroscopic phenomena with global impact, on a planet that is inexorably pursing an orbital cycle that completely changes the underlying “equilibrium” over time in ways we do not fully understand and cannot predict or compute. Temperature change cannot either prove or disprove the (C)AGW hypothesis, not without a full understanding of the climate system sufficient to predict what the temperature would be in the absence of extra CO_2, which we utterly lack

FB has continued to refine the prose where edit functions are available: this site has no such function.
FB notes that in your version the order of the two sentences has been reversed.
However , the two sentences seem to be grammatically correct. The lengthy list of uncertainties was rather deliberate if not completely exhaustive.

Refer to the blog sites of joanhaNova.com or UKMet office for confirmation of flat lining temperature and CO 2 curve divergence