Truth telling in Green organizations is not part of the agenda. Former leaders have now turned, and now report they cannot be trusted. Wow!: Quote of the day: can’t trust Greenpeace edition
Stephen Tindale is a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform. He spent six years as executive director of Greenpeace UK, which opposes GM crops. However, he has always thought that GM technology should be assessed case-by-case. He minimised campaigning on GM – never authorising direct actions against GM during his time in charge – and told Greenpeace’s campaigners to focus instead on how to make agriculture less environmentally-damaging.
The extract above is from this recent article, in which Tindale argues for just such a case-by-case assessment. Despite what he says, this does seem to be quite a turnaround.
You can see the problem for a Greenpeace director. If he had said what he really believed ten years ago, the flow of funds from the terrified public to Greenpeace would have dried up. So he kept mum; at best toned things down a bit (although not that much as these (1,2) statements from his time in office make clear). Then when he had flown the coop he could tell us the truth.
It’s a stunning turn-around for the science of bio-technology. Bishop Hill posts this too:
Feb 3, 2015 Greens
Anne Glover, the EU Chief Scientist who was forced out of her job after a letter-writing campaign by green groups, has dished out a certain amount of retribution this morning, accusing Greenpeace of being dishonest about the risks and benefits of genetic modification.
I’m deeply disappointed with them, because those NGOs that you mentioned were NGOs that I used to trust and many citizens do trust. I think they have ignored the evidence and they have fabricated a scenario.
If I look at their letter, and what they describe, because I’ve met with many of them they know that simply it’s not true what they talk about.
They have an ideology, they have a philosophy they wish to pursue. But you shouldn’t try and back it up by evidence, or if you like bad calling the evidence. That’s not honest.
I am constantly taken aback by the number of people in positions of power and authority who simply have no idea that many major environmental groups deceive the public in order to advance their aims. If Prof Glover is interested in becoming a little more enlightened, I commend the “Greens” tag on this blog to her.
Global Justice Ecology Project’s Ruddy Turnstone from Florida remarks, “ArborGen and the government may think they have won this round, but there is already a huge anti-GMO movement. There are also forest protection groups, Indigenous Peoples, birders, foresters, scientists, parents, hikers, and many others who do not want the forests contaminated by GE trees. A great many of them will take action to ensure these trees are never planted.”
In 2013, when the USDA called for public comments on another ArborGen request to commercialize a GE Eucalyptus tree (a decision still pending), they received comments at the rate of 10,000 to one opposing the industry request. By simply refusing to regulate this new GE pine, the USDA has cut the public out of the process completely. In 2013, a conference on Tree Biotechnology in Asheville, NC was disrupted for its entire 5 days by anti-GE tree activists, and there were multiple arrests.