Not a grain of truth in sneaky Greenpeace tactics

Saynotogreengenocide says:

08:58am | 09/12/11

They don’t. Their goal is to reduce the world’s population to 500,000. Easier to feed, easier to control.

MarkS says:

09:49am | 09/12/11

@Saynotogreengenocide

Totally agree, their aim is Back to Year Zero. Lying people hating scum.

zag says:

04:48pm | 09/12/11

I’m not overly into GM foods, but Greenpeace and peta do make up a lot of stuff, a few years ago I nearly got made a member of greenpeace, the reason why I didn’t bother with them.

They send out a 80 page book every month saying all sorts of stuff in the book it did have something interesting about plastics and effecting the human body, but it’s also had stuff about the coral bleaching which no one knows why that happens, but placing it all on poisons which isn’t right as naturally slightly dirty/muddy water will make it happen as well.

Though overall what I couldn’t understand was a group who was so busy trying to save the world is printing this 80 page book on thick (non rippleable) super gloss government A4 bond paper (you can’t recycle this paper either)  with dye sublimation printing (the most expensive printing you can do today) and was full 24-bit colour on every single page.

That book at the time would have cost around $100AUD for each book and they send this every month and around the world and they can’t work out why the forests are being chopped down.

Talk about being your own worse enemy.

Shama says:

05:06pm | 09/12/11

Lots of their folk also have large air-conditioned apartments when stationed in third world countries. So I never donate to them.

Adrian Wedd says:

05:17pm | 09/12/11

Secret way of doubling food production in ten years:

http://www.srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food

I’ll bet there’s thousands of bakers happy to say they wont use GM wheat. Bakers Delight are just low fruit.

If we had real food labeling laws, we’d know if Baker’s Delight was using cheap imported GM industrial corn, canola and soy products in their dreary bread. But maybe then no one would buy it?

jeremytager@gmail.com says:

07:57pm | 09/12/11

If you think GM will feed anyone, think again. There is NO evidence that GM increases food yields. There is no evidence that some of the richest companies on the planet with patents over food are going to give anything to the world’s poorest and hungriest. If you are depending on Monsanto to help feed you and others, god help you.

Robert Smissen Of rural SA says:

08:58pm | 09/12/11

Check out the truth about Harp seals, just lunatic leftist crap! !

iansand says:

09:24pm | 09/12/11

jeremytager@gmail.com - You will enjoy my sister’s PhD thesis.  There is such evidence.

mrniceguy351 says:

09:45am | 09/12/11

Thats it in a nutshell right there. What credible study has ever linked gm food to human harm??

Sick of dodgy scienticians says:

02:40pm | 09/12/11

Throw a “scientician” a govt grant and they will generate a report that says up is down and black is white.
If the “scientician’s” report has floods, fire and famine + millions of deaths, it enables the author to join the celebrity speaking circuit, big brother and TV cooking shows. Plus the Labor party might put them on the payroll to spin their next great idea.

Sherlock says:

07:38am | 09/12/11

This is the question I have asked a number of people who claim all food should be grown organically.Borlaug also said that the maximum amount of people we could feed under that system is 4 billion. So I ask organic believers which third of the population do they want to wipe out?

Haven’t got an answer from any of them yet?

Trevor says:

07:48am | 09/12/11

I’m anti-GM Mahrat yet would wouldn’t call myself anti-life.

Let’s for a second assume that there are no adverse health effects from GM crops. A major problem is big corporations holding patents on life forms and food sources. Have you heard of the draconian efforts that Monsanto is going to in the US to protect their ‘intellectual property?’ They have developed seedless crops that has destroyed the centuries old traditions of seed swapping and retaining for the next harvest. GM crops puts this free and traditional function into the hands of the benevolent multi-billion dollar corporations.

Don’t confuse this as an anti-capitalist rant though. The main reason I oppose GM crops is because the world is already grossly overpopulated. We are in a massive overshoot and if billions more can be born thanks to GM crops then that will only be billions more to die when collapse does arrive. Via Peak Oil.

GM crops is one path we cannot afford to go down and from which there is no return.

baal says:

08:23am | 09/12/11

greenpeace makes me angry. I grew up on a farm, everything grows is organic. Deciding if something is good to eat should be evidenced based.
Greenpeace is a radical group that like peta puts people last.
When people say food is not organic please offer them some organic hemlock or tell them too play with an organically grown tiger.
I mean ffs i am queer democratic socialist and these guys make me look to the sky and cry ‘goddamn hippies destroyed it all!’

mick says:

08:30am | 09/12/11

If there is not enough food being produced to feed humanity then why in God’s name is Australia and the rest of the world so hell bent on increasing population.  Australia by 12 million and the world by 3 billion by 2050?

This article reeks of business protecting its rights to do its thing….make money.  Greenpeace is to my knowledge a not for profit organisation which works in the interests of us all.  GM crops may be safe.  Who knows.  But we do not want to be the same guinea pigs which tested a product known as asbestos.

Get real Malcolm.  Attacking organisations which work in the interests of society is not productive and I need to wonder whose interests you hold dear.

marley says:

08:59am | 09/12/11

@mick - I see no evidence that Greenpeace is working for us all.  It may be a non-profit organization, but it spends one helluva lot of its donations on nice salaries for its employees, so they certainly have a vested interest in keeping it pulling in the bucks.

And when we talk about increasing Australia’s population, we’re not talking about increasing the global population, we’re talking about redistributing it.  Our population growth comes from immigration, not from increased fertility.

Gareth says:

09:21am | 09/12/11

@MIck Indeed, the business should be protecting its right to make money, employ people, provide products that its customers want and are willing to pay for etc…

Greenpeace blatantly lied.

I know which of the two should sleep well at night.

mick says:

09:36am | 09/12/11

My understanding is that most of the Greenpeace workforce is voluntary.

Australia might be importing people but that simply leaves a gap to fill in the countries where these people came from, which is soon filled with more people.  It doesn’t stack up.

I saw one blogger last week say that we’ll be happy when we are standing there with a bucket begging for some drinking water.  In case you think that is over the top think again.  We’ve got heaps of the stuff right now as with food.  But when the next drought hits we’ll be short of both.  Add another 12 million and we’ll be in trouble.  But we wouldn’t want to deprive big business of its entrenched rights to have its way and ruin what is good for all of us with misconceived ideas and incorrect modelling.  It never ceases to amaze me that we put people with single digit IQ and extreme ego into positions of power…..and then wonder why it all goes so horribly wrong.

jf says:

09:40am | 09/12/11

Trevor says: 07:48am | 09/12/11

“I’m anti-GM Mahrat yet would wouldn’t call myself anti-life.”

So which 3,000,000,000,000 don’t get food Trevor?

Tony of Poorakistan says:

09:41am | 09/12/11

Stop people breeding in third world countries. And make sure they don’t come here, either.

Jordan says:

09:43am | 09/12/11

Trevor,

“They have developed seedless crops that has destroyed the centuries old traditions of seed swapping and retaining for the next harvest. “

Terminator seeds are a really overblown issue. In the developed world, farmers haven’t used retained seeds for many years, because its not worth the effort.

“We are in a massive overshoot and if billions more can be born thanks to GM crops then that will only be billions more to die when collapse does arrive. Via Peak Oil.”

So you’re happy for people to definitely starve now to avert a similar number maybe starving in the far future? That’s hideously irrational; your confidence in predictions about what will happen in 50 years should be much lower than predictions for what happens in 5 years, so the distant consequences have to be much worse than the present consequences to be more important.

Well, actually, your case is even worse than that, since Peak Oil as its normally defined is not some distant looming crisis, but in fact has almost certainly already happened at some point in the last few years. So in fact clearly we need GM right away to try and put the breaks on the mass collapse of civilisation that will happen any month now!

jf says:

09:45am | 09/12/11

mick says: 08:30am | 09/12/11

“Greenpeace is to my knowledge a not for profit organisation which works in the interests of us all.”

I think your Greenpeace literature may be some thirty years out of date.

“Attacking organisations which work in the interests of society is not productive”

Greenpeace is a hard left political organisation.

Their middle-ages anti-science activism, which is often violent and frequently illegal, in no way represents a moderate, democratic society.

Matt says:

09:46am | 09/12/11

Acutally Mahhrat, there is more than enough food to feed the world, there are just problems getting it to everyone.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world hunger facts 2002.htm#Does_the_world_produce_enough_food_to_feed_everyone

Also, ask Canada, NZ and USA what happens when GM wheat spreads, as it’s usually poorly contained, infects normal wheat and could possibly ruin our entire wheat industry.  Not to mention it’s not tested on humans and in animals has caused several problems inluding enlarged organs, allergic reactions and fertility problems.

Also, Malcolm forgot to mention the funding of GM products.  I’ve copied this from the Greenpeace website, but you can track through the companies and confirm if you want.

Why is Greenpeace targeting CSIRO?
Greenpeace’s work is targeting the release of unsafe GM wheat into our food supply. The CSIRO is working with foreign GM companies to release unsafe GM wheat into our food supply. These foreign GM companies include Limagrain, one of the biggest investors in GM in the world, and Arcadia Biosciences. CSIRO’s closeness with foreign GM companies has created a clear conflict of interest within the CSIRO. The GM wheat field trial which Greenpeace has removed from the environment was proposed and approved while two directors of Nufarm were serving on the board of the CSIRO. Nufarm is the exclusive distributor of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready products in Australia and Monsanto owns 90 per cent of GM products worldwide. Monsanto and its GM partners stand to make billions from the genetic modification of Australia’s wheat. CSIRO’s closeness to these GM corporations compromises their ability to make decisions in Australia’s public interest and has resulted in the release of unsafe genetically modified wheat into the Australian environment.

So once again, it’s all about money - they don’t care about feeding the world - there’s enough food already for that.  I for one, am glad companies like Greenpeace warn people about GM foods.

mick says:

09:51am | 09/12/11

Business is there to serve society by providing for the needs of the population Gareth.  It does not own society nor should it do things which harm society.  Unfortunately business is frequently of the opinion that it owns the game and that it can do as it likes if there is money to be made.  It never changes.

Trevor says:

10:17am | 09/12/11

JF

  “So which 3,000,000,000,000 don’t get food Trevor?”

Well that is for the benevolent marketplace to work out mate, you know how good that is at distributing wealth! I’m pretty sure that I know who though, they have already been preselected.

Jordan

“That’s hideously irrational”

I think that it is ‘hideously rational.’

As much as I would like to believe that the current utopia-ish status quo will remain, reality pays no mind to my wishes. Or even that of the president of the US.

Good to see someone else acknowledge Peak Oil though. It sneakily passed in 2005 IMHO. Kicking the can down the road though as you want is only going to make it worse in the long run I’m afraid.

Mahhrat says:

10:37am | 09/12/11

@Matt: Your link doesn’t work.  Kinda like your argument.

The guy I linked to - you know, the guy who is widely regarded as single-handedly saving more lives than any other person (or God, while we’re at it) - says we have enough for 4 billion.

The world is 7 billion strong and growing.

You do the math.

@Trevor - so 3 billion people need to die but who actually does is someone else’s problem?  You’re really that gutless?  I hope you apologise to your lettuce before you eat it.

mick says:

10:54am | 09/12/11

JF -  you sound like a business disciple.

“Their (Greenpeace) middle-ages anti-science activism, which is often violent and frequently illegal, in no way represents a moderate, democratic society.”  Lets put a few things into perspective:

Firstly our society is in no way 100% democratic.  Whilst we all have certain freedoms we as a society have to bow to business which has the fiscal clout, influence and owns the media which frequently reports with bias so that business interests are served.  It ain’t democracy as most people understand it.

Secondly, Greenpeace is an organisation which came about because those elected to control bad business refused to do so preferring self regulation, which rarely works and never works where greed is a part of the equation.

Greenpeace may act illegally but then what do you do when you are up against perverse business determined to make money at the expense of society and with total disregard for the environment we live in.  Revolutions begin because people are being ignored and badly treated.  Greenpeace was formed because those with vested interests do what is good for their bank accounts, not society.

Lastly, “anti-science”?  Are you perhaps referring to whale slaughters named “scientific research”?  My point precisely.

So lets get real.  Whilst business is a necessary part of society it does not own society and it is not free to plunder people or environment.  Despite having the fiscal clout to do both and often doing so with pompous disregard for its actions or the effects on people it just goes on, supported by those with a foot in the business camp who live in denial of what their big brother organisations do in the name of the almighty dollar.  Lord help us!!

I for one applaud Greenpeace.  if we did not have organisations like this we would be in far worse shape.

Matt says:

11:23am | 09/12/11

Well, gee Mahhrat, how about you google it and use any number of links that pop up and state there is more than enough food to feed the world - in fact I thought that was common knowledge…..

Also, funny how your man Borlaug is directly linked to Monsanto and other GM companies… It would be in his best interest to play up GM foods… If you’re going to use Wiki, at least look at the Criticism sections..  Also - who do you think the wheat is going to be sold to when no one will buy it? 

p.s. (or God, while we’re at it) You do the math… Bit mad today are we?

Trevor says:

11:34am | 09/12/11

Mahrat

  “@Trevor - so 3 billion people need to die but who actually does is someone else’s problem?  You’re really that gutless?  I hope you apologise to your lettuce before you eat it.”

WTF? Don’t mistake me for a Greenie mate just because I see an economic bottleneck being forced upon us. Why would you call me gutless? I would say that pushing such realities to the back of your mind is the gutless way to look at things.

Matt says:

12:09pm | 09/12/11

Not sure where this 3 billion people came from but Mahhrat misquoted the article.

Borlaug states if ALL farming land was converted to organic-only farming there would only be enough to feed 4 billion people.  No one is converting all farming land to organic only.

His actual quote states - “Producing food for 6.2 billion people, adding a population of 80 million more a year, is not simple. We better develop an ever improved science and technology, including the new biotechnology, to produce the food that’s needed for the world today.” In response to the fraction of the world population that could be fed if current farmland was converted to organic-only crops: “We are 6.6 billion people now. We can only feed 4 billion. I don’t see 2 billion volunteers to disappear.”  - No doubt this guy has done great work, but unproven and dangerous technology like this wheat isn’t the answer.  Who would we sell it to?  No one buys the stuff.. 

Good one Mahhrat..

Andy Mack says:

01:21pm | 09/12/11

mick, in all honesty, I think you’re a legend.  Without people like you speaking up, we would be in serious trouble.

Genetically modified crops are absolutely evil.  Many genetically modified crops are being developed which do not produce seeds so that the farmers have to purchase new seed at the start of each planting season from the corporations which distribute them.

It is immoral and absolutely evil for corporations to have monopoly control over any seed, whether genetically modified or non-genetically modified.

The reality is that humanity is under attack and tools like Malcolm Farr (who is a literal tool of the Illuminati, whether wittingly or unwittingly) take part in the propaganda campaign to persuade the populace to accept without resistance the things that are going to be used to destroy us, such as genetically modified food.  Anybody who thinks that multi-billion dollar corporations are developing genetically modified food in order to ‘benefit humanity’ is in total ignorance of the lust for profit and control that drives the owners of these corporations.

The purpose of this website, ThePunch.com.au, is to indoctrinate the public into accepting agendas such as:

> carbon dioxide-driven climate change
> homosexual marriage
> mass immigration into Australia
> genetically modified foods

ThePunch.com.au is hammering us on a daily basis.  Behind this website is considerable analysis which scrutinises the reactions of readers to the articles in order to determine more effective ways to promote agendas such as those above so that they are more readily accepted by the populace.  There are also people from different organisations who post comments on this website and who are paid to post since it is their job to post comments.

Mahhrat says:

01:26pm | 09/12/11

@Matt,

Theatrical appeals to my fear factor are fail.

Do you know why?  Because GM wheat is only dangerous if we don’t do it right.

Let me put it another way.  The world will soon have GM wheat.  It’s going to happen, because if the world’s best-practice science boffins don’t invent it, some shonky third-world country hack will.

THEN you’ll have potentially dangerous food.  Not now, then.

Logic suggests then that we invent it properly. 

I’m not suggesting it’s easy or without risks; I’m suggesting it’s a necessity for the billions of people who, unlike you and I, have nothing for dinner tonight.

Tim the Toolman says:

01:36pm | 09/12/11

” No doubt this guy has done great work, but unproven and dangerous technology like this wheat isn’t the answer.  Who would we sell it to?  No one buys the stuff.. “

It’s kind of hard to test and prove it when fruitcakes are running through it with whippersnippers, wouldn’t you say?  I’d buy it.

Matt says:

01:56pm | 09/12/11

‘Theatrical appeals to my fear factor are fail.’

I couldn’t give a crap about your ‘fear factor’.. You posted an ‘opinion’ that was wrong.  I called you on it and you were a smartarse about it.

And you’re still wrong.  NZ, USA and Canada are having all sorts of problems with gm wheat infecting their normal wheat.  We export 80% of our wheat, but if it’s contaminated with gm wheat what then?  You’re happy to destroy our wheat industry under some misinformed opinion that this wheat is going to save the world hunger problem. I take it you googled the food situation and saw there is more than enough food already for the world’s population seeing as you’ve shut up about it?

GM wheat has been ‘invented’ - no one buys the crap though as it’s not safe.  In fact, no asian country - including Japan will buy it, or any normal wheat with trace elements of gm wheat. There’s no ‘fear factor’ to fail at.  The only fail is your uninformed comments…

Matt says:

02:07pm | 09/12/11

Good on ya Tim, you’ll be one of a few buyers.. Bit stupid to say you’d buy it even as you say in the same sentence it hasn’t been tested.  Actually Tim, that wasn’t the world’s first crop (surprise!) and it has been tested.  It was destroyed because CSIRO hadn’t contained it properly and was at risk of spreading. 

Argue all you want, fact is no one buys it.  And that’s a real fact - not a ‘Mahhrat fact’...

http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/13006
http://www.blackseagrain.net/photo/fears-gm-wheat-could-harm-japan-trade
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/service12.htm
http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/news_item.asp?sID=131

Dan says:

02:35pm | 09/12/11

@Matt - sad to see a Greenpeace stooge in action to be honest. Norman Borlaug is the only crop breeder to win the Nobel Peace Prize in history - he is regarded as saving more lives than any other person in the history of humanity (1 billion lives). WHO ARE YOU TO CHALLENGE HIS HUMANITARIAN CREDENTIALS?

C’mon if you’re going to write the guy off as a Monsanto stooge then put up your credentials (including how much Greenpeace pays you). Otherwise you’re a keyboard nothing.

Its people who ignore the experts and listen to the marginal groups that they believe in that are devolving our society. Lets examine some of his other arguments - there is enough food its just poorly distributed. This is true but unless you have an answer for poverty, Africa’s dictatorships and war then you are not helping much by making this observation. Fact of the matter is even if we have enough food now, we won’t soon. Thats what happens when the global population increases at its current rate.

Anyway for those that are interested in Dr Borlaug you can read his Nobel acceptance speech here. There is nothing about GM but you’re a hard person if this doesn’t touch you
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1970/borlaug-acceptance.html

Matt says:

02:52pm | 09/12/11

Dan.. he won the Nobel in the 70’s.. and I didn’t ‘challenge his humanitarian credentials’, in fact I said there’s no doubt he does good work.  I also didn’t ‘write him off as being a Monsanto stooge’ but he does have affiliations with them.

Cry over his speach if you want, doesn’t interest me.  You said yourself there is enough food already, it’s just a matter of getting it to the people.

“C’mon if you’re going to write the guy off as a Monsanto stooge then put up your credentials (including how much Greenpeace pays you). Otherwise you’re a keyboard nothing.”  - haha, don’t know what the hell that paragraph was about, but I don’t have to put up my ‘credentials’ and I don’t see you asking anyone else for theirs…  I don’t work for Greenpeace and I don’t agree with everything they do, but the GM wheat is not good for Australia - that’s a fact. That paragraph sure made you look like a wanker though..  well done.

Mahhrat says:

03:22pm | 09/12/11

@Matt:

I don’t need to rebut your argument because you’re not making one.

Let’s make it simple.  There is not enough food to go around, because people are starving to death. 

In a sense, it doesn’t even matter whether that’s just cos of the land, or from war, or “Greed” or because I had one slice of pizza too many.  People starve to death every day for want of food.

GM food is a way to produce more food.  It is one means to an end:  giving everyone enough to eat.

GM Food is just ONE PART of the solution to world hunger.  Others are security and development of technology.

Again:  your argument that there’s “enough” is false, because people starve to death. 

Doesn’t matter why, really, because there just isn’t enough food.  Saying that we’d have enough if we distributed it properly is also false, because you’re suggestion a solution - equitable redistribution - that simply isn’t possible.  This is self-evident - the evil people around the place are just going to take what isn’t theirs by force.

GM products are one part of several things that need to change in order to feed humanity.  Since that argument is also self-evident, it stands to logic that the best and brightest of us develop it properly.

Matt says:

04:08pm | 09/12/11

“Again:  your argument that there’s “enough” is false, because people starve to death.”

Yeah, right Mahhrat.. It is a FACT the world produces enough food to feed everyone.  You cannot dispute that.  The causes of hunger are not lack of food, but poverty, economy and other causes.  Subsaharan Africa wastes 160kg of food per year per person, but you’re right, there must not be enough food.  No wonder you constantly harp on about being overweight - and yes that is a jibe at you!

jf says:

09:03am | 10/12/11

Trevor says: 10:17am | 09/12/11

“Well that is for the benevolent marketplace to work out mate”

So it’s ok with you that 3bn people starve to death just as long as you don’t have to be the one to implement your policy. Nice.

jf says:

09:22am | 10/12/11

mick says: 10:54am | 09/12/11

“JF -  you sound like a business disciple.”

I own a business if that is what you are getting at Mick.

I also support the idea that people should be able to put their own money at risk to establish or invest in a business so long as the activity is legal. If that business is in the business of developing vaccines or other medicine or creating ways of expanding food production or even providing family fun parks that is great.

I cannot even begin to think of a rational reason for being anti-business. For to be anti-business you must believe that people should not be allowed to do with their lives what the like (so long as it is legal); you must necessarily believe that the person who takes a risk to build an enterprise that produces something people want, that employs people and that contributes to our quality of life should not be rewarded for risk. To be against this is simply perverse.

“we as a society have to bow to business which has the fiscal clout, influence and owns the media which frequently reports with bias so that business interests are served”

“Secondly, Greenpeace is an organisation which came about because those elected to control bad business refused to do so preferring self regulation, which rarely works and never works where greed is a part of the equation.”

But hang-on, if we are living in a society where big business has so much control, where basic freedoms provided under a democracy must be absent, how was Greenpeace able to develop into a multi-billion dollar, international corporation?

“Greenpeace may act illegally but then what do you do when you are up against perverse business determined to make money at the expense of society and with total disregard for the environment we live in.”

Are we still talking about Baker’s Delight? Perhaps you could nominate the 3bn people that don’t get fed then. Perhaps you should be the one to come up with a solution for increasing crop yields using alchemy instead of science.

“Lastly, “anti-science”?  Are you perhaps referring to whale slaughters named “scientific research”?”

No mate. I’m talking about your obvious prejudice against the science involved in increasing crop yields and the science of food production generally. As for whaling, you appear to be against it: why?

“So lets get real.  Whilst business is a necessary part of society it does not own society and it is not free to plunder people or environment.”

At last, something on which we can both agree.

“I for one applaud Greenpeace.”

Good for you mate. Make sure you live your life by what they believe. Grow your own organic food. No shopping at multi-nationals, no air-conditioning, no luxuries producedby businesses or that you need to pay for.

Chrisatmosphere says:

11:34am | 11/12/11

@Matt are ou intentionally spreading misinformation about GM wheat?
If you knew anything at all aboutit you would know that there are noproblems wih GM wheat anywhee in the wrld because thee are no commercially available GM seeds.

For those also spreading misinformation about sterile seeds dubbed “terminator” seeds you will find the same thing they have NEVER been released, never commercialised, never grown by a farmer anywhere!

mick says:

10:22am | 09/12/11

So who does Greenpeace answer to then? 

The Liberal Party is the political arm of big business.  You only have to look at ‘giving back the mining tax’, ‘repealing the pokies legislation’ and ‘repealing the carbon tax’ ....and more, to see whose interests are being served.

Funny, I see Greenpeace as an organisation formed to help people.  How does this make it a ‘political organisation’ Super D?

Ben C says:

10:56am | 09/12/11

@ mick

The name makes it obvious, doesn’t it?

Observer says:

11:14am | 09/12/11

@Ben C

Not as obvious as one might hope, apparently.

St. Michael says:

12:37pm | 09/12/11

“Funny, I see Greenpeace as an organisation formed to help people.  How does this make it a ‘political organisation’”

Why don’t you ask Patrick Moore? You know, one of Greenpeace’s co-founders?

As in, the guy who wrote “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist” and basically blows up your silly idea that Greenpeace is now anything other than a hard left political organisation?

Trevor says:

01:14pm | 09/12/11

So what?

Any organisation that calls for change in laws etc needs to be a political organisation. Is that a dirty word now?

Lila says:

04:12pm | 09/12/11

How do you expect Greenpeace to help the environment if they don’t engage in politics? What is your theory of change? How can environmental protection agency achieve anything if they didn’t try and create laws to protect the environment? At least Greenpeace doesn’t receive any money from Government or corporations. It is one of the very few independent organisations, entirely funded by individuals’ donations. Can Matthew Cossey say that about his lobby group, CropLife?

St. Michael says:

05:52pm | 09/12/11

“Any organisation that calls for change in laws etc needs to be a political organisation. Is that a dirty word now?”

Nice try, Trevor, but the issue is: Greenpeace is no longer an apolitical organisation devoted to the environment.  It is now a political organisation concerned with leftist thinking.  The two are not the same thing, but Greenpeace wants you to think they’re identical.  That’s the reason Moore left the organisation he founded

Greenpeace, in short, is a watermelon—green on the outside, red on the inside.

Erich says:

07:38am | 09/12/11

Based on what breach of what law?

Observer says:

07:49am | 09/12/11

Defamation. 
It borders on extortion.

Eric The Red says:

07:51am | 09/12/11

@ Erich, Well from what the story says (if I’m reading it correctly) is that Greenpeace made that up, so it was a lie, Right? That could do a lot of damage to a business. I’m not a Lawyer , But there must be a Law you could use to take the matter further erich. Do you think what greenpeace did was ok ?

Al says:

07:53am | 09/12/11

Erich,
Based on the fact that Greenpeace are no longer an enviromental organisation (just ask all its founders).
It is political organisation, activists attacking ‘Big Buisness’ just because they are international companys. Seeking the destruction of capatilist style markets. Seeking to reduce the capacity for counties to produce enough foos to feed themselves. And making false and misleading claims.
They should be able to take them to court for slander at the least, which is NOT solely a part of the Trade Practices Act.

iansand says:

08:06am | 09/12/11

There is a tort of wilful interference with economic relations.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference  I reckon anyone who Greenpeace targets in this way could give them a run for their money.

TimB says:

08:09am | 09/12/11

As Mal says in the article, the law makes an exception for ‘environmental groups’. Which given the events described above shows that the law is completely broken. This kind of blackmail and harassment, based on a fraudulent claim no less, should not in any way be legal.

Now I’m not familiar with the law in question, but I’m sure there was originally some noble purpose behind it before it was co-opted as a shield by Greenpeace whilst they attack innocent companies. Surely it’s worth looking at said law and tightening it up so it reflects it’s original purpose, whilst closing the loopholes exploted here by Greenpeace.

Mahhrat says:

08:18am | 09/12/11

A lie in print is libel.

iansand says:

08:29am | 09/12/11

Actually my guess is that there is no exemption for environmental groups, but for the Trade Practices Act to apply activities have to be “in trade and commerce”, which environmental activism is not.

But what would a journalist, a spokesthing for the Menzies Institute or TimB know about anything?

Ben C says:

09:54am | 09/12/11

@ Mahhrat

+1

I hate pies says:

10:40am | 09/12/11

Iansand is right, Baker’s Delight can’t get em under the TPA because Greenpeace aren’t carrying on a business. I’d reckon they could get em for libel or defamation though. The problem for Bakers Delight is that they would create such a PR nightmare for themselves that it wouldn’t be worth the effort. Greenpeace would make themselves out to be the poor innocent do-gooders just trying to look after the defenceless plants…sort of like the SOP of the occupy protesters.

iansand says:

11:26am | 09/12/11

I don’t think companies with more than 10 employees can sue for defamation (although BD is set up as a franchise, so each franchisee could probably have a go).  But the PR problem remains an issue.

iansand says:

11:30am | 09/12/11

I was actualy wondering if the secondary boycott provisions of the TPA (we should really be saying the Competition and Consumer Act) would apply.

Matt says:

11:00am | 09/12/11

Their reasons seem quite valid to me.  Perhaps you should research what GM wheat has achieved in other countries, or how if it ‘escapes’ and spreads will destroy our own wheat industry.

Or that many countries won’t buy it.  Asian countries will not buy it at all and will baulk if there are even ‘trace elements’ of GM wheat in their normal wheat - as it spreads and infects normal wheat. Or that Greenpeace only cut it down as it was poorly contained and in danger of spreading.  Or that it has proven to cause side effects in rats.  Good on you for blaming them for world hunger though, that seems ‘reasonable’ and not at all hysterical..

Angry God of Townsville says:

12:57pm | 09/12/11

Keep sniffing the glue pot there Matt, you are only a believer of what you have read from sites that GP uses to fool those too simple to understand the actual reality.

GM crops are untastable, within normal production and the damage has been revealed that every Canola crop contains (and has contained) GM variants for 10 + years. Has this stopped the growth of Canola as a product. Not One Bit.

The impacts are minimal, the affects on humans or any animal are non existent. and the only reasons certain countries have reacted this way was because of the significant misinformation that has been published by tainted sources that have not only exaggerated claims but plain lied and had to republish with corrections. The same groups that have provided unsupported claims into Global Warming are involved in this and as such it us not a surprise that they are wrong.

The crops that were destroyed by GP had not escaped from their trial area, The crops are designed to improve production in unsuitable areas and these vandals destroyed valuable research. In a normal world, they would have been found, charged and jailed, but it happened in Green Heaven (Tasmania) a place that has more morons per square foot than the rest of Australia bar Canberra.

They are responsible for the failure to accept drought hardy wheat in Africa. They are responsible for the banning of other staple crops from use in Africa by their lies and deceit and as such they are reasonably responsible for the lack of a significant source of more hardy crops being provided, so yes, they significantly contributed to the latest phase of famine.

Matt says:

02:12pm | 09/12/11

Yeah angry god, it’s one big greenpeace global warming conspiracy… Yep..

http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/news/food/A-mum-takes-action-against-GM-wheat/

I think you’ll find the crops were in Canberra, not Green Heaven Tasmania - of which there is no actual place in Tasmania called Green Heaven…  But I totally believe you angry god   **snicker**

John the Zombie says:

03:35pm | 09/12/11

I love people like Matt as they always seem to forget that even as early as the 60’s we have been producing GM crops. GM means playing with the gentitics of a plants to get a desired effect. Do you know those lovely pink roses you see at the shop Matt. Guess what they are GM as well. They created by splicing a red rose and a white rose. do you enjoy seedless grapes and watermelon well sorry to point this out to you mate but they are also GM. How about crops been designed to grow using less water so as countries like Africa can grow them in thier enviroment. These crops are also GM as they are gentically altered.

Also were is Bob Brown on this issue. Why hasnt he taken the moral high ground that he promotes so much as the fact can be seen that greenpeace lied about baker delight. Another point is people dont hold your breath as labor is held to the greens that no step will be taken to fix this.

Also if you read the article about the tissue company you will see the unions have also a role to play in the company closing down.

Observer says:

09:04am | 09/12/11

Occupy Centrelink?

A Different Rosie says:

09:37am | 09/12/11

Centrelink make payments directly into your bank account Seamus.

jf says:

09:47am | 09/12/11

They don’t need Centrelink mate. They are all on nice fat salaries courtesy of the muppets that donate to them.

Jeremy says:

11:11pm | 09/12/11

Well, Seamus your entry made me laugh - after a long string of emails that just made me shake my head. You are the most ignorant in a long conga line of ignoramuses who knows zero about Greenpeace and zero about GM. By the way, Greenpeace didn’t lie. Read section 1.5.2 of the Food Standards Code and read what Greenpeace said. Great entry Seamus - far more spectacular cliches than the old watermelon line!

Damian Parkhill says:

09:34am | 09/12/11

I don’t know Tim - You really don’t want to know how much bread a BD’s franchise throws out everyday instead of donating it to those in need (though to be fair some of the ones I’ve worked for had been the victims of chuggers so I can’t really blame them)

Anyway I don’t get the problem - Australian flour at the moment is shocking quality these days anyway, the bad taste.alone is a reason to protest!

Mahhrat says:

09:56am | 09/12/11

@Damian, the reason BD throw out their bread instead of donating it is because some douchebags decided to sue them for getting a case of the trots after eating it.

‘sif day-old bread is going to be the cause of food poisoning.

Half my life ago, I used to go gaming each Friday night.  My mate was dating a girl from the local BD.  He’d head over there and get all the bread, because they weren’t allowed to give it to the homeless, and we’d all get free bread products.  Worked really well, actually.

Damian Parkhill says:

10:17am | 09/12/11

Actually Mahhrat they still can donate - just not the meat and veg products.

But even then throwing out 1.8k worth of bread just so you can a full shop at the end of the evening is just .... ugh (Not to mention damn demoralizing to us bakers who worked hard to make it!)

TimB says:

10:18am | 09/12/11

That’s a bit of a different issue Damian. I think we can all agree that any bread wasted in such a fashion is a shame.

It doesn’t change the fact that Greenpeace’s stance is ridiculous.

malohi says:

03:38pm | 09/12/11

wow, how did you bold your text?

Erich says:

09:32am | 09/12/11

Not am I not a member of Greenpeace, I’m in favour of GM wheat.

I do find amusing though the bush lawyers who think that Greenpeace should be dragged through the courts yet can find no actual law that they have broken.

And of course these are the same people who so robustly defended Andrew Bolt’s right to maliciously make stuff up.  So he should be allowed to do it, but not Greenpeace.

Yeah, right.

There’s nothing like the smell of double standards in the morning.

Eric The Red says:

10:15am | 09/12/11

@ Erich, I’m not a bush Lawyer and know very little on matters of law. However what greenpeace is doing to Business people from all walks of life is criminal and if you think they shouldn’t be held to account erich then you are as bad as them. This has caused that company to come out and advertise that they don’t use GM wheat in their bread (products) so who pays for that and what about the people who are now put off from buying products from Bakers Delight, Who pays for that Erich? Again , I’m no Lawyer but if that happened to me I’d be seeking legal advice and I would want compensation. These pricks can do what the like and get away with it. There was a chook farmer in England who caught some greenpeace people on his property late one night and he bashed 2 of them as they were smashing his place up. He got charged , they got zero. Let me tell you if you came around late at night to my place and started to do that you’d get a whole lot of grief. I’m sick of hearing about jobless losers who try to stop others from earning a living. Yes I’m a Labor supporter, but that does not mean I support The Greens or Greenpeace. They sicken me. Get your hand off it Erich.

Marcuswebly says:

02:06pm | 09/12/11

@ Erich. In fact they have indeed broken the law - it’s called the law of humanity. The fact they call themselves Greenpeace is laughable as there is nothing Green or peace about them.

RosscoAFARMER says:

09:56am | 09/12/11

Ah, the Franklin Dam, gee that takes me back. I wonder how much carbon nuetral electricity would be generated now if the dam had gone ahead?. I think we were all taken for aride then.

Katherine says:

03:19pm | 09/12/11

Jane2 - are you saying that the Franklin River wasn’t worth saving?  Time has proved that saving it was of greater benefit to Tasmania both ecologically and financially.  It is such a shame that you are not proud of being part of that.

iansand says:

03:29pm | 09/12/11

As someone who once spent a few weeks drifting aimlessly down the Franklin, I can assure you that it is a rather beautiful leech ridden ditch.  Although I suppose the aim was always the Gordon at the lower end.  And I did not get one leech.

Tom says:

06:46pm | 09/12/11

Katherine, “are you saying that the Franklin River wasn’t worth saving?”

Ever heard of the words “trade off”?

As RosscoAFARMER says “I wonder how much carbon nuetral electricity would be generated now if the dam had gone ahead?”

See, life is not all about simple slogans.

CBR says:

09:32am | 09/12/11

Look it up on the back of the packet. It’s listed on the ingredients, as are all ingredients - you just have to know what you’re looking for.

FYI Aldi’s brand bread is soy-flour free.

JustMEinT says:

09:48am | 09/12/11

ALDI are NOT in Tasmania
and so far GMO’s are not listed on the labels printed on foodstuffs….. SOY IS listed but only on foods and not on vitamins nor on pharmaceuticals….... means for myself I have to be ultra careful and telephone every manufacturer to ascertain ingredients, which they are not always happy at disclosing.

I deserve to know says:

10:18am | 09/12/11

CBR
There is no requirement to list ingredients that are GMO.
Monsanto and others are fighting this battle claiming that genetically-modified (GM) foods are the equivalent of ordinary foods.
They are not
It was only recently that the U.S. dropped it’s opposition to labelling GM products even though the labelling is still only voluntary. Look at the effect GMO food has had at the incidence of allergies in Canada.

http://tinyurl.com/3dta8ms

I hate pies says:

10:44am | 09/12/11

No you’re not…you just think you are. It’s all in your head. Plus, anything that may contain an allergen has it written on the packaging.

marley says:

11:05am | 09/12/11

@I deserve to know - what effect has GMO food had on allergies in Canada?  I can’t find any reputable source linking the two, and the article you yourself cited states specifically that there’s no evidence of any health hazards.

Trumpster says:

11:41am | 09/12/11

@I deserve to know:

Sorry mate - you’re wrong. All GM ingredients need to be included in labels:

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/

CBR says:

11:58am | 09/12/11

@JustMEinT
Actually they ARE listed in ingredients and in medications as well - ALL ingredients of medications are listed by law on their info sheets. It’s up to the consumer to what those ingredients are and how to find them. Soy compounds may be listed as a the compound name, not “soy somethingorother”. It’s up to you to be proactive and do research.

And it ain’t my problem that Tasmania doesn’t have ALDI! Try “Nonna’s” brand; they’re also soy-free. Failing that, go to a proper bakery, like I do? (I also do not eat breads made from soy products).

@I deserve to know
I was actually talking about soy products, not GMO, and even if that weren’t true (as Trumpster pointed out), that depends on how you define a GMO. Pretty much everything we eat is domesticated, i.e. genetically modified. Cows? Genetically modified. Wheat? Genetically modified. And hey, don’t eat those cavendish bananas. Anything deliberately hybridised or genertically altered is genetically modified - it may just not have happened in a lab, and over a longer period of time.

There is NO EVIDENCE that GMO are dangerous to human health. None. Zero. Zip.

RosscoAFARMER says:

09:51am | 09/12/11

The public does know, it’s on the packet. They just dont understand what all the ingredients are. Ya cant buy genetically modified wheat, so they cant put it in, HOWEVER ya can buy modified Soy, so, dont use any Soy products at all including Soy Sauce, Tofu etc, all the stuff the vegetarians swear by.Your right, the public does need to know, but, we have to look and find out. PS Canola is the other modified pulse, sorry, vege oils are out as well as margarine etc.

Dan says:

10:42am | 09/12/11

@ Bob Stewart - actually golden rice is yet to be planted. Its been ready since 1999 but because of Greenpeace they haven’t got approval to release it anywhere!

stephen says:

12:50am | 10/12/11

It wasn’t the Corvette, but the Ford Pinto.

stephen says:

12:58am | 10/12/11

Yeah sorry, something else : Lee Iacocca the president of Ford fixed the problems of the Pinto with the introduction of the Mustang.
It had a stronger bootline, therefore was impervious to rear end collisions that would ignite a fuel-tank.
The weakness of the Pinto, so far as I know, was that it had a boot which contributed to the faultline which led straight to the fueltank.

The Mustang saved Ford, and was a direct result of redevelopment of a faulty product.

I hate pies says:

10:49am | 09/12/11

Gee, you could almost interchange “Wilderness Society” with “Andrew Wilkie” there…the only difference being that Wilkie was elected. Must be something in the water there.

Al says:

09:52am | 09/12/11

‘Frankenfood’ - another myth put out by so called ‘enviromentalists’.
There is NO GM food on the market that contains animal genetic components at all. These have been produce in labs for experimental purposes, but never with the goal of introducing them to the food supply (and never have been introduced).
The same as the ‘put on the market with no testing’ myth. (GM is the most higly tested and regualted form of crops).
Greenpeace is not an enviromental movement. They are anti-government, anti-globalisation and anti-development. They don’t look at (and sometimes simply ignore) solutions to the problem that are both able to continue development/production and secure the enviroment, just go out and protest, commit terrorisim etc. untill that buisness goes under due to their actions.

Al says:

11:46am | 09/12/11

Domination of world food production by a few companies - already happens (look at the companies that control world corn supplies, there are only 6).
Biopiracy - ??, sorry stealing/pirating life?
foreign exploitation of natural resources - already happens.
Violation of natural organisms’ intrinsic values - HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA.
Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa - DOES NOT EXIST in any GM product in the food chain.
Stress for animal - What?

CBR says:

12:02pm | 09/12/11

“Violation of natural organisms’ intrinsic values”
Do you have a dog?

“Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species”
You do know that hybridisation is perfectly natural and we’ve been doing it for thousands of years, right?

Think About It says:

03:10pm | 09/12/11

“Domination of world food production by a few companies - already happens (look at the companies that control world corn supplies, there are only 6).”
So this is OK to you?
How many companies controlling the seeds that represent food production would be acceptable to you? 6?

“Biopiracy - ??, sorry stealing/pirating life?”
Don’t be sorry, be informed. - The term “biopiracy” denotes unauthorized commercial use without compensation to Third World countries where the resources are found or new strains of plant life are created. These plants are natural resources, sorry you don’t understand that.

“Violation of natural organisms’ intrinsic values”
Sorry you don’t understand that plant life has evolved in a certain way and that introducing “new” genetics has the potential to affect other plants and microbes in the soil. The interdependencies of life should be obvious. Laughing only makes you seem slow witted.
“Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa - DOES NOT EXIST in any GM product in the food chain.”
Genetic engineering is different from traditional cross breeding, where genes can only be exchanged between closely-related species. With genetic engineering, genes from completely different species can be inserted into each other. For example, scientists in Taiwan have succeeded at inserting jellyfish genes into pigs in order to make them glow in the dark

“Stress for animal”
So you don’t care about stress in animals. That’s your opinion, obviously you felt nothing regarding the Indonesian slaughterhouse practices.

Think About It says:

03:14pm | 09/12/11

CBR
Have you been mixing fish genes with tomato genes for thousands of years?

CBR says:

05:42pm | 09/12/11

@Think About It
Speaking as a marine biologist, no, not personally. And I’m sure there’s very good and interesting reasons to experiment mixing fish and tomato genes - particularly if it materially improves the nutrious value of the fish.

What are you so frightened of?

Al says:

11:50am | 09/12/11

Ah yes, but for some reason they view the randomness of ‘breeding’ as providing a better product than that generated by introducing genes from one species into another for specific characteristics.
“Oh no, man created it it MUST be evil, nature created it it must be good”.

Kika says:

12:06pm | 09/12/11

Exactly. That’s my point too. We’ve been modifying food ever since we gave up hunting and gathering.

Al says:

12:06pm | 09/12/11

I don’t agree with whaling, however I also don’t agree with anybody using terrorist tactics against people doing their jobs.
If they want to protest the companies etc. fine go ahead, attacking workers and risking their lives is at least assault, and the encouragement of said attacks should mean Sea Sheperd should be classified as a terrorist organisation.
How would you like to go to work and have people throw stuff at you, ram your vehicle etc and not be in the Police/Army etc?

CBR says:

12:16pm | 09/12/11

@Al

Unfortunately in this case, to go after the ‘source’ you’d have to go after the Japanese government, which the whaling companies act on behalf of and are funded by. Thankfully no one’s prepared to declare war on Japan over whaling.

John Smythe says:

12:28pm | 09/12/11

So colroe, let;s stick it to Australia as well for all the sea turtles, dugong, dolphins, and sharks that die slow deaths drowning in the shark nets around our beaches.

People speeding is a bad thing, but do cops go around ramming the speeding cars, breaking the window and spraying the driver with pepper spray, using those steel caltrop things to blow the tires?

These organisations have lost their way and are becoming extremely dangerous. The sheer fact Mal’s last few sentences highlight indicates their approach, and it’s a “we don’t take responsibility” approach.

They will get no donations from me ever again.

Al says:

12:42pm | 09/12/11

Or how about the fact that organisations including Greenpeace were responsible for convincing third world countries to refuse donations of GM wheat to feed their people starving at the time based on NO EVIDENCE?
Shouldn’t that make the organisation complicit in manslaughter (via starvation)?
And yes, this did happen.

CBR says:

12:13pm | 09/12/11

They’re not. People are scared of GM because it’s been done in a lab rather than ‘naturally’, and of course as you know, anything done in a lab rather than ‘naturally’ is immediately going to kill us all.

Matt says:

03:15pm | 09/12/11

No we haven’t been eating GM foods.  Selective breeding is different to gene splicing and adding whole new resistances, as Roundup Ready Soy proves.  The genetic modification is to make it resistant to pesticide so you can eat it.  No benefits other than not dying when sprayed with weed killer.  Eat as much as you want Kika….

http://permaculture.org.au/2011/12/08/argentinian-report-identifies-major-medical-problems-associated-with-roundup-ready-soy/

Kika says:

05:44pm | 09/12/11

Ok. But from what I understand all our food (other than organic) is already covered in pesticides to stop insects from eating everything. Isn’t that why we wash our fruit and vegies before we eat them?

Al says:

01:58pm | 09/12/11

“If I’ve learnt anything, it’s that we need watchdogs outside of government”.
Yes, I agree, however when the so called watchdogs put forward falsehoods, exagerated claims of danger, engage in blackmail etc. then they no longer serve their purpose.
The old question of ‘Who watches the watchdogs’?
I trust the government more than Greenpeace as at least the government can be voted out, Greenpeace continue to spout rubbish and are actualy taken seriously to represent enviromental concerns in some cases despite it being shown that their ‘facts’ were exagerations or simply made up.
One of the big ones is recycling paper saves trees. Complete BS.
Recycling paper actualy means LESS trees are planted to supply the demand, and items made from wood (or paper burried in landfill) would actualy capture carbon for their lifetime (or untill broken down by bacteria in landfill), unlike the Greenpeace lies.

Next says:

02:36pm | 09/12/11

Simple really
Tax the rich, or eat them

Dan says:

02:59pm | 09/12/11

So how does growing less food help with the food distribution problems jon?

As a lot of these food distribution problems are caused by geopolitics - do you have a solution for these? If not then surely having more food means less are hungry… doesn’t it?

jon says:

03:36pm | 09/12/11

yeah great point Dan, really well made…what was it though?

the facts are there is more than enough food produced to feed every single person - with plenty left over? what you dont believe me. read this http://www.fao.org/docrep/U3550t/u3550t02.htm

no having more food doesn’t mean less are hungry. Getting the food produced to the people that dont have any is what ensures people are more likely to be less hungry. Putting the capacity of food production in the hands of big agriculture means that those who have less capacity to pay will get less food. I’ve worked in dry land farming most of my life and in some of the poorest places in the world. from my experience, there is always the capacity to produce something from the land - but you need the technical expertise to ensure you can meet the agricultural capacity of that land. making terminator seeds and ensuring you have to have the newest monsanto fertiliser to grow your crop will actually make food prouduction more expensive and less likely for those without the economic capacity to pay for it.

this is what really makes a difference to food production ensuring access to land for those without any - and giving them the technical skills to grow appropriate crops.

intensive rice farming is a good example. crop production in Aceh improved by over 300% by moving from wet rice to dry rice cultivation..it’s not rocket science - and GM crops are far from proven rocket science anyway

Al says:

03:33pm | 09/12/11

“Greenpeace should concentrate on preventing processed foods known to contain GM-modified products from even entering Australia.”
Ummm, WHY?
As has been mentioned previously, there has been no peer reviewed evidence that provides a link between GM foods and any illness etc in humans. So why should they prevent it.
The reason they don’t like it is that they view it as ‘not natural’ (i.e. the potential benefits and risks are not considered at all). They also grossley exagerate any concerns raised and distribute misinformation (or lies) as truth.
Greenpeace is not about the enviroment (they are against all sorts of things, including sustainable agriculture, nuclear power, globalisation, corporations making money etc.)
They started with a good aim, now its just a joke. (And sad that some still think they do ANYTHING to HELP [people or the enviroment]).

marley says:

07:02pm | 09/12/11

So, if GM food is more productive, requires less insecticide and less water, which is often the case, then logically,  Greenpeace’s actions in destroying these crops is contributing to the degradation of the planet.

When Greenpeace was founded, it was about science;  now, it’s about anti-science.  They’ve lost me.

CBR says:

05:38pm | 09/12/11

Oh well if the UN says it it must be true

Andrew says:

05:57am | 10/12/11

So greenpeace are against GM foods, but you suggest we go to there website to get some “facts” about GM foods…...........OK

Paul says:

05:15pm | 09/12/11

@ Krystal: Do you justify the lawlessness espoused by Greenpeace as justification for it’s ‘good’ intentions?

An example of which is the illegal break and enter and subsequent wilful destruction of scientific research in Canberra.

DF says:

06:35pm | 09/12/11

I have no problems at all with freedom of speech and peaceful protests, however more recently Greenpeace, Wilderness Society and other minority groups have made THEMSELVES look bad! The population is never asked if we agree with their opinions, they just take it upon themselves to do as they please and it is both dangerous and unfair! The amount of jobs lost in the forestry, fishing, manufacturing, etc. due to these unemployed yobbos is ridiculous. They talk about big greedy business ruining our environment, etc. Just take a look at the MESS and DAMAGE left by all the OCCUPY protesters its a disgrace. People putting others lives at risk whilst they are trying to make a living, ramming boats and getting violent is NOT the answer! What about the hundreds of thousands of dollars of machinery that they have destroyed over the years, because they don’t agree with logging and putting metal spikes in trees, they are risking peoples lives whom are just trying to make an HONEST living.  I wish they were a political group, then we could vote them out and have them charged for all their crimes like anybody else would be!

Paul says:

06:29pm | 09/12/11

Concur Cynic! Well said.

Chrisatmosphere says:

11:34am | 11/12/11

Spot on Peter.  i was just posting this comment when and acll for a petition when saw yourpost. Greenqaeda should be stripped of their charitable organisation status in Australia.  If the Kiwis can do it so can we.  What a farce it is that eco-terrorists who destroy government property are priveliged with this status.

lance d Boyleo says:

04:09pm | 14/12/11

I am 100% with you Barry, Greenpeace are a bunch of self serving money grabbers,and this is from someone who once thought they were out to save the world.Now they are the worst type of corporate scammers, air con everywhere Range Rovers,and bean counters.Look to the real philanthropists the Gates and Buffets of this planet.  Look to those who actually do and not just the clouds of hot air and noise emanating from the frauds.