Comments on: Paternalism at its worst

By: GFP

GFP — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:42:20 +0000

Hi,
Actually that's funny because on the french greenpeace web site they try also to "blackmail" Nestlé but they talk about China.

I like the "scary" title: "Nestlé feeds chinese babies with gmo"... and they add in the post that it was proven in mice that gmo create allergic reactions. Of course it has never been demonstrated but they always need to lie a bit to make their news more tragic and scare people (using babies is even more efficient).

The technics they use remind me a bit the old mafia which go to the shops or industries and ask them to pay to be protected: "you pay and you will live in peace". That exactly the same with greenpeace. If you put gmo in the food we will campain against you.
The WWF did similar things with the labelling of wood but in that case the industries really have to pay the WWF to get the label, otherwise thay is a big campaign.

By: Karl Haro von Mogel

Karl Haro von Mogel — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 07:10:03 +0000

It doesn't surprise me that Greenpeace would solicit letters from people around the world to compell Nestle not to use GE ingredients in a single country, India. They're fighting for a cause - it may not be to allow people to make decisions for themselves in other countries - it is a cause that paints any advancement of a genetically engineered crop as a failure as far as they are concerned. The black-and-white terms they paint things in leads them to the conclusion that anything they can do to stop it must be done. Even lying.
On their FAQ page they set the bar very high:
"Greenpeace believes that GM food cannot be introduced until every stringent scientific test has established that they are 100% safe."
Are Kiwi fruits 100% safe? Peanuts? Corn? No food is 100% safe, so this is a dishonest and inconsistent criterion.
I'm rather interested to find out if various anti-GE organizations and individuals will put what evidence will change their minds. In creation-evolution anti-science debates, creationists are very fond of changing what criteria will disprove their ideas every time more detailed scientific evidence comes out. A prime example of this is Michael Behe, who even contradicted what he said while sworn in in court, in order to maintain his belief that he was not disproven.
It's not like I buy stuff from Nestle often, but I sent them a letter of support. Written myself! (So difficult, I know!)
Re: Syd:
"Yes, because twisting science is teh bad!!"
Yes, it is teh bad. You seem to think that it's all ok as long as everyone does it... but wait, you didn't show how Nestle twists the science on this issue, so you are left with agreeing that Greenpeace is in the wrong?

By: Anastasia

Anastasia — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:57:41 +0000

Yes, Syd. Twisting science is bad, no matter how lofty the cause.

"Uncle Nestle" hasn't said much of anything, except that they are taking the time to evaluate potential of biotech crops in their products. There is a lot of research funded by the Indian government in biotechnology, so it makes sense for Nestle to wait to see what will happen. "Auntie Greenpeace" has really blown this out of proportion. Instead of calling for boycotts and scaring consumers, they could have simply made an advocate available to Nestle to ensure that Nestle heard their viewpoints when it came time to considering whether or not to include biotech ingredients in their products.

There is a big difference between providing information and providing disinformation. Unfortunately, in a lot of subjects, Greenpeace has moved away from simply being an advocate for the environment to something else. And, yes, it is about money, they use fear tactics to get people to donate.

It's not just Greenpeace, though. Consider the health care debate going on in the United States. There are a lot of valid viewpoints on if and how health care reform should be done. Everyone is welcome to share their viewpoints and contribute to the debate. However, problems arise when people start twisting facts in an attempt to sway people to their side. Sadly, there's many more examples.

Bottom line: Trying to scare people by lying is not acceptable, no matter what you are advocating.

By: Syd Mounep

Syd Mounep — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:50:58 +0000

Who is Greenpeace to tell people how they should think?

Who are you to tell people how they should think? Who am I to tell people how they should think? Who is ANYONE to tell people how they should think? Let's just all shut up, why don't we? Who needs an exchange of ideas, right?

I respect their free speech, and I respect viewpoints that differ from mine...

Yes, let's respect each other's right to free speech, but only as long as nobody actually excercises that right!

... but when people twist science in order to scare people, I simply have to react.

Yes, because twisting science is teh bad!!11!1 Uncle Nestlé would NEVER do such a thing, he knows what's best for everyone. Greenpeace, in contrast, is clearly only after one thing: profit.

By: Anastasia

Anastasia — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:00:15 +0000

That's it, James. Greenpeace highlighted "As a global food manufacturer Nestlé takes into consideration local needs, cultural differences and consumer preferences as well as attitudes concerning the use of ingredients derived from genetically modified crops." As if simply contemplating the value of GM crops was enough to warrant a boycott.

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, but part of me wonders if they are trying to drive up the price of food by causing panics in places like Africa and India.

By: James

James — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:23:01 +0000

So if I have this right, Nestle-India already doesn't use GM food in their products because India hasn't approved them yet (although bt cotton is a big hit), but Greenpeace is going after them to promise never to use genetically engineered food, because the Indian government may approve it at a later date?

There are people going hungry around the world and THIS is what Greenpeace wants to focus on?