Asset Publisher
javax.portlet.title.customblogportlet_WAR_customblogportlet (Health is Global Blog)

Accusing Greenpeace of “Crimes against Humanity” is Ludicrous (and Dangerous)

05.7.2016

[This article has been published in Spanish in El País ]

In a letter published a few days ago, more than 100 Nobel laureates criticized Greenpeace for the position it has taken against the use of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) and specifically for its critical position on the efficiency of “Golden” rice to address vitamin A deficiency. In their document, they use a particularly harsh language accusing Greenpeace of “crimes against humanity”. There is no doubt that Nobel laureates are extremely capable persons who have helped humanity through their science. This, however, does not make them necessarily sensitive or adequately informed, or critical enough to address complex issues such as human malnutrition or sustainable development.

Predicting long-term and large-scale effects of GMOs on the environment and on human health is extremely challenging

There is extensive evidence for potential long term effects of the use of GMOs on the environment. The involuntary contamination of the genome of wild species has been well documented (for example, CN Stewart et al. Transgene introgression from genetically modified crops to their wild relatives, Nature Rev Genetics, 2003), while the evidence of direct human health effects of GMOs is, indeed, very limited or inexistent.

This lack of evidence in humans could be due, in part, to the lack of studies examining potential widespread long-term health effects. In fact, predicting long-term and large-scale effects of GMOs on the environment and on human health is extremely challenging (D Caruso, Intervention: Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering and Life on a Biotech Planet, Hybrid Vigor Institute, 2006).

Accusing of “crimes against humanity” an organization that has an admirable track record in environmental defence at a time of climate change is indicative of a biased perception of global reality

From this point of view, the global position taken by Greenpeace against the use of modern biotechnology seems obsolete. On the other hand, accepting uncritically (as I believe the Nobel laureates are doing) claims made by the industry on the benefits of new technologies and promoting solutions that have not been proven to be sustainable and not even effective, does not appear to be a wise approach either.

For example, the benefits of using GMO crops in the small-scale agriculture that provides the majority of food products in Asia or Africa has not yet been proven (I am not referring here to products like cotton). UN specialized agencies such as the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) or other independent organizations do not tire of repeating that new technologies, by themselves, are not enough to achieve a sustainable rural development or eliminate rural poverty, and that there is no magic bullet to solve complex problems like malnutrition.

The benefits of using GMO crops in the small-scale agriculture that provides the majority of food products in Asia or Africa has not yet been proven

Accusing of “crimes against humanity” an organization that has an admirable track record in environmental defence at a time of climate change is indicative of a biased perception of global reality. Certainly, we must value the scientific contributions of Nobel laureates, but they should better focus their criticisms and actions to prevent the numerous activities that are leading to the massive environmental and health destruction of our planet. Extreme positions, like the one they have taken against Greenpeace, do not help and are even dangerous.