Register for an account


Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.


Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.


Who's Polarizing the GMO Debate?

Collide-a-ScapeBy Keith KloorJune 30, 2013 6:16 PM


Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

I love this piece in the Guardian about GMOs, I really do. It's so exquisitely disingenuous that you have to admire the writer's chutzpah. Let's start with this line (my emphasis):

Why is it that some politicians and prominent scientists and "communications" agencies are so exclusively preoccupied with GM [genetic modification]?

I can't imagine that Andy Stirling, the author, wrote that with a straight face. Because when it comes to preoccupation with genetically modified food, nobody rivals anti-GMO campaigners, especially groups like Greenpeace, who have gone so far as to vandalize research beneficial to public health. Oh, did I mention this part of Stirling's bio:

Working in between as a field archaeologist and ecology and peaceactivist in the 80's, I later co-ordinated nuclear, disarmament and energy campaigns for Greenpeace International, serving on their Board of Directors in the 90's (and currently that of Greenpeace UK).

Just so we're clear: I have no problem with anyone working for an environmental organization. (I used to work for an environmental magazine and am quite proud of it.) I only raise his affiliation because no green group has done more to demonize biotechnology and spread misinformation about GMOs than Greenpeace. Which leads me to this uproarious line in Stirling's piece:

the problem is not so much the measured, well-reasoned concerns over GM uncertainties and economic effects.

I wonder if he was referring to the measured, well-reasoned argument expressed here by Greenpeace:


3 Free Articles Left

Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.


Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

Want unlimited access?

Subscribe today and save 50%


Already a subscriber? Register or Log In