On July, 14, threeGreenpeace activists dressed in hazmat suitsscaled a fence, and used weed whips to destroy a GMO wheat experiment in Canberra, Australia.
The experiment was being conducted by CSIRO (the USDA equivalent for Australia). The activists posted video of the attack on You Tube. They also posted “explanations” by activists who could be easily identified. Although this is technically a criminal activity, it was more likely about publicity.
Greenpeace has been at the forefront of theanti-GMOmovement since the late 1990s, and it hasclaimed victoryfor stopping the development of GMO wheat varieties. Those heady days are fading for Greenpeace. 15 years and billions of acres into the GMO revolution, Greenpeace may just be attempting to defend conquered ground.
The Future of GMO Wheat
There is now afarmer agreement to simulataneously commercialize GMO wheat in Australia, Canada and the US. That would prevent more trade black-mail 10 to 15 years from now when the renewed GMO research might yield commercial products. The wheat that Greenpeace destroyed was a largely academic trial of a nutritional modification, but much work continues with drought tolerant and disease resistant wheats.
It is those lines that are potentially important for keeping up with ever-rising wheat demand in the developing world. At a time whenan unprecedented new food price regimeis punishing the world’s poor, Greenpeace may be feeling pressure from the questions, “What is the statute-of-limitations on saying that the sky is falling?” or “is it ethical toslow advances in food productionwhich leads to suffering for poor people?”
Why Does This Matter?
Wheat matters because of its nutritional, historical, cultural, and philosophical importance to humanity.
Wheat Has a Significant Role in Human Nutrition
Wheat is not just any crop. It is a major source of energy and protein for populations, both where it is grown, and in highly-dependent, importing countries (e.g. Subsaharan Africa, Northern Africa, increasingly in Asia). Wheat is one of the most heavily traded of all crops, and has been since Roman times.
Related Post:Food Companies Fighting GMO Labeling
High wheat prices effect a huge proportion of the world’s population. In its various ethnic forms, bread is truly “the staff of life.” It is also strategically important. Nobel prize winner and Green Revolution leader,Norm Borlaug, put it well:“If you desire peace, cultivate justice, but at the same time cultivate the fields to produce more bread; otherwise there will be no peace.”
Wheat Has Tremendous Historical Significance
In his ground-breaking book, “Guns Germs and Steel,” Jared Diamond chronicles how some of the earliest human societies moved from a hunter-gatherer existence to a farm-based society in the Fertile Crescent or present day, Middle East. Local, large-seeded, grain crops, and animals that could be domesticated for draft work were key to that transition. Through simple selection for large seeds that stayed on the head for harvest, these ancient farmers (~10,000 years ago) created the first hybrid crop between wild spelt, emmer, andpossibly other grains, to produce a new species – wheat.
As Diamond documents, the wheat and animals were able to help feed this version of Western Civilization as it spread East and West, eventually jumping oceans to North America, and later to the temperate zone of the Southern Hemisphere. Wheat and cows could not deal with the heat, diseases and insects of the tropics, and so people groups in those regions were not soon touched by the advances of Western civilization (good and bad).
Wheat Embodies Important Cultural Symbolism
In this regard, wheat shares a co-joined symbolic significance with grapes – which have also been thetarget of anti-GMO vandalism. One of the earlier parings of wheat and wine (the natural storage form of grapes) is found in the story ofAbraham-一个被认为是犹太人和穆斯林之父的人物(约公元前4000年)。After Abraham conquers five kings of Sodom to rescue his relatives, he is met by the mysterious figure,Melchizedek, who is described in the text as the priest and king of Salem (trans. Shalom, trans. Peace).
Melchizedek brings bread and wine for the victory ceremony. Bread (unleavened) and wine are also important elements of thePassovermeal with which the Jews commemorate their liberation from slavery in Egypt. Bread and wine symbolism is also central to Christian Communion (or Eucharist) as Jesus self-identified the bread and wine of theLast Supperas representative of his body and blood. When it comes to religious symbolism, it does not get more intense than these two targets of GMO modification and anti-GMO attacks
The Battle Over Wheat Is Representative of A Broader Philosophical Struggle In Post-Modern Society
In the early 15th century, theprinting press增强了社会交流的潜力，并加速了前几个世纪已经发展的理性和前科学的趋势(伊斯兰文艺复兴、欧洲文艺复兴、启蒙运动)。有人可能会认为，互联网时代的巨大沟通潜力会进一步增强“理性时代”。不是这样的。“文艺复兴人”这个词，指的是几百年前一个聪明、受过教育的人掌握大部分人类知识和美学的真实可能性。今天，一个人很幸运能够跟上他所选择的子领域的步伐。
The Light of Knowledge drove out the darkness of Fear and Superstition that so characterized the “Dark Ages.” Today, Fear and Superstition are back with a vengeance. Knowledge is often impotent because it has become too vast to access and stave off Fear, or to help most people separate real information from disinformation. We no longer have a clear way of knowing what is true (epistemology). Until the internet age we had a workable balance between logic (rational epistemology), experience and experiment (empirical epistemology), and accepting truth from recognized experts (authoritarian epistemology). Now we seem to be moving towards simply choosing an authoritarian source of truth that is comfortable for our world view. It is a sort of “don’t tell me what I don’t want to know” epistemology. We pick the “news” channels, blogs, gurus or even comedians who tell us self-reinforcing information. To open up our minds to all the different voices is just too overwhelming.
In the particular case of GMO crops, there are many people who only listen to the complete anti-GMO voices (e.g. greenpeace, agro-ecology advocates…). I wrote a blog post titled, “Way Too Much Angst About GMO Crops,” which was intended to calm some people by explaining why very few crops will ever be GMO for a variety of reasons. The post didn’t have that effect at all, as one can see in the 500+ comment stream on theBiofortifiedre-post of the blog.
This is Just One Front of A Much More Important Battle
But this argument about GMO wheat is a mere sub-set of something bigger than even agriculture. It is really about the choice betweenrisk managementbased on sound science orrisk avoidance基于“预防原则”气候变化和疫苗/自闭症的争论也是如此，还有更多的争论。对我来说，作为一名农业科学家，我只想在农业问题上接触开明的人。绿色和平组织最近的这一噱头对失去一年工作的科学家来说只是一场灾难。真正的利害关系在于科学与预防之间更广泛的斗争。
Wheat Field Image fromDag Endresen. My Website isApplied Mythology. Please comment here and/or write me at applied.mythology@gmail.com
I am not in favor of GMOs, but I do not support acts of destruction or violence such as the ones by these activists. However passionate about something, and convinced we are right, we may be, non-violence and dialogue are crucial to lasting well-being.
Justin — I was also really uncomfortable with the type of action taken here… and I’m saying that as someone who generally respects Greenpeace’s work and activism.
Justin and Jeff,
I’m glad you guys feel that way, and I suspect that most folks in the environmental movement would agree. We are not saying there would never be a cause big enough for civil disobedience, its just not an acre of experimental bread wheat carefully confined and with virtually no chance of being anything but an academic experiment.
Exactly… and I think Greenpeace has engaged in many, many acts of civil disobedience that were warranted, and that worked in terms of raising public awareness. Tod and I discussed this a bit on Google+, also, and I told him that, at this point, I had a very hard time not equating this kind of tactic with book burning. I’ll also add that I read through Greenpeace’s FAQ on this action, and they argued that the “field trial” did represent a threat of cross-contamination:http://su.pr/1Xw20b(and I’d love to hear your perspective on that, Steve). But I’m always going to be really uncomfortable with almost any destructive act aimed at activity designed to produce knowledge…
Jeff, “cross contamination” is a red herring, emotive term to be avoided. All plants make pollen and they “cross pollinate” others of their own species or extremely close relatives. GMO changes nothing about that. In some species the pollen travels quite a ways, in others not very far (e.g. corn).
Plant breeders, seed producers and farmers have dealt with this for centuries. If you want to keep a wheat seed crop pure, you know how far it has to be away from other wheat. Again, GMO changed nothing about that. Trust me, CSIRO would have been well aware of the appropriate distance for isolation (they are wheat breeders!).
Greenpeace activists could potentially spread the pollen further than normal, perhaps that was the plan, but I doubt it. I still think it was a publicity stunt. Don’t be so quick to defend people who may not have your moral compass
I appreciate your insight on this, Steve (as was thinking about suggesting this as a topic for a post). I brought in the argument from their Q&A because it seemed to be the foundation of their rationale for the action, and so I thought it needed discussing.
What’s not mentioned here is that these crops are annuals, not perennials. As such, they make a ton o’ money for big ag, but annuals do not produce well, in terms of calorie in/calorie out AND they deplete soil at an awful rate.
Take a look at the vital, vital work being done by Wes Jackson and his Land Institute. To support a planet full of billions, we must reverse the woeful decision to go with annuals, made some 10,000 years ago.
谢谢你的建议，托德……说实话，我从来没这么想过。I’m sure Steve will jump in with a more informed response…
Todd,
You can’t really make broad brush generalizations like that. That particular “annual” has sustained multiple societies over 10,000 years. That seems rather sustainable to me. We need annuals and perennials and biennials. Wheat, by the way does not make “a ton o’ money for big ag” – it is a tiny seed market because it is mostly “saved seed.” Do you have any involvement in farming?
As for non violence being crucial to victory, that is a nice belief, but wholly false. Neither Gandhi nor MLK Jr believed this to be so, but a false revisionist history and selected quoting has castrated our movement by populating it with impotent activists who won’t raise a fist to save the planet.
非暴力社会运动从来没有成功过。无一例外。时期。你能说出一个吗?印度独立?公民权利?性别平等吗?没有一次是非暴力的，而且没有一次是完全成功的。对不起，贾斯汀，是时候去啃书本，学习“非暴力”及其功效了。我不是在提倡暴力，但我们不能从我们的工具箱中移除任何工具。 Not if you really and truly give a damn.
I’ve got a lot of respect for you, Tod, but know you’re wrong on MLK: “Letter from Birmingham Jail” not only promotes non-violence, but spells out the specific steps that activists took to protest in a non-violent manner… even as they themselves were being attacked (I’ve taught this one many times). He does make one threat, but it’s ironic in this context: his audience could deal with King and his non-violent followers, or with anti-racism/segregation movements that were advocating violence at the time.
Todd,
What about Jesus? He was non-violent and ended up starting a huge religion. Too bad that his followers didn’t often take the same strategy – as Ghandi said
问题是“转基因”是一个巨大的保护伞。我可以用它来改善营养、抗旱性或产量。我对用它来制造对昆虫有毒的植物(那些依赖于这些昆虫的物种呢?)如果我们吃那些据说只对虫子有毒的植物呢?)或者抗除草剂的植物呢?(这对除草剂制造商来说非常有利可图，但对我们真的想在环境中使用更多除草剂来说呢?)更不用说，当农民A种植转基因专利种子时，花粉会被吹到农民B的土地上，公司就会起诉农民B种植他们的作物而没有支付报酬。就这一点而言，恐怖分子可能会改造一种食品工厂，使其生产氰化物或其他人体毒素。
Sue Ann,
It sounds like you read almost exclusively anti-GMO sites without hearing the other side. These issues have been addressed many years ago or were never real problems. Try looking at the Biofortified site. It has no ties to the commercial companies and is run by volunteer graduate students. In the comment streams you will see both sides of the debate well-represented. I know no better forum than that
http://www.biofortified.org/
Your callous dismissal of the small-farmers of the US Midwest whose life work have been ruined by Monsanto’s practice of suing their victims for impossible sums after Roundup-ready soy (IIRC) blows into their fields is shocking. You might claim that the problem isn’t relevant to CSIRO or the wheat experiment, but from Sue Ann’s comment, I can see that the distinction might be a bit fine for Greenpeace’s tastes. I’m not positive that I agree with them, but I can see where they’re coming from.
至于上面提到的非暴力;只提到了《来自伯明翰监狱的信》，这是1963年美国政府升级卷入越南战争之前的一篇文章。他后来的作品没有选择性地引用他的作品那么可爱，所以我认为Jeff在一定程度上证明了Tod的观点。当你考虑到专制的社会权力，包括耶稣死后很长一段时间内极其邪恶的统一的天主教教会政权(如果他意识到这些政权，他可能会拒绝)对使基督教成为今天的主导社会力量有多大的必要时，史蒂夫的观点基本上是有争议的。考虑到今天的基督徒是多么的暴力——从我们疯狂屠杀的总统到我们大教堂里的反民权运动——我认为耶稣的策略在传达他的信息方面实际上并不是很成功。
最后，它是教会的暴力镇压，以及教会与国王、封建领主和奴隶主的联盟——我可以补充说，他们的统治地位被基督教的修辞合理化了——使得它在耶稣生活到20世纪之间的时间里成为一股不可抗拒的社会力量。考虑到耶稣恳求奴隶带着微笑服侍他们的主人，承认他们主人的权威是上帝的，把国王和基督描绘成非暴力革命中的兄弟有点不合逻辑。
“I have problems with using it to make plants toxic to insects (what about the species that depend on those insects? What about us eating those plants supposedly toxic only to bugs?)
Sue Ann, this has been going on since long before humans domesticated plants. Heck, it’s been going on for as long as plants and insects have been around:
http://www.pnas.org/content/87/19/7777.full.pdf
“我们计算出，美国人饮食中99.99%(按重量计算)的农药是植物为保护自己而产生的化学物质。”
Stever, I enjoyed your thoughtful discussion. Your story of the Greenpeace action reminds me of when I went to a PETA rally in the late 1980s. This was a rally to start up a new group at the university where I happened to be taking some biochemistry classes. Since I had never been to something like that, I just wanted to find out what all of the hoopla was about. So, I went, sat in the back, and kept my mouth shut. It was quite interesting as there was a lot of angst over using animals in medical research. The main speaker claimed that one could research any part of the body (e.g., heart, liver, muscle) by using non-sterile skin scrapings (e.g., a differentiated tissue, not a biopsy), and that it was not necessary to use heart tissue to study the heart, or bone cells to study bone, and so on. Having already worked in medical research for several years, I was surprised at the level of ignorance of the speaker. But, apparently the whole point of the meeting was to get the attendees so upset and riled up that they would join the group, give money, and take (possibly) political action. I’m not sure that they ever did anything useful except give me a little bit of education.
Eleanor,
谢谢你分享这段经历。我只是觉得很糟糕，许多好心的人被卷入为组织者而不是动物的利益提供金钱和时间，做非法的事情。2022欧洲杯葡萄牙vs德国
Well Steve,
Before I read this piece I was really worried about GMO organisms especially the heavily patent protected stuff being brought to market by pesticide manufacturers like Monsanto and other massive chemical concerns like BASF. I didn’t realise that there were real benefits to these expensive GMO products (I thought that their only trait was resistance to roundup allowing Monsanto to sell a massive amount of its Roundup product resulting in massively increased use of pesticides), so thanks for reasuring me on that front. Oh, by the way, you didn’t mention all of the many benefits to the poor and hungry of currently available GMO crops, could you just post a list, (you probably just forgot). I am sure that there are loads and loads of other GMOs from Monsanto just about to be released that have drought resistance and all those other fantastic things – I am sure that they must be almost ready for the market now becasue Monsanto and the GMO indutry has been promising them for 15 years.
Hey, and thanks for setting the record straight on cross polination, I realy thought that cross polination of GMOs with nearby growing non GM modified crops was an actual problem, woe how wrong can you be hey? I guess that BASF aren’t really paying US farmers billions in fines for allowing an ilegal GMO into the food chain, because they must be clever and experienced people and such a thing just couldn’t happen. BASF are probably just feeling really generous and giving the farmers some money for being good farmers.
It is great that you are here to tell us all how safe and usfeul GMO’s are, otherwise we might all be worried,
Thanks Steve,
what would we do without you,
Steve (other steve)
I always appreciate some good sarcasm (read my Erasmus post). But you have digested quite a bit of disinformation. Roundup Ready crops did not really increase pesticide use. There were herbicides used before and most were not as soft as glyphosate for the environment or the crop. The drought resistance traits are starting to move into the market now (non-gmo approaches) and actually soon for the GMO approach. Sorry to have made you wait, but this is not exactly easy. I’m not exactly what BASF trait you are talking about on the cross-pollination issue. Do you mean Bayer (who bought AgrEvo that had Star-Link?.
I wish your last paragraph were true, but if you prefer a state of angst, who am I to deny it to you?
Sorry Steve, I seem to have missed that list of all of the benefits to the poor and hungry of GMO’s? you must have just forgotton it again.
Yes, sorry Bayer’s amflora, it was late and I was typing too quickly.
Indeed, the only drought resistant strains are NON GMO’s, quite correct, there are no GMO drought resistant plants, and you know that very well.
So, lets have that list eh Steve?
Thanks mate
Steve,
The indirect effects of higher yields from GMOs and other technologies benefit the poor by keeping supply closer to demand. The direct benefits for the poor have largely been blocked by anti-GMO influence, mainly from Europe. Virus resistant Cassava and Bananas, insect resistant land-race potatoes, higher yielding corn, cowpeas and sorghum etc have all been blocked or greatly slowed by this influence. These were things that were going to be offered free to poor farmers by the Danforth Center, Gates Foundation, IRRI, Monsanto, Syngenta etc. I have not forgotten these things or who has denied them to the poor
Time will tell which drought tolerance technologies work best in which settings. Not all drought is equal. Some is more associated with heat. Some is for early season issues and some for grain-fill late in the season. Some is best for decent yields under moderate stress, while others will provide some yield when regular varieties are complete failures. It will take a decade to sort this all out. I don’t care what technology was used – just that we get the drought tolerance
好吧,最后的评论。
地球上有足够的食物养活所有人，但穷人的问题是……穷得买不起。我不知道转基因究竟是如何让穷人变富的。
Your statements at this point are bare faced lies:
“Time will tell which drought tolerance technologies work best in which settings”
There are no GMO drought technologies, what on earth are you talking about?
“The indirect effects of higher yields from GMOs…”
What???? GMOs do not have higher yields – please provide factual evidence for this statement —if you can!!!
“The direct benefits for the poor have largely been blocked by anti-GMO influence, mainly from Europe”
Utter uinmittigated bullshit – no evidence whatsoever just nonsense statements.
You are a con artist bought and paid for by the Industry. Simple.
steve–
I know this is a topic that stirs passions… and it’s OK to present your position passionately. But please keep the name-calling and obscenity directed at others out… it makes your argument appear weak if you’ve got to resort to these tactics.
Steve
GMO crops are “scale neutral” particularly the ones that would be offered for free to smallholder farmers. It does not have to make them rich, just feed them rather than pests
我不认为评估新兴的耐旱技术需要时间是什么“谎言”，当我说没有转基因技术时，我的意思是还没有进入商业市场。2013年或2014年。目前的产品来自非转基因育种技术。
As for higher yields with GMOs, there are tons of USDA data showing this, particularly for corn. See my post “1996: the year that everything changed…”. The analysis is complex, but is explained there
as for the ad hominem attack and accusation that I am “bought and paid for by industry:” I’m used to hearing this. Perhaps if I were more clever I would figure out a way to get paid to defend farmers and the companies that serve them. As it is, every minute I spend responding to comments or writing posts reduces my income because I’m a consultant that gets paid by the hour to help with the development of technology that helps feed people.
I take the time to do the writing because there are lots of people out there with an open mind that take the time to weigh the arguments they hear and to check the facts. I hope you will do the same
Sorry again, not amflora I meant of course liberty rice…..
St. Louis, MO (PRWEB) July 07, 2011
A three-quarters of a billion dollar legal settlement (case no. 4:06 MDL # 1811 CDP U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri) has been reached between Germany based Bayer AG and its affiliates, and U.S. rice farmers. This settlement relates to legal actions filed beginning in 2006 in response to contamination of the U.S. rice supply by Bayer’s experimental and unapproved genetically modified Liberty Link rice.
Cheers
Steve
Steve,
自由大米其实不是转基因食品。它是基于诱变和选择的——就像我们在20世纪60年代和70年代获得了红宝石柚子和矮个子小麦以及其他许多作物改良一样。问题是，它可以将抗除草剂能力转移到野生水稻上(不是好品种，而是杂草)。
至于Amyflora土豆，那是巴斯夫公司的产品，我其实并不喜欢这个概念。如果工业淀粉进入食品淀粉供应，它所做的一切将使面包师沮丧，并做出有趣的纹理烘焙食品。我担心的是，在最初的作物种植很久之后，土豆还会作为志愿者出现。这将是一件痛苦的事情，以确保种植它的土地永远不会种植普通的土豆。可行，但痛苦。
伟大的,有益的讨论。我学到了很多。这就是博客的意义所在。Keep it flowing!