During the last week, there has been significant debate in the media about a letter signed by more than 100 Nobel laureates imploring Greenpeace to refrain from its anti-scientific stand against genetically modified organisms (GMOs), in particular the group’s effort to stop the use of a kind of rice aimed at eradicating vitamin A deficiency, a scourge that has killed millions in the last decade and blinded tens of millions more.

While TNR does not have the expertise to assess the pros and cons of GMOs, the concerns about Greenpeace expressed by the GMO scientists are very similar to the concerns regarding Greenpeace’s (and other eNGOs) stance on scientific issues that TNR members are well qualified to make comment. As regular readers will be aware,  TNR has been highlighting the anti-scientific stand made by Greenpeace and many other eNGOs in articles such as “Is the Greenpeace NZ campaign against seismic surveys fraudulent?“, “Is the eNGO campaign against BP’s Bight drilling program deceptive” and “The right to protest or lobby should not be abused

A clear example of the manner in which eNGO protests are far moved from reality can be seen in the following photo and the article “How loud is the sound of a breaching whale?“:

Humpback whale and seismic array
Humpback whale and seismic array

In an interview with the Washington Post, Richard Roberts, one of the organisers of the letter stated “We’re scientists. We understand the logic of science. It’s easy to see what Greenpeace is doing is damaging and is anti-science” and “Greenpeace initially, and then some of their allies, deliberately went out of their way to scare people. It was a way for them to raise money for their cause.

In fact, it was the use of misinformation, myths, scaremongering and distortion of the truth used by activist groups such as Greenpeace, IFAW, Wilderness, Lock the Gate, etc, that led to the formation of TNR.