“Of course it works! That’s why it must be stopped!”
Michael Mallinger, writing in The National Review, says that, after years of bullying, Greenpeace is now on the defensive. A taste of his critique of the organization:
Greenpeace poses as a group interested in promoting better ecology based on scientific analysis. But its real mission, as American University professor Paul Wapner explains in his book Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics, is ‘to manipulate values, norms, and modes of discourse; it seeks to alter people’s conceptions of reality.’ In other words, it tries to change culture as well as behavior.
Nowhere is this more evident than in its campaign against biotechnology. The environmentalist group has called for a global ban on the use of biotech crops, while in the same breath acknowledging their potential value. This, combined with the group’s frequent vandalism of biotechnology field-testing facilities, betrays a blatant disregard for scientific analysis of the issue.
Greenpeace persists in this stance despite the fact that many leading scientific bodies have endorsed the use of biotechnology to aid third-world countries. Ignoring these findings has cost Greenpeace some of its top scholars. Dr. William Plaxton, who teaches biochemistry at Queens University in Ontario, cited the group’s attacks on biotechnology as the primary reason for his departure last year. Similarly, Dr. Barry Palevitz, who teaches botany at the University of Georgia, scalded the group while departing in 1999, saying that ‘with certain environmental groups not-so-subtly catalyzing the antitechnology movement, much of the public is unaware that evidence that [biotech] foods are unsafe is so far nonexistent….’