Tuesday, 22 January 2008

• How credible is Greenpeace?

  (Cross posted on Nuclear Green.)
  

  How credible is Greenpeace?
  Greenpeace recently went to war with beer maker Anheuser-Busch. It seems that Budweiser is “tainted” by a small amount of genetically modified rice. Anheuser-Busch says that the brewing process destroys the protein created by the genetic strain anyway. That does not make a difference to Greenpeace, which opposes genetically alteration of crops with the same vehemence it opposes, nuclear reactors.
  

  Well if Greenpeace boycott’s beer, maybe you can drink milk. Hold on. Greenpeace boycott of milk in cartons because of the presence of dioxin in cartons and the dioxin pollution caused by the manufacturing process.
  
  Doug Muhleman, Anheuser-Busch's vice president of brewing, "We stand in support of US farmers, who are partners with us in the quality of our products," he said in a statement. "Greenpeace recently asked us to join their advocacy campaign on genetically modified crops. We refused their calls to boycott US farmers, and they are now retaliating."
  
  Now wait a minute, Greenpeace is boycotting US farmers? A Greenpeace report claims that Monsanto, which sells over 90% of the World's genetically altered crop seeds claims that Monsanto, "could be another financial disaster waiting to happen".
  
  Of course Greenpeace is hoping that Monsanto’s seed business is a failure, and that US farm exports collapse.
  
  Monsanto says about the Greenpeace report: "The report is highly biased and cherrypicks information about plant biotechnology and Monsanto in order to further a political agenda.”
  
  "It's telling that the cover page of the Innovest report warns readers about the information in their report _ 'we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness' and 'all opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice'."
  
  Ed Newbigin, from the School of Botany of the University of Melbourne, Australia, commented in the Melbourne Courier-Mail:
  
  “Greenpeace's Jeremy Tager refers to the myths of the genetic engineering industry, but then produces his own myth by saying that animals that eat GE [Genetically Engineered] food "frequently show serious effects". Wrong. Numerous studies attest to the fact that animals that eat GE food as part of a normal diet do as well as animals that eat conventional food. Greenpeace does the community a great disservice by spreading such myths.”
  
  Greenpeace is not boycotting Apple computers yet, but it threatens a suite against the consumer electronics giant, because Greenpeace claims the iPhone is bad for the environment, because, among other reasons, brominated flame retardants "most likely" found in the iPhone are reactive, binding with other chemicals to form a plastic that keeps them out of the environment.
  
  The Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF) claimed that much of the Greenpeace IPhone report was either exaggerated or misstated.
  
  The BSEF asserts that none of the chemicals used in the iPhone are banned under any environmental laws, and that the brominates in the phone are actually essential in protecting against fire.
  
  "The Greenpeace report does not say which brominated flame retardants are present in the iPhone because it does not know," the group said in a statement. "Therefore, the report speculates about what substances might be present, and raises an alarm without any basis for doing so."
  
  If Greenpeace thinks that Apple is bad, it thinks that Nintendo is far worse. According to Greenpeace:
  
  Nintendo [scored] zero in the five categories related to the use of harmful chemicals, including offering no list of banned or restricted substances and no policy regarding the use of vinyl plastic or brominated flame retardants. It also scored zero in the four categories related to recycling.
  
  John Timmer of Ars Technica notes “Greenpeace reserves the right to arbitrarily change a company's score if they decide the company did something disagreeable.
  
  Timmer points to a report statement, "Penalty points are deducted from overall scores if Greenpeace finds a company lying, practicing double standards or other corporate misconduct."
  
  Greenpeace itself decides if the penalty should be assessed Timmer remarks, “The research in general appears lazy,” and “lack of research undercuts the report's credibility.”
  
  “Clearly, Greenpeace did not perform an exhaustive evaluation of chemical use through the manufacturing pipeline,” Timmer adds.
  
  In effect, Greenpeace is blackmailing businesses with the threat of bad reports, or even worse boycotts, if the businesses do not play ball with Greenpeace. Greenpeace simply assumes that if the business does not play ball, it can publish unsubstantiated report findings accusing the company of some enormous environmental crime.

  • 7:05 AM
  • 79 Views
  • 2 eProps
  • 1 Comment