Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
The debate on genitically modified organisms (GMO) is apparently due to have sharpened and last a group of noble laureates have stated that

It is a crime against humanity to reject the development and use of crops developed using GMO

Although it sounds bombastic the following will justify this opinion.


  • Knowingly selecting better plants and animals have been known for millennia and should actually be called the first green revolution.
  • Introducing industrially produced nitrogen extended the First World War but it also came to be what in reality was the second green revolution.
  • In the period around 1960 clever and dedicated plant breeders prevented a lurking crisis on world food supplies.
    This major step in the development was the result of a targeted selection and cross-breeding of suitable varieties. This has been a lengthy proses, of course it still continues.
  • By all accounts there is a need for a new green revolution that can not be accomplished by only using the previous methods.
    Thus, much work is in progress in order to develop new and improved varieties, not only providing better yields, but also able tho withstand drought and can grow in saline soil.
    This is not possible without a large team of experts who have access to expensive equipment.
  • Much progress and new medication are alleredy in the pipeline as the result of a change of the genetic structure, most in plants, but now also in unicellular organisms and animals.
    Gnetic Manipulation !
  • There is much talk of GMOs is an interference with nature.
    For this reason it has been difficult for small business to survive long enough to show results.

In this way, the large international company Monsanto had to “bear the brunt” of the critisism.
At an early stage Greenpeace chose to follow their old tradition and simply say
“No – No – No”
Perhaps without considering anything except publicity and an alleged protection of nature.

Gradually, the crusade against GMO changed character to include a fight to protect small farmers against big capitalists.
Because of this, it has been necessary to abandon projects that could be beneficial to all.

It should of course be unsaid whether GMO could be potentially damaging to the environment. It obviously depends on the actual GMO.
Therefore it would be totally irresponsible to lump everything together.
The starting point is that millions of people – perhaps an entire billion – are using GMOs in their daily food, with no apparent injuries.

  • Additionally, it can not be stressed enough that the use of GMOs has never prevented the use of traditional crops.

Gylden Ris

Golden Rice

Most damaging to a beneficial development has probably been the resistance to what is called Golden Rice.
Some researchers, not having these heinous economic motives, developed the so-called Golden Rice, which can cope with a shortage of vitamin A.
Without, it will result blindnes in children.
Pictured you see young people from the city who were brought in buses to “demonstrate” against an experimental field with golden rice. (2013)

Crowd breaking through fence in prior to destroying field of gol

Patent holders make golden rice freely available for small farmers in developing countries and neither golden rice nor other GMO crops stands in the way of other solutions.

More than 250,000 children become blind – Yearly – due to the lack of vitamin A
Of course, nobody knows how many could have maintainet ther sight if Golden Rice had received the support it deserved, and how much of this is due to the unjustified hostility from Greenpeace.
Yet, I ask:

Why should Greenpeace be so busy trying to stand in the way of this use of the green revolution?

Of course there is talk about that you can ‘just’ grow some vegetables – especially carrots.
Apparently the following is ignored:

  • The plots in the affected areas are usually very small and that there is little room for new and ‘mysterious crops’.
  • For these people it is important to get the stomach filled – here and now – There is not much strength for more.
  • I have lived a very long time in Africa and has seen how difficult it is to introduce new eating habits:
    bla “Maybe these pale faces can eat something like this – – –
    bla But me, luckily I know what is good food.”

    In my case: The use of beans that could have prevented lack of proteins with subsequent reduced development.
  • Unlike so much else: Golden rice could easily be marketed under the theme
    Golden Rice for Golden Health

So I ask:

How many more children have to go into adult life as blinds before Greenpeace abandon their hysteric crusade against GMOs?

Already here it is easy to see how the harsh accusations, mentioned at the beginning, rests on a factual basis.

More output

Again, rice comes forward with good opportunities for improvement.
Here with opportunities for higher yields.

Worldwide 700 milion tons of rice is consumed, mostly in China, and a team of researchers from the United States, China and Sweden have developed a new variety by inserting a single gene from another grain (barley). This new variant is referred to at many places and will provide better yields and even less pollution with methane.

In China, where there is a desperate need for more food to feed the hungry people, Greenpeace has fortunately not been able to destroy the development.
In Africa the developmented was supported by Kofi Annan.
Perhaps the resistance will be overtaken by reality.

Other Crops

bommuldFor example, genetically modified cotton has prevented much use of harmful chemicals.
Simultaneously, increased yield has raised poor farmers out of poverty so that they can afford school, hospital and better nutrition.

Genetically modified tobacco is in the pipeline for better production of the enzymes necessary for the production of bioethanol from waste.
In this way you may continue.

Corn as Feedstok

There is some evidence that GM corn at times has been grown in an irresponsible manner resulting in traces of harmful pesticides in the crops.
Some, apparently dubious, feeding trials should thus show terrible damage to the animals that were fed GMOs.
At the same time, it can not be ignored that millions of people – perhaps an entire billion – are using GMOs in their daily food.  Without harmful effects.
So I ask:
How many more tests shall we wait for?

Terminator Gen

Originally it was intended to reduce the risk of accidental spillage of gens into nature, something you were worried about – at least at Greenpeace.
But suddenly this resistance turned around 180 degrees, because Greenpeace realised that it simultaneously would mean that users could not ‘just’ cheat and use the previous crop as seeds for the new harvest.

Of course it should  be allowed to cheat the eavel Monsantos, although it still would result in more of the hated GMO.
Thus the struggle against ‘the big international companies’ became more important than the desire to protect nature.
Of course there is much more publicity in protecting ‘small farmers’
against those capitalists, only making more money and maybe developing more GMO.
Then it was in silence forgotten that this terminator gene automatically would have reduced the use of this otherwise hated technology.

Hybrid Corn

Meanwhile, work is done to develop hybrid corn.
This we we can well eat, together with hybrid chickens.
Although also this can be said to be unnatural result of human development of the breeding stock.
However: Here it is a necessary part of the technology to buy new material after each harvest.
Still, in reality it works as another form of this terrible Terminator Gen.
But here it is the technology that necessitates that even small farmers become dependent on these international suppliers to get good seed for next year’s crop.
Although, of course, there have been cases of vandalism against
Hybrid Corn, still Greenpeace has been almost silent.

Avian Flu

It is attempted to use genetic engineering to prevent spread of a possible epidemic of avian flu so that the infection can not be transmitted to humans.
Should it be stopped?

Next step

Research with the aim to understand the structure of the genetic material is in a rapid development and the resistance grows.

  • Organic farming can benefit by embracing new and precise genetic technologies that can restore original robust properties in plants, where it has been lost through traditional breeding.
    Yet the idea is rejected  – Almost per automatik.
  • In China, where it apparently is not a crime to change “God’s Creation”, work is going on to develop methods that can be used to improve the genetic material in animals and in humans.
    But it’s not that fun to be an albino in Africa.
  • It is difficult to “draw a line in the sand” and for many “God’s Creation” is untouchable.
  • Quite a long time ago an English archbishop wanted that children with serious injuries should not ‘be selected not to born’ (by early abortions.)
    Because: “If there are more people with disabilities, it will be easier to live for those who are disabled.”
  • However, we must realize that the development can not be stopped.
    If nothing else, it will continue in China and in other countries.
    Meanwhile, we sit on our hands and just say:
    “NO, this you can not do.”
    Of course, without explaining what the two small words “this” and “you” actually covers.
  • Anything goes on and opponents are using absurd tecnicallities to stop a sientifically acurate article about golden rice.

Labeling of GMO

From many sides it is required that all food based on GM crops must be labeled.
Here it would be fair if GM opponents labeled their products as “free of GM” and of course cover the costs that would otherwise be passed over to the ordinary consumer.
Here I ask: Should I pay extra just because some are fighting a determined struggle against self-invented ghosts.

The Result

Popular resistance induced by some – perhaps well-intentioned – activists, demonstrates a lack of cohesiveness as soon as it comes to logic.
Here the short conclution is that poor people should go hungry to bed and children should grow up in poverty and perhaps as blind.


Apparently, the livelihood of several “green organizations” depends on them to appear as those protecting humanity from something dangerous.
If there can not be found a factual danger to protect against, so an imaginary danger can very well be used – as described above.
At the same time it must be understood that it will be a political death sentence for a politician, if he be accused of exposing people to danger. So it is better to howl with the wolves you are surrounded by and “just” say NO.
Greenpeace, whose annual revenue is $335 million, is obviously a dangerous opponent.


Also see Greenpeace and Nuclear
And, of course: Where is the read line?