AgrEvo Company

Greenpeace Vandalism In England, Direct Action Against Knowledge

It is 5 o'clock in the morning and the 3 Brigham brothers discover that about 50 activists, equipped with a mechanical mower have entered their property in Norfolk, United Kingdom, without authorisation to destroy a test field of genetically modified maize. The Brigham brothers try to stop the destruction since the objective of the test - fully authorised and identified by the British authorities - is precisely to know if sowing varieties (improved by AgrEvo, one of the leading companies in Biotechnology) that are resistant to a herbicide without residual effects is more or less environmentally safe than the current alternatives with other herbicides.

It is not easy since the activists are numerous and are led by none other than Lord Melchett, member of the elitist House of Lords, former Minister, ecological farmer and executive director of Greenpeace in the United Kingdom. After a series of verbal skirmishes, two of the Brigham brothers start up a couple of tractors with buckets and charge the vehicles that the group led by Greenpeace had brought to destroy the field. Finally, before personal harm could occur - aside from one of the Brigham brothers fainting - the British police intervene and arrest about twenty activists. In few days, the activists and Lord Melchett are set free after the judge heard that the latter could miss a family holiday in Tanzania. This particular holiday is not exactly cheap. (The Times valued it at 2.5 million pesetas.)

In farmer William Brigham's words, "this has nothing to do with genetically modified organisms. It's about whether or not we want a democratic government in this country or anarchy".

Greenpeace extremism - violating farmers' property rights - can be interpreted as a lack of arguments on genetically modified varieties. The alarmist propaganda disseminated over the last three years about the safety of foodstuffs derived from the new varieties has not been justified with any kind of relevant scientific study, while this organisation has remained silent in the face of food intoxications by micro-organisms, which are as real as poor nutritional habits. Regarding the impact on the environment, the attempts to destroy tests such as the one described, show that groups that oppose commercial crops for lack of data have not hesitated to violate farmers'rights to avoid getting to know the characteristics of the new varieties better.

Greenpeace, just as any other social organisation, can have its own ideology, disseminate it and defend it with its own arguments. But, in no case, is there justification for the use of violence, the invasion of private property or the destruction of others' work and possessions.

Only research, experimentation and rational and scientific arguments should be authorised voices for proclaiming in favour of or against a technological advance. This is why it is wholly incomprehensible that, as a tactic for defending their positions, this organisation use precisely destruction.

In this case, Greenpeace's direct action seems directed against their own credibility.