Follow Topics

14 July 2011, 11.52am EST

Scientists appalled by whippersnipper attack on CSIRO GM wheat trial

Scientists today said they were appalled and disappointed by Greenpeace protesters who whippersnippered a genetically modified wheat crop being grown as part of a CSIRO trial. The trial crop was part of an investigation into altering wheat carbohydrate content to reduce glycaemic response and improve…

Scientists today said they were appalled and disappointed by Greenpeace protesters who whippersnippered a genetically modified wheat crop being grown as part of a CSIRO trial.

The trial crop was part of an investigation into altering wheat carbohydrate content to reduce glycaemic response and improve metabolic health. Planting began in 2009.

“CSIRO can confirm there has been a break-in overnight at their crop trial site at Ginninderra in the ACT. The police, and the government’s gene technology regulatory authority – the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), have been informed and are inspecting the site,” said Dr Jeremy Burdon, Chief of CSIRO’s Plant Industry Division.

“CSIRO is currently assessing the damage to the trial crops and considering next steps.”

Dr Christopher Preston, Associate Professor in the School of Agriculture, Food and Wine at the University of Adelaide said the attack was upsetting.

“As an active scientist, I am appalled that a fellow scientist’s experiments have been destroyed through this action,“ he said, adding that the OTGR had assessed the trial to offer no significant threat to human health or the environment.

“These trials are not just about the development of genetically modified crops that may at some future time be developed commercially, but frequently provide spin-off information that is of use in our understanding of gene action in the environment. This important information is also lost.”

Activists have voiced concerns about the genetically modified (GM) wheat pollen getting into other fields and contaminating other crops.

The CSIRO said it had put measures in place to reduce that risk, including a high fence, a buffer zone in fields around the plants and ensuring no wheat compatible species were planted within 500 metres of the fence.

But Greenpeace Food Campaigner, Laura Kelly, said the protesters had no trouble accessing the site, suggesting security was too low.

“They walked in wearing full hazmat gear and walked out without encountering a single security person. That’s part of our concern. They were able to engage with a biosecurity site without anyone batting an eyelid,” she said, adding that the protest was timed to occur before the crop flowered.

“The government’s own data shows that 60% of the cross contamination doesn’t come from windfall, it comes from human error in managing the site.”

The CSIRO said the resulting wheat was intended to be fed to animals as part of a trial but Greenpeace said human trials were planned as well.

“We had no choice but to take action to bring an end to this experiment,” Ms Kelly said in a statement.

“GM has never been proven safe to eat and once released in open experiments, it will contaminate. This is about the protection of our health, the protection of our environment and the protection of our daily bread.”

Professor Mark Tester, a plant scientist at the University of Adelaide, said the protest was deeply disappointing.

“GM technology is not a magic bullet but it does offer new opportunities to improve the quality and quantity of wheat,” he said.

“One cannot make any generalisations about GM or any other technology – it all depends on how it is used… One cannot say that all GM is good or that all GM is bad but it is one of many tools in our toolbox to try and help protect the environment and feed people around the world.”

He pointed out that farmers had been modifying the genomes of plants for thousands of years through breeding.

“Previously we have been crossing plants and hoping for the best – now we are able to selectively choose the genes that we want and discard the ones that we don’t.

Genetic modification may not solve all the problems, but with growing populations and climate change causing more extreme weather events, then it doesn’t make sense to ignore this potentially useful tool.”

The CSIRO said that police were at the protest site inspecting the damage and that it was unable to answer further questions while the investigation was underway.

However, Ms Kelly said the protesters were not charged by police.

The CSIRO is a founding partner of The Conversation.

You are free to republish this article both online and in print, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

Unless you have express permission from the author, you can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits contact us
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions — ideally in the byline.
You have to credit The Conversation — ideally at the top of the article and include our logo — with a link back to either our home page, The Conversation, or (preferably) the specific article URL on The Conversation website.
If space is tight, you can run the first few lines of the article and then say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
If you’re republishing online, you must use our page view counter, link to us, and include links from our story.
It’s okay to put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You have to confirm that you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some sources, such as AAP, don't allow their images to be republished without permission.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Join the conversation

17 Comments sorted by

mixmaxmin

logged in via Twitter

How do we propose to feed the masses of the planet? GM is the only way! Today's debate is about climate change, the next debate is going to be about food an water... it may not be a debate it may be a war!

almost 2 years ago report
Gmo Pundit

logged in via Facebook

Fatwas against healthy food are immoral

Greenpeace have done everything they can to stop GM crops that offer benefits to consumers. They don't want to acknowledge they were wrong about vitamin enhanced rice-- understating its ability to save lives by a factor near several hundred-fold. 50g of this Golden Rice could supply enough vitamin to prevent disease in poor farming communities, but Greenpeace don't want people to know this. Delays of years in this food reaching the developing world have meant…
Read more

Fatwas against healthy food are immoral

Greenpeace have done everything they can to stop GM crops that offer benefits to consumers. They don't want to acknowledge they were wrong about vitamin enhanced rice-- understating its ability to save lives by a factor near several hundred-fold. 50g of this Golden Rice could supply enough vitamin to prevent disease in poor farming communities, but Greenpeace don't want people to know this. Delays of years in this food reaching the developing world have meant thousands of unnecessary deaths from disease promoted by vitamin decifiency. Vitamin A supplementation of children relying heavily on rice as a staple is known to decrease death rates by 20% or more..

Greenpeace also organised protest letters about this CSIRO wheat by supposedly "independent scientists" but deceived the public by not being transparent about their involvement in organising these letters. They also need to be transparent about their own funding. How much EU money supports their Australian stunts on GM, and how much interaction do they have with companies that make money out of "natural" and "organic" foods and medical nostrums, and who use anti-GM as a marketing tool? These are lucrative businesses.

By their unscientific and undemocratic actions, Greenpeace have also undermined good climate policy.

Public confidence in science providing reliable evidence on which to base climate policy is compromised when Green lobby groups consistently ignore the scientific evidence on GM food safety, not to say by involvement of scientifically unreliable Greenpeace in the PR version of IPCC's climate reports.

How can Greenpeace have reached objective scientific conclusions about the safety of a nutritionally improved crop so long before it is developed and tested?

A very similar low-GI (high amylose) rice version of this crop has already been tested in China and the results shared in the scientific literature, with very encouraging findings. It improved the blood sugar chemistry of the people who tried it.

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2010/04/gm-rice-can-be-healthier-than-non-gm.html

Wheat eaters have a right to find out whether such health benefits can come from ordinary bread. Its undemocratic of Greenpeace to declare a fatwa against foods you disapprove of, without waiting to see the scientific evidence from the food trials.

David Tribe Ph.D. , Food science, University of Melbourne

almost 2 years ago report
Michael Jones

logged in via LinkedIn

In the early 1800s, Luddites protested against new technologies by destroying machinery in mills, and breaking wheat threshing machines. Some Luddites were executed, and others deported to Australia. Their protests were in vain, and the standard of living we now enjoy is very much based on using sound science and technology in all aspects of life, including medicine, communications, computers, mineral extraction and agriculture. But it seems that the Luddites transported to Australia have bee…
Read more

In the early 1800s, Luddites protested against new technologies by destroying machinery in mills, and breaking wheat threshing machines. Some Luddites were executed, and others deported to Australia. Their protests were in vain, and the standard of living we now enjoy is very much based on using sound science and technology in all aspects of life, including medicine, communications, computers, mineral extraction and agriculture. But it seems that the Luddites transported to Australia have bee re-incarnated in Greenpeace, with today’s wanton destruction of GM wheat trials near Canberra. Greenpeace has just launched an anti-science fear mongering campaign – the main aim is probably publicity to increase Greenpeace revenues – but in the short term, the only outcome will be to waste taxpayers’ and farmers’ funds invested in research at CSIRO. The kind of trials they have destroyed will lead to better productivity and quality of wheat for consumers in Australia and overseas, and help ensure the competitiveness of the Australian grains industry. In the longer term, and the fact that is unpardonable, is that this sort of action by Greenpeace will delay the benefits of such research being more widely deployed, and this will help condemn the world’s poor and disadvantaged to further starvation and poverty. I wonder of Greenpeace supporters can think past the scaremongering to the real effects of this modern day Luddism.

almost 2 years ago report
1. Michael Rumbold
  
  Michael Rumbold is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Person
  
  In reply to Michael Jones
  
  A lot of the current standard of living of working people has been dependent on people protesting, striking, rioting, opposing inhuman factory conditions. It is easy to look at what we have today and say it is due to "sound science and technology" but this has been combined with people campaigning for safer workplaces, reasonable work hours, and fairer distribution of wealth.
  By not acknowledging that GMO's in the hands of large multinationals have caused social problems means that we have the…
  Read more
  
  A lot of the current standard of living of working people has been dependent on people protesting, striking, rioting, opposing inhuman factory conditions. It is easy to look at what we have today and say it is due to "sound science and technology" but this has been combined with people campaigning for safer workplaces, reasonable work hours, and fairer distribution of wealth.
  By not acknowledging that GMO's in the hands of large multinationals have caused social problems means that we have the situation where scientists are opting out from taking responsibility for their research. Scientists find it too easy to say we have the right motives (creating better food) while ignoring the effects of basic food stuffs being patented and the full effect of commercialisation of these products.
  Greenpeace did not damage this one experiment because of the nature of the experiment but as a protest to increase debate on the issues surrounding the use of GMO foodstuffs. We need to address issues like the lose of food plant varieties and there genetic materiel and farmers not being able to save their own seeds, increase in pesticide use as part of the GMO debate - unfortunately while this debate is not happening people will take direct action - they always have from Luddites onwards.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
2. Gmo Pundit
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Michael Rumbold
  
  That's an interesting perspective. Greenpeace need to do criminal stunts so that people can have a debate. What wrong with using blogs and forums like this one to express views openly?.
  
  And why do you and they leave out most of the facts?. Lets look at what you missed:
  "By not acknowledging that GMO's in the hands of large multinationals have caused social problems"
  
  RESPONSE This is an allegation that is not addressed by criminal sabotage, and evaluation of its accuracy not helpd by misinformation…
  Read more
  
  That's an interesting perspective. Greenpeace need to do criminal stunts so that people can have a debate. What wrong with using blogs and forums like this one to express views openly?.
  
  And why do you and they leave out most of the facts?. Lets look at what you missed:
  "By not acknowledging that GMO's in the hands of large multinationals have caused social problems"
  
  RESPONSE This is an allegation that is not addressed by criminal sabotage, and evaluation of its accuracy not helpd by misinformation about the issue. For instance, Indian cotton farmers have benefited greatly from GMO cotton, to the tune of billions. Greenpeace dont discuss this. The promblem is also not helped by the biased selection of convenient facts in your comment.
  
  "Scientists find it too easy to say we have the right motives (creating better food) while ignoring the effects of basic food stuffs being patented and the full effect of commercialisation of these products."
  
  RESPONSE Greenpeace find it too easly leave unexplored the full economic and environmental benefits of GMO crops. Why do farmers use them again voluntarily year after year when given the choice?
  
  "We need to address issues like the lose of food plant varieties and there genetic materiel and farmers not being able to save their own seeds"
  
  RESPONSE Farmers don't have to buy the seeds. The GMOs actually depend on preservation of biodiversity (good germplasm) to be effective and are an incentive to preserve seed collections.
  
  "increase in pesticide use as part of the GMO"
  
  RESPONSE GMO cotton has decreased pesticide use, and herbicine tolerant GM crops allow shift to softer herbicides and reduce CO2 emmissions
  
  Yes, Greenpeace's version of this leaves out most of the story, and criminal destruction of scientists work is unnecessary to generate open debate. I just did, and I did not vandalise Greepeace's offices to get attention.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
Fran Murrell

logged in via Facebook

Once again the public is being told that scientists know best and we should eat the GM wheat. Mark Tester should know better than to confuse selective breeding that farmers and gardeners have been doing for thousands of years with GM. GM can only be done in a lab at vast expense and it is designed to breach the defences that plants have created over millions of years to prevent foreign DNA entering. The other issue is that GM is not feeding the world. GM soy in South America has led to 200,000 small farmers being dispossessed of their land so the GM soy can be exported to Europe to be fed to animals. The GM soy is leading to massive pesticide use resulting in cancers and birth defects for people living in the GM soy areas. If the world is to feed itself over the next few years the consensus is emerging that agro-ecological agriculture is the only way to go. This means working with natural systems and supporting farmers.

almost 2 years ago report
1. Michael Marriott
  
  logged in via Twitter
  
  In reply to Fran Murrell
  
  "...GM can only be done in a lab at vast expense and it is designed to breach the defences that plants have created over millions of years to prevent foreign DNA entering."
  
  You have heard of lateral gene transfer happening (lgt) "naturally" right?
  
  Extremely common amongst bacteria, and there is some speculation it has played a role in the evolution of eukoryates (plants, animals, fungi).
  
  But of course this all requires research... destroying the work of scientists is not the way to prove a point. Is it?
  
  almost 2 years ago report
2. Gmo Pundit
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Fran Murrell
  
  DNA movement between species and around genomes is commonplace in nature.
  Just two recent documents showing this are:-
  The very recent
  http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-scientists-evidence-groundbreaking-evolution-theory.html
  
  "PhD student Keith Oliver and Associate Professor Wayne Greene have spent the last two years gathering a wealth of evidence which proves that what are commonly known as jumping genes are actually driving the evolutionary process in some species.
  Jumping genes are sequences…
  Read more
  
  DNA movement between species and around genomes is commonplace in nature.
  Just two recent documents showing this are:-
  The very recent
  http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-scientists-evidence-groundbreaking-evolution-theory.html
  
  "PhD student Keith Oliver and Associate Professor Wayne Greene have spent the last two years gathering a wealth of evidence which proves that what are commonly known as jumping genes are actually driving the evolutionary process in some species.
  Jumping genes are sequences of DNA that can move to new positions within the genome of a cell. This movement can create mutations and therefore change the observable characteristics of a species.
  Their latest scientific paper on the idea brings together around 100 examples of where the activity of jumping genes have created or greatly-modified primate and human genes, resulting in the generation of well-known primate-specific traits."
  And older
  Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic evolution.
  Keeling PJ, Palmer JD.
  Nat Rev Genet. 2008 Aug;9(8):605-18.
  
  Summary
  Horizontal gene transfer (HGT; also known as lateral gene transfer) has had an important role in eukaryotic genome evolution, but its importance is often overshadowed by the greater prevalence and our more advanced understanding of gene transfer in prokaryotes. Recurrent endosymbioses and the generally poor sampling of most nuclear genes from diverse lineages have also complicated the search for transferred genes. Nevertheless, the number of well-supported cases of transfer from both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, many with significant functional implications, is now expanding rapidly. Major recent trends include the important role of HGT in adaptation to certain specialized niches and the highly variable impact of HGT in different lineages.
  ***
  As far as agro-ecological approaches achieving a consensus, certainly agro-ecological concepts are important, but unfortunately some major enthusiasts unscientifically reject biotechnology as being part of this approach (a notable exception is Pam Ronald). For example a major recent UN report avoids a consensus by not including significant agricultural biotech expertise to have a role in the study, probably because of the involvement of Greenpeace in the report -- which get back to the issue raised by this topic, Greenpeace's rejection of empirical open-minded science in favor of ideology and crop destruction. Scientific bias is the issue.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
3. Michael Marriott
  
  logged in via Twitter
  
  In reply to Gmo Pundit
  
  Oh thanks for paper! Shall read... I have a real fascination with evolution/biology. Appreciate the citation.
  
  .....on other issues.
  
  Given the speed in which AGW is proceeding, population increase, peak oil (agricultural dependence on oil derived products) we'll need a mix of food production methods and technology. Just as we'll need a different energy mix, and we transition away from fossil fuels.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
4. Felix MacNeill
  
  Environmental Manager
  
  In reply to Fran Murrell
  
  Fran, I think there is a case to be made that the more mecahinistic/simplistic agricultural approaches of the so-called green revolution may have caused as many problems (longer term) as they solved (shorter term) and we need to revisit all of this to find a truly sustainable form of agriculture for the future. There is some evidence that more 'organic' styles of agriculture have real potential to be both sustainable and seriously productive. There are valid concerns about patenting and commercial…
  Read more
  
  Fran, I think there is a case to be made that the more mecahinistic/simplistic agricultural approaches of the so-called green revolution may have caused as many problems (longer term) as they solved (shorter term) and we need to revisit all of this to find a truly sustainable form of agriculture for the future. There is some evidence that more 'organic' styles of agriculture have real potential to be both sustainable and seriously productive. There are valid concerns about patenting and commercial control of seeds. There are valid concerns about a too-naieve trust in any and all new technologies to be magic solutions. Genetic engineering does sometimes seem like globalisation - an aparently good idea that is yet to deliver the benefits claimed for it.
  But I still can't see how this justifies destroying a valid scientific experiment conducted under pretty rigorous protocols.
  Genetic engineering won't be the single/perfect solution, but it's likely to be part of the process - we certainly need to find out whether or not it can achieve its touted potential through sensible experimentation.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
5. Gmo Pundit
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Fran Murrell
  
  Readers need to know that Fran Murrell's organisation, MADGE, strongly supports the Greenpeace action in destroying wheat field trials
  
  From the MADGE Australia Twitter page:
  MADGEAustralia MADGE Australia Inc July 14 2011
  Thank you to the brave GP mother and others who stepped over the line to protect our food and get the message heard. #wheatscandal
  
  MADGEAustralia MADGE Australia Inc July 14 2011
  Yay Hungary! RT @GMWatch #GMO maize destroyed on 950 hectares in Hungary http://bit.ly/n7qClH But…
  Read more
  
  Readers need to know that Fran Murrell's organisation, MADGE, strongly supports the Greenpeace action in destroying wheat field trials
  
  From the MADGE Australia Twitter page:
  MADGEAustralia MADGE Australia Inc July 14 2011
  Thank you to the brave GP mother and others who stepped over the line to protect our food and get the message heard. #wheatscandal
  
  MADGEAustralia MADGE Australia Inc July 14 2011
  Yay Hungary! RT @GMWatch #GMO maize destroyed on 950 hectares in Hungary http://bit.ly/n7qClH But more contamination under inspection
  
  MADGEAustralia MADGE Australia Inc July 14 2011
  If youre on the side of science you should be backing greenpeace all the way. #wheatscandal
  
  As far as justification for illegal "direct action" these documents:
  The real success story of GM cotton and edible cotton oil in India 2002-2011
  http://www.biofortified.org/2011/07/the-real-success-story-of-gm-cotton-and-edible-cotton-oil-in-india-2002-2011/
  
  show that contrary to Greenpeace fictions, the modern seed industry has generated huge benefits for farmers and society in India. This completely undercuts their justification for criminal sabotage of crop improvement tests.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
Camille (Cami) Ryan

logged in via Twitter

So what we are suggesting here is that if we don't like something, we have the right to weed-whack, raze, decimate and destroy it? I think that sets a serious precedent, does it not? No matter what your position is on GM, this is still vandalism, it's illegal and those that carry out such actions need to be held accountable in a court of law.

almost 2 years ago report
1. John Harland
  
  bicycle technician
  
  In reply to Camille (Cami) Ryan
  
  I think that the precedent has well and truly been set by police forces and armies throughout the world and throughout time.
  
  If you believe that something is truly dangerous to your own people, and even more if you believe it to be dangerous to all people, surely you would be morally negligent not to act against it.
  
  2 months ago report
Luke Weston

Physicist / electronic engineer

If the people who destroyed these research plants are known, then why the hell haven't they been charged?

If climatology denialists broke into a CSIRO climatology research lab and destroyed research materials, what would Greenpeace say about that?

Throw the book at these crooks,

There were already detailed, highly secure protocols in place at this site to prevent the escape of the recombinant wheat into the wider environment. These protocols were included in CSIRO's submission to OGTR and were…
Read more

If the people who destroyed these research plants are known, then why the hell haven't they been charged?

If climatology denialists broke into a CSIRO climatology research lab and destroyed research materials, what would Greenpeace say about that?

Throw the book at these crooks,

There were already detailed, highly secure protocols in place at this site to prevent the escape of the recombinant wheat into the wider environment. These protocols were included in CSIRO's submission to OGTR and were accepted by OGTR. Details can be found on the CSIRO and OGTR websites.

These protocols were compromised, and the greatest risk for escape of the recombinant wheat into the outside environment occurred, when these eco-vandals broke in, whipper-snippered the plants and escaped, presumably with macerated recombinant plant material all over their clothes and whipper-snippers. Why would these scientifically illiterate morons allow this to happen if they're supposedly so concerned about uncontrolled escape of the recombinant plants outside the controlled site?

If these guys insist that everybody must accept the consensus of essentially all scientists and scientific data concerning anthropogenic effects on the climate system, then they must also accept the findings of rational science when it comes to agricultural biotechnology. They can't just pick and choose to accept the findings of science only when it suits their existing dogma.

almost 2 years ago report
Michael Marriott

logged in via Twitter

I think Luke sums up my feelings as well.

Imagine if a group of climate sceptics broke into CSIRO labs and...

Oh wait, there is an example of this: Climategate, the illegal hacking of the CRU at East Anglia that attempted to discredit climate science and scientists.

While I may have had some sympathy for Greenpeace over the years, these actions should be condemned.

A war on science is a war on science: your politics can never justify your actions.

Greenpeace claim they had "no choice" but to do this. Really? Where is the science backing the claims Greenpeace have made? We have the democratic process; there is the peer review system; there is the right to protest.

I'd never deny anyone the right to speak their mind, no matter how outlandish their claims.

All this does is cast fear over research.

It is an act of intimidation.

(Mike Marriott aka WTD)

almost 2 years ago report
Sunanda Creagh

Editor at The Conversation

For those of you interested in this topic, Greenpeace has produced a Q+A sheet on the protest: http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/what-we-do/Food/resources/FAQs/Q--A-on-GM-Wheat-trial-action/

almost 2 years ago report
Jenni Pickard

logged in via Facebook

My concern is that GM wheat apparently banned in Europe and elsewhere is going to be allowed to be fed to humans.
Why would any scientist advocate using Australians as guinea pigs?
Greenpeace may be wrong, but who asked us if we want to be experimented on by seemingly secretive alliances between the CSIRO and Monsanto?

almost 2 years ago report

Follow Topics

Scientists appalled by whippersnipper attack on CSIRO GM wheat trial

Republish

Join the conversation

17 Comments sorted by

mixmaxmin

Gmo Pundit

Michael Jones

Michael Rumbold

Michael Rumbold is a Friend of The Conversation.

Gmo Pundit

Fran Murrell

Michael Marriott

Gmo Pundit

Michael Marriott

Felix MacNeill

Gmo Pundit

Camille (Cami) Ryan

John Harland

Luke Weston

Michael Marriott

Sunanda Creagh

Jenni Pickard

The Conversation

Community

Company

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Want to follow The Conversation?

Republish

Join the conversation

Community

Company

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter