Greenpeace was very positive about green genetic engineering in the 1980s because the environmental organization saw it as an opportunity to reduce the use of insecticides. This was in the spirit of the great environmental pioneer Rachel Carson. But then the tide turned and it was discovered that fundraising campaigns against large chemical companies could yield good results. When the dinghy action against a “GM soy” freighter in the port of Hamburg generated a lot of media coverage, Greenpeace backed the anti-genetic engineering card from that point on – especially since all genetic engineering, including medicine, was considered extremely dangerous by environmentalists at the time. It was claimed that genetically engineered medicines are also highly risky and have the potential for a biological worst-case scenario.

Internally at Greenpeace there have always been debates about whether the radical rejection of genetic engineering was not a mistake after all, but the organization has maneuvered itself into a corner with its attitude that she can’t get out of there without losing face. A differentiated view of the gene scissors would have been a way out, but the discussion has not been conducted. It’s just easier to stick with the tried and tested than to change.

[Editor’s note: This article has been translated from German and edited for clarity.]

This is an excerpt. REad the original post here