Last month, 110 Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry and or medicine wrote an open a letter addressed to Greenpeace, the UN and governments worldwide. The letter accused Greenpeace and its supporters of having misled the public about the risks, benefits and importance of biotechnology, as well as having supported criminal activity directed against research projects. The letter particularly emphasized Greenpeace's campaign against golden rice, condemning the group's activity by concluding: "How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a crime against humanity?"
Ever since Greenpeace stopped focusing on campaigning against nuclear pwer in the 1990s, they have been using GM crops as both a focus for campaigns and a cash cow. This way was mapped out by Greenpeace's former chief, Lord Melchett, who declared in his address to the House of Lords that his organization "will remain opposed to GM crops, regardless of any scientific risk assessments."
"Greenpeace has provided support to researchers working to confirm the organization's preconceived opinions," Fagerström and Sundström wrote in an opinion piece in the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, citing "infantile propaganda" on Greenpeace's part.
Consequently, Greenpeace denied that their incessant campaigning has delayed the introduction of golden rice. Moreover, the environmental watchdog censured the Nobel laureates' appeal with an absurd questioning of their skills. Ironically, the Greenpeace-funded organization GM Watch, which the Swedish professors rejected as "one of those self-appointed representatives of the public interest," concluded that the Nobel Prize laureates didn't offer "relevant expertise." The dismissal was later imitated by Food and Water Watch, another self-proclaimed expert panel without academic qualifications.
"If farmers and consumers were given the opportunity to experience the benefits of modern plant breeding, they would realize that the environmental movement, spearheaded by Greenpeace, have bet their campaign money on the wrong horse — be it Trojan or not," Sundström and Fagerström concluded.