Former Greenpeace head backs biotechnology

The influential founder of controversial international pressure group Greenpeace called on Third World nations to "go ahead and use biotechnology in agriculture," saying it could help farmers in developing countries "grow more food per hectare."

In a live interview in Bangkok, former Greenpeace president Dr. Patrick Moore cited the social and environmental benefits of biotechnology to agriculture even as he warned that the public may be open "to misinformation and scare tactics" due to the failure of governments and industries to provide information about it.

Moore’s statement supporting biotechnology drew a setback to a reported $175-million international pressure campaign by the Europe-based Greenpeace against biotechnology.

Earlier, Greenpeace warned the Philippines of "millions of dead bodies and diseases" resulting from the use of biotechnology in agriculture. The threat came in the wake of government efforts to introduce biotech crop varieties in a bid to reduce dependence on imported rice and corn. Greenpeace admitted it is conducting a global campaign against biotechnology.

Greenpeace also issued a warning against local food manufacturers, including giants San Miguel Corp. and General Milling Corp., against using raw materials derived from genetically modified products. The Filipino companies, however, reportedly bucked pressure to limit their purchase of raw materials to Greenpeace suppliers.

Moore said biotechnology reduces the use of toxic pesticides and averts soil erosion. He said the technology allows for greater farm productivity "which means less forests would be cleared away to grow the same food."

"It will be good for the environment since it reduces reliance on chemicals and would require less land to grow the same food for our six billion people in the world," Moore said.

Moore also belied claims that food derived from biotech plants are not safe for human consumption. "There are no side effects that we know," Moore said. He added that if biotech food are compared with regular food, "there is no difference".

He expressed confidence that "when the public is properly informed about biotech, they will realize that the positive benefits far outweigh any potential negative benefit."

The former Greenpeace head said the academies of science of America, Canada, Mexico, Britain, China and India, as well as the Third World Academy of Science, have signed a document supporting the application of biotechnology in agriculture.