Legal incapacitation is going on -- Greenpeace defines the customers' desires

Everybody has a choice since Monday. On 18 April 2004, new EU labelling provisions came into force: From now on, it must be indicated on the ready-to-eat pizza's packaging whether or not any kind of genetically modified ingredients are in it.

Cheering and shouting, Minister Renate Künast said the obligation to label genetically modified food were a milestone for the consumers' and the farmers' welfare. Genetic engineering's weal and woe is now to be decided about by the consumers. But would it really be?

In truth, there is no such thing as a lasting freedom of choice (as Mrs Künast likes to call it). In the German supermarkets it gave way a long time ago to kind of consumers' legal incapacitation -- long before this freedom of choice had even been granted. It is true that genetically modified food might be found in the shelves -- theoretically --, but thanks to Greenpeace's actions, there is no longer risk of that. Greenpeace's genetic engineers and activists made sure that whatever is declared healthy food by Greenpeace will be eaten by the Germans. Neither now nor in future will there be need to fear that genetically modified soy may be detected in baby's food.

Being threatened with public denouncement and with punishment through the customers' changing buying habits, the supermarket chains and food concerns reacted promptly: Just as if the environmental lobby organisation had sovereign authority, Metro, Nestlé, Rewe and others promised in writing they would abstain from selling genetically modified food within their range of goods.

Which, however, does not really make the consumers suffer heavy losses. No one as yet is able to explain why at all Europe should have to replenish its existing large variety of food and its surplus production with genetically modified food. The food concerns want to use genetically modified useful plants because huge amounts of such plants are being sold on the market already and because separating them from conventional products is a very costly matter.

This, however, would not be a reason in fact for 70 % of all Germans to refuse genetically modified food in their diet. Their refusal rather results from irrational fears which were stirred up by Greenpeace in the first place, who apply quite dubious methods. It is true that no-one ever will be able to declare genetically modified seeds and products as being safe right down to the last detail. But even the environmentalists must take responsibility for the continued existence of a minimum residual risk. At least, they were the ones to destroy field trials again and again by means of which ecological dangers like the risk of accidental cross-breeding and spreading were meant to be examined.

And on top of that, the environmentalists hardly have any reason for warning the people of an allegedly upcoming genetic MCA. All examinations suitable to suggest such kind of danger were laid to rest a long time ago, being regarded as too little convincing or as even dubious.
The Greenpeace activists certainly do know about this -- but they deliberately ignore the facts. They cleverly use their good reputation -- once earned through unquestionable credits with regard to environmental protection -- for running their anti-genetics campaigns.

But all the same: This is a way to continue to be remembered as the nation's environmental conscience in public. And to remain the first choice if it's about donations. Be sure that, if it's about self-preservation, even the most noble ideals are not spared from swindling.