On June 8th Greenpeace is calling for a “National Day of Action” against genetically engineered food. Specifically, Greenpeace is asking (in some cases directing) its operatives and consumers to demand that Safeway, Shaw’s, and Star Markets remove any and all foods with genetically engineered ingredients from their store shelves.

Greenpeace advocates see this move as safeguarding the public’s food supply. Critics of Greenpeace might characterize it as yet one more attempt to strong-arm controversy-shy corporations into bowing to Greenpeace’s version of reality.

On the issue of biotechnology and Greenpeace’s view of it, a strong case can be made that what Greenpeace sees as reality has very little to do with truth.

The Greenpeace ruckus over claims of genetic contamination of Mexican maize (corn) is a classic example of creating the perception of reality based on a claim a hundred scientists and other experts in the field contend has little or no truth supporting it.

Nature magazine’s edition dated 29 November 2001 ran a story by Ignacio Chapela and David Quist of the University of California at Berkeley claiming to prove that maize in 15 of 22 Mexican maize growing communities tested positive for contamination by genetically engineered strains. Greenpeace seized upon the report and used it to support its campaign calling for a ban on importing GE maize by Mexico as a threat to the global biodiversity of the planet’s ancestral home for maize. Greenpeace also called for legal action against Life Science concerns such as Monsanto, Novartis, Aventis etc.

Chapela, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, is an outspoken critic of biotechnology’s role in modern agriculture. He plays a pivotal role in the Greenpeace scenario. But, his role and the evolution of the Mexican “GE Maize” furor got lost to everyone save those in the agricultural biotech community due to the horrific events of September 11, 2001.

In an edition of Nature that appeared a scant two weeks after the “9-11” terrorist outrage (27 September 2001) Ignacio Chapela was identified as the source for the identification of unsanctioned patches of genetically modified corn/maize being grown in “scattered plots” in the Mexican states of Oaxaca and Puebla. Chapela turned over his information to Mexican authorities who, in turn, launched their own investigation into these illegal gardens. Mexico imposed a moratorium on genetically engineered plantings in 1998.

The same day Nature published its September 27th edition, Greenpeace unleashed its public relations/news release professionals. Instead of revelations that illegal genetically modified corn was being “grown” in Mexico, the Greenpeace news release decried Mexican corn varieties in 15 communities that “suffered contamination” from genetically engineered corn. No mention of Dr. Chapela was made. The Greenpeace media operation hammered home the idea that “the world is at risk of losing unique diversity of corn to genetic pollution.”

Greenpeace “background information” entitled “Maize Under Threat” issued that month juxtaposes references to Teosintes, the wild grass believed to be the ancestor from which modern corn/maize evolved through humans interfering with its genetic make-up and cross-breeding it into maize.

The semantic shift from illegal plots of GE corn growing in Mexico to “genetic contamination” as well as the reference to loss of biodiversity and to teosintes were not accidents. In combination, they appear to make a case that would at the least pique the interest of delegates meeting the following month at the United Nation’s meeting on the Cartegena biosafety protocol to be held in Nairobi, Kenya, October 1-5, 2001.

The methodology used by Greenpeace (and other anti-biotech NGOs) to use the Nature magazine article to fashion an international campaign designed to capture headlines and influence national and international public policies on bioengineered agriculture is fascinating in a macabre way.

Chapela’s November Nature article did in fact mirror the Greenpeace rhetoric regarding “genetic contamination” from GE maize. It claimed “landrace” varieties of corn suffered 3 to 10 percent contamination. It did not claim teosintes were affected. Landrace corn is corn that was developed via human intervention in the development of its particular strain. As scientists familiar with scientific methodology read the Nature article they saw what are described in biotech research literature as “fundamental flaws” in the methodology used by Chapela and Quist. At issue was whether or not Dr. Chapela and his research assistant did indeed find “transgenic promoter” associated with transgenic maize. In this case, the promoter is “cauliflower mosaic virus 35S" (CaMV 35S).

The most significant criticism of the Chapela/Quist research is that the methodology employed by the two researchers is highly prone to contamination by a variety of vectors including the researchers merely handling samples. Over the next six months extensive research was conducted to replicate the Chapela findings by means of unimpeachable methodologies. Among the authorities testing the Chapela/Quist findings is the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, officially known as Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maize y Trigo - CIMMYT.

CIMMYT collected seeds for all 28 maize landraces from the state of Oaxaca during 1997-99. These and others totaling 152 Mexican varieties were screened. All failed to detect the CaMV 35S promoter. The 28 varieties were also germinated and their DNA extracted and tested. Again, no CaMV 35S promoter was found.

The mound of evidence that the Chapela/Quist research did not meet basic scientific standards continues to grow. Transgenic Research’s Editorial Board concluded the Chapela/Quist report was at best “a testimony to technical failure and artifacts (contaminants) which are common with PCR and IPCR (the discredited methodology employed by Chapela and Quist).

But that is not the end of the story.

The perceptual damage is done and “bad science” has become perceptual reality. In a report entitled “Agronomic Benefits and Risks of Using Roundup Ready Wheat in Western Canada,” R. Van Acker and M. Entz of the University of Manitoba make the reference that “recently there has been evidence of transgenes escaping from corn to teosente (sic) in Mexico.”

The campaign by Greenpeace and others against agricultural biotechnology will not be deterred because it lacks scientific underpinnings. Perception is reality in the world of political activism and that reality too often lacks any semblance of truth.