Greenpeace’s ‘double standard’ on lab-created seedless watermelons and GMOs

watermelon boy child

[Editor’s note: Myles Power is a chemist in Manchester, England. Read the GLP profile of Greenpeace here.]

Last year [2016], I asked the very silly sounding question, ‘Why does Greenpeace like the grapefruit?’ As absurd as it sounds this is probably one of the most important questions to be asking the organisation right now. This is because it exposes a double standard that lies at the core of Greenpeace and shows their opposition to GMOs to be hypocritical and irrational. Today I would like to ask another silly sounding question that, once again, exposes weaknesses in Greenpeace’s arguments against GMOs. Why do they like the watermelon?

[Seedless watermelon are created using] a patented seed that is the result of genetic manipulation by exposing a plant to a potentially lethal chemical that can only be planted once because it is incapable of producing viable offspring, and Greenpeace is ok with this, but not the prospect of “terminator seeds”.

So why does Greenpeace like the watermelon? Because they don’t know what they are talking about regarding GMO and their position isn’t just inaccurate but full of hypocrisies and complete and deliberate miscommunication of the technology.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Why does Greenpeace like the watermelon?

For more background on the Genetic Literacy Project, read GLP on Wikipedia

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT Image May 26, 2026, 08_42_17 AM (1)
Viewpoint: Greenpeace and poison: How environmental advocacy groups rely on compliant (and often ignorant) journalists to spread disinformation and spark litigation
Screenshot 2025-07-30 at 10.48
Can gene editing eliminate Down syndrome? Scientists have done it in lab-grown cells
Screenshot-2026-05-28-at-1.36.28-PM
Viewpoint: Can mRNA research survive the Trump administration?
Screenshot 2025-11-18 at 3.45
Viewpoint—GMOs and sustainability: Why buying organic foods is the least environmentally-sensitive food choice—without offering any health benefits
ChatGPT-Image-May-26-2026-07_51_21-AM-2
Viewpoint: There are more than 1,000 chemicals in a cup of coffee—including many substances that can cause cancer. Why isn’t it banned?
Screenshot-2026-06-02-at-11.59.11-AM
Magnifica Humanitas: Pope’s encyclical broadside against AI naivete and overreach
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-2-2026-11_39_58-AM
Viewpoint: Who is RFK, Jr.’s newly-appointed CDC senior counselor, Sara Brenner — Vaccine skeptic and self-proclaimed “MAHA mom”
Picture1
Sounds we can’t hear — the hidden planetary signals behind science, fear, and misinformation
ChatGPT Image May 28, 2026, 08_16_38 PM
Viewpoint: Why the EPA mismeasures cancer risk of chemicals and what should be done to fix it
Screenshot-2026-04-14-at-11.11.06-AM
‘Turbo cancer’ or mRNA cancer cure? Strategies to counter misinformation
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.