3 ms·

I'd usually be in favour of the various antics of Greenpeace, but this ruling strikes me as odd. There's very little safety testing of traditionally produced cr

I'd usually be in favour of the various antics of Greenpeace, but this ruling strikes me as odd. There's very little safety testing of traditionally produced crops and there's typically no problem with producing new varieties of existing produce. I could understand it more if it was a push-back against varieties that are engineered to not produce seed so that farmers are continually having to purchase from the company.

frostburg 3y ago
That's also (mostly) propaganda. Farmers are very busy without having to deal with the side business of inefficiently growing their seeds and would buy anyway.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  If farmers would buy seed anyway, then why are companies putting effort into forcing them to do so?
  - apignotti 3y ago
    An important, but little known fact about modern agriculture, is that _everyone_ buys seeds from specialized seed companies.
  - frostburg 3y ago
    It's more of a measure against competitor sellers than against farmers.
- plasticchris 3y ago
  Not everywhere, even in the USA. I know there are small family farms that got busted for growing gmo seeds so it is worthwhile for some. Maybe not the big players.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
p_l 3y ago
Except the only versions of golden rice that are engineered to prevent growing your own seed is... Mandated by Greenpeace, campaigned to make mandatory in various countries, in order to prevent "contamination"