3 ms·

I interpreted that quote differently, as supporting my thesis. Greenpeace sided with some local financial issue in order to suppress a technology. Not to suppor

• seadan83 2y ago
  A local financial issue that was raised by local farmers. Thank you for the clarification, though, my apologies - I feel a bit confused about it. I think missing context: is that it is somewhat common for big agra to build farms adjacent to existing, and then local seed stocks become overwhelmed by the new neighbors crop variety. I don't think Greenpeace has an issue with the technology, only concern that it would wipe out the local varieties. That is my understanding for the basis of the lawsuit. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing your point as anything other than a distinction without a difference. The local financial issue is raised and brought by the farmers, to which green peace enjoined their litigation.
• seadan83 2y ago
  Another thought, where do you see that Greenpeace is opposed to the technology? I don't take that as a given, perhaps that is why we disagree? The stated concern is mixing of seed crops, not a blanket concern for any GMO crop of any type. If the concern were for the latter, I would expect the reasoning to state so.