• phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 months ago

    To be technical it was first world companies exploiting the uneducated in those 3rd world countries into asking for suppressive regulations, which their lawmakers then abided by.

      • DragonTypeWyvern
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        The actual point of the GMO crops is that it’s patentable. The local farmers objected because Monsanto, yes, that Monsanto, was going to charge them fucking royalties.

        Now, Monsanto did, at one point, offer to let researchers develop GMO crops without paying their fees.

        https://www.science.org/content/article/monsanto-waives-fees-golden-rice

        And for some of their actual perspectives:

        https://grain.org/en/article/6516-why-we-oppose-golden-rice

        • The_v@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          FYI in the U.S. you can get a utility patent on any variety. Its not specific to the GMO. Patents differ from regular PVP (plant variety protection) in that they restrict others using it in breeding efforts.

          The major difference is varieties are not patentable in the EU but GMO are.

          Of course the varieties were intended for countries that do not enforce U.S. or E.U. intellectual property laws anyways. So it was not possible for Monsanto to collect royalties on golden rice in the target market.

          That announcement was them trying to put a positive marketing spin on it. “Oh we won’t attempt to seek royalties on a product in countries we can’t collect royalties in…”