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