• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    563 days ago

    Golden rice was the same thing, wasn’t it?

    Designed for third world countries with actual issues of underconsumption of Beta-Carotine, it got regulated away by first world countries who went “ew icky GMO”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      222 days 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          10
          edit-2
          2 days 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
            link
            English
            4
            edit-2
            2 days 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…”