By opposing Golden Rice, Greenpeace defies its own values – and harms children

[jberryhill]

7. Yeah, you skipped a step there

Last edited Sat Nov 2, 2013, 10:22 AM - Edit history (1)

"smallholder farmers in developing countries will be able to get Golden Rice without additional charges and they are free to save the seeds for replanting"


How much of that rice can the smallholder farmer sell before he quits being a humanitarian?

And, quite frankly, if you have looked extensively at the detailed terms of the licensing agreements, then you would know as well as anyone that generalised PR language as to the purpose ostensibly served by the agreements is certainly not controlling.

Aside from which, I do not think you understand the application of "confirmation bias" when it comes to contract interpretation. Contracts are to be read with bias against the drafter. The entire body of contract law is a testament to the fact that "an objective" interpretation of a contract is a rare bird indeed.

I am not at all familiar with the details of the "humanitarian" licensing arrangement. The fact of its existence, however, indicates that it is not a matter of saying, "Hey, I'm a humanitarian, send me some rice" but that there are likely to be very important conditions on what activities fall within the license and which do not. The reason for having such a license in the first place is to clearly delineate between what you will, and will not, allow people to do with that crop.

The smallholder farmers in question are not there for the purpose of feeding their neighbors for free. Even a "subsistence farm" is one which serves the needs of its family and those who work the farm, but given the vagaries of season and yield will certainly sell some of its crop in exchange for money to buy other necessities.

So, how the license defines "smallholder farm" and the conditions under which one ceases to be one, are critical to understanding the deal offered here.