What does Greenpeace oppose more: Patents, or genetic modification?
This question has been answered in a recent patent case where the European Patent Office (EPO) rejected a Monsanto patent for a technique for genetic modification of plants.
The patent, which was due to expire in 2008, describes a method to use a ‘particle gun’ to fire DNA into plants at high velocity and was opposed by Greenpeace and Canadian environmental group ETC, in concert with a large number of agribusiness firms. Interestingly, Monsanto was also in opposition to the patent, until they acquired the patent holder, Agracetus.
I’m a bit confused by Greenpeace’s decision here. Given that they support neither patents nor genetic modification, why would they support either side in a conflict?