• e8d79@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I wonder if there are any good reasons for that. Let’s ask the internet.

    Oh no.

    Well, surly this technology is used to improve the crops to be resistant to weed pressure and not just to sell more herbicides. Let’s ask the internet.

    Oh no.

    Ok, but at least farmers can reuse the resistant crops and don’t have to buy hybrid seeds every year because these new plants are genetically stable.

    Oh no.

    • Dschingis_Pelikan@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      The post says that targeted mutagenesis is safer than non targeted. The criticism you mentioned - very one sided btw - holds true for both cases. You are right with your criticism on GMO’s but radioactivity Is a worse option than Crispr.

      • e8d79@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        I admit, my arguments were cherry picked. I just wanted to provide a few counter examples to show that there are reasons for being skeptical of GMO crops. My biggest concern actually isn’t food safety or environmental impacts but the previously mentioned intellectual property implications. I don’t want Bayer to own certain genes making it illegal to plant seeds from apples I bought at the store.

          • e8d79@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            No, unfortunately it does. GMO crops could make this even worse because they may pass their genes to wild plants through gene flow. The ‘owner’ of that gene could then require a licensing deal for the use of these plants as well.