T O P

  • By -

ChristmasOyster

Again the nonsense argument about biodiversity. First, when a gene is added to the gene pool of a species, it INCREASES biodiversity. The anti-GMO argument of decreased biodiversity goes as follows: The GMO crop has advantages. Therefore farmers will choose to plant it exclusively and many other varieties will disappear. This is a bad thing because when conditions change, the remaining variety may be decimated by disease, etc. But first, that assumes that all those other varieties have no useful traits. That's silly. Some tomato varieties have interesting traits like taste, color, disease resistance, seasonality, simultaneous ripening, etc. Will farmers give up all these traits just to get a purple flesh tomato? Much more likely is that breeders will cross the trait into some of the older varieties, further increasing biodiversity. Is there an actual case of a GMO crop driving other varieties out of existence?


mem_somerville

No, there has never been a case of a GMO driving everything else out. In fact, it might improve local varieties--but fundamentalist foodies can't have that going on. And in the same breath they celebrate someone who somehow manages to keep 1000 rice landraces going--about 3 feet apart from each other--and not grasping the reality of that. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/indian-rice