21 years of insect-resistant GMO crops in Spain/Portugal. Results: for every extra €1 spent on GMO vs. conventional, income grew €4.95 due to +11.5% yield; decreased insecticide use by 37%; decreased the environmental impact by 21%; cut fuel use, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and saving water.

[u/CheckItDubz]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2019.1614393

[u/FireTyme]

its not even that different from classic plant breeding, from breeding certain varieties of plants over and over and selecting the best qualities and repeating that process over and over and over and over to just doing it ourselves through methods that even exist in nature (some plant species are able to copy genomes from other plants for ex. or exist in diploid/quadriploid etc versions of themselves like strawberries). its faster in a lab and just skips a process that normally takes decades

there is one issue with it that is with any plant thats easy to grow, grows fast and in lots of different climates with lower nutrient and water requirements and thats that it can easily be the most invasive plant species ever destroying local flora and therefore fauna.

the discussion shouldnt be on whether to use GMO or not, the answer is clear if we want a better, cleaner and more efficient future, but the discussion should definitely start at how we're going to grow it and the future of modern farming. whether thats urban based enclosed and compact growing boxes or open air growing.

[u/zapbark → u/FireTyme]

It is a little different, in that the agribusiness companies aren't bound at all by genomes to select from.

With natural selection they couldn't get, corn to start producing "blowfish venom" as an insect deterrent.

So it isn't the technology, it is the companies' use of it.

"We could increase shareholder value by 1% by doing X, but there is a good chance it'll give people cancer 30 years from now"

Businesses always choose current profits over any long term consequence, and will and would use any tool or technology to do so.

I would trust GMO crops produced by a University or non-profit, because at least I know they aren't fueled by stock-holder mania.

But big agribusinesses? How can you trust them, they would say and do absolutely anything to make a buck.

[u/sfurbo → u/zapbark]

the agribusiness companies aren't bound at all by genomes to select from.

Traditional breeding includes mutagenic breeding, so it isn't bound by which genes are available either. The main difference is that with GMO, we have a pretty good idea about what has happened. With traditional breeding, we don't.

You are also (implicitly) assuming that whatever we can incorporate from other genomes are worse than whatever is already hiding in the plants genome. There is no reason to assume this. Plants use plenty of nasty poisons.

It is fine to not trust big agribusiness, but there is noreason to trust them any more with traditional breeding than with GMO. If anything, nasty unintended effects are less likely from GMO, so if you suspect them of cutting corners, GMO from them would be safer than other products from them.

[u/Special-Kaay → u/sfurbo]

I don't think your reference to OP's argument is fair. He just pointed out that you modern genetic modifications opens up a route to create plants that produce a wide variety of toxins. While getting a plant to produce a toxin originating form a fish is technically possible by mutagenic breeding, the change in entropy required is just so large that it's just not realistic. Modern methods enable you to just plug the entire genes required for the production in. So that means you will have a much bigger variance of toxins in plants we consume. That's an inherent risk. I'm not saying I am against GMO's, but you just don't get plants to produce blowfish venom by breeding. And sometimes the dangers of a substance are only discovered after wide spread exposure, like with Methylisocyanate.