4 ms·
It's not an apples to apples analogy, but if let's say there's a parasite that activates on an enzyme present in tomatoes. You respond by modifying tomatoes to
by herrity4 9y ago
It's not an apples to apples analogy, but if let's say there's a parasite that activates on an enzyme present in tomatoes. You respond by modifying tomatoes to produce less of that enzyme. The result is only parasites capable of reproducing with smaller and smaller quantities of that enzyme present are able to survive which shows huge gains. However, this would prove to be extremely detrimental to tomatoes producing "normal" quantities of said enzyme.
It's a hypothetical and a strained one at that, but all I'm saying is there are often long term consequences to short term gains that may not be considered in a prisoners' dillema ecological/economic scenario.
I'm not convinced market forces alone would be able to actually fix problems of this nature, but I'm inclined to consumer education over under labeling as a component in the mix.
- sampo 9y agoParasites don't "activate on an enzyme". That is not how parasitism works. Also, pest insects are not parasites. They're just insects that like to eat tomatoes, just like we do. Eating food is not parasitism.
- herrity4 9y agoEh, it's a rough example. Plants produce something plant eater (fungal, bacterial, insect) is attracted to and we're modifying the levels. Semantics of the relationship be damned, there can be evolutionary consequences.
- sampo 9y agoPlants produce food: starch and sugars (and a bit of protein). We're not modifying the levels of those. The apple case is about modifying the levels of an enzyme, polyphenol oxidase [1]. But that is not what plant-eaters are interested in. They're interested in the food in an apple, not some enzyme levels. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphenol_oxidase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphenol_oxidase
- herrity4 9y agoI'm obviously not talking about this specific modification.