4 ms·
I'm guessing it's more about transparency. Monsanto using a proprietary genome for the sake of increasing yield at scale seems fundamentally different than a l
by briefcomment 5y ago
I'm guessing it's more about transparency. Monsanto using a proprietary genome for the sake of increasing yield at scale seems fundamentally different than a local farmer who selectively breeds to maintain some heirloom crop. I think the former is much more of a black box and has more potential for something unexpected to occur than the latter.
- bostonsre 5y agoWould both of your examples be labeled as gmo?
- mlavin 5y agoGMO implies a lab process with specific alteration of genes, while traditional plant breeding to traits only exposes phenotypes as indication of results, and relies on the pre-existing variance in species to provide new traits.