3 ms·
Discussing GMO's in general and not specific varieties is about as productive as discussing manmade materials- the topic is too broad. What are we even compari
by ClumsyPilot 3y ago
Discussing GMO's in general and not specific varieties is about as productive as discussing manmade materials- the topic is too broad. What are we even comparing- bricks vs stones? Copper vs a rock?
Monsanto was producing crops that better withstand it's chemicals and China is producing Rice that can tolerate salt water. Clearly China is Innovating to feed it's people while Monsanto is 'Innovating' to boost their share price.
- robertlagrant 3y agoComparing Monsanto to China is an even sillier comparison than copper vs rock.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- oooyay 3y agoYou certainly can discuss them in general, here's the NIH doing a meta analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4218791/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4218791/ > Studies were included when they build on primary data from farm surveys or field trials anywhere in the world, and when they report impacts of GM soybean, maize, or cotton on crop yields, pesticide use, and/or farmer profits. In total, 147 original studies were included. > On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.