| ▲ | Aurornis 10 hours ago |
| It is preferable if genetically engineered crops cannot reproduce. The impact of their wild propagation should be studied first, not unleashed upon the local ecosystem. |
|
| ▲ | sampo 10 hours ago | parent [-] |
| > their wild propagation In general, crop plants don't propagate well in the wild. The whole point of breeding a crop plant is to remove their chemical defenses (to make them edible) and to make them produce lots of edible parts. This is usually the direct opposite of what plants need to survive in the wild. |
| |
| ▲ | Aurornis 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | The wind carries pollen from the crops long distances, where it cross-pollinates with other crops, some of which are grown from seed. This is a real thing that happens. There have been major court cases about it, like this one from Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise... | | |
| ▲ | 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | sampo 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If we understand "in the wild" to mean outside of farmers' fields, then rapeseed pollen flying from one rapeseed field to another nearby rapeseed field is not "in the wild". | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you redefine the words to win an argument you can win the argument. By "wild propagation" I meant outside of the original controlled planting. Propagating to another farm leaves the controlled area and now it's spreading in the wild. | | |
| ▲ | sampo 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is what you wrote: "The impact of their wild propagation should be studied first, not unleashed upon the local ecosystem." So by "wild propagation" you meant farm-to-farm propagation? And by "local ecosystem" you meant "farmers' fields"? And you accuse others of redefining words. |
|
|
|
|
