Comment on Seedless Catholics Against Watermelons?
niucllos@lemm.ee 1 month agoNot to brag a dead horse but do you know how we get/got novel variation in crops before targeted DNA technology? It mostly wasn’t wild germpasm unless you happen to work with a crop with large amounts of historically documented pools, e.g. corn and wheat. No, most historical breeding programs use mutagens, either chemical or sometimes radioactive, to cause novel variation, grow the seed, see what looks interesting and not too weird, and cross it back into your gene pool. GMOs are significantly less mad science-y than what they replace.
Neon@lemmy.world 1 month ago
That’s… not what i mean at all
I remember there was a GMO Tomato that was made to be as large as possible. But the downside was, that it had almost no nutrients anymore.
I think that Crispr and GMOs are really promissing, but the way it is used is not to create the best food possible, but to create the best-selling food
Dontfearthereaper123@lemm.ee 1 month ago
First off source for GMO tomato? Still havent given one that article had no mention of it 2nd why is it a bad thing if not every use of GMOs involves making food better? uve mentioned one example I can name one in the opposite direction, so what it seems is, theyre used for both and I’m wondering why thats a bad thing? Is painting bad unless painting something with functional use like heat dissipating paint onto something that needs it dissipated or is it okay to paint for both artistic and functional purposes