Hey curious what others think, I'm a big believer in sustainable & permaculture based agriculture but also have heard of some instances where its helped, idk maybe that's monsanto propaganda I turn to you chacha to educate me.
"Golden Rice is a covert attempt to win wider approval for genetically modified food and will not solve problems of malnutrition. Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) – like other problems on malnutrition and hunger – is not caused by the lack of Vitamin A in food, but by people's inability to achieve a balanced diet." https://www.grain.org/article/entries/5177-golden-rice-is-unnecessary-and-dangerous
"Rainbow papaya (Carica papaya L.) is a genetically engineered (GE) cultivar with resistance to papaya ringspot virus (PRSV). This cultivar currently accounts for about 70% of Hawaii's papaya acreage. ... No differences were observed between GE and non-GE papaya for 36 nutrients at any of the tested fruit ripeness stages."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0889157510002693#:~:text=Rainbow%20papaya%20(Carica%20papaya%20L,70%25%20of%20Hawaii's%20papaya%20acreage.&text=No%20differences%20were%20observed%20between,the%20tested%20fruit%20ripeness%20stages.
Literally minored in genetics, pretty sure I have a better understanding of the technology underpinning it than you do. Especially when you say shit like "GMO is a shitty technology" when it's not a technology at all but a collection of techniques.
Introducing genetic resistance to viruses (as has been done with several species of squash) or other pests (done for many crops) helps yields, it doesn't inherently promote monoculture.
Using techniques like CRISPR to introduce favorable genes like those isn't inherently different than selecting the crops that did the best at the end of each season and planting those the next year, it's just more efficient and allows you to cross-select things.
Deriding GMOs as "a technofix designed to solve problems that shouldn't exist in the first place" is some serious ideological purity nonsense and is entirely unpragmatic. If someone rolled out some fantasy carbon capture technology to effectively mitigate the effects of climate change tomorrow would you similarly dismiss it as "a technofix designed to solve problems that shouldn't exist in the first place"? Rejecting solutions because the problems shouldn't exist is reckless and foolish.
lol a minor in genetics. Wow you read darwins finches and learned about mendels's peas. The genetics understander has arrived.