I've been thinking for years why it would be annoying about genetic engineering in the agricultural world? It was difficult for me to see that a tomato plant that is disease-resistant, requires less water, perfectly round, beautiful red and extra vitamins, and is not as good as cardboard, it may be an average bad product. As long as these plants and many others have not yet been around it.
The problem was real and troublesome. Let me tell you more.
One of the questions was that new, genetically modified plants produced less pollen than a "natural" or non-genetically modified plant. This meant that bees, vital to botanical systems worldwide, had to travel far, had to use more energy to get enough pollen to keep the beetle. Working bees have been expanded with the distance traveled and the required nutritional supplement to make more work at the same time.
This change is due to the genetic engineering of better plants for human consumption, which compensated for the bee population, which was vital to us. Over time, the problem has been identified and some changes have been made, such as the cultivation of genetically modified plants for highly pollinated natural plants. What happens when bees are still on tomato plants, but directly under the plant is a companion that pollen bees need for the hive. Workload is similar today, increasing the amount of pollen to the bee population, and by improving a plant, we see that improvement at the expense of other plants is simply due to the fact that the spraying did not occur due to the overload on the bee population
If we do not know plant genetics, let's hope we can genetically change some plants more easily to create more pollens and improve the position of bees with genetic engineering.
Not as naive as I was, because it was easy to see that everything was in balance and that one usually means giving it to another.
Is the balance better or worse? This is a release decision.