Transportation is a teeny tiny fraction of the environmental cost of food as well.
I'm also not aware of any GMOs that are 10x better than their non-GMO counterpart although there are certainly improvements to be had here.
Transportation is a teeny tiny fraction of the environmental cost of food as well.
I'm also not aware of any GMOs that are 10x better than their non-GMO counterpart although there are certainly improvements to be had here.
If, as is true of the most commom GM crops, the specific GMO trait at issue is a non-yield trait like, say, glyphosate resistance, sure, that’s what you would expect. (Though the yield is substantially higher in the intended conditions; real crops rarely grow in ideal conditions.)
Of course, there are crops modified for yield specifically, too.
Not sure that anything particularly CRISPR-like is involved (there are other transgenic techniques), but:
https://www.science.org/content/article/new-genetically-modi...
One huge problem with the article is this line:
> The plants are also 16% to 18% more efficient at using nitrogen
The paper said no such thing. These plants take up more nitrogen and increase yield.