You are a tomato farmer whose crops are threatened by a persistent species of beetle. Each year, you spend large sums of money for pesticides to protect your crops. A biotechnology company introduces a new strain of tomato plant that produces a natural pesticide, making it resistant to the beetle. By switching to this new strain, you could avoid both the beetle and the chemical pesticides traditionally needed to fight it.

This question is incomplete, the complete question is:

Do you switch to new plant? Why or why not?

Yes, because it would help me get rid of the beetle naturally and save cost for purchasing pesticides.

Explanation:

This question is describing the genetically modified strain of tomato plant introduced by a biotechnology company. The GM tomato plant naturally repels the beetle pest that has been threatening the tomato planted by a me, who is the farmer.

However, the farmer has been spending a huge sum of of money for pesticides to protect his crops. Hence, I would opt to switch to this new strain, so I could avoid both the beetle and the cost of chemical pesticides traditionally needed to fight it. That is, by using the Genetically Modified strain of tomato, I can naturally get rid of the beetle pest and simultaneously save the cost of procuring a control measure (pesticides).

this is more of a statement than a question. is there answers to go along with this, or is it opinion based?