There is much more than one gene from a sweet potato added. And "cassava" is not one thing - there are lots of varieties, local adaptations, etc. That is almost certainly at least somewhat false. The conditions for growth, for example, now involve the nutritional requirements of the extra chemistry of the added genetics. Plus, the exact variety of cassava chosen by the engineers enforces genetic uniformity, including whatever idiosyncratic growth factors are characteristic of it. Maybe, maybe not. Gene expression is complicated stuff - are you sure no pest or blight or infestation of sweet potatoes has adapted to some feature of the whole plant expression of the inserted genetics? Because if one has, there is the likelihood that the cassava has no co-evolved defenses, except by chance. How about the possibility that the inserted genetics interfere with existing defenses against cassava disease of some kind? These things take years to show up, sometimes. That's not established. How are they paying for whatever new or different methods and resources these superior cassava plants require? So far, you have dealt with none of the short and partial list of issues raised in just this little thread. I understand a preference for dealing with imaginary people and imaginary arguments, especially if mere insult suffices, but here things are a bit different. You have mentioned the importance of having a large and diverse stock of crop varieties on hand - that's what saved the day when the fungus hit the US corn crop back in the 70s, the lack of that killed a million Irish in the 1840s, etc. What steps are being taken to ensure that cassava is protected in that respect?