How is the viper characterized in contrast to the farmer?

The story concerns a farmer who finds a viper freezing in the snow. Taking pity on it, he picks it up and places it within his coat. The viper, revived by the warmth, bites his rescuer, who dies realizing that it is his own fault. The story is recorded in both Greek and Latin sources. In the former, the farmer dies reproaching himself "for pitying a scoundrel," while in the version by Phaedrus the snake says that he bit his benefactor "to teach the lesson not to expect a reward from the wicked." The latter sentiment is made the moral in Medieval versions of the fable. Odo of Cheriton's snake answers the farmer's demand for an explanation with a counter-question, "Did you not know that there is enmity and natural antipathy between your kind and mine? Did you not know that a serpent in the bosom, a mouse in a bag and fire in a barn give their hosts an ill reward?"[2] In modern times the fable has been applied in the religious sphere to teach that if one participates in unrighteous activities one is not immune to harm.[3]

Aesop's fable was so widespread in Classical times that allusions to it became proverbial. One of the very earliest is in a poem by the 6th century BCE Greek poet Theognis of Megara, who refers to a friend who has betrayed him as the 'chill and wily snake that I cherished in my bosom'.[4] In the work of Cicero it appears as In sinu viperam habere (to have a snake in the breast) and in Erasmus' 16th century collection of proverbial phrases, the Adagia, as Colubrum in sinu fovere (to nourish a serpent in one's bosom).[5] The usual English form is 'to nourish a snake (or viper) in one's bosom', a phrase used by Geoffrey Chaucer (Merchant's Tale, line 1786), William Shakespeare (Richard II 3.2.129–31,) John Milton (Samson Agonistes, line 763) and John Dryden (All for Love 4.1.464–66), among the foremost.

Explanation:

the correct answer is "(13) “they take a term that sounds really wonderful, but genetic engineering is genetic engineering is genetic engineering,” ms. tencer said. “it is not something farmers want. it is not something consumers want. i don’t think it is a very viable concept.” by explicitly stating that farmers or consumers do not want genetic engineering to produce their food the existence of opposition towards genetically modified organisms is presented. also, it is worth mentioning that ms. tender is the executive director of the organic farming research foundation in santa cruz, ca as stated in evidence 12, which supports her statement presented in evidence 13.