The overwhelming evidence over the past 15 years is that GM food is safe to eat, and surprisingly even the Greens have now given it the tick of approval. What do you think?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-17/aust-food-regulator-deliberating-over-new-gm-techniques/7033808

To quote Di Natale,

"Senator Di Natale told The Australian yesterday he did not have an ideological or philosophical objection to the use of the technology and did not believe eating foods produced from ­genetically modified crops posed a risk to human health.

The views of the moderate Greens leader, who is trying to broaden community support for his left-wing party, contradict longstanding Greens’ party policy that calls for a moratorium on growing any crops and organisms that have been genetically modified. It states that “genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have not been proven safe to human health”.

Senator Di Natale said as a doctor, he had seen the benefits delivered by using genetic-modification technology to produce life-giving medicines and compounds such as insulin in large quantities, and could not object to the use of the same technology to deliver benefits for agriculture."

Given Di Natale's comments on other science-based issues (vaccinations for example), this sort of comment is what I would expect from him. He is following the evidence, not the politics.

It remains to be seen what impact this will have on the Greens supporter base. Will it lead to the traditional supporters leaving the party?

Also you linked to the wrong article
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-leader-richard-di-natale-questions-partys-gm-food-ban/news-story/c91944dd48b0c3bd128049be46668120

The ABC article was interesting, but on another topic. I notice that the FOE spokesperson was Louise Sales. Who used to be with Greenpeace spouting exactly the same stuff http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4401 I find this ironic, given the complaints she makes about "revolving doors".

It is said that the difference between a left-winger and a right-winger is time. Given enough time the left comes to learn that the right were correct and then set about denying it.

So its only taken (some) Aussie Greens 20 yrs to catch-up. Pretty good by their standards.

In another 20 years we will be confidently told that in fact the greens ALWAYS supported GMO and its a right-wing conspiracy to say otherwise.

And 20 years after that leftish 'historians' will be telling us that the greens always supported GMO and GMO introduction was delayed by an unholy alliance between government and those evil corporations like Monsanto aimed at denying adequate food to the poor.

It was always thus. Its the circle of like folks. Hakuna matata

Ag,

As the Australian is subscriber view only I quoted directly from it, and included the link to the recommendations of the food regulator.

The reason I started this thread is precisely because the leader of the formerly raving looney party is beginning to follow the advice of scientists, this leaves the anti GMO nut jobs nowhere to hide.

It is a problem when serious and desperate concerns are dressed up as "health and safety" issues: those who made such claims on GM being unsafe were irresponsible and climbed the wrong tree.

As for me, GM food might literally spell my physical death sentence through starvation. As a vegetarian by religion, if animal genes are inserted into plant crops, or can be unintentionally propagated into other plants, then I cannot eat those plants. I presume my death-certificate would instead state "anorexia" as my cause of death.

Alternately I may be able to survive long enough on older canned food until I am able to escape to another country which would not allow GM - for now I have noted down to increase my stock.

Experts tell us that it's not really about
the science of the safety and imports of growing
GMO organisms, it is more a backlash against
perceived corporate control of agriculture and food
as well as an anti-authoritarian stab at the
endorsement of GMO and biotechnology by governments
and institutions.

When it comes to science? It must be based on what
GMOs represent and how they work not on a deliberate
attempt in spreading the anti "science" message.

Now if the companies producing the "GM modified food" pay the research companies to do the studies, does not take a genius to guess the results.

Remember the tobacco (smokes) studies they new they were harmful but covered it up, took years till it finally became common knowledge how harmful they were.

Sometimes it takes a while for truth to come out, asbestos - DDT - roundup - tholydemite (spelling wrong but it was bad) just to name 4.

As a scientific sceptic, I have been watching this debate closely for some years now and the pseudoscience that has spread throughout the net with regards to this topic is mind-blowing.

There's a phenomenon known as "crank magnetism" which basically says that if one falls for one form of junk science, then they're likely to fall for another. This is why so many of those who are against GMO products are also against vaccinations and are also all for organic foods - which are a colossal waste of money and actually more environmentally unfriendly and potentially harmful than non-organic foods.

It's interesting that mhaze makes this a Left/Right issue, though. Because those at the forefront of the fight against such anti-science nonsense consider themselves to be predominantly Left-of-centre and are also at the forefront of the fight against climate change denialism. Just check out the podcast and Facebook page of The Skeptics Guide to the Universe to see an example of this.

Yuyutsu,

The whole gene splicing concern is a non-issue. We already share 50% of our DNA with tomatoes and most fish are more closely related to algae than they are to sharks. If you die of starvation, then it will be due to your own scientific ignorance and nothing more.

AJ Philips,
I have issue with GMO foods, Vaccines, and Climate Change; Yes I'm one of THEM.
But I reject your premise of 'crankmagnestism' and that I must've 'fallen' for some crazy pseudoscience.

I'm going to quickly run through all these issues and outline my concerns with them, in the hope that maybe in future you wont be so quick to think of us all as nutcases and actually understand the concerns of people like myself who have issue with these things.

Firstly there is a corporate agenda behind all of these things.
In the case of GMO's, Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta have a financial interests.
For Vaccines Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer have financial interests, and for Climate Change we have a push for carbon pricing.

Big business has a financial interest in selling us on the merits of these things as they make a lot of money from them.

From a "Is GMO good for me" perspective I've heard that the human body does have trouble breaking down certain GMO proteins.
I'm no scientist though and all I hope for is that they test the stuff properly and be honest in their findings.
Its not really reliable when the companies themselves do the testing and pronounce them safe whilst having a financial interest.
This is also valid in the case of vaccines.

In the case of GMO's I support GMO labelling.
I shouldn't be considered a crazy person just for wanting to be informed and decide for myself as a consumer.

For Vaccines, there are plenty of reports of side effects from vaccines as well as some instances where the cause of an outbreak was the vaccine itself.
Then there's the argument for mandatory vaccinations.
If your kid has been vaccinated then they should be immune.
They shouldn't be able to become infected if they are immune.
Therefore these things indicate that vaccines are neither safe or effective.
As a consumer or parent, what I want is 'informed consent'.
I want the doctor to inform me of any known side effects related to that vaccine, and the ultimate decision to choose what I put in mine or my childs body is up to me.

Why do you think so many people have peanut allergies these days?
Could in not be because they use it as an adjuvant in the vaccines?

As things stand there's no liability on the side of these big companies if my child becomes retarded from some vaccine.
In fact they just make more money as my child would need care and treatment for life.

Next Climate Change.
Its not that I don't care about the planet.
It's that I think we are being taken for a ride by some used car salesmen with a financial agenda.

There's reasons to think climate models are wrong.
Reasons to think the process of homogenising data is skewing the findings (purposely) and reasons to think its done partly for profit and to have control over nations economies and as part of a depopulation agenda.

My concerns aren't irrational.
But my wishes stand in the way of big businesses profits.

To those who naively buy the fiction that the resistance to GMO is/was about corporate involvement. As I said this is going to be the excuse trotted out by the left/environmentalists over the next few years and many will fall for it - some already have.

So the story of Golden Rice.

Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) kills about 1 million people per year and causes a further 500000 (mainly kids) to go blind. In 2000, Swiss researchers worked out how to put a gene in rice that caused it to produce beta-carotene. A bowl of this rice provides the daily requirement for Vitamin A.

The developers weren't interested in profit and gave FREE licences to developing countries and subsistence farmers. Monsanto got involved in crossing it with local strains and they also gave it away free.

BUT the environmentalists were opposed to GMO no matter. Saving 1 million lives is neither here nor there to Greenpeace et al so they've done all they can, including ripping up trial fields, to stop the use of this life-saver. And so today Golden Rice is still barely available and people are still dying.

And the opposition is not due to commercial interests but due to anti-scientific mumbo-jumbo from these people. Golden Rice was a problem for them because it was about profit but about saving lives. But they opposed it anyway and get away with still convincing many that they have the moral high ground.


I get so bloody angry about this and especially when I then see people blithely claiming that they are just opposed to the profit-makers. Its so pathetic.

Well of course you would, Armchair Critic.

<<But I reject your premise of 'crankmagnestism' and that I must've 'fallen' for some crazy pseudoscience.>>

But it is a little more than a co-incidence that those who believe in one form of junk science, believe in most others. What about chemtrails? Do you believe that conspiracy too? That’s another common one.

<<Firstly there is a corporate agenda behind all of these things.>>

Yes, I’ve heard it all before. Big Pharma, Big Agra (which is actually dwarfed by ‘Big Organic’, but that’s another story) “Follow the money”, they tell me. The problem with this logic is that it doesn’t matter what happens, or how good or bad it is, someone somewhere is going to make money as a result of it.

<<From a "Is GMO good for me" perspective I've heard that the human body does have trouble breaking down certain GMO proteins.>>

No, that’s nonsense (http://skepdic.com/gmo.html). Do you realise that we’ve been genetically modifying food since the agricultural revolution? Just take a look at what bananas or grain used to look like. Selective breeding is just a slower form of genetic modification.

When the anti-GMO mob need to rely on emotive terms such as “frankenfood”, you know they’ve got nothing.

<<Its not really reliable when the companies themselves do the testing and pronounce them safe whilst having a financial interest.>>

That’s the beauty of independent studies.

Let’s just look at a premise of conspiracy theorists for a second: Big Pharma has allegedly managed to buy off every politician and every doctor, and yet somehow no-one blows the whistle. Big Pharma is allegedly so powerful and yet it can’t pull down a YouTube video from some crank?

Yeah right.

<<In the case of GMO's I support GMO labelling.>>

Speaking of which, it’s funny how when GMO products weren’t labelled, the anti-GMO mob were saying, “Well, if they’re so safe, then why don’t you label them?” Now that they’re usually labelled, it’s a case of, “Well, if they’re so safe, then why do you have to label them?”

Continued…

…Continued

You can’t win with people like this. Nothing will ever be good enough. They continue to shift the goalposts. As soon as it’s proven that GMOs are safe, suddenly it’s a case, “Oh, but we can’t know what the effects are over multiple generations.”

It’s quackery at its finest, and it’s costing lives in parts of the world that don’t care if their food is genetically modified, they just want to eat. Your concerns are First World problems.

<<I shouldn't be considered a crazy person just for wanting to be informed and decide for myself as a consumer.>>

You’re not.

<<If your kid has been vaccinated then they should be immune.>>

Immunisation doesn’t always work, and that’s when a reliance on herd immunity comes into play. Plus, there’s also infants and those children who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. They rely on herd immunity.

<<As a consumer or parent, what I want is 'informed consent'.>>

There’s a difference between ‘informed consent’ and ‘ill-informed consent’.

<<...the ultimate decision to choose what I put in mine or my childs body is up to me.>>

Fine. But you don’t have the right to put other children’s lives at risk by compromising herd immunity.

<<Why do you think so many people have peanut allergies these days? Could in not be because they use it as an adjuvant in the vaccines?>>

No, consuming something doesn't give you an allergy to it, as far as I know.

<<It's that I think we are being taken for a ride by some used car salesmen with a financial agenda.>>

So why did you not apply this logic to the fossil fuel industry too?

<<There's reasons to think climate models are wrong.>>

If the first thing you mention with regards to AGW is the models, then you have demonstrated that you have no idea of what it is that you’re talking about. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco) The science behind AGW does not depend on climate models at all.

<<Reasons to think the process of homogenising data is skewing the findings (purposely)…>>

Such as?

AC,

Reading your posts, it is clear why you come up with illogical conclusions.

Anything in life has positives and negatives. To make any decisions you need to logically measure the positives and negatives, and to be careful that the information you use to make the decision is sufficient and from a reputable (non biased) source.

For example, a wide variety of GM foods have been tested in the EU government laboratories, the US FDA laboratories etc, and have not yet found one single health risk. That big business makes a profit is political one not a health one.

The same goes for vaccines. There is no link to autism, many large scale studies have disproved it, and for every person that has an adverse reaction there are hundreds or thousands that are saved from disability or death.

Both you guys have foolishly and inadvertently provided me with points needed to win this argument, only the problem is that I was never trying to win.
(Sorry AJ I don't have time right now to answer all your questions, but maybe later I'll come back to your points)

All I want is safeguards against harm and for people to be informed and have a choice.
In this regard neither of you have got anything to argue with.

AJ Philips - "Immunisation doesn’t always work, and that’s when a reliance on herd immunity comes into play."
Shadow Minister - "There is no link to autism, many large scale studies have disproved it, and for every person that has an adverse reaction there are hundreds or thousands that are saved from disability or death."

We're all told that vaccines are safe and effective.
By your own admissions, you both just admitted they're not.
Neither safe nor effective.

Now if they are neither safe or effective, and we're told they are, then we have to consider that they might just push an unsafe product onto the market for the sake of profits, and there is nothing you can do to help a kid once you've turned them into a vegetable.
The only 'vaccination' that is actually effective here is the one that allows the manufacturers of the vaccines to be immune to prosecution when your kid becomes a tard.

Take Monsanto's Roundup for example.
How many years has it been on the market for and now its being banned everywhere as a known carcinogen?
This is the company you're willing to trust for GMO seeds for food?
You do realise the staff at Monsanto refuse to eat the stuff? (GMO)
What does that tell you?

But NO go ahead, label me and my kind as the stereotypical nutcases if you want.
Buy into the crap they've brainwashed you with and don't think for yourselves.
Don't pay any attention to the fact that my opposition to these things is based on valid logical points and because I care about our well-being.

"We're all told that vaccines are safe and effective.
By your own admissions, you both just admitted they're not.
Neither safe nor effective."

The Nirvana fallacy. In fact what we are told is that vaccines are mostly safe and effective. The diseases they protect us from are not. Two doses of measles provides immunity in more than 98% of cases and serious side effects occur in about 3 in 100,000 children http://www.ncirs.edu.au/consumer-resources/mmr-decision-aid/comparing-risks-measles/ Compare that to getting measles.

"Take Monsanto's Roundup for example.
How many years has it been on the market for and now its being banned everywhere as a known carcinogen?"

It is not a known carcinogen. The IARC declared it a probable carcinogen (they did the same to bacon), but even that declaration is hotly contested by regulatory agencies, most of whom consider it not to be a carcinogen http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302. It is also banned in very few places. Bermuda being the main one.

"You do realise the staff at Monsanto refuse to eat the stuff? (GMO)"

This is an internet myth.

"Don't pay any attention to the fact that my opposition to these things is based on valid logical points and because I care about our well-being."

In fact your opposition to these things is based more on seeking out information that confirms your existing beliefs and ignoring any information that conflicts with them.

//We're all told that vaccines are safe and effective.
By your own admissions, you both just admitted they're not.
Neither safe nor effective.//

They are definitely effective. They significantly reduce the incidence and mortality of the diseases they are designed to combat.

Ever heard of anybody dying of tetanus, diptheria, pertussis, measles, poliomyelitis? No? You should count yourself bloody lucky then. There was a time when a lot of those diseases would have had a very high mortality rate - a time before we learnt to vaccinate against them.

Ever heard of rabies? We don't have it here in Australia, thank God. It's a horrible disease: if you get infected and you don't get the vaccine in time, you're dead. It has the highest mortality rate of any disease known to man; before Louis Pasteur showed up a rabies infection was a death sentence (and an unpleasant one at that). But Pasteur figured out how to save people from rabies. Pretty neat trick. Maybe you'd like to tell us all how he really did it with magical healing crystals, psychic massage and lots of incense?

Ever heard of smallpox? We don't have it anywhere any more, thank God. It's a horrible disease too: not quite the mortality rate of rabies but air-borne, so overall it is far more virulent. People don't get smallpox at all any more, because we eradicated it. And we eradicated it with the awesome power of vaccination.

But if I know you, ArmchairCretin, you'll find some new angle to argue that smallpox eradication was a part of the International Communist-Jewish Conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

AC,

I see that you have clearly joined the fruity tooty brigade that takes whatever the anti vax nuts post on blogs as the gospel truth.

Here are some facts:

Roundup (glyphosate) is not a proven carcinogen. In fact there is been no link between those using the weed killer and cancer, and being non persistent is not in the food one eats. Because of the way it acts it is regarded as a possible or even probable cause, but way less risky than alcohol.

There is no link between vaccines and autism as many large scale studies have shown.

All vaccines while not 100% safe are all many many times safer than not using the vaccine. Similarly while no vaccine is 100% effective, it is nearly impossible for a disease to spread amongst a vaccinated population.

Nothing is 100% safe. People get killed by car seat belts, but because vastly many more are saved, they are now compulsory.

You care less about "our well being" than the nutty anti vax propaganda.

I have always had the opinion that genetically modifying a food stuff to enable more poisons (herbicides) to be applied to it is not something I would be comfortable with and I would like the opportunity to make the choice, via a label, on whether to consume it.

On the other hand there are genetic modifications like Bt in maize that enable a reduction even a complete cessation in pesticide spraying. This means less poisons in our food and less toxic run-off into our streams and rivers. I consider these a positive both for our health and our environment.

Those who look at this as a black and white issue, particularly those who deride people who have continuing concerns, really need to engage the brain the good lord gave them and do some research.

Oh, I didn't even realise I got a response. Thanks to Argronomist, Toni Lavis and Shadow Minister for saving me the effort of responding.

SteeleRedux,

Having concerns is one thing (and there are some legitimate concerns). Buying into, and spreading demonstrably false, fear-mongering claims that can be debunked by a simple Google search, is another.

Here's a brilliant, well-balanced article weighing up the pros and cons of GMO foods by one of the big names in the sceptic movement, Steven Novella.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gmo-controversy

"I have always had the opinion that genetically modifying a food stuff to enable more poisons (herbicides) to be applied to it is not something I would be comfortable with and I would like the opportunity to make the choice, via a label, on whether to consume it."

SteeleRedux, you are in luck. All products containing more than 1% GM material (other than highly refined products where no protein or DNA is present and manufacturing aids) are labelled in Australia. Unfortunately, labels don't distinguish between insect tolerance, herbicide tolerance or other traits.

GM does not necessarily allow more herbicides to be applied. The whole point of herbicide tolerant crops is to allow different herbicides to be applied. This may mean more herbicide or less herbicide. An example from Australia: Roundup Ready canola allows about 2 kg/ha of atrazine plus 120 g/ha of clethodim plus 90 g/ha of clopyralid to be replaced by about 1.2 kg/ha of glyphosate.

So to allow you to make the choice you want, you really need a label that specifies how much of each herbicide went on the crops used to make the product.

SR,

FYI, one of the selling points of roundup ready crops are that because the glyphosate can in one dose eliminate all weeds, the total volume of chemicals used to produce crops can be reduced to about 1/3rd of normal.

Dear AJ Phillips,

Thank you for the link.

Novella writes;

“The disadvantage of herbicide tolerant crops is that they increase herbicide use, which gets into the environment, and which encourages the development of resistant weeds. So what’s the net effect? That all depends on how these crops are used. Relying solely on glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crops is turning out to be a bad idea, mainly due to the development of resistance among weeds.”

But he doesn't address the concern I raised about the health impact of digesting increasing amounts of herbicides.

Dear Agronomist,

While there were some initial reductions seen in herbicide use in the corn, cotton and soy crops in the US much of the credit was given to new tillage practices rather than the introduction of HT seeds. Since the start of the century the total herbicide use on each of these staples has markedly risen.

Dear Shadow minister,

You wrote;

“FYI, one of the selling points of roundup ready crops are that because the glyphosate can in one dose eliminate all weeds, the total volume of chemicals used to produce crops can be reduced to about 1/3rd of normal.”

Statements like these is exactly what I'm talking about. The only reason you would want to increase herbicide tolerance in a crop is so you apply more of it yet you are trying to make the case that dramatically less is required? This is simply nonsensical.

Actually Steele, while I do think that while superficially there is cause for concern about applying more chemicals such as herbicides to our food, the actualities are that doesn't really translate to residues on or in our food products.

SM is actually not non-sensical (a rare case I know) in his statements. Consider the timing of herbicide use, application can occur when the crops are still young and growing without fear of killing the crop itself. Tolerance of the crop gives far more flexibility in the times available to apply.

The GM crop allowing the timing of herbicide application to change actually ENABLES the current changes in tilling practice, i.e. no-till practices that disturb the soil less and reduce soil erosion and retain soil moisture as well as preventing weed establishment.

The timing of herbicide application also means that residues are less likely to carry over into the foostuff at harvest. Residue testing of herbicides and pesticides are actually performed and required for market access. Look up MRL (maximum residue limits) which are available for each commodity and food.

Weed reduction in cropping systems is important not only for yield, but also for reducing contamination of nasties found in weeds and weed seeds. eg: https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/animal-industries/pigs/feed-nutrition/ingredients-contaminants/toxic-weed-seeds.
In oilcrops, some of the nasties can carry over into the oil and reduce the nutritional quality of the oil, which is why GM canola oil often tends to actually be cleaner than some others.

But yes you are correct, the increase in herbicide (read: glyphosate) use is actually because of the increase in herbicide resistant crops and the availability of less residual but more broadly acting herbicide use in systems that couldn't easily use it before.

I know that you are concerned that more herbicide is being used. However, I am thankful that the herbicide is glyphosate, as it leaves less environmental residues than others.

However, as will all agricultural chemicals, resistance development in the target pests/weeds is always a huge issue, so careful use is required.

Dear Bugsy,

It has been a few years now since I looked into the issue in any depth. I thought I had saved my links but they appear to have slipped into the ether.

I have managed to find one of the articles that had come to my attention from Scientific American, a magazine I have subscribed to for many years. It details serious concerns about some of the ingredients in Roundup.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

I had also gone to the trouble of looking at the herbicide loads on corn and soy crops in the US pre and post Ht strains being introduced. There was certainly no drop in the lb/acre applications of herbicides rather there was a marked increase.

Therefore forgive me if I continue to regard Shadowminister's claim of a
2/3rds reduction as nonsensical.

Steele, yeah I remember that particular storm in a teacup. The POEA that the anti-GM campaign researchers (i.e. Seralini et al) said affected human cells was a surfactant (i.e. detergent) that put straight into cell cultures at concentrations well above what would be considered normal. Dishwashing liquid would have been more toxic to the cell cultures.

It's not the only dodgy science that these particular researchers have been involved in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

The overall use of herbicide (read: glyphosate) would increase certainly, because the crops that can use it in that particular way have increased markedly.

If you are concerned about Roundup use in particular, perhaps you could suggest a more environmentally friendly herbicide?

Perhaps you could suggest another method of weed control that is cost effective enough so it won't send farmers broke?

"While there were some initial reductions seen in herbicide use in the corn, cotton and soy crops in the US much of the credit was given to new tillage practices rather than the introduction of HT seeds. Since the start of the century the total herbicide use on each of these staples has markedly risen."

In fact it was the availability of herbicide tolerant crops that allowed new tillage practices to be adopted. The ability to control weeds after planting as opposed to having to incorporate herbicides into the soil prior to planting the crop, facilitated the adoption of no-till practices in canola and soybean. It was the availability of HT crops that drove no-till adoption. In North American canola production, it would have been virtually impossible to adopt no-till without HT canola.

Changes in herbicide use are an interesting thing and the data is not always as you suppose. For example: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/06/trends-in-corn-herbicide-use-1990-to-2014/

There has been an increase in the number of herbicide applications, but a decrease in the total amount of herbicide used.

"I have managed to find one of the articles that had come to my attention from Scientific American, a magazine I have subscribed to for many years. It details serious concerns about some of the ingredients in Roundup."

Soaking human cell cultures in high concentrations of detergents for 24 h is likely to cause some damage. As Bugsy wrote, dishwashing liquid would do the same. Its relevance to agricultural use of glyphosate is effectively nil.

Dear Bugsy,

As stated I did my research on this topic quite a few years ago. My tendency is to go through the available evidence as thoroughly as I can then form my own opinion. Once that is done it generally takes a compelling piece of evidence to get me to delve into the issue in any great depth.

I note the subsequent issues with Seralini's study you have raised. As this was only one of the many papers I went through I am as yet disinclined to do the work again, but thank you for alerting me to it.

Dear Agronomist;

You offered this link;

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/06/trends-in-corn-herbicide-use-1990-to-2014/

Then you wrote;

“There has been an increase in the number of herbicide applications, but a decrease in the total amount of herbicide used.”

How on earth have you managed that conclusion?

Here is what I see when I look at the primary graph. From 1990 till 2002 the amount of herbicide per acre had been rapidly decreasing primarily because of the phasing out of Alachlor and Cyanazine but also of EPTC and Butylate. These decreases were not driven by genetically modified crops allowing replacement by Roundup since field releases up until 2002 were quite small in number. It was in that year that the shackles came off and Ht crop field releases shot to over 500. By 2013 this number was 7,800 for corn alone. This is clearly reflected in the graph which shows the use of glyphosate mimicking those releases. Up until 2002 the impact of glyphosphate resistant crops was very minor indeed.

What is also patently clear is that the overall trend of the total amount of herbicides applied per acre stopped decreasing and instead increased as the percentage of GM crops grew.

So why would you claim the opposite? Mind you you are not alone perpetuating this theme as it seems to be fairly ubiquitous among supporters of GM crops.

Or perhaps you saw something in the graph that I missed. If so could you be so kind as the enlighten me?