So if the selection pressure is herbicide resistance, those added newborns with birth defects mean that those without defects are probably also modified.
[1] http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=331718&CategoryId=...
Your link doesn't where where it was published - but I'd suggest that injecting embryos with herbicide and then claiming any link to reality is ridiculous. You wouldn't even drink herbicides!
I think this is the paper: http://www.gmls.eu/beitraege/113_Carrasco.pdf
Herbicide residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet.
Atrazine is used in Hawaii to test effect. It is the most commonly used herbicide in the US after glyphosate. It is banned in Europe.
"In 2007, the U.S. EPA said, "studies thus far suggest that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor". The implications for children’s health are related to effects during pregnancy and during sexual development, though few studies are available. In people, risks for preterm delivery and intrauterine growth retardation have been associated with exposure. Atrazine exposure has been shown to result in delays or changes in pubertal development in female rats"
Then there is paraquat dichloride. "Paraquat causes fetal losses in high-dose reproductive studies of animals. In studies of Mallard embryos, it causes birth defects."
How do you suggest we remove or strengthen links with research? If injecting embryos with herbicide is not a valid study for birth defects, then what is? Farmers telling us they see lots of disease when switching to herbicides? Simulations? AFAIK, we came to know these herbicides act as endocrine disruptors from embryo research, so is that conclusion ridiculous too?
I think the major concern right now is the situation in India. http://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/Press/Glyphosate-based-he... and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3758715/
> You wouldn't even drink herbicides!
Only to commit suicide, which has also been a problem with farmers in India. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India