> A modern GMO actually lets you use LESS herbicides and insecticides, and often far less dangerous ones than many that are OK for labeled organic crops, and happen to be far more toxic.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
> However, overreliance on glyphosate and a reduction in the diversity of weed management practices have contributed to the evolution of glyphosate resistance in some weed species.
It is indeed true that traditional, non-organic means of farming likely requires the use of more (non-organic-certified) herbicides and pesticides, of which some may be more toxic than glyphosate.
Nuance! The allusion that farming with GMO+glyphosate is "far less dangerous" than standard organic farming practices is not supported by research.
Idk about "far less dangerous". I didn't make that claim. Im only showing that indeed gmo's use less poison, a point that we both seem to accept, but I hear the "far less dangerous" claim used by the anti-gmo crowd after stating the falsehood that gmo's require more herbicides and pesticides over and over again. I would even say that that seems to be the central claim of the anti-gmo movement. In fact, I see people saying that all up and down this thread... so.. go argue with them, lol.
None of that blog actually supports the claim:
> A modern GMO actually lets you use LESS herbicides and insecticides, and often far less dangerous ones than many that are OK for labeled organic crops, and happen to be far more toxic.
Nor does it ever mention herbicides, only pesticides. Nor does it mention that you may actually be harming yourself by consuming organic produce vs GMO produce, which is what the claim was alluding too.