Citation needed. One would have assumed that the point of a plant designed to be resistant to a herbicide would be that you could apply that herbicide with abandon.
Key takes:
"On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries."
So pesticide use goes down, yields go up, resulting in fewer acres planted for the same yield resulting in even further pesticide use.
[1]http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
Basically, we need to be careful about accepting the results of meta-analyses as scientific fact. They are useful for illustrative purposes but really, at the end of the day if you're going to settle an argument you're going to need rigorous methodology, data-collection and reporting, as well as the all important reproducibility, falsifiability and verifiablity.
"Buy our GMO seeds and spend more on inputs" would be a fucking terrible sales pitch.
Roundup is a very effective herbicide.