I'm not going to comment on the article for reasons, but one issue is that it encourages heavier use of pesticides which then do things like mix with nitrogen runoff and have major macro-effects on the ecosystem, but many of these residual, long term side effects are downplayed by the industry because the players have interest in selling not just the gmo but the fertilizers and pesticides.

Source; worked at a bigag company doing gmo and selling fertilizer and pesticides and later worked at a genetics company. I quit the bigag company the minute I realized they were essentially a Monsanto front.

I think dang and hn should watch threads on this subject carefully, it's one of the most astroturfed subjects on the Internet, and it saddens me how many people here immediately agree with such easily identified strawman arguments.

(see poster conflating racists and creationists with conspiracy theorists and by association anyone who dislikes GMOs)

"If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is."

- John von Neumann

Because humans haven't been engineered to be pesticide resistant. I don't think we should increase our intake of pesticides.