Originally posted by KazetNagorraThey increase pesticide use according to this recent study in Environmental Sciences Europe a peer reviewed journal:
GMO's are intended to address many of these issues by increasing yields and reducing the need for fertilizer, water and/or pesticides. Can you elaborate on the "potentially damaging impact"? And can you be more specific about your suggested alternative to "industrial farming" - how would it work, why would it be more effective and why aren't farmers doi ...[text shortened]... study which shows your favoured alternative to "industrial farming" is more efficient?
Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24/abstract
Originally posted by no1marauder7% is a pretty minor increase over such a long time period, but more importantly it begs the question as to what kinds of herbicides were used; for instance, if a certain herbicide is replaced by some other herbicide which is much less damaging to the environment, but requires a larger dose, there is still a net gain for the quality of the environment even though the use of herbicides, in absolute terms, has increased. I haven't read the article in detail, but it says:
They increase pesticide use according to this recent study in Environmental Sciences Europe a peer reviewed journal:
Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 ...[text shortened]... ue to do so for the foreseeable future.
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24/abstract[/b]
Heightened risk of public health impacts can be expected in the wake of more intensive herbicide use, especially applications later in the season on herbicide-resistant crop varieties. While current risk assessment science suggests that glyphosate is among the safer herbicides per hectare treated in terms of human health risks, both the frequency of human exposures and levels of exposure via food, drinking water, and the air have no doubt risen in the U.S. in recent years.(emphasis added)
Of course, authorities should be carefully monitoring herbicide use and its associated health risks, and make sure that farmers do not overuse them.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat's goal post moving; in the post I was responding to you claimed GMO's would "reduce" pesticide use, not that it would increase it to a degree you find acceptable. And GMOs still use a relatively small amount of agricultural land in the US; you are advocating for an increase in that which will surely result in a much greater increase in pesticides according to the article.
7% is a pretty minor increase over such a long time period, but more importantly it begs the question as to what kinds of herbicides were used; for instance, if a certain herbicide is replaced by some other herbicide which is much less damaging to the environment, but requires a larger dose, there is still a net gain for the quality of the environment e ...[text shortened]... herbicide use and its associated health risks, and make sure that farmers do not overuse them.
Originally posted by no1marauderOf course, what should be "reduced" is the environmental/health impact of pesticides, not the mass of pesticides used.
That's goal post moving; in the post I was responding to you claimed GMO's would "reduce" pesticide use, not that it would increase it to a degree you find acceptable. And GMOs still use a relatively small amount of agricultural land in the US; you are advocating for an increase in that which will surely result in a much greater increase in pesticides according to the article.
It's quite probable that the regulating authorities are lax in this regard, so chances are pretty good that with stricter regulation the use of pesticides can be further reduced while also benefiting from the GMO's properties. From a farmer's point of view, using too much pesticides is better than using too little.