A lot of of the criticism of GMOs is based on flawed science and misleading use of statistics
That article you linked was flawed on quite a few levels. It argued for example that France was able to reduce its levels of pesticides without using GMOs and used percentages to show the reduction, thereby arguing that GMOs are not necessary
But looking at absolute values, France had a far higher use of pesticides and insecticides and even after the reduction it is still higher than the US, although in the US herbicide use has gone up (primarily glyphosate, but that replaced other more toxic herbicides).
Greater crop yield means more efficient use of the land and resources. I agree we produce more than enough food but reducing yield is not the answer. Also we've barely scratched the surface in terms of using the potential of GE.
That article you linked was flawed on quite a few levels. It argued for example that France was able to reduce its levels of pesticides without using GMOs and used percentages to show the reduction, thereby arguing that GMOs are not necessary
But looking at absolute values, France had a far higher use of pesticides and insecticides and even after the reduction it is still higher than the US, although in the US herbicide use has gone up (primarily glyphosate, but that replaced other more toxic herbicides).
Greater crop yield means more efficient use of the land and resources. I agree we produce more than enough food but reducing yield is not the answer. Also we've barely scratched the surface in terms of using the potential of GE.
[1] http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/10/the-tiresome-discussion...