Isn't part of the benefit of GMO foods that you can make them tolerant to various pesticides? There are other ways to use GMO to make more productive crops, but my understanding was that one of the big reasons is that you can make crops that ignore pesticides that wipe out existing pests.
You're right, but I think what they are saying is that they would like to see new GMO crops developed for consumer benefit instead of herbicide resistance.
... to pesticide manufacturers, no. But say, a GM tomato[1] that had added nutrients seems like it could make someone rich? I'd be happy to throw a few in my salad.
the pesticides used in organic farming are about as bad for you as the pesticides used in non organic farming, and used in higher quantities, since they are worse at being pesticides.
This is just blatantly false on every account. Especially the part where things like non-organic wheat are sprayed with weed-killer in the days before it's harvested because it increases the yield and protein as the wheat goes into turbo-mode because it knows it's dying.
This is a valid point; just because something is naturally-derived, doesn't make it safe. For example, permethrin is approved for organic use but it's also a neurotoxin: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5598406/
Obviously the dosages are low in foods treated with it, but you're still ingesting a neurotoxin, yet the food can be legally labelled organic.
My solution is to list the pesticides on the packaging like they do the nutritional content.
Because the FDA exists?? Because that would be fraud to claim otherwise, and fruit/veg sources are easily traceable back to their source, particularly at quantity?
> Organic diet intervention significantly reduces urinary glyphosate levels in U.S. children and adults > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512...