GMOs can reduce need for pesticide and insecticide use, reduce water and fertilizer use, increase yields and make produce last longer. Are there any credible studies showing any GMOs in the states to be harmful?
Just a lot of anecdotal stories that people suffering from various forms of food intolerance (gluten intolerance in particular seems to be strongly correlated with GMO grains) can't eat most GMO/non-organic American food, but can eat food from Europe, where GMO foods are banned and regulatory bodies do not allow new things until clinically proven to not be harmful.
More generally, I'm a proponent of the philosophical view that the FDA and EPA should allowlist things, not denylist. A pesticide, GMO technique, additive, dye, preservative, etc. should be proven via clinical trials before being allowed, not allowed by default until proven harmful.
As it is, this allow-by-default makes the US population the test case for everything at once, making causes of harm difficult to trace (as certain vendors are financially incentivized to want them to be). Furthermore, regulators can be bought via lobbyists, preventing things from being banned until long after their harmfulness is well-known.
Wanting to do things better is nice, but it's no excuse for failing to sufficiently test new things in isolation.
> More generally, I'm a proponent of the philosophical view that the FDA and EPA should allowlist things, not denylist. A pesticide, GMO technique, additive, dye, preservative, etc. should be proven via clinical trials before being allowed, not allowed by default until proven harmful.
I agree with this 100%. I believe that it used to be that way in the USA until the burden of proof was shifted by the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, although I am not entirely clear on this.
Disclaimer: each GMO product should be looked at individually, just like each chemical product. When people say all GMOs are good or bad, it's as silly as saying that all chemicals are good or bad.
That aside,
> GMOs can reduce need for pesticide and insecticide use
A funny thing happened on the way to quarterly report. I believe that the most popular GMO product line is Roundup Ready [0], and it does the exact opposite. It allows the creator's cash cow product to be applied more liberally.
What it does is allows for a mass spraying of Roundup rather than targeted sprayings.
If you had to do several targeted sprayings over a growing season vs 1 mass spraying at a critical point, you could end up spraying more. I would think the main selling point is ease of use but economics is going to play into it.
If you have Farmer A who has to buy the seeds and spray + is using more spray vs Farmer B who is using their own seeds and less spray, who is going to make more money?
I would like to see safer herbicides, I doubt we will ever get away from them.
And the rest of the Wiki:
>While the use of Roundup Ready crops has increased the usage of herbicides measured in pounds applied per acre,[9] it has also changed the herbicide use profile away from atrazine, metribuzin, and alachlor[citation needed] which are more likely to be present in run off water.[citation needed]
