This article is not really a scientific work. It's an opinion piece from some researchers who are closely aligned with an industry that stands to gain from anti-GMO scare tactics, and it has a LOT of problems.
Its primary problem -- a problem so fundamental (and sadly common) that it's usually safe to disregard the scientific opinions of people who do this -- is the authors' implicit assumption that herbicide resistance is the only application of genetic modification. This 'single-issue campaigning' isn't really productive because it sidelines all the other incredibly important applications of genetic modification.
Also, pretending that glyphosate is only used on GMO crops is ... disingenuous at best.
Please also note that "probable human carcinogen" classification is grouped the same as "being a hairdresser" and "heating your house with wood." It's still up in the air as to whether 2,4-D is even remotely a candidate to be listed as a carcinogen.
I find it profoundly troubling that the authors chose to name-drop Agent Orange as a scare tactic, since 2,4-D had nothing to do with the deleterious effects of Agent Orange on humans. That's bordering on irresponsible.
Comments
This article is not really a scientific work. It's an opinion piece from some researchers who are closely aligned with an industry that stands to gain from anti-GMO scare tactics, and it has a LOT of problems.
Its primary problem -- a problem so fundamental (and sadly common) that it's usually safe to disregard the scientific opinions of people who do this -- is the authors' implicit assumption that herbicide resistance is the only application of genetic modification. This 'single-issue campaigning' isn't really productive because it sidelines all the other incredibly important applications of genetic modification.
Also, pretending that glyphosate is only used on GMO crops is ... disingenuous at best.
Please also note that "probable human carcinogen" classification is grouped the same as "being a hairdresser" and "heating your house with wood." It's still up in the air as to whether 2,4-D is even remotely a candidate to be listed as a carcinogen.
I find it profoundly troubling that the authors chose to name-drop Agent Orange as a scare tactic, since 2,4-D had nothing to do with the deleterious effects of Agent Orange on humans. That's bordering on irresponsible.