[incepted]

> Only Monsanto is capable of arguing that the most environmentally friendly option for agriculture is GMO.

No, plenty of objective scientists argue it as well. It's just common sense.

You don't need a PhD to understand that for crops, you will have to choose between GMO or heavily pesticided products. The equation is that simple.

The author of the article certainly has its own agenda but you can make up your own mind about some of the points he makes, in particular the cycle of around the clock pesticide spraying that non-GMO seeds require in order to produce an acceptable crop.

It's time to step back and be a bit rational about all this, the anti-GMO movement is reaching levels of absurdity and hysteria approaching the anti-vax movement.

[jasonjei]

I'm not against GMO, but one thing that I think is a fallacy is the choice between GMO and heavily-pesticided products. In fact, GMO has made some plants more pesticide-tolerant, thereby increasing the use of pesticide. That's not to say GMO has also decreased the use of pesticides, but it's not just a it's-this-or-that comparison.

[incepted]

> I'm not against GMO, but one thing that I think is a fallacy is the choice between GMO and heavily-pesticided products.

You're right, I made a false dichotomy there, sorry about that.

There is at least a third choice here (non GMO, no pesticides) but it costs a lot more money, so it's not viable for farmers or anyone involved in mass producing tons of crops each year.