Sorry, that's bullshit. Benbrook's study has been found to have solid points, except for his conclusion that pesticide use has increased - in fact, the data he uses show that it dropped: http://www.bigpictureagriculture.com/2012/10/an-evaluation-o.... The other link is a no-value-added regurgitation of the Benbrook study by an opinionated pseudo-environmentalist website.
The organic label is meaningless, while true organic farming is resource-intensive and unsustainable as a global agricultural strategy.
The most upsetting fact is that most GM opponents simply refuse to acknowledge that genetic modification not only holds great promise for agriculture, but is simply a more efficient way to manipulate crops in ways that we have been doing for tens of thousands of years. This gets us farther from the goal of GM safety and agricultural sustainability, not closer.
Did you even read the conclusion on that amateur blog you cite to attack a widely-acknowledged scientific study?
It says: "At least for the short term, it looks as if more expensive and more hazardous chemical inputs will continue to increase in use for corn, soybeans, and cotton because of pesticide resistance which is growing at an alarming rate."
The organic label is meaningless, while true organic farming is resource-intensive and unsustainable as a global agricultural strategy.
The most upsetting fact is that most GM opponents simply refuse to acknowledge that genetic modification not only holds great promise for agriculture, but is simply a more efficient way to manipulate crops in ways that we have been doing for tens of thousands of years. This gets us farther from the goal of GM safety and agricultural sustainability, not closer.