yu also agued in a different post about hybridizing has been going on since the beginning of agriculture.
problem is that when an organism is genetically modified,it tends to lose all its natural resistances,as do hybrids in many cases.over 100 years ago,pesticide use was almost non existent,because people would grow plants in more natural environments,even hybrids then often existed for a long time allowing them to gain resistance to pests and disease,and many were grew where they were native.
since the 50's,hybrids have gotten so hybridized that they have practically no resistance to anything natural,and require extensive use of pesticide and much planning to prevent disease.also with bigger and bigger crop yields with hybrids,more nutrience is needed from the soil,depleting it heavily.thats the reason corn farmers need crop rotations,because modern hybrid corn depletes the soil after a single cycle and usually needs one to two cycles of soybean crops to restore its nutrients.further as an example of crop resistance,we had a fruit fly epidemic decades ago that destroyed crops,our fruit wasnt resistant to it,but crops where those flies oriinated were mostly resistant.everytime a plant is hybridized to increase yields the natural resistance is destroyed.
with genetic modification,it is to a much greater effect.even worse you risk something like making a plant that may act as a weed to other existing plants.what would happen if you geneically modified corn and it accidentally became a weed that leeched off pine trees,destroying entire pine forests and ecosystems???
“You can lead a horse to water, but it is probably crowded with all those people you taught to fish.”
Which states that whenever the "Right" comes up with something utterly ludicrous and anti-scientific (like the latter-day creationist fantasies, for example), the "Left" will always respond with some equally irrational - and usually more harmful - set of ludicrous and anti-scientific notions.
2. I'm 90% confident your source on pesticide use is the now discredited Benbrook study from WSU. So I'll just post this: Scientists, Journalists Challenge Claim That GM Crops Harm The Environment - Forbes & GMOs May Feed the World Using Fewer Pesticides — NOVA Next | PBS
3. They do not have liability protection. This is an anti-GMO myth. The clause in question has to do with the USDA issuing temporary non-regulated status to already planted crops to prevent an entire crop being wiped out by a regulatory hurdle. Nothing at all to do with liability protection.
Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
The Psychology of Persuasion