Con Case

In the words of famous Indian environmental activist and author, Vandana Shiva,
You cannot insert a gene you took from a bacteria cell, insert it into a seed and call it life.
You have not created life, you have only polluted it. In agreement with the great woman,
we negate the following resolution- on balance; the benefits of genetically modified foods
outweigh the harms. In order to clarify the resolution we would like to define some terms.
On balance- taking everything into consideration or account.
Genetically modified foods- foods produced from organisms that have had specific changes
introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering. (These are also called
GMFs).
Outweigh- to be greater than (someone or something) in weight, value, or importance.

1. Our first contention is, The cultivation and maintenance of genetically modified
foods negatively impact the surrounding environment. The environmental harms of
GMFs can be categorized into three main problems.
Firstly excessive use of chemicals is a common problem associated with GM food farming.
Most GM crops are engineered to be "herbicide tolerant". Monsanto sells crops that are
resistant to Roundup a herbicide, so that farmers that plant these seeds must use Roundup
to keep other weeds from growing in their fields. Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers
sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of herbicides results in
super weeds and superbugs that are resistant to herbicide. This is causing farmers to use
even more toxic herbicides every year.
Second, GMFs may escape containment. In the United States, approximately 50,000
nonindigenous species cause environmental damage and losses estimated at U.S. $137
billion per year . While many introduced species were not intentionally introduced, some
agricultural species have escaped from cultivation. In the United States, 128 species of
introduced GM crops have become serious weeds. Once established, introduced species are
almost impossible to remove from an ecosystem. The problem with GM invasive species is
that since they have been genetically engineered to survive longer than average plants,
they have an inherent genetic advantage over native species and will subsequently
outcompete some native species and harm others. Last year a laboratory study published
by ISAAA (The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications)
showed that Bt corn (a corn with the ability to produce its own deadly pesticide) had
escaped containment on several farms, which resulted in the deaths of numerous insects
including monarch butterflies.

Third, the cultivation of GM crops results in biodiversity reduction. The Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations refers to the scale of the loss as extensive,
finding that some 75 percent of plant genetic diversity has been lost since 1900 as farmers
turn to genetically uniform, mass-produced crop varieties. Most GM crops are planted in a
monoculture fashion reducing the ecological variety of a specific area. Most GM farms are
about 30% larger than normal farms, resulting in biodiversity loss over a larger area.
According to a study conducted by the Food Security and Environment (FSE) think tank at
Stanford University found that over a 12-month period, the plant density and natural
biomass of a region within a 5 mile radius of a GM crop field was reduced by 37%.
2. The introduction of GMFs in the developing world socially and economically
disadvantages many people. The introduction of genetically modified crops to some
countries like China, Brazil, the Philippines, and India has resulted in higher seed costs that
have led to tragedies, while pushing out conventional, non-GMO seeds, reducing farmer
seed choices, and pushing them into debt. According to a study by Consumers
International, an estimated 270,000 small-hold farmers in the Philippines are being forced
to grow GM corn and ending up in debt. The cost of corn seeds has risen 282% from its
introductory price and accounts for about a fourth of a farmers total cost of production.
From 1996 to 2001 American farmers paid close to $659 MILLION in price premiums to
buy and plant Bt corn (maize). Farmers lost $92 MILLION or about $1.31 per acre from
raising Bt corn (maize), according to Dr. Charles Benbrook, Ph.D. As a global fact, in 2005,
globally, farmers paid a premium of $2.2 billion for GMO seeds, which represents the
technology fee. When weak monsoon rains led to crop failures in 2005, hundreds of
debt-ridden GM farmers in the states of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in India
committed suicide by drinking pesticide. This has gone to a level where the exorbitant
costs of GM crops are taking the precious lives of many farmers.
Rebuttals
1. Increase food production and help the hungry
The truth is that in the United States (the worlds foremost GMO producer and
consumer) and in other major GMO producing countries, an overwhelming majority
(about of the GMO crop is not even consumed directly by humans. In the US, livestock
has been fed genetically engineered crops since these crops were first introduced in
1996 and each of the top 6 GMO crops (soy, cotton, corn, canola, sugar beet, and alfalfa)
are heavily utilized by the US and global animal feed market. The commercial animal
feed industry is by far the largest purchaser of US corn and soybean meal. Of the two
largest GMO crops in the United States, 98% soy and 79.5% of corn goes directly into
feeding animals and fueling cars in the US.


Two, GM food research is not focused on boosting yields. That is what the poor
need to survive, unlike conventional crops. A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists in
the U.S., has established that genetic engineering has not contributed to yield increases in
any crop. According to this report, increases in crop yields in the U.S. are due to yield
characteristics of conventional crops, not genetic engineering. Australian research shows
that conventional crops outperform GE crops. At best, GM crops have performed no better
than their non-GM counterparts, with GM soybeans giving consistently lower yields for
over a decade. Controlled comparative field trials of GM/non-GM soya suggest that 50% of
the drop in yield is due to the genetic disruptive effect of the GM transformation process.
Similarly, field tests of Bt insecticide-producing maize hybrids showed that they took
longer to reach maturity and produced up to 12% lower yields than their non-GM
counterparts. A US Department of Agriculture report confirms the poor yield performance
of GM crops, saying, "GE crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield
potential of a variety. In fact, yield may even decrease.... Perhaps the biggest issue raised by
these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts
appear to be mixed or even negative."The failure of GM to increase yield potential was
emphasised in 2008 by the United Nations International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report. This report on the
future of farming, authored by 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that
yields of GM crops were "highly variable" and in some cases, "yields declined". The report
noted, "Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal
and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable."
The definitive study to date on GM crops and yield is "Failure to Yield: Evaluating the
Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops". Published in 2009, the study is authored by
former US EPA and Center for Food Safety scientist, Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman. It is based on
published, peer-reviewed studies conducted by academic scientists and using adequate
experimental controls. Based on studies on corn and soybeans, the two most commonly
grown GM crops in the United States, the study concludes that genetically engineering
herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields.
Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in
yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report finds, was largely due to traditional
breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.

GMF crops actually economically and socially disadvantage poorer farmers.

Problems resulting from escalating prices for GM seed are seen most dramaticallyand
tragicallyin developing countries. Indian farmers go into debt to buy the expensive GM
seeds and pesticides. If their crops fail, many farmers kill themselves by drinking
pesticides. According to a study by Consumers International, an estimated 270,000

small-hold farmers in the Philippines are being forced to grow GM corn and ending up in
debt. The cost of corn seeds has risen 282% from its introductory price and accounts for
18-21% of a farmers total cost of production. Farmers are at the mercy of seed suppliers
and lenders who are one and the same in the country and refuse to provide lending unless
the farmers grow GM corn. For farmers, rising costs in the form of GM foods have not
matched returns, pushing many to the brink, financially and otherwise. GMF companies
also use their patents on the genetic makeup of crops to force farmers to pay them. For
example, proponents of golden rice say it is free, but Syngenta (a leading agrochemical
corporation) in fact owns the patents to the GM Rice. With these patents, they are able to
force farmers to pay them for planting this rice said Diego de la Cruz Jr, a farmer and rice
breeder of MASIPAG based in Agusan del Sur, Mindanao.
(The reason why prices for such GM crops are so high is not because their value is
any greater than conventional crops. Philip Howard, a researcher at Michigan State
University, has traced the consolidation of global seed industry. He says that that if at least
four firms control 40% of supply it can no longer be regarded as a competitive market. The
big four biotech seed companiesMonsanto, DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta, and
Dow AgroSciencesown 80% of the GM market. There are two main problems for farmers.
The first is the removal of choice. The pushing out of the marketplace of conventional and
older seed varieties and their replacement by genetically modified seeds backs farmers into
a corner, making it nearly impossible to grow conventional crops, even if they want to. This
has the knock on effect of reducing the genetic diversity in staple crops- making the risk of
catastrophic destruction of food crops by disease or climate a very real threat. The second
major change that farmers are feeling is the hike in seed prices- and this is a very serious
consequence for farmers of GMOs globally, and because non-GM seeds are phased out by
Biotech seed companies, these higher prices are unavoidable.)

2. Food can be engineered to be more nutritious- One well-known biofortification

project, Golden Rice, adds beta-carotene to rice to help fight the vitamin A deficiency that
causes blindness in a quarter million children annually. Yet engineering crops with
beta-carotene may not even reduce vitamin A deficiency because consumption alone does
not ensure absorption. Golden rice was also engineered to reduce the amount of glutelin in
rice (an unhealthy protein).
According to the Harvard School of Public Health the decrease in glutelin levels in rice, for
example, was associated with an unintended increase in levels of compounds called
prolamines, which can affect the nutritional quality of rice and increase its potential to
induce an allergic response. Modified organisms can, in addition, escape from greenhouses

and fields and aquaculture cages into natural, or quasi-natural, ecosystems, and disrupt
their biodiversity.

3. Makes it easier for plants to resist insects- Many insects and weeds actually develop
an effective resistance to the elements of GM crops themselves (like Bt) that make the crop
dangerous to pests, leading to the development of super weeds and super bugs.
Resistance has also been developed to the new herbicides (weed killers) that are designed
to kill only the new weeks but not the new GM crops. In order to destroy these surviving
pests, farmers must thus apply excess amounts of synthetic chemicals to the crop fields,
compounding the deadly effect of these toxins on the surrounding environment.
Weeds Herbicide tolerant (Roundup Ready) crops were supposed to control weeds and Bt
crops were intended to control pests. Instead of controlling weeds and pests, GM crops
have led to the emergence of super weeds and super pests. In the U.S., Roundup Ready
crops have produced weeds resistant to Roundup. Approximately 15 million acres are now
overtaken by Roundup resistant superweeds.
In India, Bt cotton sold under the trade name Bollgard was supposed to control the
Bollworm pest. Today, the Bollworm has become resistant to Bt cotton and now Monsanto
is selling Bollgard II with two additional toxic genes in it. New pests have emerged and
farmers are using more pesticides.
Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on
GMOs. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of
toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth
defects, and cancer. According to the Centre for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural
Resources, at Washington State University, Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a
239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States
between 1996 and 2011. Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs
(404 million pounds), or about 7%.
4. This big study, that big study (Only if you can prove it is biased) Researchers that
have been funded by companies have conducted most studies and organizations that create
and distribute genetically modified foods and can thus be considered biased. An example of
the unreliable nature of these tests can be seen in the case of U.S.-funded researchers
published the results of a nutritional study showing that people's bodies easily absorb the
beta-carotene in golden rice. They'd carried out that study among children in China. An
inquiry by the Chinese government found that the researchers didn't get all the approvals

they needed before carrying out the study, and in fact exaggerated many of the results of
the test.
5. Government oversight will prevent problems- Government oversight is dangerously
lax. Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments'
superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely
political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn't require a single
safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM
foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim
that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this
was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming
consensus even among the FDA's own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable,
hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had
instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy
was Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, later their vice president. He's now the US
Food Safety Czar.
6. Helps environment- It is feasible to state that GMFs have any positive environmental
impact only in the rare instance that they remain contained within their controlled
habitats. Human error or curiosity can result in the genetically modified organism escaping
into the wild with an inherent genetic advantage over the native organisms. These
organisms are now a dangerous invasive species that can and will outcompete indigenous
species for resources and harm the local environment.
An excellent example of this would be the invasion of Bt corn into local ecosystems. Bt
stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a strain of bacteria that produces its own toxins. When the
corn seeds escape containment and take root in the wild the Bt kills all local insects
indiscriminately (not just the ones the pesticide is targeted at) mainly monarch butterflies
according to an Iowa State university research study conducted in 2013.
Perhaps one of the most dangerous threats to the environment from genetically modified
organisms is the spread of the modified genetic characteristics to a non-target species
through pollen. If GM plants pass their new traits on to wild relatives, those relatives could
be changed in a way that could make them play a different ecological role, potentially
enabling them to out-compete other plants and become invasive species themselves.
Biodiversity is also reduced significantly. According to the ISAAA, 100-fold, from 1.7 million
hectares (4.2 million acres) in 1996, to 170 million hectares (420 million acres) in 2012.
These 170 million hectares mean that GMO crops now occupy over 10% of the worlds
arable land. According to a study conducted by the Food Security and Environment (FSE)

think tank at Stanford University found that over a 12-month period, the native plant
density and natural biomass of a region within a 5 mile radius of a GM crop field was
reduced by 37%. Some level of wild plants can be helpful to the farm.
No health concernsGM potatoes damaged rats
Rats were fed potatoes engineered to produce their own insecticide.They developed
potentially precancerous cell growth in the digestive tract, inhibited development of their
brains, livers and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, enlarged pancreases and intestines
and immune system damage. GM foods on the marketwhich were created with the same
processhave not been subject to such an extensive testing protocol.
Inhaled Bt corn pollen may have triggered disease in humans
In 2003, approximately 100 people living next to a Bt cornfield in the Philippines
developed skin, respiratory, intestinal reactions and other symptoms while the corn was
shedding pollen. Blood tests of 39 people showed an antibody response to Bt-toxin, which
supportsbut does not provea link. The symptoms reappeared in 2004 in at least four
other villages that planted the same corn variety. Villagers also attribute several animal
deaths to the corn.
Sheep died after grazing in Bt cotton fields
After the cotton harvest in parts of India, sheep herds grazed continuously on Bt cotton
plants. Reports from four villages revealed that about 25% of the sheep died within a week.
Post mortem studies suggest a toxic reaction.
Twelve cows in Germany died mysteriously when fed Bt corn
Twelve dairy cows died on a farm in Hesse Germany, after being fed a diet with significant
amounts of a single GM corn variety, Bt 176. Other cows in the herd had to be killed due to
some mysterious illness.
Soy allergies skyrocketed in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced
In a single year, 1999, soy allergies in the UK jumped from 10% to 15% of the sampled
population. GM soy was imported into the country shortly before 1999. Antibody tests
verify that some individuals react differently to GM and non-GM soy varieties. GM soy also
has an increased concentration of a known allergen
There is a large presence of antibiotics in GM cow milk
One of the most controversial GM foods is rBGH, or recombinant bovine growth hormone.
The hormone, which is synthesized from genetically modified bacteria, produces higher

milk yields by keeping milk-producing cells alive in cows for longer than normal. Though
there's no official difference between rBGH milk and regular milk, critics point out that
rBGH cows are more prone to disease, which means higher concentrations of bovine
antibiotics filtering down into the milk supply.

CROSSFIRE
1. If GMOs are So Safe and Nutritious, why Arent Big Food Companies Labeling
Them?
2. GMF companies are private corporations, correct? And according to your case you
stated that much of these GMF companies use their crops overseas, basically that
is foreign aid, correct? So if a private corporation is directly engaging in foreign
aid without governmental controls isnt that basically privatizing foreign aid?
Because most formal international law instruments apply only to governmental actors,
governments face the problem of private contractors falling through the cracks of the
international legal regime and evading accountability altogether. Moreover it takes the
government out of the foreign aid sphere and we must trust private, profit driven
corporations to represent a sovereign nations overseas.
Quotes :
George Bernard Shaw, co-founder of the London school of economics : Science never
solves a problem without creating ten more.
Citation:
"Information to Ensure a Safe, Healthy, Sustainable Food Supply." The GMO Seed Cartel. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
"Ministry Blames Bt Cotton for Farmer Suicides - Hindustan Times."
Http://www.hindustantimes.com/. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
"DOJ Mysteriously Quits Monsanto Antitrust Investigation." Mother Jones. N.p., n.d. Web. 10
Nov. 2014.

"In India, Genetically Modified Crops Come at a High Price." India Ink In India Genetically
Modified Crops Come at a High Price Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
"Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?" Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or
Helpful? N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2014.
PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
"Institute for Responsible Technology." - 10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov.
2014.
"GMO Facts." The Non GMO Project RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2014.
"Institute for Responsible Technology." - GMO Dangers. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2014.
"Pocket K No. 4: GM Crops and the Environment." GM Crops and the Environment. N.p., n.d.
Web. 08 Nov. 2014.

Final Focus:
To begin, it is feasible to assume that corporate greed and manipulation of the
markets and opportunities may be influencing many of the Pros studies. But when
we look at the influences our own studies, it can be clearly seen that pure regard for
the environmental, socioeconomic, and human well being is kept at heart.
(most important argument, answer losing argument, argument that the community judge
will most likely vote on)
Since the dawn of time, man has understood that life itself is a mysterious and
complicated thing. Science is in its infancy, and if we are to tamper with what we
barely understand, that is the genetics of our own food, we must be aware that it
cant be beneficial for our world and the people living in it.

Implications of GM crop cultivation at large spatial scales

Presentation given in Bremen, Germany, June 14-15, 2012
By Charles Benbrook, PhD, Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources,
Washington State University, Pullman, WA
Summary by GMWatch
1. Increased herbicide use on GM RR soy compared with non-GM soy:
*Use of glyphosate on GM RR soy acres INCREASED from 0.69 pounds per acre in 1996 to
1.56 in 2011.
*Use of other herbicides on GM RR soy acres DECREASED from 0.20 pounds per acre in
1996 to 0.12 in 2011.
*Use of all herbicides on GM RR soy acres INCREASED from 0.89 pounds per acre in 1996
to 1.68 in 2011.
*Use of all herbicides on non-GM soy acres DECREASED from 1.19 pounds per acre in 1996
to 0.96 in 2011.
2. Non-sustainability of GM soy:
The differential between herbicides used on GM RR soy and non-GM soy is growing,
showing that GM RR soy is increasing the use of herbicides over time whereas non-GM soy
is decreasing herbicide use. In 1996 GM RR soy needed 0.30 pounds per acre less herbicide

than non-GM soy. But in 2011 GM RR soy needed 0.73 pounds per acre more herbicide than
non-GM soy.
3. Increased herbicide use on GM herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops as compared with non-GM
crops in 2011:
*0.73 pounds per acre more in the case of soy
*0.41 pounds per acre more in corn
*0.86 pounds per acre more in cotton.
4. Impacts of HT crops on herbicide use 1996-2011:
*Herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops have INCREASED herbicide use by a total or 527 million
pounds (239 million kgs)
*HT soybeans account for 72% of the total increase in herbicide use across the three HT
crops.
5. Bt crop impacts on insecticide use and overall GM crop impacts 1996-2011:
*Bt corn and cotton have REDUCED chemical insecticide spray use by 124 million pounds
(56 million kgs).
*GM crops have INCREASED overall pesticide use by 403 million pounds (183 million kgs).
This means an additional 0.25 pounds (0.28 kg/ha) of active ingredient for every GM trait
acre.
6. Increase in rate (pounds per acre) of glyphosate applications on GM glyphosate-tolerant
corn, cotton and soy:
*Corn: increase of 54% between 1996 and 2010
*Cotton: increase of 206% between 1996 and 2010
*Soy: increase of 96.6% between 1996 and 2006.
[GMWatch comment: The above data should not surprise us as Benbrook points out, the
pesticide industry owns the seed industry:
*Changes in US patent and intellectual property law created unprecedented profit
opportunities.
*The pesticide industry took over the seed industry, in the late 1980s-1990s.]
7. Bt corn for European corn borer insecticide (endotoxin) production compared with
chemical insecticide sprays displaced:
*0.12 pounds chemical insecticide sprays applied per acre for ECB control on non-GM corn
in 2010
*MON 810 produces 0.18 pounds endotoxins per acre

*Bt 11 produces 0.25 pounds endotoxin per acre

*MON 89034, Cry1A.105 plus Cry2Ab2 produces 0.6 pounds of two endotoxins per acre (5
X the amount of chemical insecticides displaced).
8. Bt corn for rootworm control insecticide (endotoxin) production compared with
chemical insecticide sprays displaced:
*0.19 pounds chemical insecticide sprays applied per acre for rootworm control on non-GM
corn in 2010
*MON 88017, Cry3Bb1 produces 1.7 pounds endotoxin per acre
*Dow/Pioneer DAS 59122-7, Cry34Ab1 plus Cry35Ab1 produces 2.5 pounds per acre (13 X
the amount of chemical insecticides displaced).
9. Chemical insecticides displaced in fields planted to Monsanto-Dow AgroSciences
SmartStax corn:
*Total expression of Bt proteins is 3.73 pounds per acre: 12 X more than the chemical
insecticide sprays displaced (0.31 pounds active ingredients)
[GMWatch comment: The above data confirm that GM Bt crops do not reduce or eliminate
insecticides, but simply change the way that pesticides are used, from sprayed on, to built
in.]
10. HT technology has dramatically accelerated the emergence and spread of resistant
weeds:
*Over 14 million acres (5.6 million ha) in the US are now infested with glyphosate-resistant
weeds.
*22 weeds now resistant to glyphosate, and more than a dozen pose economic threat to US
farmers.
*Some weeds have evolved resistance via two or more mechanisms of resistance.
*44% of multiple herbicide-resistant weeds have appeared since 2005.
11. Prospects for weed management for US farmers:
*Few, if any, viable chemical options will remain.
*Non-chemical options are costly and require significant system changes return to
rotations, heavy tillage to bury weed seeds, planting of cover crops, and mechanical
cultivation and/or hand weeding.
*It is very unlikely that new herbicides with new modes of action will be available within
ten to 15 years. MDK Owen, 2011, J. Consumer Protection and Food Safety: 85-89.
12. Industry solutions:

*Industry push to market 2,4-D, dicamba, and paraquat HT crops.

*Even without 2,4-D HT crops, 2,4-D is the #1 cause of crop damage episodes investigated
by state departments of agriculture in the US.
*Studies link 2,4-D exposure to reproduction problems, spontaneous abortions, birth
defects, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
13. Emerging issues in the wake of GM crop technology:
*Corporate control over seed industry and germplasm profits now drive breeding
decisions in the US, not problem-solving.
*Passive role of US government in dealing with herbicide resistance and the collateral
damage of HT crops.
*Erosion of investments in prevention-based IPM and farmer IPM skill sets.
*Rapidly growing reliance on systemic delivery of toxins seed treatments, insecticides, Bt
endotoxins that alter risk profiles.
14. Lack of independent research on GM traits and systems:
*GM seed technology agreements contain language to effect that This seed is for
commercial use by farmers growing crops, and may not be used for any research purpose
or to compare performance to other corn/soybean/cotton varieties.
Background to the new data
The new data is an update of Benbrooks previous reports of 2004 and 2009. The 2009
report found that herbicide use had increased 383 million pounds (173 million kgs) in first
13 years of GM crop use, due to herbicide-tolerant crops. A modest reduction in chemical
insecticide spray applications due to Bt crops (down 64.2 million pounds or 29.1 million
kg) was swamped by an overall increase in pesticide use of 318 million pounds (144
million kg).