This is going nowhere - you're being deliberately obtuse, clearly don't know what you're talking about, and I think the comments so far stand for themselves. Last post, because there are some points I have to answer.

> That is, you're using "facts" to mislead in very much the same way that Monsanto does. What's your affiliation with them or related companies?

I have no affiliation with Monsanto or any related company. I've never, to my knowledge, met or corresponded with anyone who works for them. I've very deliberately avoided doing so because I want to remain impartial in my role as a plant scientist. My research is funded by the Millennium Seed Bank, a conservation organisation.

>...you are flailing about between arguments...you are arguing both sides...

I'm just presenting the facts, there are no sides, there is just the simple fact that the total rate of herbicide resistance has decreased. If you're incapable of seeing that it is possible for all the things I've said to be true then I don't know what to suggest.

>what happens when we have herbicide-resistant GMOs for every herbicide in significant use?

Then we need to use less herbicide to achieve the same effect, because we can apply it directly to the crop after planting, killing the emerged weeds. With other herbicides, they have to be applied pre-emergence, sterilising the soil, which requires larger doses. Secondarily, there's no way we will have GMOs resistant to every herbicide that are currently in significant use because many of the older, more harmful ones will soon be illegal.

>You keep calling it safe but, as is often the case with chemicals meant to kill, the independent research is calling these safety claims into serious question.

I'm calling it safe relative to other herbicides. To feed everyone, herbicides have to be used. These chemicals are meant to kill plants, although some of the older ones has non-specific modes of action that might also harm animals. Glyphosate in particular targets a protein, ESPS synthase, that only exists in plants and microorganisms. It's been extensively tested and, you are wrong, there is not research calling the safety claims into question - the safety rating of glyphosate accurately reflects the state of knowledge. If you're seriously interested, just read the literature. Everything you're saying just demonstrates that you're not taking your information from the literature. A good start is the GENERA database of independently-funded studies on GMOs[0].

>The result is that we just don't know when we've reached a tipping point until it's too late.

This is true for absolutely anything. Wearing clothes, watching TV, fluorescent lighting, using a toilet, eating organic food, eating GMOs, and so on. We have to use short-term studies to infer safety.

>It boggles my mind when scientists, of all people, show little regard for the complexity of the human organism and make such cavalier statements about the safety of consuming chemicals that are intended to kill.

Nothing is more important to me than human wellbeing. It's what I've dedicated my life to, for very low pay, and I work incredibly hard to a) develop the technology to allow us to alleviate hunger and b) maintain a thorough understanding of the working of the agricultural system and its implications. The reason your mind seems to be boggled is because you're leaping to conclusions without understanding the system you're talking about.

I'm out.

0. http://www.biofortified.org/genera/guide/