Its very easy to spot bullshit when there is bullshit. The biggest clue is this article pretends to be an informative unbiased scientific article, but is full of wiggle words and obvious bias. There are also too many half truths and outright lies for me to start debunking this. But almost every statement was a little off. Saying Bt crops doesn't reduce insecticide use (it does), because it turns plants into insecticides is just a weird statement. What it does is express a protein that under basic environments can erode chitin. Whether that is an insecticide doesn't matter, but describing it in the scariest possible terms is dishonest. Just one example.
Anyways I have to talk to over a hundred farmers tomorrow and I won't be able to contribute much.
Well thanks for the head start, from both of you. Thank god for the comments sections eh?
Glad to see you pop up anyway David, last night I did some searching for GM threads in the forums here and saw some very good posts by you from a couple years back. Actually I was even thinking at the time, "shoot if I don't get any replies to this, I'll just maybe email this guy..." too bad you're busy, but it happens. But you know feel free to poke your head back in, no deadline on this, so take your time.
One thing I was wondering overall, is this technically not even a peer-view publication, I mean it's not in a journal after all right? It looks like the group just put it out there themselves, would that be a correct assessment?