[dropcapW[/dropcap]hen genetically modified (GM) crops were initially commercialized in the mid to late 1990s, many critics of the new technology predicted the benefits would be minimal and short-lived. These critics argued the financial benefits to farmers would be offset by higher seed costs, resulting in farmers returning to previous technologies that were more profitable at the time. Arguments were also made that GM crops would ‘pollute’ landscapes, resulting in significant environmental damage, a rise in herbicide tolerant weeds, and an increase in chemical applications to control such weeds.
Such arguments were put forth by environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) and over time, have proven to be fallacies, not grounded in empirical evidence. Previous research based on 2006 herbicide use, found the adoption of GM canola contributed to reduced herbicide use. In a recent survey of Saskatchewan farmers, we found evidence quantifying that the longer GM crops are included in crop rotations, less herbicide is applied to fields to control weeds during crop production.
