Once upon a time, environmentalists embraced biotechnology as key way to reduce pesticide use. Rachel Carson, author of "Silent Spring", was a fan of genetic engineering. That was before we all learned that environmental groups are only 'for' something if it means they can raise money being against something. Biotech was great - until it was real. Then they hated it. Along with hydroelectric power and natural gas, and how they will want to tear down solar energy, once it stops being a government gimmick.

Genetic engineering has caused pesticides per calorie to plummet, in sharp contrast to old organic products, which looked so bad by comparison that the state of California stopped having organic farmers report pesticide applications. They were shown to be using up to 600% more chemicals per calorie before they were told by Democrats to stop sending them the data.

Seed treatments like neonicotinoids, which protect plants from pests at their most vulnerable stages and mean less spraying that harms bees and aquatic wildlife, like organic copper sulfate harms those, have meant another leap in sustainability.



DNA metabarcoding could give farming another boost. It can tell farmers which insects are the problem, allowing them to be even more targeted in their mitigation approach. The experiments used avocado flowers at orchards in Australia and they were able to extract the DNA - they could literally tell if a bee or something else had been there, an approach they say is 500% better than trying to use a camera.

Will Greenpeace and Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network protest eDNA? Of course, being in opposition to science is where they get revenue of $3 billion per year. But farmers and intelligent policymakers should ignore them.