I’m confused by the point you’re trying to make in the first paragraph of your response. In your original article you state “GMOs increases yield and decrease land use.” as a benefit of GMOs. If you claim they are a benefit, it would seem a counterclaim would be acceptable if the intent of your post is to stimulate discussion.
Your second paragraph makes a good point. The use of active ingredients needs to be normalized on a per area unit. The FAO report does that and supports my “naive” claim. Go to http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RP and play with the data yourself.
Your final paragraph demonstrates misunderstanding the point no doubt due to my poor writing skills. Although, you’re likening it to some kind of hompohobia appears to be an ad hominem attack. I in now way use “GMOs are banned” as an argument against GMOs. I merely use that to support my claim that if GMOs reduce use of pesticides and herbicides, one would expect the trend of use of those additives to go up in a geography that doesn’t allow GMOs when in fact, the FAO data indicates the opposite trend.