It gives the impression that only some people project that more pesticides will be the result. But that's not so - the ability to freely apply pesticides is the whole point of this product. And it's also what makes the product sordid and controversial in the first place.
The sentence before the one I quoted is "But weeds are becoming more resistant to Roundup, so the industry is developing seeds that are tolerant to more herbicides."
Here's an example of a better and more professional way to follow that sentence in order to make reference to these concerns:
'This application of a larger volume of pesticides - including those designed to eliminate these newly Roundup-resistant plants, has caused concern among some environmentalists and weed scientists.'
So the difference? That structure follows directly from the rest of the article and doesn't leave any impression that there's controversy over whether there will be more pesticides.
I can't read the article, but is 'more herbicides' referring to a larger quantity of the existing herbicides or a greater variety of herbicides? If it's the latter, the author's sentence is fine. If it's the former, I agree that the redundancy is unhelpful.
Also, you should not bracket parenthetical statements with dissimilar punctuation marks.
The sentence before the one I quoted is "But weeds are becoming more resistant to Roundup, so the industry is developing seeds that are tolerant to more herbicides."
Here's an example of a better and more professional way to follow that sentence in order to make reference to these concerns:
'This application of a larger volume of pesticides - including those designed to eliminate these newly Roundup-resistant plants, has caused concern among some environmentalists and weed scientists.'
So the difference? That structure follows directly from the rest of the article and doesn't leave any impression that there's controversy over whether there will be more pesticides.