Sparky and Bugsy, whether "subsistence" farmers can get value for GM crops will depend very much on the crop and how it is deployed. Small growers have obtained significant value out of Bt cotton in China, particularly by not poisoning themselves with pesticides. Smaller farmers have got less value in South Africa than larger farmers because of differences in the way the farming systems operate and differences in the costs of seed. For other products, it will depend very much on the value in the product, how well the farmers can deploy the product to achieve that value and the costs of doing so.

Bt crops should work much better in developing economies than they do in large western agriculture. There is much less of a need to deploy a refuge for resistance management purposes if the countryside is a mosaic of small fields with different crops, than if you have monoculture cotton like in the US. The patchwork of fields creates an in-built refuge where susceptible insects can survive in very close proximity to the Bt fields.

Farmers everywhere are by nature tinkerers and over time will find ways of making products work for them or will discard them. I suggest denying farmers access to the technology on the basis that they can’t be trusted to use it properly is an affront to the intelligence of farmers. Many farmers I work with have found innovative ways of using technology that were not what the providers of the technology originally intended.

Agronomist..... I agree with your comment that, by nature, farmers are 'tinkerers' and do develop ideas and practices way beyond the original intent of the technology. Without patenting of seeds, this was possible but with ownership now being held by another entity and the reality that, should the farmers tinker outside the Technical User Agreement, they will be sued for violating this contract as has happened in North America.

The Integrated Pest Management tactics used with GE cotton, were developed by Monsanto and, there have been significant learnings from the doing. However, there are also downsides with loss of habitat for certain species of bats which eat heliothosis moths... a natural form of pest control that has been jeopardised in favour of technology. There is an urgent need for a holistic assessment to understand all ecosystem connections, rather than the simplified concept of technology providing all the answers. Invariably, there are consequences and backlashes - the short term results can look spectacular but the longer-term results come at a cost.

I reiterate..... this is not a simple issue and nor ought it be treated in a black and white mentality.

bush goddess

The issue with loss of habitat of bats that are heliothis predators is a new one for me bush goddess, could you please provide a link to the journal that this appears in? I am very interested in this type of research.

It must be kept in mind that the User Agreement is probably necessary to protect certain types of GE technologies (eg Bt) from overuse and potential loss of effectiveness. It probably isn't necessary for other types of GE technology, such as tolerance for water stress or low nutrient soils etc.

A holistic view is certainly necessary, and I certainly believe farmers should have the opportunity to make up their own minds whether something is going to increase or decrease their risks. They are not stupid and probably have the greatest stake in all of this and should be allowed to choose whether to grow these crops or not instead of being dictated to by political lobby groups that are not always in line with the farmers interests.

What rubbish!
The only commercial GM crops grown are Herbicide tolerant(Ht) or Bt. (ISAAA:68%Ht,19%Bt and 13% both, both achieved by adding a soil bacteria gene to the DNA of a plant.
Herbicide tolerance is the same as our non-GM herbicide tolerant varieties (most of our non-GM canola is Non-GM Ht). The most popular trait is Roundup Ready which gives glyphosate resistance to the crop (an unwanted trait occurring naturally in weeds so obviously very easy to achieve by non-GM means).
Bt is about the plant (cotton or corn) producing its own Bt insecticide rather than farmers spraying.
It is nothing to do with using less chemical or minimum till benefits. We will use the same or even more chemical with Ht (which may explain why Monsanto and Bayer Cropscience and other chemical companies own GM patents).
If GM canola is introduced to Australia, it will be the first time a broadacre crop is commercially released in a country that recognises the patent but does not subsidise their farmers to compensate the increased costs and lower commodity prices. US and Canadian GM farmers are subsidised heavily and Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay do not recognise the patent.
No wheat is grown anywhere in the world because it would be industry sabotage... no market will accept GM wheat contamination.
Why the push? The R&D sector are receiving significant funding promises and deals, the governments want to pull out of R&D funding, the seed sector will make huge profits due to farmers losing the right to replant our own seeds... everyone is expecting to profit more but farmers will be the only sector to pay more as consumers do not want GM but some will pay less to eat it.
What an expensive scam!

Choice?
What choice is available to non-GM farmers?
We are expected to market as GM because we are expected to try to keep GM out of our crops (not the GM industry keeping it contained) and we are expected to pay when we fail to do so. It will be too difficult and too expensive to sell as non-GM.
Governments would be neglecting their duty of care if they allow GM. Will they be swayed by the dollar? Unfortunately, governments are also investors in the technology and plan on making money out of farmers and GM too.

Agronomist, my attitude towards farmers does appear a little condescending. That said it does stem from my microbiology training in the area of antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotic resistance is not dissimilar to pest/weed resistance arising from the use of GM crops. I believe that breakdowns in public health measures like doctors prescribing antibiotics for viral infections or frugal people not taking the full course of their antibacterial treatment results in increased resistance to these medications. For example if you’re a poor person in say India, and you might be given a 6 week course of antibiotics and yet you feel better after 3 weeks… there's a big temptation to save your pills for the next time you or someone else you know gets sick, on the surface it’s just common sense.

In the same way a farmer might not follow guidelines for GM crops if there’s a famine and the farmer can grow a bigger crop by not using a refuge (though the point Agronomist makes about neighbouring fields being refuges is interesting).

Don’t get me wrong, I really want the third world to have technologies like antibiotics and GM crops. I just don’t want the technologies to become redundant in 10 or 20 years. Admittedly the safeguards I propose are paternalistic and a bit arrogant, but I feel it’s a necessary evil.

On the other hand if someone has a better idea or sees a flaw in my reasoning I’m more than happy to hear it