I don't have a problem with GM as a technology. I can see it could be useful. But I think it's a bit much for those promoting the current GM crops to cite feeding the world's poor as a valid reason for their products. After many years promising that the 'next generation' of GM crops would have advantages for consumers, nothing has appeared. All we have is products developed mainly for growing animal fodder in wealthy countries. The leftover oils and corn syrups (in the case of corn) are then used to pad out cheap junk foods for overfed people.

Why can't the large corporations that sell these GM seeds be honest enough to say that sales of their products are good for their shareholders. They get the double benefit of selling high-priced seeds with no possibility for seed-saving and then selling the farmers their brand of herbicides - without which the GM seeds are useless.

The land currently used for growing GM crops for animal fodder could be put to better use.

It's the blatant dishonesty with programs such as this that is really upsetting.

By the way, I notice perfectly delightful looking organic produce in my local shops and the stuff I grow myself (all organic) looks and tastes terrific.

Dr Rosemary Stanton

Great article by Greg Revell. GM food is basically about money for corporations and shareholders. The more the public knows about GM science, and the ruthlessness of the biotechnology industry, the more cynical it is about GM's value for the poor or the rich. With the billions of dollars the biotech companies have, if they were really concerned about the starving they would freight food immediately to the poor. For the above reasons people have loudly said they don't want GM food. Move on.

Greg, what a load of piffle. The ‘GM will feed the world myth’ is a strawman created by the likes of you, so you can take pot shots at it. No one in agriculture believes that GM cropping is the solution to feeding the world. It is one of the tools that can be used to assist food production.

GM is more than Monsanto. There are lots of other companies, both small and large participating in producing new agricultural traits. Much of the research is actually done by public sector scientists and products from this stream, such as virus-resistant papaya that saved the Hawaiian papaya industry, have already been marketed. New traits like nitrogen use efficiency (from Arcadia) and water use efficiency (from a host of companies) are being moved towards the market.

As for “a harmonic resonance with natural systems” that is just woo, indulged in by well-fed westerners. By telling third world farmers what they can and cannot do based on such nonsense, people like you will contribute to a lessening of the ability of third world farmers to feed themselves.

Farmers are not ignorant peasants. They are astute operators and know what works and what doesn’t work. The fact that 13.3 million farmers last year chose to grow a crop with a GM trait shows that these crops work for those farmers. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/39/executivesummary/default.html The majority of these farmers were in developing countries. Farmers growing these crops made an extra $10.1 billion in income in 2007 http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/2009globalimpactstudy.pdf with 58% of that income made by farmers in developing economies. What is there not to like?

GM technology is not the only solution, nor is the solution for every problem. It is, however, the best solution for a small number of intractable problems.

Thanks so much for the article Greg and a timely warning on this silent killer in view of the latest scientific research. Of course, we shall have the usual irresponsible humans claiming genetically modified food impacts, on human health and the environment, are benign. They really should get out and about more:

“I'm not even aware of laboratory tests that give rise to any real concern”

“As far as GM is concerned you do not cite any proof of any problems other than your agri-business scare mongering”

Now where’s “Agronomist?” He should be along shortly.

I would suggest to anyone concerned about GM crops to take their advice from those qualified researchers who have extensive knowledge on this issue:

2009 publications:

1. “Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research:”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?sq=genetically%20modified&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1235152808-/fyg4CWoN20nMNI9G0DNGg

2. “Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells. All R (Roundup) formulations cause total cell death within 24 h, through an inhibition of the mitochondrial succinate dehydrogenase activity, and necrosis, by release of cytosolic adenylate kinase measuring membrane damage. They also induce apoptosis via activation of enzymatic caspases 3/7 activity:”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19105591?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

3. “These risks are even less acceptable when one takes into account the fact that once released into the environment, genetic mistakes/pollution cannot be recalled, cleaned up or allowed to decay like agrochemicals or a BSE epidemic, but will be passed on to all future generations indefinitely:”

http://www.psrast.org/mianbree.htm

4. And yet again: "Glyphosate, the herbicide used on soybeans in Argentina, causes malformations in amphibian embryos, say scientists here who revealed the findings of a study that has not yet been published.

"The observed deformations are consistent and systematic," Professor Andrés Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires medical school and lead researcher on the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET)"

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46516

5. 2007 publication:

"On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the ‘doomsday seed bank:"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529

To 'Agronomist': what about the high incidence of suicide among Indian farmers disillusioned by their GM crops' performance and financial returns? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

In the west it is well known that the vast majority of consumers do not want GM food. It is our right and not to be questioned by scientists or governments. We don't have to justify why we do not want it. That is our business. Yet it has entered our food supply by the stealth, dogged persistence and, I'd say, underhandedness of biotechnology companies and government.

What other food has been foisted on us against our repeatedly stated wishes to avoid it? If 'Agronomist' doesn't get it, ie, why we don't want it, that's not our concern. But our wishes should be respected, not circumvented by every possible means so that we are consuming GM without our knowledge.

Protagoras. I followed up your first three of the links which you presented as "proof" of the adverse effects of GM foods. The first one is about scientists complaining that they haven't been given the funding for full testing. Whether that is true or not I don't know, but a way to interpretate that is 'we want to be allowed to keep looking until we find something wrong'. In other words they haven't found anything yet. No proof there.
The second one related to herbicides not GM foods. The third one involves a scientist talking about matters of principle in the opposition to GM foods.
Should I bother with the rest? These links really illustrate the politicisation of the scientific debate in recent years as well as demonstrating the complete lack of evidence against GM foods.
As for the costs-benefits of GM that's really a matter for farmers.