To date there is not a single crop on the market for increased yield, drought resistance, salt tolerance or enhanced nutrition.

In fact yield, or as you say ‘productivity’, stays the same or even goes down in GMO crops. It’s just cheaper to produce because labor costs decrease, not to mention government subsidies.

The most salient issue is ownership of the technology and the ability to patent seeds. I fail to see how increasing input costs and allowing private corporations to own seeds, prevent independent testing and seed saving will ever benefit anyone but the company.

If the corporations lose their patent rights you will see the immediate cessation of research. Which should be enough to understand motive in this industry. It is not and never has been for the betterment of humanity or, as the industry likes to promise, ‘feeding the hungry.’

I’m all for having a non-hysterical discussion. Let’s start with the Green Revolution, as we can make a reasonable argument that the GMO revolution is an extension of it (consolidation, subsidies, increased chemical use, etc..) Take away China with it’s government feeding programs and you will see that hunger worldwide, as a direct result of the consolidation and privatization of agricultural production under Green Revolution tenets–the vary same being touted by Gene Revolution backers–has increased dramatically both as a percentage and as a gross number.

So, you see why progressives often become apoplectic at the mention of these products. There is a long history of technological revolutions increasing hunger, starvation and death. As long as you understand that, in the current legal framework, when you argue for the development and production of genetically modified crops you are arguing for further consolidation, food price spikes and hunger, well, then, argue all you want as reasonably as you want.

Sure, research it in a laboratory. I have no problem with the research being done in a controlled environment in full public view. And having the seeds tested, independently, in full food safety studies.

We must evaluate “improvements” individually, as we need to do with any technological development. Just because its new doesn’t make it useful, nor does it predetermine morality. Just because its old doesn’t make it useless, nor does it insure sustainability.
As you said, we need to be wary that we don’t “…open the door to agricultural biotechnology companies who see the developing world as a playground for developing biofuels and who moralistically portray “ending hunger” as a cloak for making inroads into local seed and supply markets.”

As well, we need “more literacy in the methods, purposes, and history of agriculture and agricultural science.”

Those of us who engage in discussion and action (on the individual, local and global levels)must take this advice to heart. Again, thank you.

Especially this part: “No blanket endorsement or condemnation of biotechnology makes any sense at all.”

However, it seems that in groups of progressives it is impossible to stand there. If one expresses any suggestion at all that moving a gene is a good idea you have sold your soul to Monsauron. Even if you bring examples of worthy academic projects nobody wants to listen.

Further, it is clear that some of the countries that progressive activists want to “help” are developing their own biotech crops. But progressives don’t want to know that either.

Conversation is impossible. And I don’t know how to overcome that. In our current media landscape only shouting seems effective.

Hmmm. How to move forward with that?