My solution: give them fish and fruits and vegetables.

Please, go ahead. Oh. wait. you're not actually going to *do* that. you'd just like to.

I can just imagine you sitting on a balcony watching starving people: "they don't have bread? Let them eat cake"

Yes that would be a nice solution for everyone in the world to get a mixed and balanced diet.

But your lot have been too incompetent to pull that off for the last century.
You've been failing hard and other people have been suffering for your failure.

If you're even a half way decent human being don't stand in the way of other trying to solve a problem hurting hundreds of thousands of people when you can't solve it yourself.

no. it isn't.

you've been lied to.

There was a famous case where a farmer in such a position sprayed his crops with roundup to select the ones which had picked up the roundup resistant gene then grew his next crop from those that survived thinking he was being really smart and pulling one over on monsanto. The courts threw the book at him for taking the piss and sided with monsanto.

Farmers who by pure chance end up with a few plants with monsantos crops genes are fine. You tend to hear half the story on sites like naturalnews.

You only care about people in your own country?
You sound like a *lovely* person.

http://www.goldenrice.org/Content4-Info/info.php

"In developing countries 500,000 people, mainly children, become blind every year, 50% of whom die within a year of becoming blind. Nearly nine million children die of malnutrion every year. Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) severely affects their immune system, hence it is involved in many of these children's deaths in the guise of multiple diseases."

"The major micronutrient deficiencies in the world are iron, zinc, and vitamin A. VAD is prevalent among the poor who depend mainly on rice for their daily energy uptake, because rice grains do not contain any Î-carotene (provitamin A), which our body could in turn convert into vitamin A. Dependence on rice as the predominant food source, therefore, necessarily leads to VAD, which has the most severe effects on children and pregnant women. For the 400 million rice-consuming poor the medical consequences are severe: impaired vision, all the way to irreversible blindness, impaired epithelial integrity, exposing the affected individuals to infections, reduced immune response, impaired haematopoiesis (blood cell formation) and impaired skeletal growth, among other debilitating afflictions. Rice containing provitamin A could substantially alleviate the problem."

your point?

in most countries there's some way that the government can nerf specific copyrights and patents if it really wants to as well.

compulsory mechanical license is a thing in a lot of countries too for certain types of copyright

http://www.equities.com/news/materials/2013-04-24/1322655/patent-issued-for-pepper-hybrid.story

No. really no.

the meaning I gave is the meaning used in plant breeding. Hybrid wheat doesn't have to be sterile.

What are you talking about?

GM crops are no more tendency to spontaneous horizontal transfer than any other crops.

>let genes hop all around to other usefull plants or other food plants.

You mean some humans carefully select a section of DNA, study it in detail and then insert it into something else.

Gene food?

it's exactly as much their right as the right to be free from crops which have been "polluted" by breeding for specific traits.

Sure, you could engineer an animal who's every breath is agony.
But that's not a disaster.

There's a difference between a disaster and a merely poor outcome.

No

  The offspring of genetically dissimilar parents or stock, especially the offspring produced by breeding plants or animals of different varieties, species, or races.

There's no requirement that it be sterile.
You can create a hybrid of 2 strains of crop which each have traits you like. Killer bees were hybrids of african honey bees and domestic honey bees.

no. no they're not.

http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/plantVarieties/plantbreedersRights/

Plant Breeders' Rights offers legal protection for the investment plant breeders make in breeding and developing new varieties. This service is open to breeders of any species of plant; agricultural, horticultural and ornamental.

Breeders can choose whether or not to apply for plant breeders' rights, which enable them to charge royalties for protected varieties. Royalties provide a means for breeding companies to fund their work.

http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/get-the-right-ip/plant-breeders-rights/

A PBR is legally enforceable and gives you, the owner, exclusive rights to commercially use it, sell it, direct the production, sale and distribution of it, and receive royalties from the sale of plants.

100 years?

You realise you're in the same camp as the crazy anti wifi people now right?

we also don't have 100 years data on computers, cell phones, wifi, plastics, (most)vaccines, antibiotics or , well anything else developed since World War 1.

We already have decades of data and pretty much all of it is saying it's fine.

nah, people start complaining as soon as the research starts. You're familiar with the anti GMO protesters attacking test/research sites.

So you're not measuring from when the first GMO plants were developed and testing started but rather from when they went mass market?

Well a few fairly relevant criticism:

No food intake data is provided or growth data. This strain of rat is very prone to mammary tumours particularly when food intake is not restricted. - Prof Tom Sanders, Head of the Nutritional Sciences Research Division, Kingâ(TM)s College London

ie, if you feed one group of these rats LOTS of GM corn and another group a moderate amount of normal corn you'll get results like this.
it also works if you reverse the types of corn.

'All data cannot be shown in one report and the most relevant are described hereâ(TM) â" this is a quote from the paper.

If I flip a coin 100 times and only tell you about half of the results I can very easily show that coins always come up heads.

I make the point because it places a cap on the risk. something which has been happening constantly for billions of years is less of a worry.

You could say the same about regular old breeding. We breed traits into animals which would normally have taken hundreds of thousands of years to evolve.

They could evolve anyway but conscious selection speeds the whole thing up by orders of magnitude.