Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen got it wrong. There is more than enough evidence to prove that GM soy yields less than non-GM soy not more. The only trait that GM soy has is that the plant is resistant to glyphosate and spraying glyphosate reduces yield of the crop but kills the weeds.
This trait can be easily developed by non-GM means as it is an unwanted trait in our weeds. The reason for the influence on seeds is that Monsanto owns much of the patents involved in plant breeding and they are cutting confidential deals with the research sector to use these technologies free of charge in exchange for alliances.
GM is about making money out of farmers, not for farmers.

Um, what research did Mr. Christensen do to find that these GM soybeans increase yield? I attended a public debate November 7, in Honolulu, where a Monsanto representative was very clear in letting the audience know that GM foods did not increase yields; in fact, he said the yields from these crops made from bacteria and viruses are inconsistent. I don’t think this guy knows what he is talking about, and this publication looks really bad for printing the lies that he told. Doesn’t this paper have editors or fact checkers? The only real benefit to using GM seeds is that farmers don’t have to pay for manual labor to rid the crop area of weeds. They just spray poison on everything, and the gene altered crops survive while everything else that is green dies (Bt crops are worse in my opinion; regulated by EPA because they are considered pesticides, these crops have the insecticide built right in so you get to eat it because it cannot be washed off!). These poisoned soybeans, corn and canola eventually make their way to our dinner plates. The USDA had to approve an enormous increase in the allowable amount of the toxic herbicide glyphosate when RoundUp Ready crops were approved. Now these crops might be convenient for farmers, but what does it give us consumers? Poison soy. Delicious! Despite this misleading information, I agree that Monsanto is very influential. Probably because of its enormous campaign contributions and bribes! See the company’s own website about its dealings in Indonesia. The head of the division when the bribes there took place was none other than Hugh Grant, the company’s current CEO. What does that tell you about the ethics of this company? Also see the Washington Post article that explains how this company was accused of “outrage” for poisoning the town of Anniston and failing to reveal the dangers of PCBs to the residents for decades. They are paying for it now! I want THIS company in charge of our food supply! Brilliant! All hail Monsanto!

Whather or not Monsanto’s particular soybeans increase yield or not, their resistance to herbicide has the twin economic and environmental benefits of making no-till agriculture practical. The so-called “poison” that is normally used in place of cultivation to control weeds is generally glyphosate, manufactured by Monsanto and other companies. It works by shutting down photosynthesis and is harmless to anything but green plants that absorb it through their leaves.

The environmental benefit of no-till farming is that it drastically reduces soil erosion. The economic benefit is that it drastically reduces the energy required to plow millions of acres of farmland every year. That’s a lot more beneficial to the world than the products of some other prominent St. Louis manufacturers, such as beer.

Carey,

Talk about need to check the facts. You need to do a lot more checking into your facts. Soybeans that are made tolerant of glyphosate make the farmer much more money, and is much safer to the farmer and the environment than is the alternative chemicals they used to put on the soybeans. Why dont you ask farmers if they like putting on those dangerous insecticides on conventional corn. Obviously, you need an education in agriculture…and probably many other things.