In fact, many studies agree that both insect- and herbicide-resistant corn have improved yields, although there is some concern that this only happens when pest infestation is particularly high. Cotton is a bit more contentious. There is strong evidence that GM cotton has helped turn India from one of the world’s least fruitful cotton producers into one of its biggest exporters. Elsewhere, cotton has had mixed results, and even in India there have been problems — much like mosquitoes to malaria, harmful pests have been found to develop tolerances for their intended treatments. GM soybeans are by far the biggest disappointment yield-wise, and in some cases they’ve even led to yield losses. This is significant because soybeans are by far the most planted GM crop, and the rate of increase in global soybean acreage is rising faster than any other.

Again, none of this is to say that groups like the UCS and Friends of the Earth don’t make strong arguments that GM crops won’t assuage the global food crisis (and reporters should be as leery of reports [pdf] from pro-GM groups like the ISAAA as they are of those from Friends of the Earth [pdf]). Certainly, many news accounts have portrayed biotech’s ability to stem that crisis in a rather Pollyannaish fashion. The third and final article cited in the UCS’s press release was from Investor’s Business Daily in May, which reported in the nut graph:

Soaring world food prices appear to be chipping away at public and commercial objections to GM crops that sharply raise yields and slash growing costs for corn, wheat and other staples at a time when the biggest spike in commodities prices since the 1970s is driving up food prices worldwide.

The story gets more nuanced as it progresses, but it still makes it seem as though the next generation of drought-resistant, nitrogen-fixing, and nutrient-rich seeds is impending—a highly questionable conclusion. Of course, the press has also swung to the opposite extreme, dismissing the potential of new technologies wholesale.

The U.K.’s Independent did just that when covering a University of Kansas study [pdf] about how GM soybeans had caused yield losses in the U.S. The study was sturdy and newsworthy enough, but The Independent framed it with an egregiously exaggerated headline: “Exposed: the great GM crops myth.” Ironically, the paper swung back to the other side of the debate two months later when it covered a European Commission report on pest-resistant corn - the only GM crop approved in Europe. The short article made it seem like the corn equivocally produced higher yields despite the fact that the commission’s report clearly stated that, “The results of the analysis were mixed.”

Reporters (and editors) must be more precise about such details because a lot is at stake. As myriad articles about the politics of GM crops have observed, the U.S. is ardently promoting biotechnology as a “key to the solving the food crisis.” At the same time, other stories have noted that Europe, which has long opposed GM crops, is now grudgingly warming to them, as are China, Japan, and South Korea.

In early June, both the Associated Press and The New York Times covered Monsanto’s promise to double yields of GM corn, cotton and soybeans by 2030. The Times coverage was especially skeptical, making it clear the attainability of such goals is a “matter of debate.” The most detailed coverage of biotech’s current capabilities and future projects, however, is to be found in two long features from late June and early July. The first, headlined “All about the yield,” came from Canada’s The Globe and Mail, and second, headlined “A time to sow?” came from the U.K.’s Financial Times. Both articles unbundle the various crops and run through profiles of Monsanto and Syngenta, the world’s number one and two agricultural biotech companies respectively.

“And as we stand at the edge of the precipice of hunger once more, the world is again asking the men and women of the labs to perform their miracle,” the Toronto Star wisely noted in a recent lede. Nonetheless, a number of articles have quoted Martin Taylor, the chairman of Syngenta, conceding that, “GM won’t solve the food crisis, at least not in the short term.”

That said, Taylor and his cohorts are working hard on the next generation of drought- and salinity-resistant crops, as well as seeds specifically engineered to directly boost yields. But, of course, this leads to some obvious questions that reporters ought to be asking. Will Syngenta and its competitors share these GM crops? What will be the impacts on the environment, human health, and biodiversity? Even if we grow enough safe, sturdy mega-crops to feed the entire world, we will still have to deal with fundamental and ongoing problems of consumption, distribution, and trade policy.

A number of recent article about GM crops role in the food crisis have discussed the need for a second “Green Revolution.” The first pulled Mexico and India from the brink of famine in the 1940s and 1960s, respectively, by introducing higher yielding crops (achieved through conventional cross-breeding), fertilizers and pesticides. This time around, food experts hope for much of the same, but they’ve learned a few lessons from past experiences. In an editorial from early June, The Christian Science Monitor argued that:

A second green revolution would need to go beyond recent science in genetically modified seeds. Poor farmers often can’t afford the high prices charge by companies that own rights to these seeds… Despite advances in GM crops over the past decade, world crop yields have risen at about half the yearly rate since 1990 as they did during the two previous decades of the Green Revolution.