There is one big reason, I oppose G.M.O. Food: They are "patented life". Big corporations take life forms and make them patent-able and this way they make that that once belonged to all their "intellectual property".
And don't forget one thing: GMO might help to stop hunger in some regions, but in the current state of it, it does not. Many farmers in poor regions where lured into the GMO trap, just to find out one or two years later, that the proposed additional productivity of the crops did not make up for the additional costs of the fact that they had to buy the crops (and in case of Roundup, the glyphosate) from big corporations, which before they could take from their own harvest.
Seems a bit patronizing to assume that farmers will buy a product that does not work, then continue to do so after it had proven that it yields no advantage. If it were the case that the advantage lasts only two years, then nobody will buy the product on the fourth year.
Lastly the "patented life" argument is incorrectly attributed to GMOs. First proponent of patents in this field was no other than Luther Burbank (1849-1926), a pioneer in agricultural science. He had spent the better part of his life arguing for a means to protect his achievements. Finally the Plant Patent Act was passed in 1930, some years before his death. As it stands now "life was patented" for 85 years already, while the first GMO appeared in 1994 only.
Not at all. We speak of farmers of third world countries, where many barely can read and write and are not schooled in economics or corporation trickery.
> which before they could take from their own harvest.
Could. But didn't. There are many advantages to buying your seed even without the patent debate. Patented crops have been so successful in the marketplace because they have no real impact on farming operations.
This is like opposing software because it is "copyrighted generally useful technical information". You should rather oppose patentability of life, or advocate for a hack analogous to copyleft, than oppose the technology.
And don't forget one thing: GMO might help to stop hunger in some regions, but in the current state of it, it does not. Many farmers in poor regions where lured into the GMO trap, just to find out one or two years later, that the proposed additional productivity of the crops did not make up for the additional costs of the fact that they had to buy the crops (and in case of Roundup, the glyphosate) from big corporations, which before they could take from their own harvest.