Sir; Professor CS Prakash makes strong assertions about the honesty of critics of biotechnology, as well as a variety of claims about the benefits of GM and its role in poverty alleviation (GM: technology will help the poor, The Grocer, March 2). Professor Prakash is an unapologetic cheerleader for GM technology. But even discounting his facetious suggestion that we all eat less meat and that Iowa farmers give their crops away, there is little in his letter that merits serious consideration. His claims that developing either GM crops or export markets will help reduce hunger, or lead to increased prosperity in the rural sector are misleading. The crisis in Argentina illustrates the unjust reality: in 2001 Argentina produced enough wheat to meet the needs of both India and China. Yet neither Argentina's productivity nor its status as the second largest producer of GM crops ­ largely for export ­ did anything to solve its very real hunger problem at home. More examples can be found the world over: in 2000 in India, which accounts for more than a third of the world's hungry, more than 50 million tonnes of grain rotted in silos. In Thailand nearly 43% of the rural population lives below the poverty line, even though agricultural exports grew 65% between 1985 and 1995. Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, the Philippines, all suffered an increase in rural poverty and hunger despite abundant yields and participation in the global commodity trade. The truth is that faith in increasing agricultural intensity ­ like GM ­ and the global marketplace will result in a race to the bottom for poor farmers around the world. The only real solution to poverty and hunger is low input, low cost, sophisticated knowledge-based agriculture. It is based on a process and not a product, which has no price on the global market. Charlie Kronick Chief policy advisor and GM campaign team Greenpeace London {{LETTERS }}