Today's Guardian says that: "Genetically modified crops will not help the developing world." It argues that the move from inefficient, subsistence farming, to more efficient, science-improved farming, would mean that lots of people would lose their jobs.

Let's look frankly at subsistence farming. Has any population, anywhere in the world, become rich as a result of subsistence farming? The answer is no. Subsistence farming, backed by laws that prevent a population from moving up into other industries, ensures that a population stays poor. Some might well like us to subsidise this by transfer payments from the West, or by buying "fair trade". But this has a limited effect, and is hardly sustainable development. Why not instead let people develop into producing products that bring a better return?

The problem with the Guardian's analysis is that it is static. It only looks at one stage. But real life is not static: it is dynamic. Yes, the numbers of people doing farming will decrease. But, as long as countries allow a free-market, the people will move into better paid jobs. They have done wherever the market has been allowed to exist.