Summary
Introduction: After giving a general survey on the strategy of the debate on GM crops worldwide (1.1), illusions and realities on the education on educational effects on the debate are discussed, (1.2). The role of the internet is often underestimated (1.3), and the same counts for the influence of the economy on the debate and public perception (1.4.).
Regulation: The dialogue on regulation of GM crops is a complex set of issues (2.1.). The role of peer reviewed literature needs careful consideration and more appreciation (2.2). A crucial element in this debate is the often over-estimated difference between GM and non-GM crops (2.3.). The exorbitant and unjustified costs and lost benefits of over-regulation and the reasons behind are discussed. Biofortification is one of the most efficient and sustainable ways of foreign aid today (2.4.) The example of the Golden Rice regulation demonstrates an unfortunate follow-up of regulatory misconceptions (2.5.).
Communication and Debate: The dispute between scientists and opponents is unfortunately often dominated by cheap propaganda of the protest corporations for commercial reasons (3.1.). The use of strong language in this debate is discussed in detail with recent and historical examples (3.2.). As a rule negative statements on GM crops do (or should) not pass peer review, with some notable examples discussed (3.3.).
Debate improvements: Some proposals are given on how to solve these complex problems stemming from low acceptability – the example of the ASK-FORCE organization as one of the solutions (4.1.). There is also a need for a long term discourse organized along the strategy and thinking of the Systems Approach (4.2.) by using internetworking in a creative way.
(The next contribution: Improvement of research, development and production) Introduction to the way forward in regulation, development and production of GM crops (5.1.). New look at regulation of GM crops: Revision of the Biosafety Protocol (5.2.). Proposal of new collaborative development schemes under the focus of feeding the world (5.3.). Proposal on how to reorganize agricultural and food production related agencies of the United Nations (5.4.).

1. Introduction
1.1. The general strategic situation of the debate about green biotechnology today
The aim of this text is to set the framework for a better communication about science and regulation and production of GM crops. GM stands for Genetic Modification, basically an unfortunate denomination, because actually all crops are genetically modified, but it is a worldwide accepted term for genetically engineered crops, including transgenes, auto- and allotransgenics, cis- and infra-genes and synthetic genes, for details see Beardmore (Beardmore, 1997). By including gene stacking of various kinds the situation is getting even more complex (Taverniers et al., 2008)

The strategic situation in the debate on GM crops is difficult, but not desperate, particularly in Europe – this is an evaluation shared by lots of experts of the debate about agricultural biotechnology, in Europe it is negatively affecting research and researchers (Rauschen, 2009). We have reached in Europe the peak of anxiety related to GM-crops since the introduction of the new technologies, and some opponents to transgenic crops have taken advantage of this situation. They have organized themselves in a veritable protest industry, see chapter 3. Nevertheless, the next years should lead to reassurance on biotechnology views. We encounter the same repeating dynamics as described for previous technology introductions (Showalter, 1997). The Gartner Hype Cycle (Linden & Fenn, 2003) adds another dimension to technology life cycle models: it characterizes the typical progression of an emerging technology from user and media over-enthusiasm through a period of disillusionment to an eventual understanding of the technology’s relevance and role in a market or domain. It is interesting to note, that the Showalter ‘hystories’ on the introduction of most new technologies (Showalter, 1997) report no real damage in their subsequent introductory phase – or – the benefits were so overwhelming that the debate was soon fading away. This alone demonstrates clearly that it is the socio-cultural environment strongly influencing the risk debate (Adams, 1995). The most recent events seem to hint that Europe finally finds to a more de-contracted way of looking at GM crops: The new report of the Royal Society (Royal-Society, 2009) tries to unite conventional and biotechnology approaches for the sake of making progress on agricultural management in developing countries:Royal Society Report:

“Past debates about agricultural technology have tended to involve different parties arguing for either advanced biotechnology including GM, improved conventional agricultural practice or low-input methods. We do not consider that these approaches are mutually exclusive: improvements to all systems require high-quality science. Global food insecurity is the product of a set of interrelated local problems of food production and consumption. The diversity of these problems needs to be reflected in the diversity of scientific approaches used to tackle them. Rather than focusing on particular scientific tools and techniques, the approaches should be evaluated in terms of their outcomes.”

It might well be that we arrive sooner than expected from a period of disillusionment to an eventual understanding of the technology’s relevance and role in a market or domain.

more text and all literature citations: http://www.ask-force.org/web/ASK-FORCE-Strategy/ASK-FORCE-Strategy-20100610-web.pdf
feedback to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), on special request I will send for private use only an open source version of the full text