GM food, being a controversial topic, used to hit the headlines as often as IT and other hit issues before the Iraqi war. More often than not, the controversy revolves about should the world adopt GM food or crops as the future staple food. Many of the opposition have contended that this should not be sanctions due to the potential risk involved in consumption etc. Personally, I am more or less inclined with this opinion too.
The most commonly cited argument to favour the cultivation of GM food is that this engenders greater profit for the farmer and may have the potential to redress the pertinent food shortage problem haunting the world. This is vital in the world in view of the statistics which spelt out in black and white that the majority of the world residents live in Third World nations and the world's most popular' occupation is being a farmer. In the case of Bt Corn which can produce its own insecticide, it saved the farmers the scarce resources they possess and increases yield by reducing the damages incurred by pests. Profits will, thus, be boosted. For Flavr Savr tomatoes, they are engineered to be more succulent than "traditional" tomatoes, thus it may have and edge over the latter and increase its sale. The surplus, increased by the advanced production methods, will be able to alleviate the food shortage in Third World nations.
However, I have some reservation over the above stated points. When we consider the demographic structure of the world, the overall increase in population rate is constantly decreasing. If this falls behind the increment of food production, slight inflation may occur. In a similar fashion, large abundance of food in market may devalue itself. Seen in this light, more production must not be taken equitably as more profit. Furthermore, I believe that there are enough food to supply to all nations. The crux is about distribution of food. Most of the poverty-ridden nations are plagued by corruption too.