People say that, but I've yet to see any evidence supporting it. Golden rice, for example - it's been available to subsistence farmers for ten years now but Syngenta hasn't even gotten it approved for commercial distribution yet. Meanwhile, farmers have bred 'stable crop varieties' for tens of thousands of years by selecting characteristics appropriate to the local microclimate... something that is explicitly forbidden with GMO crops. Meanwhile, what GMO provides so far is "more vitamin A" - be it through golden rice or magic bananas. Here's the hitch: a bowl of golden rice provides "60% of a child's daily vitamin A requirement." Roll back the numbers and you get 3000 IU of vitamin A in a serving of golden rice.

But in 100g of sweet potato you get 19,000 IU.

In 100g of carrots you get 17,000 IU.

In 100g of kale you get 13,000 IU.

In 100g of butternut squash you get 11,000 IU.

In 100g of mutherfucking romaine lettuce you get 8000 IU.

So on the one hand, we have "feed the malnourished of the world two bowls of golden rice a day." On the other hand, we have "feed them any goddamn vegetables they can grow." Meanwhile, someone growing butternut squash can save out their seeds and grow more butternut squash - probably on that 8x10 square of dirt they call home. "Golden rice?" Requires a rice paddy.

The problem becomes "we can solve the world's malnutrition problem through golden rice" instead of "holy shit our problems are as basic as providing nutritional education and a modicum of support for subsistence farming."

But Syngenta and Monsanto don't make any money from that.