The first link promises healthier GMOs in the future. That promise has been around for as long as GMOs have been invented. What's the point of this particular example, the tomato with higher amount of anti-oxidants? I miss the usefulness of it. Why not eat vegetables and fruit which have naturally higher amount of anti-oxidants? The same was being pushed with Golden rice, modified to produce Vitamin A. Why not grow carrots which already have Vitamin A? Useless crops like these are the strongest proof that biotech giants aim is to replace all already existing useful crops with their own patented version.

GM has yet to produce something new and useful. So far there are two types of GMOs being commercialised, pesticide resistant and insecticide producing. This is creating new generations of "super weeds" and insects that are adapting and building resistance to toxins.

The second link claims that GMOs will feed the world as if there isn't enough food to feed the world with regular crops. Hunger is a problem of logistics and political will, not lack of food. The UN has concluded that small eco-farming is the way to feed the world. The whole idea that poor farmers would be better off with a GM seed, which they must pay royalties for and can't save the seed of, is irresponsible to say the least.

The third link claims that the debate over the safety of GMOs is over. I find this extremely deceitful since genetic modification is a technology in its relative infancy and 99.99% of GMOs are still to be invented, no one can possibly claim (and prove) safety of something which has yet to exist. Safety must be accessed on an individual basis.

Personally, I find the patenting and privatisation of living, self-replicating organisms troubling. The genetic pool that evolved over millions of years should belong to everyone and not to a handful of super rich, monopolistic, greedy multinationals. I think we're on for troubled times if we allow a few corporations, with the driving goal of making profit, to control most of our food supply.

As for soil fertility degradation, like you mention, it's very cunning that GM is offered as an answer to fix an issue that is exacerbated by itself in the form of intensive mono-cropping. There are soil regeneration practices such as Permaculture, which should be given more credit and research if we're serious about fixing the depletion problem instead of unsustainable trying to patch the symptoms.

I feel quite strongly that (wilfully) the bio-tech industry and its supporters (naively) miss the bigger picture. The agricultural environmental catastrophe started thousands of years ago with the mass burning of forests to plant annual crops. It was fine then but it's obvious now that modern intensive agriculture is not sustainable. The kind of mindset responsible for this believes that nature must be beaten into fitting the human needs. Until we take a step back, to look at the whole, to understand how soil and sustainable fertility works and come up with a balanced eco-system that produces food for human consumption, no amount of genetic manipulation will fix the core issue... the way of thinking.