What a load...
It should be
"In these particular, comparative conditions, these particular genetically manipulated cultivars of soy seem to produce less yield than other cultivars that have been produced via artificial selection.".
It's a logical fallacy to assume that the results of this study are applicable to all plants in all conditions. In fact, they aren't even applicable to the single species used in the study (soy). The fact that some GM plant produces less in some conditions than a "normal" version of the species proves just that, else is speculation and handwavium.
Even if we would assume that the results would be applicable to all cultivars of soy and all the genetic manipulations that are possible to make, it would still be a huge stretch to assume that the same holds true for all other species of plants.
Even if we would assume that the results would be applicable to all plants - that GM automatically makes inferior plants than those resulting from natural or artificial selection, it would be a huge stretch to assume that all world is Kansas (there are other kinds of weather conditions around the world, you know...) and same factors would define the yield everywhere.
Even assuming all this (with little basis on reality), there are still the other advantages of genetically manipulated plants than absolute amount of yield. We need to remember that famine is almost always caused by catastrophic loss of crops, mostly due to drought, sometimes due to diseases, frost, pests or peasants. If genetically manipulated plant can survive through longer bouts of time with little water, or is resistant to diseases or pests, it will produce N amount of yield when the vulnerable cultivars of same plant die and produce very little yield. So the situation is not so straightforward as to compare the absolute yields in ideal conditions.
Make no mistake though, I'm not particularly for or against genetical manipulations. They have a lot of potential and the theoretical basis is good, but on the other hand I'm rather wary of genetical manipulations of plants that can reproduce/spread through cloning. We really don't want something going wrong and having the plant equivalent of the killer bee on our hands spreading through the world. The risk of that is relatively small and the analogy is not really very good since the killer bee is a result of artificial selection (cross-breed of European honey bee and African bee), but it gets the point across.
I just get really mad when the some blithering ignoramus gets to spread their ravings in media...
EDIT:
The GM crop – engineered to resist Monsanto's own weedkiller, Roundup – recovered only when he added extra manganese, leading to suggestions that the modification hindered the crop's take-up of the essential element from the soil. Even with the addition it brought the GM soya's yield to equal that of the conventional one, rather than surpassing it.
Whate does this prove
other than this particular genetic manipulation is not very thoroughly thought out? It proves that this crappily made manipulation has a side effect affecting the plant's ability to teaky-up manganese from soil.
This is like opening television and seeing that there's just Survivors going on, and assumign that therefore all stuff in television is crap.
...oh wait.
Well, there's still BSG...
