GM food on the menu

Sorry, but this is pretty poorly researched. First, Séralini's work was widely criticized (it was dismissed by the EFSA, FSANZ, and the French High Council for Biotechnology), and I know of no real scientists who cite it as evidence for the danger of genetic engineering. The evidence he is citing is suspect at best, and you must also consider the hundreds of other studies by thousands of scientists around the world that find no health problems with genetically engineered crops (for further research you can find many such references on a site called Biofortified). Picking out two people among thousands is just false balance. Also, it is very strange that he is worried about pesticides in plants. As anyone with basic knowledge of plant physiology will quickly tell you, plants produce a wide variety of insecticidal metabolites naturally. If you eat plants, they made their own pesticides, it doesn't matter if they're genetically engineered or not, and in the case of the genetically engineered ones, we understand the compound used (the cry proteins) quite well and they are treated by the human body (and the bodies of all mammals) no differently than any other protein. It is a very specific agent. Speaking of specific agents, no one has ever been able to point out a single thing in GE crops that is not supposed to be there. If they're so dangerous, it seems like specifically saying why would be the way to prove that claim, rather than just twisting numbers and making non-falsifiable claims.

About the issues in Argentina, first off, this says nothing about genetic engineering in general, just this one specific type. Second, I imagine the same thing would happen with any other spray. Also, before anything can be said, there needs to be some solid fact on the case, not just anecdotes.

The bit about Malawi however doesn't even seem to be about genetic engineering. Although all commercially sold GE seed is also hybrid seed, there is a big difference between hybrid seed and GE seed. While I have no doubt that genetic engineering can, and indeed does, help poor farmers (in countries where they are free to make that choice anyway), you really can't use that as an argument for the use of genetic engineering. Golden Rice or BioCassava, or perhaps Brazil's newly approved golden mosaic virus resistant beans, would have been better examples. Genetically engineered seed, by the way, does not necessarily need to be re-purchased every year (although there may be license fees on GE seed, which of course is a legal/economic issue not a scientific one, and as I recall Monsanto waives the fee for those in developing nations who make under a certain amount per year). Hybrid seed does. Again, thought they are commonly found together, they are very different, and should not be mistaken. Hybrid seed is genetically modified of course, as is just about all food humans eat (some crops, like wheat, corn, strawberries, tangerines, and cauliflower didn't even exist before human altered their genes, and many others are very far removed from their wild ancestors), but not genetically engineered, and while they both alter the genetics (ironically, traditional breeding it could be argued is much more unpredictable than modern biotechnology and is much more likely to produce undesirable effects, although strangely no one demands it be labeled or banned), they are nonetheless different. As for the merit of hybrid seed, it does come the cost of being unsuitable for replanting, but that is a cost that most all farmers who have access to hybrid seed agree to be worth it, which is why hybrid seed has been so ubiquitous for so many decades.