I will say that I am by no means an expert in regards to genetically engineered food versus 'natural organic' food. But I find your claim to be highly suspect. The best example of GMO I know of follows this pattern: invent a highly effective pesticide, oh noez it kills the plant as well, genetically modify the plant to resist the pesticide, now you can use highly effective pesticide without killing the crop. This means that the genetically modified crop is able to be used concurrently with a highly effective pesticide, the organic crop that hasn't been genetically modified cannot be used with that pesticide because it will kill it, and due to using less effective pesticides the natural organic crop is going to get eaten by pests. This means that by using the genetically engineered crop, you can produce more food. Now when everybody starts using this genetically modified crop, there is going to be a significant increase in the amount of food available, and starvation is going to go down and food prices are going to go down due to supply and demand economics. Now I do know that the genetic engineering corporations do lock farmers into needing to purchase seeds from them for every cycle, and that is more a debate regarding property rights than it is a debate about the benefits of genetically modified foods. Also, genetic engineering does mimic human controlled selection, in my view it is like an increased speed natural selection. Instead of the farmers using the pesticide on the 'organic' crops and having them all die save for a few, and then breeding the few survivors, for many cycles until they coerce the crops to be naturally resistant to the pesticide, they cut to the chase with genetic engineering. Also it is not just creating plants that are immune to certain effective pesticides, they also engineer them to produce more. And again it is just enhanced natural selection, rather than getting the end result of higher yields by the farmers interfering with natural selection in an attempt to coerce certain desirable properties over many generations, they directly interfere with the genetics of the plant or of the salmon or whatever to get the desired result immediately and precisely. Human controlled selection is indeed genetic engineering, it just isn't the most efficient route. If I have a population of organisms and I select which ones are allowed to breed based on characteristics I find desirable, I am in effect changing the genetic make up of future generations of the organism to be more similar to what I desire. This is a time consuming process though, and it is more efficient and precise if I directly genetically modify the organisms to be how I desire, rather than try to indirectly change their genetic makeup via controlling the mating / reproduction.