The study at the University of Nebraska has found that genetically modified (GM) soya actually produces less food than conventional crops, handing a timely weapon to the Prince of Wales in his argument with his sister and father.

And though it predictably denounced the research, Monsanto-which produced the GM soya-added further strength to the Prince's elbow by admitting that its own studies showed that the modified plants produced about the same amount as traditional varieties.

According to UK-based environment correspondent Geoffrey Lean, the university's research and Monsanto's admission severely undermine claims by biotechnology firms and pro-GM scientists that genetic engineering is needed to feed the world's growing population.

Prince Charles has long taken issue with these claims and in his Reith lecture last month repeated his conviction that "improving traditional systems of agriculture, which have stood the test of time", offered the best chance of beating hunger.

Princess Anne publicly contradicted him last week and the Duke of Edinburgh also backed GM technology.

As the royals clashed, Dr Roger Elmore, of Nebraska University's Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, was looking over the results of his research into how well GM soya-which now makes up most of the US crop- actually performs.

Dr Roger Elmore and his team grew five different Monsanto soya plants, together with their closest conventional relatives, and the highest-yielding traditional varieties in four locations around the state using both drylands and irrigated fields.

Dr Elmore found that, on average, the GM varieties - though more expensive - produced six per cent less than their non-GM near relatives, and 11 per cent less than the highest yielding conventional crops. "The numbers were so clear," he said, "it was not questionable at all."

Dr Elmore attributed the poor performance of the GM crops to two factors. One, he said, it took time to modify a plant, and while that was being done, better conventional ones were being developed. That partly explained why the highest yielding non-GM plants did so much better.pTwo, the process of inserting new genes into plants reduced yields.

Monsanto last week denounced the research as scientifically invalid. It said that its own studies had shown that GM soya had much the same yields as its conventional sister plants.

According to Marcus Williamson, editor, `Genetically Modified Food - UK and World News', Proponents of GM food, have been trying to tell us that one of the reasons for accepting GM is to feed the world's population.

Dr Elmore's results are proof that the yield for GM soya is actually lower than conventional crops. The use of these GM seeds invariably also involves the use of the poison, RoundUp.

The world's population can be fed using conventional and organic crops. The world's food problem is about distribution of food, and responsible use of the food supply, not about availability.

The only reason that corporate want to introduce GM food is try to gain further control of the food chain. Fortunately, consumers are rejecting food contaminated with GM ingredients and the demand for organic food, which is free of GMOs and free of polluting chemicals, is increasingly sharply as a result. Thus, the debate of knowing if GMO's soybean is more productive or less productive than conventional is now in June 2000 obsolete, it does not make anymore sense as the breeders since now 9-10 years are not transforming a given conventional variety into a GMO's "identical" but have integrated the GMO germplasm in their multitraits breeding program to build brand new varieties.

The checks in the selection networks being the highest yielding items on the market for a given maturity class. Only the top notch proven items are kept.By the way a "less yielding" item would have any chance from the commercial standpoint as the farmers or their extension service advisors make their decisions to choose varieties based on proven, repeated performance results; the most advanced programs are now 2 to 3 selection cycles ahead (3 generations per year) since the release of herbicides tolerances/resistances.

The first commercial GMO's varieties were commercially introduced by spring 1995 (in spring 2000 we are 6 campaigns ahead). The commercial life of a soybean variety is no more than 3-4 years and turn over is moving fast and every years hundreds of new soybean varieties are introduced (all maturity groups together.