Jim, I think you misconstrue Deutsche Bank's motivations. Their analysts obviously have a heavy heart as they voice misgivings about GM technology. For instance, this was among the extracts of the Deutsche Bank report that the Guardian posted yesterday:
"GMOs are good science but bad politics...
"Are GMOs safe, good for the environment, and necessary to support the inevitable growth in the world's population? Yes, but the same arguments can be made for advancing nuclear power. Despite the support of the scientific community, it is unlikely that we will add any new nuclear power plants any time soon.
"From a 25-year perspective, the world will be hard-pressed to feed itself without GMOs. The supply of arable land will continue to shrink and the only way to keep up with growing food demands will be by increasing productivity. Without GMOs, it won't be possible. Without GMOs, it's clear that we will use a lot more agricultural chemicals.
"However, from a three-year perspective, GMOs are a policy liability. GMOs increase productivity in a world that is currently drowning in too much grain. As we discussed in great detail in our above-mentioned May 6 warning piece, a fair bit of the European resistance to GMOs stems from Europeans' desire to keep their agriculture as people-intensive as it currently is. They view GMOs as a threat to their agrarian lifestyle.
"In the United States, low crop prices have farmers asking Congress for $6 billion-$8 billion in aid, just a day after the House of Representatives approved a $574-million farm bailout. We believe that GMOs, with their better yields, will only further depress prices this year. Thus, from a government perspective, one needs to take a very long view to see the positives."
Deutsche Bank is simply being realistic here, not reactionary. It doesn't want to buck pervasive public opinion and "fight the tape," as they say on Wall Street, or to be yet more colloquial, "piss into the wind."
Carl