In 2007, 12 million farmers grew GM crops over an area of 114m hectares (281m acres) in 23 different countries. From the prairie farmers who grow GM crops across 10,000 hectares to the farmers who use this technology on less than one hectare, GM is a global reality and is used on average on areas of just less than 10 hectares.

Not quite the technology that only helps big corporations and big farmers, as suggested by Prince Charles, then. In reality, of those farmers growing GM crops, 11 million are resource-poor farmers living and working in developing countries such as South Africa, India and China. Contrary to the allegations made, many of the seeds are supplied through their own countries' institutes, and are designed to help solve problems that farmers have in growing crops for food, feed, fibers and fuel.

Food security is back on the international agenda – after the surpluses of food experienced in the 1970s and 1980s, the demand for food is again starting to exceed supply. For us in the affluent west, food security issues mean food inflation, but for the developing countries it means food availability. The cure is productivity – producing more food (on the same or less land) to increase supply and meet that demand. Increases in crop yields have long been the advantage of GM, and this is now a crucial consumer benefit with international importance.

What is absolutely clear, however, is that GM is not the only solution – there is no magic bullet, no quick fix. But it can help by improving productivity, improving food quality, and reducing the environmental footprint of agriculture. A recent peer-reviewed report on the subject by PG Economics demonstrated that production of soybeans, corn, and cotton in areas planted with GM crops were respectively 20%, 7%, and 15% higher than would have been the case had this technology not been used by farmers. Furthermore, less fuel use and additional soil carbon storage from reduced ploughing, facilitated by the use of GM crops, was equivalent to removing over 6 million cars from the road for one year. Not quite the environmental disaster some claim.

So who benefits from the use of new technology in farming? Are "giant corporations" really the sole beneficiaries of this technology? A recent Belgian study suggests that " … on average, two-thirds of the global benefits are shared 'downstream', ie, among domestic and foreign farmers and consumers, while only one-third is extracted 'upstream', ie, by biotechnology developers and seed suppliers." Likewise, Terri Raney, from the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN, recently pointed out, " ... the benefits are shared by consumers, technology suppliers and adopting farmers, although non-adopting farmers are penalised as their competitors achieve efficiency gains they are denied."

Being able to achieve this around the world is one thing; for UK farmers, access to this technology requires a seismic change in the processing of GM applications stuck in a dysfunctional European regulatory system, and an ability to carry out field trials without fear of vandalism.

Europe has always been a powerhouse of agricultural production – with climate change, the onus on the UK and Europe to increase agricultural productivity has never been greater. That's why we need to ensure that any further discussions about GM are scientific and based on solid facts.