THe recent breakfast show at an inner city hotel gave an opportunity to both sides of the so-called debate on genetically modified agriculture a chance to strut their stuff.

The Australian chief of Monsanto, Peter O'Keeffe, is relatively new in his role and presented an overview to the Rural Press Club of Victoria of the progress made by his company in a key product area.

The event was keenly anticipated by a hardy group of about 25 seasoned protesters.

It was, thankfully, a fairly anti-climatic and tame affair.

Mr O'Keeffe gave a very detailed account of the product and its progress in the Victorian market.

It was followed by a set of well-rehearsed statements and fear-mongering anecdotes presented in return by a number of anti-GM protagonists.

Do we actually need a debate on the merits of the use of GM crops, pastures and foods in this country?

It seems pretty clear that we do: Some states retain a moratorium on their use; our national government is querying the resources needed to sustain the competitiveness of agriculture; the community is far more demanding of farming to minimise environmental impact and a climate that is drier and prone to extremes.

If this was the best material from each side of the debate, then it is a wonder there is even a debate at all, as the technical gains will surely speak for themselves and commercial business operators on farms and food companies will make their own calls.

While the opportunities available to grain growers to save costs and improve yields are impressive, the case "for GM" needs a far better pitch, with a case that compels the community to come on board.

There is a showcase of potential benefits for the environment, farming viability, human health and the future ability to feed the world that need to be far better conveyed by GM advocates.

On the other side of the fence, the critics of the advance of GM prefer to retain the appearance of activists rather than well-informed thought-leaders.

Anecdotes about seed-drift, European consumer studies, the effects on rats' testicles and "R&D funding corruption" have little or no credibility.

Most glaringly, there is absolutely no response from that side of the fence as to how we will fill the world food gap in 20-30 years?

Until that fundamental issue is tackled, a debate on this issue will remain a non-event.