This article commits journalistic fraud - it attributes the fact that crops failed due to pests (which can happen to any crop, GM or not) solely to the fact that the crops were GM, and making a false impression that suicides were caused not by crop failures but by the fact that the crops were GM. They imply that "after" means "because", and that's the fraud.

Of course, even GM crops can not protect from all causes of crop failure. But blaming them on every cause of failure is wrong.

The whole thing is complicated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers_suicides_in_India) and the Daily Mail has a history of being an awful source.

I agree, it is complicated. That's why it is shameful for Daily Mail to take a complicated story and rewrite it as a single-cause case against GM.

The story confirms that the seeds must be purchased anew with each season.

I seem to recall seeing claims that GM cotton was more susceptible to certain pests, especially if you didn't spray it with the pesticide produced by the manufacturer of the seeds.

The way I read the article, it's mainly pricing of the GM product that led indirectly to their despair. They could've handled the crop failure with the cheaper non-GM seeds.

It's analogous to US students getting into a pickle by accepting large student loans and then finding no jobs in their field. But if they don't take the risk they may lose to those who took the risk. They'd almost all be better off if the student loans weren't available.