GMOs and Agricultural Impact. The summary you provided indeed is a balanced digest of the debate over GMOs, which in the past two decades has engaged the world community. Please proceed with providing a review of the major themes and issues presented.

Key Issues Discussed:

GMOs and Agricultural Impact: The video outlined that in agriculture, GMOs have spread widely; such crops as soy, corn, cotton, and rapeseed are big examples. With over 10% of the world’s cropped land under GMOs, these kinds of crops have become the center of the most recent attention in the global food production scene.
Pros: Proponents of GM crops argue that, besides their capacity to improve their resistance to pests and diseases, yields have increased to help combat hunger and provide food security, mainly in developing nations.
Cons: Potential long-term environmental impacts, health risks, and difficulties of farmers, in general, remain the strong arguments against the adoption of GMOs. These are all focused on the long-term, unknown impacts that GMOs will have on ecosystems and biodiversity.

Health and Environmental Concerns: Several citizens worldwide are concerned that risks from GMOs could impact human health and the environment. Others are also fearful that GMOs would produce new allergens or cause other adverse effects on human health.
Ecological Impact: It is commonly believed that GMOs will increase the application of herbicides, such as glyphosate, and will further destroy soil health, and biodiversity, giving rise to herbicide-resistant weeds.

Corporate Control and Ethical Issues: Much of the activism against GMOs is related to the supposed monopoly position taken by large multinationals, particularly Monsanto, which at one time stood at the center of debate on the production and commercialization of GMOs. Critics think that the corporate patent on seeds limits the independence of farmers and makes them dependent on big companies concerning seeds and chemicals.

Polarization of the Debate: The video accounts for how the debate on GMOs has polarized, with each side using scientific-sounding arguments to bolster their case. This polarization easily confuses the general public into not being able to know which of these scientific concerns are valid and which information is misleading.

Global Scope: The fact that this video covers the same topic in 11 countries and across 4 continents provides wide perspective and evidence that the debate on GMOs is global. GMOs are affecting not only the farmers and consumers in industrialized nations but also the ones in developing countries who somehow have made agriculture their livelihoods dependent on it.

Accuracy and Balance:

Scientific Consensus: The majority of scientific bodies around the world, including the WHO and the FAO, have said that genetically modified organisms currently on the market do not pose more health hazards than their non-genetically modified food. However, this does not fully address the long-term environmental concerns or the socio-economic impacts of GMOs.

Misinformation: The video would suggest that great misinformation by both sides clouds the entire debate. Whereas there have been gains with GMOs, including improved yields and pest resistance, there is also growing evidence of increased herbicide use and the development of resistant pests and weeds.

Corporate Influence: The final issue involves corporate control over seeds and chemicals. Companies such as Monsanto, which is now a subsidiary of Bayer, have indeed been criticized for being heavy-handed in the protection of seeds through strict patent laws. This can affect the outlook of all small farmers.

Conclusion: Genetic Modification has indeed become a multi-faceted debate in terms of scientific standby positions, encompassing ethical, economic, and environmental commitments towards issues that have to be taken into consideration. The video thus will seemingly give a broad overview of each of these issues, given the varied perspectives. If the video stays true to this summary, then it can be of some help in understanding the greater context within which the debate on GMOs is taking place, though viewers should be wary of biases or simplistic conclusions from either direction of the argument.