Albert Weale's article seems pretty reasonable and unbiased but he neglects to consider the questions of cost and control in his comments.
When big business (and Monsanto is big business) lobbies for something it is NEVER on behalf of the poor or disadvantaged. Its all about profits and it puts a great deal of money and effort behind its "cause" a lot of which goes into "influencing" governments and "buying" research institutions or setting up "independent think tanks".

Sure in some cases the benefits of particular GM crops may outweigh the risks but if the big corporations are behind the push then it pays to be wary... very, very wary.

When I read yet another pro-gm article posing as a concern for the state of the poor, I feel ill. The first reality is that increased corporate ownership of the food chain - from seed to plate - cannot and will not ever lead to better food security, less hunger or better health for the poor of the world. GM is all about corporate control. And before someone else jumps up and touts the 'public'golden rice - remember this - R&D into golden rice has cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The cost of vitamin A supplements for an adult annually is 8 cents. Delivery is accurate and easy. Even if golden rice works - highly debateable - delivery to those with VAD requires highly segregated and specific harvest, storage, delivery systems that simply don't exist in poorer rural communities. It's a joke - and those who continue to prop up the GM industry in the name of the needs of others are a disgrace.

Bennie – I don’t give a fig for the profits of the GM industry, but the risk of not going GM is that we lose out on the potential benefits. The article is calling for those benefits to be taken into account when we evaluate GM. Seems fair to me.

Dickie – the tone of this article (unlike your post) is very even-handed– no “nutters and luddites” to be seen. The article accepts that there is a potential downside to GM, hence arguing for a case-by-case assessment of risks and benefits.

Kulu – I agree Monstanto is no charity. The fact that is does what it does for profit, however, doesn’t make it evil or malign, any more than the supermarket that sells you your food is malign. GM food producers should only be allowed to sell their products if they’re safe, and will only make a profit selling them if farmers think they’re better than the alternative and consumer are willing to buy them. I acknowledge your point about controls and costs being shifted, though.

Next – GM is not identical with “corporate ownership,” and I believe that providing alternative crops that are potentially more drought-tolerant, insect-resistant, higher-yielding etc will improve food security.

GM crops do not stop poverty, as the seeds must be paid for, the chemicals used Round Up must be paid for. GM crops do not stop poor health, production must continue, regardless of availability healthy work force or not. GM crops are not the answer to sustainability, no rain means no crops, regardless of what kind they are. GM crops will not stop HIV/AIDS the costs only excerbate the poverty. Use GM corn to make petrol substitute, but gosh it does not come out any cheaper. if it does not stand up to strutiny throw it out.

GM foods?? Leave me out of them. IF the American GM grains are so good why wont starving nations accept them ... free of charge?? (I know, a certain leader is starving his people deliberately) BUT if GM grains are not harmfull, why are they not sold openly in Western shops ?? Cloning in animals is dangerous and so is cloning in produce.

I do not believe it's safe (now or in the future) so I want the choice. 'To eat, or not to eat,' .. that is the question.

Rhian

Could you be a tad more specific please - more scientific? Perhaps it is also appropriate to remind you that “those who ignore the past are bound to repeat it.”

In the matter of GM crops, you will find the same players who gave us the previous Green Revolution – the poisoning of the planet. Of course you would need to have a basic understanding of environmental toxicology:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/07/07/the-toxic-consequences-of-the-green-revolution.html?PageNr=1

As in the previous “green” revolution, the promotion of false miracles prevail and while there is much literature analyzing, criticizing and condemning the downfalls of the Green Revolution, there is very limited evidence to suggest that modern day agronomists and biotechnologists have learned anything significant from the events that have been transpiring since the 60s and 70s.

Nuffield Bioethics has publicly expressed gratitude to Professor Gordon Conway, former President of the Rockefeller Foundation. The Green Revolution push we are seeing in Africa is really his brainchild. This philanthropy – plus 5 percent, has come in the context of pushing a very distinct corporate agenda - to open markets for US corporations.

For example in Kenya the Rockefeller Foundation has been involved in sponsoring Florence Wambugu's sweet potato project because they want to open Africa up to GMOs. So if you give the impression that a genetically modified sweet potato can work because it is the poor person's crop, there will be more willingness to accept GMO's. This is a form of investment, a corporatized agenda for resource extraction from Africa:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/trade/gmos/2007/05trojan.pdf

That Professor Weale has chosen to criticize Prince Charles over his concerns with GM crops, says little for this institute when the evidence of the tragedies and the desperate state of many of the citizens of India are well documented:

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

http://www.ddsindia.com/www/pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20APress%20Release%20Bh%20evidence%20Moratoeium%20July%2008.pdf

Will we receive a "more reasoned debate" from Professor Weale in response to these posts? I see no copyright on this article. Perhaps it was not he who has provided us with the document?

Cheers

PS: "Food security" Rhian? Do please read the links this time.