My research indicates that the GM debate and implementation of the CPB relates more to development ideologies rather than risk.

Good article. The impacts of GE crops in Africa will be determined by many forces/factors, including the land grab underway, the likely historic increase in food prices, and the efforts of the seed/biotech industry to lock up germplasm and the seed supply. Once choice in seeds and genetics — and GMO or not GMO — is constrained, farmers will pay more, way more, just ask US cotton, soy, or corn producers, paying 3-X to 6-X more for seed that delivers only modest (if any) pest management benefits.

I think this is a fairly balanced editorial.

Having said, that I would like to mention few points:

(i) I always do not understand why agriculture in most developing African countries is expected to perform well if farmers use GM crops. In a situation where even the supply of conventional agricultural inputs such as improved seeds, fertilezers, storage facilities, water supply systems etc. are not adequately available, what magic do GM crops have to transform agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa? The pressure we witness exerted on Africa for the last several years is for Governments to open up their countries for GM varieties.

(ii) So far, I have not heard of GM crop that results in intrinsic increase in yields. The GM crops that have been commercialized have some agronomic advantages. They decrease labour demand, which is not a critical problem for African farming comunities. They allow the application of certain chemicals/herbicides - which are not easily accessible or affordable by the African poor farmer. So, what is the unique and superior advantage of cultivating GM varieties that we have to day. I share the assertion made in the editorial that the GM debate is more than biosafety. In my view, GM varities may be accessible to poor farmers on some special or preferential arrangements. But in the long term the farmers will be tied to certain chemicals and agribusiness companies leaving their future uncertain. These varieties need to be specifically designed to be effective and sustainable in African situation. We are not dealing with a technology such as mobile phones that could easily be acquired and applied in rural Africa. Farming is a mode of life, a socio-economic system. The development of GM crops is the result of a highly advanced and commercial agricultural system of the developed world. You cannot insert such a high tech technique into an archaic and subsitence farming and expect things to go well. Let the world help Africa in conventional...

Who is sponsoring SciDev Net for its continuos pro GMO campaing??
Dr. Mae Wan Ho Phd., noted genetisist, Nobel prize Candidate, says of GMO: "GMO genetics is big bussiness with bad science"

Why not interview her for SciDev???

I agree with your comments that there are exaggerated demands about miracle of GMOs particularly GM crops. I am fully convinced with sound scientific basis of development of golden rice. But is golden rice really a solution for the millions suffering from night blindness as claimed? Night blindness like many other vitamin deficiency diseases is due to poverty and lack of proper diet. And this is not due to lack of consciousness but lack affordability. Let us answer a simple question. Is golden rice going to be cheaper than or at least as cheap as course rice in the market which the poor can afford. Common sense dictates the answer is no. Will the government buy golden rice or afford to buy for the poor for use as staple food? Can a government in a developing country afford that? If the option is between buying vitamin A capsule which runs for 6 months and buying golden rice for vitamin A deficiency mitigation which option will be chosen? How about the small farmers who represent the majority of farmers in developing countries, who depend on traditional agricultural practices? Finally when IRRI was developed there was no question about its acceptability. I have a feeling if the new biotechnology products were developed by public sectors laboratories so many questions would not have been asked. Brains have been hijacked and in the name of intellectual property rights, knowledge has been privatised. It seems that science is no more universal it has become a a commodity to be sold a profit only.

Very balanced article that makes valid points for the GM debate, not only in Africa, but also elsewhere. I particularly appreciate the point about the role of science journalism. The public is either misinformed or uninformed on this issue and the typical person simply identifies biotechnolgy with Monsanto and "Frankenfoods". It is time people were encouraged to inform themselves and decide on the merits of this technology before condemning it out of hand.
http://applpy.wordpress.com

It was always clearly stated that the golden rice seeds would not be subject to property rights from the producers of the seeds. I do not understand why some people suggest the contrary.

This is a lousy article -- nothing short of an uncritical PR puff on behalf of the GM industry. The author says: "This marks a potential victory for evidence-based policy........." The GM industry -- with the clear support of the author -- maintains this absurd line that GM policy is "evidence based" and that all who have doubts about the technology and safety of GM crops and foods are driven by ideology or hysteria. That is absolute nonsense, and the author must know it.

And as for this: "......there are no documented health or environmental problems linked to GM crops." That is a straightforward lie. There is abundant evidence, in the peer-reviewed literature and elsewhere, to show that there are many health and environmental problems associated with GM crops and foods. Some of these problems are associated with stress and reduced resistance to disease within the GM plants themselves (which we should not be surprised about) and other problems are associated with the toxins built into BT crops and the chemicals used in the management of RR crops. These toxins kill things and harm things -- that is what toxins do. David Dickson needs to go away and do some homework, instead of trotting out the GM industry´s propaganda. Can we please have some real science here?

There are clear facts we cannot ignore that this article has brought up. It is well put that Biosafety is not the only determinant of Biotech products uptake by farmers. Since Kenya is mentioned here, questions that Kenya's policy makers need to be asking relates to the organisational and institutional infrastructure to deploy the GM research products sustainably to benefit the farmers. Consequently, effective and sustainable stewardship is paramount coordinated preferably by a non partisan and honest broker. Arguably, post-Biosafety era may bring about more controversies than envisaged.

I am an article writer in in Technology Times and also in Factoidz.Recent Articles in Factoidz.

http://factoidz.com/use-of-plant-growth-promoting-bacteria/
http://factoidz.com/use-of-recombinant-dna-technology-for-the-production-of-restriction-endonucleases/

"Despite claims to the contrary, there are no documented health or environmental problems linked to GM crops."

Is this a joke?! 5 minutes of googling finds tons of articles showing health effets from GMOs in animals. And I even heard a story from a local farm with cows.

One interesting: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Food_Nightmare_Unfolding.php with http://www.i-sis.org.uk/pdf/GM_food_nightmare.pdf

Furthermore, one should consider this: http://www.infogm.org/spip.php?article4793

GMO are not a long-term solution.