27th of May protest of GM research

[kılıç_mehmet]

A tomato is a tomato to me sorry. I'm sure you can tell the difference, and maybe I could if I cared more about it, but I'd rather go for the one that costs the least amount, it all makes bolognase in the end.

Well, if making sauce or ketchup is the only way for a tomato to end up on your table, sure, grow your tasteless tomatos. We eat tomatos raw at our breakfasts, in our salads and we barbecue them.

Besides, even if a person is piss poor, he'll probably choose the better tasting tomato to his bread rather than the tasteless, sponge-like tomato.

Also the government funding, as Tiberius dug a bit deeper (cheers) is going public domain, which restricts your "blockade" concept.

Well, it's going public domain, but how many countries are able to grow these, actually?
And who are going to grow these?
Certainly not us. The blockade concept is just one possible outcome. I'm sure that this research is not done by just investments of governments.
Private investers, stakeholders are in place.

In terms of the GM crops, crops that can withstand drought more hardily will easily benefit countries which struggle to grow basic crops, and reduce the amount that is lost. You obtain greater yield from the same square acre, and greater nutrition from the plants themselves.

Surely, but to which extent? If such countries are unable to grow basic crops, how are they going to produce the seeds needed to grow these crops? Or how will they buy it?
GM crops may produce more yields, but what good is your yield when it's all going down the trash anyways? We've always had a good yield when it came to sugar beet. But no one bought it from us(even though it was non-GM), so the government bought it and let it rot on the fields.
They weren't used anywhere, as this would mean more and more investment.

Forests are being decimated by farmers trying to find more productive soil, that would be solved by varients of GM crop, which will have a far more destructive element to the environment than anything the crops introduce. (Original Source: Fedoroff, N.V. and Cohen, J.E. (1999) 'Plants and population: Is there time?')

I've already done a research on the GM crops once. Slash and burn agriculture can take you as far as a frog can leap. Farmers know this already. But we're not discussing environmental damage anyways, we're discussing world hunger problems.

The multinationals who control much of these GM crops, are starting to show increased interest in donating their crops to developinng countries (Source: Qaim, M. (1998) Transgenic virus resistant potatoes in Mexico: Potential socioeconomic implications of north-south biotechnology transfer.)
Hopefully this will become a reality sooner rather than later.

Donating? And which countries are these? Why does africa still go down from hunger? Have they not donated enough?
Even if they donate 100% of their products each year, what good are seeds if there is no one to buy your crops?

Before I respond to the claim that supply is going downhill due to reduction in buying power, I'd like to see the original source thou.

I'll be looking for one.
Besides, it's just a matter of logic to realize that fact.