27th of May protest of GM research

[kılıç_mehmet]

I rather think they'll choose the better tasting, more nutritious, cheaper GM tomato, rather than the incesticide covered version which is not GM.

Or are you arguing for organic tomatoes over mass produced tomatoes, because one of the benefits of GM foods IS to produce better tasting product.

Better tasting, nutritious and cheaper GM tomato? I am certain that if a tomato of such a quality would have been archived, it would only be reserved for the richest of richest, not for the poor. No one would sell a high quality product to a poor person by giving them the notion of choice.
You have the choice of choosing between a better quality laptop, but have to buy the cheap one due to your buying power.
How do you expect a GM tomato of such supposed high quality to become so cheap as to feed them to the poor? We can feed our poor with better quality tomatoes from our bazaars, directly bought from the producers in high quantities, our own tomatoes, not someone else's tomatoes, from the bosom of our lands.

I am not really sure how "better tasting" tomatoes GM can produce, really. I believe that taste is not something that is only something that is produced by genes alone. It depends on many many different variables, such as soil quality, the fertilizers used and etc. and etc. In that regard, GM can only aid in protecting the product, not increase it's "quality".
Even though non-gm, a lamb that has fattened by grazing will taste a lot better than the lamb which has received only maize throughout it's entire life. I, and many other people can testify to this fact.

At the moment, extensive safety trials in poor south american countries. Extensive to do their best to alleviate the worries of anti-GM protestors. Which is fair.
Theres a few good articles in Nature magazine on this issue if you want some links.

Well, they obviously must try to alleviate concerns. I rather still be independent on the seeds with terminator genes in them, even if they're giving it out for free.

Where trials are in place, the seeds are not modified to become infertile as they are in many of the "corporate" GM modifications. We're talking about people growing foods to become self-sufficient, instead of buying externally.

The whole teach a man to fish thing.

Trials. And what if they do not want to buy the product after these trials?
I'm sure the producers would be in deep trouble. What are they going to do? Confiscate the seeds?
And as I said, teaching a man to fish is another thing. Those people probably know how to grow crops. They probably have local varieties of seeds to grow crops with. But what they don't have is the funds to grow crops with. Farmers in poor countries don't need GM seeds. They need government cooperation and funding.

Granted, I simply wished to highlight the advantages to the reasearch being done, not just in terms of world hunger. Although it is a related note still.

Indeed, genetic research is a good thing, and I'm not saying that research should not be done. But it should be done to allow the growing of crops in impossible conditions, like for example, in a desert, or on the moon or someplace else. Local varieties of crops should be protected by their respective owners as they are the guarantee of that nation's independence for food on the outside.

Scarily enough, and surprisingly enough, the US is doing its fair share in this respect.
Its the anti-GM protestors which are slowing down the transfer, through demands of research lasting many years before committing to the GM versions. Extended trials aren't a bad idea thou, to catch any unexpected side effects (such as the famous butterfly killing pollen often cited).

What I'm saying is, you should rather give the farmers the much needed machines and fertilizers to grow crops, not give them the seeds to grow crops.

In areas where people are starving? Well, they'd be good enough to eat themselves.
Although I'm happy to admit to a touch of naivete.

Yes, of course, they can eat their own crops. Which is what farmers do, they don't buy their bread from the shoppe in the town, if they grow wheat. They don't buy meat from the town if they own a herd. But their surplus is what really makes a farmer a "farmer". And if that surplus is not sold, what good is it then? You'll store it in a granary, but you won't earn any money to actually allow the farming business to go on.
Like for example, if no one buys bread, a bakery won't buy any more grain. The farmer that grows the grain won't produce anymore if he thinks he cannot keep going, and will only produce enough to keep himself alive, with the most basic forms of agriculture, like using animal/manpower instead of machines, which is what people do in the most areas with starvation. And if he does not have the means to grow his own seeds, he won't be able to plant them next year.
He'll starve eventually. And for how long do your suppliers intend to give out "free trials"?