George Kent comments on GM Foods are supported. However, I disagree that the introduction of GM foods has any role in ensuring food security. It is being propagated and shown with incomplete scientific data as a win-win situation for food security,food shortages and hunger in developing countries. It is not so at all as the food production by traditional means is fully capable of providing food to the world. It has been forced to weaken , even abandoned its practice, by direct and indirect means, to make space for the maintenence of riches in the already rich countries. It must be understood that a mandatory requirement of the capitalist system run by economic powers, is to create innovations to follow what they call t as development & job creation. This approach creates money for its maintenance , by extracting it from poor developing countries, by forced market for these unwanted so-called innovative products & technologies by depicting them as saviors of their life & health. Equally important and strong scientific proof / data exists to strongly counteract advantages & priviledges of GM foods in the as mentioned by the MNC/TNC of economic powers but it is supreesed and more money is spent otherwise for media marketing as favours. Therefore, I oppose the introduction of GM Foods for mankind and support traditional selection of food crops which definately hold capacity to meet our future needs of secure food. I want to quote from a faculty of Harvard Business School about the approval process of GM Altered products in USA,the largest producer, proponent and beneficiary in this field .
Quote, Dr. Shon R. Hiatt , Asstt. Prof., Harvard Business School, USA, Sept. 2013.
”Government agencies can be "captured" by the very companies or industries they regulate. Looking at how genetically altered food products are approved, finds unexpected influencers on the US Department of Agriculture”.
"Regulatory capture" describes the phenomenon whereby regulatory agencies tasked with serving the public instead end up advancing the interests of the companies they regulate.”
Traditional theories of capture such as lobbying and campaign contributions had little effect on whether the US Department of Agriculture approved any particular genetically altered agriculture product. What did seem to affect the approval process was the influence of third-party groups such as associations and even related regulatory agencies.