The decision was a huge blow to anti-GMOs activists in South Africa, led by the South African GMO Executive Council, which had waged a relentless campaign against the new sorghum variety.

Called “Super Sorghum”, it’s nutritionally enhanced with more amino acids. The Council for Scientific Industrial Research (CSIR), which had been spearheading the approval, lauded the government’s decision saying it was testimony South Africa had robust biosafety laws.

“We respect the fact that decision-makers have an obligation towards safety and that rigorous investigations are part of the process. Work on the project will now continue in our level 3 biosafety greenhouse,” said CSIR Biosciences Executive Director, Dr Gatsha Mazithulela, soon after the government announced the approval decision.

The “Super Sorghum” has received worldwide support, including from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has already committed about $17 million to the project. The project is being spearheaded by Florence Wambugu, a renowned Kenyan agricultural biotechnologist, who also heads the Africa Harvest Biotech International Foundation (AHBIF).

Let me mention something small about David. He is a characteristically mercurial scientist. I must admit I’ve not come across a scientist as interested in science communication as David.

On this blog, I’ve repeatedly called on scientists not to allow rookies to distort their work. David seems to have heeded my call. He writes prolifically about agricultural biotechnology. He doesn’t fear to be branded “a shill of this and that  multinational biotechnology corporations.” These are some of intimidatory accusations anti-technology activists use to try to silence folks like David.

In 2006 I urged scientists to come out and defend the science behind crop genetic engineering. Then, I noted that the voices of few scientists who were willing to stand up to opponents of crop genetic engineering were being drowned by these self-styled activists, who’ve very scant knowledge of agricultural biotechnology. In fact most of them have social science backgrounds. They’re only good in making blue look white, without ever stepping into a paint shop.

David is among the few scientists who have said “enough is enough” to propaganda that has come to define the debate genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

David’s strategy has been to lay facts out there for all to see and decide for themselves. This is what I’ve always advocated: that the debate about genetically modified foods should be anchored in science.

On Klaus’ remark that corn yields in Europe are going down, David has culled out graphs showing the continuing increase of corn yields in the U.S. The U.S. happens to be the leading grower of genetically modified corn. Connect the dots for yourself.

Europe is fervently opposed to GMOs. Could this be the reason why corn yields are unimpressive there? This is the point David is trying to make. And he could be right.

Prof. Wambugu was recognized for promoting the use of tissue culture in banana farming in mainly Kenya. The technology has dramatically improved the standards of living of millions of small-scale farmers in the country and other African countries.

Prof. Wambugu is an exceptional, brilliant and selfless woman. After receiving her education in the U.S. and UK, she declined lucrative jobs there to go back to Africa to help it improve its agriculture. This is uncommon to most Africans who go to Western countries to study. Most, if not all, opt to take up well-paying jobs. The fact that Prof. Wambugu decided to forego such opportunities say a lot about her character and her commitment to see Africa becomes self-sufficient in food production.

Prof. Wambugu has also been at the forefront of the campaign to popularize modern agricultural biotechnology. This has not been a simple task. She has fought with anti-tech organizations, such as the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, the two anti-biotechnology activist organizations at the forefront of the campaign against genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

To reinforce here support for modern agricultural biotechnology, Prof. Wambugu, soon after receiving the YARA prize, told the SciDev.net web site that the Green Revolution currently being championed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will have to “…embrace cutting-edge biotechnology.”

This call must be taken very seriously. Prof. Wambugu is not just another activist advocating for agricultural biotechnology. She understands the stuff she’s talking about. Farmers and governments in Africa better listen to her!

Biotechnologies such as GM crops are necessary to double global food production by 2050, a major biotechnology conference has been told. Read more….

Scientists at the Swiss research institute Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon (ART) have carried out the first research on adult green lacewings to see whether they are harmed by ingesting Bt maize pollen. Read more….

In an interview with the Telegraph, last week, Prince Charles sensationally accused “gigantic corporations” of meddling with nature and urged them to spare the world the cataclysmic repercussions that might arise from genetic modification of crops.

Prince Charles’ rantings against GM crops, however, have come under harsh criticism from government officials, politicians, the media and scientists for their ludicrous tinge.

British Environment Minister Phil Woolas has challenged Prince Charles to provide evidence to the effect that genetically modified crops are a disaster. Woolas, in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph, affirmed that the government had a “moral responsibility” to investigate whether GM crops could help alleviate hunger in the developing world.” And the minister warned the Prince of Wales not to politicize the issue of GM crops.

Alison Smith, Professor of Plant Biochemistry at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, accused Prince Charles of “inflating fears instead of contributing to reasoned debate.”

“He (Prince) seems to be ranting about GM crops, urbanisation, globalisation and even hybrid plants. He is inflating fears instead of contributing to reasoned debate.”

The Times, in an editorial, said Prince Charles’ views on genetically modified crops were “ill-informed, alarmist and anti-science.” “…his apocalyptic predictions of the effect of genetically modified crops do not enhance public debate, but degrade it,” noted the hard-hitting editorial.

British Labor MP, Des Turner, fumed that it’s “…entirely Luddite attitude to simply reject this (GM crops) out of hand.”

Liberal Democratic Phil Willis, who’s also the chairman of the all-party Commons science committee, echoed the same sentiment and warned: “Prince Charles lack of scientific understanding and his willingness to condemn millions of people to starvation in areas like sub-Saharan Africa is absolutely bewildering.”

Prince Charles did have supporters. Friends of the Earth and the Soil Association did issue an oblique statement supporting the Prince of Wales’ views that “GM crops would not help solve the food crisis.”

This is a self-denial statement. I’ve always argued, on this blog and elsewhere, that criticism of crop genetic engineering is warranted as long it’s constructive and scientifically grounded. When somebody, for instance, claims that GM crops would not help solve the food crisis, one is left to wonder what happened to the truth. Just the same way I condemn this, I’ll also take issue with anybody who might claim that organic farming cannot help in solving the food crisis. They’ve a role to play, just like GM crops have an important contribution to make in enhancing global food security.

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) has just released a report that shows GM crops cultivation recorded a 12 per cent growth from 2006-2007. The number of countries growing GM crops also increased to 23. These are hard facts that cannot easily wished away.

Realistically speaking, therefore, one can safely say that these crops are making significant contribution to global food security. This is an undeniable fact that those who support and oppose GM crops must acknowledge.

For the Prince of Wales and anti-technology organizations to deny that agricultural biotechnology is making significant contribution to global food security is wrong. Acknowledging facts as they’re, perhaps, is the best way to handle the debate about cons and pros of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Here is an article outlining some new developments in the field of agricultural biotechnology. The article lists progress that has been made in the field for the last ten years. Read more….

What is it with the Prince of Wales? He seems physically incapable of keeping his mouth shut. Yesterday he was ranting about genetically modified crops, multinationals and climate change. But it might equally have been architecture, education or McDonald’s, three of his previous obsessions. Next week it’ll no doubt be the price of gas. And why haven’t we heard his views on Georgia? Read more….

Many of us in the UK woke up this morning to hear Prince Charles ranting about genetically modified crops on the radio, or to see this ominous headline in The Daily Telegraph: “Earth faces GM crops catastrophe, warns Prince”.

The sub-headline: “Multinational firms conducting a ‘gigantic experiment that has gone seriously wrong’.” Read more….