This very useful summary of the reaction to the recent revised Nuffield report is based on information supplied by Patrick Mulvany, Chair, UK Food Group, and Senior Policy Adviser, Intermediate Technology Development Group.

For more on those behind the report:
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=98
---
On the Sunday between Christmas and New Year, the Nuffield Bioethics Council slipped out its revised report on GM crops (an update of the 1999 version) "The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries".
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/gmcrops/

Robin McKie covered the report in the Observer:
"Britain'has moral duty to fund GM research'.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1113261,00.html

This was contested by a short and clear letter by Dr Tom Macmillan of the Food Ethics Council in this Sunday's Observer, 'Hitting the Poor', in which he says "It is disingenuous for Nuffield (or Bush) to offset European precaution against African hunger."
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,6903,1115806,00.html

Dr Sandy Thomas, the Director of the Nuffield Bioethics Council, gave a short uncontested interview (http://www.ukabc.org/nuffield.wma - for a poor recording of the interview) at 6:52 am on the BBC Today programme on Monday 29th December.

SciDevNet also covered the report.
http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=3Dreadnews&itemid=3D1167&la=
nguage=3D1

In addition, only two specialist information
providers have covered the report so far: Food Navigator <http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/news.asp?id=3D48756> and The Truth about Trade
and Technology. <http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=3D1189>

In reaction to the Nuffield report, Dr Tewolde
Egziabher, architect of the Biosafety Protocol,
<http://www.panos.org.uk/newsfeatures/featuredetails.asp?id=3D1142> and Dr Devinder
Sharma, Chair of the Indian Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security and author of a new report <http://www.ukabc.org/gmfood&hunger.doc> 'GM Food and Hunger: A View from the South' have expressed their concern about how the GM debate in the UK is using hunger and poverty in the developing world to
defend patentable genetic engineering research in the UK and other industrialised countries.

Contrary to the claims of the Nuffield council, 'the moral imperative is in fact the opposite.  The policy of drawing funds away from low-cost sustainable agriculture research, towards hi-tech, exclusive, expensive and unsafe technology is itself ethically questionable Dr Tewolde Egziabher, Ethiopia.

'The newfound morality is merely a smokescreen. Nuffield Council is actually making a strong plea for GM research so as to provide job security to its scientists. If the shutter is pulled on GM research in UK, joblessness in the scientific field will multiply. The Nuffield Council is therefore equally guilty of exploiting hunger for the sake of providing employment to British science graduates.", Dr Devinder Sharma, India.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/00230203060.htm

The UK Food Group and its BOAG members have supported this view. 'The pattern of investment in agricultural research has skewed research funding and focus towards high technology approaches that are most suited for large-scale industrial agriculture and away from support for sustainable agriculture approaches that meet the needs of the poor and hungry in developing countries.'
http://www.ukabc.org/gmcropsbriefing.htm