The "the United Nations has been sacrificing science, technology and sound public policy to its own bureaucratic self-interest, thereby obstructing technological innovation that could help the poorest of the poor".
To us in Europe or N. America, this argument is vaguely about health (like the smoking ban) and consumer choice. But, to people in the third world it's really about life and death. GM foods could be a tremendous boon for those people. The big problem for people of the third world is that the technology is too expensive.
Monsanto has a near monopoly on the technology, which of course doesn't help reduce the costs. However, Ross Clark argues that the protestors are driving away the competition as well as Monsanto.
As I previously wrote, I don't see why African universities and African companies cannot be at the forefront of GM technologies. That would be a better project for the UN rather than trying to prevent development in order to satisfy some fringe environmental activists (few of whom, I would bet, live in the third world).
