[xchip]

Because they are poor and you can easily bribe the politicians

[ryoshoe]

Regardless of potential bribes to politicians, its easy to look at the increased yields from GMO foods as a benefit for a country where ~20% of the population are undernourished

https://www.globalhungerindex.org/nigeria.html

[darth_avocado]

It is an artificial dichotomy tbh. When you say GMO foods, you usually refer to foods that have been introduced to populations across the globe in environments they are not suitable to be grown in. Yes GMO rice will probably grow better and feed more people in drought prone regions of India, but so would the indigenous millets that were replaced by rice. They require less water (and fertilizers and pesticides that GMOs require), are more resilient to climate events and more suitable to local climate. Not saying GMO foods are A solution, just that they aren’t the ONLY solution if the goal was to feed enough people.

Some additional reading: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10695985/#:~:text=A...

[imtringued]

You're making the fallacy that these people can afford greater quantities of more expensive food.

[maddmann]

Did you read the article? I think this case study shows why gm is likely to be key to avoiding mass starvation as climate change becomes a bigger issue.

[mothballed]

The government can't even make a dent into wars between farmers and livestock herders.

Any political control or statement on GMOs are largely theater. They have next to no means to prohibit it nor subsidize it.