This question was explored at Dorchester Abbey in July - part of the nationwide debate on genetically-modified foods. Professor Vivian Moses (King's College London) argued that GM food was safe to eat as there had been no ill effects suffered by consumers in North America since 1996. Six million farmers are growing them - 3 out of 4 in the Two-Thirds World - on an area twice the size of Great Britain, and increasing 10% a year. 270 UK test sites were measuring the effects on weeds, insects and small animals. Jean Saunders (Friends of the Earth) argued for the precautionary principle. Ill effects could not be identified where GM foods are not labelled as in USA. Consumers in Europe had pressured supermarkets not to stock them; they demanded labelling. GM genes had been detected in intestines, and could affect bacteria causing allergic reactions. David Gifford (CAB International) set the scene of drought already causing 12-14 million malnourished in Africa. GM could increase drought-resistance. A virus-resistant gene had been added to sweet potatoes, and "golden rice" reduced Vitamin-A deficiency, a cause of blindness. Christopher Jones spoke from nearly 40 years' experience farming in Africa and Britain. Infinitely varied soil and climate posed challenges, understood by local farmers, which could not be met by blanket techno-fixes: e.g. drought-resistant species were slow growing and low-yielding. Biodiversity must be preserved because mono-crop dependence was vulnerable to as yet unknown disease. Peasant groups in the Two-Thirds World had suffered enough from agri-businesses exploiting patented products. GM is locked up with power structures riding rough shod over political decisions - for instance USA battling with the EU in the World Trade Organisation. John Madeley argued that agri-chemical firms were not interested in the staple crops of the poor because they were profit-less. The World Health Organisation had reported a drop in Vitamin-A deficiency without the help of "golden rice". A local farmer argued that GM could help organic growers like himself. Food security was essential as populations increased. Two speakers confirmed that GM research, though safe in itself, is almost entirely funded by agri-businesses, creating the pressure for GM so as to recoup their investment. The debate was conducted with passion and reason. Its lowest point was the claim that Jesus would, of course, be against GM. Of the 83 present, 62 were against GM at the start, and 4 in favour; 5 of the 17 abstentions voted against after hearing the debate.