Photo: Reuters/Finbarr O'Reilly

A controversial article in a recent Economist refers to further evidence of the advantages of genetically modified crops (GMOs).

"The Next Green Revolution" discusses long-standing opposition to GMOs in Europe — many on the continent "have yet to touch or taste them," the article reads — but points out that rising GMO production means it will become increasingly more expensive for Europe to avoid importing them.

I have long been concerned about the Europeans' stance on GMOs — not because Europeans are denying themselves more cost-effective food products, but because of the impact that their position has had on the poor, particularly in Africa. A number of African countries have followed Europe's lead by banning imports of GMOs. I find it to be very sad when the poor and sometimes starving are denied access to less-expensive food because of short-sighted logic in Europe.

The fact that GMOs can provide cheaper food has long been generally accepted. But critics have argued against GMOs on the basis that the crops might have long-term risks. But these risks are vague and unspecified, so to deny the advantages never seemed logical to me. Now that the possible disadvantage to GMOs has been put to rest in many parts of the world, I hope the poor and hungry in Africa and elsewhere can finally access this money-saving solution to an important problem.

This week's New York Times article Europe Takes Africa's Fish and Migrants Follow raises a perplexing problem:

A vast flotilla of industrial trawlers from the European Union, China, Russia and elsewhere, together with an abundance of local boats, have so thoroughly scoured northwest Africa’s ocean floor that major fish populations are collapsing.

That has crippled coastal economies and added to the surge of illegal migrants who brave the high seas in wooden pirogues hoping to reach Europe. While reasons for immigration are as varied as fish species, Europe’s lure has clearly intensified as northwest Africa’s fish population has dwindled.

Last year roughly 31,000 Africans tried to reach the Canary Islands, a prime transit point to Europe, in more than 900 boats. About 6,000 died or disappeared, according to one estimate cited by the United Nations.

The question then arises: who bears the brunt of responsibility for these dwindling fish populations and the subsequent affect on local fishers? The foreign boats which deplete the waters and the foreign consumers which demand them to do so? The local governments, who strapped for cash, make decisions to sell resources needed by their people to fill the government coffers and/or fund state programs?