Would you mind explaining?

Well, recently the UN has prided itself on "cleaning" Africa from Genetically-Engineered (or Genetically-Modified) food. Which would be swell, had Africa been this cornucopia of food production, for which GE/GM food is unnecessary.

But this is not the case, and GE/GM food could actually save millions of lives there. But we wouldn't let bare necessities get in the way of baseless technophobia, now would we? Why feed millions with GE/GM rice when we can just throw it away and let them perish, all in the name of Neo-Luddism?

Pardon my ignorence but I honestly do not get you.

I was critisizing the UN as a body whose its main and formost interest is to keep itself going (which is fine for any business) and justify itself to contributing nations (while hiding as much as possible all waste and huge administrative expenses in the process). All other goals and missions are second priority at best.

And here you are critisizing the UN for some food program it is running in Africa

Unless it's pure sarcasm I think we're on the same side of the boat.

Or, again, please explain what you wanted to say

Yes, we are on the same side of the boat. The UN is ineffective, and only succeeds with ludicrous initiatives that cause more harm than good.