Wake up Ghanaians! Say no to GMOs Part 2

Read Article

Comments (39)

This article is closed for comments.

Read Comments Comments (39)

Sam - Canada 11 years ago

Ghana has natual products. We do not need these GM products which mitght be cancer agents in Ghana

Ghana has natual products. We do not need these GM products which mitght be cancer agents in Ghana
insight to the bone 11 years ago

the year has started and now that its evident the people can not be fooled or lied to any longer by the ndc regime we now see the traitors of the Akan cause within the npp raising their heads talking shit . these people are s ...
read full comment

the year has started and now that its evident the people can not be fooled or lied to any longer by the ndc regime we now see the traitors of the Akan cause within the npp raising their heads talking shit . these people are so morally bankrupt that they sold the gold to foreigners thus giving the golden goose away and we the silent majority loose 10 to 15 billion dollars a year. k4 was appointed UN envoy not because he he was a man of integrity and justice rather because in a very sophisticated legal manner disrobed the people of ghana of their wealth and handed it over to multinational corporations . these corporations continue to flare gas so much so the the white snow has turned black from soot ,farming land in nigeria has become barren and poisonous so they as this greedy fool to publicly sanction the rape of this planet . we say good riddance if it means he will no longer interfere in our destiny. alan cash our so called minister of industry didnt implement a single program for industrialization and is now blaming others for his incompetence and stupidity. k4 did not encourage the unity of the Akans rather exploited the diaspora (mainly fantis ) when they came and frustrated any effort for them to bring their potentials and capital home . the few that came were victims of outrageous shakedowns and institutional blackmail for monies . yes we were not blind and we rejoiced when nana akufo addo came and tried to clean house , hopefully ken agyapong continues and rids the party of these corrupt and morally bankrupt infiltrators. pepeni is broken and is no more a respected factor. this time we shall also expose the criminal element hiding in the shadows of the npp as the truth will make us stronger and give us a chance to turn the country around . for over 50 years every govt has failed us due to our own laziness and our ignoring the truth. k4 in his manhyia only politics caused divisions among the Akans , with his politics of favoritism and cronyism systematically denying the majority any true participation in the riches of the land just like we see today in this merchant bank deal , very similar to that shameful hotel deal his son did . all these deals are legal but morally bankrupt just as giving govt bungalows to officials yet the taxi driver or market woman can never dream of such a right or blessing . this political oligarchy only functions when they see some personal benefit for themselves and so we continue to advocate for war or revolution that will clean all of them from the face of this earth . long live the republic of Akan
Don Blunt 11 years ago

Not only do the manufacturers deny the bad effects of GM foods on our systems, in case of obvious damage, it will be left to the 'ignorant' victim, to prove beyond doubt, that their problem was caused by that particular GM pr ...
read full comment

Not only do the manufacturers deny the bad effects of GM foods on our systems, in case of obvious damage, it will be left to the 'ignorant' victim, to prove beyond doubt, that their problem was caused by that particular GM product
Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 11 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Hello Don Blunt,
Happy New Year to you!
You are perfectly right! These corporations have already caused a lot of harm in the past. Monsanto has been sued by millions o ...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Hello Don Blunt,
Happy New Year to you!
You are perfectly right! These corporations have already caused a lot of harm in the past. Monsanto has been sued by millions of its victims from US war Vietnam veterans over the effects of Agent Orange, to the victims of DDT!

Perhaps the most outrageous of them all was the case of the residents of Anniston, Alabama. This is a case in which Monsanto finally settled for 700 million dollars! Monsanto did not only know of the harmful effects of the PCBs. They hid it because, as recently released internal memo indicates, the Monsanto argument was "we can not afford to lose one dollar of business"!

Ghana is playing with fire!

WATCH: The World According to Monsanto (FULL LENGTH) - YouTube /www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6_DbVdVo-k
Otsibu Darko 11 years ago

Strangely enough we have well educated politicians(ph.d's) in parliament who understands well the critical issues underlining this GMO problem but their 'bribed pocket' is more important to them than to think of what the futu ...
read full comment

Strangely enough we have well educated politicians(ph.d's) in parliament who understands well the critical issues underlining this GMO problem but their 'bribed pocket' is more important to them than to think of what the future reprecussion this GMO will have on the health of Ghanaians. I do hope our elected officials will have the common sense of stopping this bill and referring the whole issue to CSIR to do investigative research on it. If these multinational corporation believed their products are good, why are they being rejected by developed countries and being sued by countless individual/ group farmers sucessfully in developed countries like Canada and USA? Secondly our media is not helping matters, they do not do timely research on articles on such important issues so as to inform the general public. In this particular instant, it is the duty of the media to find the truth about this GMO and inform the farmers and the public the dangers of using and consuming of GMO products; we will one day pay the price if we fail to stop these multinational corporation and our corrupt politicians by passing and forcing thi bill on us. Also I want to know whether this comments get accross to the intended 'people', example is how long it took certain paliamentarians(bravo) to act on the sale of merbank, and for their good intentions to be thwarted by the speaker of the assembly. I also appeal to the writer of this article to start on line petition to the Ghana govt and to other world leaders to bring their attention on these multinational corporations/GMO'S. These multinationals are only interested in killing the people of third world countries and stealing their resources/ money diguised in the form of helping third world countries to produce good quality grains and our bone-headed politcians falls for it without thinking all because of their greedness and love of money.We Ghanaians should not relent and if necessary we should hae a sitting at parliment until these corrupt politicians realise their mistake stop the bill and drive these multinationals away, thank you all whio read.
Ghanabiya 11 years ago

There is more than enough evidence for us to refuse this offer of death by this people who value money more than human life.

Ghanaians should not be surprise that it is the political class that is pushing this agenda on us ...
read full comment

There is more than enough evidence for us to refuse this offer of death by this people who value money more than human life.

Ghanaians should not be surprise that it is the political class that is pushing this agenda on us through the legislature.

This is one website people can go to read, listen and download shows on this topic. This man has made his broadcast free for people. www.drjoeesposito.com
Kofi 11 years ago

All that glitters is not gold.Take the GMO'S off our dining tables. I'm convinced by your research finding that we are never safe with these GMO'S .Confine it to the countries of origin.

All that glitters is not gold.Take the GMO'S off our dining tables. I'm convinced by your research finding that we are never safe with these GMO'S .Confine it to the countries of origin.
Elmina dame 11 years ago

Please send copies to each Parliamentarian and the President. However, they are not pushing this agenda out of ignorance but greed-- powerful interests are forcing these unnatural products down our throats and are prepared to ...
read full comment

Please send copies to each Parliamentarian and the President. However, they are not pushing this agenda out of ignorance but greed-- powerful interests are forcing these unnatural products down our throats and are prepared to offer huge incentives to those who can help them achieve their objectives.
Nana Oben 11 years ago

All drugs and medicines have shelf lives determined by ACTUAL CONCLUSIVE TESTS, NOT PROJECTIONS. All machines, cars, aircraft, etc. ARE TESTED (expedited tests in most cases)TO SOMETIMES 4 TIMES THEIR ACTUAL EXPECTED USAGE LI ...
read full comment

All drugs and medicines have shelf lives determined by ACTUAL CONCLUSIVE TESTS, NOT PROJECTIONS. All machines, cars, aircraft, etc. ARE TESTED (expedited tests in most cases)TO SOMETIMES 4 TIMES THEIR ACTUAL EXPECTED USAGE LIFE.

If Genetically Modified foods were to be tested to conclusion as to their effect on environment, animals and humans, the tests would take over 2000 years to complete, AND NOT A MERE 3 MONTHS. AFTER ALL IT TOOK THE EARTH OVER 4 MILLION YEARS TO FORMULATE, TEST AND PERFECT OUR EXISTING NATURAL FOODS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTS.

The Thalidomide also went through testing (even longer than the 3 months for GMO), and we know its devastating effects on deformed children Were affected African parents/children adequately compensated as in the US and EU? Of course NO!! AFRICA, BEWARE OF THE TROJAN HORSE.
John Amponsah 11 years ago

Good job presenting some evidence. Looks like your naysayers are now silent? It amazes me how folks are often reluctant to pay even scant attention to some of the evidence.

Speaking out against GMOs caused me to write my f ...
read full comment

Good job presenting some evidence. Looks like your naysayers are now silent? It amazes me how folks are often reluctant to pay even scant attention to some of the evidence.

Speaking out against GMOs caused me to write my first article on Ghanaweb some years ago and this remains one of the most important issues to me, and I believe it is one of the most important issues of our time.

The corporate establishments and their political backers (sometimes pawns) who forward this scam in a false spirit of altruism indeed have other designs which include profiting from land grabs and from the weakening of the constitution of the human being so as to have more controllable humans.

Most people are however at a stage of awareness where it is more important to convince them by focusing on the scientific evidence that may help alter views and habits, so in this regard I applaud your efforts. They are not in vain, as there is already a movement in the country to counter the incursions of Monsanto, Dupont and others that work in this regard.

Ideally, there will be no GMO, however in today's world, that is not yet a realistic scenario.

This struggle must continue until such time as the people of Ghana and indeed throughout the continent and the world are presented with a real choice between GMO and non-GMO. As such, crucial (Government) policies must be put in place to ensure processes aimed at providing this choice. At the moment, such choice is not available to Ghanaians, hence the need to struggle against GMOs.

The article below remains one of my favourite ones portraying the potential ills of GMO. There is now so much evidence pointing to the adverse effects of GMO on animal physiology as well as on the ecosystem that what remains is for such evidence to become mainstream and commonplace.

www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo_study_cancer_tumors_organ_damage.html

While the EU places severe constraints on GMO and while Russia recently placed a 10 year moratorium on GMO (rt.com/news/gmo-ban-russian-scientists-293/) most folks in our own region remain ignorant. Well, the struggle should continue. It will not be in vain. Thanks

Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 11 years ago

Hello Mr. John Amponsah!

We have been trying to get your email address to contact you for some time now!

Could you kindly contact SocialMedia @ Panafricanistinternal.org?

Thank you very much!

We deeply appreciate ...
read full comment

Hello Mr. John Amponsah!

We have been trying to get your email address to contact you for some time now!

Could you kindly contact SocialMedia @ Panafricanistinternal.org?

Thank you very much!

We deeply appreciate your thoughts on the IMPOSITION of GMOs on Ghanaians!

Have a nice day and a happy new year!
Paul Amuna 11 years ago

Just go down the page or look over your shoulders. By the way it is not "naysayers" but others who simply take a different view from those who misrepresent the science on this subject. Sorry mate, you 'jumped too early'.

Just go down the page or look over your shoulders. By the way it is not "naysayers" but others who simply take a different view from those who misrepresent the science on this subject. Sorry mate, you 'jumped too early'.
Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 11 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

You this Monsanto busy-body again?

Not too fast! YOU are jumping early! Are you not the same person who recently claimed "rice" was an animal? How scientific was that ...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

You this Monsanto busy-body again?

Not too fast! YOU are jumping early! Are you not the same person who recently claimed "rice" was an animal? How scientific was that?

I am also scrolling down to see your "science"! I pity those who have to hide behind "science" to peddle the biotech industry lies!

"See" you soon "down there"!

Sincerely,
Pur'gu Saarpe! Esq.,
Secretary to The Odikro.
Esi Brown 11 years ago

Thank you for this information. I hope our President and his MPs as well as our so-called scientists are taking note! Otherwise, they will be willing accomplices in this wholesale genocide of Ghanaians! What a legacy to have!

Thank you for this information. I hope our President and his MPs as well as our so-called scientists are taking note! Otherwise, they will be willing accomplices in this wholesale genocide of Ghanaians! What a legacy to have!
Akua 11 years ago

Let us come together and say NO! to GM foods. Enough is enough!

Let us come together and say NO! to GM foods. Enough is enough!
kad 11 years ago

So, Our Parliament and President are going to sign off our sovereignty to
these foreigners. Thinking of only today
and what they will eat. These GMOs can change our DNAs. God Help Us Because This is Demonic.

So, Our Parliament and President are going to sign off our sovereignty to
these foreigners. Thinking of only today
and what they will eat. These GMOs can change our DNAs. God Help Us Because This is Demonic.
Paul Amuna 11 years ago

I am glad Dr Martin Opoku Gyamfi has taken up the challenge to provide evidence to support his position on GM Foods. Sadly in this article, yet again he misrepresents the scientific evidence and makes assertions and assumptio ...
read full comment

I am glad Dr Martin Opoku Gyamfi has taken up the challenge to provide evidence to support his position on GM Foods. Sadly in this article, yet again he misrepresents the scientific evidence and makes assertions and assumptions which are not supported by the evidence.

Once again let me decalre that I have no conflict of interest on this matter but am merely confronting the issue as a scientist with an interest in our food and nutrition security. I sincerely hope that Dr Gyamfi can equally declare his own personal interest in this matter.

Secondly, in his rebuttal of the "supporters of GM" he argues that those "in favour of GM foods assume safety without evidence" and without digressing, I will refer him to the European Food Safety Authority's own analysis of the situation (EFSA, 2008) which was based on a detailed review of the scientific evidence.

I intend to write a feature article rebuttal on this topic as my own contribution to the debate. However for now, I wish to use 3 of Dr Gyamfi's own references to make my point about his misrepresentation of the facts.

For one thing, people who wish only their side of an argument to hold sway often ignore the evidence from the other side, tend to be selective in their choice of articles to support their case and even with what they have, they are selective in which aspects they present to readers.

I wish to tackle each of these 3 articles below in order:

1. SenGupta P., Biomed Int 2011 2:81-89.

My comments: Dr Gyamfi's first reference was this article by Dr Pallav Gupta from the University of Calcutta. This physiologist's article was a scientific review of age-determination of laboratory animals and their comparison with humans. Essentially what she was trying to argue was whether rat models are appropriate for human studies and she draws the conclusion that age correlations between rats and humans differ markedly at different stages of life.

This article has absolutely nothing to do with GM or GM foods, but was a general review on the use of animal (in this case rat) models in biotechnology e.g. pharmaceutical and other research. Why Dr Gyamfi chose to refer to this article I am not sure and the point he made earlier in his article to this effect was out of context. In an ironic twist however I may use this very article to make a counter argument about why the so-called evidence he keeps hammering on from animal experiments should at best be treated with a pinch of salt.

2. Velimirov A, Binter C, Zentek J., 2008. ‘Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice’. Report-Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth.

My comments: This REPORT by Velimirov and others has been quoted extensively at anti-GM websites like "GMO Awareness" and is also placed as a "White Paper" or "Position Statement" at the website of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), a group whose identity and agenda is at the moment unclear to me.

In that posting, the AAEM started their first sentence quopting the WHO definition of GM Technology and GM foods in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead readers. There is no real substance in the quotation of the WHO except the definition of GM. Any how, the article which 'floods' the page and has been extensively used by anti-GM websites was actually a REPORT, the details of which one cannot find on the internet, except this part which has been culled and is presented at a "position statement" of the AAEM!!! How very pathetic and sad. If we really and truly want to debate GM, should we be relying on "REPORTS" the source of which is not clear and to whom is also not clear? The authors are quoted of writing a report for the "Federal Ministry of youth etc. but which country is not stated.

Is we want a serious debate on GM by scientists, then let us rely on the science instead of unrefereed sources and reports shall we?

That makes the 3rd article here by Tudisco et al., particularly interesting. This is a group of scientists led by Tudisco, in Italy and was published in 2010 in "The Animal Consortium", a journal which perhaps readers with a scientific background might wish to chekc on.

3. Tudisco, R. et tal, ‘Fate of Transgenic DNA and evaluation of metabolic effects in goats fed genetically modified soybean and in their offspring’. The Animal Consortium 2010.

My comments: This is a very well written article. It is coherent, clear and in my opinion very well balanced on the issues (irrespective of the authors' particular interest in the matter). The long and short of it is that these authors sought to trace the fate of transgenic (as opposed to other plant) DNA in goats fed with GM soybean and their offsprings during breast feeding in the first 60 days of life.

In their introduction, they tried to examine the arguments about GM foods and did acknowledge that from the EFSA's own scientific reviews, "to date there is no known scientific evidence of adverse health effects of GM foods on humans" (EFSA, 2008).

They acknowledged that plant DNA fragments are absorbed across the intestinal wall during digestion and indeed can be found in blood and animal tissues. They quoted several sources including their own previous work to support their argument. After stating categorically that this is a natural phenomenon which will happen whether the food is "natural" or GM, they then hypothesised that similarly "transgenic DNA fragments" from GM soybean will be found in tissues.

In their methods they fed 20 female pregnant goats (10 fed normal chow in the form of hay) and the other 10 (treatment group fed normal hay (and later alfalfa plus 200, 300, 400 grams of GM soybean extract at 60, 30 and 15 days before delivery. Following delivery, they fed the GM group up to 700 gm of GM soybean per day. They used various analytical techniques including polymerase chain reaction (PCR) approach to test for DNA. they also conducted enzyme analysis for a number of enzymes including Lactic dehydrogenase (and others known to be asociated with chronic disease.

In their findings, they report that they found plant DNA fragments for chloroplast and lectine in all animals' tissues including blood and milk. They also found transgenic DNA fragments in tissues of GM fed goats including in the kidneys, liver and heart tissue.

They also reported that the kids of these goats did not have any differences in weight and indeed did not report any ill health or abnormalities in any of the offsprings.

In their discussion, they stated and I quote "Detection of GM sequence in animal organs and tissues alone cannot justify the public concern regarding the human
consumption of products from farm animals fed transgenic
crops".

They went on to say quote another paper by (Mazza et al., 2005) in which the authors have stated that
"Indeed, the implications of DNA transfer from food containing GM plants to an organism is no higher as compared with DNA transfer from food containing the corresponding
conventional plant.

Readers, this is just a single article which Dr Gyamfi sought to use to make his arguments but yet failed to critically review the paper and to give readers a more balanced view of the issue relating to his so far wild list of "health effects" which he continues to gather from non-authoritative and one-sided webb sources and presents as if this is science.

I want to believe Dr Gyamfi is a scientist who is well trained and worth his salt. However if he chooses to misues scientific information in this way or somehow think that readers are not smart enough to assess his evidence and arguments, then it is these people who throw dust into our eyes and just because they think they are opinion formers, try to get away 'with murder'!!!

I still challenge Dr Gyamfi and all his supporters to let us have a proper debate, but one that is based on the evidence and not wishy-washy and poorly gathered and presented distortions of the facts as wwe know them. At least there is one thing I am personally glad of - as a scientist who believes in rigour, I cannot be deceived by others, not even the likes of Dr Gyamfi. Please try again.
Dr. Martin 11 years ago

To Paul Amuna,
I must say that I am surprised by your attempt to divert the attention of the readers by what you see as wrong use of sources. To begin with I stated that this was not to be an exhaustive paper and so did not ...
read full comment

To Paul Amuna,
I must say that I am surprised by your attempt to divert the attention of the readers by what you see as wrong use of sources. To begin with I stated that this was not to be an exhaustive paper and so did not go into all the technical details regarding all the variables tested plus the methodologies of the source materials.

1. Of course I know that Sengupta's paper has nothing to do with GMOs and I did not say it does. If you read the article carefully then you would have realized that I included it in the introduction, not as evidence that GM food is deleterious, but as a point of comparison for the readers to understand the equivalent of 90 rat days in human years. Yes I have read the paper and I know what it set out to do, but if you read it like I believe you did, then I am sure in addition to the fact that the equivalent age in humans varies with the developmental stage of the rat, the authors also gave an average lifetime equivalence. So it is sad that you will make this an issue.

2.You attempt to find fault with my use of the Russian report, and that amazes me. What is inherently wrong with the use of a scientific report by a panel of scientists, commissioned by a country's ministry of health? the fact that you cannot find it is no proof that it is wrong.

3.Tudisco, R et tal. Yes, this study does all of what you say it does. I did not emphasize any of that because it does not add any merit to the discussion. All it states is that plant DNA is taken into animal tissues, and being a scientist I believe you know that this applies to both transgenic plants and conventional (the more reason why we should not be inserting bacteria genes in crops). The study also identified high levels of lactic dehydrogenase in the tissues and that is the point I am making. The presence of high levels of this enzyme in the tissues and blood is proof positive of tissue injury, even in humans. So where is the problem? How am I using this wrongly? The investigators set out to study one thing and found other related issues and were honest to report it. Am I committing a crime because I am referring to that here.

Please do not try to create a controversy where non exist.
Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 11 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Monsanto and Co know very well, as much as you and I know, that no Ghanaian in his right senses will wake up with a passion to defend GMOs on Ghanaweb! That is why they ...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Monsanto and Co know very well, as much as you and I know, that no Ghanaian in his right senses will wake up with a passion to defend GMOs on Ghanaweb! That is why they pay people to do that for them.

Unfortunately for people like that that, they know it themselves that they have an uphill task on their hands, so you never meet anyone claiming to have been paid "to create a controversy where none exists"!

In this palace of The Odikro, we follow a peasant logic as implacable as any peer-reviewed scientific study. Simply put, if it looks like a goat, has a goatee like a goat, bleats like a goat, shits like a goat, then it is a goat!

Most of these storms in tea cup "scientists" are substantially equivalent to the proverbial goats in question, willing and able to sell their own country and even family for a song!

I am very satisfied with your answer! You know what you are about. The only motive Paul Amuna has is to create an impression there is a division of opinion in the Ghanaian public! There is none! So far, only "useful idiots" and those who have been paid something are busily campaigning for GMOs!

KEEP THE FAYA BURNING!

Sincerely,

Pur'gu Saarpe!
Secretary to The Odikro.
Paul Amuna 11 years ago

Yes!

Yes!

Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 11 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

You can run, but you can't hide! I have seen your latest article in which you confess you are not even capable of finding a copy of the Plant Breeders' Bill to read!

...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

You can run, but you can't hide! I have seen your latest article in which you confess you are not even capable of finding a copy of the Plant Breeders' Bill to read!

why do you think anyone should be bothered by a self-confessed ignoramus like you?

Tell your story walking!

Sincerely,

Pur'gu Saarpe! Esq.,
Secretary to The Odikro.
Paul Amuna 11 years ago

You amaze me by your attmept to stretch the evidence regarding lactate dehydrogenase and injury. You notice that even the authors did not attempt to make this connection or assertion in their paper. So why are you trying so h ...
read full comment

You amaze me by your attmept to stretch the evidence regarding lactate dehydrogenase and injury. You notice that even the authors did not attempt to make this connection or assertion in their paper. So why are you trying so hard to do that?

By the way can you justify why Tudisco et al chose to increase the amount of GM soy extract to 700 gm during lactation? And how do you explain the fact that this rise in enzymes did not affect all the samples but only a few?

The authors have suggested that some of the differences in the results may have been because of "different PCR conditions". Now you tell me, in the first place what was the quality of the study design and how robust was the randomization in this study? Would you argue that the treatment schedule and quantities of product given the animals was consistent?

Yes LDH levels were raised in the treatment group at certain time points which can be matched with concentration of soybean extract they were fed. How do you explain the fact that the authors changed from hay to alfalfa for the lactating goats? presumably to increase the protein content of the diet. Did the do the same for the control group?

Since enzymes are proteins, is it not plausible that this increase in protein in the feed could have been a source of substrates for increased protein (enzyme, LDH) synthesis?

The fact is this study is full of questions, more than answers and yes, we do not want ot get too technical with readers, many of whom simply want to get a sense of the facts in simple language and based on careful and sound analysis.

Please let us be serious about this and stop underminind scientific scrutiny in favour of your own personal preferences and interests in this matter.
Dr. Sage 11 years ago

Bravo sir, a well reasoned and rational response. I'm sure it will bring you accusations of shilling for corporate entities, but such is the life of a rational man.

Bravo sir, a well reasoned and rational response. I'm sure it will bring you accusations of shilling for corporate entities, but such is the life of a rational man.
Tekonline.org 11 years ago

Of all the papers cited, the Lancet is the most respected one.
The study by Ewen and Pustzai is full questionable methodology. Read the comments below:
======================================
GM food debate

Allan Mowat ...
read full comment

Of all the papers cited, the Lancet is the most respected one.
The study by Ewen and Pustzai is full questionable methodology. Read the comments below:
======================================
GM food debate

Allan Mowat aEmail Address
Sir
Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai (Oct 16, p 1353)1 raise intriguing questions about the potential of Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA) to cause morphological alterations in the intestinal tract and suggest that the lectin's effects may be exacerbated in genetically modified potatoes. However, the ways in which Ewen and Pusztai assess the enteropathic properties of GNA mean that their findings must be interpreted with extreme caution.
The indices of crypt length and jejunal intraepithelial lymphocyte (IEL) count have been used to study intestinal immunopathology for 20 years or more2, 3 but several aspects of Ewen and Pusztai's methodology warrant attention. First, the study relies entirely on image analysis of formalin—fixed, paraffin-embedded sections, which are notoriously subject to shrinkage, distortion, and other fixation artifacts. These problems can be partly overcome by careful choice of well-oriented villuscrypt units combined with exhaustive measurement techniques, but Ewen and Pusztai do not indicate whether they did this. Errors created by measuring crypts in different planes of section on the sample could account for the high variation reported. The fact that the crypt lengths reported (60-90 ?m in the jejunum) are much smaller than those normally found in the rat4 reinforces the view that the measurements may not have been accurate. More sensitive methods for processing and measuring intestinal tissues include non-formalin-based fixatives, microdissection, and direct morphometry of crypt and villus lengths.2—4 The enterocyte mitotic rate is probably the most sensitive index of intestinal pathology,2 and this can be measured easily by metaphase arrest or incorporation of bromodeoxyuridine.
Ewen and Pusztai use IEL counts to support their hypothesis that genetically modified potatoes cause jejunal lesions. They state that “IEL are known to increase when non-specific intestinal damage occurs”, but an increase in IEL count is specifically a feature of enteropathies associated with activated T lymphocytes.3 Thus an increased IEL count in animals receiving lectins could be compelling evidence for these materials inducing immunologically mediated damage to the gut. However, Ewen and Pusztai have not shown this conclusively. They do not seem to have counted IELs by a well-established method in which IEL are counted per 100 enterocyte nuclei or as an absolute number per length, volume or area of mucosa. That the technique they used is not ideal is underlined by the numbers of IEL they report, which are in the region of 7-11 per 48 villi. To reconcile these estimates, given that a single column of villus enterocytes in the rat jejunum contains 200-300 enterocytes and the density of IEL in the normal small intestine is 10-20 per 100 epithelial cells, is difficult. The low protein content of some of the diets, referred to by other commentators as a possible source of error,5 could account for some deviation of IEL numbers from normal but not for such a gross change. However, it is feasible that such a diet might have made the rats more susceptible to the intestinal infections known to cause the kind of changes in IEL and crypts3 noted here.
The speculation that the lectin caused jejunal crypt hyperplasia via a direct stimulatory effect on crypt cells cannot be substantiated by the data. Hyperplasia implies increased mitotic activity, which was not measured. Also, the time course for these changes is not described, and no parameters of villus pathology are provided. In the absence of this information, it is impossible to say whether the changes in crypt morphology are primary effects of the lectin or secondary to villus damage.
Interactions between lectins, intestinal epithelial cells, and the local immune apparatus is an important and poorly understood area. Appropriate methods for studying the enteropathic effects of lectins are available and are comparatively simple and inexpensive. Application of these techniques may help elucidate the issues raised by this provocative study.
References

1 Ewen SWB, Puszati A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.. Lancet 1999; 354: 1353. Summary | Full Text | PDF(35KB) | CrossRef | PubMed
2 Mowat AM, Ferguson A. Intraepithelial lymphocyte count and crypt hyperplasia measure the mucosal component of the graft-versus-host reaction in mouse small intestine.. Gastroenterology 1982; 83: 417-423. PubMed
3 Ferguson A. Models of immunologically-driven small intestinal damage.. In: Marsh MN, ed. Immunopathology of the small intestine.. Chichester: Wiley, 1987: 225-252.
4 Clarke RM. Mucosal architecture and epithelial cell production rate in the small intestine of the albino rat.. J Anat 1970; 107: 519-529. PubMed
5 Kuiper HA, Noteborn HPJM, Peijneburg AACM. Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods.. Lancet 1999; 354: 1354. Summary | Full Text | PDF(39KB) | CrossRef | PubMed
Dr. Martin 11 years ago

What you seem to forget with the lancet study you are trying to debunk is that, there was a treatment group and a control group, and both of these groups had their endpoint parameters measured in the same way.I will not debat ...
read full comment

What you seem to forget with the lancet study you are trying to debunk is that, there was a treatment group and a control group, and both of these groups had their endpoint parameters measured in the same way.I will not debate the accuracy of the staining and fixing methods with you, at least the editorial board of Lancet saw it as credible enough to publish it and that should settle any arguments.
I will however remind you that if there was any problem with the technique, like what you are attempting to prove, it would have affected both treatment and control specimens equally so please don't attempt to throw dust in the readers eyes by suggesting that, there was hyperplasia and hypertrophy of these interstinal cells because there was something wrong with the technique, because there was not.
Paul Amuna 11 years ago

I am sure you are well aware that editorial boards are not responsible for author errors or the scientific merit of content per se. The fact that the paper is published in The Lancet does not make it whooly accurate. Surely y ...
read full comment

I am sure you are well aware that editorial boards are not responsible for author errors or the scientific merit of content per se. The fact that the paper is published in The Lancet does not make it whooly accurate. Surely you must know that?
Paul Amuna 11 years ago

Even Nature has published papers which were based on flawed scientific scrutiny and analysis causing serious public health damage, Dr Whitfield's MMR and autism link paper being a classic example. Good thing is Nature eventua ...
read full comment

Even Nature has published papers which were based on flawed scientific scrutiny and analysis causing serious public health damage, Dr Whitfield's MMR and autism link paper being a classic example. Good thing is Nature eventuall recalled that paper, but rather too late!!!
Tekonline.org 11 years ago

GM food debate

Anthony J FitzGerald a, Robert A Goodlad a, Nicholas A Wright a
Sir
While much of the debate has focused on the nature of the diets studied by Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai1 and possible differences betwe ...
read full comment

GM food debate

Anthony J FitzGerald a, Robert A Goodlad a, Nicholas A Wright a
Sir
While much of the debate has focused on the nature of the diets studied by Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai1 and possible differences between them, one central question is the effects of these on cell proliferation in the gut. Ewen and Pusztai talk about “proliferative effects” when they have not measured intestinal cell proliferation but merely crypt depth. Crypt depth might reflect hypoplasia and hyperplasia but this has yet to be shown. Various methods can be used to measure intestinal epithelial cell proliferation, such as the numbers of dividing cells in optimally sectioned crypts, but for definitive conclusions we need measurements related to the rate of crypt or gland cell production;2 the size of the epithelial population also needs to be assessed appropriately. Perhaps the best way of doing this is to use metaphase arrest and the microdissection method,3 in which not only the rate of crypt cell production but also good measurements of crypt and villus size can be captured simultaneously.
Another point is that many such studies can be confounded by concomitant changes in the denominator,4, 5 and the data on intraepithelial lymphocytes, with sectioned villus as the denominator, could be subject to the same criticism.
We hope these comments will help to ensure that if these studies are repeated (as they should be), robust, rapid, and reliable methods for assessment of cell proliferation are used.
References

1 Ewen SWB, Pusztai A. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.. Lancet 1999; 354: 1353-1354. Summary | Full Text | PDF(35KB) | CrossRef | PubMed
2 Wright NA, Alison MR. The biology of epithelial cell populations.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.
3 Goodlad RA. Microdissection-based techniques for the determination of cell proliferation in gastrointestinal epithelium: application to animal and human studies.. In: Celis JE, ed. Cell biology: a laboratory handbook.. San Diego and London: Academic Press, 1994: 205-216.
4 Goodlad RA. The whole crypt and nothing but the crypt.. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1992; 4: 1035-1036. PubMed
5 Goodlad RA. Defective denominators, or will people never learn.. Gastroenterology 1995; 108: 1963. CrossRef | PubMed
a Histopathology Unit, ICRF, 44 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PX, UK
Tekonline.org 11 years ago

GM food debate

Peter Lachmann a
Sir
Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai's research letter1 describing measurements of intraepithelial lymphocyte counts and mucosal thickness in rats in a short-term feeding experiment of potat ...
read full comment

GM food debate

Peter Lachmann a
Sir
Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai's research letter1 describing measurements of intraepithelial lymphocyte counts and mucosal thickness in rats in a short-term feeding experiment of potatoes transgenic for snowdrop lectin is unacceptable for the following reasons.
For the intraepithelial lymphocyte counts, one essential group—rats fed with potatoes spiked with Galanthus nivalis lectin (GNA)—was omitted on the grounds that the authors claim to know that “dietary GNA or other lectins do not induce lymphocyte infiltration”. This omission is improper and those data should have been provided.
No control data are provided for rats fed on a normal laboratory diet so it is not possible to say what values are normal. The authors simply assume that anything found in group fed GM potatoes is abnormal.
Were the assays done blind on coded samples?
I am unclear as to what disease these markers are a surrogate. Intraepithelial lymphocyte counts are greatly increased in coeliac disease but in normal gut, a modest increase in their number is not known to me to be a marker for any pathological process. Also, what significance attaches to minor changes in mucosal thickness? If there is any evidence for pathological processes associated with these surrogate markers. Ewen and Pusztai should have cited it.
In the statistical analysis there is no correction for “data dredging”. The two measurements reported were not the test of a pre-existing hypothesis. They have been selected from an unstated number of comparisons. The probabilities need to be adjusted for the number of different comparisons made. This will almost certainly make them non-significant and the experiments therefore need to be repeated on a new group of rats.
References

1 Ewen SWB, Pusztai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.. Lancet 1999; 354: 1353-1354. Summary | Full Text | PDF(35KB) | CrossRef | PubMed
Dr. Martin 11 years ago

You seem to forget that in the lancet study, there was a control group and a treatment group, and whatever staining and fixing technique that was used, was used on the endpoint parameters of both these groups, and if the tec ...
read full comment

You seem to forget that in the lancet study, there was a control group and a treatment group, and whatever staining and fixing technique that was used, was used on the endpoint parameters of both these groups, and if the technique were wrong, would have affected them both equally. I will not debate the accuracy or not of the technique used, because, the editorial board of Lancet saw nothing wrong with the technique and that is why they published it.
but to surmise on this forum that the study found hyperplasia and hypertrophy in the intestinal tissues of the treatment group because of a faulty technique is dishonest at best.

Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 11 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Thank you very much, Dr. martin, you have carried the day! You have achieved what you set out to do and they have tried to resist, but you have prevailed with the scienc ...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Thank you very much, Dr. martin, you have carried the day! You have achieved what you set out to do and they have tried to resist, but you have prevailed with the science!

The whole of Ghana, on whose behalf we are resisting the IMPOSITION of genetically modified organisms into our food chain, thank you tremendously!

CONGRATULATIONS!

Live and thrive!

Pur'gu Saarpe! Esq.,
Secretary to The Odikro.
Dr. Martin 11 years ago

Thank you very much Odikro,
I appreciate your encouragement and support. I know people like Paul Amuna, and takeonline.org,whoever that is. They scout around on the internet and pop up using different pseudo names. Under the ...
read full comment

Thank you very much Odikro,
I appreciate your encouragement and support. I know people like Paul Amuna, and takeonline.org,whoever that is. They scout around on the internet and pop up using different pseudo names. Under the guise of so called science, they embark on a campaign of misinformation. I have met several of them on various science websites. Usually they know they can not dispute the science. So, like they were attempting to do here, they invent objections to genuine research that find adverse effects to the toxic food they are promoting and in so doing, they expose their real intentions. They presume to think that we will be intimidated by all the useless technical details they have been taught to regurgitate. But, When they realize they have failed, they just disappear, only to reappear another day under a different guise. That is why people like you and me and every true Ghanaian should wake up and let our voices be heard.
Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 11 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Dear Dr. Martin,
I couldn't agree with you more! We need to intensify this campaign and develop public awareness and participation in this debate and resist all attempt ...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Dear Dr. Martin,
I couldn't agree with you more! We need to intensify this campaign and develop public awareness and participation in this debate and resist all attempts by these paid agents and their owners from IMPOSING their mess on Ghanaians as food!

We shall be getting in touch!
Keep the fire burning!

Sincerely,
Pur'gu Saarpe! Esq.,
Secretary to The Odikro.
Paul Amuna 11 years ago

"Parade the internet"? Clearly you do not know me and probably have not been following discussions on ghanaweb. I was silent on the GM debate for a long time until you guys came along purporting to be scientific experts on th ...
read full comment

"Parade the internet"? Clearly you do not know me and probably have not been following discussions on ghanaweb. I was silent on the GM debate for a long time until you guys came along purporting to be scientific experts on the subject and throwing dust into the eyes of unsuspecting Ghanaians.

For your information I have contributed on topics from health to development and politics on ghanaweb and am not one of those GMO Junkies or hired people who are there to promote someone else's business. I have myself checked on the tekonline website and it seems to be linked to ghanaweb.

I have found little on that group to know what their particular agenda is but believe me,I am one of but a few people who actually use their CORRECT and PROPERE name on ghanaweb. You know why? I simply have nothing to hide and what you see is exactly what you get.

My advice to you is, if you want to have a proper and sound argument on GM Foods, let us have it as fellow Ghanaian scientists. but let us not be selective, but put all our cards on the table. I too want to know the truth about any ill health effects of GM foods if you care to know.
Paul Amuna 11 years ago

The evidence that plant lectins and chloroplast DNA fragments are absorbed from the normal diet is conclusive, irrespective of source of the lectins!! To attribute 'intestinal mucosal damage' or other GIT pathology to lectins ...
read full comment

The evidence that plant lectins and chloroplast DNA fragments are absorbed from the normal diet is conclusive, irrespective of source of the lectins!! To attribute 'intestinal mucosal damage' or other GIT pathology to lectins from GM foods is I am afraid tantamount to intellectual dishonesty and this must be pointed out. Why do researchers exclude studies which do not support their hypotheses just because they want to advance their arguments? How can we then say we have a level playing field for sound debate on GM Foods?
Paul Amuna 11 years ago

What we need are well designed studies and well balanced science. I feel sad to see fellow scientists so biased in their selection of the 'scientific facts' for their arguments and their attempt to ignore apparent flaws in st ...
read full comment

What we need are well designed studies and well balanced science. I feel sad to see fellow scientists so biased in their selection of the 'scientific facts' for their arguments and their attempt to ignore apparent flaws in study design and interpretation of findings.
Dr. Martin 11 years ago

Where in my article did I attribute Intestinal damage to plant chloroplast or DNA uptake? You are still trying to make a case out of your hypothesis that I misapplied the science, which I did not so please get over it. The re ...
read full comment

Where in my article did I attribute Intestinal damage to plant chloroplast or DNA uptake? You are still trying to make a case out of your hypothesis that I misapplied the science, which I did not so please get over it. The researchers set out to study the fate of plant DNA and lectins animal food. and to their credit, they did a good job and found what they were looking for.

True science however demands that you report all your findings in a study, irrespective of whether you were expecting them or not. If you have been following the Biotech industry sponsored research then you would have noticed that many of them manipulate study results in order to hide unfavorable results. The Italian study you are trying so hard to build a case out of however, did not tow that line. In addition to reporting what they found out in relation to their study objective, they also saw evidence of tissue damage which they reported. please understand that abnormally high levels of lactic dehydrogenase in samples and the blood only mean one thing, tissue damage. In case you are wondering, I am a medical doctor and we follow levels of this enzyme routinely to detect tissue damage in humans so please stop trying to downplay the fact that this enzyme was found in high levels in GM fed animals. Whether that was the initial goal of the study or not is immaterial.
And no, I have no affiliation with any organization, I am just a physician who is concerned about the health of our citizens.
Whatever 11 years ago

There you are

There you are
stunning seo guys 11 years ago

dzb8pA Thank you for your blog post.Really thank you! Awesome.

dzb8pA Thank you for your blog post.Really thank you! Awesome.

39 Comments

Welcome,

SIGN IN

Welcome,

RESET PASSWORD

Hello,

Terms and conditions

REGISTER

Wake up Ghanaians! Say no to GMOs Part 2

Read Comments .st0{display:none;fill:#14BDD3;} .st1{display:none;} .st2{display:inline;fill:#FC0F0F;} .st3{display:inline;fill:#FFFFFF;} .st4{display:inline;fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:6;stroke-miterlimit:10;} Comments (39)

Read Comments Comments (39)