Ghana’s GMO debates: beyond the sticking points (2)

Read Article

Comments (46)

This article is closed for comments.

Read Comments Comments (46)

Emmanuel K Agyarko,MP Ayawaso West Wu 12 years ago

A most refreshing departure from the rather uninformed arguments in this important national debate.Please keep up the good work.we must find a way to break it down so a lot more of are people who are science shy would appreci ...
read full comment

A most refreshing departure from the rather uninformed arguments in this important national debate.Please keep up the good work.we must find a way to break it down so a lot more of are people who are science shy would appreciate this.
Xcroc 12 years ago

EU countries are rejecting GMOs. So the missionaries are coming to Africa to promote them and to make converts, such as the gullible authors of this article.
The missionaries are making their pitch to the AU this month:
...
read full comment

EU countries are rejecting GMOs. So the missionaries are coming to Africa to promote them and to make converts, such as the gullible authors of this article.
The missionaries are making their pitch to the AU this month:
gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2014/15303

"Also speaking will be a large number of well known GM evangelists from Europe, such as Matin Qaim and Joachim Schiemann. The event is organised by EASAC, a European body that authored an extremely biased report on GM.

[UK's], Paterson has "confirmed" that he will attend.

According to the same documents, among this horde of rich white Europeans anxious to promote GM, one of only two token "suggested African keynote speakers" is Calestous Juma. Juma, however, has been based in the US for years and is also a staunch proponent of GMOs. He directs the Agricultural Innovation in Africa Project funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, an investor in Monsanto.

The event is apparently aimed at giving the appearance of a European stamp of approval to GMOs, even though the majority of the European Union's citizens oppose GM in food and agriculture. The extent of this opposition was made clear when a recent attempt to approve a Dupont GM maize for cultivation in the EU was opposed by 19 nations, with only 5 supporting approval. It was also overwhelmingly opposed by the European Parliament, which recently voted by a nearly two-thirds majority against authorization, reflecting the views of 61% of Europeans who do not support GMO foods.

Unsurprisingly, the biotech industry is in retreat in Europe, with corporations like BASF, Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto all halting the development and commercialisation of GM crops here."

In order to continue expansion of their monopolies and profits they are coming to Africa. Ghana is a target entry point.

We have seen this before, over centuries, it is time to get wise.
Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 12 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

It looks like the MP is not only ignorant but also naive! He is even unable to read between the lines!

Methinks our "honourable member" is in search of any excuse th ...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

It looks like the MP is not only ignorant but also naive! He is even unable to read between the lines!

Methinks our "honourable member" is in search of any excuse that will enable them pass this disgraceful bill without ant political blow-back.

How funny! Blow-back there will be if they want to impose any GM foods on us without any consultation. Who told him he was voted to Parliament to tell us what to eat?

This is scary! We have an MP who does not even know that Ghana is a target entry point for the colonialists and the neo-enslavers.

Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro.
Dr. Martin 12 years ago

I must first applaud you for this article. I will however like to address certain issues you raised.

1. Safety:
Your article states that Biotechnology is a well regulated science and I will agree with you in part because ...
read full comment

I must first applaud you for this article. I will however like to address certain issues you raised.

1. Safety:
Your article states that Biotechnology is a well regulated science and I will agree with you in part because biotechnology as it is used in the pharmaceutical industry is fairly advanced and pretty well regulated although it has its own problems. We can not however apply this widely accepted safety of this science to genetic modification as it pertains to food crops. The dogma that has formed the basis of biotechnology has been the belief that one gene is responsible for one protein or trait but we now know that this is not true. One gene can produce thousands of proteins. So, whereas a pharmaceutical company using this technology can isolate and purify the desired protein, the same can not be said for food crops which will end up being consumed, food, contaminant and all.

You used the doctrine of "substantial equivalence" to explain why GM food is safe, but the shortfall of this doctrine is that, it compares the macro and micronutrients of a GM crop to its non GM varieties and if this does not differ in any significant way, then the GM crop is assumed to be substantially equivalent to the non GM variety. This doctrine does not address the fact that other unintended proteins, allergens, and anti-nutrient factors may be produced with the genetic manipulation. Even in FDA's documents which I will quote below, it is clear that this statement is more of a legal statement than a scientific one.

The supposed "complete safety" of GM food is rather based on assumption since the GM food manufacturers have fought every attempt to label their food. So if one does not know what he or she is eating, how do you blame a particular food item for being responsible for a health effect? thus the GM food producers, hide behind this non traceability of GM food to claim its safety.

The idea that GM food is highly regulated is not entirely accurate because the whole process is a voluntary self regulation. The 1992 US FDA statement of policy on food produced from new plant varieties,(FDA Federal Register Vol.57-1992) the policy based on which GM food was and is still regulated states that, Food producers are to ensure the safety of their food, and GM food producers are to consult with the FDA, "informally" prior to marketing their food to ensure it is safe. Tell me how an informal consultation by s company which is bent on profiting from its technology regulatory? In this same policy statement, the FDA acknowledged the potential for the GM process to produce novel allergens, but admitted that there are no known methods of testing for these.In short no one knows.

You also alluded to the fact that gene transfer or exchange occurs in nature and this implies that gene transfer from GM crops is safe. This assertion is also not entirely accurate. It is true that horizontal gene transfers occur in nature, but these are not always without consequences, plus nature is very adept at dealing with problems that occur naturally, but unprepared for and sometimes completely overwhelmed by artificially created problems.

I am not done I will be back.
Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 12 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

WOW! I can't wait to read the continuation! These people think they are too clever! They want to "manufacture consent" with nothing but lies and beating about the bush!
...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

WOW! I can't wait to read the continuation! These people think they are too clever! They want to "manufacture consent" with nothing but lies and beating about the bush!

Please, let's have some more!

God bless Ghana!

Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro.
Dr. Martin 12 years ago

I am back, I hope I am not too late
2. The Asilomar Conference
The Asilomar conference on biotechnology with its resultant biotechnology protocols which you site, was indeed a very important step in the regulation of biotec ...
read full comment

I am back, I hope I am not too late
2. The Asilomar Conference
The Asilomar conference on biotechnology with its resultant biotechnology protocols which you site, was indeed a very important step in the regulation of biotechnology in general, but those protocols do not and can not address the issues related to GM crops. To begin with, the burden of the Asilomar conference was containment, and the idea was to contain and control this new technology to protect life and the environment from any possible cross infection or cross contamination by the various viruses, bacteria and genetic material utilized in these technologies.You have acknowledged yourselves in this article that once GM crops are planted the idea of containment ceases to exist and so those advocating for caution in the introduction of GM crops, should not be written off since the dangers of cross pollination and contamination are not imagined but real. Sorry, as wonderful as it is, the biotechnology protocols work well when working in an enclosed lab. but not when the open field is your lab.

3.Our Neighbors up North
You are suggesting that since our immediate northern neighbors have adopted GM crops, Ghana has no choice but to adopt it also, since it will cross over whether we like it or not. Unfortunately this is a very simplistic view of the issue. Yes they have accepted it, its their right. We also have a right not to. Even in the US, the home base of GM food technology, there are farmers growing conventional crops next to their neighbors' GM crops. If we are to follow your logic, then no one should be growing any crops at all in the US unless it is GM.

Do you know that Bt crops are regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) as pesticides?(EPA document 735-F-02-013 May 2002) And that one of the GM crops currently being grown in experimental farms in Ghana is Bt cowpeas? Since when did the wholesale consumption of pesticides accepted as safe? Yes we all believe in Science, and biotechnology has its merits, but sometimes regular common sense dictates that we exercise caution in proposing ideas and novel technologies. We can not compare Bt cotton to Bt Corn or Cowpeas. One is food, the other is not.

3.GMO ownership
The discussion goes beyond GMO ownership and the terminator technology. Of course we all agree that people are entitled to own and protect their intellectual property. But when Companies sue farmers who have neither bought nor borrowed GM seeds, for having GM crops blown to their farms by the wind and purposely destroy their lives, the issue ceases to be one of GM ownership to that of food ownership. Dragging farmers to court and making then accumulate large legal expenses to the point of bankruptcy, buying up conventional seed companies around the world in order to reduce competition etc. is called a conspiracy theory by some especially when they are not on the receiving end of the law suits.
Honesty-the best policy! 12 years ago

A carefully balanced and educative write-up. A welcomed departure from the the extremist and fanatic cacophony that have ooccupied the media space for sometime now. Thank you for the enlightenment.You have done a great servic ...
read full comment

A carefully balanced and educative write-up. A welcomed departure from the the extremist and fanatic cacophony that have ooccupied the media space for sometime now. Thank you for the enlightenment.You have done a great service to mother Ghana
Pelicles 12 years ago

We cannot rely on multinational companies to supply us with seed for planting. If someone targets your food, it means one thing: Systematic annihilation. It will come to a time that you will have to be on your knees beginni ...
read full comment

We cannot rely on multinational companies to supply us with seed for planting. If someone targets your food, it means one thing: Systematic annihilation. It will come to a time that you will have to be on your knees beginning but to no avail.

It is better we stick to our conventional way of producing our food. We know exactly what we are putting into our system unlike what is being push on us. Some points in the article makes sense but in the nutshell, I will say to GMO because man always has something sinister against his fellow man.

What we need in Ghana is storage facilities, good roads etc so that foods can reach the urban centers.
Elijah 12 years ago

Again a well written sequel to your article yesterday and I applaud the depth of your knowledge in this area and the obvious homework you have done. You have mentioned several points which, in my opinion, strengthen the argum ...
read full comment

Again a well written sequel to your article yesterday and I applaud the depth of your knowledge in this area and the obvious homework you have done. You have mentioned several points which, in my opinion, strengthen the argument against introduction of GMOs in Ghana.
Firstly the porous nature of our borders and internal structures indicate that we are not yet ready to guarantee biosecurity in our country and any research in this area should be limited to the laboratory. Secondly history will teach us that once we introduce such bills into law, the more able multinational players will seize it to their advantage and to the detriment of local peasant farmers who currently feed us as a nation. Do you remember how America subsidized corn for exports to kill off local production? Have you considered reasons why Akasanoma radio died in Ghana? Did we start Boafo car manufacturing years ago? What has become of it? Do you know where the polished rice we consume in Ghana comes from? Do you know why our economy is struggling as a result of excessive importation? Even toothpick is imported. Why am I mentioning these examples? Ghanaians have been conditioned over the years to think anything foreign is superior to locally produced alternatives and we will import date-expired chicken fattened with hormones and antibiotics, rice jam-packed with pesticides and almost devoid of essential nutrients, corned beef made out of beef that the originator countries would not consider suitable for consumption (remember the recent horsemeat scandal in Europe?), processed food with labelling that cannot be trusted to name but a few. We do not have robust enough testing facilities to actually analyse the contents of anything we import,including GMO products, yet we trust them blindly. You see Ghana is a very small country and we are very vulnerable to the dominant forces of these insatiable multinationals. And no one can blame them. Their soul purpose is to maximise profits for their shareholders and they will do so whatever the costs. So for us to assume they will put in the necessary checks and balances to ensure the biosecurity of crops in some small country of 24 million peole would be irresponsible on our part. The law as it currently is allows sufficient amount of research by Ghanaian scientists and they should concentrate on getting it right before pushing for the plant breeders bill which is most likely to seized upon unfairly by these multinationals. We will not be able to stop them coming in with seeds they will claim are superior to any locally produced seeds (GMO or not). We will be powerless to stop them once this law is in place. We can already see signs of that when the US ambassador got involved in this debate. Was she trying to tell us something? Is she under pressure from Monsanto and their associates to ensure Ghana passes this ill-thought through plant breeders bill?
I have said this before and I will say it again. Ghana can produce a surplus of food using existing technologies without resorting to GMOs and we will make MORE money producing and exporting organically farmed produce instead of GMOs foods that no one would want to buy from us. We have 12 hours of sunshine daily all year round and can use irrigation to ensure we harvest food at least 3 times a year. We haven't even got any where near exausting our potential using existing, safer methods so why are we hell-bent on tampering with mother nature? Food is too important to life to be experimenting so carelessly at such a sensitive stage of our national development. We have seen giant cylos built through bad advice exploding before our eyes. We have seen so many other white elephants that have taken us back to the dark ages. Do we want our food supply to follow suit? Allowing GMOs in Ghana would be equivalent to putting central heating in every house in Ghana. That is not clever and we must stand up and fight it now instead of attemping to hide behind clever articles and introduce GMOs by the back door.
Apologies if my comment appears incoherent. I am writing bits and pieces whilst busy at work and distracted every few minutes.
Thomas 12 years ago

Thanks again, better human beings who have this country at heart. I am sure the authorities are taking time off their duties to read this important educative, indepth and carefully balanced write up. You guys are doing a grea ...
read full comment

Thanks again, better human beings who have this country at heart. I am sure the authorities are taking time off their duties to read this important educative, indepth and carefully balanced write up. You guys are doing a great job. These are the things we need to know from our so called journalists, instead of their usual partisan politics. Well done. I hope it is now very clear to those whose duties it is to make sure that the right thing is done. Ghana deserves better. This is the mark of a higher education. I hope the stupid fools like Ahoofe and his friend Akadu Mensema, both a dirty tribal bigots, would read this and examine themselves, if any of them is fit to clean the shoes of these writer.

Gandalf 12 years ago

Can my fellow academics here defend the presence of 'clause 23' in the proposed 'Plant Breeders' Bill'?

Can my fellow academics here defend the presence of 'clause 23' in the proposed 'Plant Breeders' Bill'?
Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 12 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Hello Gandalf,
Thank you so much for asking this question. They should stop beating about the bush and come straight to the most important sticking point to the PBR deb ...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Hello Gandalf,
Thank you so much for asking this question. They should stop beating about the bush and come straight to the most important sticking point to the PBR debate: even assuming that we must give the plant breeder some rights, does that mean we should make them over and above all measures of the state to regulate their activities?

Why is the Bill asking Parliament to make the plant breeder above the law? Clause 23 of the PBB states categorically that:

Clause 23: Measures regulating commerce.

“A plant breeder right shall be independent of any measure taken by the Republic to regulate within Ghana the production, certification and marketing of material of a variety or the importation or exportation of the material.”

How come the wording of the Bill makes the rights of the plant breeder "INDEPENDENT" of "any measure taken by the Republic to regulate within Ghana the production, certification and marketing of material of a variety or the importation or exportation of the material”, when even OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS CITIZENS OF GHANA are "SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF GHANA"?

What type of business is this? Why do they need to operate above the laws of Ghana? Are they armed robbers?

Pur'gu Saarpe! Esq.,
Secretary to The Odikro.
Kweku 12 years ago

Actually, the GMO debates have very little to do with the Plant Breeders Bill, but so much to do with Biosafety Act 2011 (Act 831).....which is history.....It is not clear why people have focused so much on the Plant Breeders ...
read full comment

Actually, the GMO debates have very little to do with the Plant Breeders Bill, but so much to do with Biosafety Act 2011 (Act 831).....which is history.....It is not clear why people have focused so much on the Plant Breeders Bill. Again, it was the news that the CSIR has started GMO confined field trials late last year that started the whole debates.....So it is not about Monsanto...It is about what the CSIR is experimenting....The plant breeders bill is a sidetrack, only providing political capital for anti-GMO groups....well, I guess whatever clause 23 is, parliament has been petitioned to look at it...hope it will...Interesting discussion so far...big up to the authors....
Xcroc 12 years ago

The Plant Breeders Bill is necessary to the big agricultural multinational monopolies The PBB protects their patented GMO seeds by law, a law above the laws of Ghana (Clause 23). Pay for the seeds or pay royalties for using ...
read full comment

The Plant Breeders Bill is necessary to the big agricultural multinational monopolies The PBB protects their patented GMO seeds by law, a law above the laws of Ghana (Clause 23). Pay for the seeds or pay royalties for using seeds. The PBB is the tool that forces farmers to buy new seeds from the corporate monopolies every year. The corporations own the seeds and own the right to any use of the seeds.
Kweku 12 years ago

So you think the plant breeder should be poor? Why shouldn't people benefit from their innovations? By the way, farmers have always bought seeds, improved seeds, hybrids. Hybrid seeds must be bought every year....but the farm ...
read full comment

So you think the plant breeder should be poor? Why shouldn't people benefit from their innovations? By the way, farmers have always bought seeds, improved seeds, hybrids. Hybrid seeds must be bought every year....but the farmers still grow them because they do better than the conventional varieties....Of course, is it by force to buy Monsanto seeds? Monsanto does not force anybody to buy its seeds...Or do they? But once you have decided to plant them, you have to pay them for their investments....This is a matter of simple business model...That is why Monsanto has won every single case against farmers who planted their seeds without paying royalties.....The farmers can choose not to plant Monsanto seeds....it is not by force.....People must learn to pay others for their efforts....There are other successful businesses in the world, Apple, Samsung, etc......why don't people accuse them of being profit-minded? If you don't pay people for their services, the world will be poorer, because nobody will innovate! It's that simple...Stop the hatred for Monsanto
Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 12 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Hello Kweku,
I can see that you have lost it completely! No one is saying the plant breeder should be poor, what we are saying, and which you are running away from, is ...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Hello Kweku,
I can see that you have lost it completely! No one is saying the plant breeder should be poor, what we are saying, and which you are running away from, is that, why should the rights of the plant breeder be made over and above those of anyone else, including the Republic of Ghana?

That is what you need to address instead of beating about the bush! Address the question of clause 23!

Sincerely,
Pur'gu Saarpe! Esq.,
Secretary to The Odikro.
AMU 12 years ago

Great! Thank you Xcroc.
No to GMO!

Great! Thank you Xcroc.
No to GMO!
Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 12 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Hello Kweku,
You are so much ill-informed, and it shows! The Plant Breeders' Bill is designed to allow the plant breeder the right "to the production, certification and ...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Hello Kweku,
You are so much ill-informed, and it shows! The Plant Breeders' Bill is designed to allow the plant breeder the right "to the production, certification and marketing of material of a variety or the importation or exportation of the material”, without any control from the government.

Have you bothered to find out about the definition of "the material" in question?
Clause 20 (6) of the Plant Breeders Bill includes, as a pat of its definition, "(c) variant individual from a plant of the initial variety, back crossing or transformation by genetic engineering.”

If the drafters of the Bill had intended the rights of the plant breeder to be subject to the laws of Ghana, they would have said so!

It is clear that GMOs are under an offensive worldwide. They are aware that in the very near future, Ghanaians would be clamouring for the labelling of GM foods. The way Clause 23 is written, it would be a violation of the law to either ban a "material" of the plant breeder, or even ask for labelling.

The clause 23 is there to pre-empt our ability to regulate them without suffering from judgement debts! This is not new. Monsanto sued Mexico for "the loss of expected business opportunities" when they tried to ban GM maize, because a similar clause under NAFTA put that power above the power of the state, to which Mexico had signed up to!

This is exactly the sort of azaa that is going on in broad daylight, and people are simply beating about the bush, like this present article!

Pur'gu Saarpe! Esq.,
Secretary to The Odikro.
Kweku 12 years ago

The writers did not set out to address issues concerning the plant breeders bill.....if you read part 1 of the article, you would have realized what the aim of the authors were.....they have never mentioned plant breeders bil ...
read full comment

The writers did not set out to address issues concerning the plant breeders bill.....if you read part 1 of the article, you would have realized what the aim of the authors were.....they have never mentioned plant breeders bill in their article, so why do you claim they were beating about the bush....they are not the only Ghanaians, you can also write your articles and show your concerns....rather than demonstrating on the streets....where were you when the Biosafety Act was passed in 2011? Or you did not know it was all about GMOs? How sad....The debates are not about Monsanto! This Monsanto fixation will kill you....
Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 12 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

My dear Kweku,
Please don't be ridiculous. The only reason why this has come up as a topic of public discussions is because of the Plant Breeders' Bill which is current ...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

My dear Kweku,
Please don't be ridiculous. The only reason why this has come up as a topic of public discussions is because of the Plant Breeders' Bill which is currently before the Parliament!

First, we are told the Plant Breeders' Bill has nothing to do with GMOs, this turned out to be false. Now when the most important question is asked of these GMO propagandists, we are being told, "Sorry! We are not talking about any difficult part of the debate! Shall we focus on GMOs?

We are asking a legitimate question that anyone contemplating a law of this nature has to answer. This has nothing to do with a fixation on any company. Rather, you must take care. Your fixation with GMOs will kill you, or destroy your testicles!

Sincerely,
Pur'gu Saarpe! Esq.,
Secretary to The Odikro.

joe ati 12 years ago

Wow, what a thought provoking piece

Wow, what a thought provoking piece
piw 12 years ago

How can we entrust our seed source to multinational companies we do not have control over?Have we thought of the peasant farmers who feed us yet will have difficulty buying seed every planting season? Economic slavery? Why is ...
read full comment

How can we entrust our seed source to multinational companies we do not have control over?Have we thought of the peasant farmers who feed us yet will have difficulty buying seed every planting season? Economic slavery? Why is USAID and Mosanto sponsoring people all over campaign for GMOs? I think we have to be care.
Deceive 12 years ago

My question is for how long is the white man going to control us.There is one thing nobody is paying attention to Cancer.Why cancer is part of black history now. How many Ghanaians are dying or had died from cancer and why ou ...
read full comment

My question is for how long is the white man going to control us.There is one thing nobody is paying attention to Cancer.Why cancer is part of black history now. How many Ghanaians are dying or had died from cancer and why our medical professionals are not raising any red flag. We're dying from cancer since the white man introduced Ghanaians into toxic fertilizers, birth control and other toxic drugs. We're consuming a lot of chemicals already and we don't need any extra chemicals. What research has the government officials have done about the GMO. Why are we dying prematurely or getting more sick in our generation.My grandmother died last year at age 100 never got sick, very strong, still walking, had all her teeth because she ate organic all her life.Her first sickness is the one that took her life.Is it not time to go back to organic instead of GMO? Seeds that are going to make our health miserable, seeds that are going to be control only by Monsanto. Please watch these You Tube videos if you have internet. Use Google search and type Seeds Of Death, The Sick Story Of GMO or Popular Monsanto videos.
Felix 12 years ago

Before GMOs, there was cancer. Therefore, to blame GMOs for cancer is unreasonable. In countries where no GMO is cultivated, or which do not buy GM seeds or GM products, people still die of cancer......

Before GMOs, there was cancer. Therefore, to blame GMOs for cancer is unreasonable. In countries where no GMO is cultivated, or which do not buy GM seeds or GM products, people still die of cancer......
Xcroc 12 years ago

GMOs are designed to be used with massive doses of pesticides, which are not just one chemical but chemical cocktails.
Pesticide formulations as sold and used are up to 1,000 times more toxic than the isolated substance that ...
read full comment

GMOs are designed to be used with massive doses of pesticides, which are not just one chemical but chemical cocktails.
Pesticide formulations as sold and used are up to 1,000 times more toxic than the isolated substance that is tested and evaluated for safety

"...the complete pesticide formulations as sold and used also contain additives (adjuvants), which increase the pest- or weed-killing activity of the pesticide. These complete formulations do not have to be tested in medium- and long-term tests -- even though they are the substances to which farmers and citizens are exposed."
opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-s-Roundup-new-de-by-Jon-Rappoport-Gmo_Monsanto_Pesticide_Rats-140202-409.html
You can read about the experiences of Argentina's farmers with the toxic chemicals that accompany GMOs:
gmoaction.org/interviews-with-people-affected-by-glyphosate-spraying-on-gm-soy/
AMU 12 years ago

Thank you....

Thank you....
Xcroc 12 years ago

In the US GMO plants have decreased productivity and increased the use of pesticides. GMOs exist so breeders can patent plants and establish monopolies. Terminator technology means seeds don't grow. It forces farmers to buy ...
read full comment

In the US GMO plants have decreased productivity and increased the use of pesticides. GMOs exist so breeders can patent plants and establish monopolies. Terminator technology means seeds don't grow. It forces farmers to buy new seeds every season, enforces the plant breeding corporation's monopoly control. If you don't buy, nothing grows. More than 99% of commercial GMOs are pesticide plants. GMO advocates such as these authors promise one thing and deliver another.
GMOs are saturated with pesticides you eat with every mouthful. See info from the USDA:
grist.org/food/crop-flops-gmos-lead-ag-down-the-wrong-path/.
Andre 12 years ago

Well, I checked, and realized that your info IS NOT FROM the USDA....Are you trying to give some credibility to the OPINION PIECE in the link you provided by claiming it is info from the USDA? That's not helpful. It is deceit ...
read full comment

Well, I checked, and realized that your info IS NOT FROM the USDA....Are you trying to give some credibility to the OPINION PIECE in the link you provided by claiming it is info from the USDA? That's not helpful. It is deceitful. You think it is only GMOs that require herbicides? Besides, not every GMO is eaten! Geeezzzzz....Finally, don't accuse the authors of being GMO advocates who promise one thing and do another....By the way, did you read the comments to the article in the link you provided? It tells you that the GMO debates are ultimate battle between science and popular press and ideology....Let the authors continue to provide the needed insight they have provided so far....their article is most balanced of all the GMO articles so far, and is necessary to help shape the debates...If these people pull out, be sure that the debates will be left to the politicians who sit on radio and TV every morning talking as though they were experts in every and anything....while they are not necessarily experts....How do you claim that these men are GMO advocates who promise one thing and deliver another....Surely, they will be better trusted than you since you think everything about GMOs are bad, whereas they have shown as that it is important to consider the bigger picture. For example, it is claimed that the biosafety act 2011 is a death warrant, but their intervention has shown that the national biosafety authority that is mandated by this act is crucial to regulate GMO activities in a globalized world. Finally, if you have read the article, you would have realized that terminator technology only exists on paper....never been commercialized because of a UN moratorium, therefore to keep telling lies to the public about terminator is to bastardize the debates....please stop the lies, they don't help the debates....are you interested in Ghanaians knowing what really the GMO debates are really about? Or you want everyone to believe that there is nothing good about GMOs? Enough of the propaganda. There is no need to be irrational about the debates
Xcroc 12 years ago

You have to follow the links in the source and sources. They refer to the USDA and to some of the leading research universities and institutions. The author has compiled the information. You need to learn more on how to us ...
read full comment

You have to follow the links in the source and sources. They refer to the USDA and to some of the leading research universities and institutions. The author has compiled the information. You need to learn more on how to use a library, including online libraries.
Andre 12 years ago

There is no need to be emotional about it....I need to learn about what? to learn how to use a library, including online libraries? I am only saying that stop misleading people, the claims you have made are not from the USDA, ...
read full comment

There is no need to be emotional about it....I need to learn about what? to learn how to use a library, including online libraries? I am only saying that stop misleading people, the claims you have made are not from the USDA, period. Your OPINION PIECE from a well-known GM critic only shows data from USDA suggesting that many GM crops in the pipeline to be approved are herbicide resistant crops...So? What is the issue with that, that many of them are herbicide resistant crops? No emotions here.....And you think the Americans are crazy to be approving these crops? Let me ask you: if you get to know right now that a cotton shirt you most treasure is from GM Cotton, will you burn it because it is made from GM cotton.....realize that GM cotton, GM canola, GM corn are the three top GM crops....That is what it can come to if you choose to approach this all important debate with a bias and a made-up mind.

Andre 12 years ago

Have you also read the Seralini Affair, the link to which article the authors have provided in part 1 or their article? it reveals a very interesting approach by anti-GMO movements and persons, which is to cherry-pick data, o ...
read full comment

Have you also read the Seralini Affair, the link to which article the authors have provided in part 1 or their article? it reveals a very interesting approach by anti-GMO movements and persons, which is to cherry-pick data, or distort data outright to support an anti-GMO agenda....so I will always double-check whatever info you put here.....the published evidence is clear...the European food safety authority, the food standards Australia New Zealand, American association for the advancement of science, World Health Organization all have found no health issues with GMOs...and you keep shifting the goal posts....Geeeeeez....How sad
Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 12 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Hello Andre,
Please, calm down. There is no need to be so excited and emotional like this! The person you are arguing with looks very calm and composed. Follow his good ...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Hello Andre,
Please, calm down. There is no need to be so excited and emotional like this! The person you are arguing with looks very calm and composed. Follow his good example, please!

Before the outbreak of the "mad cow" disease, the institutions you are talking about, ".the European food safety authority, the food standards Australia New Zealand, American association for the advancement of science, World Health Organization" did not have evidence that the eating of meat by cows could have such an adverse effect on them.

The GMO is sold unlabelled. Most people eat without even being aware of it. It is thus easy to say that you have not found any adverse effects in human populations currently consuming this toxic stuff. The GMO industry wants to make sure you would never know what you are eating, how can they then turn around to assure anyone simply because there are no observable ill-effects?

Don't change the goal post. Answer this question!

Pur'gu Saarpe! Esq.,
Secretary to The Odikro.
Andre 12 years ago

It is not entirely true that GMOs are sold unlabeled! In most of Europe, products containing GMOs must be labeled.....In the US, some GMOs are labeled, others are labeled because it is not mandatory to label......Get your fac ...
read full comment

It is not entirely true that GMOs are sold unlabeled! In most of Europe, products containing GMOs must be labeled.....In the US, some GMOs are labeled, others are labeled because it is not mandatory to label......Get your facts right....Please read the Seralini affair....just read it! Enough of this.....oh ho
African Tiger 12 years ago

So why did Monsanto fight hard to defeat proposition 37 in California mandating GMO labeling?

So why did Monsanto fight hard to defeat proposition 37 in California mandating GMO labeling?
Xcroc 12 years ago

Having live in the US many years I have seen no foods labeled as containing GMOs, and I've followed the discussions. Recently some corporations have said they will label GMOs starting in the future. A very small number of ...
read full comment

Having live in the US many years I have seen no foods labeled as containing GMOs, and I've followed the discussions. Recently some corporations have said they will label GMOs starting in the future. A very small number of corporations have announced some of their products will not contain GMOs. You can assume processed food or fast food contains GMOs. There is no labeling and you have no way of knowing in the US. Food does not have to be organic to be GMO free. But due to lack of labeling, in the US you have to buy organic if you want to be fairly sure you are not eating GMOs.

Because of a new push for labeling in the US, the agribusiness industry is trying to write national legislation that would use the word natural to include GMOs, a continuation of their efforts to misinform.

In Europe there is some labeling that has been vehemently opposed by the industry.
Xcroc 12 years ago

Thousands including scientists and non-scientists around the world have signed the Open Letter condemning the illicit retraction of a peer-reviewed published study that has found serious health impacts from a genetically modi ...
read full comment

Thousands including scientists and non-scientists around the world have signed the Open Letter condemning the illicit retraction of a peer-reviewed published study that has found serious health impacts from a genetically modified maize and Roundup herbicide
i-sis.org.uk/condemnation_of_Serallini_Retraction.php

some science is more controversial than other science. The closer that science gets to commercial interests, or conflicts with what lots of other people believe, the louder the shouts. The historical record of not retracting papers, some of which were inconclusive and outright wrong in important ways, shows that retraction is a political decision when not based on misconduct or error.
biosafetycooperative.newsvine.com/_news/2013/12/24/22038524-lets-give-the-scientific-literature-a-good-clean-up

There are hundreds of studies that should be permanently removed from the scientific literature, but the Séralini study is not one of them. The FCT retraction announcement very clearly states: “Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data” – and then goes on to say, incredibly, that the study is being withdrawn because the journal’s own review of the primary data show that the results are inconclusive.

Inconclusive? Until a hypothesis is proven, all results are inconclusive.

It would have been perfectly appropriate for the journal to have written an editorial expressing its concerns. Instead, it seems the editors may have succumbed to industry pressure to do the wrong thing. The media coverage in the U.S. has been one-sided; criticism of Séralini’s study has been widely covered in mainstream press, while information about the conflicts of interest of critics have remained in the alternative press.
thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=6684&blogid=140&utm_source=constantcontact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=bioethicsforum20140110
Andre 12 years ago

Please educate yourself well. Why did seralini ask journalists during his press conference ahead of the release of his study to sign agreements that they will not ask second opinion before putting his story of so-called adver ...
read full comment

Please educate yourself well. Why did seralini ask journalists during his press conference ahead of the release of his study to sign agreements that they will not ask second opinion before putting his story of so-called adverse effect of GM maize on rats, until a certain period has passed? it is because he knew too well that his science is pseudo-science. What is he afraid of? How could a scientist use rats that naturally develop tumours in their life time, in a 2 yr study which is about the life span of the rats? He knew what exactly he was doing.......He was a fraud...As for the so-called scientists that you claimed supported Seralini, we know where they were coming from......they belong to his so called Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering, which Seralini himself had formed, and is nothing but a propaganda group. His article fell short on several grounds....Why did he fail to disclose that the rats that he was using were going to use, about fifty percent were going to die anyway as contained on the catalogue information supplied by the supplier of the rats....His publications were not credible, and represented a dangerous failure of the peer-review system.......Go back and read the letters to the editor that called for the retraction of the paper.....You claimed industry pressure was brought to bear on the editor to retract the paper....do you have evidence? Hell no.....that's the song on the lips of you GM critics.....Monsanto has bought everyone......Amazing.....Notice that all six French academies roundly condemned the Seralini paper....something that has never happened in french history....Also risk assessment scientists in Germany and elsewhere all rejected the seralini paper...it was a propaganda paper that went bad....It was a hoax of a study.....how could you misapply statistics and all that....not every paper that has passed peer-review is credible....that's for your info....
African Tiger 12 years ago

So Andre
Why then are some countries like France against GMOS. Or you think the french scientific establishment is not weel informed that is why they want to ban it. Russia is mulling a ban on GMOS. I hope you will not say t ...
read full comment

So Andre
Why then are some countries like France against GMOS. Or you think the french scientific establishment is not weel informed that is why they want to ban it. Russia is mulling a ban on GMOS. I hope you will not say that Russian science is substandard and primitive that is why they want to ban it. The issue is control of seeds. What have we gotten from the Multinationals who exploit our resources and promise us a lot and we get pittance in return. Who says the same thing will not happen in the case of GMO seeds? Or you think they have changed and are really interested in Africa's food security. You must be very naive to believe that.
AMU 12 years ago

Excellent! Thank you African Tiger.

Excellent! Thank you African Tiger.
Whatever 12 years ago

The land upon which GM seeds are grown on will naturally absorbs the residual elements of the GM crops left after future harvest so you can imagine how this even threatens the profile of our farm lands in a way no one knows. ...
read full comment

The land upon which GM seeds are grown on will naturally absorbs the residual elements of the GM crops left after future harvest so you can imagine how this even threatens the profile of our farm lands in a way no one knows. But even restricting the debate of GMO within the area of farming can lead to a wicked distortion of the whole picture. Indeed GMO are meant to be consumed and that is where the grave danger lies. The knowledge used in developing GM technology is sourced from minds that are not omniscient yet the aim of that project is to tweak or change the fundamental structure of life. This is unacceptable. We cannot allow this infantile experiment to set foot in Ghana even if other blind countries have accepted.
Prince 12 years ago

You cannot allow this infantile experiment to set foot in Ghana even if other blind countries have accepted? For your info, the CSIR is already field-trialling some GM crops....a confined field trial.....so the experiment is ...
read full comment

You cannot allow this infantile experiment to set foot in Ghana even if other blind countries have accepted? For your info, the CSIR is already field-trialling some GM crops....a confined field trial.....so the experiment is already on...I think many of you GM critics talk about things you have no knowledge about or you have no clue what this Ghanaian GMO debate is all about...because you are all fixated on Monsanto....it's not Monsanto.....Go to CSIR and tell them you cannot allow them to conduct the infantile experiment.....stop wasting your time reading unnecessary news.....if you want to comment on the debates, know all the facts about the debates......I am sure you did not even read what the authors have written....I won't be surprised that you jumped straight to write your comments....If you have read the articles so far, you would have known the experiments are already on! How sad....no wonder the politicians take us for a ride....
Dr. Martin 12 years ago

I must first applaud you for this article. I will however like to address certain issues you raised.

1. Safety:
Your article states that Biotechnology is a well regulated science and I will agree with you in part becau ...
read full comment

I must first applaud you for this article. I will however like to address certain issues you raised.

1. Safety:
Your article states that Biotechnology is a well regulated science and I will agree with you in part because biotechnology as it is used in the pharmaceutical industry is fairly advanced and pretty well regulated although it has its own problems. We can not however apply this widely accepted safety of this science to genetic modification as it pertains to food crops. The dogma that has formed the basis of biotechnology has been the belief that one gene is responsible for one protein or trait but we now know that this is not true. One gene can produce thousands of proteins. So, whereas a pharmaceutical company using this technology can isolate and purify the desired protein, the same can not be said for food crops which will end up being consumed, food, contaminant and all.

You used the doctrine of "substantial equivalence" to explain why GM food is safe, but the shortfall of this doctrine is that, it compares the macro and micronutrients of a GM crop to its non GM varieties and if this does not differ in any significant way, then the GM crop is assumed to be substantially equivalent to the non GM variety. This doctrine does not address the fact that other unintended proteins, allergens, and anti-nutrient factors may be produced with the genetic manipulation. Even in FDA's documents which I will quote below, it is clear that this statement is more of a legal statement than a scientific one.

The supposed "complete safety" of GM food is rather based on assumption since the GM food manufacturers have fought every attempt to label their food. So if one does not know what he or she is eating, how do you blame a particular food item for being responsible for a health effect? thus the GM food producers, hide behind this non traceability of GM food to claim its safety.

The idea that GM food is highly regulated is not entirely accurate because the whole process is a voluntary self regulation. The 1992 US FDA statement of policy on food produced from new plant varieties,(FDA Federal Register Vol.57-1992) the policy based on which GM food was and is still regulated states that, Food producers are to ensure the safety of their food, and GM food producers are to consult with the FDA, "informally" prior to marketing their food to ensure it is safe. Tell me how an informal consultation by s company which is bent on profiting from its technology regulatory? In this same policy statement, the FDA acknowledged the potential for the GM process to produce novel allergens, but admitted that there are no known methods of testing for these.In short no one knows.

You also alluded to the fact that gene transfer or exchange occurs in nature and this implies that gene transfer from GM crops is safe. This assertion is also not entirely accurate. It is true that horizontal gene transfers occur in nature, but these are not always without consequences, plus nature is very adept at dealing with problems that occur naturally, but unprepared for and sometimes completely overwhelmed by artificially created problems.

I am not done I will be back.
Whatever 12 years ago

If you had read my comment closely together with its related context, you would have understood that the phrase 'infantile experiment' was meant to represents the glaring try and error embedded in the nature of GMOs when it's ...
read full comment

If you had read my comment closely together with its related context, you would have understood that the phrase 'infantile experiment' was meant to represents the glaring try and error embedded in the nature of GMOs when it's juxtaposed against crops created by the omniscient God. It wasn't phrased to be understood as confined field trial as you want me the writer to believe. In any case, I did read most of what's in the article but I honestly, I don't need to read an article before knowing that what you call 'confined field experiment' had gone on or is going on because I know that before a bill is sent to parliament for consideration, it's piloting would have already ensued. The writer of the article decided not to take a position and instead decided to analyze and make sense out of the various arguments made in favor and against. That's him but I can't do that. I can't sit on the fence when some wants to carelessly tweak the elements of life just because they want more money.
Prince 12 years ago

Are you sure of your claims "crops created by omniscient God"?

Many crops we have today are creations of man, through plant breeding, which is a form of genetic modification itself......

Are you sure of your claims "crops created by omniscient God"?

Many crops we have today are creations of man, through plant breeding, which is a form of genetic modification itself......
Fred Smith 12 years ago

DR. Martin, since you wax lyrical on matters biological science here, I want to ask, are you a biologists?

Your understanding of Bt toxin as a pesticide is typically challenged; it is not correct. Bt crops do not produce ...
read full comment

DR. Martin, since you wax lyrical on matters biological science here, I want to ask, are you a biologists?

Your understanding of Bt toxin as a pesticide is typically challenged; it is not correct. Bt crops do not produce active toxins. They produce molecules that are precursors of toxins, and these molecules only become active inside the gut of SOME INSECTS.....they have to be processed only by these insects for them, to become toxins. That is to say that it is only when these target insects process them that they become toxins.

Now, NON-TARGET INSECTS and other species do not have the capacity to convert these molecules (pro-toxins) into toxins....Therefore your charge against Bt cowpea as compared to Bt Cotton is flawed. Are you aware of Bt Sweet Corn which has been approved in the US and is on the market? So what is your problem with Bt cowpea?

The fact that it is classified as a pesticide means very little. For your information, organic farmers have long used Bt sprays on their field before the advent of genetic engineering....In some cases, they are required to inject these Bt sprays inside the plant tissue, so the issue of washing it off is out of the question......There are several other organic pesticides in use that are MORE TOXIC than Bt toxin.....more toxic than their synthetic counterparts...Eg are rotenone, copper, nicotine sulfate and pyrethrums....The idea that organic is safe is not necessary true....You will need to learn the mode of action of Bt toxins....Stop confusing the public.....

I have also seen that you have tried so hard to misrepresent some of the points the writers have made. For instance, the writers never claimed that the Asilomar conference guidelines addressed safety of GMOs. They only said that it was a very important first step towards the need to act with care in matters of gene manipulation....and that these later led to the institution of biosafety protocols....Did you get that?

Again, the writers did not say that since GM agriculture is being done up north, then Ghana should automatically do it. They said that this actually means that a Biosafety Act was necessary since it is that Act which is giving birth to the National Biosafety Authority... so that Ghana can monitor its own landscape if we should accept the position that GMOs are dangerous.....Indeed, the CSIR claims that farmers up north have been asking for GM cotton, which is why it included it as one of the crops in the field trials, the other crops being Bt rice and Bt cowpea......If this claim is true, then the suspicion of the authors that GM crops from Burkina Faso may already be on our fields may be confirmed, because the farmers could already be planting these GM cottons from Burkina Faso......So don't spin the writers' points.

Your point about substantial equivalence is rather moot, since the authors have acknowledged that critics say it is not adequate.....The authors have been thoroughly balanced in their analysis.....

Please, next time, learn your facts carefully before you come here....

A NOTE TO AFRICAN TIGER: The decision to ban GM crops in SOME EU countries is political rather than scientific..In many of these countries, scientists have different opinions from those of their citizens. Unfortunately, the politicians who vote in the EU parliament base their decisions on the popular opinion from their countries (obtained through opinion polls and barometer surveys) but not on scientific decisions.....In UK for example, the UK royal society has been urging the govt to do more to turn the public opinion in favour of GM crops....More than 140 scientists most of them in the UK royal society at one time signed a public letter addressed to the prime minister in this respect.

You should be aware that in france, all six national academies of sciencec issued a joint statement condeming the infamous Seralini (french professor of molecular biology) study claiming a GM crop had adverse effects on rats.....This rare joint statement had never happened in French History...The study was condemned as flawed....So it is not quite correct to assert that in Europe they are rejecting GM crops because of adverse effects...those decisions have nothing to do with science.....they are purely political votes and decisions....Indeed the EU commission itself has conducted its own studies and found no truths in the claims of adverse effects of GM crops on health....one more example.....Switzerland also conducted its won studies into this issue, and found no truth in such claims, and yet continue to keep the moratorium in place......because that is what its citizens want...so it is also possible for the Ghana government to ban GMOs and that will not be a scientific decision, but a political one.....

Finally, most of the threads here represent the ultimate battle between science on one hand and pseudocience/popular press on the other hand....Then it should be mentioned that it does not help to be quoting from websites such as GM Watch to make any arguments....because that is a well known anti-GMO website.....We should approach these debates from very informed positions.....I thank the authors for their well-research and balanced article.....thanks
Dr. Martin 12 years ago

Come on Fred, you can do better than that. Remember this is not the 19th century, this is 2014 in the age of knowledge and information and one does not have to be a biologist to understand these basic biological principles of ...
read full comment

Come on Fred, you can do better than that. Remember this is not the 19th century, this is 2014 in the age of knowledge and information and one does not have to be a biologist to understand these basic biological principles of pro-toxins, pro-enzymes and pro-hormones. This is college Biology 101. But if this makes you feel better, I studied biology, genetics and molecular biology both at the undergraduate level and in Medical School, so yes I am educated enough to understand this.

Unfortunately it seems you are the one who does not understand the issue clearly. Yes naturally occurring Bt. toxin has a good history of safe use in both conventional and organic farming. But the protein produced by Bt. Crops are not biologically identical to naturally occurring Bt protein.

1.GM Bt proteins may be modified or truncated. In fact, the US EPA alluded to this in their Review of Monsanto's Bt Corn MON810, by stating in their report that it produces a truncated version of the naturally occurring protein.(EPA BRAD 2001b p.IIA6)

2.Yes, naturally occurring Bt. occurs as an inactive crystalline endotoxin, and under the right conditions (alkaline gut conditions) as exists in certain insects,it undergoes solubilization, followed by proteolytic cleavage to yield an active toxin.
Genetically engineered Bt. Crops on the other hand are engineered to express the Bt toxin in its active form, making the entire crop a pesticide. So yes, the consumption of Bt. food crops is tantamount to eating pesticides. The fact that it is classified as a pesticide by the EPA therefore, is very significant, because it is. Go back and research the facts some more because the information is out there for anyone interested to find. I know my facts but it seems you are the one who doesn't.

No, I have nothing against Bt Cowpeas, I just used it as an example.

46 Comments

Welcome,

SIGN IN

Welcome,

RESET PASSWORD

Hello,

Terms and conditions

REGISTER

Ghana’s GMO debates: beyond the sticking points (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 (46)

Read Comments Comments (46)