Ghana’s GMO debates: beyond the sticking points (3)

Read Article

Comments (13)

This article is closed for comments.

Read Comments Comments (13)

wiseman 12 years ago

On the issue of GMO pro activists like you will always praise to the high heavens the process. But that is not strange, just as we were told to privatise all and meanwhile they have not privatised all. People like you are pra ...
read full comment

On the issue of GMO pro activists like you will always praise to the high heavens the process. But that is not strange, just as we were told to privatise all and meanwhile they have not privatised all. People like you are praising GMO proponents because of the huge sums of money paid by the industrialists behind GMO.Why today in the so called industrialised world naturally produced foodstuffs generally reffered to as bio are more expensive if there are not of better quality for human health?
King 12 years ago

Another well-researched article.....Thanks guys....

Another well-researched article.....Thanks guys....
Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 12 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Right from the beginning, I suspected that these people are simply up to help in the campaign to "manufacture the consent" of Ghanaians to accept the attempts at the IMP ...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Right from the beginning, I suspected that these people are simply up to help in the campaign to "manufacture the consent" of Ghanaians to accept the attempts at the IMPOSITION of GMOs, without any form of resistance.

Of course, no one is dismissing the importance of biotechnology as a science. I have written in the past concerning some of the important applications of biotechnology in medicine. The one thing that is sure is that there is not a single possibility of contamination, as these are done in contained laboratories and not on open fields!

It is dishonest and mischievious to cite these medical applications without addressing the issue of contamination associated with the field trials. Only Monsanto and their agents like these writers are happy with the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops.

We know that Monsanto even benefits from the contamination because it gives them the opportunity to sue and ruin those organic farmers they contaminate! We also know what is currently going on in Australia between Steve Marsh and his childhood friend Sam Baxter, over the GMO contamination of Marsh's organic canola.

Here is a transcript of a BBC interview that I wrote to help shut up Mr. Kofi Annan in 2010, when he started making similar noises like these writers: Why Kofi Annan's "Green Wash" In Africa Does Not Wash! | Feature Article 2010-10-17 /www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/artikel.php?ID=195305:

Dr. Antoniou, what is it do you do here?" The question was asked whilst
inside a laboratory of King's College, where Dr. Antoniou works.

"What we do in my research group", Dr. Antoniou responds, "is to investigate fundamental mechanisms of how human gene systems are controlled, and then we exploit those discoveries to design safe and efficacious gene units to be
used within a therapeutic context, within a human gene therapy context, for treating for example, inherited diseases such as immune deficiencies,
thalassemia, sickle disease, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, and so
on."

"The people who create GM crops use very similar techniques to yours,
different applications though, are you comfortable with that?"

"I am not comfortable at all with the way that GM is being used in
agriculture". Dr. Antoniou answer categorically, "because compared to what we do in a clinical context, where not only research is done under contained genes, they are non-replicated. They can't reproduce and spread and cause harm. In agriculture the same technique is used in open fields, the organism
can spread in an uncontrolled way and we suffer with the consequences of
that forever."

"You use this technology to device medical therapy to help people to live
longer and healthier lives, to keep more of us on the planet for longer,
what is wrong with other scientists using these same techniques to fed those extra millions and billions? They say - you heard the argument - that there was a need, a moral moral obligation?", Dr. Antoniou responds:

"Indeed, the world has a moral obligation to feed itself. What is invariably ignored by advocates of GM crops in explaining why almost a billion of people in the world go to bed, each day, hungry, is that actually, we have more than enough food to feed everybody now. In fact, we have have doubled the amount of food to feed everybody in the world now, but people don't have
access to food. And in terms of meeting future food needs, specifically in the face of climate change, then the latest United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation sponsored report clearly pointed that the future in
meeting future food needs lie in applying agro-ecological methods. They said that genetic engineering would play little or no role in meeting immediate food needs of the world and future food needs of the world. Which is why the Americans were not signatory. But 62 other nations, actually signed up, including the UK, signed up to that report. We have to take on board, the
report compiled by 400 independent scientists from around the world, in all manner of expertise and discipline, which said go forward with low-input, agro-ecological, sustainable agriculture, not GM, because GM simply does not fit the bill."
Gerald 12 years ago

Hello, there is no need to insult the authors.....they have stated their opinion.....this tactic of Food Sovereignty Ghana anti-GMO campaigners to intimidate everyone with insult is unhelpful.....The authors have been broad i ...
read full comment

Hello, there is no need to insult the authors.....they have stated their opinion.....this tactic of Food Sovereignty Ghana anti-GMO campaigners to intimidate everyone with insult is unhelpful.....The authors have been broad in their analysis....They have a right to assert their views, just as you think you have a right to have nothing to do with GMOs.....

Also, the tactic to label people with positive views about GMOs as agents of big biotech companies is communist inferior tactics....it no longer works.....Of course when you discredit all these people, what you hope to achieve is that you would have prevented discourse on this national debate....so that you continue to chant your anti-GMO songs to the hearing of everyone.....Is it possible you must have received funding from GREENPEACE and other well organized anti-GMO movements to be doing this since you appear to suggest everyone who has a positive view of GMOs are agents of big biotech companies? Are you the agent of greenpeace et al? Fair comment? Respect the view of others.....in a debate, only a logical coherent argument wins....insults don't win.....Did you ever think you can ever get everyone to agree with your anti-GMO views? If you thought so, then it must be a fallacy you have believed...you claim you have previously written about positive application of biotechnology in medicine....well, that is fine....but the bottom line is that it is GMOs that are used in these applications too....therefore when you carry placards "NO TO GMOs", what are you saying? How will people get to know you don't oppose all forms of GMOs?....please grow up, get a life....the authors have been candid in their analysis.....you either take useful lessons from these article or you live the authors alone......after all, they are university teachers, I suppose, and you cannot prevent them from teaching the things they have written here to their students, can you? Ghana does not belong to you alone. everyone has a right to assert their views...how is that difficult to understand.....Stop quoting from you anti-GMO websites to do your propaganda.....Geeeeeez
Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 12 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

How funny can you be? Is this not a debate? If you are making a stupid argument, and I point it out, does it mean you are being insulted? Mention the insult in question! ...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

How funny can you be? Is this not a debate? If you are making a stupid argument, and I point it out, does it mean you are being insulted? Mention the insult in question! I simply wrote the article is stupid, and I gave my reasons, so what is your point?

You are the kind of people who believe that people running from fire are being paid to take to their heels because they are stupid enough not to see the danger themselves! By implication, your comment that those of us who are worried about the health implications of GMOs must be so silly as to wait to be paid by someone else before we react!

That is rather an insult! No one is asking them not to speak their minds. But your right to swing your arm ends where your neighbours nose begins. We have every right not to want to eat anything we decide we don't want to eat, for whatever reasons. What do we do when GMOs contaminate every organic variety?

You see, you people want to swing your arms, and it does not matter much to you, where your neighbour's nose begins!GMOs are contaminating everything all over the world, and it is only a matter of time that there will hardly be any natural food left, if this is not checked.

And you think those of us defending organic foods must be paid by someone else! Are you paid by someone in choosing what you want to eat? If so, then you are one of the biggest fools I ever encountered in my life! But I hope not! So, please, kindly bring this nonsense to an end!

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

Thank you Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro.
These 'scientists-for-hire' are hellbent to cause havoc to a whole country, indeed a whole continent!

NO to Plant Breeders' Bill of Death!
NO to GMOs!!

Thank you Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro.
These 'scientists-for-hire' are hellbent to cause havoc to a whole country, indeed a whole continent!

NO to Plant Breeders' Bill of Death!
NO to GMOs!!
Maud 12 years ago

Time for the anti-GMO crowd to look at the bigger picture. GMOs go beyond Monsanto

Time for the anti-GMO crowd to look at the bigger picture. GMOs go beyond Monsanto
Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 12 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Hi "Maud",

The bigger picture is the enslavement of Ghanaians by these greedy bastards! What happens when all your organic foods get contaminated in five, ten or hund ...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

Hi "Maud",

The bigger picture is the enslavement of Ghanaians by these greedy bastards! What happens when all your organic foods get contaminated in five, ten or hundred years time? Every crop would become the property of Monsanto and co. You cannot eat without paying royalties! Is that your picture?

How do you feel when you write an article, and you are the only one commenting positively on your own article you have written yourself?

I wish you a good day! You must be a miserable person indeed! Just like the GMO itself, only the manufacturers and surrogates are in full praise of these toxins!

Just want you to know that you have been observed right from the part 1 of these series. At first, you were a bit annoying at the desperate manner you wished to sell GMOs to Ghanaians. Now, I simply find you funny, because you are going to fail with your half-wits, in fooling Ghanaians!

Shame unto you!
Pur'gu Saarpe! Esq.,
Secretary to The Odikro.
Elijah 12 years ago

It is obvious that you guys are not unbiased about the possible introduction of GMOs in Ghana and that immediately lessens the potential impact of your articles. Whilst I may not be against the use of GMOs for research purpos ...
read full comment

It is obvious that you guys are not unbiased about the possible introduction of GMOs in Ghana and that immediately lessens the potential impact of your articles. Whilst I may not be against the use of GMOs for research purposes I am totally against the wholesale introduction of GMOs in Ghana at this time that this emerging science still has many unanswered questions. I am not challenging your intellectual capabalities here but your articles are very heavy on reasons why GMOs must be a part of Ghana's wider agricultural programmes whilst completely ignoring the growing evidence of numerous health risks posed by use of GMOs in countries where they are currently used. We are aware of burgers grown on petri dishes in certain countries using cell culture technology and probably have been fed to masses of people. I wouldn't eat them. Would you? Is it any surprise that cancer rates are spiralling out of control around the world? Have you asked yourself the reasons why this might be the case? Despite our technological prowess is mankind anywhere near winning the battle against cancer? Could our incessant appetite for tampering with mother nature be a reason why various cancers and other modern diseases are killing ever more people? Maybe, just maybe modern food and all the environmental chemicals are causing changes that our bodies can no longer cope with and then diseases set in? Did you know that during the apartheid regime colon cancer was known as the white man's disease in medical circles? The reason is black people were never diagnosed with colon cancer; they ate more natural unadulterated or factory processed foods. When apartheid ended and black people started eating "white people's food" and leading "White people's lifestyles" not only did they start developing colon cancer but the rates have caught up with the white population. This was observed in as little as 10 years post apartheid. Is it any surprise that we are seeing 20 year olds dying of heart attacks these days? And do you know heart disease, the world's number one killer today was almost non-existent before the 1930s(the period mankind started interfering with mother nature en masse)?
Now regarding your argument about cisgenetics and transgenetics. It is true that other forms of breeding take place. We humans interbreed with our "distant" kind and often reproduce offspring with superior qualities. Even our uneducated forefathers knew about the benefits of "crossbreeding" which is why marriage or courtship within the same clan is often forbidden in our cultures. In south east asian cultures where people are allowed to marry their cousins the gene pool is very narrow and as a result they tend to have higher proportions of certain genetic disorders akin with inbreeding than other populations where this practice is not allowed. As experts in plant science you must be familiar with the the term natural selection. In natural selection cisgenetics and transgenetics occur but this time the job is done naturally, using environmental forces (eg wind and insects) for cross polination. This has been the case for millenia and our natural plants have continued to refine themselves and become better species without human intervention. If there appears to be a deterioration in soil profile and our crops produce less and eventually lose their fight against diseases maybe we can draw analogies with what happened in post-apartheid South Africa. Is it because of our unnatural practices and excessive use of various chemical fertilizers and pesticides that may be responsible? Do we still practice crop rotation to encourage nitrogen fixation? Do we apply methods that have been proven to minimize the effects of soil erotion? Is our speed of deforestation causing our climate to change and the consequent changing pattern of rainfall affecting our crops in various ways?
You mentioned use of gene modification technology in pharmacy where insulin and certain antibiotics are produced using bacteria. That is laudable but notice a difference here. No one will be taking that insulin or antibiotics unless they have diabetes or an infection. Do we have that choice with food? Everyone eats food whether they have any illness or not. It could also be argued that your GMO foods and other synthetic chemicals we ingest either as part of food, medication or cosmetic applications on our skins are indeed responsible for many health problems that plague the world today. For example it is no longer a secret that our modern lifestyles (including the foods we eat) are responsible for obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer, infertility, allergies etc. There are a growing number of people who have cured lifelong ailments by simply changing the food they eat and it is almost always in the direction of switching to natural, organically grown foods and leaving out chemical-laden alternatives.
Much as your conclutions are valid, they are a litlle skewed towards promoting GMOs in Ghana and do not give an independent, unbiased stance on this very important debate. I must praise the detailed and scientific nature of your articles though.
Gerald 12 years ago

Elijah, your concerns are alright....But you accuse the authors of being biased because they have not followed the anti-GMO crowd? They could only have done what they have done. Please give a little credit to the authors, the ...
read full comment

Elijah, your concerns are alright....But you accuse the authors of being biased because they have not followed the anti-GMO crowd? They could only have done what they have done. Please give a little credit to the authors, they have been thoroughly balanced in their analysis....It is true that they have positive views about GMOs, but it is also clear that they have urged caution. They said that genetic engineering in agriculture in Ghana should only be done if that is the only option to deal with a problem....that they have made clear.....

They have also urged the coordinators of the field trials to engage those of you who have serious issues with GMOs so your concerns could be taken on board......they have not been overly dismissive of your concerns....

Actually, if opinion polls could be conducted to determine whether Ghanaians want GMOs, that will be fine with me. If the overwhelming majority say no to GMOs, then government could place a moratorium on GMOs....that is what happens in most of Europe......most of the European moratorium is not because of science, but public opinion obtained through barometer surveys.......they are political decisions.....Actually, it will be difficult to get all Ghanaians to say no to GMOs. Many of those who understand the science like these authors will by all means talk of the great economic development potential of GMOs and so will go for them even if they have some reservations about aspects of the whole GMO business.....

It is unrealistic to suggest outright ban on GMOs....unrealistic....

yes, nobody uses insulin unless he is sick, but not all agricultural crops are eaten....Or? Cotton is not eaten....Or? So Bt-Cotton for instance would not be eaten.....Yeah, true!

Probably they could have said GM technology in agriculture in Ghana should be limited to non-food crops for the time being....Perhaps that would have been ok with you...Even though they have not said that, you still cannot accuse them promoting GM foods.....GM agriculture is not necessarily about food crops.....

Now, this is what you said: "Much as your conclutions are valid, they are a litlle skewed towards promoting GMOs in Ghana and do not give an independent, unbiased stance on this very important debate"

Question is if there conclusions although valid according to you are skewed towards NOT PROMOTING GMOs in Ghana, then they would have been UNBIASED? Wouldn't that have meant that they are with the anti-GMO group? That would have been difficult for the authors considering their background...It is reassuring that they have urged caution....from their previous articles, they have noticed that our regulatory regimes are weak, and will neeed to be strengthened IF Ghana were to adopt GM agriculture.....they have said that a national biosafety authority would be necessary to monitor our landscape so unapproved GM crops do not enter our borders......These men have been very objective...they have been professional.....

You also said that since they are not unbiased (which is just euphemism for "bias")the potential impact of their articles is immediately lessened....How? So were their views skewed towards the anti-GMO views, their articles' impact would have soared? It does not work that way....I think it is enough that they have been carefully balanced in their analysis....

Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro. 12 years ago

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

It's funny to read right under a clearly unbalanced pro-GMO propaganda, such ridiculous conclusions of yours!

In the first place, according the the Catagena Protocols ...
read full comment

OFFICE OF THE ODIKRO
a companion of the black star!

It's funny to read right under a clearly unbalanced pro-GMO propaganda, such ridiculous conclusions of yours!

In the first place, according the the Catagena Protocols of Biosafety, makes no distinction between cisgenesis or transgenesis. They are both laboratory techniques with unknown and unpredictable consequences.

The bias of the writers are meant to be hidden, even though not so subtle. The pro-GM food lobby have been very clever in promoting GM food as a normal crop. This is a big lie that they use in order to by-pass regulators in several countries. GMOs are products of modern biotechnology, defined in the Cartagena Protocol as: “‘Modern biotechnology’ means the application of:

a. In vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or

b. Fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection”.

The pro-GM food proponents would have us believe that it is a normal crop improvement technology, but as you see in the definition, this is not the case. You see – if the independent scientists and the CPB did not make the point that traditional breeding techniques were NOT the same as GMOs, then the whole regulatory approach to risk assessment of GMOs would be challenged. The CBD process is in existence to address GMOs not traditional breeding techniques.

Or to put it into simple language, GMOs in agriculture are products are products of ‘Modern Biotechnology’ created when the genomes of organisms are transformed through laboratory techniques, including genetically engineered DNA (recombinant) and their direct introduction into cells. They are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection. This laboratory-based technology requires ‘sceptical’ (doubt, don’t presume safety) analyses in rigorous risk assessment protocols including hazard identification to detect hazards and the potential to cause unintended effects.

The CBD therefore, deliberated intensively and extensively about what was required to regulate the safe release of GMOs into the environment (for impacts on health, the environment and SEC (socio-economic considerations)), and keeping in mind the PP (precautionary principle). The employment of the ‘Precautionary Principle’ is a necessary safeguard to protect Ghana and Africa small-holder farming, her food security, sovereignty and environment from adverse impacts of GMOs. These are irreversible.

The pro-GM food proponents would have us believe that it is a normal crop improvement technology, but as you see in the definition, this is not the case. You see – if the independent scientists and the CPB did not make the point that traditional breeding techniques were NOT the same as GMOs, then the whole regulatory approach to risk assessment of GMOs would be challenged. The CBD process is in existence to address GMOs not traditional breeding techniques.
Elijah 12 years ago

Glad this is encouraging serious debate.

Glad this is encouraging serious debate.
Whatever 12 years ago

A crop that is genetically modified and consumers whose gene-side of their DNA is suddenly modified are two sides of the same coin. If you take one, you'd automatically have the other because you are what you eat. There is no ...
read full comment

A crop that is genetically modified and consumers whose gene-side of their DNA is suddenly modified are two sides of the same coin. If you take one, you'd automatically have the other because you are what you eat. There is nothing in GMOs to qualify it as an option, absolutely nothing. How can you accept the notion of manipulating one's gene information when you know that nothing is wrong with that gene? That is why I say those behind the GMO just want to engage in a massive experiment of Ghanaian lives. I have never heard of any Ghanaian complaining that he doesn't like his genes. The second thing is conventional breeder is not Monsanto. It is easier to drastically deal with conventional breeders than GMO breeders like faraway Monsanto when something goes wrong. That is why with the kind kind of danger embedded in that GMO technology, it will be suicidal to bring it here

13 Comments

Welcome,

SIGN IN

Welcome,

RESET PASSWORD

Hello,

Terms and conditions

REGISTER

Ghana’s GMO debates: beyond the sticking points (3)

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 (13)

Read Comments Comments (13)