Three Approved Genetically Modified Foods Linked to Organ Damage

Three Approved GMOs Linked to Organ Damage

dissidentvoice.org | Jan 3, 2010

by Rady Ananda

In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize.

All three varieties of GM corn, Mon 810, Mon 863 and NK 603, were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. Made public by European authorities in 2005, Monsanto’s confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats that these researchers analyzed is the same data, ironically, that was used to approve them in different parts of the world.

The Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen studied Monsanto’s 90-day feeding trials data of insecticide producing Mon 810, Mon 863 and Roundup® herbicide absorbing NK 603 varieties of GM maize.

The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.

Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMOs, the 2009 research shows specific effects associated with consumption of each GMO, differentiated by sex and dose.

Full Story

Boy, two, snatched by social workers after mother refused doctor’s advice to feed him junk food

Daily Mail | Dec 3, 2009

By Chris Brooke

Heartbroken: Lisa Hessey was told she would have her parental rights taken away in court if she opposed a decision to place Zak in care

Like many toddlers, Zak Hessey was a fussy eater who refused his mother’s healthy home cooking.

Concerned about his falling weight, his parents sought the advice of doctors. That simple act triggered a shocking chain of events that led to the youngster being put into foster care for four months.

Paul and Lisa Hessey believe in the long-term benefits of healthy eating and rejected advice to feed their two-year-old son high-calorie snack food such as chocolate, crisps and cakes.

To their horror, social workers put Zak into foster care ‘to assess his needs’ and allegedly threatened the couple with the loss of their parental rights if they fought the decision in court.

‘I was absolutely devastated, I broke down in tears,’ recalled Mrs Hessey, 48. ‘I was scared out of my wits. I phoned Paul to tell him and he just broke down on the phone.’

But they went to court and, after four months, Zak returned home with the blessing of social services, who accepted he had good and caring parents.

Zak is now putting on some weight, but his eating problems were not cured by his time in the care of ‘experts’ and, much to the annoyance of his parents, he has acquired a taste for junk food.

Mrs Hessey, of Bolsover, near Chesterfield, said: ‘I thought I was doing the right thing going to the best people for advice when Zak began to lose weight.

‘Instead they basically accused me of neglecting him and implied it was all my fault. I have four other children and they are perfectly healthy, it was just that Zak was refusing food for some reason. They said I should just feed Zak chocolate, cakes and junk food just to get calories into him. But I objected, saying that was only a short-term answer and not a proper solution.

‘The Government and doctors are always drumming into parents the importance of healthy eating – yet they were telling us to feed Zak all the wrong things.

‘That is obviously what they were doing when he was in foster care so now it is hard to get him to eat anything else.’

Mrs Hessey and her 48-year-old husband, a lorry driver, took Zak to see a paediatrician at Chesterfield Royal Hospital in July. He was 20 months old and weighed 1st 3lb.

Mrs Hessey, whose four other children are under ten, said she was happy for Zak to be admitted for a two-week hospital assessment and was hit by a thunderbolt when she went to collect him on July 24.

She was taken into a room with a nurse and social worker who apparently told her: ‘We would like Zak to go into foster care to assess how he feeds. You have legal rights but be warned if you oppose this we will go straight to court and have all your parental rights taken away.’

Mrs Hessey said: ‘They kept saying, “If you love Zak and you want the best for him then you’ll agree to this”. They said we had been negative about eating. That was because they had been telling us we should feed Zak crisps, chocolate and cakes to get calories into him.

‘I was questioning that approach. We eat proper home-made food at our house and just have chocolate and cakes as a treat.’

She agreed to Zak going into care after hearing to the possible repercussions if she objected. Initially she and her husband couldn’t see Zak for six days.

After hiring a solicitor, they were allowed three hours a day with him during the week in the company of a social worker.

The first hearing before the family court in Derby was on September 2 and the case was adjourned for two weeks. Interim care orders were imposed and Zak returned home following a third court hearing on November 18. By this stage social workers had lifted their objections – and he had put on only 1lb.

Mrs Hessey said: ‘Social services did a complete about turn. They admitted that in foster care Zak was exactly the same with his food as he was at home.

‘They said we were very good parents. I still find it hard to come to terms with how we have been treated.’ Derbyshire County Council said: ‘We only take a child into our care either with the consent of the parents or following very careful consideration by a court.’

A spokesman for Chesterfield Royal Hospital said: ‘While we understand Mr and Mrs Hessey’s distress, Zak’s welfare was paramount and we believe we acted in his best interest.’

Scientists ‘grow’ meat in laboratory

The move towards artificially engineered foods has taken a step forward after scientists grew a form of meat in a laboratory for the first time.

Telegraph | Nov 29, 2009

By Nick Britten

Researchers in the Netherlands have created what was described as soggy pork and are now investigating ways to improve the muscle tissue in the hope that people will one day want to eat it.

No one has yet tasted the product, but it is believed the artificial meat could be on sale within five years.

Vegetarian groups welcomed the news, saying there was “no ethical objection” if meat was not a piece of a dead animal.

Mark Post, professor of physiology at Eindhoven University, said: “What we have at the moment is rather like wasted muscle tissue. We need to find ways of improving it by training it and stretching it, but we will get there.

“This product will be good for the environment and will reduce animal suffering. If it feels and tastes like meat, people will buy it.

“You could take the meat from one animal and create the volume of meat previously provided by a million animals.”

The scientists extracted cells from the muscle of a live pig and then put them in a broth of other animal products. The cells then multiplied and created muscle tissue. They believe that it can be turned into something like steak if they can find a way to artificially “exercise” the muscle.

The project is backed by the Dutch government and a sausage maker and comes following the creation of artificial fish fillets from goldfish muscle cells.

Meat produced in a laboratory could reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with real animals.

Meat and dairy consumption is predicted to double by 2050 and methane from livestock is said to currently produce about 18 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases.

It was supported by animal rights campaigners. A spokesman for Peta said: “As far as we’re concerned, if meat is no longer a piece of a dead animal there’s no ethical objection.”

However the Vegetarian Society said: “The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered.

“It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust.”

The advent of meat grown for consumers could reduce the billions of tons of greenhouse gases emitted each year by farm animals and help meet the United Nation’s predictions that meat and dairy consumption will double by 2050.

However, the latest breakthrough is certain to cause concern amongst the anti-GM lobby.

Last week Prince Charles, a fierce opponent of GM food, warned that people were creating problems by “treating food as an easy commodity rather than a precious gift from nature”.

His comments came as the results of a survey commissioned by the Food Standards Agency revealed concerns about long-term health and environmental impacts of genetically modified products.

It showed shoppers want to be told when meat and milk from cows is genetically modified through clear labelling.

GM supporters say they are aware of risks associated with “engineered” food but believe it benefits the Third World.

Chemicals used in plastics feminise the brains of little boys ’so that they avoid rough and tumble games’

Study: Chemicals used in plastics can affect babies in the womb

Daily Mail | Nov 16, 2009

By David Derbyshire

Chemicals used in plastics are ‘feminising’ the brains of baby boys, a disturbing study shows.

Those exposed to high doses in the womb are less likely to play with ‘male’ toys such as cars. They are also less willing to join ‘rough and tumble’ games.

The research adds to growing evidence that hormone-disrupting chemicals in thousands of household-products are interfering with the development of children.

Environmental campaigners called the study ‘extremely worrying’ and called for a crackdown.

The study looked at phthalates, chemicals which can mimic the female sex hormone oestrogen.

Some experts believe they are partly to blame for the increase in genital defects in boys and lower sperm counts in men over recent decades.

But the new research is the first to link hormone-mimicking chemicals to behaviour.

There are fears of further effects as the young children in the study grow up.

Although the plastics industry insists phthalates are safe, the EU has banned many of them from cosmetics, teething rings and children’s toys.

But pregnant women are still exposed to phthalates, which are used to soften plastics in household items such as plastic furniture, shoes, PVC flooring and shower curtains.

They can also be transferred to food and drink from plastic packaging. The new study, published in the International Journal of Andrology, was led by Dr Shanna Swan, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at the University of Rochester in New York State.

Her team tested urine samples from mothers in the 28th week of pregnancy for traces of phthalates.

The women, who gave birth to 74 boys and 71 girls, were contacted again when their children were aged four to seven and asked about the toys the youngsters played with, the activities they liked and their personalities.

The researchers found that higher concentrations of two types of common phthalate – DEHP and DBP – were strongly linked with more feminine play in the boys but had no impact on girls.

The higher-phthalate boys were less likely than other boys to play with cars, trains and guns or engage in rough-and-tumble games such as playfighting.

Professor Swan believes the chemicals reduce levels of the male sex hormone testosterone in unborn babies during a critical window of development between the eighth and 24th week of pregnancy.

This alters the development of the brain as well as male genitals.

She said last night: ‘If replicated, these findings would be of serious concern because they indicate that these common chemicals can significantly alter the development of the male brain.’

A previous study by Dr Swan found that boys whose mothers had the highest phthalate levels were more likely to have undescended testicles and smaller genitals than other baby boys.

In animal studies, males with similar genital changes had lower sperm counts.

Elizabeth Salter-Green, director of the chemicals campaign group CHEM Trust, said last night: ‘These results are extremely worrying. We now know that phthalates, to which we are all constantly exposed, are extremely worrying from a health perspective, leading to disruption-of male reproduction health and, it appears, male behaviour too.

‘This feminising capacity of phthalates makes them true “gender benders”. Clearly the boys who have been studied are still young, but reduced masculine play at this age may lead to other ” feminised development” in later life.

‘This cannot be good news for their long term health and development, or that of our society in general.’

But Tim Edgar of the European Council for Plasticisers and Intermediates said: ‘We need to get some scientific experts to look at this study in more detail before we can make a proper judgment.

‘However, given the simple approach of the research and the relatively small sample of children, I think these results need to be treated with extreme caution. I don’t think anyone should jump to such conclusions without some much more sophisticated research being carried out.’

Zero tolerance for GM foods in Europe

For Europeans, genetic engineering of plant life is ‘sinful’

thehindubusinessline.com | Nov 2, 2009

by Mohan Murti

Food is to European culture what free speech is to American culture. There may not always be a good scientific reason for concern, but to consider eating something that has resulted from some laboratory manoeuvring is felt by many Europeans as a kind of refutation of the true self.

Whether judiciously or not, most Europeans are frightened to death of genetically modified food. And, this is not entirely a matter of Europeans’ falling victim to protectionist propaganda or frenzy. Trying to force genetically modified food down European throats is the surest way to guarantee that they swallow neither the potatoes nor a lot of the tactics to dump GM foods.

More than ever today, Europeans are talking about where their food comes from. Food scares push people towards farmers’ markets and more home-cooked fare made with fresh ingredients.

The Atharva Veda 12:1:62, says

O Mother Earth,

Let thy bosom be free

From sickness and decay

May we through long life

Be active and vigilant

And serve thee with devotion

In most of Europe, this Atharva Veda concept of manipulation-free, local-food movement has been gaining momentum in recent years.

Right Decision

Europeans applaud the recent Indian Government’s pronouncement to postpone its decision on the approval of genetically modified Bt aubergines. There are compelling reasons, Europeans feel, why India cannot afford to ignore the environmental and health risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

In Europe, regulations are being imposed in the Parliament, individual European nations, and some stores themselves have all imposed restrictions on GM foods.

There is virtually no market for GM foods in Europe as consumers and farmers have overwhelmingly rejected them. EU labelling and traceability regulations also give consumers better information to decide.

Several European retailers have a policy of not selling, under their own brand name, any product requiring a GM label in their markets. Most have put this policy in place years ago, and all have quality-control tests and audit systems to exclude GM ingredients. Countries that have planted GM crops on a large scale have seen their exports to Europe crash.

European Scenario

European farmers are rejecting GM crops and turning to ecological farming. They do not want to be at the mercy of bullying multinationals which are threatening to take control of food.

Most of the 27 EU nations are opposed to GMOs because of risks to the environment and the kind of cross-pollination, of which the Spanish farmers and others have complained. They have been calling for the EU’s agreement on authorising such crops, and the evaluation methods used by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to be beefed up, notably to put more emphasis on the risks of cross-pollination.

Only a handful of GMOs have been approved for cultivation in the EU; of them, only Monsanto’s MON810 maize, approved in 1998, is so far being grown.

The MON810 case has become a source of transatlantic friction. The US has warned Europe against using environmental issues as an excuse for protectionism.

In Germany, the federal states are responsible for official food surveillance. Each of the 16 states has established at least one laboratory for analysing foods for their content of GMOs and, thereby, for their compliance with labelling regulations. Each year, thousands of foods are tested.

The individual results vary from state to state and year to year, but there is a clear trend.

Foods derived from unauthorised GM crops are usually picked up by the European Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and turned back at the borders. This system prevents unauthorised products from reaching the European market.

GMO-free label

Since May 2008, it has been possible in Germany to apply the label “without gene technology” to food products. Its primary application is in the identification of foods such as milk or meat, derived from animals for which no genetically modified plants such as maize or soy were used in feed.

The criteria are stricter for other foodstuffs: Neither the application of additives obtained through genetic modification nor the accidental admixture of genetically modified plants is allowed.

The standardised logo is making it easier for consumers to choose food products without gene technology in an informed manner.

No more soy shipments are reaching European shores from the US. After several ships were turned away due to traces of Bt maize MON88017 and MIR604 being found in the cargo, all importers are shying away from the risk of such imports.

Europeans are convinced that contamination of the food-chain with GM ingredients and GMOs would create serious and possibly irreversible economic impacts on farmers.

The resulting economic losses — together with patent infringement lawsuits by the biotechnology companies — are likely to lead to a veritable Pandora’s box of legal actions.

Genie in the Bottle

For Europeans, genetic engineering of plant life is ‘sinful’

Europeans believe that the science of genetic engineering is unpredictable and that this ‘Golden Goose’ of industry is laying some stale, mouldy, rotten eggs.

The author is former Europe Director, CII, and lives in Cologne, Germany.

Finnish Chefs Urge Ban on GM-Foods

YLE News | Oct 21, 2009

A group of Finnish chefs, including television celebrities, have signed a petition urging the government to ban the import and sale of genetically-manipulated foods. They feel that allowing GM-foods into the natural food chain destroys the safe and natural production of food.

Chefs Hans Välimäki, Kai Kallio, and Jaakko Nuutila delivered the petition to Finance Minister Jyrki Katainen on Wednesday.

This autumn, the government is set to debate a bill which would allow the import and production of GM foods and crops in Finland.

“It’s also important to guarantee that consumers can identify genetically modified foods and animal products that have used genetically modified feed,” says the petition.

Government scientist and Royal Society in double push to promote genetically modified crops

Scientists are determined to change public attitudes to GM crops, which have been condemned by critics as “Frankenstein food”.

London Times | Oct 20, 2009

by Valerie Elliott

A double push for Britain to grow more genetically modified (GM) crops is to be made today John Beddington, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, is to renew his call for GM crops to ensure global food security.

His support for the controversial technology coincides with a study from the Royal Society, Britain’s most prestigious scientific institution, out tomorrow, which will also endorse the need for Britain to conduct more GM crop trials.

Scientists are determined to change public attitudes to GM crops, which have been condemned by critics as “Frankenstein food”.

Ministers, scientists, farmers and food companies think that the time is right to soften public opinion and to try to win them round to the benefits of GM production.

A new 12-month public consultation exercise on GM food to be undertaken by the Food Standards Agency.

Ministers have asked the watchdog to find out if the public mood has changed towards GM produce.

The move is also in response to concerns by food manufacturers and supermarkets which fear that the growing use of GM technology in overseas food production will make it “impossible” shortly to maintain a non-GM food supply.

A similar exercise took place six years ago which found that most people would not choose to eat or buy GM foods.

The scene has changed dramatically since then with the burgeoning economies in China and India increasing demand for protein.

The impact of climate change with more extreme temperatures leading to increased risk of drought and flooding as well as competition for land use, water scarcity and fuel costs are also likely to cause instability in food production and supply worldwide.

Professor Beddington, addressing a global food summit organised by Cabi, a leading international scientific research body, in London, will highlight GM production as one of the ways the world can guarantee secure food supplies.

GM is not “the silver bullet” but should be used as part of range of solutions to meet the estimated 50 per cent increase in demand for food expected by 2030, he will say.

“A range of solutions will be needed if a world population set to pass 8 billion by 2030 is to be fed equitably and sustainably. Improved protection of crops from pests and diseases in the field and during storage will be critical to reducing crop losses and has a major contribution to make,” he will say.

The 100-page Royal Society report assesses the varous biological approaches that have been proposed to improve crop yield.

Sir David Baulcombe, of the University of Cambridge, who chaired the study, is to outline the steps that governments need to adopt to ensure that in coming decades farmers in the developed and the developing world are fully equipped to feed their growing communities.

Professor Baulcombe said: “If we are to take full advantage of the benefits which science can offer to food production, then we must act now, by identifying valuable science technologies, investing in research, and by laying the regulatory framework to bring these technologies to market.”

A spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We have always said that GM might be part of the answer to issues of food security. We are not closed to the technology. But we need the scientific evidence from GM trials to show that growing GM crops will pose no harm to human health or the environment.”

At present there is only one British trial under way at Leeds University where scientists are monitoring a GM potato variety which is resistant to blight, a common pest which can decimate crops.

GM Soy Herbicide Linked to Birth Defects

NaturalNews | Oct 13, 2009

by David Gutierrez

The active ingredient of the popular herbicide Roundup, widely used on lawns and genetically modified (GM) crops worldwide, causes birth defects of the brain, heart and intestines even in minuscule doses, Argentinean researchers have found.

“The observed deformations are consistent and systematic,” said lead researcher Andres Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires.

Argentina is the world’s third largest exporter of soy, planting nearly 17 million hectares (42 million acres), or half of the country’s cropland. Much of this soy has been genetically modified by the Monsanto Corporation to be resistant to the company’s trademark herbicide, Roundup. As a consequence, massive quantities of Roundup are sprayed over soy fields across the country. In many cases, the herbicide is sprayed from the air and may drift over nearby communities or enter their water supplies.

Approximately 200 million liters (53 million gallons) of Roundup are used in Argentina each year.

The new study, conducted by the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), was ordered by the Argentinean Health Ministry in response to complaints filed before federal courts over the health effects of widespread herbicide spraying. For the past five years, a wide coalition of environmental and rights groups have pointed to significantly higher rates of birth defects, cancer, lupus, and diseases of the kidney, skin and respiratory systems in communities located near field of GM soy. Most recently, the nonprofit Rural Reflection Group (GRR) published a paper containing reports of health effects from rural doctors, residents and experts.

The group has called for a ban on the use of Roundup in accordance with the precautionary principle.

In the first phase of the CONICET study, researchers diluted Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, to a strength 1,500 times less than that used on GM soy crops. Other than water, no ingredients were added. The researchers then submerged amphibian embryos into this glyphosate solution, finding that the embryos consistently developed into animals with deformed heads.

In the second phase, researchers injected embryos directly with the diluted glyphosate solution. In addition to head deformity, the researchers observed reduced head size, increased death of skull-forming cells, deformed cartilage and genetic changes to the animals’ central nervous system, on a much larger scale than in the first part of the study.

“One should be able to suppose, with certainty, that the same thing that happens to amphibian embryos can happen to humans,” Carrasco said, noting that the observed results were “completely comparable to what would happen in the development of a human embryo.”

“Pure glyphosate, in doses lower than those used in fumigation, causes defects … (and) could be interfering in some normal embryonic development mechanism having to do with the way in which cells divide and die,” he said. Because the researchers deliberately excluded any of the additives that are also found in Roundup, they concluded that the herbicide’s active ingredient was definitely to blame for the effects.

Because the levels of glyphosate used “were much lower than the levels used in the fumigations,” the risk in real life “is much more serious” than that seen in the lab, Carrasco said.

“The companies say that drinking a glass of glyphosate is healthier than drinking a glass of milk, but the fact is that they’ve used us as guinea pigs,” Carrasco said.

Why are Monsanto Insiders Now Appointed to Protect Your Food Safety?

The New Secretary of Agriculture is a Fan of Factory Farms, GM Crops and More

mercola.com | Oct 10, 2009

by: Dr. Mercola

As I write this I am in Washington DC for the International Vaccine Conference and I just did a 12 hour amazing tour of the Capitol that I will describe later, along with pictures that I will post on Facebook. So politics and patriotism is fresh in my mind.

When President Obama took office, many Americans welcomed what was supposed to be an era of much needed change not only for the economy but also for the food industry and U.S. health care system.

Time magazine put it quite well when they described current farm policy as “a welfare program for the megafarms that use the most fuel, water and pesticides; emit the most greenhouse gases; grow the most fattening crops; hire the most illegals; and depopulate rural America.”

And as has been recently disclosed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), between 2003 and 2006, millionaire farmers received $49 million in crop subsidies, even though they earned more than the $2.5 million cutoff for such subsidies. In a speech given at the end of 2008, President Obama stated that this was a prime example of the kind of waste he intends to end when he takes office.

Meanwhile, American medical care is the most expensive in the world.[1] The United States spends more than twice as much on each person for health care as most other industrialized countries. And yet it has fallen to last place among those countries in preventing avoidable deaths through use of timely and effective medical care.

That the system is fatally flawed and in need of a radical overhaul is self-evident.

In fact, according to a 2008 report published in the New England Journal of Medicine[2], 90 percent of Americans believe our medical system should be “completely rebuilt” or that “fundamental changes” are required.

And many are looking toward the Obama Administration to carry out these fundamental changes — changes that appear, on the surface at least, to be in the works.

But while health care reform is finally on the table, and an organic farm has, for the first time, been planted on the White House lawn, there are an unsettling number of foxes being appointed to guard the U.S. health care and food industry hen houses … foxes that have entirely too many connections to Monsanto, the chemical manufacturer turned agricultural giant that is slowly gaining control over the world’s population, one seed at a time.

Full Story

Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods

scoop.co.nz | Oct 5, 2009

By Edem Srem

Sad to say, Genetically Modified foods have been introduced to the African Market. It is now up to African consumers to reject them. This will save lives and cost for the treatment of the side effects of consuming Genetically Modified foods.*

The history of controlling the food industry in the world by the then American Government in 1973 under President Nixon started by introducing the “Food for Peace” programme which was led by Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s Secretary of State and National Security Adviser.

According to the New African Magazine, Kissinger controlled absolutely the US foreign policy and summarized his activities as “Control oil and you control nations, control food and you control the people”. His idea of capturing the worldwide food industry started with the introduction of what was termed as the gene revolution.

The revolution did not succeed until 1990. a member of the South African consumer movement, Andrew Taynton explains that whereas natural breeding techniques select plants or animals with desirable traits and cross breed within a species to create better crops or animals, genetically modified are developed in laboratories by splicing genes from unrelated species into the host organism.

For instance, bacterial genes can be spliced into food crops and it will reproduce itself in each cell in the plants. Also scientists are now transferring anti-freeze genes from fish to tomatoes to keep it longer in the cold. There is also the splicing of pig genes into rice and daffodils to corn. All these have devastating effects, because of its imprecise processes.

The main effects of consuming genetically modified foods includes; allergies, new toxins, new diseases, antibiotic resistance and change in nutritional values. One other thing which needs to be mentioned is the “V Gurts” Varietal Genetic Use Restriction Technology which is popularly called the “Suicide Seeds” or terminator technology.

One expert believes Africa is in great danger now as genetically modified seeds are made in forms of herbicides and pesticides. These are normally exported to Africa and the Caribbean. The centre for Disease Control of the United States says that at lease 80% of food related illnesses are cause by viruses or pathogens that scientist cannot even identify.

Prince Charles, the heir to the British Throne, was once reported to have stated that “growing genetically modified crops in the developing world represents the biggest environmental disaster of all time”.

With the realities of climate change, it is just an option to reject these kinds of foods on the market. More revelations have been made by Dr. Arpad Pusztai, when he found out that rat fed on genetically modified potatoes had smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains.

It was also revealed that their immune systems have been damaged with a lot of structural changes in their white blood cells, making them vulnerable to infections and other diseases as compared to rats which were fed on normal organic foods. The same changes occur in humans who also take genetically modified foods.

Thus, the whole world could be exterminated if nothing is done to stop it. We have all become lab rats in mass human experiment with huge risks. The risks will be too late to detect and save the world especially Africa because it will take longer times to find the antidotes. By then the genetically modified companies would have made their money.

Apart from South Africa which has started growing genetically modified crops, the remaining African countries must reject and fight against governments who want to adopt the technology. Ghana should also try to establish strict checks on imported foods, seeds, herbicides and pesticides to control, if not to stop the spread of the genetically modified crops in the country.

The solution is to accept nuclear foods which are done through induced mutations. World examples of induced mutations include; Tek Bankye which has been developed by the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in collaboration with the IAEA. The Biotechnology and Nuclear Agricultural Research Institute has carried out researches that show that the Tek bankye yields as high as 17.84 tons per acre.

Kenya has also developed a high yielding and drought resistant wheat. Hopefully all Africans, especially, Ghanaians would reject genetically modified foods for a sustainable environment and good health.