Guardian Life Guardian TV Facebook Instagram Twitter

The dangers of genetically modified foods

The topic of GMOs have been a very controversial one since its introduction in the USA in 1994

The topic of GMOs have been a very controversial one since its introduction in the USA in 1994

A little over a year ago, GMO (genetically modified organisms) or GE (genetically engineered) foods were approved to be grown in Nigeria and the issue continues to generate debate in many quarters. For those that don’t know what GMO means, these are foods that have been genetically modified meaning that the genetic material of the food has been altered from its naturally occurring state. In other words, genes from other sources have been introduced into these foods and this is done for various reasons.

The topic of GMOs have been a very controversial one since its introduction in the USA in 1994 and now that it is approved in Nigeria, it is time to be more aware of what it is and how it may affect us. There have been several groups opposing it and several debates on the safety of GMO foods.

The bio-technology companies that are responsible for manufacturing these genetically engineered foods claim that it will help with increased supply of food which will help eradicate hunger, especially in countries such as Nigeria. That sounds all lovely and good, but still, I personally am highly concerned about the health implications these GMO foods have on our health, and you should be too.

Currently, GMO foods comprise about 55%-70% of the processed foods in the supermarkets. Most of the imported food items we buy from our supermarkets here in Nigeria are genetically modified. Other countries such as England, Italy, Germany, Russia, Japan, New Zealand just to name a few are against the introduction of GMO foods into their country. Why then should we as Nigerians be exposed to these GMO foods? It’s time to pay more attention to what you put inside of your body.

Ms. Gidado, an assistant director with the National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA) said that no research had proven that GMO foods had any adverse effects on human health and the environment. This may be true but long term effects are still scarce and hardly documented probably because not many people I know would offer themselves up to be used as Guinea pigs and be fed with these GMO foods that have been termed carcinogenic and thus harmful. However, various studies have been done on animals and the health implications of GM foods on these animals are not pleasant at all. These health risks include infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, problematic insulin regulation, stomach problems, reduction in digestive enzymes, liver toxicity, allergic reactions, antibiotic resistance, cancer etc. Let me elaborate on a few of these health issues.

Infertility: Studies done on animals showed that more than half of the babies of GM-fed mother rats died within 3 weeks. Also, the longer the mice were fed GM foods, the less babies they had and the smaller the babies were. Also, GM fed rats had uterus and ovary changes, and by the 3rd generation, they were unable to have babies. In addition, about 2 dozen US farms reported that GE-fed pigs or cows developed sterility and could not reproduce. All these suggests infertility or reduced fertility and also a high risk of birth defects. And we wonder why infertility rates are increasing daily in humans.


Cancer: In March 2015, World Health Organization (WHO) classified Glycophosphate as carcinogenic. Glycophosphate is a toxin that is greatly used in GMO foods and has been linked to many illnesses such as Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s, Autism. It has also been known to be linked to breast cancer and prostate cancer. Also IGF (Insulin Growth Factor) is increased in dairy products from cows fed with GE foods. Recent studies show that IGF-1 is an important factor in the growth of breast, prostate, colon cancers. Once again, we wonder why the incidence of cancer is increasing.

Liver toxicity: The liver is one of the important organs in the human body and is responsible for detoxification. Rats that were given GM potatoes showed damaged livers. When these rats were switched to non-GM foods, their liver over time went back to normal. I think it is safe to conclude that GM foods play a part in damaging the liver.

Antibiotic resistance: GE foods have the ability to make certain bacteria to be resistant to antibiotics which will ultimately result in the increase and spread of infections. For example, GE maize plant from Novartis includes an ampicillin resistant gene and if this gene moves from the corn into bacteria, it will make ampicillin an ineffective drug in fighting bacterial infections.

The increase of cancer in humans, strange illnesses and infertility is alarming and everyone keeps wondering why. Perhaps we don’t have to look too far to find a probable cause, we only have to take another look at what types of foods we are putting into our bodies.


The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has warned that GMO foods are inherently unsafe and have asked all doctors to advise their patients to avoid GM foods.

What do we need to do to protect ourselves? Firstly, we all have to be extra vigilant about the foods you are buying. Most GMO foods are not labelled “GMO” so you have to make sure items you buy are 100% organic. You can also spread awareness about this GMO foods by discussing it with your family and friends. Also, the schools should be aware of what kinds of snacks they are feeding our children.

Better yet, parents are advised to make the children’s snacks from home. Also, since the government has approved these GM foods in Nigeria, the government should also encourage labeling of these GM foods and allow the general public to make the choice of whether to buy it or not.

In conclusion, whenever we alter a food’s original DNA by inserting foreign genes, it is always a gamble. You can’t predict all its consequences. Even though these companies claim that these foods have some advantages, the associated health risks that come with the foods make them harmful and dangerous, especially with long term exposure. In addition, I don’t think Nigeria is well equipped to effectively monitor and manage the health implications that come with long term consumption of genetically modified foods.

Disclaimer: The medical information provided on here by Dr. Nini Iyizoba is provided as an information resource only. This information does not create any patient-physician relationship and should not be used as a substitute for professional diagnosis and treatment.




  • Thomas Baldwin

    That strategy of skipping over all the most predominant and highly cited scientific institutions in the world, to get a statement to support your view from an group with little impact, sums up this article pretty well.

    • RobertWager

      So an organization that advocates homeopathy (water) to treat real illnesses should not be trusted on agriculture policy?

      • hyperzombie

        Well to be fair, liquid homeopathic meds can cure dehydration.

      • Damo

        So, if I eat GMO, then use GMO in my homeopathic cure (you know with less than one molecule per dose of GM plant material) it should even out, right? No cancer-causing chemicals in my body thanks to the GMO cure?

        I think that’s how it works.

        • Thomas Baldwin

          Brilliant

  • Thomas Baldwin

    Here’s an actual, intelligent debate on gmos. https://youtu.be/S7iLPJMEkiU

    • StopGMO

      Laughable!

      • Thomas Baldwin

        Laughable, yet you can not post a better one.. hmm.

        • StopGMO

          A better laughable one? No I can’t. lol

          • Thomas Baldwin

            How about a non-laughable one, where your arguments aren’t shown to be outrageous and unsupported.

        • Sparkle Plenty
          • Thomas Baldwin

            Nice, I haven’t heard this one yet. However, at least IQ^2 debate had actual scientists on the opposition panel.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            You mistake real scientists with agenda driven go along to get along industry junk pseudo-scientists.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            Haha. That is an adequate description of Benbrooke, I guess

          • StopGMO

            No, but that’s a great depiction of yourself.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Nonsense Dr Benbrook is an honest scientist who has disclosed the sources of his funding, but yet like all scientists who work conflicts with the GMO pesticide industry agenda, Benbrook is demonized by the sold out junk pseudo-scientists who are not even willing to admit to themselves that they have been corrupted by industry agenda.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Strange you would give an opinion before you have seen the video.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            I’m watching the video now. I already have an opinion on Druker. What’s his contribution to science?

          • Sparkle Plenty

            He has exposed the corruption of the government process that approved GMOs illegally and that continue to allow untested cancer causing Roundup/glyphosate laden GMOs introduced into the environment with out any safety testing.

            I know your fine with corruption if it serves your agenda but decent people want a fair open process that looks at all the data and does what is in the best interest of the people they are pledged to serve.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            He does this by selling books and taking money for lectures.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            So you say. Can you cite a source for your industry PR BS?

          • Thomas Baldwin

            yeah amazon, overstock, ebay.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            You are trolling.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            how noble

          • Sparkle Plenty

            There is nothing noble about expecting government agencies to do what the people they represent ask them to do. Apparently you are in favor of captured industry controlled governmental institutions. Corruption is fine with you so long as it supports your industry agenda.

  • RobertWager

    Really a syringe. FAIL.

    • hyperzombie

      And it is full of green GMOz, everyone knows that you only inject purple GMO juice into apples or they will turn into turnips…No one wants that.

  • Sparkle Plenty

    Wow, you have attracted some nasty GMO pesticide industry operative trolls who try and spin away the facts that conflict with the GMO pesticide industry agenda.

    • Thomas Baldwin

      Fact require citation, which this article contains none. Thanks faceless random person from the internet.

      • Sparkle Plenty

        The article is full of accurate facts. That is why you and the rest of the motley mind controlled industry troll army are here to try and spin it away.

        • Thomas Baldwin

          Care to back that up with citations?

          • Sparkle Plenty

            I don’t provide citations to agenda driven mind controlled industry trolls.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            that’s convenient for you.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            It is a waste of time. They are not here to provide any facts. They are here to spin away the truth that gets told by truth tellers. I will always provide citations to those who ask with integrity.

      • StopGMO

        Speaking of, where are your citations?

        • Thomas Baldwin

          I can quote the NAS gmo report all day long to show this article to be wrong in many aspects.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            The NAS report is not serious science. The NAS has a huge conflict of interest.

            National Academy is taking funding from biotechnology firms and using “pro-GMO scientists” to write its reports.

            Notable Biotech Corporate Donations to the National Academy of Sciences NAS Donor and Amount:
            Monsanto $1-$5 million
            DuPont $1-$5 million
            Dow Chemical $1-$5 million

            Companies and Industry Associations on the NRC Board Overseeing GMO Projects, 1987-Present:
            Monsanto
            DuPont
            Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)
            Calgene
            Cargill
            General Mills
            Novus International
            Nestlé Purina
            Pioneer Hi-Bred

            2014-2016 NRC Committee Members With Ties to Industry or GMO Advocacy

            David Stelly – Texas A&M – Research collaborator with Monsanto, Bayer, Dow Agrosciences

            Neal Stewart – University of Tennessee – Consulted for Dow Agrosciences and Syngenta 36 patents on GMOs

            Richard Dixon – University of North Texas – Consulted for Monsanto four times; received more than $1 million from biotech industry for research has patents on GMOs

            Bob Whitake – Produce Marketing Association – Works for organization sponsored by Monsanto and Bayer

            Karen Hokanson – Donald Danforth Plant Science Center – Consults with Monsanto-sponsored organizations and a pro-GMO group

            Bruce Hamaker – Purdue University – Director of research center funded by biotech industry

            Richard Amasino – University of Wisconsin Patents on GMOs – He also engages in pro-GMO political advocacy

            Dominique Brossard – University of Wisconsin – Previously worked for a Monsanto-partner organization that helps commercialize GMOs advocates in media in favor of GMO

            Peter Kareiva – The Nature Conservancy – Works for organization that receives millions of dollars from biotech companies these companies also sit on a Nature Conservancy advisory board

            Robin Buell – Michigan State University – Involved in GMO development.
            patent related to GMOs

            Jose Farck-Zepeda – International Food Policy Research Institute – Works for organization that supports GMOs; collaborates with industry supporters on research advocating use of GMOs in Africa

            Kevin Pixley – International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center – Research collaborator with Syngenta Foundation works for organization that supports and develops GMOs

            The report I cited contains much more of the same.
            http://www(dot)foodandwaterwatch(dot)org/sites/default/files/ib_1605_nrcinfluence-final-web_0(dot)pdf

          • Thomas Baldwin

            This is baseless. Why don’t you pick out specific scientific concerns so you don’t have to cite the “agenda driven” sources you claim to despise.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            All industry trolls who are being faithful to the industry junk pseudo-science cult ideology will try and spin away the fact that the NAS has been captured and corrupted by the industry.

            That is how junk science works.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            Literally the same argument I just had with someone over global warming.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Are you a global warming denier too?

          • Thomas Baldwin

            I agree with the scientific consensus. Care to remind me what that is for climate science and genetic engineering?

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Science is not done by consensus and the is no consensus on GMO safety.

            You are trying to confuse apples with oranges with your false equivalency attempt to confuse and deceive.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            Unlike what you were just doing, which was what I was responding to. So you are telling me there is no consensus on climate change?

          • Sparkle Plenty

            I have not mentioned climate change and many wonder why you are trying to change the subject and divert from the actual issues we were discussing.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            The issue of not accept the vast majority of scientific studies and the opinions of vast majority of scientist in the field or otherwise.

            No that’s what we are talking about.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            As I said before science is about data and there is no scientific consensus that GMOs are safe for long term human consumption. If you can show me some data that shows otherwise we can discuss it.

            Science is not done by consensus.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            Says some not in science, never produced a scientific article, never participated in peer-review panel.

            Here is a analysis of the available scholarly research published in a high impact journal, from a non-bias source. Their conclusions found zero evidence of hazard in 1,783 papers
            http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595?needAccess=true
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/313f15588c557062546425cce7549a4f7cd235652dc9838005426f1c2267ae00.png

          • Sparkle Plenty

            You don’t know anything about me except what I post here.

            You have linked to another review of cherry picked studies that assure the industry agenda will be supported by the results. These cherry picked reviews ignore any science that doesn’t support industry objectives.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            So prove me wrong and post one of your science articles.

            1783 cherries? Anything I post you will just claim that. No, you clarify why this is bias .

          • Sparkle Plenty

            I have not made any claims about any studies here except the Seralini study that was peer reviewed three times and remains in the literature as a cite-able study today.

            Cherry picked reviews are not studies. They are reviews of selected studies. It doesn’t take a genus to see how your industry plays that junk pseudo-science game.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            NO CITATION ON YOUR OWN SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION! not one.

            Why do you have to trip all over yourself to cite one study? do you have 1782 more?

            NO SIR, you have not shown why my post was bias and should be disregarded.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Look Thomas everyone can read the thread and see for themselves what I have posted.

            You have not made a scientific contribution. You have posted industry spin and junk pseudo-science. Everyone can read it for themselves.

            You need to own your own words.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            ABSOLUTELY. I hope the world read this thread. I have my name right out in front.. Why are you running away. Why are you hiding in shame.

            You refuse to post anything to demonstrate you have ability or scientific experience in any field, nor will you address the comprehensive analysis I just cited.

            I OWN MY WORD AND MY OWN SCIENCE. I own them straight out, you want to call me on the phone right now, we can record the conversation with my face and we can plaster that all over the web.

            YOU SIR, ARE RUNNING AWAY.

            NOW cite your research or GTFO!

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Everyone can see that sparkle plenty has correctly interpreted your posts and that you are here with an industry agenda.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            Then I challenge you as well with the same proposal. Call me and we will record it, post the results to youtube.

            Do you have the citation that is missing? Do you have credentials that are missing?

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Information is ether valid or invalid. It has nothing to do with “credentials” the GMO pesticide industry is teaming with junk pseudo-scientist who have found go along to get along is the best way to get ahead. All of these people have “credentials”. I guess that makes them corrupted credentialed industry players. They remind me a lot of you.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            You’re not even a different person

          • Peaceful Warrior

            Whoa, Thomas, are you going off the deep end on us now?

          • Sparkle Plenty

            I am not running away. I am here reading your self serving attempt to redeem yourself for your shameless industry shilling.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            Still not a citation proving you have experience in any scientific field

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Don’t give me that kind of elitist BS rhetoric.

            I don’t provide citations to agenda driven industry operatives.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            Still not an argument why Nicolia et al., 2014 is wrong in their interpretations.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            I’ve all ready told you. It is part of a bogus cherry picked review. It’s pseudo-science PR nonsense.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            That’s not an argument. You’re just claiming that without any evidence!

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Many people agree with me and we have all the evidence needed to see through the industry junk pseudo-science smoke screen that you and other operatives are using to try and spin the facts away.

          • Damo

            Ted, you make me laugh.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            People who are out of touch with reality often laugh inappropriately.

            You are trolling.

          • Damo

            First, Seralini has not been peer reviewed 3 times. It is not citable, it has been published in a pay to play journal.

            Second, lit reviews are more complicated then what you said, and even if true, the fact that they found almost 2000 studies to cherry pick versus your one discredited plan tells you that the science is not in your favor.

            I could go on, but Thomas is doing a good job of putting you in your place. And he didn’t even mention your 10 other usernames.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Scoundrels and industry operative always attack the quality of the journal when they can not intelligently discuss the science.

            The fact is this paper was peer reviewed three time and these peer reviews stand. The paper was republished and the data made available to other scientist and it remains in the cite-able literature today….

            People who would like to read the actual facts about this desperate attempt by Monsanto to suppress this important study can read the facts here:
            http://www(dot)sgr(dot)org(dot)uk/resources/scientific-publication-peril-seralini-affair

          • Thomas Baldwin

            Please keep saying stuff like this. It makes is really easy to win this argument when I don’t have to defend actual science and figures, just point out your repetitive and cyclic use of shill accusations.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            The is no argument, only data and facts.

          • Damo

            Uh, no, Thomas up there is actually showing you how science works–observation, hypothesis, experimentation, etc. etc.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Science is about data. Without the data there would be no “observation, hypothesis, experimentation, etc. etc.”.

            Maybe your industry hides the studies because they do not want their “observation, hypothesis, experimentation, etc. etc.” validated by independent scientists or reviewers.

            At any rate we know that you are an agenda driven industry troll and not a scientist. All you have is your PR scripts and lies.

          • Damo

            There is plenty of data.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Yes, and the data from Monsanto’s own studies show that Monsanto knew over 35 years ago that Rounup/glyphosate caused cancer. They hid the science as a trade secret and colluded with the EPA who approve glyphosate over the objections of their own staff scientists.

          • Damo

            That was one memo you are talking about. And you are inaccurately describing the situation.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            No I am telling the truth.

            Please tell us, specifically. why you think I am inaccurately describing the situation.

          • StopGMO

            NAS? lol Keep trying.

      • hyperzombie

        Well he is not nameless or faceless, but for the sake of everyone on this message board I will not share the info. There are enough pics of creepy old dudes already on the inertubes..Your welcome./

    • Thomas Baldwin

      Nasty? who are you, Donald Trump?

      • Sparkle Plenty

        No, but you are an industry troll who is looking for a fight.

        • Thomas Baldwin

          You have evidence for that? other than someone disagrees with you?

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Yes. It was you that called me Donald Trump.

            You are a troll.

  • Rob Bright

    Yup, the pro-GMO vanguard is already here. Robert Wager is a well known pro-GMO spokesperson and advocate. I see he is still trolling social media articles to defend and promote the agrochemical/biotech industry…

    • Thomas Baldwin

      hy·poc·ri·sy /həˈpäkrəsē/ (See above)

      • Sparkle Plenty

        Industry troll . TROLL … (see above)

        • Thomas Baldwin

          I don’t work for industry. never have

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Most trolls don’t. They are usually employed by shady cut out contractor that give he industry the ability to deny any affiliation.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            I defend science for free. My papers have nothing to do with industry. I don’t need a PhD to defend the conclusions on genetic engineering, but I do.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            We can all see that you are a troll who is trolling.

          • StopGMO

            So are you a GMO farmer?

          • Thomas Baldwin

            Nope, plant pathologist and fungal geneticist. Specifically, I study mycotoxigenic fungi.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Yes, you are an agenda driven troll who claims to be a scientist.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            did I confuse you with fancy terms? I have published science and a degree.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            There are many industry trolls with claimed degrees. All we know about you is what you are doing here, and you are trolling.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            Wow, nice sentence structure.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Like it or lump it, troll.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            or just disregard

          • Damo

            Ted up there is not the swiftest of the anti-GMO crowd. But he didn’t lose that contest by much.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            It took me 4.5 years to claim that degree. All I needed was a dissertation, course work, candidacy exams, countless hours in lab and the library.

          • StopGMO

            If true, this explains a lot about where you are coming from. These days science has been funded and bought by chemical corps such as Monsanto etc. to fit their agenda and driven industry PR and false claims. Therefore, I don’t blame you for what they’ve taught you but I am sorry that they’ve brainwashed you with their pseudoscience and research bias and contamination. https://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic-bias-biotech-failures/

          • Thomas Baldwin

            I was taught by scientist to read scientific literature and successfully use the scientific method to advance our understanding of nature.

            My academic teachers advanced the fields of genetics, discovered and studied mycotoxins that are some of the most hazardous and carcinogenic compounds known to mankind.

            They amassed no fortunes doing this and achieved something far greater, A deeper understanding nature and staving off countless lives from tremendous suffering.

          • StopGMO

            No, you are just way too brainwashed to understand and see the other side of it. http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

          • hyperzombie

            mycotoxins that are some of the most hazardous and carcinogenic compounds known to mankind.

            But how do they taste? Danger, schmanger, put enough tomato sauce and cheese on them and you will be fine.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Or…we can just label the mycotoxin infested food as “certified organic”, double or triple the price and brainwashed consumers will trample one another to throw their grocery money away on the stuff. Heh, feed it to their kids, too.

          • StopGMO

            People aren’t as dumb as you are portraying them to be

          • Damo

            Lol, you certainly are that dumb.

          • StopGMO
          • Thomas Baldwin

            44% of Americans say scientists understand this “fairly well”

            and those people are deceiving themselves. Given American’s track record on climate change, STEM, and other scientific fields, I’d say this is also just a tragic.

          • Damo

            Oh my, you are hysterical. Monsanto can’t afford to fund every scientist. Science is not in the back pocket of Monsanto.

          • StopGMO

            Read again, I said “Chemical corps, such as Monsanto etc.” And, I did not say that they could fund “every” scientist. Quit while you are ahead.

          • Damo

            But obviously that is what you meant when you complained that the science had been so seriously tainted that even the educators are led astray.

            I have an idea, instead of claiming that the science is faulty because of Monsanto interference, why not breakdown, using logical arguments, where the science is faulty and how it is.

            Go ahead, then we can talk. Until then, I take it you are going to rely on your conspiracy theory tripe and have no need for further discussion.

          • hyperzombie

            mycotoxigenic fungi.
            Mmmm, tasty. How are they on pizzas?

          • Thomas Baldwin

            A little deoxynivalenol in the crust and you will have no problems with room for seconds.

          • hyperzombie

            deoxynivaleno
            Wow no wonder it is an unpopular inadvertent grain additive, I say call it “velvet grain pixie dust”, you could charge 4x more for it and if it was organic 10x more, cha ching. Bonus there would be far less scientific illiterates out there.

          • Thomas Baldwin

            100% organic. It’s also called vomitoxin, because it makes pigs throw up uncontrollable. Weight lose drug, so that’ll cost extra. Too bad it functions by inhibiting ribosomes, but you know, details.

        • Damo

          Ted, what are you talking about?

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Look in the mirror and you will see, troll.

            You know I am not Ted. You are trolling me.

          • StopGMO

            If you are Ted, as I have been called this too, then Damo is Mikey.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            I know of at least 20 posters who have been called Ted. These industry PR assets think if they can make people thing everyone who disagrees with their agenda is Ted that they are spinning the opposition away. It’s a losers claim to cover their inability to get any traction with the PR created industry lies.

          • StopGMO

            That spells paranoia to me.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Yup. They are a paranoid bunch. I suppose that happens to those who choose to sell cancer causing poison food while purposely hiding the cancer causing Roundup/glyphosate laden GMOs in the North American food supply.

          • Damo

            Or, more likely, you are Ted Miner, a whiny, old man who has multiple usernames. I mean it is not like it is true or anything.

            But whatever, a few more posts and you will start on about echochamber and troll drool, just like you always do, Ted.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            You are a troll, Damo. You are out of gas and you are trying to divert attention from your failure by bringing up your Ted game.

            I’m proud to wear my Ted badge because the only people who are called Ted are those who blow holes in industry lies and post truthful verifiable information.

            Go troll somewhere else.

          • Damo

            What truthful, verifiable info have you presented?

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Go troll somewhere else.

  • Thomas Baldwin

    As Bill Nye pointed out about these opponents of GMOs “I don’t see much insight in this group”

    Look into the future and you will see improvements like this
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6xpQYaxiRc&feature=youtu.be

    The GMOs on the market today are the model T’s of the genetic engineering. Technology, such as CRISPR and sheer Moore’s law breaking level of scientific improvement in genetic understanding, except much better crops for the future of mankind.

    Now we can be trapped in this “You’re a shill troll” conversation, or we can invent our way out of environmental collapse and human suffering.

    I choose the latter!

    • Sparkle Plenty

      Bill Nye is a PR propaganda asset for Monsanto.

      Nye has an undergraduate degree from Cornell and his grades were not good enough to get him into graduate school. Bill Nye is an entertainer not a scientist.

      Monsanto flew him down to St. Louis, they worked out a deal and fitted him for the special shoes. Bill Nye is going to do for Monsanto what Ronald McDonald did for McDonalds

      Bill Nye loves ‘science” all the way to the bank.

      • Thomas Baldwin

        ” .. and hes wrong about creationism and global warming”.. is the next sentence your about to say.

        • Sparkle Plenty

          No he is wrong about GMOs.

      • Damo

        Wow, I have heard the same argument used against Nye from other anti-science types (Global warming deniers), is there a handbook or something you guys use?

        • Sparkle Plenty

          Maybe the global warming deniers were responsible for Nye’s immaculate conversion after they flew him to St. Louis and fitted him for the special shoes. No one needs to be a global warming denyer to see the way Nye has allowed himself to be corrupted bu Monsanto.

          • Damo

            Whatever, Ted.

            Or maybe Nye knows enough to say that the work he has seen is sound science?

            That couldn’t be it–doesn’t fit into your conspiracy theory foolishness.

          • Sparkle Plenty

            Tell it to Ted, troll.

  • hyperzombie

    Disclaimer: The medical information provided on here by Dr. Nini Iyizoba is provided as an information resource only.

    So the good Dr that wrote this piece of crap doesn’t even stand by his own words….EPIC FAIL.

  • Chen Priscilla

    That WHO classified Glycophosphate as carcinogenic is a yesterday’s news. The now report by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and WHO says that the chemical was“unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet”.

    This article is base on a false rumor made by AAEM.

    The original source of it is from AAEM, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, listed as a questionable organization and dubious certifying board by the American Board of Environmental Medicine. AAEM is not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties. Health issues listed in the article are also proved to be wrong.

You may also like