The Guardian
Email YouTube Facebook Instagram Twitter
Features  |  Health  

GMO will not wipe out traditional crops

By NAN   |   26 December 2016   |   4:26 am
GMO maize. PHOTO: euobserver.com

GMO maize. PHOTO: euobserver.com

An Agriculture and Biotechnology expert has described as false the claim that the proliferation of genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) will wipe out natural crops.

Mr Yarama Ndirpaya, acting Director, Partnership and Linkages, Agricultural Research Institute of Nigeria, stated this an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Abuja.

“The issue of GMO wiping out natural seeds is not correct, Genetically Modified seeds are supposed to exist side by side with the traditional seeds.

“We don’t even necessarily go for genetically modified crops except for some scientific reasons.

“And most of the reasons why we use genetically modified seeds in agriculture are either to combat one terrible disease or to combat one terrible insect resistance, weed resistance or herbicide resistance.

“What do we do in genetic modification is not necessarily to create a crop that will kind of compete with our natural crops.

“But to create crops based on advantage where we know that there is need and traditional conventional methods of breeding have failed.

Ndirpaya said that Nigerians should have faith in the genetically modified seeds currently on field trials in the country.

“I want Nigerians to know that genetically modified crops are not monsters as people paint them, but crops that are engineered with scientific knowledge.

“There is no scientist who is a member of a community that would like to harm the same community, and of course our scientists are involved in the development of the genetically modified crops.

“GMO means transferring the desired genes into our local cultivations that our farmers can use with the aim of improving and increasing productivity.”

He said that GMO will check cases of diseases and pests that have been stubborn that could not be controlled by conventional methods.

“There is nothing that has been scientifically proven about genetically modified foods, and the fear by the public is built on mere myth.

“The fears are not actually based on evidence. We are scientists, the day we discover that there is scientific evidence of danger of genetically modified crops we will be the first to raise the alarm.

“But for now, as I speak, the whole world – based on available evidence has scientifically been unable to pin-point any disease or specific allergy that is tied to a particular genetically modified product.”

He said that over hundred nobel prize winners in various scientific fields had to come in this year 2016 to lend their voices to the world to accept genetically modified crops.

“They have no hazardous effect on individuals but have the capacity to improve agricultural productivity across the globe thereby reducing hunger and sustaining food security and creating wealth and employment.”


In this article:
GMOYarama Ndirpaya


  • alex

    oh no a corn cob about to be injected with a hypodermic syringe of scary red stuff

  • Omolaso

    Are you serious mr scientist? What do you KNOW?

    • grinninglibber

      He KNOWS he gets a check from Big-GMO.

  • RobertWager

    My question is for the editor. What possible reason, other than trying to instill fear, would you put that completely false picture of a syringe injecting maize? GMO’s are not made that way and only those who are ignorant of the real science would put such a photo forward. Shame on you.

    • morphd

      Killer bees should be depicted anytime traditional breeding is mentioned. At least that would be an accurate example for that technology.

      • grinninglibber

        vet this one

        • morphd

          You’ve never heard of killer bees? You don’t know that they came from crossbreeding African honeybees with European honeybees?
          No GMOs involved.

          • razorjack

            Great diversion… lol!

          • morphd

            Truth is only a “diversion” when it’s inconvenient.

          • razorjack

            Nope, it was a diversion for you, troll boy

    • grinninglibber

      It would not be a Big-GMO shill piece without comment from perenial operative Wager.
      SHAME ON YOU.

      • Damo

        Your harassment of Mr Wager is getting tiresome. How bout presenting some fact-based arguments that counter why he says?

        • grinninglibber

          I do not debate $hills like you or Wager.
          FACTS are not “harassment”
          “mr wager” my donkey.

        • grinninglibber

          I do not debate $hills like you and wager,
          FACTS are not harassment.
          “mr wager” my donkey.

          • Damo

            I don’t think you know what “facts” means.

          • razorjack

            You have never met a fact in your low life.

            Have you seen the shrink yet?

          • Damo

            Ted, seriously, whenever you want to drop the facade, I am here to help you.

          • StopGMO

            You should seriously take your own advice and seek some professional help, while you are at it.

          • Jason

            You do not debate anyone. You’re basically a 6 year old with access to a disqus account.

          • Duncan DeBunkerman

            You must be looking in the mirrors, industry guy.

    • Debbie Owen

      The entire article is ridiculous, it’s no surprise that the picture is ridiculous as well.

  • Debbie Owen

    Ndirpaya should put the people of Nigeria first before spreading nonsense about GMOs. The more than 100 nobel prize winners cited shouldn’t be taken seriously, especially when many of them are physicists and economists that don’t know much about GMOs. Most GMOs are genetically engineered to withstand repeated applications of herbicide and/or to produce their own pesticides, these poisons can’t be washed off. Common sense tells us these crops can’t be healthy to eat.

    • morphd

      “The more than 100 nobel prize winners cited shouldn’t be taken seriously, especially when many of them are physicists and economists that don’t know much about GMOs.”

      Ah the cherry picking. The list is now up to 123 Nobel Laureates http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/view-signatures_rjr.html 44 in Medicine and 39 in Chemistry – prizes that are often given to biologists.

      Of course yogic flyers and chanting pandits bought by organic profiteers know soo much more about GMOs than world-class scientists…

      • Debbie Owen

        In other words, the majority of the scientists don’t specialize in GE crops, yes that was the point.

        • Damo

          No, your point was that you knew more about the science then chemists and biologists.

          No thanks, I will listen to the educated, not the racist.

          • Debbie Owen

            LOL, you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. Do you scream racist at everyone who disagrees with you? You must lead a very sad life.

          • Damo

            No, just admitted racists like you.

          • Debbie Owen

            Are you not aware that everyone can read the comments for themselves? You are making a fool of yourself.

          • Damo

            Oh, was this the first conversation you have ever had? You may want to review your past comments.

          • Debbie Owen

            I don’t need to, your claims are false, just like always. This is why most people don’t believe you.

          • Damo

            Yeah, you and Ted live in the same fantasy world where GMOs are evil, you know more than scientists, and neither of you are delusional.

          • razorjack

            You are out of control delusional. Are you bi polar?

          • StopGMO

            I see no racism here but I do know Damo likes to make things up and any reader can see this. He seriously needs to have his head examined.

        • morphd

          The majority likely understand the basic biology of GMOs as well as basic toxicology. More importantly, they are able to read scientific literature objectively – something apparently beyond the scope of confirmation bias-seeking people in the anti GMO crowd.

          • Debbie Owen

            The majority likely don’t understand too much about GMOs.

          • morphd

            How do you know that? How have you acquired your knowledge of GMOs?

            What I’ve observed is that anytime a scientist has direct experience with GMOs, they supposedly lack objectivity in the eyes of anti-GMO activists. If they don’t have direct experience then they “don’t understand too much about GMOs.”

            On the other side it seems that organic industry funding a handful of researchers who only seem to conduct anti-GMO research that gets published in low impact journals at best isn’t a problem.

            In the eyes of anti GMO activists it appears that it is impossible to be a credible GMO proponent and nearly impossible to be a non-credible GMO opponent.

          • Debbie Owen

            Read razorjack’s comment above, you might learn something.

          • morphd

            You’re right – I did learn something – but not from rj but from researching some of the Nobel Laureates.

          • razorjack

            Can you give some specific examples of these times when you think science has been diminished by those others?

            Science doesn’t need any defense. It is about data and integrity. These days the later is a slippery slope for scientists who work for agenda driven corporations and the public scientists who’s institutions have “partnership” relationships with agenda driven corporations.

            Your organic industry straw man is dead on arrival and not very flattering to those who value science over hyperbole.

          • morphd

            Here you go:

            http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/47813/title/Top-10-Retractions-of-2016/

            5. There aren’t many topics that get researchers as fired up as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), so traffic surged when we reported that a nutrition journal had retracted a paper by Federico Infascelli, an animal nutrition researcher at the University of Naples, who showed modified genes could end up in the bodies of baby goats whose mothers ate GMOs. The initial retraction notice listed duplication as the reason, but was later updated to include data fabrication.

            If you can’t prove it, then make it up…

          • razorjack

            No scientist should be exempt from defending their findings based on the data. There are scientists who have studies retracted for valid reasons, but some studies retracted for politically corrupt reasons.

            None of this diminishes science… it’s kind of a funny thought .. thinking that science is blushing or fixing her hair.

      • razorjack

        Nonsense. The letter was a sleazy PR stunt that has diminished the reputation of the Nobel scientists who signed it as well as the Nobel organization.

        “The laureates’ letter relies for its impact entirely on the supposed authority of the signatories. Unfortunately, however, none appear to have relevant expertise, as some commentators were quick to point out.
        Philip Stark, associate dean, division of mathematical and physical sciences and professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley, revealed on Twitter his own analysis of the expertise of the signatories: ‘1 peace prize, 8 economists, 24 physicists, 33 chemists, 41 doctors’. He added that science is ‘about evidence not authority.

        What do they know of agriculture? Done relevant research? Science is supposed to be “show me”, not “trust me”… Nobel prize or not.’”

        http://gmwatch(dot)org/news/latest-news/17077

        • morphd

          I went through graduate school and did postdoctoral research in the 1990s (molecular biology/plant biochemistry) so instantly recognized a number of the names as people who would have more than enough knowledge to understand well beyond the basic biology of GMOs – which even someone having taken undergraduate biology can grasp. Here are notes on the first 5 recognized in the list http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/view-signatures_rjr.html ):

          Sidney Altman – molecular biology, work included catalytic RNA https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498233/

          David Baltimore – has profoundly influenced international science, including key contributions to immunology, virology, cancer research, biotechnology, and recombinant DNA research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Baltimore

          Paul Berg – …postgraduate studies…understanding of how foodstuffs are converted to cellular materials… arguably most famous for his pioneering work involving gene splicing of recombinant DNA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Berg

          Elizabeth Blackburn – did her postdoctoral work in Molecular and Cellular Biology at Yale University… Blackburn and her research team at UCSF are working with various cells (including human cells), with the goal of understanding telomerase and telomere biology. They also collaborate in investigating the roles of telomere biology in human health and diseases, in clinical and other human studies http://biochemistry2.ucsf.edu/labs/blackburn/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=3

          Gunther Blobel – lab focuses primarily on the structure and dynamics of the nuclear pore complex, a selective transport channel into and out of the nucleus. Dr. Blobel is also interested in the remodeling of messenger ribonucleoprotein (mRNP) prior, during, and after its transport across nuclear membrane, in the cytoplasmic transport of mRNA http://www.rockefeller.edu/research/faculty/abstract.php?id=225#content

          These are brilliant, accomplished researchers working in areas that would provide ample understanding of GMOs. Your suggestion that they, like so many Trump fans, could be duped into supporting something they didn’t understand suggests you are either willfully ignorant or willfully deceptive.

          As for Philip Stark – he’s a statistician, does he even have a clue what type of scientific training would be “relevant” to understanding GMOs?

          While trying to understand the credibility of a statistician judging whether or not Nobel Laureates have relevant expertise to criticize Greenpeace about a subject for which that statistician appears to know nothing about… I came across this story calling Greenpeace’s credibility into question http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/greenpeace-india-claims-its-registration-cancelled-slams-intolerance-1240860

          New Delhi: India has cancelled Greenpeace International’s license to operate and gave the group 30 days to close down, citing financial fraud and falsification of data, the environment watchdog said on Friday. (Nov 6, 2015)

          Talk about sleazy…

          • razorjack

            107 signed the PR scam that they were conned into. In the end it all comes down to scientific integrity.

            “The laureates’ letter relies for its impact entirely on the supposed authority of the signatories. Unfortunately, however, none appear to have relevant expertise, as some commentators were quick to point out.

            Philip Stark, associate dean, division of mathematical and physical sciences and professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley, revealed on Twitter his own analysis of the expertise of the signatories: ‘1 peace prize, 8 economists, 24 physicists, 33 chemists, 41 doctors’. He added that science is ‘about evidence not authority.

            What do they know of agriculture? Done relevant research? Science is supposed to be “show me”, not “trust me”… Nobel prize or not.’”

            http://gmwatch(dot)org/news/latest-news/17077

          • morphd

            You seem to be into repeating the same old stuff rj. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the number of Nobel Laureates signing the document is now up to 123 from 107. Why – if your statistician was correct in his ‘Twitter analysis’ – would another 16 have signed in the interim?

          • razorjack

            The truth doesn’t change no matter how you try and spin it.

          • morphd

            Too bad you don’t want to accept that truth.
            Just curious – are you a member of the Maharishi bunch?

          • razorjack

            You are not the arbitrage of truth. You give yourself to much credit. Have others told you you have problems with over blown ego too?

          • JoeFarmer

            He’s either a mouthpiece for the Maharishi bunch, or a true believer of the Nader bunch – i.e., Organic Consumers Association (Ronnie Cummins, or Nader-Lemmings like Gary Ruskin. Same stink, either way.

          • Duncan DeBunkerman

            Speaking of stench look what he industry sent to stink things up.

            WHeeeeeew … retch …

          • Damo

            Finally, Ted, you said something that makes sense.

    • Damo

      No, we shouldn’t listen to Nobel prize winners. Instead we should listen to admitted racists in the comment section of a online article.

      • Debbie Owen

        I haven’t seen any racist comments here, maybe you are confused.

        • Damo

          Nah, you know what I am talking about. Prior comments about the poor brown and black people show your true colors, criticizing this man for wanting his country to have independence from imports is just more of the same from you.

          • Debbie Owen

            No clue what you’re talking about. Nigerians and everyone else don’t deserve toxic GMOs. By the way, it’s usually the one screaming racist that is the racist.

          • Damo

            Yeah, your understanding of racism is as complete as your understanding of GMOs.

            And yeah, you know what I am talking about. Admitting that you have the benefit of living in a country where you can choose to pay extra for meaningless value-added labels like “organic” and that you “don’t care about the poor brown people” of the world pretty much makes you a racist.

          • Debbie Owen

            You are either confused or a liar, my guess is both.

          • Damo

            So you say. you are the one that has to live with yourself.

          • StopGMO

            “Your understanding of racism is as complete as your understanding of GMOs” Looking in the mirror again, I see.

          • Damo

            When have i ever said anything racist. When have any of you demonstrated an understanding of GMOs.

          • StopGMO

            Are you asking those questions while looking at that mirror again?

          • Damo

            So, you got nothing but insults the rest of us have given up by the third grade. Good to see the intellectual giants we have here. A juvenile, an admitted racist, and a guy that holds 10 different disqus accounts. How is it with such smart people like you running the show GMOs are still legal?

          • StopGMO

            Flinging Insults is what you’re good at. You should stop blaming others for what you do. Everyone can see this. Stop playing the victim card. And no, I do not have multiple accounts here. This is the only one. Paranoid much? GMOs are actually illegal. They are still out their because of deceit, fraud, lies, money, conflicts of interest and who knows what else. 3 agencies are responsible with the release of GM food plants. The FDA, the USDA, and the EPA. Guess who’s behind these agencies? It’s called, the revolving door. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/98e106bf4b0c55dfa9392cb09cbaf7feb3d03e0ba4c8b416f960229cb999fd68.jpg

          • Damo

            I didn’t accuse you of having multiple accounts. Learn reading comprehension. Your conspiracy theory still doesn’t explain the insurmountable mountain of evidence. When you provide legitimate evidence that counters the current science we will talk. Otherwise, go away and stop wasting everyone’s time.

          • StopGMO

            Conspiracy theories, deceit, lies,pseudoscience and misinformation generated by the industry itself is all you have to offer. We seen and heard it all before. Please share the “insurmountable mountain of evidence” you speak of. I as well as others have shared legitimate evidence for many years now but all your buddies including yourself try to twist, debunk and lie about what we have and so on. What is the point of going through that again? You are well aware of the evidence we have so quit pretending that you haven’t seen it. Where is your unbiased and legitimate evidence? Here’s the thing, safety assessments of GM products need to be and should be tested independently and not controlled by the very industry pushing it onto the market place. We know that conflicts of interests are obscuring data that are crucial to animal welfare, as well as human health. So until this happens, everything today is a conspiracy theory coming from the industry.

          • Damo

            No, seriously, I am not aware of what you have. The only thing I have ever seen is blog posts and Seralini’s retracted paper.

            Where is the evidence? Just one paper. I really, honest-to-god have never seen any legitimate evidence. As far as your claims of “Conspiracy theories, deceit, lies,pseudoscience and misinformation” please provide proof of that, too. Because frankly, that is what you guys have (evidenced by your little graphic up above).

            The most compelling peice of evidence for GMOs is that they are grown and consumed by millions of people and billions of animals and we have yet to see any problems. You guys can’t name one mechanism that would cause GMOs to hurt people.

            “Here’s the thing, safety assessments of GM products need to be and should be tested independently and not controlled by the very industry pushing it onto the market place.”

            If you want to study the safety, no one is stopping you. Go do it. But don’t pretend it hasn’t been done, literally thousands of times in the past.

            “So until this happens, everything today is a conspiracy theory coming from the industry.”

            Like I said, you got nothing. Good day and shut up.

          • StopGMO

            Playing dumb now are we? There is plenty of evidence that you’ve been provided with, not only here, but in other articles in the comments section. This particular forum does not accept links. Instead, you put your full trust into believing biotech and their industry bias and bogus claims. Open up your eyes and look around you. In the past 20 years, more and more babies are born with cancers and other diseases, autism is skyrocketing, gut issues, IBD, ADHD, I could go on and on, since GMOs were forced into our food supply. What do you think is causing this? Of course there is no accountability or liability for this because the industry keeps lying about their data and denying any harm. You should take your own advice by shutting up!

          • Damo

            You don’t need to provide links. Provide me the name of one study that proves a link between GMOs and any of those conditions.

            Why is it that the NAS didn’t find any links?

          • StopGMO

            This is why! NAS is full of biased people who have invested interests. Check out the authors.

            Reidunn Aalen – has a patent on plant gene for use in genetic engineering.

            Ervin Balazs – “former founding general director of the Agricultural Biotechnology Center Gödöll,, lead a unit on molecular virology and genetic engineering of crops”

            Ralph Bock – “Director of the Institute of Biochemistry and Biotechnology of Plants”,

            Ian Crute : “has had a 40 year career in crop research”

            Michel Delseny : Laboratoire Génome et Développement des Plantes

            Torbjörn Fagerström : President of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

            Evert Jacobsen : “WU Plant Sciences. Subdivision, Laboratory of Plant Breeding.”

            Ivan Kreft : “agronomskih znanosti, redni profesor genetike na Biotehniški fakulteti”

            Birger Moller : “Center for Synthetic Biology”

            Ewen Mullins : “15 years experience in US & Ireland in Plant Biotechnology.”

            Enrico Porceddu “docente presso la facolta’ di Agraria dell’Universita’ di Viterbo.”

            , etc.

            So you just referenced a biased report written by people who have a conflict of interest since they are involved in genetic engineering of plants. How convenient. Nice try.

          • Damo

            More conspiracy tripe. Pick the study apart. Show WHY it is wrong. When you can do that, we will talk.

          • StopGMO

            Nope! Your response was just as I was expecting it to be. So, do you know why we don’t bother with giving you the facts? You deny the truth and look past what we say. In simple words, the so called study you are referring to, is bogus. End of story.

          • Damo

            Yeah, no, it wasn’t. Show me HOW it was bogus. You do not present facts, you present conspiracy theories. You prove that you are the one ignoring facts and lying.

          • StopGMO

            Oh Damo, seriously? It’s bogus because it is 100% bias and there’s a huge conflict of interest among the authors. I’ve shown you that already. Do you think if those authors found something wrong, they’d disclose it? No, because they’d be suffering from those findings as well. What is a conflict of interest, you ask?
            “The term “conflict of interest” refers to situations in which financial or other personal considerations may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising a researcher’s professional judgment in conducting or reporting research”. I don’t ignore facts, I am all about facts and truth-tellers as myself, do not lie. http//wwwgmwatchorg/news/latest-news/16977-national-academy-of-sciences-gmo-report-fatally-compromised-by-conflicts-of-interest. Remove the words, COLON and DOT and replace them with the actual punctuation marks, if you care to. I am done. Class is dismissed.

          • Damo

            So, you didn’t find any actual errors?

          • GOOSE

            The NAS did not consider that over 95% of GMOs are engineered to be cultivated with cancer causing glyphosate. Any study of the GMOs on the market today must take this fact into account or else they are deceiving people with results that don’t study the whole picture. I suspect it is because of the serious conflicts of interest between the NAS and the biotech chemical industry.

            “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

          • Damo

            Hey Ted, you and StopGMO forgot about this part of my post:

            “Provide me the name of one study that proves a link between GMOs and any of those conditions.”

            So, if your entire argument is that no links can be provided because everyone that does the research has experience with GMOs and anyone else can’t be trusted to do quality work because they have no experience with GMOs, I have nothing more to say.

          • GOOSE

            I didn’t forget. I’m not one to respond to industry troll drool or mental health issues except to advise you to get some help.

          • Damo

            OK, Ted. Good to know that you finally learned your name. But the bit about responding that is hilarious. You respond to everything I say. You are obsessed with me.

          • GOOSE

            You really need help, headcase.

          • E. Sandwich

            Because the NAS has been corrupted.

            National Biotechnology Panel Faces New Conflict of Interest Questions
            http://www(dot)nytimes(dot)com/2016/12/27/business/national-academies-biotechnology-conflicts(dot)html

          • StopGMO
          • razorjack

            Please give us example of the claimed racist comments.

            We all know you are a mentally ill industry troll who is on a nasty spiral down. Get help.

          • Damo

            I just did, dipshit. Ted, you can barely keep up with the ten usernames you have, you probably shouldn’t worry about miss Debbie’s.

          • razorjack

            So you have no supporting evidence that supports your claim that the poster is a racist.

            Many disqus posters have seen how you are spewing your mental illness all over these threads.

            Get some help.

          • Debbie Owen

            You just made up that example, that’s what pro-GMOers do, make things up.

          • Damo

            Like how you just made up that GMOs are toxic?

          • StopGMO

            Truth tellers don’t make stuff up. It is people like you who do.

          • Damo

            Yeah, when have any of the three of you ever told the truth.

          • StopGMO

            You’d never recognize truth because you are heavily wrapped up in the lies and industry nonsense you’ve been severally brainwashed with. No surprise there.

        • StopGMO

          He is very confused. He reminds me of that other troll, Mikey.

          • Duncan DeBunkerman

            I remember little mikey boy. He has been quiet since this goon has started his crazy act …. Hmmmm? Do ya think?

          • Damo

            No, Ted, unlike you, I am only operating one username. I know, you figure you are lowdown enough to try and fool the smart people, but not all of us are as unscrupulous as Ted Miner. Some of us use the truth to back up our opinions. And the smart people understand truth, not your ridiculous “echochamber” troll drool.

          • Duncan DeBunkerman

            See a shrink and if you’re lucky you might be able to get rid of all the Teds in your head, crazy troll.

        • GOOSE

          Damo is mentally ill. He swears he talking to his imaginary friend and insists that everyone must see him too. Now he sees racism where none exists. Poor sick sot.

          He’s a delusional headcase that needs professional help.

      • razorjack

        You are exposing your mental illness again on this thread. Please get some help for your out of control delusions.

        The letter was a PR stunt that has diminished the reputation of the scientists who sighed it.

        “The laureates’ letter relies for its impact entirely on the supposed authority of the signatories. Unfortunately, however, none appear to have relevant expertise, as some commentators were quick to point out. Philip Stark, associate dean, division of mathematical and physical sciences and professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley, revealed on Twitter his own analysis of the expertise of the signatories: ‘1 peace prize, 8 economists, 24 physicists, 33 chemists, 41 doctors’. He added that science is ‘about evidence not authority.
        What do they know of agriculture? Done relevant research? Science is supposed to be “show me”, not “trust me”… Nobel prize or not.’”

        http://gmwatch(dot)org/news/latest-news/17077

        • Damo

          Ted, you are so good at projecting, if it were an Olympic sport, you would be the gold medal record holder.

          • razorjack

            Get help. You’re sick.

    • Jason

      Why couldn’t they be healthy to eat? All crops can withstand multiple applications of herbicides and all plants produce their own pesticides.

      So what makes these different?

      • Duncan DeBunkerman

        The herbicide glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen based on the declarations of The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the WHO.

        Monsanto’s own scientists told them Roundup/glyphosate caused cancer over 35 years ago. Instead of disclosing that fact, they colluded with the EPA who approved glyphosate over the objections of their own staff scientists and called the science “inconvenient” and hid the science away from other scientists, the courts, and the people as a trade secret while at the same time telling us it was safe.

        Glyphosate is a potent endocrine disruptor and it has no safe dose and should be banned from the planet

        • Jason

          Thanks for the diatribe but it doesn’t address my question.

        • JoeFarmer

          How’s Ronnie Cummins doing with his diet plan, Ted?

          • Duncan DeBunkerman

            You will have to ask Ted.

            Ronnie Cummins’s diet gossip is not on my play list.

          • JoeFarmer

            But you’ve got to admit the the man is morbidly obese and isn’t exactly the kind of person that should be playing spokesmodel for the organic industry, beret notwithstanding…

            Too many mouthfuls of baby batter?

  • Kemi Oladipo

You may also like