The Guardian
Email YouTube Facebook Instagram Twitter WhatsApp

Again, on the ethical side of GMO


GMO good. PHOTO:

GMO good. PHOTO:

In her incisive article titled: “GMO: The Good, the Bad and the not too Ugly”, published on page 19 of The Guardian, November 17, 2017, the author, Yewande Kazeem, failed to explain the method of development of (RE-engineering of organisms to produce) GMOs, its consequences on the organism that is genetically RE-engineered, and the consequences of consuming foods produced with the RE-engineered organism.

Especially, she failed to note as “The bad” that NO food from any RE-engineered organism, GM food, has been established as safe for consumption by animals and human beings through approved safety study method. She said that the method alters the gene of organisms and failed to explain the consequences of altering the genome of organisms that are genetically RE-engineered to the organisms that have their genomes altered and the effects of consuming foods produced with the organisms. Again, she failed to note that NO GM food produced by organisms the genome of which was altered has been shown to be safe for consumption.

As a means of helping you gain insight into the problem, I ask: Can the blood of anyone be transfused into another person without cross-check on their blood groups? Will transfusion be carried out if they have different blood groups? More relevant and the RE-engineering, can the blood of a cow, goat or any other blooded animal be transfused into a man? The method of genetic RE-engineering is like transfusing the blood of an animal into a human being. Can it be supposed that the alteration or interference will have no effect on the person? NO he will sure die. This explains why NO GM food is safe and why diseases and deaths have been the consequences of consuming GM foods Globally.

She went further to compare genetic RE-engineering with vaccination and failed to compare method of production of vaccine by Banting and best with that of Ely Lilly. She also failed to compare success at trial for cure of diabetes concerning vaccines produced by Banting, Best and Collip, produced through natural process, and vaccine produced by Ely Lilly through genetic RE-engineering method. The former cured diabetes while the latter did not and has never cured any diabetes since it was introduced into the market. It merely manages diabetes until the patient dies.

Vaccine against HPV causes autism: Proven. In fact, NO vaccine has been shown to be safe. There are evidences in the internet based on sound research and public interest that people who get vaccinated comedown with the diseases that they were vaccinated to be protected against or another disease. This is why it is wrong to say that vaccines provide immunisation. Vaccination in Nigeria is criminal for the fact that certification of polio free country now and claim of emergence of new wild polio some time later is strategic for ensuring that no Nigerian child escapes vaccination while no responsibility is taken for the effects of the vaccines and Nigerians trust UNICEF and WHO foolishly.

Her “the good” are NOT true. For instance, more synthetic chemicals are used as herbicides and pesticides and not less as she claimed. Resistance is lost and not gained as crops are exposed to new pests and pathogens that destroy them and make harvest poor – e.g. tomato in the North recently. Adaptation is to climate change is nil.

About the effect of GMOs on soil, GMOs reduce soil fertility. It is noted also that GMOs make non-GM crops GM crops. This happens through the transfer of loose GM genes and loose GM proteins from GM crops to the genomes or cells of same species but non-GM crops (vertical transfer) and transfer of loose GM genes or GM proteins from GM crops to the genome or cells of different species of non-GM crops (horizontal transfer). Birds, butterflies and bees may do the transfer. It is also noted that GM genes and loose GM proteins from GM crops pollute water, get into fishes, make them GM fishes, and cause death of the fishes.

As should be expected, the effects in these two transfers – to non-GM crops and non-GM fishes – are transferred into cells, tissues and organs of consumers of the GM crops and GM fishes and cause deadly diseases.

Let me add that GM genes and loose GM proteins pollute the air and cause cancers long time after inhalation of the polluted air. This is a strong point why researchers and big companies ensure that they wear protective clothing and shields for their noses. I hope the picture inserted shows. Concerning the synthetic chemicals sprays with helicopters or hand sprays, they get into the cells of both GM crops and non-GM crops and, when these are consumed, they causes cancers, allergic reactions and poison to vital organs. This is another reason for protecting oneself as big GMO farmer or researcher in field testing experiments.

Her citations and references show her personal leaning or that she was paid to write the article. Certainly, no good piece on GMOs and GM foods should exclude research and safety study by Arpad J. Pusztai and Stanley WB, Ewen (1999), and by Gilles-Eric Seralini et al (2012 and 2014). The former was the first to show that GM foods are toxic and deadly over short-term while the latter showed toxicity and carcinogenicity over long term safety study. Prince Odor is of The Food-Chain Watch, Lagos. 

In this article:
GMOYewande Kazeem
Receive News Alerts on Whatsapp: +2348136370421

  • Robert Howd

    The claim: “she failed to note as “The bad” that NO food from any RE-engineered organism, GM food, has been established as safe for consumption by animals and human beings through approved safety study method.” The fact: GM foods have received more safety testing than new foods derived through any other method. New products derived through radiation-induced mutation, for example, have never been required to be demonstrated as safe. These shotgun genetic-damage methods are frankly, scary! But they’re acceptable as non-GMO, organic products, while products derived through very specific gene modifications which are called “GMO” because we know what is being changed are somehow labelled as needing GMO labels? This is really nonsensical.

    • Prince Awele Odor

      As reaction to the flaw in the article written by Yewande Kazeem, written by me and intended to help the public understand the issues of method and safety regarding GMOs and GM foods, both of which are fundamental and overriding matters but were not written about by Yewande Kazeem, Mr. Robert Howd wrote:

      “The CLAIM: “she failed to note as “The bad” that NO food from any RE-engineered organism, GM food, has been established as safe for consumption by animals and human beings through approved safety study method.”

      By characterising my statement, quoted by him, as “CLAIM” (my emphasis), Mr. Howd meant, obviously, that the statement by me is false or incorrect. If the statement written by me were false or incorrect, Mr. Howd should have provided the statement in the article written by Yewande Kazeem that is the same as my statement, which I observed was lacking in the article, or any statement in the article written by Yewande which has the same meaning as the meaning of my statement and conveyed the same information as my statement conveyed. But he did not provide this.

      Rather he wrote as “The FACT” (my emphasis): “GM foods have received more safety testing than new foods derived through any other method”.

      Concerning this assertion I note that I AM NOT CONCERNED with the number of safety testing that GM foods have received, or if these are more than the safety testing that foods produced through other methods have received. My concern, made VERY CLEAR, is that NO GM food has been shown to be safe for consumption by any expert or group of experts anywhere in the world, especially independent and honest experts–NOT EVEN ONE—whether as the finding from one safety study or as the finding after “more” safety studies than have been carried out on other foods!

      Therefore, my assertion, a categorical one, remains.

      Mr. Howd should show that this assertion: “NO food from any RE-engineered organism, GM food, has been established as safe for consumption by animals and human beings through approved safety study method” is wrong, false, or misinformation of the public by providing through this VERY WIDELY read and reliable information organ/website and discussion forum, the name of JUST ONE GM food which has been certified safe for consumption the safety certification of which is GENERALLY accepted by the parties to the debate about the safety of GM foods.

      Otherwise, Mr. Howd should provide evidence of any safe GM food, JUST ONE, the safety study of which was ACTUALLY carried out by any INDEPENDENT actual researching expert or group of experts, the names of the expert of members of the team of experts that carried out the safety study, the expert or team of experts that carried out peer review on the study, the journal that published the report of the study and, not irrelevant, any repeat of the study and its certification as safe for consumption by any independent group of experts. I am waiting eagerly to read either evidence. I am sure that the other people who are interested in this matter and have read our arguments are also waiting to read his evidence.

      But I should note also concerning his claim “GM foods have received more safety testing than new foods derived through any other method”, the finding of Dr. Domingo J et al that there is very few toxicological/health risks studies on GM foods/plants while there are very many publications in the internet in which their authors claimed that this was carried out. See Domingo, J. L. and J. G. Bordonaba (2011). A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants. Environ Int 37: 734–742,

      This makes it clear that most of the safety testing claimed to have been made were fake or sham and mere propaganda aimed at sustaining GMOs and GM foods and, hence, the commercial benefits of Monsanto and other Pro-GM food Biotech companies and also their paid defenders of GMOs and GM foods.

      Another group of independent experts wrote in their report:

      “As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a “scientific consensus” on GMO safety, and that the debate on this topic is “over”. See White, M. (2013). The scientific debate about GM foods is over: They’re safe. Pacific Standard magazine, 24 Sept.

      We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist. The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment”.

      It noted as part of its conclusion: “Decisions on the future of our food and agriculture should not be based on misleading and misrepresentative claims that a “scientific consensus” exists on GMO safety”. See

      Mr. Howd, where is your proof that GM foods are safe for consumption and, hence, that the flaw that I noted concerning the article by Yewande Kazzem is wrong, false, misleading or nonsensical?

  • Robert Howd

    And wow! Such nonsense in this article. No, vaccines do not cause autism. Apparently, anybody can post any stupid trash opinions on this website.

    • Prince Awele Odor

      “No, vaccines do not cause autism”?!!!!

      The measles, mumps and rubella vaccine CAUSES autism.

      This is a scientific fact and not “nonsense” or “stupid opinion”.

      The fact was established by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and other ACTUAL medical practitioners which includes Prof. John Walker-smith.

      The Lancet medical journal published it first. See:
      Observe and note that the publication does NOT have “RETRACTED” as part of its title.

      One Brian Deer, a journalist, published an article in the British Medical Journal about the report of the study in which he claimed that the report was fraudulent. Later the Lancet retracted the publication and its retraction was said to be consequent on the article by Mr. Brian Deer.

      Take note that Mr. Brian Deer is only a journalist and not a medical man or, better, a researching medical man while Dr. Wakefield is ACTUAL medical practitioner and a leading expert in gut health. Note also that he worked with other experts as a team and not alone.

      It became clear later that Mr. Brian Deer was used by the British Medical Journal and that he was paid. Dr. Wakefiedl was not contacted before the publication or given any opportunity to reply to the allegations that were made. The retraction was not owing to any error in the findings by Dr. Wakefield and other ACTUAL medical practitioners and researchers or how the report of the research was written. Rather, it was dictated or compelled by commercial and financial interests. By this is meant that the retraction was carried out because the Lancet, which published the research report by Dr. Wakefield et al, and The British Medical Journal, which published the report by Mr. Brian Beer, have VERY STRONG financial ties to Merck, which manufactured the MMR vaccine. Confirm from: BMJ & Lancet Wedded to Merck CME Partnership by Alliance for Human Research Protection, at!topic/ or at

      The retraction is why “RETRACTED” was added to the title of the paper. see, You may compare with the first Lancet website provided.

      The retraction was made because the sale of the vaccine declined drastically and court cases were successful.

      The research has since been RE-investigated and, found flawless. A most recent publication that confirmed it is at

      Consequent on INDEPENDENT investigations which confirmed the findings by Dr. Wakefield et al, the REINSTATEMENT of the original paper by Lancet has been demanded by many scientific bodies and individual ACTUAL researching medical experts. See:

      See also:

      Moreover, Prof. John Walker-Smith, a co-researcher and author with Dr. Wakefield, sued General Medical Council for its punitive action after retraction of the paper and won. See:

      You may convince yourself who wrote nonsense between me, the author of the article, and Robert Howd who claimed “No, vaccines do not cause autism.

      To close this short response, I wish to correct the error in the publication that “Vaccine against HPV causes autism”:The right cause of autism is the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine. The error of writing HPV is a slip. But it should be noted that the HPV vaccine has effects on its recipients. Few evidences are provided below:
      Even the US CDC that promotes and defends big pharmaceutical companies, as it does big biotech agricultural companies that produce GMOs, accepts HPV vaccine has side effects in this statement: “Some people report having very mild side effects, like a sore arm from the shot. The most common side effects are usually mild”. It also lists as “Common Side Effects of HPV Vaccine: Pain, redness, or swelling in the arm where the shot was given, Fever, Headache or feeling tired, Nausea, Muscle or joint pain. See
      to its recipient and that an international symposium confirmed the effects. See.

      • Robert Howd

        Here’s a good summary of the Wakefield fraud, by Sathyanarayana Rao and C. Andrade: “The *Lancet* completely retracted the Wakefield *et al*.[1 ] paper in February 2010, admitting that several elements in the paper were incorrect, contrary to the findings of the earlier investigation.[7 ] Wakefield *et al*.[1 ] were held guilty of ethical violations (they had conducted invasive investigations on the children without obtaining the necessary ethical clearances) and scientific misrepresentation (they reported that their sampling was consecutive when, in fact, it was selective). This retraction was published as a small, anonymous paragraph in the journal, on behalf of the editors.[8 ]
        “The final episode in the saga is the revelation that Wakefield *et al*.[1 ] were guilty of deliberate fraud (they picked and chose data that suited their case; they falsified facts).[9 ] The *British Medical Journal* has published a series of articles on the exposure of the fraud, which appears to have taken place for financial gain.[10 –13 ] It is a matter of concern that the exposé was a result of journalistic investigation, rather than academic vigilance followed by the institution of corrective measures.”

        • Prince Awele Odor

          The statement of interest and usefulness in the follow-up reaction by my friend, Mr. Robert Howd, whose reactions I welcome and I am very happy about, in the interest of scientific objectivity or fact and the health of all nations, our children especially, is: “It is a matter of concern that the exposé was a result of journalistic investigation, rather than academic vigilance followed by the institution of corrective measures.”.

          But there is really NO “exposé” in the report by journalist Brian Deer contrary to his claim.

          The only acceptable refutation of the finding by Andrew Wakefield et al—-or exposé—-is one that will be based on ACTUAL research carried out by ACTUAL researching medical experts, peer reviewed, and published by a trusted or reliable journal which really demonstrates that what Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues observed and reported, as ACTUAL medical practitioners, was wrong.

          Certainly, a journal that has business partnership of financial benefit with the producer of the vaccine will not publish a true report of the finding as, it is generally known, no one bites the finger that feeds him and he who pays the piper dictates the tune.

          I mean that the business partnership reported about British Medical Journal and Lancet with Merck, the producer of the MMR vaccine, and the report that the Chairman of Lancet owned by Elsevier Group had been named to the board of Glaxo SmithKline, major producer of MMR vaccines, in 2003 are VERY CLEAR AND DISAPPOINTING evidence that the claim of fraudulent report and retraction of the publication were motivated by financial and commercial interests and NOT by sound and honest science or investigative journalism.

          This is because it is generally true that when the interest of the public and the interest of any big biotechnology (drug, vaccines and foods) companies clash, the interest of the latter comes first and is all that really matters to the journal that published any research on GM food, vaccine or drug, when it is financed by the big biotech company or it has business or financial tie with it. The journal will not report the truth in order to uphold, promote or defend public good or the health interest of the public.

          Concerning this matter, this means that if reporting the truth about MMR vaccine and autism agrees with what Merck and Glaxo Smith Kline want, it will be reported and if reported falsehood or retracting truth or fact published suits them, any of these will be carried out.

          It is noted that the retraction is a very disappointing and unfortunate change in the policy of Lancet Medical Journal which was respected by this author for carrying out very thorough investigation of research and courageous publication of finding irrespective of the interest of the producers of whatever vaccine, drug or food the safety of which was researched or studied.

          As a defence of this complementary note of how Lancet Medical Journal OPERATED, it is noted that SIX (6) experts were used to investigate the report of A. Pusztai and SWB Ewen concerning the GM potato the safety of which was studied by A. Pusztai and his team at Rowet Research institute, Aberdeen and peer reviewed by SWB Ewen instead of TWO (2) used by Lancet. It is also noted that the editor of Lancet at the ttime, Richard Horton, refused to kill the report (1999) in spite of the very enormous demand and threats that were made by Monsanto and others, Peter Lachmann, the former Vice-President of the Royal Society, etc, .that it should not be published. He also refused to retract it in spite of greater demand for its retraction that was made by more forces of evil and murderers.

          It is noted that the references provided by Mr. Howd involved people who have financial, political or commercial interest in the matter and questionable reports. As I do not have time to write a full criticism of the references provided by Mr. Richard Howd, I reproduce here what the independent William F. Engdahl was reported to have written at concerning the Wakefield affair:

          “Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a former British gastro-enterologist and vaccine researcher has been fully exonerated of the charges that he, together with a world renowned pediatric gastroenterologist, Prof. John Walker-Smith, conducted fraudulent tests with children that raised the possibility of a link between the popular MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and onset of autism and other severe symptoms. Most remarkable is the fact that despite his de facto exoneration in a British Court more than four years ago, in 2012, mainstream media in the UK and the USA have chosen to deliberately ignore the fact. They did so to hide the explosive content of Wakefield’s film, Vaxxed”.

          Thanks to Mr. Trump who has promised to deal with the mean stream media notorious for financial corruption.

          If however this is not satisfactory to Mr. Howd or any other reader, I want to read any court action instituted against Dr. Wakefield on the matter—-not action by the discredited GMC—his defence, and the declaration of fraudulent report by the judge of the court.

          Take note that earlier I presented you the court action by his co-author, Prof. John Walker-Smith. It is known that in the report by a court that exonerated both men, the judge, Mr. Justice Mittting, wrote (2012): “the conclusions of the GMC board that stripped both Walker-Smith and Wakefield of their licenses to practice medicine in the UK were based on “inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion… The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed”.

          Note: Any reaction will not be responded to until next Tuesday.

          • Robert Howd

            Wow! I’m overwhelmed by obfuscation. No further comments.

          • Prince Awele Odor

            Thanks for discussing the matter with me.

            There is CERTAINLY NO obfuscation. You should have acknowledged the FACTS. That is how to be a gentleman and an honest discussant.

            But I am not surprised by your comment because I have read your archived previous postings on this matter characterised by incredible falsehood, obviously for personal reasons.