Continued From yesterday
The anti-GM activists referred to Cry1Ab as a failed technology because of the occurrence of insect resistance to MON810 in South Africa. But the reality is that Cry1Ab is far from being a failed technology. It is true that in South Africa, resistance of Busseolafusca to Cry 1Ab has been reported in several maize growing areas in 2007 that is about 9-10 years after its introduction (Johnnie van der Berg, 2013).

It turns out that in those regions the emergence of the resistant biotype of B. fuscawas caused by the lack of implementation of the insect resistance management (IRM) strategy that is mandatory for every GM crop (Kunert K.J, 2011; and Kotey et al., 2017). We need to give some background to the readers before proceeding. Since 1920s, 70 years before the first GM crop is developed, it is well known that plant resistance genes to diseases and insect pests can be overcome. Contrary to what anti GMO activists want us to believe the loss of resistance is not specific to GMO crops.

It was in 1957 that a plant disease scientist named H.H Flor explained the genetic mechanism of this phenomenon that was and is still frustrating plant breeders. A familiar example close to us, is the case of the cowpea variety B301.

This variety was found by IITA workers to be resistant to witchweed (Strigagesnerioides). But in less than five years reports of strains of Strigacapable of attacking B301 was coming out of several West African countries. Now, it is well established that there are many strains of Striga that attack B301. The emergence of resistance biotypes occurs also with insecticides, fungicides and herbicides. The same phenomenon is wide spread in human medicine where resistance of bacteria to antibiotics and resistance of Plasmodium falciparumto many anti-malarial drugs are well documented.

If the logic of our anti-GMO groups is followed then use of antibiotics or anti malaria drugs, and the development of new ones should be stopped because there will be emergence of a resistant strain which may be called super microbe; also, even conventional breeding for pest resistance must be abandoned. This is how insane their argument is.

In order to extend the useful lifetime of antibiotics, anti-malaria, fungicides, insecticides, disease or insect-resistant plants, medical scientists, crop protection scientists, and plant breeders have all developed resistance management strategies. But the implementation of such strategies has only been made mandatory for GM crops.

What happened in South Africa was a failure in implementation of Insect Resistance Management (IRM) strategy. The insect resistance management programmes were not taught to many farmers; consequently, in areas where several generations of B. fusca occurs per year resistant strains of B. fusca emerged. But the two other borers Sesamiacalamistis and Chilopartellus remain well controlled by Cry 1Ab gene. In the Eastern Cape region, populations of B. fuscastill remain susceptible to MON810 (Kotey et al., 2017). It should be noted that the resistance of B. fusca has never discouraged South African farmers about GM maize.

And today in that country almost 100 per cent of the maize crop is transgenic. In Spain MON810 is planted in the hottest spot of European corn borer and Mediterranean corn borer infestation. But because of the proper IRM implementation the Cry 1Ab have been controlling these two borers for more than 16 years (Castañero et al. 2016).

This is a record that few conventional genes for resistance have achieved. In summary, it is clear that Cry 1Ab is far from being a failed technology as anti GM activists would like people to believe. In the PBR-Cowpea project we used this gene to develop a cowpea (beans in Nigeria) resistant to the legume pod borer, Marucavitrata. After four years of test in confined environment the Cry 1Ab still gives complete control of this devastating insect pest and the local varieties are outperformed in terms of grain yield by-20-100 per cent, even greater than that, depending on the pressure of Maruca.

For two years, groups of farmers have been testing the PBR-cowpea; they are thrilled with the product in Nigeria, Ghana, and Burkina Faso. It is worthy to note that the experts who designed the PBR-Cowpea project are world class scientists unlike our anti GM activists who have no credentials; this is why the next generation of PBR-Cowpea has been given due consideration. Coupled with this, IRM measures to prolong the useful life has been taken and will be taught to the farmers.

Fact 3: Transfer of pollen to wild cowpea not observed after four years of test
People who know the botany of cowpea are well aware that it is a self-pollinating plant with low out crossing rates. The propensity of wild cowpea to become a serious weed after a transfer of acquisition of Bt-Gene has been tested assuming that gene may flow from the PBR-cowpea to the wild cowpea despite the low probability of such event. There is an ongoing experiment in Burkina Faso, Ghana and Nigeria to test this hypothesis. So wild cowpea has been planted around our Bt and non Bt- plots in varying densities in 12 replicates. After three to four years, we have not observed a single case of pollen transfer; not a single hybrid plant has been detected; there was no tendency of wild cowpea to become a serious weed.

This confirms previous study made in Burkina Faso that cross pollination in nature has low probability less 0.1 per cent even in close proximity (Batieno Joseph, personal communication). The reason for this is that flowers of wild cowpea and cultivated cowpea open at different times. And anthers of cowpea shed their pollens before the flowers open in the night when bees are not active and activities of other pollinators are low. The idea of widespread contamination is an imaginary problem used to scare farmers, and delay the adoption of PBR-Cowpea.
Fact 4: PBR-Cowpea research responds to the need of cowpea growers, it is fully integrated in the research programs of the Project member countries

Continuing their ignominious attack on PBR-Cowpea, the authors of the report on GM cowpea accused the research team of PBR-Cowpea of having a reductionist approach because only one constraint, the legume pod borer, is being addressed whereas there are many other pests and diseases and abiotic factors that reduce cowpea yields.

Thus in their narrow understanding of agricultural research, the PBR-Cowpea project must address all the diseases, insect pests and weeds problems affecting cowpea, as well as drought and soil fertility at the same time. This is like saying to a research medical doctor who has a project on finding a new cure to Malaria that his/her work is worthless because the other killer diseases affecting people and poverty reduction measures are not included in the Malaria project.

Readers should know that the Cowpea (bean) programmes in IAR/Zaria, at INERA (Burkina Faso) or SARI (Ghana) are vast and have several research projects addressing the other major constraints affecting cowpea. Our PBR-Cowpea project is only one of them. If the Authors of the ACB reports had taken time to ask advice they would not only make such senseless statements, they would have better known how agricultural research is organized and pursued.

The PBR-Cowpea research team has seriously considered the complex of pod-sucking insects. One of the advantages of PBR-Cowpea is that it offers a backbone for an effective Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programme. With PBR-Cowpea only two applications of insecticides are sufficient to control the complex of pod-sucking insects; whereas with the conventional cowpea 5-10 applications are necessary.

This confirms the results obtained on Bt-cotton in Burkina Faso where insecticide applications were reduced from six to two. Thus, PBR-Cowpea reduces the cost of producing cowpea, and the work load of the farmers[1] as well as reducing the exposure of their family to chemical pesticides. In addition to greater yields these represent real benefits that can partly explain why farmers like the PBR-Cowpea. Furthermore, the PBR-Cowpea preserves the natural enemies of cowpea pests thus fostering the natural biological control; it has no deleterious effects on the populations of non-target organisms.

Also the colleagues at INERA, Burkina Faso have introgressed the Bt-transgene into a Striga-resistant cowpea variety, thus providing a multiple adversity resistant cowpea to the smallholder farmers.

resistance is the cheapest way of controlling insect pests and diseases, and constitutes the backbone of any IPM programme. We have our own IPM programme on PBR-Cowpea, and we never intended to use PBR-Cowpea as “silver bullet”[2] for solving all the problems of cowpea.

We are fully aware of other research work going on cowpea pests control, including the area of biological control at IITA or elsewhere, through the publications of the scientists, reports posted on their institutions websites or through meetings. Our anti-GM activists gave an example of an experiment conducted at IITA, with a mixture of Nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) and neem. NPVs have been known for decades by plant entomologists.

They have never emerge as major insect control methods because of their high production cost due to the fact that viruses multiply only in living host tissues. To produce quantities of viral inoculum sufficient for commercial application, colonies of living host have to be made and maintained.

This has limited the economic feasibility of using NPV as biological control agent on a large scale. Some scientists are making research with NPV. Their published results show that NPV can be effective in controlling the targeted insects. But this only on few square meter experimental plots, or in laboratories and green houses.

These publications help scientists to get promoted and their students to obtain their diplomas. But, the farmers’ problems are not solved. The Experimental fields and laboratory or green house research results are one thing, application on large scale is another thing. This is what happens to the grasshopper bio pesticide Green muscle: the fungus is very effective at killing grasshoppers, but for low value food crop such as cowpea, millet and sorghum it cost is prohibitive. The cost of Green muscle could be as four times higher than the value of the crop produced. In this case, use of Green muscle would not be sustainable.

Concerning the use of neem extracts, for almost 30 years there had been several experiments and demonstration trials for farmers with neem. But as soon as the projects financing stop, farmers put aside the neem extracts. There is a lesson to learn for people who can think.

The same thing applied for the species of Beauvaria. These fungal pathogen of insects has been known for a long time. But, their use on large scale to control insect pests in field crops (millet sorghum, and cowpea) remain to be demonstrated. We are conscious of the importance of biological control. Where biological control works (cost effective), like in the case of mealybugs on mangoes and cassava, it is an ideal control measure to include in an IPM programme. The accusation of being narrow minded (reductionist) is just another shameful accusation invented to throw dirt on the research institutions involved in the PBR-Cowpea project. These baseless attacks prove only that their authors have no understanding of a holistic research, and how research programmes are designed, organised and implemented. They collect information from different sources but are incapable of digesting them.

Fact 5: No animal (Pig gene) in Flavrsavr tomato; that tomato has not been produced since 1998
The Anti GM activists resort to any type of argument. Thus, in his press release the Academician (Prof) Prince Dr Philip C. Njemanze (Hons) wrote: Nigerians witnessed how the natural tomatoes was infected with the TutaAbsoluta and left to rot, in order to make way for the Monsanto FlavrSavr anti-rot tomatoes, that does not get rotten because an anti-rot pig gene was inserted into it. Millions of Nigerian Muslims and Christians alike eat the tomatoes because alarm was raised. The FlavrSavr anti-rot tomatoes was discontinued in the United States in the 1990s when it was discovered that it caused a deadly intestinal bleeding. No nation has ever allowed unfettered access to her food security as Nigeria has permitted in the last few years due to a non-functional biosafety regimen.

Let us explain to people what is the Flavrsavr tomato. It is the first GM food crop approved and commercialised, in 1994. The tomato was developed by a California-based company called Calgene (not Monsanto). If you remember your high school biology you know that plant cell wall contains pectin. Degradation of the pectin during maturation makes fruits to become soft.

The enzyme[3]causing the degradation of the pectin is called polygalacturonase. If this enzyme could be blocked, the fruits would remain firm and have longer shelf live, and there would be no need to pick them while green. A copy of the polygalacturonase gene in reverse sense (genes are oriented) will block the synthesis of polygacturonase. This technique called anti-sense RNA technique was used to develop Flavr-Savr tomato.

Animals do not have pectin, nor do they have polygalacturonase. Thus, the gene cannot come from an animal. Thus, this MD ignores this fundamental difference between animals and plants. The tomato has been produced and commercialised by the Calgene Company for three years. It had never caused a single health problem. It was absolutely safe as any other tomato on the market. The story of internal bleeding is just another fictional story.

The company ran into financial problems because of the high cost of transport and field operations. Calgene sold the patent to the British company Zeneca, which used it to develop a processing GM tomato. Despite early popularity, sales of the Zeneca tomato paste fell in 1998 under the pressure of Anti-GM groups in Europe. And since 1998 Flavr-Savr tomato has not be grown anywhere on the planet (Bruening and Lyons, 2000).

It was never grown in Nigeria. Ever.
And to say that people let Tutaabsoluta destroy the tomatoes in Nigeria in order to introduce a non-existing GM tomato is another trick pulled out of the hat. AATF and BMGF had nothing to do with Tutaabsoluta in Nigeria. Is the author then accusing his own Government of this sinister design?

To affirm that the tomato was made using pig gene is very untrue; this argument is a blatant lie. Accusing research organisations to introduce genetically modified crops that contains a gene from pig is a serious one. This statement could be and is intended to lead to violent demonstrations by Muslim extremists and even to aggression against the institutions wrongly accused.

If this is the goal sought after, then our Academician, Prince, Hon is either insanely criminal or criminally insane. For someone who has these titles in front of his name, to fabricate and spread lies is a disgrace.

There is another equally disgraceful statement in his press release; this concerns the Epicyte sterility gene in corn flakes. In the press release we can read “This would not only create grave economic dependency, but would allow biological, political and social control of the entire Nigerian population what we termed Biological Colonialism. For example, by inserting the Monsanto Epicyte infertility gene into cornflakes or other foods detractors could cause mass infertility of the entire Nigerian population. Similar, blackmails could be applied at will to achieve political, social and religious control.”

In 2002 a biotech pharmaceutical company called Epicyte, was granted a patent to produce therapeutic antibody proteins in corn (Los Angeles Times, July 12, 2002). Up to this time, all the therapeutic antibodies used in medicine were produced in animal cells, which is a very expensive process. Epicyte was a very small company whose managers believed that, by producing these antibodies cheaply in plants and then extracting and purifying them, Epicyte could out compete the larger companies and acquire a significant share of the market for these medicines. One of Epicyte’s early product concepts was a contraceptive based on antibodies against spermatozoa.

Soon after that, the anti-GMO groups started a campaign saying that a ‘sterility gene’ had been put into maize. Antibodies are proteins. As such, heat denatures them easily. For instance, most antibodies are irreversibly inactivated at around 60 ⁰C. Human beings don’t eat raw maize. They eat it only after cooking, which typically involves temperatures at or above 100⁰C. This cooking process denatures any protein in maize including the so-called antibodies.

By ignoring again this basic biological fact our MD is proving that he is only a doctor of Medical Disaster. We feel sorry for his patients if he gets some. The Epicyte maize was never intended for human or animal consumption, but to be used to produce in the kernels antibodies that will be extracted, purified and formulated as a protein-based medicine- spermicide gel.

Our Honorable had no clues that that Epicyte is the name of a company and not a cellular organelle, this is why he used the expression “Monsanto Epicyte sterility cycle”. Epicyte was a small biotech company which could not make it. In 2004 it was bought by BiolexTherapeutic Inc., which itself went out of business in 2012. No maize-based antibody product was ever brought to market by Epicyte or its successor

This sterility story reminded us of another one concerning soybean in a neighboring country, there was a project which introduced soybean in that country. The demonstrations trials were successful and farmers started growing commercially soybeans, abandoning cotton.

Then ananti-soybean campaign was started in the villages. Farmers were told that soybean will cause sterility in adults, obesity and high blood pressure in babies. So the farmers get scared; they abandoned soybean and returned to cotton. Unfortunately the poor farmers did not know that soybean is a native plant of China, and Japanese almost never eat a meal without soybean. Otherwise the detractors of soybean would have to explain how China has the highest population in the world, and Japan is still overcrowded.

Fact 6: CSIRO is one the most respected research organisation in the word; BMGF is one best supporter of Agricultural development in Sub Saharan Africa.
To achieve their goals the Anti GM crusaders think that scientists, research institutions and foundations supporting research must be smeared with dirt in order to destroy their credibility. This is why a well know and world-wide respected research organisation like the Australian CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) has been shamefully attacked.

The Anti-GM activists claimed that CSIRO had been involved in a scandal of transgenic pea. We will see that a proper scientific conduct is what our Anti GM activists call a scandal. Here are the facts. In early 2000, CSIRO and the University of California San Diego decided to develop a transgenic pea resistant to the storage weevil. It has been found that beans are not attacked by weevils because they have an enzyme that inhibits the digestion of starch by the weevil. This enzyme is called α-amylase inhibitor. The bean α-amylase inhibitor was used to develop a transgene pea resistant to the storage weevil. The transgenic pea performed well agronomically, but the safety test showed that it may be allergenic to BALB/C mice since it elicits the production of some immune molecules, called Th2 (helper cell). However, this was not observed in BALB/C rats fed with beans. So in 2005, CSIRO published the results and decided to stop the programme.

Information about this work can be found on CSIROpedia (Risk assessment of GM field peas). That was a very cautious measure, and a good attitude to adopt that is far from being a scandal as the Anti GM activists described it in their newmatilda.com. Contrary to allegations by these Anti GM Groups, CSIRO never tried to secretly sell the gene construct in Europe.

This is a pure fabrication by the Anti GM groups. This word scandal was used not only to put dirt on CSIRO and its scientists but more importantly to discourage our farmers for accepting PBR-Cowpea.

A group of scientists at the Medical Veterinarian University of Vienna and at CSIRO restudied the allergenic response in mice to the α-amylase inhibitor using transgenic and non-transgenic peas, pinto beans, tendergreen beans, cowpeas, chickpeas and beans that lack α-amylase inhibitor. The mouse strain used was different from the one used by CSIRO previously. They found that lectins (carbohydrate binding proteins) naturally occurring in beans and peas are causing the allergenic reaction, and the α-amylase cross-reacts with lectins.

The group of scientists concluded that α-amylase transgenic peas are no more allergenic than non-transgenic peas or beans, they draw attention to the necessity of repeating experiments in independent labs (Lee R.Y et al., 2013). So, as we can see there is no scandal in this transgenic pea history; it is the normal process of scientific research. The strong word (scandal) used by the newmatilda.com and the so-called African Center for Biodiversity and our Anti GM activists in Nigeria is only another fraudulent attack against a prestigious research institution which is also the first one in the world to succeed in transforming cowpea.

Besides CSIRO, the Bill and Melinda Gate Foundation (BMGF), and AGRA (the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa, promoted by Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the UN), which have been funding a large number of critically needed agricultural projects in Africa became a primary target of Anti-GM activists.

Our Nigerian activists and ACB joined into this shameful smearing campaign. They stated that the PBR-Cowpea project was financed by the BMGF for U.S. $ 4 million. They even gave the grant number OPP1038060.

This is again one of the magical tricks of the Anti GM groups: if something does not exist let us invent it. So, they made up the story. The fact is that the PBR-Cowpea Project is not funded by the BMGF. Our project is entirely funded by USAID. The success of the projects funded by AGRA and BMGF may be the root cause of these vicious and shameful attacks because (as we will see in the next part) they are opposed to the development of commercial agriculture and viable private seed industry sector.
Fact 7:Development of viable and strong seed industry, and a science and technology-based agriculture are the way out of the food insecurity in Africa. Whereas the so called organic farming (a fancy name for old stuff) is a way to aggravate the food insecurity.

There are many other unsubstantiated claims in the ACB’s report and in the press release of the Honorable Prince Academician. Most of them are puerile and just underestimate the intelligence of the common people. But, there is one that needs to be examined. Authors of the anti-GM cowpea report accused institutions working on the PBR-Cowpea are agents used by multinational companies and other powers (G8 countries) to control the lucrative cowpea seed business and the whole seed business of West Africa, but they fail to give the value in dollars of the seed business in West Africa (See their report pages 6-8). This void was filled by our Honorable Academician Prince, Prof Dr. In his press release he claimed that “the biotechnology companies aim to create a market for their GMO seeds worth of US$ 30 billion in Nigeria”. Stories like this are meant to arouse the patriotic chauvinistic feeling of the public and to direct them against other people perceived to be foreign agents. Let us examine the seed market value of the USA, the largest in the world. In 2016 the entire seed market value of the USA (both GMO and non-GMO), was estimated at US$ 17.53billion (https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry–reports/seeds-industry); even at a liberal 10 ;per cent growth rate per year the U.S. domestic seed market will be less than U.S. $ 30 billion in 2020. So the question is when will the Nigerian (or even the entire West African) GM seed market reach U.S. $30 billion? We see again that statements made by the Prince are completely fictional and easily shown to be fabrications

The Anti GM crusaders fail to recognize that the weakness of the seed sector in Sub-Saharan Africa is a major constraint to agricultural development. Informed people know that lack of seeds at the beginning of each cropping season is a serious challenge faced by millions of smallholder farmers. Governments usually intervene to purchase and distribute seeds to these farmers who otherwise, will not be able to plant their food crops. But, these frequent government actions would never be successful if they are not supported by the still young private seed industry. The development of a strong and viable seed sector (public and private) is of strategic importance.

This simple fact is not understood by our anti- GM activists. Most of the farmers have lost their seed independence since the 1970’s because of the recurring drought and the increase poverty in the rural areas. These farmers just cannot save seeds when they don’t have enough to feed their families. Only some idealist young Europeans working for NGOs and who don’t know the reality are propagating this myth of farmers’ seed independence; by doing so they are hampering the initiatives for the development of the seed sector. But, the anti-GM activists and ACB are against the development of commercial agriculture and the development of private seed businesses. This is why they are accusing BMGF and AGRA of promoting “the development commercial agriculture system with privatisation of land title”; and this in their mind “will cause inequalities in access to the food and agricultural system”, something they are committed to fight against. We will ask the leaders of the ACB if they are really “committed to dismantle inequalities in the food and agricultural system” as they claim, to bring then all the salaries of their employees (from janitors to the top managers) to the same level so that they all can have the same food purchasing power.

Since the employees of this center are not subsistence farmers; they must buy their food on the local market; and their purchasing power is entirely dependent on their salary. If they cannot do it then they should stop talking about fighting against inequalities in the food system. This is just an ideological slogan that can sometimes mobilise young people. Even in the traditional farming system of precolonial times, all families did not have the same resources.

The ones who had more resources (i.e. more man power) had better chances to exploit the land resources than those who had less resources. A family with five boys will clear more land and produce more food than a family with 2 boys. More importantly the anti-GM activists are so blind that that they cannot see the emergence of the big towns in our countries. The millions of people living in these towns must take three meals a day.

Their food comes directly from the markets. So in fact agricultural food crops have become commodities. Didn’t ACB mentioned in its report the importance of the regional cowpea trade and the largest cowpea market of the subregion in Kano, Nigeria. Subsistence agriculture or organic farming with it low productivity cannot produce enough to meet the food demand of the rural areas and the growing urban centers.

The development of a vibrant domestic commercial agricultural system is an imperative; otherwise African countries will continue their massive imports of basic food, and will not have extra money to invest in other vital sectors of the economy. Maybe this is exactly the objective of our anti-GM activists who keep on repeating that there is no need to increase agricultural productivity because the world produce enough food to feed six times its population. They do not understand that this type of language used by Anti-GM NGOs in Europe are sugar-coated poisons that hide a darker agenda, which is maintaining African countries particularly countries like Nigeria that have huge oil revenues in a state of chronic food dependence so that a large part of these revenues would be spent on food imports from Europe.

These activists also seems to ignore that the private seed sector tends to outperform the public seed sector although the Government has the role to regulate the seed sector by taking appropriate laws to safeguard farmers interests. They also forget that even the public sector will not give the seeds free of charge to farmers. At least the cost of producing the seeds must be recovered; and if the public seed sector has to grow and be sustainable it must make profits.

Concluding remarks
We have reviewed here several attacks directed against the PBR-Cowpea project and the research organisations supporting it. The attacks are also directed against many other institutions and foundations. We have seen that these attacks have no objective basis. They are all fabricated stories or we should say blatant lies, and gross ignorance of the scientific literature. The leading research institutions and scientific organisations in the world, WHO and FAO, Nobel Prize winners, recognise and declare repeatedly that GM crops are as safe as any conventional food crop; even EU countries that are politically opposed to GM crops spent millions of dollars to import GMO food and GM derived feed to maintain the productivity and competiveness of their animal industry.

We have seen that for more than 20 years millions of people daily consume GM food without a single substantiated case of any kind of adverse effects. Despite the long history GM crop safety, some self-made biologists and biosafety specialists are not ashamed to disseminate lies about GM food crops. Dr Goebbels the Minister of propaganda for Adolph Hitler said that “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”

This is exactly what the network of Anti GM activists has been doing. They have become champions in manufacturing, collecting and disseminating lies in the hope they will be believed. The truth is that the Bt-crops (maize, soybean, cowpea and others) are safe, and even safer than their conventional counterparts because experience has proven they have less insecticide residues since the amount insecticide applied is drastically reduced, and they are less contaminated by mycotoxins than conventional crops (Koch et al., 2015).

These mycotoxins -fumonisins and aflatoxin- retard children growth, cause multiple cancers and depress the immune system creating a disease similar to AIDS. 
 The PBR-Cowpea project has shown that given the opportunities and the means our national agricultural research scientists are capable of using the most advanced knowledge and technology to solve difficult constraints faced by small holder farmers, and boost agricultural productivity and production. With a growing population, and the expansion of urban centers into agricultural lands, a return to organic farming with its inherent low productivity, would be disastrous for African countries because the food deficits will be aggravated. All these Anti GM lies and empty talk are only directed against the National interests of the African countries and the interests of the farmers.