GodIsGood08:


If after reading all I have been posting and your conclusion is that I approve GM companies, I have no option but to take you as an outright "No to GMO" without making sense at all. And I have tried as much as possible to be neutral in the topic but you want me to be take your side and shout "No to GMO" without studying the details of the issue. I am sorry to disappoint you. Here's my response "No to your offer". I will do real justice.

Food Vs Mobile Tech Vs High Voltage. Here's my line of thought, we decided to take the risk of accepting high voltage which is instant 100% sudden death but you want me to say no to something which is not so clear causes death instantly. What kind of human does that? Cancer is cancer. Mobile gives cancer, it is 100% sure and mobile phone vendors have accept that fact and we know it too, yet we use it.

Here is the logic: Say No to anything that gives cancer, because it is evil. It is 100% correct mobile tech causes cancer. If No, approve it. If yes, disapprove it. But it is yes, and we approved it. So, what kind of judgment is that?

Your line of thought is like Mr. Sibaratoba (not real name) who said "health safety is only food hygienic". So, Mr. Sibaratoba decided to neglect taking precaution of sterilizing the hair cut clipper when he went to a barber for a hair cut. And alas! Sibaratoba got HIV. So, is he wise or stupid by failing to accept that there are many other deadlier ways cancer, bacteria, fungi, virus etc enter body apart from food?

Can we really do without phone? Are you kidding me by saying yes to this question? Seriously? Do you want to take up the challenge and let's take a poll? Let me help you out. Food is important BUT satisfying what one is addicted to is more important. Drug addicts choose their substance of addiction over food. QUESTION: What is the world population percentage that is addicted to mobile phone? May be you wanna take up the challenge and let's take a poll on nairaland.

Bro, this is the age of technology. Let's play the game like people some tobacco Lords can't use "abrakatabra" brain for.

We should be concerned about the garri we have been buying in our market via IITA vitamin A yellow cassava stem since 2011 (Hey! Hope you read the articles about IITA and the one on IITA website). One guy even opened a new thread promoting it this morning. While we all spit on Mr Gates without hesitating, we hail IITA for providing similar product (We have been eaten GM yellow cassava stem since 2011 without knowing in this nation). Infact, i am sure it had been in the market like 1 or 2 years earlier before the release of that article. And do we have the grace of chosing? But when food is labeled, we can choose.

Now, let me ask you. Who is more sincere? Bill Gates that said "Hey, come take my GM vitamin A fortified, yellow cassava stem", or IITA that said " Hey, come take our super cassava, vitamin A stem which is good for you".

Proof that GM #1 oppositions are the losers:
Here is the logic: Figures tell the story. Whose business is affected most with the introduction of the products? Who write more about saying "No to GMO" without making a thorough investigation? Who is the so called "motherearth.com" website you shared some weeks ago that shouted "No to GMO" without making references to back up their claims? Who sue GMO producers more? Who give the option of organic instead of GM more without telling you there is danger of staph and E-Coli in organic?

If the answers point to the losers in the seed market; then, the losers are the ones behind "No to GMO".

CLUE: Let us all pick up court cases and check the plantiffs. I leave everyone to do the research so you get the drift.

For Christ sake. We decided in our mind to be guinea pigs for mobile phone technology but refuse to be guinea pigs for food technology. A guinea pig is a guinea pig.

You really should stop using such baseless analogies. Electricity is not dangerous if used in the way it is designed to be used. Mobile phones are a choice, and no one is forced to buy them, even despite the fact that no real study has established that they cause cancer. GMOs on the other hand are potentially dangerous if used the way they are designed to be used, and will contaminate the entire gene pool on earth once they enter the environment through cross pollination with natural crops, and if later established to be harmful, there will be no way whatsoever to eradicate those artificially spliced genes. What makes it worse is that even at this level, when GMOs are not yet so widespread, they still want to impose them on consumers. Such haste is an indication that they are pursuing agenda that have nothing to do with philantrophy.

My last word is that GMOs have not been proven to be the food saviours of the world. Countries that have introduced them have not suddenly become bright beacons of food surplus, and we have not fully exhausted other, less risky options. Therefore, we put GMOs on the back burner until such a time as we are in dire need of them, if ever. If the intention is to recover the money spent on research, with handsome profit, by pushing untested produce into our faces and risking human health and lives, or if it is in pursuance of their greed for global hegemony through the control of our food supply, then I believe that it is beyond despicable. I for one, am not a believer in the philantropic intentions of any capitalist corporation.

Farmerforlife:
You really should stop using such baseless analogies.

You really should stop giving baseless conclusions and suggestions without directing us to links or research works to support your claims.

Farmerforlife:
Electricity is not dangerous if used in the way it is designed to be used.

GMO might not be dangerous if used the way it is designed to be used. Have people eating IITA yellow cassava stem fortified with vitamin A complained?

Farmerforlife:
Mobile phones are a choice, and no one is forced to buy them,...

Do you understand food labelling? If you do, you will understand labeling gives the opportunity to choose. That is choice. Looks like you didn't read the discussion on this thread because if you did, you'll understand the RIGHT to CHOOSE is what I support.

Farmerforlife:
Mobile phones are a choice, and no one is forced to buy them, even despite the fact that no real study has established that they cause cancer.

I suggest you keep placing your mobile in your front pant pocket. Do you know what could happen to you if you put it there? Ok, i will tell you. You would kill cells in your scrotum, you would become impotent, your wife would leave you, tagged you as a living dead, and probably you would start fighting tumour; maybe after, you would realize how dangerous it is. But this time, I won't give you any reference. Also, keep placing your mobile in the pocket close to your chest. I will help you once again cos I like you. You would suddenly drop dead, and you wouldn't have the second chance to write your baseless conclusions without any references anymore. Does this "analogy" sound logical to you this time? If it doesnt, please always put your mobile close to your scrotum and close to your heart.

I want to discuss and not argue. Also, i am not interested in your personal opinion, I need comments based on facts with references we can analyse. So, until you have references to back your claims, I'm staying out of your arena.

NOTE: My tone is "second conditional" which is an expression of "unreal" state in English. So, I don't wish Mr. farmerforlife drop dead or become impotent but what I wrote is what is going to happen to anyone who is careless.

GodIsGood08:

You really should stop giving baseless conclusions and suggestions without directing us to links or research works to support your claims.

At no point have I tried to prove anything in all my comments, that I need to link up to any site. The burden of proof is on those that push GMOs, that they are fully safe. It is you that should provide links to credible, INDEPENDENT scientific papers that prove this.

GodIsGood08:

GMO might not be dangerous if used the way it is designed to be used. Have people eating IITA yellow cassava stem fortified with vitamin A complained?

There you have it. You said "MIGHT not be dangerous." Granted that this is true, I am not willing to risk my, and my children's health on a probability. To recap, electricity IS not dangerous if used correctly, GMOs MIGHT not be dangerous if used correctly. Do you see the glaring difference there?

GodIsGood08:

Do you understand food labelling? If you do, you will understand labeling gives the opportunity to choose. That is choice. Looks like you didn't read the discussion on this thread because if you did, you'll understand the RIGHT to CHOOSE is what I support.

Yes, I understand food-labelling. I also understand that food labelling is being fought tooth and nail by those who claim we have a choice, do you know this or do you want links? And if they can do this in the US successfully, they can do it in Africa and Asia, when they can always flash their dollars at our lawmakers. The bottom line is that they want us to eat GMOs by force, without our even knowing that we are doing so. There is also the problem of cross-contamination, which will lead to all our crops having at least part of their DNA altered. Do you need links for this, or do you know that Monsanto has been sued before for planting their GMOs in locations that contaminated nearby organic farms?

GodIsGood08:

I suggest you keep placing your mobile in your front pant pocket. Do you know what could happen to you if you put it there? Ok, i will tell you. You would kill cells in your scrotum, you would become impotent, your wife would leave you, tagged you as a living dead, and probably you would start fighting tumour; maybe after, you would realize how dangerous it is. But this time, I won't give you any reference. Also, keep placing your mobile in the pocket close to your chest. I will help you once again cos I like you. You would suddenly drop dead, and you wouldn't have the second chance to write your baseless conclusions without any references anymore. Does this "analogy" sound logical to you this time? If it doesnt, please always put your mobile close to your scrotum and close to your heart.

It is this kind of analogy that you come up with, that make me understand how little logic you stand on. I am aware of the possible effects of mobile radio waves on certain cell structure, and though there are no definitive proofs of any ill effects, I still take all necessary precautions like not allowing my kids to talk on the phone for long, or to use ear pieces when they do. I also do not sleep with the phone next to me or carry it around close to me all the time. Conversely, how do I take precautions against directly consuming GMOs assuming I wish to exercise the same benefit of the doubt? So no, the analogy is still illogical. I can choose to throw away my mobile phone if I want, I cannot choose to stop eating GMOs if they are going to be mixed up with everything, and if the corporations responsible are going to court to prevent labelling.

GodIsGood08:

I want to discuss and not argue. Also, i am not interested in your personal opinion, I need comments based on facts with references we can analyse. So, until you have references to back your claims, I'm staying out of your arena.

Again which claim did I make that you want a reference to? I am rooting for less rushing, more testing, and giving other, natural options the benefit of the doubt before we start welcoming GMOs into Africa, especially when other, more technologically advanced countries have totally banned them (they must have a reason for doing that, dont you think?).
You are the one making all the claims, and I will enumerate them here...
1. That we should accept GMOs, the implication being that they are totally safe, though you contradict yourself by admitting that they are possibly unsafe in which case I do not understand how you can require that we accept them.
2. That the best option to increase yield available to usin 3rd world countries is with GMOs.
3. That GMOs are the best solution for world hunger.
4. That GMOs can be controlled from contaminating other crops once introduced, and that they can be withdrawn if found later to be dangerous.

For what it is worth, I am not looking for an argument either, but I fail to understand why we need to skip all other methods and rush headlong into an irreversible, not-fully-tested method with possible health repercussions.

GodIsGood08:

NOTE: My tone is "second conditional" which is an expression of "unreal" state in English. So, I don't wish Mr. farmerforlife drop dead or become impotent but what I wrote is what is going to happen to anyone who is careless.

I make no objections to that remark, except that it is gross exaggeration and sentimentalism. No one has been proven to have 'dropped dead' because he/she kept a mobile phone in his/her chest pocket. I concur that there are possible dangers to exposure to radio waves from mobile phones, and I am able to take the necessary precautions to protect myself from these. These protective options are not available to protect me from the also possible dangers of GMOs, which definitely exist, as you yourself have admitted.

Perhaps this article by ENSSER (the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility) will give you a whiff of the false research claimed by GM corporations and their paid lackeys...

http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

This article will give you an idea of 10 things that either have, or could go wrong with GMO introduction. And the list is by no means exhaustive. Note especially, the reports of court cases by Monsanto on ANY farmer who dares to allow GM seeds to be found on his farm without buying from them...

http://listverse.com/2013/06/22/10-problems-genetically-modified-foods-are-already-causing/

Happy reading.

May God bless u for that writeup @Farmerforlife. May the wise opt out from being used as guinea pigs. Having done some research, I've not found any long term study that prove the safety of GMO. If anyone has a link on that, pls share.
..
One dangerous thing about it is that the effect of eating gm foods will not appear immediately. Diseases take a long time to develop and this makes tracing very difficult. This is why a rigorous long term study is needed b4 gmo shud be approve. Look at how they toy with the lifes of billions of people just for money. Let's look and learn from history. Man can do anything for money. Big companies can kill and cause great misery to people just for money. So this issue of gmo shud be scruntinize very carefully.
..
I also read that in US, gmo companies have spent over $100 million dollars fighting the labeling of gmo products. If they can do that in US what chances do we Nigerians/Africa have against

have against these big, money-wielding companies? At least labeling can help me and my family to avoid gmo while others who care less can continue and be used as guinea pigs. I'll also learn from the experiment. Have it been introduced in nigeria without our knowledge? What GodIsGood said about IITA is really disturbing.
..
This argument may continue forever, but my main concern is how opponents of gmo can avoid it and the issue of gmo contamination. If the God that created all allowed some imperfections to exist (due to sin), I wonder hw an imperfect man can improve on it without proper testing.
..
Finally, I'm wondering if Mosanto and co defended deadly chemicals like DDT the way they're doing with gmo. Did scientific researches showed the deadly nature of those chemicals and Mosanto and co refuted their claim by denying link b/w the chemicals and deadly diseases like cancer? I need to research on that.

From the link farmerforlife shared: listverse.com/2013/06/22/10-problems-genetically-modified-foods-are-already-causing/


So, if GMOs aren’t the answer, how are we to
feed the world’s rapidly growing population?
Fortunately, there are many viable solutions being
advocated by farmers and scientists alike. For
example, as reported by the 1996 National
Research Council in the U.S., there are currently
many crops such as pearl millet, fonio, and
African rice that are nutritious, tasty, and produce
well in harsh climates. Additionally,
environmentally friendly, low-water farming
methods, such as the System of Rice
Intensification (which improves rice production by
50-100 percent) is being used as a model for
growing other crops in a sustainable manner.
Other ideas include the decentralization of
farming, urban farming, greenhouses on top of
grocery stores, aquaponics, and more. Diverting
funds and resources away from GMOs could allow
one or more of these natural, wholesome
practices to flourish.

This is really getting interesting. Now, we are about to discuss and not argue. Facts and figures will be looked into. Also, credibility of investigations and researches will be looked into too.

While I am still studying the points raised recently, I want to quickly point out the following:

1. When we say GMO, there are many types, different genes. It is amateur to say GMOs are unsafe. What you say is this particular GMO is unsafe. For example, IITA vitamin A cassava and golden rice are both GMOs (Not yet confirmed IITA but looks 99% GMO). The question is has IITA cassava killed anyone? That stuff has been around for some time. It is more logical to consider each gene, each GMO separately. That one is good doesn't mean the rest are good. Likewise, that one is bad doesn't make the rest bad.

2. The effect of GM food might not appear immediately and it's the reason we advocate for proper test. While testing or conducting trial, you have to control too. It's people (Volunteers) that are suppose to be used for the trial but it's hard to stop producers from moving their products to shelves. Let's reason together: I produce cassava and it's been around for like a decade and with no complain but you tell me that I cannot sell it because you still think it is dangerous. Are you not discriminating against me? And the cassava you have is not as good as mine in terms of yield, nutrient and disease tolerance. Quite complicated.

3. Comparison of mobile deadly radiation with GM. It's just simple. If you take proper precaution, the chance of getting hurt using Mobile is almost zero. I wont argue with anyone that mobile phone when always placed on the chest can drop one dead. Just continue to put it there. No more words on the issue from me. Also, taking precaution with handling high voltage won't hurt. Now my point is that some rat died in the laboratory does not mean there can't be precautions for GM. Personally, I don't want to accept all GM products are evil and it is the reason I won't just shout No.

4. We have alternatives to GM. Yes no doubt but can we honestly say we can adapt these options in the next 10 years in Africa, especially Nigeria?

**Aquaponics - where is the power to run it.

**Urban farming - honestly, is this possible in Nigeria? For goodness sake, we have no power and no space. Please, don't even tell me vertical planting stuff here. We have no structure and plan for it. The better way is having gardens in our homes but we dont have. The dude who wrote that has got space in his house to do it. Can you honestly do such in many parts of Lagos?

**Greenhouses on top of grocery stores - . We can't install greenhouses on land, farmers cannot even afford low quality high tunnel called net houses made for Africa (pioneered by Isreal) like the ones around and you propose putting them on our roof. Which roof? The roofs that are being managed not to fall on people. Don't even make me laugh again. Just stop it.

**Low Water Rice Farming - Have you considered the technology involved? How cheap is it? We have land mehn! Exploring normal, non complicated methods is hard for us not to talk about doing complicating methods.

5. I have said it countless times no matter how US defends not labeling food, I don't support it and I pray those Americans don't get tired until they make their government start labelling. When Brazil decided to allow GM products, they adopted labelling which I think is better. Though, GM producers claim it's discrimination.

I'm stopping here for now. I have read those links shared and I will respond very soon. There are areas I will open up in those two links. Infact, you will be amazed. Like I wrote earlier, now we are discussing and not arguing. Stay tuned!

GMO is evil to human. Apart from affecting the soil, it has lots of health Harzards. This kind of issue is best championed by Nigerian Institute Of Food Science and Technology. I dont know if any of their members is on this forum. As for Bill Gate, he is a business man, he is out to make profit, he is turning to agriculture now that computer is everywhere. Our Agricultural system will not support his ideas. Meanwhile, let keep shouting about it until our voice is heard. Cheers !!!!!!!!!!

Farmerforlife:

http://listverse.com/2013/06/22/10-problems-genetically-modified-foods-are-already-causing/

10 Problems Genetically Modified Foods Are Already Causing

10. Create Superbugs and Superweeds.
The reference of that point is this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002092839.htm
Hmmm. It actually makes sense. Very vital point; however, there was a time golden rice was ruled out because researchers found out the amount of vitamin A in it cannot address vitamin A deficiency in children who lack it. Those GM guys went back to the drawing board and produced something better. The reference can be found where I addressed golden rice in one of my posts in previous pages. So, the issue of pests developing resistant to GM soyabean, corn and cotton is a bit sensitive and really, GM guys will have to do well to counter it. Mainwhile, the paper was in 2012 which was 6 years ago. What's the latest development? Really, this is a vital point to take note of.

My thought: I want you all to mark my words. It looks the next stage will be making different varieties of each of those crops so as to achieve variety rotation. Like the way we use antibiotics and change active ingredients so there won't be resistance development. Also, the same applies to spraying pesticides and fungicides. I haven't come across such but my line of thought is development of varieties to give room for rotation to combat this challenge. Quite interesting.

9. Kill Bees and Butterflies
To me, this is a very funny point. Very laughable. Hybrid seeds guys talking about this issue are damn funny. Those guys aren't against using pesticides on farms they plant their own hybrid. In fact, it's only organic farming that limits use of chemical spray. Chemicals that they approve kill bees. NPK Fertilizer kills microbes. So, I read bees declined 30% and they want to put it all on GMs. So funny. NEXT!!!!

8. Farmers Can’t Harvest Seeds
Personally, I am a bit confused. If Monsanto wants to kill us all, probably, they will want to spread GM free of charge. So, why can't oppositions stay on one lane? Do GM producers want to get rich or kill us all? If they want to get rich, it means they want to monopolize and curtail spread of the seeds but if they want to kill, they will just spread it freely. So, can anyone tell me which lane competitors want to stay? So, is it not a blessing that farmers are not allowed to harvest this "deadly" so called seeds? Are they not suppose to be happy? Confused species of human.

7. Cross-Pollination Contaminates Regular Crops
This area is one which I think GM will only continue using courts to address for a long period of time. Really, this is a very vital point too. But as long as organic and hybrid seed guys cannot proof cross pollination of plants like cassava, they cannot use this point to defeat GM guys. Can cassava cross pollination occur on fields? Someone help me here please! If cassava cross pollination cannot occur, does it mean some GM products have come to stay? If yes, GM guys will push other products to any length. But I accept, there's cause to look into this point for vegetable products especially those that flower.

6. It’s Illegal to Accidentally Grow a GM Plant
Please permit me for my action. But it's damn funny to me. The reality is there is a word in English, which is "Scapegoat". I sympathize with the guy. Really, I do. GM producers are damn smart. Is this wickedness? I can only laugh loud and sympathize again with the guy. GM guys used LAW to make a point clear to competitors in this case. Next time, competitors won't "dull" themselves. It's what I have been saying, GM uses LAW, court, patents to their benefits, is it not time for opponents to use same tools to fight back instead of just chanting miserable NO? Competitors should wake up!

5. Increased Suicide Rates
I have been avoiding this issue but it's time I speak my mind. One guy popped up at my door and introduced a new, nice business. My first reaction would be " you go and provide me insurance for the project if you are damn sure of its success". So, I would just sit down, enjoyed my chocolate drink while he ran around for suitable insurance policy. Check this out too: A random guy promises you 1,000% profit on nairaland and you failed to insure yourself. When things go wrong, you have yourself to blame. Are you stupid? In another case, you risked importing goods from China and alas! you lost the goods to ship wreckage, are you not foolish for not insuring the goods? You just decide to go blindly into a new business........Holy Jesus!!!!

Y'all should thank the owner of nairaland for putting "caution" to high risk businesses/investments like gambling, betting and forex. My guy, thanks so much. We don't want casualties anymore.

However, here's my thought about Rule 16.

"Don't promote shady investments like betting, HYIP, MLM, FOREX, binary options, and cryptocurrencies on Nairaland."

The word "shady" might be inappropriate and there can be counter points based on this choice of word. I think it should be changed to the phrase "too-high risk".

"Don't promote too high-risk investments like betting, HYIP, MLM, FOREX, binary options, and cryptocurrencies on Nairaland."

Moderators, could you kindly notify the big boss 'bout this observation?

4. Little Government Oversight
Very possible; however, it seems mainly US government is bent on not labelling for now. And I am against it. But if you read different reasons given, one will need to take a step back and get a new strategy to fight. Still, I don't support it.

3. Revolving Door between Government and Biotech Workers
When micropropagation and tissue culture weren't accepted, those guys too were guilty of it. Many of those guys have turned to oppositions now. FACT! What goes around, comes around.

2. Harm Biodiversity
The reference for this point is repetition of those stated already from 10 to 3. Actually, the writer accepted that industrial farming which he practices harm ecosystem (this is mechanized farming) but went ahead to blame GM more. I can only laugh and he provided no reference for the blame. Bingo calling another dog Bingo. NEXT!!!!

1. Distract from Healthy, Environmentally Friendly Technologies
Just same as # 2 above. The mechanized hybrid farmer himself is with many unfriendly environmental technologies. With all due respect, only organic guys should make this vital point. And check out the options they want Africans to explore:
- Build greenhouses on our roofs . Hillarious!
- No enough power, yet proposing aquaponics.
- Low Water Rice Farming style...Indeed! Why can't they do it first in their own country before advising us to do?

Thank God, no more points. As what we might continue reading are rants. Anyway, this article is not a yardstick to measure the intensity of the debate. So, I'm not going to take it serious.
QUESTION: Are Hybrid seeds producers/Mechanized farming producers not as guilty as GM makers?

Hmmmm! The second link posted by Mr. Farmerforlife looks so loaded with facts! Stay tuned and I will do justice to it.

Tospej:
GMO is evil to human. Apart from affecting the soil, it has lots of health Harzards. This kind of issue is best championed by Nigerian Institute Of Food Science and Technology. I dont know if any of their members is on this forum. As for Bill Gate, he is a business man, he is out to make profit, he is turning to agriculture now that computer is everywhere. Our Agricultural system will not support his ideas. Meanwhile, let keep shouting about it until our voice is heard. Cheers !!!!!!!!!!

I didn't want to respond to your comment but on the other hand, I feel it's very necessary. Please just don't talk about Nigerian Institute of Food Science And Technology here. Please! Stop it. Just do us a favor, search the internet, look for papers from well recognized research Institutes and post them here.On the other hand, if you think the so called Nigeria whatever institute of "poison" is making impact on this subject, bring it on.

GodIsGood08:

10 Problems Genetically Modified Foods Are Already Causing

10. Create Superbugs and Superweeds.
The reference of that point is this: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002092839.htm
Hmmm. It actually makes sense. Very vital point; however, there was a time golden rice was ruled out because researchers found out the amount of vitamin A in it cannot address vitamin A deficiency in children who lack it. Those GM guys went back to the drawing board and produced something better. The reference can be found where I addressed golden rice in one of my posts in previous pages. So, the issue of pests developing resistant to GM soyabean, corn and cotton is a bit sensitive and really, GM guys will have to do well to counter it. Mainwhile, the paper was in 2012 which was 6 years ago. What's the latest development? Really, this is a vital point to take note of.

My thought: I want you all to mark my words. It looks the next stage will be making different varieties of each of those crops so as to achieve variety rotation. Like the way we use antibiotics and change active ingredients so there won't be resistance development. Also, the same applies to spraying pesticides and fungicides. I haven't come across such but my line of thought is development of varieties to give room for rotation to combat this challenge. Quite interesting.

The amount of research that will have to be done to provide dozens of varieties of each crop type will be prohibitively costly. For corporations whose bottom line is the only reason for being alive, your solution just would not work.

GodIsGood08:

9. Kill Bees and Butterflies
To me, this is a very funny point. Very laughable. Hybrid seeds guys talking about this issue are damn funny. Those guys aren't against using pesticides on farms they plant their own hybrid. In fact, it's only organic farming that limits use of chemical spray. Chemicals that they approve kill bees. NPK Fertilizer kills microbes. So, I read bees declined 30% and they want to put it all on GMs. So funny. NEXT!!!!

Pesticides may kill some bees and butterflies, but they do not last long after being sprayed, depending on weather conditions, and pollen and nectar eaten by pollinators certainly do not get contaminated to the extent that they cause massive die-off of pollinator populations.

GodIsGood08:

8. Farmers Can’t Harvest Seeds
Personally, I am a bit confused. If Monsanto wants to kill us all, probably, they will want to spread GM free of charge. So, why can't oppositions stay on one lane? Do GM producers want to get rich or kill us all? If they want to get rich, it means they want to monopolize and curtail spread of the seeds but if they want to kill, they will just spread it freely. So, can anyone tell me which lane competitors want to stay? So, is it not a blessing that farmers are not allowed to harvest this "deadly" so called seeds? Are they not suppose to be happy? Confused species of human.

You are still holding tightly unto the false assertion that any anti-GMO reaction is backed by crazy people who believe that 'Monsanto wants to kill us intentionally'. Perhaps a few fringe conspiracy theorists may claim that... I dont know, but it is certainly not what the vast majority believe, which is that GM corporations are trying to compromise safety standards in order to make profit. I regret to have to mention that this comment of yours presents an illogical strawman. I thought we were supposed to be having a logical discussion, in your own words.

GodIsGood08:

7. Cross-Pollination Contaminates Regular Crops
This area is one which I think GM will only continue using courts to address for a long period of time. Really, this is a very vital point too. But as long as organic and hybrid seed guys cannot proof cross pollination of plants like cassava, they cannot use this point to defeat GM guys. Can cassava cross pollination occur on fields? Someone help me here please! If cassava cross pollination cannot occur, does it mean some GM products have come to stay? If yes, GM guys will push other products to any length. But I accept, there's cause to look into this point for vegetable products especially those that flower.

Cross-pollination was not the only point raised against GMOs. If this point does not work on GM Cassava, there are 8 or 9 other points that will. When GM Cassava is the only GM crop being imposed on us, we will withdraw this point.

GodIsGood08:

6. It’s Illegal to Accidentally Grow a GM Plant
Please permit me for my action. But it's damn funny to me. The reality is there is a word in English, which is "Scapegoat". I sympathize with the guy. Really, I do. GM producers are damn smart. Is this wickedness? I can only laugh loud and sympathize again with the guy. GM guys used LAW to make a point clear to competitors in this case. Next time, competitors won't "dull" themselves. It's what I have been saying, GM uses LAW, court, patents to their benefits, is it not time for opponents to use same tools to fight back instead of just chanting miserable NO? Competitors should wake up!

Law courts cost money. Most farmers concede because they cannot afford large dole outs on litigation. Large corporations have departments solely in charge of litigation. They can also buy off lawmakers and legislators to make laws favourable to their cause. How many Baba Sikirus can do that? And oppressive behaviour is not smart or funny. It is despicable.

GodIsGood08:

5. Increased Suicide Rates
I have been avoiding this issue but it's time I speak my mind. One guy popped up at my door and introduced a new, nice business. My first reaction would be " you go and provide me insurance for the project if you are damn sure of its success". So, I would just sit down, enjoyed my chocolate drink while he ran around for suitable insurance policy. Check this out too: A random guy promises you 1,000% profit on nairaland and you failed to insure yourself. When things go wrong, you have yourself to blame. Are you stupid? In another case, you risked importing goods from China and alas! you lost the goods to ship wreckage, are you not foolish for not insuring the goods? You just decide to go blindly into a new business........Holy Jesus!!!!

It was not due to lack of insurance that they committed suicide over, it was the progressively high costs of input... seed, herbicides etc that had to be bought from the same greedy corporations, coupled with the failure of the promised x% increase in yield that caused farmers' despair. Over a hundred thousand farmer suicides in less than a decade cannot be put down to lack of insurance. Also, these were commercial cotton farmers, not rookies, they knew about insurance, no doubt.

GodIsGood08:

Y'all should thank the owner of nairaland for putting "caution" to high risk businesses/investments like gambling, betting and forex. My guy, thanks so much. We don't want casualties anymore.

However, here's my thought about Rule 16.

"Don't promote shady investments like betting, HYIP, MLM, FOREX, binary options, and cryptocurrencies on Nairaland."

The word "shady" might be inappropriate and there can be counter points based on this choice of word. I think it should be changed to the phrase "too-high risk".

"Don't promote too high-risk investments like betting, HYIP, MLM, FOREX, binary options, and cryptocurrencies on Nairaland."

Moderators, could you kindly notify the big boss 'bout this observation?

Funny distraction, but for once, your analogy is right. Shady deals that lead to widespread losses that themselves lead to casualties and suicides should not be permitted...eg GMO crops.

GodIsGood08:

4. Little Government Oversight
Very possible; however, it seems mainly US government is bent on not labelling for now. And I am against it. But if you read different reasons given, one will need to take a step back and get a new strategy to fight. Still, I don't support it.

The point is not whether YOU like it or not. The point is if they can get the authorities to ban labelling in the US and Canada, they can certainly do that here. And labelling is not the only issue. Safety requirements for GMO crops are deliberately kept poor, to satisfy the lobby.

GodIsGood08:

3. Revolving Door between Government and Biotech Workers
When micropropagation and tissue culture weren't accepted, those guys too were guilty of it. Many of those guys have turned to oppositions now. FACT! What goes around, comes around.

The revolving door just goes to show that we will never be able to have competent authority organisations that will be sufficiently independent from GM corporations to put our health and safety above the profit maximisation objective of the corporations.

GodIsGood08:

2. Harm Biodiversity
The reference for this point is repetition of those stated already from 10 to 3. Actually, the writer accepted that industrial farming which he practices harm ecosystem (this is mechanized farming) but went ahead to blame GM more. I can only laugh and he provided no reference for the blame. Bingo calling another dog Bingo. NEXT!!!!

This is from a different context and angle. Imagine every corn plant in the world had exactly the same genes as every other corn plant. There would be no possibility of natural adaptation or modification, because there will be no inheritance of gene variations. This will harm biodiversity in the long run.

GodIsGood08:

1. Distract from Healthy, Environmentally Friendly Technologies
Just same as # 2 above. The mechanized hybrid farmer himself is with many unfriendly environmental technologies. With all due respect, only organic guys should make this vital point. And check out the options they want Africans to explore:
- Build greenhouses on our roofs . Hillarious!
- No enough power, yet proposing aquaponics.
- Low Water Rice Farming style...Indeed! Why can't they do it first in their own country before advising us to do?

If the billions spent on researching and defending GMOs were spent on research into other, safer, more natural and sustainable means of Agriculture, then we would find many that are more adaptable to Africa than greenhouses on roofs. Remember that the article was not written for Nigeria and its perennially epileptic power supply, so your mockery tends to fall flat when you realise that other countries can and do implement these strategies. As for mechanised farming being also unfriendly to the environment to some extent, that may be true, but are you trying to say that the solution therefore lies in introducing even more unfriendly practices?

GodIsGood08:

Thank God, no more points. As what we might continue reading are rants. Anyway, this article is not a yardstick to measure the intensity of the debate. So, I'm not going to take it serious.
QUESTION: Are Hybrid seeds producers/Mechanized farming producers not as guilty as GM makers?

Mechanised farming is not as damaging to the environment and its biodiversity, as potentially unhealthy, or as risky economically as falling into the sharp maw of GM corporations.

GodIsGood08:

Hmmmm! The second link posted by Mr. Farmerforlife looks so loaded with facts! Stay tuned and I will do justice to it.

I await your great wisdom. However, I will request that you do justice to this one first before you take on another.

Tospej:
GMO is evil to human. Apart from affecting the soil, it has lots of health Harzards. This kind of issue is best championed by Nigerian Institute Of Food Science and Technology. I dont know if any of their members is on this forum. As for Bill Gate, he is a business man, he is out to make profit, he is turning to agriculture now that computer is everywhere. Our Agricultural system will not support his ideas. Meanwhile, let keep shouting about it until our voice is heard. Cheers !!!!!!!!!!

The problem is that any Government institute is likely to be manned by people who care more about fat brown envelopes than about the populace and its health. Where were the Government and her agencies when foreigners were dumping toxic waste in Nigeria? Or when big pharmas were testing unpassed drugs in our teaching hospitals? The officials in charge of our safety can always go for their medicals abroad, or import their groceries from organic farms in the EU for breakfast, lunch and dinner, while we will be forced to eat the GM crops that they invite here. No my friend, it is only the masses that can fight this battle, by rejecting GMOs, banning them, forcing shops to label them and sensitizing everyone about them. For a long time now, I do not buy US food products like their rice or canola vegetable oils etc. I just dont trust them with my kids' lives. They have been forcing a lot of these GM on us even before, but now they want to make sure that we have no other alternatives.

Farmerforlife:

The amount of research that will have to be done to provide dozens of varieties of each crop type will be prohibitively costly. For corporations whose bottom line is the only reason for being alive, your solution just would not work.

Are you the one who will pay for the research? You claimed GM guys are rich and can do anything yet you wrote the research will be too costly. Do you make sense to yourself? Looks like you don't even understand the article you posted and how I countered it. Apparently, you seem not to understand who I said is going to make varieties here. GMO guys will make different varieties like A,B,C,D. Users rotate yearly those GM varieties and there won't be pest resistant issue again. Therefore, there wont be need to use pesticide in high dose again. Simple!

Farmerforlife:

Pesticides may kill some bees and butterflies, but they do not last long after being sprayed, depending on weather conditions, and pollen and nectar eaten by pollinators certainly do not get contaminated to the extent that they cause massive die-off of pollinator populations.

Just stop it. Don't argue blindly. Your statement is like this guy: He slept with a girl once and he started shouting it's just once, how can she get pregnant? The number of sperms he released into her werent so much. The damage i caused is very minimal. Gush!!!

Back to the main issue.The question is did their action have impact on the same thing they are accusing others off? Oh....no. their impact was negative but only minimal. Hyprocrite!!! (not calling Farmerforlife Hyprocrite here) Are you for real with this comment of yours? What damn proof do you have pesticides don't kill so many bees? Are you seriously really saying this trash out? Jesus! Those guys kill bees. Period. Accept it and deal with it. I'm annoyed you are saying this? Go try it...use pesticide on farms with bees and see the number of bees that are gonna drop dead.Even neem still kill bees. Jesus! You arent a farmer at all to say this nonsense. What kind of farmer are you to say this... Are you really FarmerForLife? E-Farmer? Internet Farmer? You mean you don't know the difference between systemic and contact pesticide. Jesus! I am so annoyed with your statement. For the benefit of others...systemic pesticide penetrates into the cells of plants and stays for many days or even weeks. The bees keep dying everyday they land on the plants..they keep dropping dead daily till you spray another round of pesticide. Think of the number of bees that are dropping dead in just 2 weeks with systemic pesticide.

Farmerforlife:

You are still holding tightly unto the false assertion that any anti-GMO reaction is backed by crazy people who believe that 'Monsanto wants to kill us intentionally'. Perhaps a few fringe conspiracy theorists may claim that... I dont know, but it is certainly not what the vast majority believe, which is that GM corporations are trying to compromise safety standards in order to make profit. I regret to have to mention that this comment of yours presents an illogical strawman. I thought we were supposed to be having a logical discussion, in your own words.

Is it the vast of what majority believe or the reality I just shared? Monsanto wants to kill us yet they refuse to spread the seed freely. Does it make sense at all? Choose one. The firm wants to get rich or kill you? If the logic there dosent make sense to you, I am so sorry, I can't help you further. Infact, your previous responses above tell me I can't help you further.

Farmerforlife:

Cross-pollination was not the only point raised against GMOs. If this point does not work on GM Cassava, there are 8 or 9 other points that will. When GM Cassava is the only GM crop being imposed on us, we will withdraw this point.

Point #7 from the article you posted was just cross pollination and i countered it. So, you don't understand I treated the points one by one. Why say there are 8 or 9 points? That comment was only meant for that one point. Other comments for other points on the list. I am not a fanatic, I admitted the areas those GM guys are wrong. My point was: as long as you can't prove cassava can cross pollinate, it means some GM products are not evil. And it seems you have accepted that fact too. Oh! I see it no more "all" GMO products are bad. Your statement implies SOME GMOs are bad. You see my point? Bro, I believe you know the difference between "all" and "some". Why ban the products that fall under "some GMO are good"? LOL.

Farmerforlife:

Law courts cost money. Most farmers concede because they cannot afford large dole outs on litigation. Large corporations have departments solely in charge of litigation. They can also buy off lawmakers and legislators to make laws favourable to their cause. How many Baba Sikirus can do that? And oppressive behaviour is not smart or funny. It is despicable.

Do you understand the word competition at all? Are the Baba Sikirus GMO competitors? What's the meaning of Baba Sikiru? I want to believe it is a kind of random name. Ok, I will help you. Technisem, CHIA Tai, Premier seed, etc are the main competitors and not the people you named. Oh My God....Guy, stop falling my hands. The competitors are super rich companies. Or are they poor? You see, your ability of not recognizing the competitors misled you to making bad judgement. Stop concluding irrationally. Stop being in hurry to counter people. Relax! Digest facts and find a way to launch your defence.

Farmerforlife:

It was not due to lack of insurance that they committed suicide over, it was the progressively high costs of input... seed, herbicides etc that had to be bought from the same greedy corporations, coupled with the failure of the promised x% increase in yield that caused farmers' despair. Over a hundred thousand farmer suicides in less than a decade cannot be put down to lack of insurance. Also, these were commercial cotton farmers, not rookies, they knew about insurance, no doubt.

I don't expect you to say this out. I thought I am going to discuss with you but this is not discussion at all. Are you damn serious with this comment of yours? You are telling me you don't understand what insurance is with this statement above. Jesus! I'm tired of reading other comments of yours. Let the cost of input be exponentially and not only progressively high; and let there be zero yield; are you for real saying you don't know the insurance company will pay back all the money lost? Oh.....You fall my hand finally big time. If you have guarantee of someone paying your cash back, why will you kill yourself over debt or lost investment?

Also, you mentioned the farmers don't know about insurance. Have you heard the statement "ignorance is not an excuse"? This is really serious that you are saying this. I'm so surprise. But it's hillarious! LOL!
Enough! I am not going to respond to the other comments. All are laughable!

Just relax! I don't rush. I will dish out justice to your second link. Don't be in hurry. Justice will be served but it's gonna shock you. The dimension I will use to knock that your second link out will amaze you.

GodIsGood08:

[s]Are you the one who will pay for the research? You claimed GM guys are rich and can do anything yet you wrote the research will be too costly. Do you make sense to yourself? Looks like you don't even understand the article you posted and how I countered it. Apparently, you seem not to understand who I said is going to make varieties here. GMO guys will make different varieties like A,B,C,D. Users rotate yearly those GM varieties and there won't be pest resistant issue again. Therefore, there wont be need to use pesticide in high dose again. Simple!


Just stop it. Don't argue blindly. Your statement is like this guy: He slept with a girl once and he started shouting it's just once, how can she get pregnant? The number of sperms he released into her werent so much. The damage i caused is very minimal. Gush!!!

Back to the main issue.The question is did their action have impact on the same thing they are accusing others off? Oh....no. their impact was negative but only minimal. Hyprocrite!!! (not calling Farmerforlife Hyprocrite here) Are you for real with this comment of yours? What damn proof do you have pesticides don't kill so many bees? Are you seriously really saying this trash out? Jesus! Those guys kill bees. Period. Accept it and deal with it. I'm annoyed you are saying this? Go try it...use pesticide on farms with bees and see the number of bees that are gonna drop dead.Even neem still kill bees. Jesus! You arent a farmer at all to say this nonsense. What kind of farmer are you to say this... Are you really FarmerForLife? E-Farmer? Internet Farmer? You mean you don't know the difference between systemic and contact pesticide. Jesus! I am so annoyed with your statement. For the benefit of others...systemic pesticide penetrates into the cells of plants and stays for many days or even weeks. The bees keep dying everyday they land on the plants..they keep dropping dead daily till you spray another round of pesticide. Think of the number of bees that are dropping dead in just 2 weeks with systemic pesticide.


Is it the vast of what majority believe or the reality I just shared? Monsanto wants to kill us yet they refuse to spread the seed freely. Does it make sense at all? Choose one. The firm wants to get rich or kill you? If the logic there dosent make sense to you, I am so sorry, I can't help you further. Infact, your previous responses above tell me I can't help you further.


Point #7 from the article you posted was just cross pollination and i countered it. So, you don't understand I treated the points one by one. Why say there are 8 or 9 points? That comment was only meant for that one point. Other comments for other points on the list. I am not a fanatic, I admitted the areas those GM guys are wrong. My point was: as long as you can't prove cassava can cross pollinate, it means some GM products are not evil. And it seems you have accepted that fact too. Oh! I see it no more "all" GMO products are bad. Your statement implies SOME GMOs are bad. You see my point? Bro, I believe you know the difference between "all" and "some". Why ban the products that fall under "some GMO are good"? LOL.


Do you understand the word competition at all? Are the Baba Sikirus GMO competitors? What's the meaning of Baba Sikiru? I want to believe it is a kind of random name. Ok, I will help you. Technisem, CHIA Tai, Premier seed, etc are the main competitors and not the people you named. Oh My God....Guy, stop falling my hands. The competitors are super rich companies. Or are they poor? You see, your ability of not recognizing the competitors misled you to making bad judgement. Stop concluding irrationally. Stop being in hurry to counter people. Relax! Digest facts and find a way to launch your defence.


I don't expect you to say this out. I thought I am going to discuss with you but this is not discussion at all. Are you damn serious with this comment of yours? You are telling me you don't understand what insurance is with this statement above. Jesus! I'm tired of reading other comments of yours. Let the cost of input be exponentially and not only progressively high; and let there be zero yield; are you for real saying you don't know the insurance company will pay back all the money lost? Oh.....You fall my hand finally big time. If you have guarantee of someone paying your cash back, why will you kill yourself over debt or lost investment?

Also, you mentioned the farmers don't know about insurance. Have you heard the statement "ignorance is not an excuse"? This is really serious that you are saying this. I'm so surprise. But it's hillarious! LOL!
Enough! I am not going to respond to the other comments. All are laughable!

Just relax! I don't rush. I will dish out justice to your second link. Don't be in hurry. Justice will be served but it's gonna shock you. The dimension I will use to knock that your second link out will amaze you. [/s]

All I see here is self-praise and uncalled-for insult. I have been taught to understand that once a person resorts to this type of tactic, he has nothing reasonable to say. I guess you are the type that does not know when to stop talking, and need to have the last word. Carry go, I have made my points, and unlike you, I tend to prefer to leave the judgement as to whose points are more logical to the readers, not give myself continuous pass marks while attempting to deride other opinions.

As for myself, I will continue to oppose GMOs until our safety is 100% guaranteed, and until we can develop seeds indigenously without waiting for handout from foreign shark corporations. Until then, there are other options we can look into for sustainable agriculture, and GMOs should be kept out. That positively is my last word. Anything else will just be repetition.

Farmerforlife:


All I see here is self-praise and uncalled-for insult. I have been taught to understand that once a person resorts to this type of tactic, he has nothing reasonable to say. I guess [s]you are the type that does not know when to stop talking, and need to have the last word[/s]. Carry go, I have made my points, [s]and unlike you, I tend to prefer to leave the judgement as to whose points are more logical to the readers, not give myself continuous pass marks while attempting to deride other opinions. [/s]

As for myself, I will continue to oppose GMOs until our safety is 100% guaranteed, and until we can develop seeds indigenously without waiting for handout from foreign shark corporations. Until then, there are other options we can look into for sustainable agriculture, and GMOs should be kept out. That positively is my last word. Anything else will just be repetition.

I only expressed how shocked and disappointed I was. I wonder how they were insults.Or that I expressed you didn't understand the points I made and you jumped and hurried to counter them were insults? Did i write you are mad? Did i write you are crazy? Or did I ever write you run your mouth and you don't know when to stop? Oh! I didnt at all.

And you really think telling someone directly that he/she runs his/her mouth without knowing when to stop isn't an insult on higher level? I just think you couldn't handle the truth and level of reasoning; hence, you tried diverting the main points.

Farmerforlife:

unlike you, I tend to prefer to leave the judgement as to whose points are more logical to the readers, not give myself continuous pass marks while attempting to deride other opinions.

Kindly read again the comment above. Doesn't it sound like self praise? Direct comparison with someone else and trying to belittle the person, saying you are better in making readers excellent judge.

Really, it's ok and I am not annoyed at your direct insults but I was just surprise at your comments cos they didn't make sense. And had you not doubted and expressed some of my comments if they made sense prior to the last comment? But i had to show you they made sense. So, is showing you my comments made sense and yours were so senseless self praise? Didn't you ask for it? Come on!

I avoid fights and arguements. It's the reason I love discussing. But while discussing some comments can really make one cut the discussion short cos they are just absolutely off point, baseless and senseless. Those two words you had previously used on me but I allowed them slide because I know your knowledge of the issue is low. And when I showed you clearly your responses were baseless and senseless, you felt being insulted. Or are your responses not baseless and senseless? I wouldn't have written your knowledge of the issue is low but since you really ask for it, I'm going to say it without apology.

Farmerforlife:

I await your great wisdom. However, I will request that you do justice to this one first before you take on another.

Honestly, I wanted to let all your comments which didnt make sense slide but the above was your last comment. I did an excellent justice to them and you got annoyed. So, why did you say I tried having last word when you actually asked for the served justice?

Sir, one more justice to be served. You have another link there. No matter how smart your tactic is to avoid justice on that link, it will be dished out. I'm not just in hurry to dish out the justice. It's not pride bro.....but just know that I will do an excellent justice on it. Such tactic as turning the whole discussion to insults, or whatever won't work. I'm not angry or annoyed. Justice will be served in regards to your second link. Period!

Farmerforlife:


http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/

This article will give you an idea of 10 things that either have, or could go wrong with GMO introduction. And the list is by no means exhaustive. Note especially, the reports of court cases by Monsanto on ANY farmer who dares to allow GM seeds to be found on his farm without buying from them...

Actually, I saw so many faults in this report I am going to just ignore them all as I really don't want many to see me as a GMO guy. Like I have written, I am a neutral person and my concern is organic guys just stop shouting No No No without proving beyond reasonable doubt that GM food is bad. They fail to use science to prove many of their claims till date. And many of their concerns have been addressed with every upgraded products. Yeah! It doesn't mean, I choose it over organic food.

Background Story:

http://www.ensser.org/
The above organization was established in Germany and one of their motives is to kick out GMO using science and researches and to counter claims by pro GMO.

My observation is: The organization most times want to say outright NO to GMO and actually that's the mission in my opinion but they always conclude at the end that there should be more researches because they always fail to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Check this: http://www.ensser.org/about/background/

Again look at the page Mr. Farmerforlife posted:
http://www.ensser.org/increasing-public-information/no-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety/
Is this saying no to GMO? Of course they know they can't say no but no consesus. Who doesn't know there is no consesus to even organic food. Some people tell you that it is not 100% safe to grow organically. Yeah! So, does the word consesus really exist in reality? Research must continue. So, there can never be consesus. I just wonder why the organization follow that path. Sounds dumb to me.

Now, there is this guy called Gilles-Eric Séralini who is known for a research work on rat which everyone has been referring to here. He chairs the organization called CRIIGEN and he is known as a No GMO guy. His rat work is well known and he opposed GMO Without apology. Here is the research work:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/461284/col-p37-seralini-report-clean.pdf
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/all-we-can-eat/post/french-scientists-question-safety-of-gm-corn/2012/09/19/d2ed52e4-027c-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html

Conclusion of the work is that rats developed cancer after eating a particular corn developed in which has resistance to Glyphosate which is a systemic herbicide widely used even in Nigeria in the brands, force up, round up, bush weeder etc. The research looked perfect at the initial stage. Actually, he fed the rats those corn for 2 years. He went ahead and got a sponsor for his work who is another No no no GMO organization called greenpeace. According to reports, they were the organization who went ahead to destroy golden rice, wheat, corn etc farms of some GM guys. There have been reports they use force to make their points known to the world. In fact, they have stopped work in an oil company without approaching court all in the name of protecting the environment. Check these links:
http://www.biofortified.org/2013/06/gmo-crops-vandalized-in-oregon/
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2004/2004-10-04-05.asp
Try google greenpeace and you will read more.

I am not against Greenpeace but here is my concern: They claim they are sponsored by just generous donations from well wishers: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about/
Just trying to imagine how general donations can make an organisation powerful to the extent of challenging and stopping oil companies and the super rich GM companies as claimed by many. So, its the $2, $10 they collect that provide strong info and also employ super rich attorney to defend them in court not to think of using the cash to break illegally into well protected farms.

So, Greenpeace, a strong "No GMO" sponsored Seralini, another strong willed No GMo researcher. What do you expect? But Seralini was smart, he knew he needed a neutral platform for his work to gain acceptance; so after he finished, he approached Elsiever; and Food and Chemical Toxicology to publish his work and they both did. That was the biggest mistake he made.

The paper quickly gained popularity in 2012 and many researchers looked into the papers; cited many reasons the paper was not done properly; therefore, Elsiever; and Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted the paper
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/29/business/la-fi-mh-gmo-20131129
https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology
http://retractionwatch.com/2013/11/28/controversial-seralini-gmo-rats-paper-to-be-retracted/
That is so sad mehn!

Why was the paper retracted?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/14/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20121014
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/14/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20121014/2
--- He used less number of control. He fed 180 rats with GMO and used just 20 as control. Lol!
--- Researchers identified no dose-related response: The rats fed higher doses of pesticide or GM corn didn't consistently get sicker than those fed lower doses. In fact, some rats fed higher doses did better than the others.
--- Seralini offered no explanation why rats fed a pesticide should show the same pathology as rats fed genetically modified corn but not the pesticide. LOL. If you read the paper, he fed some GMO, GMO + roundup herbicide; Control etc.
--- He used a strain which is known to always have tumor. So, even if the rats weren't fed GMO or pesticide, they will still get tomour. Very smart guy. He felt people wouldn't know. And then, he used just 20 control in order to not show high number of rats that weren't fed with GMO or the pesticide/herbicide which might get tumour eventually.

Read the comments of well known scientists about the paper:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-gm-maize-causing-tumours-in-rats/

His Excuse for Using just 20 rats as control:
He agreed that it would have been better to have tested 600 rats rather than 200, but then the study would have cost $26 million, not $4 million. "I agree it has limits," Seralini says. "I don't say my study is absolutely perfect. Any study can be improved. But that doesn't mean it's wrong."

My comment to his excuse:
He approached Greenpeace which is rich, and that he couldn't get $26 million dollars for the research is so funny. Greenpeace would have gone to any length to provide the cash.

The paper was written in 2012 and because of the many controversies surrounding it, they republished another one in 2014. Funny enough, there was no much correction done. Check these links out and the comments of scientists:
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186%2Fs12302-014-0014-5
http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463
http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2014/06/25/controversial-gm-study-republished-experts-respond/
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-09.pdf

How do these issues relate to the link Mr. Farmerforlife gave us?

Many of the articles of ensser.Org are based on the works of Séralini. His works are used as support and defence. Check this link and you will find his name:
http://www.ensser.org/democratising-science-decision-making/

Again after the retraction ensser.org released statements in support of the papers:

http://www.ensser.org/democratising-science-decision-making/reassessing-monsantos-data/
http://www.ensser.org/democratising-science-decision-making/prri-complaint/
http://www.ensser.org/democratising-science-decision-making/ensser-comments-on-seralini-study/

Should we rely on one article telling us non consesus has been reached because they lost out in bid to fight GM guys? Surely, they won't agree with GMO and I am happy they are there to check genetic engineering.

I advocate for all readers to probe into these matters and not just listen to many liars out there who are there for their selfish interests. Why are ensser.org and greenpeace bent on using any/different means to prove GM and oil companies are bad people? To the extent of using inappropriate research method? Do they think we are in 1930 whereby some tobacco Lords used "voodoo" science to manipulate people?

Just check out how the real neutral guys who had published the papers eventually retracted it. Very interesting.

Finally, I want to say i am happy there are likes of Greepeace, ensser.Org and Séralini who are there to check GM and oil producers. There was a time Greenpeace was saying chlorine should be banned from using it to treat water. But i think there should be balancing and it seems efforts of organisations which claim to fight for common men many times are not for common men but for protecting those who are making money from common men. Just my observation.

All said and done, I'm happier with Nigerian organic foods. Tastier, more nourishing and definitely safer for us.

ki02020:
There is nothing you do that people will not talk about...life is give and take...he is directly helping the country agric sector and indirectly helping himself end of story...even GOD created us to do his will and not ours and if there is anybody who has problem with that should tell GOD to take away the life he gave him or her

bro I love ur opinion. Everybody has his or her own fantastic point of view, I read Animal Breeding and Genetics and know a few things about Food technology. I am whole heartedly in support of Bill Gate's developmental innitiative. This is reminder to the Nigerian elites and rich men who falls short of their duties and role in economic and agricultural resourcitation. For those who against this initiative, we must dig back into history to quarry what warranted the poverty in Zimbabwe and what undermines agricultural development in Africa, our bad mouth, fear of the unknown of the significance of GMO and mischief mindedness has landed us where we are today. Alot of us are spoilers that cannot gather but only ready to scatter. I believe We are waiting for Bill Gate to start sharing free money to bail out our lazy ass and dumb head. Life is changing, innovate or u die!

delpee:
All said and done, I'm happier with Nigerian organic foods. Tastier , more nourishing and definitely safer for us.

Is organic really sweeter or "tastier"?
Brix level can be increased organically, perhaps by just half a step. But brix can be super increased with genetic engineering.

Is organic really more nutritious?
Nutrients are vitamins and other good stuff. So, are we saying rice and cassava without vitamin A have more nutrients than the ones fortified with vitamins and minerals?

Is organic really safer?
So, after reading everything up, can we still say organic is safer without any proof beyond reasonable doubt? Do we really know what staph is? I pray no one encounters MRSA. I bet some prefer to live with HIV than MRSA.


IITA is doing generic engineering projects - banana, cassava, Yam etc.
http://bioscience.iita.org/index.php/en/research

http://bioscience.iita.org/index.php/en/research/genetic-characterization

Are those new micropropagation, macropropagation and all tissue cultures/species derived from Genetic engineering?
Most likely. I strongly believe all first generation species are from GM and they use tissue culture to just multiply them.

Is IITA evil?
To me no but if you continue saying all GMO products are evil, maybe you need to go close IITA down first. Ibadan is not far at all.Then, remove all yellow cassava from the local farmers already planting them now. Also, go to north and tell all farmers to stop using pesticide, herbicides and fungicides.

Do we have organic foods or vegetables in Nigeria at all? Or do we think the tomatoes, carrots, cucumbers etc, legumes, grains, all food types we buy from market in Nigeria are organic? Where is the organic food in Nigeria? Maybe organic is 0.00000000001% of our total food production.

Didn't we all hear that most beans pass tests in Nigeria but fail tests at point of entries in Europe. And recently, that there was a ban on Nigerian beans because the quantity of some certain elements in them were super higher than the approved value? And the same beans most likely was just 5 percent of the product that was sent abroad but 95% sold was here. What about the other products that aren't sent abroad? Let's start thinking!

Infact, there is no regulation here. Dear Nigerians stop deceiving yourselves you eat organic food. In fact, we eat poison. Nigerians are getting cancer not because of GMO but because of over usage and not following the procedures of agro-chemicals.

Question:

Are agro-chemicals dangerous? Yes, when the farmer uses them wrongly.

Are agro-chemicals safe? Yes, when the farmer uses them rightly.

Here are realities:

1. There are more GMO products in Nigeria than we think.

2. United States, the promoter of GMO does more organic farming than Nigeria. The gap is just too wide.

3. GMO and agro chemicals are minor killers in Nigeria. The major killer is ILLITERACY.

The goal of CAPFIS is to raise multiple millionaires through her agricultural program.

Everyone is interested in money to a certain extent and the way most of us make it is by working for someone else.
If you are really clever you may find a way to do it for yourself, but fundamentally you still rely on other people to pay you.

Reasons why we are going to make our participants to undergo two weeks intensive training, afterwards, we shall allot 5 hectares to you and give you stems,
while you sit on the tractor with a supervisor and do-it-by-yourself. The same things applies when you are harvesting, and not only that,
you will be opportune to learn how cassava is commercialized to variety products.

After the harvesting of the plots allotted to you, you will earn a N1,000,000! Your goal is to ensure you make up to 125tons output.

You can enroll and join the train of upcoming millionaires and be an employer of labor afterwards or you can choose to wait for white collar jobs.