Thursday, April 10, 2014


Mark Lynas - the pro-GMO propagandist for Monsanto, the biotech/chemical/agribusiness industry and the US/Obama administration has been spreading false, misleading, fraudulent and deceitful propaganda on the internet, in the press and in the mass media about the human and animal health, the environmental and the socio-economic hazards of GMO's, and he is actively promoting the widespread adoption of GMO's in Africa as a panacea to " end hunger and poverty..."

In July 2011, Mark Lynas wrote an article published in the Sunday Times/UK and in The Nation/Kenya titled "To abolish hunger and malnutrition, Africa must embrace GM technology" ( please click on the link below to read a copy of the article)

Moreover, in July 2013, Mark Lynas travelled to several African countries to further spread his false, misleading, fraudulent and deceitful pro-GMO propaganda as a panacea to "end poverty and hunger in Africa..."

Please find below a copy of  my detailed response to his above mentionned article. Unsurprisingly, I never received a response from Mark Lynas to this day...

Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 4:15 PM
Subject: Your article on GMO's

TO: Mark Lynas
Cc: Sunday Times, London, UK
Daily Nation, Nairobi, Kenya

Re: My response to your article titled " To abolish hunger and malnutrition, Africa must embrace GM.

Dear Mark Lynas,

I hereby wish to respond to the false, deceitful, fraudulent and ignorant claims - contradicted and debunked by independent scientific and empirical evidence- stated in your article titled "To abolish hunger and malnutrition, Africa must embrace GM technology", published this month in both the Sunday Times /UK and in the Daily Nation/Kenya and reproduced elsewhere on the internet.

Link to your article published in the Daily Nation:

In your article you deceitfully write:

 I am not aware of a single substantiated case of GM foods having had any negative effects on health or the environment anywhere in the world. Instead, the impact has been almost entirely positive.”

You are either entirely ignorant of the subject – in which case I suggest you research the subject thoroughly before spreading ignorant and deceitful propaganda in the press, or you are simply acting as a biased paid corporate whore for the biotech/chemical/agribusiness industry ( which is blatantly obvious!)

In any case, I will grant you the benefit of the doubt  and assume that it is the former and will therefore try to enlighten you on the subject by providing independent scientific, medical and empirical evidence that contradict and debunk each one of your stated deceitful and fraudulent claims.

In fact, the only problem that confronts me in this exercise is the lack of space to provide the mountain of independent scientific research and literature and empirical evidence that clearly and irrefutably demonstrates the serious human and animal health hazards and the inevitable and irreversible environmental and biodiversity hazards and destruction as well as the negative socio-economic consequences associated with GMO’s around the world.

Please find below a summary overview of the scientifically documented human and animal health hazards, the inevitable and irreversible environmental and biodiversity destruction and the negative socio-economic consequences associated with GMO’s worldwide.

I hope that this information will help enlighten you on the subject and will prevent you from further spreading ignorant, deceitful and fraudulent propaganda in the press/media/internet.

I welcome your (enlightened and intelligent) response.


In your above mentionned article you write:

"I am not aware of a single substantiated case of GM foods having had any negative effects on health or the environment anywhere in the world. Instead, the impact has been almost entirely positive."

Hopefully the following overwhelming independent scientific, medical and empirical evidence will help to enlighten you on the subject.


Monsanto’s corn/maize linked to organ damage 

In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize. Three varieties of Monsanto’s GM corn – Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 – were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. The data used for this approval, ironically, is the same data that independent researchers studied to make the organ damage link.

The Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen in France obtained Monsanto’s confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats after a European court made it public in 2005. The data clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system," reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, author of the study and molecular biologist at the University of Caen. Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMOs, the 2009 research shows specific effects associated with consumption of each, differentiated by sex and dose. Their December 2009 study is published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences (IJBS).2 This latest study conforms with a 2007 analysis by CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data.

You further deceitfully write:

"Herbicide-tolerant crops have been designed to work with more benign weedkillers (Round Up/glyphosate) than the toxic brew sprayed on conventional crops.”

Again, the following independent scientific research and empirical evidence debunks this deceitful and fraudulent claim.

Monsanto's "Round-Up-Ready" herbicide causes cells to die in human embryo... 

In fact, Gilles-Eric Seralini, professor at the University of Caen and specialist in molecular biology, led and published another scientific study that concluded the herbicides in the Round Up Ready package "causes cells to die in human embryos." Dr Seralini’s research found that "Even in doses diluted a thousand times, the herbicide could cause malformations, miscarriages, hormonal problems, reproductive problems, and different types of cancers."3

Moreover, another independent scientific study led by Dr. Andres Carrasco, a leading embryologist, professor and researcher at the University of Buenos Aires, also found that glyphosate, patented by Monsanto under the name "Round Up " causes birth defects, malformations, miscarriages, hormonal problems, reproductive problems, and different types of cancers when applied in doses much lower than what is commonly used in soy fields. We injected the amphibian embryo cells with glyphosate diluted to a concentration 1,500 times than what is used commercially and we allowed the amphibians to grow in strictly controlled conditions. On the side where the contaminated cell was injected you can see defects in the eye and defects in the cartilage. Frog embryos injected with glyphosate developed obvious defects which would compromise their ability to live in their normal habitats. The frog embryos grown in petri dishes in the photos looked like something from a futuristic horror film, creatures with visible defects—one eye the size of the head, spinal cord deformations, and kidneys that are not fully developed”4 ( see pictures below)

Dr. Carrasco further explains:

Embryological study is based on the premise that all vertebrate animals share a common design during the development stages. This accepted scientific premise means that the study indicates human embryonic cells exposed to glyphosate, even in low doses, would also suffer from defects. When a field is fumigated by an airplane, it's difficult to measure how much glysophate remains in the body," says Dr. Carrasco. "When you inject the embryonic cell with glysophate, you know exactly how much glysophate you are putting into the cell and you have a strict control." 5

Furthermore, inhabitants living in proximity of GM soya fields in Argentina and South America have reported that: "We have had children born with only two thumbs and no fingers, malformed kidneys, children with six fingers. We have had babies born without an anus, or with malformations in the intestines." 6 (see pictures below)

GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?

Furthermore, a group of international scientists researched and published a scientific study detailing health and environmental hazards resulting from the cultivation of genetically modified Roundup Ready soy and the use of glyphosate (Roundup) herbicide.

The report, GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible? 7 highlights new research by Argentine government scientist, Professor Andrés Carrasco, which found that "glyphosate causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos at doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying. The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy," said Carrasco. 

Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology, University of Buenos Aires Medical School and lead researcher of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), Argentina, is a co-author of the new report. The report is released with testimonies of Argentine villagers whose lives have been radically disrupted by the cultivation of GM soy. Carrasco writes: "In Argentina and Paraguay, doctors and residents living in GM soy producing areas have reported serious health effects from glyphosate spraying, including high rates of birth defects as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages, and cancers. Scientific studies collected in the new report confirm links between exposure to glyphosate and premature births, miscarriages, cancer, and damage to DNA and reproductive organ cells. Residents have also reported environmental damage from glyphosate, including damage to food crops and streams strewn with dead fish. These accounts are backed by studies in the report that show glyphosate is toxic to the environment." 7

Carrasco also found that:

"The cultivation of GM RR soy endangers human and animal health, increases herbicide use, damages the environment, reduces biodiversity, and has negative impacts on rural populations. The monopolistic control by agribusiness companies over GM RR soy technology and production endangers markets, compromises the economic viability of farming, and threatens food security." 8


The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has issued and published an alarming statement which states that there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies. Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans." 9

Excerpts from the AAEM statement: 

“Safety assessment of GM foods has been based on the idea of "substantial equivalence" such that "if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food. However, several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies. Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation, including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS. Changes in the kidney, pancreas and spleen have also been documented. A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn. This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth and disruption of the intestinal immune system." 10

And the Truth Shall...get you fired! 

The first ever (independent) scientific study to look into the effects of GMO food consumption on human health was conducted by the world's leading lectins and plant genetic modification expert, UK-based Arpad Pusztai from the prestigious Scotland's Rowett Research Institute. Arpad Pusztai - the world's foremost expert in the field - became alarmed by his findings, and was subsequently vilified and fired from his research position at Scotland's Rowett Research Institute for publishing "industry-unfriendly" data ( i.e. the Truth) he was commissioned to produce on the safety of GMO foods. His results were startling and considered the implications for humans eating genetically engineered foods. "Rats fed GMO potatoes had smaller livers, hearts, testicles and brains, damaged immune systems, and showed structural changes in their white blood cells making them more vulnerable to infection and disease compared to other rats fed non-GMO potatoes. It got worse. Thymus and spleen damage showed up; enlarged tissues, including the pancreas and intestines; and there were cases of liver atrophy as well as significant proliferation of stomach and intestines cells that could be a sign of greater future risk of cancer. Equally alarming - this all happened after 10 days of testing, and the changes persisted after 110 days that's the human equivalent of 10 years."11 

Furthermore, a scientific report published by the US-based Institute for Responsible Technology drew together the findings from more than 100 research papers. Entitled "State-of-the-Science on the Health Risks of GM Foods," it described the conflict of interest among regulators that allowed GM foods on the market; the wide range of adverse findings from animal feeding studies such as "higher death rates, organ damage, reproductive failures, and infant mortality; reports by farmers of thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock; toxic and allergic properties of GM foods; numerous scientific assumptions used as the basis for safety claims that have since proven false; inadequate regulatory oversight; biased industry safety studies; manipulation of public opinion; and the mistreatment of scientists critical of the technology." 12


Hazards of meat, dairy products and eggs from GM-fed livestock 

Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and world renowned expert on the health hazards of GMO, reveals the following disturbing (hidden) information in an article written in the Huffington post on the observed detrimental health effects of GM foods on animals and humans.

"Dairy cows are usually fed GM feed and sometimes injected with GM bovine growth hormone. Although no studies have looked at the impact of eating meat or milk from GM-fed animals, secret FDA documents 13 made public from a lawsuit revealed that their Center for Veterinary Medicine was very concerned that toxins from GM foods might bio-accumulate in the livestock. If so, their milk and meat may be even more dangerous than the GM plants. Studies on the impact of bovine growth hormone on the cows' milk are less ambiguous.14 The dairy products from treated cows contain higher amounts of puss, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). The last on the list is considered most dangerous. IGF-1 is linked to a much higher risk of cancer, and according to one study, may also be responsible for the high rates of fraternal twins born in the US" writes Dr. Jeffrey Smith. 

Toxic intestinal bacteria

Dr Smith further writes: The beneficial bacteria living inside our digestive tract is used for digestion and immunity. Excessive herbicide residues on herbicide-tolerant GM crops may kill beneficial gut flora. More importantly, the only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have dangerous GM proteins continuously produced inside us. Consider, for example, if the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were also to transfer. It might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.”15

Bt toxin (insecticide) found in human blood

In fact Dr Smith’s fears were recently confirmed in a recently published scientific study that "found Bt toxin (insecticide) in the blood of both pregnant and non-pregnant women and their fetuses. Pesticides used on GM herbicide tolerant (HT) crops were also detected." The new study was carried out by a team at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec and has been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology. 16

The scientists took blood samples from 30 pregnant women prior to delivery, 30 samples from umbilical cords immediately after birth and samples from 39 non-pregnant women who were undergoing treatment.
“The results show that the toxic Bt protein Cry1Ab was present in blood serum from all three sources (93% of pregnant women, 80% in umbilical blood and 67% of non-pregnant women"17
The researchers suggest that the most probable source of the toxin is GM food consumed as part of a normal diet in Canada, where GM presence in food is unlabelled. 

"FDA scientists were also quite concerned about the possibility of inserted genes spontaneously transferring into the DNA of bacteria inside our digestive tract. Although the biotech industry confidently asserted that gene transfer from GM foods was not possible, the only human feeding study on GM foods later proved that it does take place. The genetic material in soybeans that make them herbicide tolerant transferred into the DNA of human gut bacteria and continued to function. That means that long after we stop eating a GM crop, its foreign GM proteins may be produced inside our intestines. It is also possible that the foreign genes might end up inside our own DNA, within the cells of our own organs and tissues," writes Dr Jeffrey Smith 18

Digestive disorders 

Furthermore, according to GMO safety expert Arpad Pusztai, PhD, the digestive tract is the first and largest point of contact with GM foods and can reveal reactions to various toxins. "Lab animals fed GM feed developed lesions in the stomach, damage intestines, and abnormal and proliferative cell growth in the walls of the stomach and intestines." 19

Compromised immune system 

Virtually every animal feeding study that looked for immune changes from GMOs found them. " GM-fed animals had a sluggish immune responses, damaged organs associated with immunity, altered parameters in the blood, and dangerous inflammatory and immune reactions20 writes Dr Smith


Jeffrey Smith further writes:

"No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies. Although the World Health Organization recommends a screening protocol, GM soy and corn fail those tests--because their GM proteins have properties of known allergens. It is noteworthy that children with autism are often allergic to corn and soy. Both are genetically engineered. Many are also allergic to dairy. Soon after GM soy was introduced in the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent. A skin prick allergy test verified that some people react to GM soy, but not to natural soy. GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen. Both GM soy and corn contain at least one new unexpected allergen, not found in natural crops. The biotech industry claims that Bt-toxin is harmless to humans and mammals because the natural bacteria version has been used as a spray by farmers for years. In reality, hundreds of people exposed to natural Bt spray had allergic and flu-like symptoms. Now, farm workers throughout India are getting those same symptoms from handling Bt cotton. Likewise, mice fed natural Bt had powerful immune responses; now mice and rats fed Bt corn also show immune responses.” 21

GMOs may make you allergic to non-GM foods 

“ Since GMOs were introduced in the US, food allergies have become a huge problem, especially for kids. Some of the foods that trigger reactions, however, are not genetically engineered. But studies show how GM foods might create sensitivity to other foods, and may in fact be contributing to this national epidemic. GM soy, for example, drastically reduces digestive enzymes in mice. If our ability to breakdown proteins was impaired, we could become allergic to a wide variety of foods. Mice fed Bt-toxin not only reacted to the Bt itself, they started having immune reactions to foods that were formerly harmless. The Bt-toxin in the corn we eat may have a similar impact. Mice fed experimental GM peas also started reacting to a range of other "safe" foods. The allergen responsible for this reaction may be found in GM foods on our supermarket shelves.” 22 Writes Dr. Smith

GMOs and liver problems 

"The liver is a primary detoxifier. Its condition can indicate if there are toxins in our food. Mice and rats fed GM feed had profound changes in their livers. In some cases, livers were smaller and partially atrophied. Some were significantly heavier, possibly inflamed. And certain cellular changes indicated a toxic insult from the GM diet”23 writes Jeffrey Smith.

Reproductive problems and infant mortality 

"Both male and female animals showed horrific problems when fed GM soy. More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, compared to 10 percent of the non-GM soy controls. The GM babies were also considerably smaller, and were unable to conceive in a subsequent study. Male rats and mice fed GM soy had changed testicles, including altered young sperm cells in the mice. And when both mouse parents ate GM soy, the DNA of their embryos functioned differently. GM corn also had an impact. The longer mice were fed the corn, the fewer babies they had and the smaller their babies were" writes Jeffrey Smith.24

Livestock sterility, disease, and death 

"Many of the problems seen in laboratories are also reported by farmers and investigators in the field. Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants after harvest. Others suffered poor health and serious reproductive problems. Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties. About two dozen US farmers report that GM corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs or cows." 25


Furthermore, Jeffrey Smith states that in addition to the detrimental health effects of GM foods consumption for humans & animals, the process of genetic engineering itself creates unpredicted alterations, irrespective of which gene is transferred.

Jeffrey Smith explains:

"The gene insertion process, for example, is accomplished by either shooting genes from a “gene gun” into a plate of cells, or using bacteria to infect the cell with foreign DNA. Both create mutations in and around the insertion site and elsewhere. The “transformed” cell is then cloned into a plant through a process called tissue culture, which results in additional hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the plants‟ genome. In the end, the GM plant’s DNA can be a staggering 24% different from its natural parent. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, or permanently turned on or off. In addition, the insertion process causes holistic and notwellunderstood changes among large numbers of native genes. One study revealed that up to 5% of the natural genes altered their levels of protein expression as a result of a single insertion." 26

The Royal Society of Canada acknowledged that "the default prediction for GM crops would include a range of collateral changes in expression of other genes, changes in the pattern of proteins produced and/or changes in metabolic activities." 

Although the FDA scientists evaluating GMOs in 1992 were unaware of the extent to which GM DNA is damaged or changed, they too described the potential consequences. They reported, "The possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically engineered plants might produce unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants." GM crops, they said, "might have increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins, and the appearance of new, not previously identified toxins. The same mechanism can also produce allergens, carcinogens, or substances that inhibit assimilation of nutrients." 27 

Please read the following two books published by Jeffrey Smith on the human and animal health hazards of gmo's

Moreover, in an article published in the New York Times in july 2007 titled "Change to gene theory raises new challenges for biotech", 28 Denise Caruso writes: "The $73.5 billion global biotech business may soon have to grapple with a discovery that calls into question the scientific principles on which it was founded. Last month, a consortium of scientists published findings that challenge the traditional view of the way genes function. The exhaustive, four-year effort was organized by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute and carried out by 35 groups from 80 organizations around the world. To their surprise, researchers found that the human genome might not be a "tidy collection of independent genes" after all, with each sequence of DNA linked to a single function, like a predisposition to diabetes or heart disease. Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood. 

According to the institute, these findings will challenge scientists "to rethink some long-held views about what genes are and what they do." Biologists have recorded these network effects for many years in other organisms. But in the world of science, discoveries often do not become part of mainstream thought until they are linked to humans. With that link now in place, the report is likely to have repercussions far beyond the laboratory. The presumption that genes operate independently has been institutionalized since 1976, when the first biotech company was founded. In fact, it is the economic and regulatory foundation on which the entire biotechnology industry is built. The principle that gave rise to the biotech industry promised benefits that were equally compelling. Known as the Central Dogma of molecular biology, it stated that each gene in living organisms, from humans to bacteria, carries the information needed to construct one protein. The scientists who invented recombinant DNA in 1973 built their innovation on this mechanistic, "one gene, one protein" principle. Because donor genes could be associated with specific functions, with discrete properties and clear boundaries, scientists then believed that a gene from any organism could fit neatly and predictably into a larger design - one that products and companies could be built around, and that could be protected by intellectual-property laws. This presumption, now disputed, is what one molecular biologist calls "the industrial gene." II. 


Monsanto’s Roundup: “Biodegrable and environmentally friendly…?"

Supreme Court of France finds Monsanto guilty of fraud. 

Monsanto fraudulently claimed that its herbicide (Roundup) was "biodegrable" and it "left the soil clean." However, the Supreme Court of France has ruled that Monsanto had lied about the safety of its best-selling weed-killer, Roundup. The court confirmed an earlier judgment in 2009 that Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide as "biodegradable" and claimed it "left the soil clean." French environmental groups had brought the case in 2001 on the basis that glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is classed as"dangerous for the environment" by the European Union. In the latest ruling, France's Supreme Court upheld two earlier convictions against Monsanto by the Lyon criminal court in 2007, and the Lyon court of appeal in 2008. 29

Genetic pollution and environmental destruction 


Since 2004, ―super weeds‖ (pigweed, horse weed, ragweed, etc. ) have developed resistance to glyphosate/Roundup and have rapidly spread across Sun Belt states and other grain basket states of the US (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri). Today, 100,000 acres in Georgia are severely infested with pigweed and 29 counties have now confirmed resistance to glyphosate, according to weed specialist Stanley Culpepper from the University of Georgia. In 2007, 10,000 acres of land were abandoned in Macon country, the epicenter of the super weed explosion, North Carolina State University’s Alan York told local media. 

Pesticides treadmill… 

Over time, weeds develop resistance to herbicides", explains Javier Souza Casadinho, professor at the University of Buenos Aires and regional coordinator of the Latin American Action Network for Alternative Pesticides. "Producers must use more applications, and in higher doses with higher toxicity—the application has gone from three liters in 1999 to the current dose of 12 liters, per hectare," says Souza. 

According to the UK-based Soil Association, which campaigns for and certifies organic food, "Monsanto was well aware of the risk of super weeds as early as 2001 and took out a patent on mixtures of glyphosate and herbicide targeting glyphosate-resistant weeds. The patent will enable the company to profit from a problem that its products had created in the first place,”says a 2002 Soil Association report. Monsanto’s technical development manager, Rick Cole, said he believed super weeds were manageable. "The problem of weeds that have developed a resistance to Roundup crops is real and [Monsanto] doesn’t deny that, however the problem is manageable,” he said. 

“Solution” offered by Monsanto: Use more toxic pesticides…

Indeed, according to Monsanto press releases, company sales representatives are encouraging farmers to mix glyphosate and older herbicides such as 2,4-D, a herbicide which was banned in Sweden, Denmark and Norway over its links to cancer, reproductive harm and mental impairment to combat weeds resistance to glyphosate, the main active ingredient in Roundup. 2,4-D is also well-known for being a component of Agent Orange, a toxic herbicide which was used in chemical warfare in Vietnam in the 1960s. 30

As Einstein rightly said: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

Monsanto's Bt cotton kills the soil, the plant and farmers...

A recent scientific study carried out by Navdanya in India, compared the soil of fields where Bt-cotton had been planted for 3 years with adjoining fields with non GMO cotton or other crops. The region covered included Nagpur, Amravati and Wardha of Vidharbha which accounts for highest GMO cotton planting in India, and the highest rate of farmers suicides (4000 per year). In 3 years, the study found that Bt-cotton has reduced the population of Actinomycetes by 17%. Actinomycetes are vital for breaking down cellulose and creating humus. Bacteria were reduced by 14%. The total microbial biomass was reduced by 8.9%. Vital soil beneficial enzymes which make nutrients available to plants have also been drastically reduced. Acid Phosphatase which contributes to uptake of phosphates was reduced by 26.6%. Nitrogenase enzymes which help fix nitrogen were reduced by 22.6%. At this rate, in a decade of planting with GM cotton, or any GM crop with Bt genes in it, could lead to total destruction of soil organisms, leaving dead soil unable to produce food, concludes the report. The ISAAA in its recent release has stated that there are 7.6 mha of Bt-cotton in India. This means 7.6 mha of dying soils." 31 The impact of GMO’s on soil organisms is not commonly studied. This is a vital lacunae because Bt toxin crops such as Mon 810 corn or Bt-cotton or Bt Brinjal have serious impact on beneficial soil organisms. The Navdanya study the first that has looked at the long term impact of Bt cotton on soil organisms is a wake up to regulators worldwide. It also shows that the claims of the Biotechnology industry about the safety of GM crops are false. 

Bt kills the plant

Bt protein triggers abnormal growth and sterility in plants

A team of Indian scientists has found that genetic modification (GM) will have a detrimental effect on the growth and development of plants. This is the first time that scientists have found that the Bt gene will trigger major problems in plants like stunted growth and sterility. Thus far, studies have centred on the toxicity of the Bt gene to animals and human beings. Many of the transgenic plants obtained showed developmental defects comprising abnormal growth (stunting) and/or sterility. These symptoms suggest that expression of Cry1Ac could be causing growth defects in plants,” the team observed.
We find a very strong correlation between the levels of Cry1Ac and abnormalities —higher the levels of Cry1Ac in the plants, the greater the damage,” said Pradeep Burma, a plant geneticist at the University of Delhi South Campus, who led the study. This is a completely unexpected finding,” said Durgadas Kasbekar, a senior biologist with the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad who was not associated with the study, but is the editor of the Journal of Bioscience. Until this point, if you asked someone in the plant biotechnology community what the Cry1Ac toxin does in plants, they would say it kills insects. No one has yet demonstrated harm to plants as this study has done,” Kasbekar told The Telegraph.

GENETIC CONTAMINATION: Inevitable and irreversible…

Co-existence between conventional and GM cotton is not possible. If Bt cotton is introduced in the region, the contamination of non-Bt cotton is inevitable. As there is no way to easily distinguish between Bt cotton and non-Bt cotton, Bt cotton will easily end up being mixed into the conventional cotton supply when farmers drop off their harvests, when the cotton is transported, or when seeds are cleaned and distributed. Contamination will also take place in the fields through cross-pollination, either by way of wind or, more likely, by way of insect pollinators. In India, where the context is somewhat similar, the situation is out of control with widespread mixing of Bt and non-Bt cotton and the emergence of a huge black market in ―generic‖ and non-regulated Bt cotton varieties."33

There have now been episodes of GM contamination in Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, India, Japan, KoreaLuxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden, Thailand, the UK and the USA, Spain, Germany, amongst others. In fact many biotech scientists have signed on to a statement that says that GM contamination is inevitable and scientific evidence confirms the “inevitable” and irreversible hazards of genetic contamination of local food crops by GM crops.
Nature Biotechnology candidly pointed out, gene containment is next to impossible with the current generation of GM crops … gene flow from GM crops to related plants thus remain a primary concern for regulators and one that companies need to address’34

Chemical pollution, deforestation, climate change and global warming 

As we have seen above, Monsanto fraudulently claimed that genetic engineering will preserve the environment by decreasing the amount of pesticides used in (industrial) agriculture. Scientific evidence provided above clearly contradicts and debunks this fraudulent claim. Furthermore, millions of hectares of natural rain forests and other natural landscapes are being savagely and irreversibly destroyed at an alarming rate every day in South America and around the world to plant genetically modified crops to produce agrofuels, animal feed and other industrial and pharmaceutical raw materials for export and consumption in affluent countries ( not to feed starving humans). 

" Soy cultivation has already resulted in the deforestation of 21 million hectares of forests in Brazil, 14 million hectares in Argentina, two million hectares in Paraguay and 600,000 hectares in Bolivia. Since 1995, total land dedicated to soybean production in Brazil has increased 3.2 percent per year (320,000 hectares per year). Soybean—along with sugar cane—currently occupies the largest area of any crop in Brazil at 21 percent of the total cultivated land. The total land used for soybean cultivation has increased by a factor of 57 since 1961, and the volume of production has multiplied 138 times. Fifty-five percent of the soy crop, or 11.4 million hectares, is genetically modified. In Paraguay, soybeans occupy more than 25 percent of all agricultural land. Extensive land clearing has accompanied this expansion; for example; much of Paraguay’s Atlantic forest has been cleared, in part for the soy production that comprises 29% of the country’s agricultural land use."34 

Thus, GMO’s are directly and irreversibly destroying the environment, contributing to and significantly worsening climate change and killing the soil – through chemical pollution, deforestation, etc - contrary to the fraudulent claims made by Monsanto and other biotech companies that GMO’s help fight climate change and preserve the environment.


Monsanto's Bt cotton kills the soil and cotton farmers… 

Over 250,000 cotton farmers have committed suicide in India since 2003 as a result of planting Monsanto's GM Bt cotton. Monsanto's false promises and fraudulent claims of higher yields, lower insecticide use and costs and higher revenue never materialized; instead, farmers were debt-trapped, lost their lands and livelihoods and committed suicide out of desperation... (see report below)

Bt cotton genocide

"More than a quarter of a million Indian (cotton) farmers have committed suicide in the last 16 years, the largest wave of recorded suicides in human history ; that’s one farmer every 30 minutes." 

A study (yet another) recently published by The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) at New York University School of Law 35, found that over 250,000 cotton farmers in India have committed suicide over the last 16 years, as a direct result of Bt cotton and GMO’s and the corporate-sponsored pro-GMO agribusiness policies being promoted and pursued by the biotech industry and foreign multinational corporations with political support from the US/Obama Administration and the criminal complicity of the government of India. 

The authors of the study write: " It is estimated that more than a quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide in the last 16 years—the largest wave of recorded suicides in human history. A great number of those affected are cash crop farmers, and cotton farmers in particular. In 2009 alone, the most recent year for which official figures are available, 17,638 farmers committed suicide—that’s one farmer every 30 minutes." 

Furthermore, as the world-famous and respected anti GMO activist Vandana Shiva clearly states: "Every suicide can be linked to Monsanto. Monsanto’s GMOs do not improve farmers’ lives. They have pushed farmers to suicide. 200,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide in the last decade. 84% of the suicides in Vidharbha, the region with highest suicides are linked to debt created by Bt–cotton. This is neither ecological nor economic or social sustainability. It is ecocide and genocide." 36

Moreover, small holders’ farmers are often driven off their lands by biotech companies, thereby worsening global hunger and poverty. As Marie Trigona writes: "Research shows that the mostly rural communities that suffer the negative health effects of fumigations have not benefited from the soy explosion. On the contrary, in most regions families have been pushed off land taken over by soy farming, leading to a loss of livelihood in addition to the severe health risks. According to a 2002 agricultural census, in four years more than 200,000 families were driven from their traditional farms, and most of the families relocated in working class belts outside of major cities.37 

Genetic contamination, sterilization and patenting of plants and food crops. 

Worse, GMO seeds will INEVITABLY and IRREVERSIBLY contaminate and destroy all traditional (non-GMO) seeds worldwide through genetic contamination. This is THE most serious economic, social, human and environmental threat and hazards that GMO’s pose to the future survival of human civilization. Over time all non-GMO seeds will be contaminated, sterilised and patented leaving the entire world exclusively and dangerously dependent on Monsanto and a handful of other biotech companies to buy their GM patented seeds, and eat and therefore to live! 

Terminator Technology

As Dr. Mercola writes: "Perhaps their biggest assault to your food supply is what’s known as Terminator Technology. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to ―self-destruct.‖ In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year. The implications that terminator seeds could have on the world’s food supply are disastrous: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops. Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-genetically-engineered crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile. If allowed to continue, every farmer in the world could come to rely on Monsanto for their seed supply!" 38

Do GMO’s REALLY increase yield…?

Mark Lynas further deceitfully write:

Importantly for Africa, GM crops have substantially increased yields, meaning more food for the hungry and a greater harvest per acre or gallon of water.”

Again, your deceitful and fraudulent claims are contradicted by both scientific and empirical evidence. In fact, according to the following scientific report - Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops - written by Doug Gurian-Sherman and published by the Union of Concerned Scientists in March 2009, the scientific and empirical evidence does not support that claim. Doug Gurian-Sherman writes: "For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields. That promise has proven to be empty. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields." 39 

Failure to Yield is the first (independent) scientific report to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concluded that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant (HT) soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant (bt) corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices. 

Failure to Yield makes a critical distinction between potential—or intrinsic—yield and operational yield, concepts that are often conflated by the industry and misunderstood by others. Intrinsic yield refers to a crop’s ultimate production potential under the best possible conditions. Operational yield refers to production levels after losses due to pests, drought and other environmental factors. The study reviewed the intrinsic and operational yield achievements of the three most common genetically altered foods and feed crops in the United States: herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and insect-resistant corn (known as Bt corn, after the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, whose genes enable the corn to resist several kinds of insects).
Herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and Bt corn have failed to increase intrinsic yields, the report found. Herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn also have failed to increase operational yields, compared with conventional methods. 

In addition to evaluating genetic engineering’s record, Failure to Yield suggest that it makes little sense to support genetic engineering at the expense of technologies that have proven to substantially increase yields, especially in many developing countries. In addition, recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods that minimize the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing regions as Sub-Saharan Africa. 

The report concludes that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future. The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the mid-1990s, but Failure to Yield documents that the industry has been carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without significant results “If we are going to make headway in combating hunger due to overpopulation and climate change, we will need to increase crop yields,” said Gurian-Sherman. “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.” 

Moreover, another major U.S. study published in 2008 found that GM soya produced by Monsanto actually produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, thus undermining the oft-repeated claim that the use of GM technology is essential to solve the growing world food crisis. Carried out over a three-year period at the University of Kansas, the study confirmed the findings of researchers from the University of Nebraska, who had previously found that another GM soya produced by Monsanto generated 6 per cent less food than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available.40 The findings of this study were echoed in a separate report, published by the UK’s Soil Association, which examined the latest available research on GM crop yields over the last ten years. In contrast to the widely trumpeted claims of GM companies that they have the answer to world hunger, the report showed that "the yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties.” 41

Last but not least, a 2008 draft report produced by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology project – an ambitious, 4-year, US$10-million undertaking involving 4,000 scientists and experts from around the world – raised still further serious concerns about the environmental, human health and economic impacts of GM crops. As well as stating that there is no evidence that GM crops increase yields, the report specifically warned that use of the technology in the developing world could concentrate "ownership of agricultural resources" in the hands of the companies involved and cause problems with patents. Significantly therefore, following the report’s failure to back GM as a tool to reduce poverty and hunger, the biotech companies Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF promptly withdrew from the project." 42 

Do GMO’s REALLY decrease pesticide usage…?

Again, Mark Lynas deceitfully writes:

“ Herbicide-tolerant crops have been designed to work with more benign weedkillers than the toxic brew sprayed on conventional crops. “

However, once again scientific and empirical evidence debunk this fraudulent claim. In fact, according to the following (independent) scientific report published in November 2009 - "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years" 43– authored by Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., Chief Scientist at The Organic Center: "GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. Farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds.” 44 The report is based on official, U.S. Department of Agriculture pesticide use data to estimate the differences in the average pounds of pesticides applied on GE crop acres, compared to acres planted to conventional, non-GE varieties. ―The basic finding is that compared to pesticide use in the absence of GE crops, farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds. This difference represents an average increase of about 0.25 pound for each acre planted to a GE trait. GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. In 2008, GE crop acres required over 26% more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted to conventional varieties. The report projects that this trend will continue as a result of the rapid spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds.” 45

Pesticide treadmill...

Moreover, according to a report published in 2009 by Friends of the Earth titled "Who benefits from GM crops" 46, the widespread adoption of GM "Roundup Ready" crops combined with the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on major field crops from 1994 to 2005. The trend continues. In 2006, the last year for which data is available, glyphosate use on soybeans jumped a substantial ―28%, from 75,743 million lbs in 2005 to 96,725 million lbs in 2006. ― More and more farmers are being told – by agronomists and by Monsanto - to combat glyphosate-resistant weeds by applying other chemicals, such as paraquat, diquat and atrazine, often in combination with higher rates of glyphosate. USDA pesticide data confirm this trend: rising glyphosate use even while use of other more toxic herbicides also increases, or at best remains constant. “The widespread adoption of Roundup Ready GM crops in the US has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on soybeans, maize and cotton from 1994 to 2005. In 2006, the last year for which data are available, glyphosate use on soybeans jumped by a substantial 28%.” 47 Increasing glyphosate use has driven an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds, which in turn has led to rising use of other herbicides to control them. For instance, the amount of 2,4-D (a component of Agent Orange) applied to U.S. soybeans more than doubled from 2002 to 2006. The use of atrazine (banned in the EU due to links to health problems) on corn/maize increased by 12% between 2002 and 2005.” 48 Brazilian government authorities have documented an ―80% increase in glyphosate use from 2000 to 2005, together with the rapid emergence of weeds that are resistant to the chemical. Use of glyphosate grew 79.6% during this period, much faster than the increase in area planted to Roundup Ready soya. ― 49 ―In Argentina, overall glyphosate use has more than tripled from 65.5 million litres in 1999/2000 to over 200 million litres in 2005/6.17 

In 2007, agricultural experts reported that a glyphosate-resistant version of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halapense) was infesting over 120,000 ha of the country’s prime cropland. Johnsongrass, an extremely damaging perennial, is a monocot weed that is considered one of the worst weeds in the world, and resistance to glyphosate will make it all the more harder to control. The emergence of glyphosate-resistant Johnsongrass is directly attributable to the huge increase in glyphosate use associated with near total dependence on Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina.‖ 50 ―The main recommendation to control resistant weeds is to use a cocktail of herbicides other than glyphosate, including more toxic weedkillers such as paraquat, diquat and triazine herbicides such as atrazine.It is estimated that an additional 25 million litres of herbicides will be needed each year to control resistant weeds, resulting in an increase in production costs of between $160 and $950 million per year. 51

Pest resistance to GMO/Bt cotton crops 

Regarding Bt cotton, Mark Lynas further deceitfully writes:

Some biotech crops such as insect-resistant “Bt cotton” and corn have anti-pest traits engineered into the plant itself so they require much less insecticide.”

Again, both scientific and empirical evidence debunk your fraudulent claims. In fact the exact opposite is true: Pests have naturally developed resistance to Bt crops, forcing farmers to use a cocktail of more and more toxic insecticides to combat insect resistance. Steve Connor, Science Editor of the UK based Independent newspaper writes 52: "An insect pest that is supposed to be killed by a type of genetically modified cotton crop with an in-built toxin gene has developed resistance and is beginning to spread in parts of the United States, a scientific study has found. It is believed to be the first documented example in the wild of an insect pest becoming resistant to this particular type of GM crop, which was thought to be immune from the problems that have plagued conventional pesticides. The bollworm moth is one of the most destructive pests of cotton crops. The resistant form of the moth's caterpillar was found in a dozen fields in the southern states of Mississippi and Arkansas between 2003 and 2006, when the surveys were conducted. The GM cotton was developed by inserting a gene into the plant that is normally found in a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The bacterial gene produces a protein toxin that is poisonous to certain insects, but normally harmless in other animals. Bruce Tabashnik of the University of Arizona, who led the research team, said: "What we are seeing is evolution in action. This is the first documented case of field-evolved resistance to a Bt crop." In the case of the GM cotton crop, the bollworm insect developed resistance because of the huge area of land in America and elsewhere where GM crops modified with Bt genes are now grown.This has generated one of the largest forces of natural selection for insect resistance that the world has ever known, according to the researchers, whose study will be published in the journal Nature Biotechnology.” 

Pests "thriving and reproducing" on Bt cotton fields in India and China

Furthermore, an article in the latest issue of the journal Current Science raises serious questions about the long-term viability of genetically-modified Bt cotton to actually do what it's intended to do, increase pest resistance. Scientists have found for the first time "bollworms not only living and surviving on GM cotton, but having offspring that can complete their full lifecycle there." 53 Looking at two varieties of Bt cotton in commercial use, containing both single and double genes intended to be toxin to the bollworms, the scientists found that the pests were able to survive. Report co-author Aralimarad Prabhuraj told Kolkata's The Telegraph: "We saw virtually no differences between the biology of insect populations reared on the GM cotton and the non-GM cotton ... We have indeed seen a dramatic boost to India's cotton, but we had always anticipated that at some point in time, we'll encounter pests that can withstand the modified plants. No one knew when it would happen." 54 

Bt cotton boosting pesticide use 

GM lobbyists have tried to paint Bt cotton in India as a massive success story that's cut insecticide use and boosted productivity. Now Keshav Kranthi, a leading Indian entomologist and acting director of India's Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR)] has told the Indian government that the rapid adoption of GM cotton by farmers across the country has coincided with: *the rise of hitherto unknown insect pests *increased pesticide applications by farmers *declining cotton productivity over the past three years The picture of what's been happening in India emerging from the research of this pro-GM scientist, ties in with the findings of research in China (also undertaken by GM supporters)which showed that “seven years after the commercialization of Bt cotton there, the expenditure on pesticides by Bt cotton farmers was more or less the same as for conventional (non-GM) growers, despite the extra expenditure the Bt farmers were making on GM seeds in order to reduce (supposedly) their need to spray. In India the picture appears to be even worse with pesticide applications on Bt cotton significantly overtaking those on conventional cotton.” Kranthi says 90 per cent of the current GM cotton hybrids appear susceptible to mealybugs and whiteflies. Insecticide use in cotton appears to have increased from Rs 640 crore [6,400,000 rupees] in 2006 to Rs 800 crore [8,000,000 rupees] in 2008, his research found.” 55 

Scientific study by PRO-GMO scientists reveal exponential increase in secondary cotton pests pests and pesticide use/expenditure on Bt cotton fields in China 

"Seven years after the initial commercialization of Bt cotton in China, we show that total pesticide expenditure for Bt cotton farmers in China is nearly equal to that of their conventional counterparts, about $101 per hectare. Bt farmers in 2004 on the average, have to spray pesticide 18.22 times, which are more than 3 times higher compared with 6 times pesticide spray in 1999.
Detailed information on pesticide expenditures reveals that, though Bt farmers saved 46% Bollworm pesticide relative to non-Bt farmers, they spend 40% more on pesticides designed to kill an emerging secondary pest. These secondary pests (one example is Mirid) was rarely found in the field prior to the adoption of Bt cotton, presumably kept in check by bollworm populations and regular pesticide spraying. The extra expenditure needed to control secondary pests nearly offsets the savings on primary pesticide frequently cited in the current literature.56 

Thus, it is crystal clear from both the scientific and empirical evidence that GMO’s can neither increase crop yields nor reduce pesticides usage, thus directly contradicting the deceitful and fraudulent claims made by you Mark Lynas, Monsanto and the biotechnology industry, that GMO’s can fight hunger and poverty in Africa‖ and feed the world by increasing crop yields while reducing pesticides usage, thus increasing both food production and farmers’ revenue while preserving the soil and environment from chemical pollution.

Mark Lynas further deceitfully writes:

“One of the most pervasive myths about biotech crops is that they only benefit big corporations and are part of a nefarious plot by multinational seed companies such as Monsanto to dominate the world food chain. “

GMO’s do indeed only benefit big biotech/chemical and foreign agrobusiness corporations and are indeed a "nefarious plot" and a Trojan horse and a weapon used by the US/Obama administration, Monsanto and the biotech/chemical/agribusiness industry to dominate and control the global seed and food chain. This is in fact the REAL (hidden) geopolitical objective and agenda of Monsanto and the biotech/chemical/agribusiness industry backed by political support from the US/Obama administration, and is therefore not a "pervasive myths" but rather the most serious and dangerous threat facing the future survival of Africa and of humanity as a whole. 

I invite you to read the following research-based book which provides solid and irrefutable evidence in support of this FACT. Seeds of destruction: The hidden agenda of genetic manipulation, by William Engdhal available at

I also highly recommend the following investigative articles on the real (hidden) agenda behind GMO’s.

The root economic, political and structural causes of poverty and hunger in Africa and around the world

Last but not least, Mark Lynas ignorantly and arrogantly writes:

"Unfortunately, many environmental groups remain steadfastly opposed to any use of biotechnology. This kind of neo-Luddism is damaging. With 800 million people still constantly malnourished, we must use every tool available to feed the world while also protecting the planet."

Poverty and hunger in Africa - the worst form of Violence – are a direct result of unfair global trading rules, exploitative economic practices and suicidal economic policies imposed on Africa by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO), blindly followed à la lettre by so-called African "leaders" and governments and their colonial masters disguised as “development experts”, which combined, result in abject and widespread human poverty, hunger, famine, disease, war, misery, etc. 

Furthermore, GMO's produced in Africa using local staple food crops such as maize, cassava, rice, soya, etc. on vast tracts of confiscated and privatized land using chemical-intensive monoculture industrial plantations will be used for biofuel production (ethanol, biodiesel), animal feed, pharmaceutical products and other industrial products to be exported and consumed in affluent countries, NOT to feed starving Africans... 

There is more than sufficient food to feed everyone in Africa and around the world. The problem lies in its inequitable distribution and in the lack of financial resources required to purchase it by the vast majority of the African population. Thus, simply increasing food production without addressing the root economic, political and structural causes of poverty and hunger and without distributional justice will NOT resolve hunger poverty and hunger in Africa and in the world.

As Mahatma Gandhi rightly stated: "There is enough food in the world to satisfy everyone's needs but not everyone's greed."


As Olivier de Schutter - Special Rapporteur on the right to food appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council - writes in his report titiled "Agro-ecology and the right to food" 16, presented on March 08, 2011 before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva:

We won‟t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations. The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers‟ knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.

To feed 9 billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available. Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live - especially in unfavorable environments.”

To date, agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects,” De Schutter says. “Recent projects conducted in 20 African countries demonstrated a doubling of crop yields over a period of 3-10 years.”

Agroecology applies ecological science to the design of agricultural systems that can help put an end to food crises and address climate-change and poverty challenges. It enhances soils productivity and protects the crops against pests by relying on the natural environment such as beneficial trees, plants, animals and insects.”

Conventional farming relies on expensive inputs, fuels climate change and is not resilient to climatic shocks. It simply is not the best choice anymore today,” De Schutter stresses. “A large segment of the scientific community now acknowledges the positive impacts of agroecology on food production, poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation -- and this this is what is needed in a world of limited resources.”

 Malawi, a country that launched a massive chemical fertilizer subsidy program a few years ago, is now implementing agroecology, benefiting more than 1.3 million of the poorest people, with maize yields increasing from 1 ton/ha to 2-3 tons/ha.” “However, despite its impressive potential in realizing the right to food for all, agroecology is still insufficiently backed by ambitious public policies and consequently hardly goes beyond the experimental stage.”

The report identifies a dozen of measures that States should implement to scale up agroecological practices.

Agroecology is a knowledge-intensive approach. It requires public policies supporting agricultural research and participative extension services,” De Schutter says. “States and donors have a key role to play here. Private companies will not invest time and money in practices that cannot be rewarded by patents and which don‟t open markets for chemical products or improved seeds.”

De Schutter also urges States to support small-scale farmer’s organizations which demonstrate a great ability to disseminate the best agroecological practices among their members. “Strengthening social organization proves to be as impactful as distributing fertilizers. Small-scale farmers and scientists can create innovative practices when they partner”, De Schutter explains.

We won‟t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations. The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers‟ knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.

If key stakeholders support the measures identified in the report, we can see a DOUBLING of food production within 5 to 10 years in some regions where the hungry live,” De Schutter says. Whether or not we will succeed this transition will depend on our ability to learn faster from recent innovations. We need to go fast if we want to avoid repeated food and climate disasters in the 21st century.”

Olivier De Schutter was appointed Special Rapporteur on the right to food in May 2008 by the United Nations Human Rights Council. He is independent from any government or organization.

I hope that the above independent scientific and medical research/literature and the overwhelming empirical evidence regarding the human and animal health hazards, the inevitable and irreversible environmental and biodiversity destruction and the  negative socio-economic consequences of GMO’s will help to enlighten you on the subject and will prevent you from further spreading ignorant, deceitful and fraudulent propaganda in the press/media/internet.

Finally, I would also suggest that in the future you refrain from providing your so-called "expert" advice to Africans on how to feed themselves. By the way, have Africans mandated you to "advise" them on how to feed themselves...? Or are you – like Bill Gates - a self-appointed deceptive "savior" of starving Africans…?

Instead of deluding yourself and misleading others, I would suggest that you practice what you preach;  i.e. eat the GMO yourself and become the guinea pig for the biotech/chemical/agribusiness industry, for Africa and for the world. That is the best help you can provide to Africa and to humanity. Bon appétit et bon vent!

I rest my case.



4: Paganelli, A., Gnazzo, V., Acosta, H., López, S.L., Carrasco, A.E. 2010. Glyphosate-based herbicides produce terato-genic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signaling. Chem. Res. Toxicol., August 9. 5: ibid
8. Ibid
9: 10: ibis
11: 12:
13: 14:
16: Aziz A. and Leblanc S., 2010, Reproductive Toxicology, accepted 13 February 2011 Currently available online or from GM Freeze.
17: ibis
20. ibid
22: ibid
23: ibid
24: ibid
25 : ibid
26 ibid
27. Ibid
To obtain a copy of the report, contact: Navdanya A-60, Hauz Khas New Delhi - 110 016 Phone : 91-11-26535422 / 26532124 Email : Website :
Link to the study:
The expression of Bt endotoxin Cry1Ac has detrimental effect on the in vitro regeneration as well as in vivo growth and development of tobacco and cotton transgenics Rawat, P., A. K. Singh, et al. (2011). J Biosci 36(2): 363–376.
34 source: Agrofuels in the Americas, Edited by Richard Jonasse, PhD. Copyright © 2009 Institute for Food and Development Policy
36 source:
37: 38:
40: 41:!OpenDocument 42:
44 ibid
45 ibid
46: Friends of the Earth report: "Who benefits from GM crops"
47-51: ibid
53: 54: Survival and reproduction of natural populations of Helicoverpa armigera on Bt-cotton hybrids in Raichur, India 55:
56:Tarnishing Silver Bullets: Bt Technology Adoption, Bounded Rationality and the Outbreak of Secondary Pest Infestations in China (Shenghui Wang, David Just, Jul-2006)