Tag Archives: farmers

Meat boom propels China’s ecosystems into total collapse Updated for 2026





China’s push for more intense farming has kept its city dwellers well-fed and helped lift millions of rural workers out of poverty. But it has come at a cost.

Ecosystems in what should be one of the country’s most fertile region have already been badly damaged – some beyond repair – and the consequences will be felt across the world.

This is part of a long-running trade-off between rising levels of food production and a deteriorating environment, revealed in recent research I conducted with colleagues from China and the UK.

Yields of crops and fish have risen over the past 60 years at several locations we studied in Anhui, Jiangsu and Shanghai Provinces in eastern China. But these are parallelled by long-term trends in poorer air and water quality, and reduced soil stability.

You may ask if this a bad thing. After all, increasing agricultural productivity has been one of the factors responsible for lifting millions of rural Chinese out of poverty. Does it really matter that the natural environment has taken a bit of a hit?

Well yes. For agriculture and aquaculture to be sustainable from one generation to the next, the natural processes that stabilise soils, purify water or store carbon have to be maintained in stable states. These natural processes represent benefits for society, known as ecosystem services.

‘Green revolution’ technologies tip the balance to perdition

Throughout the latter half of the last century, these services were being lost relatively slowly through the cumulative, everyday actions of individual farmers.

But the problems accelerated in the 1980s when farmers began to use more intensive methods, especially artificial fertilisers – and again after 2004 when subsidies were introduced.

Worryingly, in some localities, the slow deterioration has turned into a rapid downward spiral. Some aquatic ecosystems have dropped over tipping points into new, undesirable states where clear lakes suddenly become dominated by green algae with losses of high-value fish.

These new states are not just detrimental to the continued high-level production of crops and fish but are very difficult and expensive to restore.

These natural processes are degraded and destabilised to the point that they cannot be depended upon to support intensive agriculture in the near future. The whole region is losing its ability to withstand the impact of extreme events, from typhoons to global commodity prices.

What can be done?

National policy must prioritise sustainable agriculture. This will mean big changes on the farm: fertiliser and pesticides must be applied in the correct quantities at the right time of the year, cattle slurry and human sewage must be disposed of properly, chemicals getting into streams and rivers must be reduced, and fish feed has to be controlled.

Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. Farmers are still generally poor, badly educated and ageing. Good agricultural advice is lacking and big cities still tempt the younger farmers away from their fields. All these factors mean that rapid action is unlikely.

The recent introduction of the Land Circulation reform policy, allows farmers to rent their land to larger combines. The policy is designed to overcome the inefficiencies of small farm holdings but it may not be taken up widely in the more marginal landscapes where potential profits are low.

All the evidence points to a need for a significantly improved system of information and technology transfer to individual smallholders, probably involving a more efficient coordination between agencies.

The problem is global

But there’s a larger-scale context to this problem that may affect us all. China’s grain production has risen fivefold since the 1950s, outstripping the pace of population growth. Despite this, the nation is no longer self-sufficient.

The shift towards more meat production has placed a demand for soybean and cereal animal feed that can no longer be met internally. In 2012, China imported more than 60% of all the world’s soybeans that were available for export, and cereal imports are also on the up.

Reliance on imports to fill a shortfall in home produce is nothing new. But in China’s case, the additional risk that agriculture is increasingly unsustainable may amplify the demand. The potential scale of demand for imports is bound to have repercussions for global food production and food prices.

Unless reforms are introduced quickly, the rest of the world may well find that they are sharing China’s trade-off with nature – through the weekly shopping bill.

 


 

John Dearing is Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Southampton.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




390879

Montana’s Carbon County farmers sue for protection from fracking Updated for 2026





Seven Montana landowners last week filed a legal challenge in state district court to the Carbon County Commission’s rejection of their petition for land use regulations to protect their private properties from the harmful effects of oil and gas drilling.

The landowners collectively seek to establish the ‘Silvertip Zoning District’ to cover nearly 3,000 acres of agricultural land north of Belfry, Montana.

Creation of the district is the first step to establish solid protections for land, air and water quality, giving landowners an essential voice in the development of oil and gas on their properties.

“State and federal laws don’t protect us from the worst impacts of oil and gas drilling”, said farmer Bonnie Martinell, one of the plaintiffs. “There are few requirements for protecting our water or how far drilling must be set back from residences. This means we have to take local action to protect our way of life and our livelihoods.”

‘A little bit of the Bakken’ comes to Yellowstone ecosystem

Although some oil and gas development has occurred in Carbon County for decades, the Silvertip landowners were pressed to take action in October 2013 after Energy Corporation of America’s (ECA) CEO John Mork announced plans to hydraulically fracture 50 wells along the Beartooth Front.

The area Carbon and Stillwater counties in Montana and forms the northeastern flank of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Mork boasted that ECA hoped to bring a little bit of the Bakken to the Beartooths.

Montana law empowers landowners to initiate the development of zoning regulations for the protection of their land and community by petitioning their county commissioners to establish planning and zoning districts.

The Silvertip landowners have lobbied extensively before the Montana legislature and the state Board of Oil and Gas Conservation for protections from the adverse effects of inadequately regulated drilling. Those government bodies failed to take action.

In Montana, five bills were introduced during this state legislative session that would have enacted basic safeguards on oil and gas development, but all five were tabled in committee and are unlikely to receive a full vote in either house.

“We as landowners, ranchers and farmers have seen the destructive impacts of oil development in this area and we asked the County to let us safeguard our property and livelihoods by enacting these basic protections”, said Martinell.

“Citizen zoning is our only tool to protect our land and we are just trying to use that right given to us under state law.”

Farmers face toxic onslaught if fracking proceeds

Earthjustice, an environmental nonprofit law firm, is representing the Silvertip landowners in their appeal. Energy Corporation of America is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with the Carbon County Commissioners.

“Across the country, individuals and local governments are responding to the lack of state and federal leadership on the impacts of oil and gas development by demanding local control”, said Earthjustice Attorney Jenny Harbine. “This lawsuit is about allowing the Silvertip landowners to protect their land and their livelihoods when no one else will.”

Oil and gas drilling in shale formations such as the formation underlying Silvertip area is commonly accomplished through hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, which involves pumping millions of gallons of chemical-laced water and sand into the ground to release trapped oil and gas.

After the well is fractured, substantial quantities of this contaminated water-which contains high concentrations of salt, drilling chemicals, heavy metals, and radioactive material-returns to the surface where it is frequently stored in open containment ponds that pose substantial risks of leaks or failure.

As much as one-third of the contaminated water from the fracturing can remain underground after drilling is completed, threatening pollution of soil and groundwater. Numerous chemicals used in fracking are linked to serious human health problems, including respiratory distress, rashes, convulsions, organ damage, and cancer.

However, federal and Montana law provide only limited restrictions on the use of these dangerous chemicals and do not require pre-drilling notification to adjacent landowners or the public or mandate surface and ground water testing to detect contamination.

Although interest in large-scale oil and gas development in Carbon County has waned as oil prices dropped in recent months, Martinell said the zoning designation remains necessary to protect landowners when oil and gas development picks up again.

“Through this process, we’ve learned that developing regulations takes time and protections cannot be put in place over night. If we’re going to get this right, now is the time to act.”

 


 

More information: Read the legal document.

Principal source: Earth Justice.

 




390506

Montana’s Carbon County farmers sue for protection from fracking Updated for 2026





Seven Montana landowners last week filed a legal challenge in state district court to the Carbon County Commission’s rejection of their petition for land use regulations to protect their private properties from the harmful effects of oil and gas drilling.

The landowners collectively seek to establish the ‘Silvertip Zoning District’ to cover nearly 3,000 acres of agricultural land north of Belfry, Montana.

Creation of the district is the first step to establish solid protections for land, air and water quality, giving landowners an essential voice in the development of oil and gas on their properties.

“State and federal laws don’t protect us from the worst impacts of oil and gas drilling”, said farmer Bonnie Martinell, one of the plaintiffs. “There are few requirements for protecting our water or how far drilling must be set back from residences. This means we have to take local action to protect our way of life and our livelihoods.”

‘A little bit of the Bakken’ comes to Yellowstone ecosystem

Although some oil and gas development has occurred in Carbon County for decades, the Silvertip landowners were pressed to take action in October 2013 after Energy Corporation of America’s (ECA) CEO John Mork announced plans to hydraulically fracture 50 wells along the Beartooth Front.

The area Carbon and Stillwater counties in Montana and forms the northeastern flank of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Mork boasted that ECA hoped to bring a little bit of the Bakken to the Beartooths.

Montana law empowers landowners to initiate the development of zoning regulations for the protection of their land and community by petitioning their county commissioners to establish planning and zoning districts.

The Silvertip landowners have lobbied extensively before the Montana legislature and the state Board of Oil and Gas Conservation for protections from the adverse effects of inadequately regulated drilling. Those government bodies failed to take action.

In Montana, five bills were introduced during this state legislative session that would have enacted basic safeguards on oil and gas development, but all five were tabled in committee and are unlikely to receive a full vote in either house.

“We as landowners, ranchers and farmers have seen the destructive impacts of oil development in this area and we asked the County to let us safeguard our property and livelihoods by enacting these basic protections”, said Martinell.

“Citizen zoning is our only tool to protect our land and we are just trying to use that right given to us under state law.”

Farmers face toxic onslaught if fracking proceeds

Earthjustice, an environmental nonprofit law firm, is representing the Silvertip landowners in their appeal. Energy Corporation of America is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with the Carbon County Commissioners.

“Across the country, individuals and local governments are responding to the lack of state and federal leadership on the impacts of oil and gas development by demanding local control”, said Earthjustice Attorney Jenny Harbine. “This lawsuit is about allowing the Silvertip landowners to protect their land and their livelihoods when no one else will.”

Oil and gas drilling in shale formations such as the formation underlying Silvertip area is commonly accomplished through hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, which involves pumping millions of gallons of chemical-laced water and sand into the ground to release trapped oil and gas.

After the well is fractured, substantial quantities of this contaminated water-which contains high concentrations of salt, drilling chemicals, heavy metals, and radioactive material-returns to the surface where it is frequently stored in open containment ponds that pose substantial risks of leaks or failure.

As much as one-third of the contaminated water from the fracturing can remain underground after drilling is completed, threatening pollution of soil and groundwater. Numerous chemicals used in fracking are linked to serious human health problems, including respiratory distress, rashes, convulsions, organ damage, and cancer.

However, federal and Montana law provide only limited restrictions on the use of these dangerous chemicals and do not require pre-drilling notification to adjacent landowners or the public or mandate surface and ground water testing to detect contamination.

Although interest in large-scale oil and gas development in Carbon County has waned as oil prices dropped in recent months, Martinell said the zoning designation remains necessary to protect landowners when oil and gas development picks up again.

“Through this process, we’ve learned that developing regulations takes time and protections cannot be put in place over night. If we’re going to get this right, now is the time to act.”

 


 

More information: Read the legal document.

Principal source: Earth Justice.

 




390506

Montana’s Carbon County farmers sue for protection from fracking Updated for 2026





Seven Montana landowners last week filed a legal challenge in state district court to the Carbon County Commission’s rejection of their petition for land use regulations to protect their private properties from the harmful effects of oil and gas drilling.

The landowners collectively seek to establish the ‘Silvertip Zoning District’ to cover nearly 3,000 acres of agricultural land north of Belfry, Montana.

Creation of the district is the first step to establish solid protections for land, air and water quality, giving landowners an essential voice in the development of oil and gas on their properties.

“State and federal laws don’t protect us from the worst impacts of oil and gas drilling”, said farmer Bonnie Martinell, one of the plaintiffs. “There are few requirements for protecting our water or how far drilling must be set back from residences. This means we have to take local action to protect our way of life and our livelihoods.”

‘A little bit of the Bakken’ comes to Yellowstone ecosystem

Although some oil and gas development has occurred in Carbon County for decades, the Silvertip landowners were pressed to take action in October 2013 after Energy Corporation of America’s (ECA) CEO John Mork announced plans to hydraulically fracture 50 wells along the Beartooth Front.

The area Carbon and Stillwater counties in Montana and forms the northeastern flank of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Mork boasted that ECA hoped to bring a little bit of the Bakken to the Beartooths.

Montana law empowers landowners to initiate the development of zoning regulations for the protection of their land and community by petitioning their county commissioners to establish planning and zoning districts.

The Silvertip landowners have lobbied extensively before the Montana legislature and the state Board of Oil and Gas Conservation for protections from the adverse effects of inadequately regulated drilling. Those government bodies failed to take action.

In Montana, five bills were introduced during this state legislative session that would have enacted basic safeguards on oil and gas development, but all five were tabled in committee and are unlikely to receive a full vote in either house.

“We as landowners, ranchers and farmers have seen the destructive impacts of oil development in this area and we asked the County to let us safeguard our property and livelihoods by enacting these basic protections”, said Martinell.

“Citizen zoning is our only tool to protect our land and we are just trying to use that right given to us under state law.”

Farmers face toxic onslaught if fracking proceeds

Earthjustice, an environmental nonprofit law firm, is representing the Silvertip landowners in their appeal. Energy Corporation of America is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with the Carbon County Commissioners.

“Across the country, individuals and local governments are responding to the lack of state and federal leadership on the impacts of oil and gas development by demanding local control”, said Earthjustice Attorney Jenny Harbine. “This lawsuit is about allowing the Silvertip landowners to protect their land and their livelihoods when no one else will.”

Oil and gas drilling in shale formations such as the formation underlying Silvertip area is commonly accomplished through hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, which involves pumping millions of gallons of chemical-laced water and sand into the ground to release trapped oil and gas.

After the well is fractured, substantial quantities of this contaminated water-which contains high concentrations of salt, drilling chemicals, heavy metals, and radioactive material-returns to the surface where it is frequently stored in open containment ponds that pose substantial risks of leaks or failure.

As much as one-third of the contaminated water from the fracturing can remain underground after drilling is completed, threatening pollution of soil and groundwater. Numerous chemicals used in fracking are linked to serious human health problems, including respiratory distress, rashes, convulsions, organ damage, and cancer.

However, federal and Montana law provide only limited restrictions on the use of these dangerous chemicals and do not require pre-drilling notification to adjacent landowners or the public or mandate surface and ground water testing to detect contamination.

Although interest in large-scale oil and gas development in Carbon County has waned as oil prices dropped in recent months, Martinell said the zoning designation remains necessary to protect landowners when oil and gas development picks up again.

“Through this process, we’ve learned that developing regulations takes time and protections cannot be put in place over night. If we’re going to get this right, now is the time to act.”

 


 

More information: Read the legal document.

Principal source: Earth Justice.

 




390506

Montana’s Carbon County farmers sue for protection from fracking Updated for 2026





Seven Montana landowners last week filed a legal challenge in state district court to the Carbon County Commission’s rejection of their petition for land use regulations to protect their private properties from the harmful effects of oil and gas drilling.

The landowners collectively seek to establish the ‘Silvertip Zoning District’ to cover nearly 3,000 acres of agricultural land north of Belfry, Montana.

Creation of the district is the first step to establish solid protections for land, air and water quality, giving landowners an essential voice in the development of oil and gas on their properties.

“State and federal laws don’t protect us from the worst impacts of oil and gas drilling”, said farmer Bonnie Martinell, one of the plaintiffs. “There are few requirements for protecting our water or how far drilling must be set back from residences. This means we have to take local action to protect our way of life and our livelihoods.”

‘A little bit of the Bakken’ comes to Yellowstone ecosystem

Although some oil and gas development has occurred in Carbon County for decades, the Silvertip landowners were pressed to take action in October 2013 after Energy Corporation of America’s (ECA) CEO John Mork announced plans to hydraulically fracture 50 wells along the Beartooth Front.

The area Carbon and Stillwater counties in Montana and forms the northeastern flank of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Mork boasted that ECA hoped to bring a little bit of the Bakken to the Beartooths.

Montana law empowers landowners to initiate the development of zoning regulations for the protection of their land and community by petitioning their county commissioners to establish planning and zoning districts.

The Silvertip landowners have lobbied extensively before the Montana legislature and the state Board of Oil and Gas Conservation for protections from the adverse effects of inadequately regulated drilling. Those government bodies failed to take action.

In Montana, five bills were introduced during this state legislative session that would have enacted basic safeguards on oil and gas development, but all five were tabled in committee and are unlikely to receive a full vote in either house.

“We as landowners, ranchers and farmers have seen the destructive impacts of oil development in this area and we asked the County to let us safeguard our property and livelihoods by enacting these basic protections”, said Martinell.

“Citizen zoning is our only tool to protect our land and we are just trying to use that right given to us under state law.”

Farmers face toxic onslaught if fracking proceeds

Earthjustice, an environmental nonprofit law firm, is representing the Silvertip landowners in their appeal. Energy Corporation of America is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with the Carbon County Commissioners.

“Across the country, individuals and local governments are responding to the lack of state and federal leadership on the impacts of oil and gas development by demanding local control”, said Earthjustice Attorney Jenny Harbine. “This lawsuit is about allowing the Silvertip landowners to protect their land and their livelihoods when no one else will.”

Oil and gas drilling in shale formations such as the formation underlying Silvertip area is commonly accomplished through hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, which involves pumping millions of gallons of chemical-laced water and sand into the ground to release trapped oil and gas.

After the well is fractured, substantial quantities of this contaminated water-which contains high concentrations of salt, drilling chemicals, heavy metals, and radioactive material-returns to the surface where it is frequently stored in open containment ponds that pose substantial risks of leaks or failure.

As much as one-third of the contaminated water from the fracturing can remain underground after drilling is completed, threatening pollution of soil and groundwater. Numerous chemicals used in fracking are linked to serious human health problems, including respiratory distress, rashes, convulsions, organ damage, and cancer.

However, federal and Montana law provide only limited restrictions on the use of these dangerous chemicals and do not require pre-drilling notification to adjacent landowners or the public or mandate surface and ground water testing to detect contamination.

Although interest in large-scale oil and gas development in Carbon County has waned as oil prices dropped in recent months, Martinell said the zoning designation remains necessary to protect landowners when oil and gas development picks up again.

“Through this process, we’ve learned that developing regulations takes time and protections cannot be put in place over night. If we’re going to get this right, now is the time to act.”

 


 

More information: Read the legal document.

Principal source: Earth Justice.

 




390506

Montana’s Carbon County farmers sue for protection from fracking Updated for 2026





Seven Montana landowners last week filed a legal challenge in state district court to the Carbon County Commission’s rejection of their petition for land use regulations to protect their private properties from the harmful effects of oil and gas drilling.

The landowners collectively seek to establish the ‘Silvertip Zoning District’ to cover nearly 3,000 acres of agricultural land north of Belfry, Montana.

Creation of the district is the first step to establish solid protections for land, air and water quality, giving landowners an essential voice in the development of oil and gas on their properties.

“State and federal laws don’t protect us from the worst impacts of oil and gas drilling”, said farmer Bonnie Martinell, one of the plaintiffs. “There are few requirements for protecting our water or how far drilling must be set back from residences. This means we have to take local action to protect our way of life and our livelihoods.”

‘A little bit of the Bakken’ comes to Yellowstone ecosystem

Although some oil and gas development has occurred in Carbon County for decades, the Silvertip landowners were pressed to take action in October 2013 after Energy Corporation of America’s (ECA) CEO John Mork announced plans to hydraulically fracture 50 wells along the Beartooth Front.

The area Carbon and Stillwater counties in Montana and forms the northeastern flank of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Mork boasted that ECA hoped to bring a little bit of the Bakken to the Beartooths.

Montana law empowers landowners to initiate the development of zoning regulations for the protection of their land and community by petitioning their county commissioners to establish planning and zoning districts.

The Silvertip landowners have lobbied extensively before the Montana legislature and the state Board of Oil and Gas Conservation for protections from the adverse effects of inadequately regulated drilling. Those government bodies failed to take action.

In Montana, five bills were introduced during this state legislative session that would have enacted basic safeguards on oil and gas development, but all five were tabled in committee and are unlikely to receive a full vote in either house.

“We as landowners, ranchers and farmers have seen the destructive impacts of oil development in this area and we asked the County to let us safeguard our property and livelihoods by enacting these basic protections”, said Martinell.

“Citizen zoning is our only tool to protect our land and we are just trying to use that right given to us under state law.”

Farmers face toxic onslaught if fracking proceeds

Earthjustice, an environmental nonprofit law firm, is representing the Silvertip landowners in their appeal. Energy Corporation of America is named as a defendant in the lawsuit along with the Carbon County Commissioners.

“Across the country, individuals and local governments are responding to the lack of state and federal leadership on the impacts of oil and gas development by demanding local control”, said Earthjustice Attorney Jenny Harbine. “This lawsuit is about allowing the Silvertip landowners to protect their land and their livelihoods when no one else will.”

Oil and gas drilling in shale formations such as the formation underlying Silvertip area is commonly accomplished through hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, which involves pumping millions of gallons of chemical-laced water and sand into the ground to release trapped oil and gas.

After the well is fractured, substantial quantities of this contaminated water-which contains high concentrations of salt, drilling chemicals, heavy metals, and radioactive material-returns to the surface where it is frequently stored in open containment ponds that pose substantial risks of leaks or failure.

As much as one-third of the contaminated water from the fracturing can remain underground after drilling is completed, threatening pollution of soil and groundwater. Numerous chemicals used in fracking are linked to serious human health problems, including respiratory distress, rashes, convulsions, organ damage, and cancer.

However, federal and Montana law provide only limited restrictions on the use of these dangerous chemicals and do not require pre-drilling notification to adjacent landowners or the public or mandate surface and ground water testing to detect contamination.

Although interest in large-scale oil and gas development in Carbon County has waned as oil prices dropped in recent months, Martinell said the zoning designation remains necessary to protect landowners when oil and gas development picks up again.

“Through this process, we’ve learned that developing regulations takes time and protections cannot be put in place over night. If we’re going to get this right, now is the time to act.”

 


 

More information: Read the legal document.

Principal source: Earth Justice.

 




390506

Don’t ‘abhor’ us – abhor GMO scientists laden with conflicts of interest! Updated for 2026





Speaking at a public meeting organised for farmers in Ghana’s Brong Ahafo Region entitled “GMOs the truth and misconceptions”, Professor Walter Sandow Alhassan advised farmers to avoid being misled by anti-GMO groups, telling them:

“We should get away from this misinformation and try to see how we can revolutionize our agriculture and move with modern trends.”

He is also quoted as calling for groups opposing GMOs and corporate seed-grabbing like Food Sovereignty Ghana (FSG) to be “abhorred”, because, according to him, “those groups do not have any scientific proof or knowledge to offer when it comes to Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) technology.”

We at FSG are shocked by Alhassan’s reported pronouncements urging farmers to reject our warnings and stand by our position that accepting GMOs will result in seed colonisation and seed slavery. In truth, what Ghanaian farmers need to abhor and reject is scientists laden with conflicts of interest.

Because ultimately, genetic engineering is about private corporate control of the food system. Monsanto and Syngenta are particularly greedy to get their hands on Ghana’s agriculture and control the seed market here – and Professor Alhassan is a key servant of the global GMO establishment helping to make this resource grab possible.

The meeting itself also deserves examination. It was organised by the Ghana Chapter of the Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa (OFAB) in collaboration with the GMO-pushing, Gates Foundation-supported African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) which itself created OFAB in 2006.

OFAB’s purpose is to “positively change public perceptions toward modern biotechnology. This will lead to increased adoption of GM products in Africa and the rest of the world.” So it iis hardly an impartial voice of science!

Another co-sponsor of the meeting was CSIR, the South African-based Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, which works in biotech, GMOs and synthetic biology – and which notoriously ‘biopirated’ the Hoodia plant – appropriating and patenting the traditional knowledge of the San people of southern Africa.

Who pays the piper …

Alhassan, now a consultant, is himself a former Director General of CSIR, and much of his career has been funded by the biotech industry – some by Monsanto, particularly his education and early history, and more lately by Syngenta and the Syngenta Foundation.

Naturally he supports GMOs. He has spent his entire life in their service. He is Syngenta’s man in Ghana. And he exemplifies the close links forged by Big Ag with key figures in the academic world. As Kamil Ahsan writes in his article ‘The New Scientism‘:

“Today, large numbers of scientists are in the employ of Big Pharma, Big Ag, and all kinds of corporations with anti-environmental and anti-social justice agendas.”

And while academics are still largely publicly funded, “many receive grants or training fellowships from biotech, pharmaceutical, or agricultural companies; serve on advisory panels and committees; oversee and participate in industry-funded events and colloquiums; and rely on industry links as funnels for outgoing graduate students or postdoctoral candidates. GMOs are a good example of how academics function as cheerleaders for Big Ag.”

Big Ag is not afraid to lie about the GMOs they are pushing. For example Monsanto has just been forced to withdraw advertisements in South Africa because of unsubstantiated information and false claims that GMO crops “enable us to produce more food sustainably whilst using fewer resources; provide a healthier environment by saving on pesticides; decrease greenhouse gas emissions and increase crop yields substantially.”

Yet we hear Professor Alhassan and his network repeating these same untruths over and over again and calling them ‘science’. When he warns that anti GMO groups do not have any scientific proof or knowledge to offer when it comes to GMO technology, he is surely trying to suppress scientific inquiry, knowledge and debate.

More information on the dangers of GMO pesticide plants comes out every day, this despite the fact that the biotechnology industry has done its best to suppress any studies or information that does not support industry claims.

GMO cowpeas a threat to all of Africa

Right now Professor Alhassan and his corporate and academic cronies are trying to get Bt cowpeas into the Ghanaian market. Bt cowpeas are laden with pesticides as are all Bt GMO plants. When Ghanaians eat Bt cowpeas they will be eating pesticides.

In the US Bt plants are registered as pesticides by the USDA. When you eat any part of a Bt plant, you are eating a toxic pesticide – one aimed at insects, but which also impacts on humans. Although Bt does occur in nature, that is quite different than having a plant which contains Bt toxin in every cell of the plant.

With Bt in nature, and when used as a dust or spray in agroecological farming, the active toxin can only be found in the gut of the insect. The plant itself contains no Bt. If there is any residual spray or dust on the surface of the plant it can be washed off.

However, with the Bt in GMO cowpeas and all other Bt GMO plants, as GM Watch points out, “active toxin is in every plant cell and tissue, all the time and cannot be washed off … active toxins are not easily degraded by gut enzymes and, since they are lectins, they all are very likely to bind to the wall of the mammalian / human gut.”

And that means they are likely to be processed into your body creating who knows what short term or long term health risks and dangers.

Those insects that are controlled and killed by the Bt in Bt GMO plants evolve a tolerance for the Bt toxin and come back stronger over time, as recently observed in Brazil where BT corn is actually less resistant to the Fall Armyworm than conventional varieties.

Other opportunistic insects will take advantage of the lack of competition and move in to take the place of the former pests creating new super pests. That is happening in the US where GMOs have been around for 20 years.

And it’s leading to more and stronger pesticides being used every year, endangering the health of humans and livestock, degrading and polluting the soil, water, and air across US farmlands.

It is particularly worrisome to have Bt cowpeas growing in Ghana, a species indigenous to West Africa, as the GMO crops will contaminate neighboring crops with their pollen. If grown in quantity, GMO cowpeas could contaminate the entire region of West Africa. Because of this kind of contamination, Mexico has banned growing Bt corn – a ruling fiercely fought by Monsanto.

Cowpeas are one of the most important food crops in Africa’s drylands: they survive high temperatures with little water, even on very sandy soils, fix nitrogen, and are shade tolerant, allowing them to be used in agroforestry systems.

We must unite to fight this evil law!

If the Ghana Plant Breeders Bill is passed, it would allow the corporate GMO owners to claim all offspring of that contamination as their own property according to their intellectual property rights.

They could force a farmer whose crop is contaminated – against the farmer’s will, and providing no benefit to the farmer – to pay for the contaminated crop, to pay damages to the corporation! They could also force farmers to destroy their crops.

This is happening across the United States and in Canada where GMO corporations are winning huge financial judgements against farmers. It is happening in other countries that have passed UPOV laws such as Ghana’s Plant Breeders Bill. This is what Professor Alhassan intends to bring to Ghana’s farmers, claiming it is ‘progress’ and calling it ‘science’. It is just old fashioned corporate greed.

Contamination of the West African cowpea means the destruction of Ghana’s heritage, destruction of the seed DNA Ghana’s farmers, going back generations and centuries, have laboured to develop and preserve.

This is biopiracy, made legal by the Plant Breeders Bill. Professor Walter Alhassan may believe that this destruction is simply ‘science’, but it is in truth a tool by which foreign corporations aim to profit and re-colonize Ghana, West Africa, and the entire continent of Africa.

Would you trust Professor Walter Alhassan to make decisions about what you eat? Do you trust Professor Alhassan and his recommended scientific cronies to tell you what to plant, or what seeds you are required to use? Whose best interests does Professor Alhassan really represent?

 


 

Edwin Kweku Andoh Baffour is Acting Director of Communications with Food Sovereignty Ghana. The original article has been expanded and edited by The Ecologist.

Twitter: twitter.com/FoodSovereignGH
Facebook: facebook.com/FoodSovereigntyGhana

 




390291

Don’t ‘abhor’ us – abhor GMO scientists laden with conflicts of interest! Updated for 2026





Speaking at a public meeting organised for farmers in Ghana’s Brong Ahafo Region entitled “GMOs the truth and misconceptions”, Professor Walter Sandow Alhassan advised farmers to avoid being misled by anti-GMO groups, telling them:

“We should get away from this misinformation and try to see how we can revolutionize our agriculture and move with modern trends.”

He is also quoted as calling for groups opposing GMOs and corporate seed-grabbing like Food Sovereignty Ghana (FSG) to be “abhorred”, because, according to him, “those groups do not have any scientific proof or knowledge to offer when it comes to Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) technology.”

We at FSG are shocked by Alhassan’s reported pronouncements urging farmers to reject our warnings and stand by our position that accepting GMOs will result in seed colonisation and seed slavery. In truth, what Ghanaian farmers need to abhor and reject is scientists laden with conflicts of interest.

Because ultimately, genetic engineering is about private corporate control of the food system. Monsanto and Syngenta are particularly greedy to get their hands on Ghana’s agriculture and control the seed market here – and Professor Alhassan is a key servant of the global GMO establishment helping to make this resource grab possible.

The meeting itself also deserves examination. It was organised by the Ghana Chapter of the Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa (OFAB) in collaboration with the GMO-pushing, Gates Foundation-supported African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) which itself created OFAB in 2006.

OFAB’s purpose is to “positively change public perceptions toward modern biotechnology. This will lead to increased adoption of GM products in Africa and the rest of the world.” So it iis hardly an impartial voice of science!

Another co-sponsor of the meeting was CSIR, the South African-based Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, which works in biotech, GMOs and synthetic biology – and which notoriously ‘biopirated’ the Hoodia plant – appropriating and patenting the traditional knowledge of the San people of southern Africa.

Who pays the piper …

Alhassan, now a consultant, is himself a former Director General of CSIR, and much of his career has been funded by the biotech industry – some by Monsanto, particularly his education and early history, and more lately by Syngenta and the Syngenta Foundation.

Naturally he supports GMOs. He has spent his entire life in their service. He is Syngenta’s man in Ghana. And he exemplifies the close links forged by Big Ag with key figures in the academic world. As Kamil Ahsan writes in his article ‘The New Scientism‘:

“Today, large numbers of scientists are in the employ of Big Pharma, Big Ag, and all kinds of corporations with anti-environmental and anti-social justice agendas.”

And while academics are still largely publicly funded, “many receive grants or training fellowships from biotech, pharmaceutical, or agricultural companies; serve on advisory panels and committees; oversee and participate in industry-funded events and colloquiums; and rely on industry links as funnels for outgoing graduate students or postdoctoral candidates. GMOs are a good example of how academics function as cheerleaders for Big Ag.”

Big Ag is not afraid to lie about the GMOs they are pushing. For example Monsanto has just been forced to withdraw advertisements in South Africa because of unsubstantiated information and false claims that GMO crops “enable us to produce more food sustainably whilst using fewer resources; provide a healthier environment by saving on pesticides; decrease greenhouse gas emissions and increase crop yields substantially.”

Yet we hear Professor Alhassan and his network repeating these same untruths over and over again and calling them ‘science’. When he warns that anti GMO groups do not have any scientific proof or knowledge to offer when it comes to GMO technology, he is surely trying to suppress scientific inquiry, knowledge and debate.

More information on the dangers of GMO pesticide plants comes out every day, this despite the fact that the biotechnology industry has done its best to suppress any studies or information that does not support industry claims.

GMO cowpeas a threat to all of Africa

Right now Professor Alhassan and his corporate and academic cronies are trying to get Bt cowpeas into the Ghanaian market. Bt cowpeas are laden with pesticides as are all Bt GMO plants. When Ghanaians eat Bt cowpeas they will be eating pesticides.

In the US Bt plants are registered as pesticides by the USDA. When you eat any part of a Bt plant, you are eating a toxic pesticide – one aimed at insects, but which also impacts on humans. Although Bt does occur in nature, that is quite different than having a plant which contains Bt toxin in every cell of the plant.

With Bt in nature, and when used as a dust or spray in agroecological farming, the active toxin can only be found in the gut of the insect. The plant itself contains no Bt. If there is any residual spray or dust on the surface of the plant it can be washed off.

However, with the Bt in GMO cowpeas and all other Bt GMO plants, as GM Watch points out, “active toxin is in every plant cell and tissue, all the time and cannot be washed off … active toxins are not easily degraded by gut enzymes and, since they are lectins, they all are very likely to bind to the wall of the mammalian / human gut.”

And that means they are likely to be processed into your body creating who knows what short term or long term health risks and dangers.

Those insects that are controlled and killed by the Bt in Bt GMO plants evolve a tolerance for the Bt toxin and come back stronger over time, as recently observed in Brazil where BT corn is actually less resistant to the Fall Armyworm than conventional varieties.

Other opportunistic insects will take advantage of the lack of competition and move in to take the place of the former pests creating new super pests. That is happening in the US where GMOs have been around for 20 years.

And it’s leading to more and stronger pesticides being used every year, endangering the health of humans and livestock, degrading and polluting the soil, water, and air across US farmlands.

It is particularly worrisome to have Bt cowpeas growing in Ghana, a species indigenous to West Africa, as the GMO crops will contaminate neighboring crops with their pollen. If grown in quantity, GMO cowpeas could contaminate the entire region of West Africa. Because of this kind of contamination, Mexico has banned growing Bt corn – a ruling fiercely fought by Monsanto.

Cowpeas are one of the most important food crops in Africa’s drylands: they survive high temperatures with little water, even on very sandy soils, fix nitrogen, and are shade tolerant, allowing them to be used in agroforestry systems.

We must unite to fight this evil law!

If the Ghana Plant Breeders Bill is passed, it would allow the corporate GMO owners to claim all offspring of that contamination as their own property according to their intellectual property rights.

They could force a farmer whose crop is contaminated – against the farmer’s will, and providing no benefit to the farmer – to pay for the contaminated crop, to pay damages to the corporation! They could also force farmers to destroy their crops.

This is happening across the United States and in Canada where GMO corporations are winning huge financial judgements against farmers. It is happening in other countries that have passed UPOV laws such as Ghana’s Plant Breeders Bill. This is what Professor Alhassan intends to bring to Ghana’s farmers, claiming it is ‘progress’ and calling it ‘science’. It is just old fashioned corporate greed.

Contamination of the West African cowpea means the destruction of Ghana’s heritage, destruction of the seed DNA Ghana’s farmers, going back generations and centuries, have laboured to develop and preserve.

This is biopiracy, made legal by the Plant Breeders Bill. Professor Walter Alhassan may believe that this destruction is simply ‘science’, but it is in truth a tool by which foreign corporations aim to profit and re-colonize Ghana, West Africa, and the entire continent of Africa.

Would you trust Professor Walter Alhassan to make decisions about what you eat? Do you trust Professor Alhassan and his recommended scientific cronies to tell you what to plant, or what seeds you are required to use? Whose best interests does Professor Alhassan really represent?

 


 

Edwin Kweku Andoh Baffour is Acting Director of Communications with Food Sovereignty Ghana. The original article has been expanded and edited by The Ecologist.

Twitter: twitter.com/FoodSovereignGH
Facebook: facebook.com/FoodSovereigntyGhana

 




390291

Don’t ‘abhor’ us – abhor GMO scientists laden with conflicts of interest! Updated for 2026





Speaking at a public meeting organised for farmers in Ghana’s Brong Ahafo Region entitled “GMOs the truth and misconceptions”, Professor Walter Sandow Alhassan advised farmers to avoid being misled by anti-GMO groups, telling them:

“We should get away from this misinformation and try to see how we can revolutionize our agriculture and move with modern trends.”

He is also quoted as calling for groups opposing GMOs and corporate seed-grabbing like Food Sovereignty Ghana (FSG) to be “abhorred”, because, according to him, “those groups do not have any scientific proof or knowledge to offer when it comes to Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) technology.”

We at FSG are shocked by Alhassan’s reported pronouncements urging farmers to reject our warnings and stand by our position that accepting GMOs will result in seed colonisation and seed slavery. In truth, what Ghanaian farmers need to abhor and reject is scientists laden with conflicts of interest.

Because ultimately, genetic engineering is about private corporate control of the food system. Monsanto and Syngenta are particularly greedy to get their hands on Ghana’s agriculture and control the seed market here – and Professor Alhassan is a key servant of the global GMO establishment helping to make this resource grab possible.

The meeting itself also deserves examination. It was organised by the Ghana Chapter of the Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa (OFAB) in collaboration with the GMO-pushing, Gates Foundation-supported African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) which itself created OFAB in 2006.

OFAB’s purpose is to “positively change public perceptions toward modern biotechnology. This will lead to increased adoption of GM products in Africa and the rest of the world.” So it iis hardly an impartial voice of science!

Another co-sponsor of the meeting was CSIR, the South African-based Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, which works in biotech, GMOs and synthetic biology – and which notoriously ‘biopirated’ the Hoodia plant – appropriating and patenting the traditional knowledge of the San people of southern Africa.

Who pays the piper …

Alhassan, now a consultant, is himself a former Director General of CSIR, and much of his career has been funded by the biotech industry – some by Monsanto, particularly his education and early history, and more lately by Syngenta and the Syngenta Foundation.

Naturally he supports GMOs. He has spent his entire life in their service. He is Syngenta’s man in Ghana. And he exemplifies the close links forged by Big Ag with key figures in the academic world. As Kamil Ahsan writes in his article ‘The New Scientism‘:

“Today, large numbers of scientists are in the employ of Big Pharma, Big Ag, and all kinds of corporations with anti-environmental and anti-social justice agendas.”

And while academics are still largely publicly funded, “many receive grants or training fellowships from biotech, pharmaceutical, or agricultural companies; serve on advisory panels and committees; oversee and participate in industry-funded events and colloquiums; and rely on industry links as funnels for outgoing graduate students or postdoctoral candidates. GMOs are a good example of how academics function as cheerleaders for Big Ag.”

Big Ag is not afraid to lie about the GMOs they are pushing. For example Monsanto has just been forced to withdraw advertisements in South Africa because of unsubstantiated information and false claims that GMO crops “enable us to produce more food sustainably whilst using fewer resources; provide a healthier environment by saving on pesticides; decrease greenhouse gas emissions and increase crop yields substantially.”

Yet we hear Professor Alhassan and his network repeating these same untruths over and over again and calling them ‘science’. When he warns that anti GMO groups do not have any scientific proof or knowledge to offer when it comes to GMO technology, he is surely trying to suppress scientific inquiry, knowledge and debate.

More information on the dangers of GMO pesticide plants comes out every day, this despite the fact that the biotechnology industry has done its best to suppress any studies or information that does not support industry claims.

GMO cowpeas a threat to all of Africa

Right now Professor Alhassan and his corporate and academic cronies are trying to get Bt cowpeas into the Ghanaian market. Bt cowpeas are laden with pesticides as are all Bt GMO plants. When Ghanaians eat Bt cowpeas they will be eating pesticides.

In the US Bt plants are registered as pesticides by the USDA. When you eat any part of a Bt plant, you are eating a toxic pesticide – one aimed at insects, but which also impacts on humans. Although Bt does occur in nature, that is quite different than having a plant which contains Bt toxin in every cell of the plant.

With Bt in nature, and when used as a dust or spray in agroecological farming, the active toxin can only be found in the gut of the insect. The plant itself contains no Bt. If there is any residual spray or dust on the surface of the plant it can be washed off.

However, with the Bt in GMO cowpeas and all other Bt GMO plants, as GM Watch points out, “active toxin is in every plant cell and tissue, all the time and cannot be washed off … active toxins are not easily degraded by gut enzymes and, since they are lectins, they all are very likely to bind to the wall of the mammalian / human gut.”

And that means they are likely to be processed into your body creating who knows what short term or long term health risks and dangers.

Those insects that are controlled and killed by the Bt in Bt GMO plants evolve a tolerance for the Bt toxin and come back stronger over time, as recently observed in Brazil where BT corn is actually less resistant to the Fall Armyworm than conventional varieties.

Other opportunistic insects will take advantage of the lack of competition and move in to take the place of the former pests creating new super pests. That is happening in the US where GMOs have been around for 20 years.

And it’s leading to more and stronger pesticides being used every year, endangering the health of humans and livestock, degrading and polluting the soil, water, and air across US farmlands.

It is particularly worrisome to have Bt cowpeas growing in Ghana, a species indigenous to West Africa, as the GMO crops will contaminate neighboring crops with their pollen. If grown in quantity, GMO cowpeas could contaminate the entire region of West Africa. Because of this kind of contamination, Mexico has banned growing Bt corn – a ruling fiercely fought by Monsanto.

Cowpeas are one of the most important food crops in Africa’s drylands: they survive high temperatures with little water, even on very sandy soils, fix nitrogen, and are shade tolerant, allowing them to be used in agroforestry systems.

We must unite to fight this evil law!

If the Ghana Plant Breeders Bill is passed, it would allow the corporate GMO owners to claim all offspring of that contamination as their own property according to their intellectual property rights.

They could force a farmer whose crop is contaminated – against the farmer’s will, and providing no benefit to the farmer – to pay for the contaminated crop, to pay damages to the corporation! They could also force farmers to destroy their crops.

This is happening across the United States and in Canada where GMO corporations are winning huge financial judgements against farmers. It is happening in other countries that have passed UPOV laws such as Ghana’s Plant Breeders Bill. This is what Professor Alhassan intends to bring to Ghana’s farmers, claiming it is ‘progress’ and calling it ‘science’. It is just old fashioned corporate greed.

Contamination of the West African cowpea means the destruction of Ghana’s heritage, destruction of the seed DNA Ghana’s farmers, going back generations and centuries, have laboured to develop and preserve.

This is biopiracy, made legal by the Plant Breeders Bill. Professor Walter Alhassan may believe that this destruction is simply ‘science’, but it is in truth a tool by which foreign corporations aim to profit and re-colonize Ghana, West Africa, and the entire continent of Africa.

Would you trust Professor Walter Alhassan to make decisions about what you eat? Do you trust Professor Alhassan and his recommended scientific cronies to tell you what to plant, or what seeds you are required to use? Whose best interests does Professor Alhassan really represent?

 


 

Edwin Kweku Andoh Baffour is Acting Director of Communications with Food Sovereignty Ghana. The original article has been expanded and edited by The Ecologist.

Twitter: twitter.com/FoodSovereignGH
Facebook: facebook.com/FoodSovereigntyGhana

 




390291

Don’t ‘abhor’ us – abhor GMO scientists laden with conflicts of interest! Updated for 2026





Speaking at a public meeting organised for farmers in Ghana’s Brong Ahafo Region entitled “GMOs the truth and misconceptions”, Professor Walter Sandow Alhassan advised farmers to avoid being misled by anti-GMO groups, telling them:

“We should get away from this misinformation and try to see how we can revolutionize our agriculture and move with modern trends.”

He is also quoted as calling for groups opposing GMOs and corporate seed-grabbing like Food Sovereignty Ghana (FSG) to be “abhorred”, because, according to him, “those groups do not have any scientific proof or knowledge to offer when it comes to Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) technology.”

We at FSG are shocked by Alhassan’s reported pronouncements urging farmers to reject our warnings and stand by our position that accepting GMOs will result in seed colonisation and seed slavery. In truth, what Ghanaian farmers need to abhor and reject is scientists laden with conflicts of interest.

Because ultimately, genetic engineering is about private corporate control of the food system. Monsanto and Syngenta are particularly greedy to get their hands on Ghana’s agriculture and control the seed market here – and Professor Alhassan is a key servant of the global GMO establishment helping to make this resource grab possible.

The meeting itself also deserves examination. It was organised by the Ghana Chapter of the Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa (OFAB) in collaboration with the GMO-pushing, Gates Foundation-supported African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) which itself created OFAB in 2006.

OFAB’s purpose is to “positively change public perceptions toward modern biotechnology. This will lead to increased adoption of GM products in Africa and the rest of the world.” So it iis hardly an impartial voice of science!

Another co-sponsor of the meeting was CSIR, the South African-based Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, which works in biotech, GMOs and synthetic biology – and which notoriously ‘biopirated’ the Hoodia plant – appropriating and patenting the traditional knowledge of the San people of southern Africa.

Who pays the piper …

Alhassan, now a consultant, is himself a former Director General of CSIR, and much of his career has been funded by the biotech industry – some by Monsanto, particularly his education and early history, and more lately by Syngenta and the Syngenta Foundation.

Naturally he supports GMOs. He has spent his entire life in their service. He is Syngenta’s man in Ghana. And he exemplifies the close links forged by Big Ag with key figures in the academic world. As Kamil Ahsan writes in his article ‘The New Scientism‘:

“Today, large numbers of scientists are in the employ of Big Pharma, Big Ag, and all kinds of corporations with anti-environmental and anti-social justice agendas.”

And while academics are still largely publicly funded, “many receive grants or training fellowships from biotech, pharmaceutical, or agricultural companies; serve on advisory panels and committees; oversee and participate in industry-funded events and colloquiums; and rely on industry links as funnels for outgoing graduate students or postdoctoral candidates. GMOs are a good example of how academics function as cheerleaders for Big Ag.”

Big Ag is not afraid to lie about the GMOs they are pushing. For example Monsanto has just been forced to withdraw advertisements in South Africa because of unsubstantiated information and false claims that GMO crops “enable us to produce more food sustainably whilst using fewer resources; provide a healthier environment by saving on pesticides; decrease greenhouse gas emissions and increase crop yields substantially.”

Yet we hear Professor Alhassan and his network repeating these same untruths over and over again and calling them ‘science’. When he warns that anti GMO groups do not have any scientific proof or knowledge to offer when it comes to GMO technology, he is surely trying to suppress scientific inquiry, knowledge and debate.

More information on the dangers of GMO pesticide plants comes out every day, this despite the fact that the biotechnology industry has done its best to suppress any studies or information that does not support industry claims.

GMO cowpeas a threat to all of Africa

Right now Professor Alhassan and his corporate and academic cronies are trying to get Bt cowpeas into the Ghanaian market. Bt cowpeas are laden with pesticides as are all Bt GMO plants. When Ghanaians eat Bt cowpeas they will be eating pesticides.

In the US Bt plants are registered as pesticides by the USDA. When you eat any part of a Bt plant, you are eating a toxic pesticide – one aimed at insects, but which also impacts on humans. Although Bt does occur in nature, that is quite different than having a plant which contains Bt toxin in every cell of the plant.

With Bt in nature, and when used as a dust or spray in agroecological farming, the active toxin can only be found in the gut of the insect. The plant itself contains no Bt. If there is any residual spray or dust on the surface of the plant it can be washed off.

However, with the Bt in GMO cowpeas and all other Bt GMO plants, as GM Watch points out, “active toxin is in every plant cell and tissue, all the time and cannot be washed off … active toxins are not easily degraded by gut enzymes and, since they are lectins, they all are very likely to bind to the wall of the mammalian / human gut.”

And that means they are likely to be processed into your body creating who knows what short term or long term health risks and dangers.

Those insects that are controlled and killed by the Bt in Bt GMO plants evolve a tolerance for the Bt toxin and come back stronger over time, as recently observed in Brazil where BT corn is actually less resistant to the Fall Armyworm than conventional varieties.

Other opportunistic insects will take advantage of the lack of competition and move in to take the place of the former pests creating new super pests. That is happening in the US where GMOs have been around for 20 years.

And it’s leading to more and stronger pesticides being used every year, endangering the health of humans and livestock, degrading and polluting the soil, water, and air across US farmlands.

It is particularly worrisome to have Bt cowpeas growing in Ghana, a species indigenous to West Africa, as the GMO crops will contaminate neighboring crops with their pollen. If grown in quantity, GMO cowpeas could contaminate the entire region of West Africa. Because of this kind of contamination, Mexico has banned growing Bt corn – a ruling fiercely fought by Monsanto.

Cowpeas are one of the most important food crops in Africa’s drylands: they survive high temperatures with little water, even on very sandy soils, fix nitrogen, and are shade tolerant, allowing them to be used in agroforestry systems.

We must unite to fight this evil law!

If the Ghana Plant Breeders Bill is passed, it would allow the corporate GMO owners to claim all offspring of that contamination as their own property according to their intellectual property rights.

They could force a farmer whose crop is contaminated – against the farmer’s will, and providing no benefit to the farmer – to pay for the contaminated crop, to pay damages to the corporation! They could also force farmers to destroy their crops.

This is happening across the United States and in Canada where GMO corporations are winning huge financial judgements against farmers. It is happening in other countries that have passed UPOV laws such as Ghana’s Plant Breeders Bill. This is what Professor Alhassan intends to bring to Ghana’s farmers, claiming it is ‘progress’ and calling it ‘science’. It is just old fashioned corporate greed.

Contamination of the West African cowpea means the destruction of Ghana’s heritage, destruction of the seed DNA Ghana’s farmers, going back generations and centuries, have laboured to develop and preserve.

This is biopiracy, made legal by the Plant Breeders Bill. Professor Walter Alhassan may believe that this destruction is simply ‘science’, but it is in truth a tool by which foreign corporations aim to profit and re-colonize Ghana, West Africa, and the entire continent of Africa.

Would you trust Professor Walter Alhassan to make decisions about what you eat? Do you trust Professor Alhassan and his recommended scientific cronies to tell you what to plant, or what seeds you are required to use? Whose best interests does Professor Alhassan really represent?

 


 

Edwin Kweku Andoh Baffour is Acting Director of Communications with Food Sovereignty Ghana. The original article has been expanded and edited by The Ecologist.

Twitter: twitter.com/FoodSovereignGH
Facebook: facebook.com/FoodSovereigntyGhana

 




390291