Surely I Come Quickly (SICQ) Serial 4 of 9, Chapter 4: Transgenic Foods and Organisms.

 

CHAPTER 4:  Transgenic Foods and Organisms

 

In the previous chapter, we saw that sex/sexuality is a very potent instrument for corrupting and controlling people.  An instrument even far more effective in this regard is Food.   While sex (between male and female of the same kind) is important for the survival of a specie, food is crucially important at the individual level.  In other words, whereas an individual may well have a full and even fulfilling life without once tasting sex, no one can last more than a few weeks without food.  In fact, people who demonstrate propensity for what is perceived as too much sex are often derided as trying to turn sex into food!

So, being an absolute necessity for survival, food has been used over the millennia as an agent of control over people.  The average modern man seems to have difficulty in grasping the fundamental importance of food than his ancestors.  In the olden days, the standard protocol for capturing a walled city in battle, is first to lay a siege on it, for about a year or two.  It is shortage of food that compels surrender or breakdown of such strongholds, no matter how well fortified.  A Yoruba adage says that it is hunger that teaches “sense” to a raving mad man!

It is therefore clear that he who controls the food source of an individual or a community, has literally absolute control over them.  And if such a controller decides to lace the food with corrupting substances of his choice, both the physical body as well as the mind of such controlled people, could be in jeopardy of corruption.

All this makes it elementary and stark obvious, that Satan would actively target taking control of foods, if he is indeed serious in his agenda to corrupt and control mankind in order to spite the almighty Creator-God.  Indeed, his original effort to corrupt man in the garden of Eden was through food, the “forbidden fruit”. That event also shows that it is not only hunger that drives people into eating even what they know they should not eat. 

In his repeat effort at destroying humanity, whilst tempting the Lord Jesus in the wilderness, Satan’s first salvo was in relation to food: “turn this stone into bread and prove your divinity”, he suggested to the Lord at a time He was literally famishing.  The Lord’s response, citing Deut 8:3, reminds us that we must exercise discernment and spirituality, even as we pursue the legitimate business of finding what to eat.  As explained in Hebrews 12:16, Esau failed to exercise that necessary spiritual restraint and lost out big time. Today, virtually no initiation ritual into the occult is complete without some eating and drinking to seal the spiritual corruption.

This spiritual aspect of eating has an analogy in the Kingdom of God.  In the rite of the Holy Communion, the Lord Jesus invites us to His table, bidding us to remember what He has done for us, and to simultaneously look forward to His coming to share table with us again at the Marriage Supper (Luke 22:18).  As expounded by the Apostle Paul:

“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” 1 Cor. 11:26.

 

 

A Brief History of Food Control Efforts and Strategies on Earth

 Satan’s attempt to take over the control of food for humanity has been subtle, slow, and steady over several decades.  As the end-time singularity approaches, he seems to have now thrown all subtilty aside in desperation.  However, the average modern man seems either unable to see what is happening, or feels totally helpless to resist flowing along with the evil.

 

Commoditization of Food

Perhaps the first major step leading to food losing its fundamental position in our lives is the commoditization of food.  Food used to be in an eminent category of its own, like its senior cousins needed for survival, air and water.   In the past, people produced their own foods, largely within their locality if not within the household.  Commercial agriculture mainly involved “cash crops” – such as cocoa, cotton, and kolanut, rather than food crops direly needed for survival.  Gradually however, food became relegated to a secondary status as people started considering their vocations so important and demanding, that they could entrust their food supply to strangers from elsewhere. Those, in turn, turn food production and marketing into a full-time vocation.  And so, gradually, food turned into a commodity to be traded in, rather than what was exchanged or offered complimentarily.  Today, even water has largely turned to a commodity, a taboo just a generation ago, at least in Yorubaland.  One can only hope that clean air would not suffer the same fate in the emerging post-modern world, if the Lord tarries!

 

Profit versus Food Quality

With the commoditization and commercialization of food, the issue of profit soon became a major consideration alongside food quality in food production.  Apart from the primary role of providing fuel for the body, the quality of food also has to do with their nutritional value and issues like taste and deliciousness.  Commercialization of foods meant that food quality could be compromised in order to maximize profit.

To cut short a long story, the new refrain became “Agriculture must be taken as business, to ensure food security”.  This statement betrays an implicit equation of “agriculture” with “food production.” The point being that when food cultivation becomes exceedingly profitable, more and more people will be drawn to it, thus guaranteeing availability of food for society. The result however is that as “tonnage” of harvest per acre of land cultivated became the chief consideration for farmers, the process of producing that harvest became a secondary issue.  In short, the end began to justify the means.

The “means” in this context is the practice of monocropping, where efficient deployment of the invented tools requires that the same market-indicated crop is cultivated extensively, and repeatedly, over a particular terrain.  One of the immediate consequences of this is that the use of agrochemicals - herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizer, became virtually inevitable if the enterprise is to succeed at all, not to talk of making huge profit.  

In monocropping, one thing leads to another as in a chain reaction. To begin with, soil fertility diminishes rapidly as the same crop, requiring a particular set of nutrients is perennially planted on the same plot, A different crop in a different season would have required different set of nutrients which are still available in the soil and not yet depleted. Monocropping therefore requires extensive use of fertilizer to replenish the soil nutrients and ensure good crop yield. The snag here is that it is only the so-called major nutrients (Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium) that are provided in many synthetic fertilizers.  Minor and trace elements, very important components of a balanced diet, are not replenished.  Consequently, the quality of the food produced is seriously degraded without it being visibly noticed.

Pesticides and herbicides are even more essential in monocropping.  Pests that were attracted to the cultivated land in the previous farming season, and which could only cause minimal damage at that time because they were new comers and were just beginning to lay eggs (for example), are now ready to swarm the farm in the incoming season.  Again, traditional crop rotation would have taken care of this to a large extent. With the planting of different crops in the new season, the waiting pests would waste away, as they struggle to adapt to the unexpected new ecosystem; in addition to having other new arrivals, pests more adapted to the new crop, to contend with.  In the present dispensation of monocropping, it is herbicides and pesticides to the rescue! 

This, of course, constitutes grave health hazards and consequently seriously degrades the quality of the food.  For an extended period in recent years, food exports from Nigeria were banned in Europe simply because they contained unacceptably high levels of agrochemicals, including those known to be carcinogenic¹.  (Unfortunately, such factors are hardly considered in the local market).  Apart from the economic implication of loss of lucrative foreign markets for the farm products, there is even a more direct economic consequence to the mandatory use of agrochemicals as imposed by monocropping.  This is the fact that those indispensable agrochemicals come at a cost - determined solely by the multinational monopolies producing them.  Worse still, after a while, the old agrochemicals become ineffective as the pests adapt to them, requiring new costlier chemicals! 

Of course, it is true to a large extent, that if the business of food cultivation is unprofitable, even people who felt called to be so engaged might have to move into other ventures to secure their livelihood.  This is where government’s intervention could be relevant and helpful; for instance through subsidies, appropriate incentives, infrastructure, and other support services. These could help keep food producers in business, without them having to compromise on food quality.  Food production could be mechanized and made profitable, without necessarily being chemicalized and merchandised.

However, the ultimate challenge with monocropping, associated with its very grand nature, and the promises of grand profits, is the possibility of a similarly grand failure, should something go wrong.  In short, the scale of the risks involved with farming also becomes huge.  Farming is therefore literally turned to a “do or die” affair, making farmers exceedingly vulnerable to various manipulations by external organized bodies, who are keen on doing so.  Invariably, all these translate into getting the populace more vulnerable to external control and corruption.

In the western countries, where the farming industry is tightly regulated, it has been observed that farmers have largely been reduced to serfs on their own land.  After procuring huge loans to raise the needed capital, farmers find themselves facing a barrage of unending novel regulations and protocols, many of doubtful utility.  A recent documentary released by the Children Health Defense collated a number of these factors, and lamented their impact on the regular farmer in the United States.  Excerpts²:

“Whether we like it or not, powerful forces are threatening our diet in new ways … ways that most of us never dreamed of. Farmers are being squeezed from many directions:

·         U.S. chicken farmers were forced to cull 100 million birds since 2022 to prevent bird flu. It didn't work.

·         Dairy farmers are being pressured to implement expensive "biosecurity" measures in dairies. Yet no one has caught bird flu from food or milk.

·         Cows belch methane, a greenhouse gas — so their number must be reduced, it is said.

·         A diminishing number of USDA-approved slaughterhouses means ranchers are unable to expand their herds to meet demand.

·         Owners of land under conservation easements may soon see restrictions on land use.

·         Hundreds of insect farms are already churning out products we and our animals will be expected to eat.

 

Corrupting Seeds

All the above developments ultimately lead to the crux of the matter, the seed.  This is the climax which ultimately points at another approaching singularity, a situation that is capable of shutting down the current world order, one way or the other. 

We begin by recognizing that the seed is one of the aptest demonstrations of God’s ingenuity and generosity. Inside the seed is stored a limitless number of the entire plant!

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.”  Gen. 1:11 

Without the ingenuity of the seed concept, there will be no way life on earth can be sustainable.  Inside a tiny mini-capsule, God has stored up the food a man will need to live his entire life of several decades, and also for his future progenies, indefinitely.  If all the food needed to sustain a single man for even a single year were required to be made available as ready product, one can only imagine the storage challenge (not to talk of wholesomeness issues) that would pose for the world.  A glimpse is provided in the several underground doomsday bunkers billionaires are currently building all over the world in expectation of a soon-coming global catastrophe. Storage for “non-perishable” foods takes a big chunk of the space!  Advertisement and specifications for such bunkers abound on the internet.  For example, see https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/doomsday-bunkers

The seed comes specially customized for our planet.  All a man has to do is sow the seed (if it is kept unsown, nothing happens to it – Jhn 12:24), and the rest is up to God!

“… So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.  Mark 4:26-28

 

“ For as the earth bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth; so the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.” (Isa. 61:11)

Even more marvelous is God’s goodness and generosity in giving us these seeds for free!  Sadly, not many people seem to appreciate this gesture.  In a series of slow subtle moves, modern society has been lured to a point that the sovereignty freely given mankind over foods is now nearly all but relinquished to corporations, who are fronting for you know who.

First was the gradual adulation and acceptance of the concept of “seedless fruits.”   As described in the wikipaedia article on the subject³:

“A seedless fruit is a fruit developed to possess no mature seeds. Since eating seedless fruits is generally easier and more convenient, they are considered commercially valuable.”

According to the article, there are two general ways these “convenient-to-eat,” “commercially valuable” seedless fruits are produced by plant breeders.  Either the fruit is made to develop without having been fertilized (no pollination), or if fertilized, the ovules or embryos are made to abort without producing mature seeds. As noted above, the consuming public did not consider it a big deal that there should be certain versions of common crops that are seedless.  Especially, since those crops could still be regenerated asexually, using their stems.  Extreme examples are banana and pineapple, which over the centuries have been bred to become seedless, but nevertheless can still be easily grown by interested members of the public.

As pointed out in the wikipaedia article, a major problem associated with seedless crops is the “significant reduction in the genetic diversity of the species”.  To guarantee stability and security of the food system against adverse environmental conditions, the almighty God made the seeds of diverse multiple varieties, referred to as genetic diversity – a type of biodiversity.  This ensures that in the event of some external environmental calamity that could befall a species, there are always some varieties that would be resistant to that stressor, thus making it extremely difficult to totally wipe out that species.

Unlike the situation where a crop is in-bred repeatedly with itself to becoming seedless, cross-breeding could be carried out between different strains of the species to produce more resilient individuals.  Crossbreeding in both crop and animal husbandry is a well-established practice in our world today, with the goal of having products with certain desired traits.  However, while not practically “seedless,” the hybrid product is generally unable to consistently pass its new traits to subsequent generations.  On their website, Farming Farmers explained this and other issues associated with hybrids⁴:

“Hybrid farming involves the use of hybrid seed varieties, which are created by cross-breeding two or more genetically-distinct parent plants. Seeds from a hybrid plant are highly resistant to pests, diseases, and adverse weather conditions. …….However, …. crops from hybridisation may require more pesticides and fertilizers, which goes a long way to harm the environment. Not only that it makes it quite difficult for farmers as they tend to purchase new seeds every season, as hybrid crops do not produce viable seeds for replanting. These crops, when cultivated, using hybridisation may have lower nutritional value, compared to traditional varieties, as it is more susceptible to diseases or pests.”

“All hybrid seeds produced by farmers usually produce similar plants while seeds from the next generation from those hybrids will not consistently have the desired characteristics”   

Hybrids, marketed as “improved seeds” thus lead mankind another subtle small step away from food sovereignty.  While “seedless seeds” applied only to fruits in particular, hybridization is applicable to all crops, including grains and legumes, which are the basic staples in many regions of the world.  To recap, society is first goaded to accept the concept of seedless fruits.  That acceptance is then subconsciously transferred to the concept of hybridized seeds, which give products with “improved” traits, which traits however cannot be guaranteed to be transferred to the next generation. This applies to all foods, not just fruits.

Many of us can readily recognize this reality, in the case of chickens for example.  “Hybrid chicken” may indeed have several desirable traits such as fast growth-rate (“broilers”), or prodigious egg-laying capability (“layers”), but they do not pass these traits to offsprings.  And, by the way, neither can their nutritional value or taste be compared with those of any of the original parents!

The outcome of this situation is that, rather than gamble with sowing the seed from a hybrid in the next planting season with no certainty about the quality of the products that would result, farmers prudently opt to return to the seed producer for fresh supply of so-called parent stock or F1 seed, every planting season.  It could be disastrous to wait and discover the product the seed would bring, after the planting season had already gone!

It is when the multinational monopolies involved in development of hybrid seeds tried to move to the next logical step in the ultimate agenda of establishing absolute control over the food industry, that the public woke up somewhat.  That logical next step was the introduction of biotechnology to develop what is called “Terminator Technology.” This means the seed (in fruits or grains) is actually deliberately rendered sterile, so it is guaranteed to be unplantable.  This could be achieved by genetically engineering the seed to produce certain toxins that would abort embryos.  The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network explains⁵: 

“What is Terminator? Terminator Technology genetically engineers plants to produce sterile seeds at harvest. It was developed by the multinational seed/agrochemical industry and the US government to prevent farmers from re-planting harvested seed and force farmers to buy seed each season instead.”

It is also possible to achieve the same result without recourse to genetical engineering by the use of an external chemical inducer to control the expression of a plant’s genetic traits.  In that situation, the broader term used is Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT).

The justification for all of these, is that the “seed companies,” not quite ready to play Father Christmas, determined they could not afford to give to their clients seeds that reproduce indefinitely - as seeds are supposed to do.  To be fair, it is not difficult to imagine an unscrupulous entrepreneur  turning himself to a seed merchant simply by buying a few “improved” seeds, which he could then use to endlessly generate same quality of seeds, to be marketed as his own product.

Kevin Folta, Professor of Environmental Horticulture of the University of Florida, in the United States, passionately tried to make a case for Terminator Technology.  His argument is that the public should accept Terminator Technology, seeing that hybridization has already been accepted, and hybrids (conventional or GMOs) are actually terminators to all practical purposes⁶:

“However, if a farmer were to save seeds from the hybrid the genetics would scramble again. The next generation would produce plants where there was no genetic uniformity. Most plants would have deleterious traits, maybe poor resistance to disease, bad yield or unmarketable corn quality. So in all fairness, hybrids are also functionally “terminators” in that they require the farmer to repurchase seeds every year.” 

Prof Folta’s opinion should be considered along with the fact that he has been exposed as the recipient of a twenty-five thousand dollar “unrestricted grant” from Monsanto to push pro-GMO propaganda to the public.  He had responded to that “grant” with the promise to provide Monsanto a “solid return on the investment.”⁷

So, the awoken public finally saw that the endgame in view is the establishment of absolute control on food supplies.  The fact that hybridization, with its encouragement that seeds be repurchased every planting season, has been docilely accepted in food production, does not mean that terminators, which will make such repurchases mandatory, also should be embraced.  With the massive public outcry, the United Nations, with the acquiescence of Monsanto, agreed to put in place a moratorium banning the terminator technology.

To “protect their investment” in developing the improved hybrid seeds, the developers then resort to very stringent “intellectual property” rules, forbidding the sharing with others, or even saving harvested seeds for replanting come another planting season. These bio-copyright rules were vigorously and very harshly implemented. [In fact, between 1997 and 2010, Monsanto filed 144 patent-infringement law suits against farmers].  The vigorous and very harsh implementation of these bio-copyright rules has been the subject to massive outcries and court actions by farmers all over the world.  The farmers challenge the justness in a foreign company coming to pick God-given seeds from their natural habitat, and by manipulating them into a hybrid, now turning around to lay claim to absolute ownership of the product.  Did the companies pay royalty to the community (or God) for the use of the original seeds?    This subject is well reviewed in a 2015 article by GRAIN⁸.  On its website, GRAIN is described as “a small international non-profit organisation that works to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems” 

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

At the present time, the multinational corporations are actively engaged in fresh lobbies to reintroduce Terminator Technology, waving a product from Synthetic Biology as providing a concessionary mid-ground position.  To be discussed in details later, Synthetic Biology now offers the possibility that the desired trait in the “improved seed” could be locked up in the seed, and farmers would need to buy some proprietary chemicals that would serve as key to unlock this feature.  Farmers who cannot afford the new traits can still have the regular, original seed available to them, thus posing little risk to the food supply while at the same time protecting the proprietary rights of the seed developers.    The pro-GMO advocacy “Genetic Literacy Project” explains on its website⁹:

“The number of patents on GURTs by public and private institutions/companies has not ceased, suggesting that companies are still seeking the “development of alternative strategies to prevent the unauthorized use of patented seeds and plant varieties.”

“Another approach would be to switch off the transgene of interest in seeds, so that they could grow into new plants but would not pass on the benefits of the engineered trait. Synthetic Biology company Ginkgo Bioworks uses another strategy it calls “gene-guard technology.” It places the transgene under the control of a switch that must be activated by a proprietary chemical that gives companies control over the engineered trait by forcing buyers to return each year to purchase the chemical.”

The subject of Synthetic Biology finally brings us to the critical subject of Genetically Modified seeds, which as we shall see shortly, represents a fast-approaching singularity in the food sector on earth.

 

Transgenic Foods (GMOs)

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) push hybridization into realms explicitly forbidden by nature.  Conventional hybridization works only between strains of the same species, and even then, the farther genetically apart the individuals are, the less likely there would be success.  For example, while it is possible to get an offspring (useful or not) by crossbreeding a donkey and a horse, mixing together the genetic materials of a donkey and a chicken will not produce any offspring at all.  The interaction of genetic materials across different species is forbidden by nature.

In the new field of genetic engineering, it is now possible to force genetic materials from an organism from one species into another organism of a completely different species.  In fact, the most common manipulations with respect to foods involve forcing genetic materials from bacteria into plants.  The resulting organism is totally unknown to nature, and is one that would never have arisen by any natural process.

Apostles of seed improvement insist that such products (GMOs) are however desirable, and indeed are necessary, in order to cope with the emerging problems associated with monocropping.   As they claim, the new field of biotechnology with its gene editing, speeds up cross-breeding efforts to make available more resilient seeds, which can be speedily customized for particular adverse situations as they emerge.  [We will hear the same dubious claim in the next chapter ostensibly on the need for speedy development of gene-editing drugs and “vaccines”].  Some of these advocates dubiously (knowing it is not true!) suggest that those seeds might have emerged after perhaps a thousand years of repeated natural crossbreeding, and that the new technology only helps speed things up.

The truth of the matter, however, is that organisms incorporating genetic materials across different species would never have happened in nature, even if we waited a trillion years.  The distinctive, definitive element in a GMO is that it entailed transfer of genetic materials across different species.  Bluntly put, the genetic materials given to us in nature, are being forcefully corrupted.

It is important to understand this fundamental difference between natural cross-breeding of plants and animals, and genetically modified organisms.

As defined by the World Health Organization (WHO)¹⁰:

“Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.  The technology is often called “modern biotechnology” or “gene technology”, sometimes also “recombinant DNA technology” or “genetic engineering”. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between nonrelated species.  Foods produced from or using GM organisms are often referred to as GM foods.” 

The same point, that GMOs cannot occur naturally, is clearly made by the US Department of Agriculture¹¹:

“The Standard defines bioengineered foods as those that contain detectable genetic material that has been modified through certain lab techniques and cannot be created through conventional breeding or found in nature.”

And for emphasis, we cite also the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN)¹²:

“Unlike conventional breeding and hybridization, genetic engineering techniques are artificial laboratory techniques that directly intervene in the genome. The techniques enable the direct transfer of genes between organisms in different species or kingdoms that would never breed in nature, the introduction of new sequences that do not even exist in nature, and direct intervention to induce changes in the genome (such as with gene editing techniques).”    

The point here is that there are strict natural principles governing breeding (mingling of genetic materials) if they are to yield products that fit in with the rest of the natural ecosystem and thus prove beneficial to the world.  As earlier mentioned, when seeds from the same species, differing only in strains, are combined, more resilient offsprings can result.  However, as the differences in the strains become pronounced, the resulting offsprings are found to be unable to transmit the traits for which cause the hybridization had been initiated.  At some point, the offsprings are produced totally sterile.  For example the mule, the product of a male donkey (jack) and a female horse is always sterile, as is the hinnie, the product of a male horse and a female donkey.  On the other extreme, if the two individuals being hybridized are too close, then what is called diversity (or inbreeding) depression results and the offspring is likewise feeble¹³.  This is probably why the Creator forbids incestuous and consanguineous sexual relationships.  In this discussion, we should bear in mind that our current definition of what constitute different species, genus, families, orders, class, etc, might not be perfect. It might be interesting to note that Wikipaedia defines a species “as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.¹⁴  The concept is captured in the Bible with the word “kind”.(Gen 1:11 & 12).

Forced, engineered “hybridization” (if one may apply that term for GMOs) between organisms across different species or even kingdoms have totally crossed all the red lines set by nature. Sure enough, GMOs also exhibit all the negative attributes of conventional hybrids, the major one being the unpredictable nature of the offspring.  With the huge gap between the two parents being hybridized in GMOs, and the imprecision in the techniques, such as for the gene insertion, it is no surprise that the unpredictability of the features of the offspring will be huge as well, rendering it practically useless as a seed for replanting. 

Apart from manifesting all the problems associated with conventional hybrids, however, genetical engineering has its own gamut of novel problems.  These include problems associated with the techniques used to breach the nucleus (to either delete or re-arrange its DNA, or to insert foreign DNAs) and problems stemming from the enormous deficit in our understanding of how genes function - including functions that are not dependent on the physical structure of the genes.  These problems are extensively discussed in many technical articles in peer-reviewed journals. A good summary is provided in the following Abstract of a well-cited article from the Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology¹⁶:

“Plant transformation is a genetic engineering tool for introducing transgenes into plant genomes. It is now being used for the breeding of commercial crops. A central feature of transformation is insertion of the transgene into plant chromosomal DNA. Transgene insertion is infrequently, if ever, a precise event. Mutations found at transgene insertion sites include deletions and rearrangements of host chromosomal DNA and introduction of superfluous DNA. Insertion sites introduced using Agrobacterium tumefaciens tend to have simpler structures but can be associated with extensive chromosomal rearrangements, while those of particle bombardment appear invariably to be associated with deletion and extensive scrambling of inserted and chromosomal DNA. Ancillary procedures associated with plant transformation, including tissue culture and infection with A tumefaciens, can also introduce mutations. These genome-wide mutations can number from hundreds to many thousands per diploid genome. Despite the fact that confidence in the safety and dependability of crop species rests significantly on their genetic integrity, the frequency of transformation-induced mutations and their importance as potential biosafety hazards are poorly understood.”  

There are also serious flaws in the philosophies and concepts behind the genetic modification of foods. For example, a major application involves the transfer of genes from bacteria (in particular Baccilus thiurengiensis, Bt) into plants.  Bt is known to produce some proteins which are toxic to insects and worms that trouble plants, and are used as natural biopesticides.  By forcefully incorporating the genes that code for those toxic proteins into the genome of a plant, the plant can also be made to start producing those toxins internally.   This is then touted as a solution to the massive use of pesticides required in monocropping, with its consequent environmental impacts.

However, it is well established that the gene of interest could actually code for several proteins, each with varying degrees of toxicity, which may be further complicated by the presence of other proteins, and indeed other microorganisms normally resident in the gut of people who consume such products as food. The outcome of all these interactions takes the word “unpredictable” to a new level!  Furthermore, it has also been established that the toxins expressed by Bt in the modified plant and the Bt toxins in natural soil bacteria are frequently not identical as assumed.  In the particular case of GM beans in Nigeria, it has been shown by Then and co-workers¹⁵ “that the r-Bt toxins expressed in the plants are not identical to Bt toxins found in natural soil bacteria. …. Rather, it was modified by Monsanto to improve its expression in the plant cell.”  All these, as shown by Swanson and co-workers¹⁷ in a landmark publication, could lead to various adverse health effects including allergies, infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen, and gastrointestinal system.  These and various other health problems, happen to be the primary reason for the proscription of GMO foods in several European Union countries and elsewhere today.

Another popular application of GMOs in foods is directed at herbicides.  The crop can be engineered to become resistance to some chemicals normally used as herbicides, allowing the seed to be sown literally among weeds.  The farm is thereafter sprayed with those herbicides which decimate the weeds, but leave the genetically modified plant thriving.  While this innovation celebrates the elimination of laborious repeated mechanical weeding, it clearly promotes the liberal use of herbicides.  And not just any herbicides, but the specific ones for which the plant had been engineered, with the implications for monopoly and all that.  However, the bigger problem is that the crop of interest, though itself unaffected by the huge dose of herbicide it has absorbed, will ultimately transfer that load of herbicide to whoever eats it. This is an example of the profit-over-food quality that we mentioned earlier.  The primary active agent in herbicides that plants are being engineered to resist is glysophate, a well-known carcinogen¹⁸.

The ultimate endpoint, our focus in this book, is the food security issue.  The incredible lengths multinational monopolies can, and are willing to, go in leveraging any power they acquire in control of food is sadly vividly demonstrated in the example from India.  [And the product involved is even not food, but cotton].  Monsanto introduced to Indians their “improved” seeds of the GM Bt cotton at 7 rupees per kilogram, only to gradually raise the price to 17,000 rupees per kilogram, once the farmers got stuck up with the product and natural variant became scarce.  According to India’s Crime Records Bureau of Statistics, 296,466 farmers in that country committed suicide between 1995 and 2013 largely as a result of their inability to cope with the economic losses that attended their switching to GMO crops.¹⁹  The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) at New York University School of Law together with the International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC) at New York University School of Law in their joint-study averred that the figures cited above were likely underreported.  They pointed out that women, for example, are often excluded from farmer suicide statistics because most do not have title to land—a common prerequisite for being recognized as a farmer in official statistics and programs²⁰.

Even if smaller in scope, a similar hiking of prices of “improved seeds” after creating a dependency on them by locals was reported for Enugu here in Nigeria.  According to the Sun newspaper, farmers from the coal city lamented that “the seeds they purchased at the initial stage of their foray into GM crop farming at the rate of N7,000 went up to N12,000 the following planting season. By 2023, they sold for N70,000 and this year, they are selling at over N100,000.”²¹   

Apart from issue of control, corruption is a serious issue with GMO. Corruption can be viewed physically from the perspective of the diseases that are now well associated with GMOs, or it can be viewed metaphysically in terms of social and mind control.

A good summary of the physical deleterious impacts of GMOs on health is provided by Mexico, in her ongoing tussle with the US on GMOs.   Mexico had long proscribed the cultivation of GMOs in the country, but due to constraints implicit in trade agreements, conceded that GMO products could come in from the USA and Canada under the North America Free Trade Agreement.   In 2024 however, Mexico determined that the health bill to the country supersedes the gains from trade, and following a presidential decree, it placed a ban on genetically modified corn in dough and tortillas.  It also announced a plan to gradually replace genetically modified corn in all human and animal foods ²². In the subsequent legal tussle, it submitted over 150 peer reviewed scientific papers confirming the deleterious impacts of GMOs on human health.^{23, 24}  The point in Mexico’s argument is that the consumption pattern of GM-laced food products is different in Mexico from that in America, with Mexicans eating larger quantities and far more frequently. This is important to note. One of the first principles in toxicology is: the dose makes the poison.

 

But the potential for corruption of the soul is considerably more worrisome.  This arises from the fact that GM seeds are essentially patented blackboxes.  The germlines developed by Monsanto are given under license to research groups in a country, and also with funding coming from Monsanto and allies, the indigenous group could be announced “the producer” of the GMO material.^{25, 26.}  The point however is that they really don’t know the full details of what’s inside.  This is more than a problem of food availability or affordability.

The advent of synthetic biology is the final straw threatening to break the back of the camel in this regard.  It has shot the stakes beyond the roofs.  Synthetic biology now offers the possibility of seeds being specifically engineered to produce desired effects, not only physical but psychotic, in people of a target race.  While this could be used positively in the realm of precision and personalized medicine, there is also the possibility of a dark side where food is turned into a bioweapon against specific ethnic groups²⁷. Unfortunately, this notion is not just some conspiracy.  It has been publicly proposed by authority figures over and over, and there are allegations that trials are already ongoing!²⁸

One of the trending touted forthcoming applications of synthetic biology is the incorporation of vaccines into food, so that food can become a vehicle for mass vaccination²⁹.  It is troubling that a major reason for this suggestion is to override the determination of the so-called anti-vax people who for whatever reasons, reject mass vaccination.

These are discussed in more details in the next chapter.  Perhaps we can also point out here the potentials of GMO crops to corrupt natural plants co-existing in their neighbourhood. In 2002, the biotechnology company, ProdiGene’s, agreed  to pay the US government a $3 million fine for cross contamination of the regular food supply by the company’s GM corn.³⁰

 

A curious Biblical Statute

There is a statute in the Old Testament that has provoked much discussion among Bible students, especially practicing Jews who are anxious to fulfill to details all the Levitical commandments of God.  This statute is found in Leviticus 19:19:

“Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.”       Lev 19:19 

The question is what constitutes a “mingled seed”?  According to the Jewish study group, Chabad.com, this prohibition against “mingled seed” is referred to as kilayim.³¹

“The prohibition of kilayim is first introduced in the Torah with the words, “You shall observe my statutes.” The word for “statutes” in the original Hebrew is “chukim” (חקים), which usually refers to those laws which have no known reason”…….. Rashi¹⁴ understands this passage as referring to all the categories of kilayim, meaning that there is no explanation for them.” 

In the comments section of the article, a commentator directly questioned the rationale for instituting a statute which seems impossible to violate anyway?  Citing the particular example of grapes, he asked:

“It is known that grapes will not accept being grafted with any other planting apart from other grape varieties. Why would the Torah specify that which cannot even succeed at all?”

In our opinion, the Lord God clearly has the end-time in mind when He gave this kilayim statute.  Yes, mingling an individual seed has remained impossible for man until this generation, with the advent of genetic engineering.  The diseases, sterility, and deaths associated with the engineered mixing of DNAs in a seed is adequate evidence of incompatibility with nature.  The warning from the almighty God is clearly to prevent the disruptions GMOs can unleash in human society.

“The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”  John 10:10.

 

The March of GMOs in Nigeria

“With the largest population and economy in Africa, Nigeria’s embrace of GMOs could be a game-changer in spreading African acceptance of the technology.  …..Even if anti-GMO NGOs are successful in scaring other African nations from adopting biotechnology, Nigeria’s new generation of innovative crops will find their way across the continent.  The country has very porous borders, and smuggling is rampant.  As a result, GE seeds sanctioned for use in Nigeria are likely to be smuggled into neighboring countries….This might prompt these nations to reconsider their bans on growing GMO crops and eventually lead to broad acceptance throughout the continent.” - Steven Cerier³²

The above, penned in 2016 by a so-called “international economist”, showed the motivation for globalists to push GMOs into Nigeria, as stepping stone to the rest of Africa.

Initially touted as mark of advancement, GMOs soon ran into trouble over health concerns in Europe.  In March 2015, after years of stalemated discussion, individual nation-states in Europe won the right to opt out of cultivation of GMO crops, irrespective of the pronouncement of the central government in Brussels on their safety ³³.  About 19 of the 27 countries in the EU immediately indicated desire to opt out. 

The same situation is playing out in the US, home of the GMO technology.  On December 9 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States ruled that all US States, counties, and local communities can ban or regulate “the planting of any and all commercially-grown genetically engineered crops,” no matter the claims of federal agencies or the companies that developed the crops³⁴.  A number of counties, especially in California have subsequently banned GMOs.  It has been a titanic battle since to get GMOs regulated at the federal level in that country.  Most of the efforts was directed at compelling that all bio-engineered foods should be appropriately labelled.  GMO advocates know that the patronage of their products will crash if people could identify them on the shelves.  The big breakthrough finally came through a 2023 Federal Supreme Court ruling which now makes labelling mandatory for all GMO products in the US³⁵, effective June 23 2025.

All this loss of grounds in the huge western market would well explain the desperate search by GMO producers for new markets in Africa.

It is believed that a steady stream of GM foods has been coming into Nigeria, at least since 2003.   Olaniyan et al, 2007 pointed out³⁶ that in 2003, Nigeria received 11,000.6 metric tonnes of soy meal as food aid from the US Food for Progress programme; and this is likely to comprise of GMOs considering that over 80% of soy beans produced in the US at that time were genetically modified.  They went on to specifically state that “In 2004, Nigeria signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the United States government agreeing to support GM crops”

However, it is one thing having some tiny segments of the population consume GM products through imported delicacies found only at supermarkets or through occasional food donations during emergencies; but a totally different kettle of fish, having majority of the population do so through staples cultivated locally, and consumed regularly. As at the present time, GM cowpea (beans) and maize have been licensed for commercial cultivation in Nigeria, with cassava, potatoes, rice, and sorghum also already lined up for the same treatment. ^37,38,39 The frightening implication of all these, is that virtually all the basic staples in Nigeria are being bioengineered and released for commercial cultivation. That brings up a scary scenario where hardly any Nigerian would be able to avoid daily ingestion of GMO products.   This is unprecedented anywhere in the world. As we have remarked in the ongoing fiasco between Mexico and the US, “the dose makes the poison”!

The first salvo in the effort to promote cultivation of GMOs in Nigeria, and possibly turning her to the regional hub for the product in Sub Sahara Africa, was a false widely-published claim in 2016 by GMO pushers that Nigeria’s National Academy of Science (NAS) had endorsed such cultivation in the country. The Academy was undergoing a transitioning of officers at that time, and apparently, was unable to officially respond to the stories.  To the glory of God, we were able to debunk that gaslighting efforts with articles written on our blog for the layman, and also a scholarly article⁴⁰ in peer-reviewed journal Nigeria Journal on Environment and Health.

Despite widespread protestations by Nigerians, GMOs were pushed on the country beginning with a non-food item, Bt Cotton which was licensed for commercial release in 2016. Bt Maize was also licensed for field trials on the same date, 1^st May, 2016 [which, by the way, happened to be a public holiday].  It is interesting that the approval for commercial release of Bt cotton was granted at the same time that Burkina Faso was announcing her frustration with the same product, and consequently, its phase-out!  So, despite the proven failure of the Bt Cotton first in India (as earlier referred to), and later at Burkina Faso, the product was forced on Nigeria with the same promises of better yield and revival of the textile industry in Nigeria!  Almost a decade later, the cotton industry in Nigeria is still far from the promised El Dorado.  All there is to show for the entry of Bt Cotton into Nigeria, is that it has opened the gates for GMO foods.

Bt Cowpea (beans) moved through being licensed for field trials around 2007, to becoming licensed for commercial release effective January 2019.  According to a report in Business Day newspaper,⁴¹ about the same time, six other licenses were issued to five organizations for the importation of GMO soy bean and maize, mainly to be used as animal feeds:

“There are seven permits that have so far been issued to six different organisations for either the importation or cultivation of certain Genetically Modified crops in Nigeria. Out of these seven permits granted by the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA), six appear to strictly refer to importation, while only one permit expressly allows the cultivation of a Genetically Modified crop in Nigeria, in this case, Cowpea, popularly known as Beans.”

We scrutinized the certificate and documents submitted to support the application submitted to the NBMA for the commercial release of Bt cowpea.  Incredibly, a portion of the document erroneously described the product to be licensed as Bt Cotton, clearly indicating that materials used for the previous application of Bt Cotton were simply, perhaps hastily, cut-and-pasted into the application for Bt Cowpea!  With our pointing this out to the Nigerian public, that document has disappeared from the website of the NBMA⁴². A scrubbed version is currently on the website of  Biosafety Clearing House⁴³. We however have the original document downloaded on our archives!

However, while this constitutes only mere circumstantial evidence of lack of rigour in the licensing process for Bt Cowpea, a team from the Testbiotech e.V., Institute for Independent Impact Assessment of Biotechnology, Germany conducted a critical scientific review of the process and concluded that the risk assessment considerations that permitted the licensing was thoroughly deficient.  First, the group explained that their attention was drawn to Bt cowpea as it is the first transgenic legume to be grown on a large scale in Africa. Also, the exercise by the NBMA was the first ever risk assessment conducted anywhere in the world on Bt cowpea.  Their finding was published in the international peer-reviewed journal, Plants. It was titled Deficiencies in the Risk Assessment of Genetically Engineered Bt Cowpea Approved for Cultivation in Nigeria: A Critical Review⁴⁴

Step-by-step, with copious citations, the reviewers exposed the shoddiness of the Risk Assessment process that led to the issuance of the certificate.  At a point, the authors expressed “astonishment” at the level of incompetence demonstrated in giving the approval:

“However, the applicant did not even perform a single feeding study with the whole food and feed derived from the Bt cowpea. It is astonishing that National Biosafety Committee (NBC) did not request more data from the applicant, for example, in regard to findings on potential allergens”

Despite efforts to use polished and polite language, the authors only barely stopped short of suggesting that some of the data presented in support of the application were cooked up, as they contradicted all known science and other published data:

“The studies indicating rapid degradation of the Bt toxins after ingestion referred to by the applicant are contrary to other findings”.

The authors summarized their concerns, and bluntly recommended that the license be suspended while the applicants attend to the several serious gaps in their submission:

“Based on these findings and the data available, the following worst-case scenario should be considered, individually or in combination, if Bt cowpea is cultivated long-term and on a large scale: (i) damage to biodiversity, including non-target organisms; (ii) decrease in soil fertility; (iii) increase in immune responses after consumption of cowpea; (iv) damage to the gene pool of cowpea and its wild relatives.”

“These hazards and related adverse effects are plausible, and therefore the likelihood of their occurrence has to be assessed in detail. However, the risk assessment conducted in Nigeria failed to adequately address these issues. Based on the data available, we conclude that the identified risks and uncertainties are too serious and, therefore, that the risk assessment of Bt cowpea should be reviewed and amended. We further suggest suspending the authorization in Nigeria until the issues raised here have been addressed.”

Up till today, it does not appear that anyone in authority position in Nigeria has read this review.

On January 11, 2024, it was the turn of Bt Maize to be approved for commercial cultivation ⁴⁵  The Nigeria’s National Biosafety Management Agency had granted an environmental release permit (08 October 2021 to 08 October 2024) that allowed the Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR) to start advanced yield or national performance trials on farmers’ fields in all of Nigeria’s major maize growing belts with the 2021-22 dry season.  With the approval of the Federal Government of Nigeria (through the National Committee on Naming, Registration and Release of Crop Varieties, Livestock Breeds/Fisheries - NCNRRCVLF), for open cultivation and commercial release of TELA maize, the seeds from the IAR are now available for commercial release to farmers.

The TELA maize promises more yield than conventional seeds, resistance to stem borers and fall armyworm, and ability to thrive even with low amount of rainfall.  Various government officials attempted to create a narrative that the Maize was “produced” in Nigeria by our scientists, and is totally under our local management ^25,26.  This is amazing, seeing that the true history of TELA maize and its sponsors literally litter the internet.  The Bt Maize originated from the Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project of Mr Bill Gates, which comprised of both conventional and bioengineered components.  At the verge of collapse in 2018,⁴⁶ the GMO aspect of the project was transmuted to the TELA project under the auspices of the African Agricultural Technology Foundation  (AATF), an organization funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The following description of the TELA maize project is from the AATF:⁴⁷

“What is the TELA Maize Project? The TELA Maize Project is a public-private partnership that is working towards initiating commercialization of transgenic drought-tolerant and insect-protected maize varieties to enhance food security in Sub-Saharan Africa. The word “TELA” is derived from the Latin word TUTELA which means “Protection.” The TELA Maize Project builds on progress made from a decade of excellent breeding work under the Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) Project. WEMA’s purpose was to develop drought-tolerant and insect-protected maize varieties for farmers to produce more reliable harvests under moderate drought conditions and protect maize from insects. The project used both conventional advanced plant breeding and biotechnology in the development of the maize varieties. The TELA Project is a continuation of the transgenic WEMA component. The long-term goal of TELA is to make drought-tolerant maize and insect-protected maize varieties – TELA Maize - available royalty-free to small-scale farmers in SubSaharan Africa.  

The approval for TELA maize in Nigeria was announced in an official statement from the AATF.  It reads, in part:⁴⁸

(Nigeria, Ibadan: January 12, 2024) The Federal government of Nigeria has approved the commercial release of transgenic insect-resistant and drought-tolerant maize varieties, known as TELA maize.

The approval was granted by the National Committee on Naming, Registration and Release of Crop Varieties, Livestock Breeds/Fisheries (NCNRRCVLF) headed by Prof Olusoji Olufajo at its 33rd meeting at the National Centre for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology (NACGRAB), Ibadan on January 11, 2024.

The four varieties approved by the NVRC are, SAMMAZ 72T, SAMMAZ 73T, SAMMAZ 74T, and SAMMAZ 75T.

The release and registration of the four varieties followed environmental release approval in October 2021 granted by the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA). Development of the improved varieties was led by the Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR) Samaru, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria through the TELA Maize Public-Private Partnership coordinated by AATF. The TELA Maize Project is currently being implemented in 5 countries – Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, and South Africa.

The other partners in the TELA Maize project include National Agricultural Research Institutes in Kenya, Mozambique, Ethiopia, and South Africa, the International Maize, and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Bayer, with funding from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and USAID.

An article by Joan Conrow of the Alliance for Science noted that “Nigeria was involved in the TELA maize project for just three years before seeking the environmental release permit ⁴⁹. By comparison, it took nearly a decade for Nigerian scientists to move the GM cowpea from concept to commercial release.”

The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), one of the key partners in the TELA project, throws more light on the scope of the TELA, and clarifies who owns the proprietary information and materials:⁵⁰

“Through TELA, AATF and its partners are pursuing the regulatory approval and dissemination of new biotech/genetically-modified maize seeds containing either an insect-resistant trait or the stacked insect-resistant and drought-tolerant traits across seven target countries in Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda). The transgenic technology, including gene constructs, transformation and other recombinant DNA technologies, and other proprietary information and materials regarding the transgenes, owned by Bayer CropScience LP (formerly Monsanto Company), is licensed royalty-free to the partners for use in the project.”          

A 2023 Progress Report by the international Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), revealed where the seeds were being prepared for shipment to the target countries, when it complained of “Prolonged delays in seed shipments into Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Nigeria from South Africa”.⁵¹

A report from the South Africa based African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) however indicated that though the seeds were being prepared and shipped from South Africa, those particular seeds were themselves not approved for cultivation in South Africa! ⁴⁶

“Crucially, in 2018, Monsanto’s bid to obtain regulatory approval for the commercial cultivation of its triple stacked DT variety, MON 87460 x NK603 x MON 89034 was rejected by the South African authorities, due to insufficient data to demonstrate the claimed DT and insect resistant efficacy of the GM event. It is contradictory that while the South African government decided not to allow these unperforming GM seeds to be cultivated in SA, it will turn a blind eye to its cultivation on the rest of the continent.”

Indeed, the ACB in this 2021 writeup has rather uncomplimentary perspective of TELA.  It believes “there is a chronic problem of lack of transparency with regard to this WEMA/TELA project”, and therefore prepared the document as an alert to “share the information and research we have at our disposal to date.”  Extracts from the document: ⁴⁶

“ The Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project (rebranded as TELA), largely funded by the philanthro-capitalist Bill Gates, currently in its death throes, is being resuscitated by Bayer. Since acquiring Monsanto, Bayer is foisting ailing and defunct technologies onto several African countries, on the pretext of uplifting the continent’s small farmers out of poverty. Gate’s primary agenda has been that of reshaping the trajectory of African and, more recently, global food system governance, by aggressively advancing deeply destructive agrarian extractivism on the continent.

TELA aims to dump outdated genetically modified (GM) technologies and associated toxic chemicals onto several sub-Saharan countries, while ensuring that profit from and capture of the lucrative maize market accrues to multinational seed and agrochemical companies, and associated GM maize value chain profiteers, while purporting to provide royalty-free maize to smallholder farmers. ”

These technologies are false solutions, which threaten the future of African agriculture and indeed its sovereignty.

One country that seems to share this perspective is Tanzania.  “Despite Tanzania having also undertaken field trials of WEMA GM varieties in 2017 and 2018, the Tanzanian government announced the cancellation and destruction of WEMA/TELA trials of the double stacked variety MON 87460 x MON 810 in order to conserve genetic resources of the country and local seed varieties, and protect the country’s seed sovereignty”.⁴⁶

On 29 June 2024, the regulatory body for foods in Nigeria, NAFDAC, through her DG/CEO literally affirmed the position of the ACB in a live interview on Arise News Television: ⁵²

“In terms of GMOs, we do not think it is safe. We don’t think it is safe for our consumption (that is the position of NAFDAC). Exactly! First, a lot of research has not been done in terms of the safety of GMO products and the genetics of the seeds have been modified. Until we get very convincing data to show the safety for human consumption,”

The NAFDAC boss insightfully suggested that GMOs could be considered for non-food crops such as timber, furniture, and for rubber plantation but maintained that there is no evidence from NAFDAC that it is safe for human consumption. 

Interestingly, following a speedy intervention by the minister of State in NAFDAC’s supervising Ministry, the Ministry of Health, the DG of NAFDAC later rescinded her opinion, and now agrees that GMO products are OK for food!⁵³

On Thursday May 16, 2024, the House of Represents also formally called for suspension of the commercial cultivation of GMOs in Nigeria.  According to the Premium Times “The Green Chamber called on the federal government to suspend the introduction of new genetically modified crops until an investigation by its Committee on Agricultural Production and Services is completed and the findings are made public."⁵⁴.  This is probably in response to the letter written to the National Assembly in February by the chairman of Global Prolife Alliance (GPA), Dr. Philip Njemanze, urging a ban on all GMO seeds and crops in the country.⁵⁵  So far, nothing has been heard from the Nigerian government, and the sale of TELA maize seeds to uninformed farmers is already ongoing.

 

What can be done, now?

There can be no doubt that GM foods are literally being forced down our throats by very powerful globalist forces who wield immense influence over our governments and their officials.  The greed of multinational corporations provides an effective tool in this regard.

Seeing that government is seemingly incapacitated to refuse the directives of their globalist masters, and suspend the cultivation of GMOs in Nigeria, the only option left to crash the evil project is get the masses to boycott the products. We note the call by the Global Prolife Alliance  on both Islamic clerics and “Bishops of all Christian Churches” to issue a Fatwa or declare a Crusade against the GMO seeds in Africa.⁵⁵

However, this requires massive and sustained education of the general public; and very importantly, the mandatory labelling of these GMO products for easy identification.  Such labelling is indeed required in Nigeria’s biosafety laws (Section 23(2) h of the NBMA Act 2015)⁵⁶ and government can be helped to do the right thing, by being pressured along that line.  As at the present time, no Nigerian can confidently affirm that the beans (and its various by-products such as akara and moin-moin) they are regularly consuming are not from the genetically-modified variety.  Very soon, the same will apply to maize, cassava, and their derivatives.

It is horrifying to note that not only are the TELA maize seeds being sold (in supermarkets and on online platforms) not labelled as genetically modified, they actually carry labels that suggest they are conventional hybrids!  One online store offers the product as “Hybrid TELA Maize”!⁵⁷  Of course, the version sold in the open markets carry no label at all.

If we insist on proper labelling, while resigned to the reality of Nigerians being used a guinea pigs in a mass experiment, we can at least keep track of that experiment and amass relevant data that might be useful in the future.  Tanzania aborted her engagement with the TELA project based on available data.⁴⁶   Similarly, on April 17, 2024, after more than twenty years of advocacy and three years of commercial cultivation, Phillipines was compelled to throw out the GM “golden rice” as the government was presented with incontrovertible data and statistics.⁵⁸  On Tuesday 22^nd October, South Africa’s Supreme Court gave ruling on a 9-year long appeal against the License issued for GM maize in that country.  The judgement has now quashed the Licence, ending the frequently-cited example to justify an uncritical embrace of GM maize in Nigeria.⁵⁹

In all of these, the Church has a critical central role to play.  As we are trying to show in this book, all these developments have spiritual underpinnings, and unless confronted at their spiritual roots, there is little hope for any positive change forthcoming.  Civil Society Organizations, the Press, the National Assembly, and the Courts will need to be spiritually empowered to play their parts, so Nigerians can enjoy life more abundantly, as desired by God for us.

 

Trans Organisms: Darwinian Missing Links

The term GMO refers to plants, animals, and microorganisms, and the same technology is involved in manipulating the genetic stuff of these different categories of life, as they share basically the same architecture. It is clear that GMOs can have very profound effects on the environment, in particular in the area of biodiversity and stability of the ecosystem. The ongoing creation of new unnatural organisms has significantly raised the possibility for transmission of zoonotic diseases. These are infectious diseases originating in animals getting transmitted to man.  

Animals have cohabited with mankind for thousands of years without major incidences of transfer of zoonotic diseases to man.  This is largely because of the clear-cut distinctions and boundaries in the genomes found in nature such that disease-causing microorganisms that thrive in one species have a hard time surviving in others.  Hence, by this basic design of nature, disease-causing microorganisms well-hosted by animals have a hard time keying-in, into man.  Charles Darwin’s evolution theory explicitly requires that the genetic changes between species be gradual, with the assurance that organisms representing transitions between major species, though “missing” at the time the theory was being propounded, would eventually be found in course of time.  Till date, nearly 170 years later, the so-called “missing links” are still missing ⁶⁰.  Modern biotechnology is however intent on creating them!

Genetically modified microorganisms, so-designed to link species, are pivotal in facilitating transmission of zoonotic diseases.  A ready example that comes to mind is COVID-19, which is postulated as zoonotic, but whose precise origin is still being strenuously covered up by globalists.

The clear consensus among experts and respected scholars, is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was clearly an engineered organism. Amazingly, even at a time when the actual origin of the virus was being contended, reports emanated in the mainstream media of some scientists who were further engineering the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself to be even more easily transferred and received by man, thus potentially making it even more lethal! ⁶¹ It was as if these bio-engineers were trying to update their original product with new lessons being learnt from field reports! 

The usual justification for these so-called “gain of function” research, is that we need to get ahead of nature, by checking out the various possible mutations that can spring up naturally in the organism in the future.⁶² Ostensibly, this will enable mankind to make adequate preparations for what might be coming, by way of designing appropriate vaccines ahead.  And yes, all solutions always end up with “vaccines”!

As we shall be discussing in the next chapter, transorganisms so engineered ultimately lead to the concept of transgenic man,  The desperate struggle to corrupt and control mankind thus rages on; but while the Church still remains around on earth, the unending failure of such efforts is guaranteed.  Victory is assured through the never-failing blood of the Lamb.  Hallelujah!