The Director of Research for the Centre for Climate Change and Food Security has bemoaned the recent launch of GM cowpea, calling it a "dangerous slippery slope into the food production abyss."

Speaking on Unique FM Kumasi, an affiliate of GBC, he discounted the need for GMOs in Ghana.

"Ghana does not need GMOs; none of the agriculture problems can be solved by the introduction of GMOs," he said.

Asked about the implications of the adoption of GMOs on Ghana's agriculture system, he said, "It marks doom for Ghana's food system, a historic decision to dilute our ecosystem, and to hand over food production into the hands of corporate cartels."

Reacting to the launch on his Facebook wall, he commented as follows: "Why do we need GMOs? Ghana simply doesn't need GMOs. GMOs are a new tool, as part of the second food regime, to control food production by corporate cartels.

Ghana is on a dangerous slippery slope down a food production abyss and ecological dilution.

I, on behalf of the Center for Climate Change & Food Security, am opposed to it.

"We urge farmers to reject this technology or risk their livelihoods."

Earlier this year, CCCFS made an RTI request to the National Biosafety Authority and Food and Drugs Authority to find out whether labelling of GMOs on Ghana's markets is being complied with as ordered by an Accra High Court earlier this year.

Both the FDA and NBA have stated that they are attempting to ensure the labelling of GMOs and have developed a framework to ensure compliance. As to whether there are GM foods in Ghana's markets already, the FDA could not answer the question as per their response to the RTI request by CCCFS.

Last year, Mr. Issifu hinted that there was an unusual presence of CRY1A toxin from the bacteria Bacillus in the newly approved GM cowpea. While he acknowledged that there was no evidence of the toxicity of the toxins to humans, he said it should be a source of concern.

The issue of Ghana's transition to GMOs has riled up many civil society organizations, including Food Sovereignty Ghana and the Peasant Farmers Association, among others, who have called on the government to retrace its steps.

GM cowpea was finally launched by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research-Savanna Agricultural Research Institute. The cowpea, code-named borer-resistant (PBR) cowpea, is said to have the ability to resist pod borers due to the insertion of a Bacillus gene in the crop's genome.

Below is a statement from CCCFS:

The Center for Climate Change and Food Security reiterates its opposition to Ghana's hasty adoption of GMOs.

We are appalled by the recent launch of GM cowpea purporting to have the ability to resist pod-borers due to the presence of a gene from Bacillus that produces CRY1A toxin.

It's instructive to note that after reviewing the application documents by the Savannah Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), we found the presence of the toxin in question to be abnormally high compared to other transgenic crops. While we note the lack of evidence for the toxicity of the toxin to humans, it remains a source of worry to us since the current data on the matter is inconclusive.

Further, we note the lack of data on the effect of the crop on beneficial soil microorganisms and other important pollinators. If the crop in question affects such organisms, then the crop is likely to alter the productivity of the soils on which it was planted, making the survival of succeeding crops impossible.

These and many more make it imperative that we resist the unholy intrusion of GMOs into Ghana's agroecosystem. GMOs remain a tool of corporate control over food production—a gamble we cannot take.

We call on farmers, Ghanaians, and CSOs to reject GMOs. We continue to call on the government to resolve the myriad of agricultural problems (such as bad roads, a lack of postharvest storage facilities, an uneven food distribution chain, a lack of access to loans, etc.) that cannot be solved by GMOs.

Indeed, it is not the lack of food that's the problem facing the world today, but the uneven distribution of it. The "shortage in the face of abundance" paradox is one to be solved by policy and not corporate cartel manipulation of nature, ostensibly to make profits.