According to Alert & Cooperation Network Annual Report of 2024, these 3 countries appear to have the most with fraudulent or contaminated food or use of unauthorised use of ingredients. 'The countries most frequently implicated were Turkey, China, and India' 

We all know that the extra virgin olive oil is not olive oil and it should not be called olive oil. Numerous times chefs call it olive oil without understanding the difference. 

Let's see together what is extra virgin olive oil and its difference with olive oil;
According to EU Regulation 2022/2104 and in article 6: 

Article 6
Legal name and labelling of category of oils
1. The description of the oils referred to in Article 1, point (b), shall be considered as their legal name within the meaning of Article 2(2), point (n), of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011.
2. The label of those oils shall bear, in clear and indelible marking, .................. the following information on the category of oil:
(a) extra virgin olive oil:
‘superior category olive oil obtained directly from olives and solely by mechanical means’;
(b) virgin olive oil:
‘olive oil obtained directly from olives and solely by mechanical means’;
(c) olive oil composed of refined olive oils and virgin olive oils:
‘oil comprising exclusively olive oils that have undergone refining and oils obtained directly from olives’;
(d)
olive-pomace oil:
(i)
‘oil comprising exclusively oils obtained by treating the product obtained after the extraction of olive oil and oils obtained directly from olives’; or
(ii)
‘oil comprising exclusively oils obtained by processing olive pomace and oils obtained directly from olives’.
The quality characteristics table for all the types of olive oils shows that the extra virgin olive oil should not have any organoleptic defects at all.

What makes the extra virgin olive oil so special is the high content in unsaturated fatty acids, such as oleic acid, as well as less abundant substances like vitamins and antioxidants such as polyphenols leading to beneficial effects for health, including evidence of preventing cardiovascular diseases.

Olive oil therefore is a very low quality product which is used only for its low cost. 

Fake food is everywhere. Food fraud is big and becomes a pandemic. Authorities are understaffed and are unable to do full inspection and testing. Hundreds of food items enter ports in Europe with some of them being banned, other contaminated
Fake food is everywhere starting from planted based trying to imitate meat products food to mislabelled food to contaminated food with pesticides, genetically modified ingredients, and heavy metals. German authorities have discovered rice noodles with genetically modified rice various times this year and last year, meaning that gm ingredients are already on our plate.
A company called SOP selling to caterers a product with the title vegetable oil in 20L drums but actually this vegetable oil is genetically modified soybean oil. Thousands of take away shops use this genetically modified soybean oil to fry food everyday.
Turkey exports fruits everyday to various countries in Europe and on RASFF one will see that fruits are all contaminated with toxic pesticides.
Rice crop harvest suffers from decline in Europe and the new genetically modified rice crops are approved and ready to enter Europe and UK. Climate change is used as an excuse for introducing the genetically modified crops.
Inspection authorities indirectly and directly are losing staff, less and less people work in the inspection authorities.
Honey is sold in the UK supermarkets for £3 a kilo. All the samples of honey analysed from supermarkets in the UK are fake honey.
Authorities pusblished a recent survey about the food fraud but they failed to include honey in the testing regime. This is serious concern.

Greek sage (Salvia triloba), oleander (Nerium oleander), rosemary, lavender (Lavandula angustifolia), apple (Malus pumila), and thyme (Thymus vulgaris) are rich in ursolic acid and inhibit both COX-2 and 5-LOX. Ursolic acid is a potent antiinflammatory agent found in plants that are used in the management of certain disease conditions.

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780081020814000150

Our movement is often labeled as “anti-science” by the GMO industry and their allies because we reject their harmful technologies: Patented, genetically engineered seeds, toxic agrichemicals, and the resulting toxic food-like products.
GMO foods and pesticides are approved by our government regulatory agencies based on secret, unpublished, non-peer-reviewed studies produced by the corporations. We’re calling for more transparency and more science. Who is anti-science? That would be Bayer-Monsanto and the GMO/agrichemical industry.
We’ve assembled over 100 published rodent feeding studies that find harm from glyphosate-based Roundup Ready and Bt toxin insecticide-producing varieties of genetically modified foods that are on the market today and in our food supply.
Harmful effects include: Stomach barrier damage, increased risk of intestinal infections, high cholesterol, high blood sugar; reproductive issues including lower birth weight and increased mortality of offspring; organ disturbances in the pancreas, liver, kidneys, adrenal glands, ovaries and testes; other disturbances including disturbances to the immune system, blood biochemistry and functioning of the digestive system.
Anyone still saying that GMOs are perfectly safe is a science denier.
The following is a list of 102 studies. You can find these studies and more in the GMO Research database at www.GMOResearch.org. Copy and paste the title of the study into the search bar to find it in the database.
1. E. Abdo, O. Barbary and O. Shaltout, “Feeding Study with Bt Corn (MON810: Ajeeb YG) on Rats: Biochemical Analysis and Liver Histopathology,” Food and Nutrition Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 2, 2014, pp. 185-195.
2. Ahrorovna, K.D., 2021. Age-related morphofunctional features of changes in the thymus gland of experimental animals under the influence of genetically modified product. Middle European Scientific Bulletin, 11(1).
3. Alba NA, В. Kuz’micheva LV, Е. В. Zinoviev EV (2012) Impact of GM soy on a protein-lipid composition of the blood of animals. International Journal of Applied and Fundamental Research №2, 2012 ISSN 1996-3955
4. Aledo, M.M., & Kalganov, S.A. (2019). Biochemical blood parameters of mice when introduced into the diet of GM corn. In In the world of scientific discoveries: proceedings of the III International Student Scientific Conference. May 22-23, 2019-Ulyanovsk: UlGAU, 2019.-T. V, Part 1 .. UlGAU.
5. Amoh C. Morphometrical peculiarities of kidney’s canalicular epithelium of 2nd generation of rats due to presence of gmo-soya in foods 5th International Scientific Interdisciplinary Conference (ISIC) for medical students and young doctors, Kharkiv, April 25-26, 2012 : Abstract book. – Kharkiv, 2012. P 15-16.
6. Anisina O.S., Medvedeva M.V. (2016) INFLUENCE GM SOY FEED LINE 40.3.2. AND CHRONIC EXPOSURE TO LOW DOSES OF EMR ON THE ORGANISM OF WHITE RATS. Fundamental and applied aspects of the feeding of agricultural animals and forage technology [text]: Conference materials on 120 anniversary of M. Tommje, (14-16 June, 2016, p. Sunderland). -Sunderland: Look them. L.K. Ernst, 2016. (pp. 297-300).
7. L.M. Baranchugova, V.I. Obydenko (2015). The influence of soybeans on morphofunctional indicators of some rat bodies in the experiment. Science and World, 113. ISSN 2308-4804
8. Battistelli S., Baldelli B., Malatesta M. (2008), Influence of a GMO-containing diet on pancreatic acinar cells of adult mice: effects of a short-term diet reversion, “Microscopie”, 10, pp. 36-43
9. S. Battistelli, B.Citterio, B. Baldelli, C. Parlani, and M. Malatesta (2010) Histochemical and morpho-metrical study of mouse intestine epithelium after a long term diet containing genetically modified soybean Eur J Histochem. September 26;54(3): e36
10. Brasil FB, Soares LL, Faria TS, Boaventura GT, Sampaio FJ, Ramos CF.(2009) The impact of dietary organic and transgenic soy on the reproductive system of female adult rat. Anat Rec(Hoboken).292(4):587594.
11. Chorna I. V., Dronik G. V., Davydenko I. S. (2018) HISTOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE LIVER OF RATS CONSUMING GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOYBEAN, PROCESSED WITH HERBICIDE “ROUNDUP”. Odesa National University Herald. Biology. 2018. Vol. 23, no. 2 (43). ISSN 2077-1746
12. Chorna, I. (2019) The structural and functional state of kidneys of two generations of rats in the use of glyphosate-resistant genetically modified soybean and herbicide “Roundup” ScienceRise: Biological Science, (1 (16)), 25-29.
13. Chorna, I. V., Dronik, G. B., Lukashiv, T. O., & Yuzkova, V. D. (2019a). Oxidatively modified proteins in kidneys of rats fed with glyphosate-resistant genetically modified soybean and the herbicide Roundup. Regulatory Mechanisms in Biosystems, 10(3), 319-325.
14. B Cisterna, F Flach, L Vecchio, SML Barabino, S Battistelli, TE Martin, M Malatesta, M Biggiogera (2008) Can a genetically modified organism-containing diet influence embryonic development? A preliminary study on pre- implantation mouse embryos. Eur J Histochem. 2008 Oct-Dec;52(4):263-7.
15. Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, François Roullier, Dominique Cellier, Gilles-Eric Séralini (2009) A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health Int J Biol Sci; 5(7):706-726.
16. C. K. Didi (2015). The influence of genetically soybeans on the offspring of Japanese mice. XII Far Eastern Youth Ecological Conference-Competition “Man and Biosphere”. Pages 12-13
17. Egamberganovich, A.J., 2020. Influence of A Genetically Modified Organism on The Rat’s Hepatobiliary System. European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine, 7(6), pp.2157-2164.
18. Egamberganovich, A.J., 2021, March. EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF A GENETICALLY MODIFIED PRODUCT ON THE MORPHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS OF THE LIVER OF LABORATORY ANIMALS. In Archive of Conferences (Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 114-118).
19. Eissa, M. I., El-Sherbiny, M. A., Ibrahim, A. M., Abdelsadik, A., Mohamed, M. M., & El-Halawany, M. S. (2019). Biochemical and Histopathological studies on female and male Wistar rats fed on genetically modified soybean meals (Roundup Ready). The Journal of Basic and Applied Zoology, 80(1), 54.
20. Thanaa A. El-Kholy, Mohammad Abu Hilal, Hatim Ali Al-Abbadi, Abdulhalim Salim Serafi, Ahmad K. Al-Ghamdi, Hanan M. Sobhy and John R. C. Richardson (2014) The Effect of Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Soybean on DNA, Cytogenicity and Some Antioxidant Enzymes in Rats. Nutrients, 6(6), 2376-2386
21. Thanaa A. F. El-Kholy, Hatim A. Al-Abbadi, Dina Qahwaji, Ahmed K. Al-Ghamdi, Vishal G. Shelat, Hanan M. Sobhy and Mohammad Abu Hilal (2015) Ameliorating effect of olive oil on fertility of male rats fed on genetically modified soya bean. Food & Nutrition Research 2015, 59: 27758
22. El-Shamei, Z. S. et al. Histopathological Changes in Some Organs of Male Rats Fed on Genetically Modified Corn (Ajeeb YG). Journal of American Science, 2012;8(10)
23. V.V. Ermakov (2012). Microbiological identification microbiocenosis and the immune status of laboratory rodents while feeding them genetically modified fodder. Proceedings of the Samara State Agricultural Academy, 1201238.)
24. Ermakova IV (2006) Genetically modified soy leads to weight loss and increased mortality of pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies. EkosInform. Federal Environmental Law Gazette. a | -1,, p. 4-10.
25. Ermakova IV (2007) New data on the impact of GMOs on physiological state and the higher nervous activities mammals. All-Russia Symposium TRANSGENIC PLANTS AND BIOSAFETY Moscow, October 22 – 25, pages 38-39
26. Irina Ermakova (2007) GM soybeans—revisiting a controversial format NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOLUME 25 NUMBER 12 DECEMBER 1351-1354
27. Ermakova IV, IV Barskov (2008) Study of the physiological and morphological parameters in rats and their offspring using a diet containing soybean transgenic EPSPS CP4. Modern problems of science and education. 6. p.19-20. ISSN-1817-6321
28. Ermakova IV (2009) Influence of soybean gene EPSPS CP4 on the physiological state and reproductive functions of rats in the first two generations. Modern problems of science and education. Number 5, p.15-20. ISSN-1817-6321
29. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A, Mengheri E. (2008) Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem. Dec 10;56(23):11533-9.
30. Gab-Alla, A. et al. (2012) Morphological and Biochemical Changes in Male Rats Fed on Genetically Modified Corn (Ajeeb YG). Journal of American Science, ;8(9)
31. M. Goldenberg (2012) Features of secretion of sex hormones in female rats when used in diet of genetically modified soybeans. Interuniversity Conference of Young Scientists and students (Kharkiv 17 – 18 January 2012) Page 6
32. Т. V. Gorbach, I. U. Kuzminа, G. I. Gubina-Vakulik, N. G. Kolousova (2012) Hormonal Regulation of Sexual Function and Ovarian Histological Features in the Experiment With GMO-Soya Use in Food. Tavricheskiy Mediko-Biologicheskiy Vestnik 2012, Volume 15, № 2, Part 2 (58) pages 235-238
33. T. V. Gorbach, G. I. Gybina-Vakulyck, S. A. Denisenko (2016) Influence of Genetically Modified Soy in Experimental Animals Diet on the Metabolism and Histology of Liver and Kidneys. Problems of aging and longevity 2016, 25, № 1. – С. 80—86 ISSN:0869-1703
34. Gubin-Vakulik, S.A. Denisenko, T.V. Gorbach, N.G. Kolousova, T.M. Popova (2012) Morphofunctional State of Adrenal Gland in Female Wistar Rats With Genetically Modified Soy Inclusion in the Diet. Tavrichesky Life Sciences Bulletin 2012, Volume 15, № 3, Part 1 (59) pages 85-88
35. GI-Gubin Vakulik, T.V. Gorbach, N.G. Kolousova, HS, Gopkalov (2013) The Metabolic and Histological Changes of Kidneys in Female Rats and the First Generation After Consumption of Genetically Modified Soybeans. Scientific Statements Series Medicine. Pharmacy. 2013. № 11 (154). Issue 22 pages 150-155. ISSN 2075-4728
36. G.I.Gubina-Vakulik, T.V.Gorbach, S.A.Denisenko, V.V.Kalyan, N.G.Kolousova (2013b) Adaptive Changes Morphofunctional Condition of the Adrenal Glands and Thymus When Using Genetically Modified Soy in the Diet in Experiment. Conference: Achievements and Prospects of Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology 2013. – P. 44-45. Khnmu, Kharkov.
37. G.I. Gubina-Vakulik, S.A. Denisenko, T.V. Gorbach, N.G. Kolousova, A.V. Andreev (2014) Morphofunctional Adrenal State in Adults Descendants With the Diet by Genetically Modified Soy. Experimental and Clinical Medicine. 2014. № 2 (63)
38. Gubina-Vakulìk, g. i., Gorbach, t. v., Denisenko, s. a., & Hookah, v. v. (2017). Morphological features of immune organs of female rats by long-term use of genetically modified soybean. Innovative technology in medicine: experience of Poland and Ukraine. Pages 158-162
39. Ibrahim, M. A., & Okasha, E. F. (2016). Effect of genetically modified corn on the jejunal mucosa of adult male albino rat. Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology, 68(10), 579-588.
40. Serdar Karakuslu (2014) The Investigation of the Potential Effects of Genetically Modified (GMO) Maize (Zea mays L.) on Swiss Albino Mice. June 2014, 25 Pages
41. Karawya, F. S. (2016). Structural changes in pancreatic acinar cells and β-cells of rat fed with genetically modified corn. Journal of Experimental and Clinical Anatomy, 15(2), 77.
42. Kiliç A, Akay MT. (2008) A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008 Mar;46(3):1164-70.
43. Hasan Kiliçgün, Cebrail Gürsul, Mukadder Sunar, Gülden Gökşen (2013) The Comparative Effects of Genetically Modified Maize and Conventional Maize on Rats J Clin Anal Med ;4(2): 136-9
44. MA Konovalova, VA Blinov (2006) Influence of genetically modified soybean in mice and their offspring . Commercial Biotechnology 2006
45. Konovalova MA, Potemkin EG (2007) Influence of genetically modified soybean on transport of carbohydrates in tissue.
46. V.O.Korobchansky, A.I. Gerasimenko, T.V.Gorbach, T.O. Ivanenko (2012) Investigation of the influence of food consumption with genetically modified components on the biochemical parameters of blood under conditions of chronic gastroenterocolitis / Ecology and technogenic safety. Protection of water and air basins. Waste Disposal: Sat scientific Works of the XXth Anniversary International Scientific and Technical Conference, Berdiansk, June 11-15, 2012 – Kharkov, 2012. – P. 523-530.
47. Kotsyumbas G. I., Samsonyuk IM. (2013) Microbial Composition Large Intestine Rat First and Second Generation Under the Influence Genetic modification SDI. International Scientific and Practical Conference in the XXIII International Specialized Exhibition “Agrocomplex 2013” Page 207-210.
48. G. Kotsjumbas, I. Samsonjuk, M. Shkilj (2017) Reproductive capacity and structural and functional status rats uterus that consumed feed containing 20% GM-soy. Lviv National University of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnologies named after S. Z. Gzhytskyj Vol 19, No 73
49. Krasnikova, E. S., Karmeeva, Y. S., Aledo, M. M., Krasnikov, A. V., & Kalganov, S. A. (2019, August). Hemato-biochemical status of laboratory mice with a GM corn based diet. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 315, No. 4, p. 042005). IOP Publishing.
50. Kukushkina M. (2013) Hormonal regulation of sexual functionin experiments using genetically modified soybean in food. Biodiversity.Ecology. Adaptation. Evolution.» Odessa, 2013 Pages 176-177
51. Kulik Y. M., Rautskiene V. T., Obertiukh Y. V., Khimich O. V. (2015). The Presence in the Offspring of Rats Unidentified Factor Transgenic Soy at its Feeding Over Several Generations. Bulletin issues of biology and medicine (4 (1)), 105-109.
52. Kutsan A.T., Shevtsova G.N., Roman’ko M.Ye., Orobchenko O.L., Gerilovich I.O.(2013) Status Of Indicators Of Protein and Nucleic Acid Metabolism In Plasma Laboratory Animals In Long-Term Feeding With Genetically Modified Soybean. Veterinary Medicine, No. 98 pages 445-447. ISSN 0321-0602
53. Long, W., Wang, H., Li, W., Shen, X., Bai, J., Wang, D., Wang, X., Fan, S. and Zhou, Z., 2013. A Novel Approach for Evaluation of Food Functions and Safety Applied in RR GM Soybeans. Agricultural Biotechnology, 2(3), p.5.
54. Long Wei, Shen Xiu, Zhou Xiao-Liang, Wang De-Zhi, Fan Sai-Jun, Wang Xiao-Guang, Zhou Ze-Wei (2014) Evaluation on edible safety of genetically modified soy oil by novel system. Journal of Food Safety and Quality Vol. 5 No. 8
55. Wei Xiaolong Liu Li Deng Yaling Tang Yadi Zhu Zhenglan (2015) Effects of genetically modified feed on reproductive system of male mice. Gansu Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine. 魏小龙, 刘立, 邓亚玲, 汤雅迪, & 朱正兰. (2015). 转基因饲料对雄性小鼠生殖系统的影响. 甘肃畜牧兽医, 45(7), 24-26.
56. Magaña-Gómez JA, Cervantes GL, Yepiz-Plascencia G, de la Barca AM. (2008) Pancreatic response of rats fed genetically modified soybean J Appl Toxicol. Mar;28(2):217-26.
57. Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, Rocchi MB, Serafini S, Tiberi C, Gazzanelli G. (2002) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct. Aug;27(4):173-80.
58. Mandygra, M., Doletskyi, S., Kutsan, O., Shevtsova, G., Romanko, M., Orobchenko, O., & Herilovych, I. (2018). Studying influence of gene-modified soya of line MON 89788 on an organism of laboratory animals.
59. Manuela Malatesta, Chiara Caporaloni, Luigia Rossi, Serafina Battistelli, Marco BL Rocchi, Francesco Tonucci, and Giancarlo Gazzanelli (2002) Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean J Anat. November; 201(5): 409–415
60. Malatesta M., Biggiogera M., Manuali E., Rocchi M.B., Baldelli B., Gazzanelli G.(2003) Fine structural analysis of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on GM soybean. Eur J Histochem. 47,3858.
61. Malatesta M, Tiberi C, Baldelli B, Battistelli S, Manuali E, Biggiogera M. (2005) Reversibility of hepatocyte nuclear modifications in mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. Jul-Sep;49(3):237-42.
62. Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, Baldelli B, Battistelli S, Biggiogera M, Quaglino D. (2008) A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. Nov;130(5):967-77.
63. Maligin AG, Ermakova IV (2008) Soy diet suppresses reproductive function rodents. Modern problems of science and education № 6. (Annex “Biological sciences”).- C. 26. ISSN 1817-6321
64. М.V. Medvedeva, О.S. Anisina (2017) GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOYBEAN LINE 40.3.2. IN THE RATION OF WHITE LABORATORY RATS. Proceedings IV of the International Scientific Conference on the 55-year postgraduate “Federal Center for Animal Health”on 6 December 2016 pages 223-229
65. Nazarova AF, Ermakova IV (2010) Effect of soy diet on reproductive function and testosterone levels in rats and hamsters. In the world of scientific Discoveries, 2010, No. 4 (10), Part 1
66. SG Nimbueva, R. Shirokov, SA Polyakov, SD Evgaldaev (2012) Influence of long term use of genetically modified soybeans on some morphofunctional indicators in pancreas of rats in the experiment. Articles XVII International Ecological Student Conference “Ecology Russia and adjacent territories “: in 2 volumes. Volume 2 / Novosibirsk State. Univ. Novosibirsk, 2012. Pages 119-120.
67. Nimbueva SG, Shirokov RE, Polyakov SA (2012) Effects of Long-Term Use of Genetically Modified Soybean on the Morphology Striated Muscle Tissue of Rats in an Experiment. Medicine of Tomorrow: Articles XI regional interuniversity scientifically-practical Conference of Young Scientists, Chita, 25-28 April, 2012 page 139-140.
68. Nimbueva SG, Shirokov RE, Polyakov SA (2012) Effects of Long-Term Use of Genetically Modified Soybeans on Reproductive Function of Rats. Medicine of Tomorrow: Articles XI regional interuniversity scientifically-practical Conference of Young Scientists, Chita, 25-28 April, 2012 page 140.
69. Nimbueva SG, Shirokov RE, Polyakov SA (2012) Influence of Genetically Modified Soybean Morphology of Some of the Digestive System in the Offspring of Rats. National Baikal Scientific and Practical Conference Young Scientists and Students With International Participation “Current Issues Modern Medicine »Irkutsk, 23-25 April 2012. Page 27 -28
70. Nuraliyev N. A., Sobirova D. R., Baltaeva K., Ginatullina E. N. (2017). Effect of genetically modified product on reproduction function, biochemical and hematology indexes in experimental study. European science review, (1-2). ISSN 2310-5577
71. Nuraliev, N.A. and Kh, A.A., 2021. Estimation and Assessment of Cytogenetic Changes in Bone Marrow Cells of Laboratory Animals Received a Gene-Modified Product. Annals of the Romanian Society for Cell Biology, pp.401-411.
72. N.M. Omelchenko, GV DRONIK (2017b) INFLUENCE OF NATIVE AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOY IN THE COMPOSITION OF FEEDINGS ON THE MASOMETRIC INDICES OF THE RATS OF INTERNAL ORGANISMS. Theory and practice of topical research: Materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference (Kiev, August 25-26, 2017) / NGO “Institute of Innovation Education”; Scientific and Training Center of Applied Informatics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. – Kyiv: NGO “Institute of Innovation Education”, 2017 – 68 c. Page 61 – 62
73. Omelchenko, N. N., Dronik, G. V., WINKLER, I., ROGOZYNSKYI, M., & KUCHERIAVA, V. (2017a). THE INFLUENCE OF REGULAR AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOYBEANS ON POSTNATAL DEVELOPMENT OF RATS. Food and Environment Safety Journal, 16(4).
74. Omelchenko, N., & Dronik, G. (2018). Вплив генетично модифікованої сої на постнатальний розвиток щурів третього покоління. Біоресурси і природокористування, 10(5-6), 62-67.
75. Omelchenko, N. N., Dronyk, H., & Kucheriava, V. (2018). CHANGES OF MASOMETRIC INDEXS OF INTERNAL ORGANS RATS IN THE EXERCISED OF NATIVE AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOYBEAN IN THE COMPOSITION OF FEED. Науковий журнал «Біологічні системи: теорія та інновації», (287), 44-52.
76. Omelchenko, N., Kucheriava, V., & Dronyk, H. (2019). Постнатальний розвиток щурів четвертого покоління при вживанні трансгенної сої та під впливом наночастинок аргентуму. Наукові доповіді НУБіП України, (2 (78)).
77. Hanaa Oraby, Mahrousa Kandil, Nermeen Shaffie, Inas Ghaly (2014) Biological impact of feeding rats with a genetically modified-based diet. Turk J Biol (2014) 38:
78. Patejuk, A. v., & Kohat, S. T. (2014). Disorders of some physiological and morphological indices in mammals with the food of genetically modified soybeans. SĂNĂTATE Publică, ECONOMIE ŞI MANAGEMENT ÎN medicină, 18 (121), 131-133.
79. Pavlovskaya, N.E., Lushnikov, A.V., Polekhina, N.N., Solokhina, I. Yu., & Gneushev, I.A. (2018). The effect of genetically modified soy on body weight and reproductive activity of white laboratory mice. Bulletin of Science and Education of the North-West of Russia , 4 (2).
80. RAVSHANOVNA, S. D., ABDULLAYEVICH, N. N., & FURKATOVNA, T. S. Assessment of the Influence of the Food Product of GMO on the Sexual Function and Are Biochemical Research White Laboratory Outbreed Rats. JournalNX, 6(05), 38-40.
81. Samsonyk I., Kocumbas G.I, Levuckuj T.R.(2012) Hematological and Biochemical Indexes Blood Whey`s Rats of First Generation, Which Fed Soy With GMO. Scientific Messenger of Lviv National University of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnologies Volume 14, number 2 (52) Part 1, 2012 Pages 156-160
82. Samsonyk I.,Stronskyi U. (2013) Biochemical Indexes Blood Whey`s Rats of Three Generation, Which Fed Soy With GMO. Scientific Messenger of Lviv National University of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnologies. Volume 15 number 3 (57) Part 2, 2013 Pages 279-282
83. I. M. Samsonyuk (2013) Structural and Functional State of the Gastrointestinal Tract Rat`s First Generation of Feeding Traditional and Genetically Modified Soybeans. Scientific and Technical Bulletin of the Institute of Animal Biology and State research control institute of veterinary preparations and feed additives. Vol. 14, № 3-4 Pages 238-243
84. I. M. Samsonuyk, G. I. Kotcumbas (2014) Ultrastructural Characteristic of Rats Liver of the Third Generation With the Influence of Genetically Modified and Traditional Soybean. Animal Biology 2014, т. 16, № 2
85. T. Sarbakanova, ZA Latypova, B. Zh. Anajtova, M. Zh. Kenzhebaeva (2014) Influence on GMO Animal Reproduction. Bashkir GAU 2014 pages 395-397
86. Sh.T. Sarbakanova, Z.A. Latypova, M.Zh. Kenzhebaeva, K.T. Kasymova (2014) Study the Influence of GMO Contained in Animal Feed on Biochemical and Hematological Indices of Rats in the Third Generation. Veterinary Science Modern Theoretical and Practical Matters. Volume LX Page 190-194
87. Sarbakanova St, Latypov Z, Kenzhebaev Maigul (2013) Action of transgenic soybeans on prenatal development of Offspring (F3) Laboratory Rats LLP. Science and education in the XXI century collection of scientific papers on materials of the International Scientific-Practical Conference. Pages 104-105
88. Sarbakanova Sh.T., Karabekova SS, Latypova ZA, Kenzhebaeva M.Zh., Kasymova KT, Omarbek NS, Munalbaeva AA (2015) STUDY OF FUNCTIONAL-REPRODUCTIVE TOXICOLOGY OF SOYBEAN SODAY CONTAINING 5%GENETICALLY MODIFIED SOYU, IN EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS. INTEGRATION OF SCIENCE AND PRACTICE TO ENSURE VETERINARY WELL-BEING. Pages 215-218
89. Séralini GE, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS.(2007) New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. May;52(4):596-602.
90. Gilles-Eric Séralini, Emilie Clair, Robin Mesnage, Steeve Gress, Nicolas Defarge, Manuela Malatesta, Didier Hennequin and Joël Spiroux de Vendômois (2014) Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe , 26:14
91. Sobirova D.R., Nuralieva H.O. 2016. ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF EATABLE PRODUCTS PRODUCED USING NEW TECHNOLOGIES ON SEXUAL FUNCTION OF EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS. Гигиена, профпатология и риски здоровью населения (pp. 303-305).
92. D.R. Sobirova, N.A. Nuraliyev, E.N. Ginatullina (2017) Result of research of mutagenic activity of a genetically modified product in experiments on laboratory animals. Safety of Human Health. No.1 ISSN: 2500-3852
93. AV Surov, NY Feoktistov, MV Ushakov, AV Gureeva (2010) Changing the physiological parameters of mammals feeding genetically modified ingredients of vegetable origin. Institution of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Ecology and Evolution behalf ANSevertsov RAS (IEE RAS)
94. Taheri, H., 2020. The effects of genetically modified oil consumption on biochemical and histological changes of tissues in rats (Doctoral dissertation, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Nutrition and Food Sciences).
95. Vecchio L, Cisterna B, Malatesta M, Martin TE, Biggiogera M. (2004) Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. Oct-Dec;48(4):448-54.
96. Janaína Guimarães Venzke, Andréa Ramos Rocha, Vinicius Coitinho Tabeleao, Márcia Feltrin Dias, Cristina Geveln Fernandes, Leonor Almeida de Souza Soares (2006) Hematological, biochemical and histo-pathological evaluation of the transgenic corn and Cry1Ab protein effect on mice diet. 65f.Dissertação (Mestrado) – Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biotecnologia Agrícola. Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas.pages 50-68
97. Ruwan Wang (2017) The effect of genetically modified feed on structure of mice testes. Livestock and Poultry Industry. No.6 6-7
98. Wei Xiaolong, Liu Li, Deng Yaling, Tang Yadi, & Zhu Zhenglan. (2015). Effects of genetically modified feed on the reproductive system of male mice. Gansu Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 45(7), 24-26.
99. Irena M Zdziarski, John W Edwards, Judy Carman, Adrian Jones, Marni Spillanie, Ysabella Van Sebille, Julie I Haynes (2012) GM feed and its effect on the stomach mucosa of rat. 6th Australian Health and Medical Research Congress 2012
100. Zdziarski, I. M. (2016) Does transgenic feed cause histopathological changes in rats? Thesis (Ph.D.) — University of Adelaide, Adelaide Medical School, 2016.
101. Irena M. Zdziarski, Judy A. Carman, John W. Edwards (2018) Histopathological Investigation of the Stomach of Rats Fed a 60% Genetically Modified Corn Diet. Food and Nutrition Sciences Vol.09 No.06(2018), Article ID:85687,34 pages 10.4236/fns.2018.96058
102. Zhou Ze-wei et al. (2012) Comprehensive Evaluation on Functions & Safety of Imported GM Soybean Using BDI-GS System Soybean Science Oct. Vol. 31 No 5

Source: Toxin Free USA : website

A quick view on RASFF window shows that 9 in 50 foods are contaminated with pesticides, heavy metals, PAH and various other toxic compounds.
We keep saying that the food is deteriorating as EU and UK have loosened the safety standards across the supply chain.

According to Obloni, J. Nyarko Food Fraud in the EU: Analysis of Reports in the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed,  https://thesis.unipd.it/handle/20.500.12608/51738, ''the United Kingdom emerged as a focal point with 31.8% of all food fraud notifications, followed by Italy (9.0%). China and India were identified as the predominant origins of food fraud, constituting 16.94% and 11.96% of the reported cases, respectively''

Nitrogen fertilizer is well known agriculture chemical and with huge negative environmental impact. To produce one kilogram of pesticide requires 10 times more energy usage than 1 Kg of nitrogen fertilizer. This energy is produced from either nuclear energy, or the so called non-renewable sources as such as wind turbine and water movement.
According to Grist article, sulfuryl fluoride, a fumigant, a very toxic gas, used to control a wide variety of pests, including termites, powder post beetles, old house borers, bedbugs, carpet beetles, moths, cockroaches, rats and mice are themselves greenhouse gases: emitting one ton of sulfuryl fluoride is the equivalent of emitting nearly 5,000 tons of CO2, let alone all the other gases emitted in the atmosphere such as NOx, CO, Polycyclic aromatic Hydrocarbons, and the toxic solid left from its production. 

California uses nearly 20 percent of the pesticides applied annually across the United States. 

According PAN UK: ''The harmful effects of pesticides on soil organisms ranged from molecular to community levels, including impacts on mortality, reproductive function, richness and diversity, abundance, behaviours like feeding, burrowing, and decomposition, growth, biochemical biomarkers, and body structure.'' (*5)
What does China use? 

''China has just 7% of the world's arable land, but uses up to one  third of global consumption of chemical fertiliser. And this usage per unit is 2.7 times higher than the world average (China Energy News)*1

''About 1.77 million tonnes of agricultural pesticides were applied in China, constituting about 42% of the total use globally in 2019'' (*4)
​
''High levels of chemical pesticides and fertilisers are used to produce crops on China's small, heavily-exploited plots, but overuse can degrade the soil and pollute water, while improper use can cause contamination and hurt biodiversity'' 1 

''It has been reported that more than 150 million miles of China’s farmland are contaminated. Since the discovery of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) and hexachlorocyclohexane (BHC), their excessive and persistent application has led to severe environmental pollution and human health risks'' *3 

Below a few pesticides are quoted for the serious health effects on humans (*3): 
 -Cyfluthrin is in a group of man-made insecticides and is widely used in homes, outdoors, and in agriculture to effectively control phytophagous insect pests. β-Cyfluthrin induces acute arrhythmic cardiotoxicity through interaction with NaV1.5, and ranolazine reverses the phenotype.

- Fomesafen is an organic compound used as a herbicide. Water-solubility of fomesafen leads to a potential risk to groundwater, and it has been reported that the death of fish is related to fomesafen.

- Pyraclostrobin is an agricultural pesticide product used to kill most fungi, including blights, mildews, molds, and rusts, and has characterized lethal toxicity 

Source:
1 https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-eyes-10-cut-pesticide-use-fruit-vegetables-by-2025-2022-12-01
2 https://grist.org/agriculture/a-new-report-says-pesticides-intensify-climate-change/
3 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.942117/full
4 ​https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-022-00202-0
5 https://www.pan-uk.org/the-impacts-of-pesticides-on-soil-invertebrates

In the face of intensifying weather patterns like the series of storms pounding the West, regenerative organic farms are demonstrating that the key to resilience is working with nature.
As California experiences a historic succession of winter storms, most of us will see extensive reporting on power outages, flooding, and mudslides. But amidst the destruction, there is a story of resilience and preparedness that will get less attention. A small but growing contingent of farmers is poised to not only rebound from the deluge of water, but to benefit from it. These farmers have a valuable lesson to share: ecologically-minded, regenerative organic agriculture that prioritizes soil health is critical to our future.
In a region parched by megadrought and greatly affected by human alteration, the landscape cannot absorb rapid, uninterrupted rainfall. Agriculture has overworked much of this state—heavy tillage, lack of crop diversity, and agrochemical use have turned living, absorptive soils into easily eroded dirt.
We have also redirected rivers and waterways that once transected the landscape and built on top of floodplains. And through clearcutting and the deprivation of healthy fire cycles, we have destroyed our forests’ natural adaptation to heavy precipitation. Despite our desperate need for this water, we have greatly diminished our ability to receive it.
This is particularly bad news in a state that produces over two-thirds of the nation’s fruits and nuts and one-third of its vegetables. Though they are suffering from prolonged water scarcity, most of the farms here will see limited direct benefits to their land from the atmospheric rivers hitting the state this season. Many will also suffer crop losses as their fields are flooded and crops in compacted soils drown. And, come summer, they will likely be back to overpumping underground aquifers and overreliance on surface water (as the Sierra snowpack is now melting earlier than it once did).

Paicines Ranch, further south in San Benito County, is another leader in regenerative agriculture. Paicines integrates livestock into their vineyards year-round in imitation of natural ecosystems, cultivates biodiversity, and also avoids tilling.
​Paicines has experienced “no runoff from our vineyard since we began managing it regeneratively in 2017, despite being situated atop a hill, and I am eager to see how our soils perform with more rain coming,” said Kelly Mulville, the ranch’s vineyard director. “The vineyard soils are now capable of holding all the water this past series of storms has poured on it.” (Disclosure: The owner of Paicines Ranch is a financial supporter of Civil Eats.)
Regenerative organic farmers understand that extreme weather patterns are not novel. California’s history is one of drought, flood, and fire that cannot be conquered. Nor should they be; these forces have shaped an abundant landscape, one which has supported human civilization for millennia. But as climate change increases the severity and variability of these forces, adaptation is as important as ever.
Ecologically minded farmers are keen observers of nature. Instead of fighting against it, they harness its natural processes to grow food. Instead of simplifying landscapes, they cultivate biodiversity above and belowground, which creates resilience. The healthy soils on these farms are full of life and decaying matter, commonly referred to as soil organic matter. This life creates soil pores (up to 50 percent of total soil volume) and glues particles together, allowing water to infiltrate rapidly without washing it away or drowning plants.

Source: Ryan's Peterson article from Civil Eats

Professor Apichart Vanavichit, PhD, Rice Genomic Breeding Expert at Rice Science Center, heralds the next green revolution of organic riceRice is a major food crop for more than half of the world’s population and a crucial export commodity for Thailand. Despite the success story of the first Green Revolution in 2005, new rice varieties developed in Thailand negatively impact the environment and well-being of rice farmers in irrigated areas. On the other hand, based on chemical-free cultivation practices, organically grown rice conserves the environment and genetic diversity, and enhances the nutritional properties of harvested rice. Nevertheless, grain yield generally makes up half of chemical-rich irrigated rice.
Most importantly, the lack of resistance to diseases, insect pests and environmental stressors makes organic rice vulnerable and risky for crop loss. As a result, rice prices are significantly higher, with lower outputs from organic cultivation than non-organic rice. However, significantly increased productivity and enhanced resistance in organic cultivation sustain organically-grown rice and benefit consumers by reducing the market price.
Breaking the plateau of grain yield in organic rice is a grand challenge for rice breeders to comprehend any limitations and provide genetic solutions to enhance the efficiency and productivity of organically-grown rice.
One approach involves the high genetic diversity of Indica x Japonica crosses to maximize heterosis, the genetic phenomenon when progenies outperform their parental lines in grain yield and productivity. The recent gathering of rice scientists and breeders around the world at the 19th International Symposium on Rice Functional Genomics in Phuket, Thailand reports an understanding of precision breeding for organic rice.
New ideotypes of organic rice breedingWe have designed a new rice ideotype to fit into organic cultivation. The key features are high productivity, high water and nutrient use efficiency WUE, intermediate plant height, intermediate maturity, strong stem, resistance to all biotic and abiotic stresses, resiliency to climate change and pyramiding. All resistance genes in elite rice varieties are achieved by pyramiding into existing nutrient-rich rice, high-yielding cultivars with good broad-spectrum resistance to both diseases and insect pests, tolerance to abiotic stresses, improved agronomic traits, increased photosynthetic efficiency and enhanced interaction with microbiota.
Climate-ready, nutrient-rich riceThailand Rice Science Center has relentlessly developed the first four rice models for organic farming since 2000 until today. We have undertaken four organic breeding programs selected under organic cultivation systems: Super Riceberry-Rainbow Rice, Super Low GI White Rice, Super Jasmine Rice and Super Waxy Rice. Our main goal is to choose new rice varieties to significantly outperform local varieties of the same quality type under high pressure from diseases and insect pests in multiple target organic areas. The ultimate goal is to maximize yield and quality under optimum organic agricultural practices.
To conclude, 50 rice varieties have broad-spectrum resistance to bacterial leaf blight, leaf blast, brown planthopper, and tolerance to flooding, extreme heat, salinity, acid sulfate soil and drought. In addition, rice varieties with improved water use efficiency, resistance to sheath rot, brown spots, and bacterial leaf streak have recently developed. These innovative rice varieties are key success stories of the green revolution in organic rice.

Rhizosphere-microbiome interaction – key to productivityDespite no addition of chemical fertilizers, rice can be pretty productive under organic cultivation, albeit with lower grain yield in many cases. Nature’s secret depends on the genetic makeup of rice and soil microbiome. The rhizosphere and the soil environment near the rice root surface are crucial interfaces for water and nutrient absorption, releasing root exudates and interacting with soil microbiota. Gaseous exchange between roots and microbial community occurs here, enabling methane to escape from submerged soil to the atmosphere and become a greenhouse gas. The rice rhizosphere accommodates large numbers of microbial communities, including endophytes, rhizosphere bacteria and fungi.
However, the intensive application of N-P-K fertilizers adversely affects the abundance and diversity of the microbial community in the rhizosphere responsible for nitrification, N2 fixation, and tolerance to problematic soil. On the other hand, the main advantage of organic rice cultivation is more diversity of soil microbiota associated with rice rhizosphere. Recently, there have been reports on PGP and plant growth promotor microbes, including endophytic stenotrophomonas and Piriformospora indica. To conclude, we have detailed the success story of organic rice breeding by precision rice breeding involving multiple gene pyramiding to generate sustainable, productive, nutritious rice varieties that are resilient to climate change.
Acknowledgement
This project was supported by the BBSRC Newton Rice Research Initiative BB/N013646/1, National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) (Grant No. P-16- 50286), and NSRF via the Program Management Unit for Human Resources and Institutional Development, Research, and Innovation (Grant No. B16F630088).

The next green revolution of organic rice
Article for organic source:
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/article/green-revolution-organic-rice-yield-environment/149446/