10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health


gmo
advertisement - learn more

Over the past few years, a number of countries have completely banned GMOs and the pesticides that go along with them, and they are doing so for a reason. The latest country to consider a complete ban is Russia after top government scientists recommended at least a 10 year ban.

The truth is, we don’t know enough about GMOs to deem them safe for human consumption. Believe it or not the very first commercial sale of them was only twenty years ago. There is no possible way that our health authorities can test all possible combinations on a large enough population, over a long enough period of time to be able to say with absolute certainty that they are harmless.

There are a multitude of credible scientific studies that clearly demonstrate why GMOs should not be consumed, and more are emerging every year.  There are also a number of scientists all around the world that oppose them.

By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment.The FDA has said that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food, so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this, geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it horizontally into a totally unrelated species. Now David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot and exchange genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without regard to the biological constraints. It’s very very bad science, we assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically, applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion – Geneticist David Suzuki

If anybody ever tells you that we know with one hundred percent certainty that GMOs are totally safe to eat, they haven’t done their research. There is no reason GM foods should be approved safe for consumption, we just don’t know enough about them. We could easily feed the planet through organic, GMO free methods, there is absolutely no reason we need GM foods around.

Below I’ve presented just a bit of information to get you started on your research if you’re interested.

1. Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood

Research from Canada (the first of its kind) has successfully identified the presence of pesticides -associated with genetically modified foods in maternal, fetal and non-pregnant women’s blood. They also found the presence of Monsanto’s Bt toxin. The study was published in the Journal Reproductive Toxicology in 2011.(1) You can read the FULL study here.

“Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed, particularly those using the placental transfer approach. Thus, our present results will provide baseline data for future studies exploring a new area of research relating to nutrition, toxicology and reproduction in women. Today, obstetric-gynecological disorders that are associated with environmental chemicals are not known.  Thus, knowing the actual concentration of genetically modified foods in humans constitutes a cornerstone in the advancement of research in this area.” (1)

The study used blood samples from thirty pregnant women and thirty non-pregnant women. The study also pointed out that the fetus is considered to be highly susceptible to the adverse affects of xenobiotics (foreign chemical substance found within an organism that is not naturally produced.)  This is why the study emphasizes that knowing more about GMOs is crucial, because environmental agents could disrupt the biological events that are required to ensure normal growth and development.

2. DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them

In a new study published in the peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS), researchersemphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism.(2)

In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA.  The study was based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies. PLOS is an open access, well respected peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers primary research from disciplines within science and medicine. It’s great to see this study published in it, confirming what many have been suspected for years.

“Our bloodstream is considered to be an environment well separated from the outside world and the digestive tract. According to the standard paradigm large macromolecules consumed with food cannot pass directly to the circulatory system. During digestion proteins and DNA are thought to be degraded into small constituents, amino acids and nucleic acids, respectively, and then absorbed by a complex active process and distributed to various parts of the body through the circulation system. Here, based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies, we report evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and through an unknown mechanism enter the human circulation system. In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The plant DNA concentration shows a surprisingly precise log-normal distribution in the plasma samples while non-plasma (cord blood) control sample was found to be free of plant DNA.” (2)

This still doesn’t mean that GMOs can enter into our cells, but given the fact GMOs have been linked to cancer (later in this article) it is safe to assume it is indeed a possibility. The bottom line is that we don’t know, and this study demonstrates another cause for concern.

3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans

This study was recently released by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and uses data from the US department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency, medical journal reviews as well as other independent research. (3)(4) The authors relate GM foods to five conditions that may either trigger or exacerbate gluten-related disorders, including the autoimmune disorder, Celiac Disease:

  • Intestinal permeability
  • Imbalanced gut bacteria
  • Immune activation and allergic response
  • Impaired digestion
  • Damage to the intestinal wall

The Institute for Responsible technology is a world leader in educating policy makers and the public about GMO foods and crops. The institute reports and investigates on the impact GM foods can have on health, environment, agriculture and more.

4. Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors

In November 2012, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. (5)

It was a very significant study, which obviously looks bad for the big bio tech companies like Monsanto, being the first and only long term study under controlled conditions examining the possible effects of a diet of GMO maize treated with Monsanto roundup herbicide.

This study has since been retracted, which is odd, because the journal it was published in is a very well known, reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. In order for a study to be published here it has to go through a rigorous review process.

It’s also important to note that hundreds of scientists from around the world have condemned the retraction of the study. This study was done by experts, and a correlation between GMOs and these tumors can’t be denied, something happened.

The multiple criticisms of the study have also been answered by the team of researchers that conducted the study. You can read them and find out more about the study here.

GM Crop Production is Lowering US Yields and Increasing Pesticide Use

5. Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors

A study is published in the US National Library of Medicine (4) and will soon be published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. Several recent studies showed glyphosate’s potential to be an endocrine disruptor. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the hormone system in mammals. These disruptors can cause developmental disorders, birth defects and cancer tumors. (6)

Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer. We found that glyphosate exhibited a weaker estrogenic activity than estradiol. Furthermore, this study demonstrated the additive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genisein which implied that the use of contaminated soybean products as dietary supplements may pose a risk of breast cancer because of their potential additive estrogenicity. (6)

Researchers also determined that Monsanto’s roundup is considered an “xenoestrogen,” which is a foreign estrogen that mimics real estrogen in our bodies. This can cause a number of problems that include an increased risk of various cancers, early onset of puberty, thyroid issues, infertility and more.

6. Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects

A group of scientists put together a comprehensive review of existing data that shows how European regulators have known that Monsanto’s glyphosate causes a number of birth malformations since at least 2002. Regulators misled the public about glyphosate’s safety, and in Germany the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety told the European Commission that there was no evidence to suggest that glyphosate causes birth defects. (7)

Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable. In this report, we examine the industry studies and regulatory documents that led to the approval of glyphosate. We show that industry and regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s and 1990s that glyphosate causes malformation – but that this information was not made public. We demonstrate how EU regulators reasoned their way from clear evidence of glyphosate’s teratogenicity in industry’s own studies to a conclusion that minimized these findings in the EU Commission’s final review report (7)

Here is a summary of the report:

  • Multiple peer-reviewed scientific literature documenting serious health hazards posed by glyphosate
  • Industry (including Monsanto) has known since the 1980′s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses
  • Industry has known since 1993 that these effects could also occur at lower and mid doses
  • The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations
  • The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations
  • The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year DG SANCO division published its final review report, laying out the basis for the current approval of glyphosate

Another study published by the American Chemical Society, from the university of Buenos Aires, Argentina also showed that Glyphosate can cause abnormalities.(8)

The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to glyphosate in agricultural fields (8)

7. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

When you ingest Glyphosate, you are in essence altering the chemistry of your body. It’s completely unnatural and the body doesn’t resonate with it. P450 (CYP) is the gene pathway disrupted when the body takes in Glyphosate. P450 creates enzymes that assist with the formation of molecules in cells, as well as breaking them down. CYP enzymes are abundant and have many important functions. They are responsible for detoxifying xenobiotics from the body, things like the various chemicals found in pesticides, drugs and carcinogens. Glyphosate inhibits the CYP enzymes. The CYP pathway is critical for normal, natural functioning of multiple biological systems within our bodies. Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease. (9)

8. Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans

A new study out of Germany concludes that Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and can be excreted in urine. It outlines how presence of glyphosate in urine and its accumulation in animal tissues is alarming even at low concentrations. (10)

To this day, Monsanto continues to advertise its Roundup products as environmentally friendly and claims that neither animals nor humans are affected by this toxin. Environmentalists, veterinarians, medical doctors and scientists however, have raised increasing alarms about the danger of glyphosate in the animal and human food chain as well as the environment. The fact that glyphosate has been found in animals and humans is of great concern. In search for the causes of serious diseases amongst entire herds of animals in northern Germany, especially cattle, glyphosate has repeatedly been detected in the urine, feces, milk and feed of the animals. Even more alarming, glyphosate was detected in the urine of the farmers.  (10)

9. Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs

A study by scientist Judy Carman, PhD that was recently published in the peer reviewed journal Organic Systems outlines the effects of a diet mixed with GMO feed for pigs, and how it is a cause for concern when it comes to health. (11) Scientists randomized and fed isowean pigs either a mixed GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet for approximately 23 weeks (nothing out of the ordinary for most pigs in the United States), which is unfortunately the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter. Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each group. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs. GM-fed pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% compared to 125 of non-GM fed pigs.

The study concluded that pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited a heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs who weren’t fed a GMO diet. Because the use of GMO feed for livestock and humans is so widespread, this is definitely another cause for concern when it comes to GMO consumption. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are consumed widely by people, especially in the United States.

10. GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety. (12)(13)(14)

Deficiencies have been revealed numerous times with regards to testing GM foods.

The first guidelines were originally designed to regulate the introduction of GM microbes and plants into the environment with no attention being paid to food safety concerns. However, they have been widely cited as adding authoritative scientific support to food safety assessment. Additionally, the Statement of Policy released by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States, presumptively recognizing the GM foods as GRAS (generally recognized as safe), was prepared while there were critical guidelines prepared by the International Life Sciences Institute Europe and FAO/WHO recommend that safety evaluation should be based on the concept of substantial equivalence, considering parameters such as molecular characterization, phenotypic characteristics, key nutrients, toxicants and allergens. Since 2003, official standards for food safety assessment have been published by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO. Published reviews with around 25 peer-reviewed studies have found that despite the guidelines, the risk assessment of GM foods has not followed a defined prototype.(12) (15)

“The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic. Evaluations for each GM crop or trait have been conducted using different feeding periods, animal models and parameters. The most common results is that GM and conventional sources include similar nutritional performance and growth in animals. However, adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues have been reported. While there are currently no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods, attempts towards harmonization are on the way. More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods.” (12) (15)

So, if anybody ever tells you that GMOs are completely safe for consumption, it’s not true. We just don’t know enough about them to make such a definitive statement. A lot of evidence actually points to the contrary.

Sources:

(1) https://www.uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf

(2) http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069805

(3) http://rt.com/usa/gmo-gluten-sensitivity-trigger-343/

(4) http://responsibletechnology.org/media/images/content/Press_Release_Gluten_11_25.pdf

(5) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

(6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

(7) http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/Roundup-and-birth-defects/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5.pdf

(8) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749

(9) http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

(10) http://omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf

(11) http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

(12) http://static.aboca.com/www.aboca.com/files/attach/news/risk_assessment_of_genetically_modified_crops_for_nutrition.pdf

(13) Reese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2004;21:299–324

(14) Schubert D. A different perspective on GM food. Nat Biotechnol. 2002;20:969–969.

(15) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19146501


Free Happiness Training!

Do you want to bring more happiness into your life?

Happify's activities and games are based on a decade's worth of cutting-edge research by psychologists and neuroscientists from leading academic institutions around the world.

Happify's exercises are personalized directly for you based on your unique goals.

If you are looking to bring more peace and joy into your life this year Start out with Happify for FREE!

advertisement - learn more

More From 'Awareness'

CE provides a space for free thinkers to explore and discuss new, alternative information and ideas. The goal? Question everything, think differently, spread love and live a joy filled life.

  1. luke

    ‘Well, I still believe in majority rules,not in dictatorship, & guess what pro-GMOers, looks like you’re outnumbered 26 (and growing) to 1!!!!!’

    You think that majority vote should rule science. If 51% of people believe the moon is made of cheese does that make it true?

    Non paid, pro-GM people are so because we realise the benefits. The banning of Golden Rice due to unfounded, unscientific fears about GM has had, and continues to have real life consequences! Millions of children dying and going blind. Isn’t it great to sit in your comfortable homes, well fed in the west and make influential movement against a technology that you don’t understand.

    The manipulation of food is as old as agriculture. If you do you’re research properly you will find that traditional plant breeding techniques are not tested at all and can sometimes lead to dangerous consequences. GM allows us the opportunity to be specific with crop improvement and save lives.

    That’s the science.

    Now I don’t agree with the policies, the appalling laws driving small farms out of business or any of that. But make the politics the centre of your campaigns and maybe you will get somewhere and promote beneficial change.

    • I agree… Science is clear… GMO’s are wrongly demonized!

  2. Emily

    I’m not here to defend GMO’s or large corporations like Monsanto however, I would like to clarify why study number 4 was retracted for good reasons!

    Although this study was originally published it was retracted because it was found to be fraudulent. There are a number of points in this study where the data was misleading and the methodology used was just plain bad!!

    One of the most important factors to note is the species of rat used. The rats studied were all Sprague-Dawley rats, which if you did a simple Google search you would find that this species has a natural predisposition to the development of tumors. In fact, more than 45% of these rats will naturally develop tumors, especially mammary tumors in females (the same type of tumor that this study claims to be caused by GMOs)!!
    However, this point is not addressed in the study itself and if you look at the photos of the rats with tumors noted in this study you will find that they are missing a photo of a rat from the control group. This is purposely done since rats that were not subjected to treatment with GMO’s or Roundup also developed tumors as was shown in graph number two!

    In addition the math and statistics used to determine the results like “2-3 times more death occurred in the treatment groups that the control group” is completely misleading and essentially a dirty trick!!
    Let me explain how they calculated these numbers. Take for instance the graph from figure 1 “Cause of death in Males with the GMO treatment”. If you actually look at the graph you will see that deaths in the control group were actually higher that the deaths in the two groups with 22% and 33% GMO concentrations. The only group significantly higher was the group with GMO’s at 11%. But how can it be possible that there were fewer deaths at higher concentrations of GMO’s than at the lower level? The only way this is possible is if there was no actual correlation between the level of GMO’s in food and death rate. However, the authors manipulated the data to show that there was. What they did was they took the control group which had 3 deaths out of 10, so 3/10. Then they compared that to the number of deaths in the three treated groups which were respectively 5/10, 1/10 and 1/10. Now most people would look at this and say that there was a 3/10=30% death rate in the control group compared to a 7/30= 23% death rate in the GMO groups (actually showing that the rats eating GMO’s had a lower death rate than ones who didn’t). However, what the authors did was they only looked at the actual number of deaths rather than the percentage, so 3 deaths in the control group compared to 7 deaths out of all three of the GMO groups. Therefore these results are completely false and misleading!!

    There are many other problems with this study such as sample size (10 individuals per group?!?! Come on! What scientist would use a sample size so small!!) and representation of data however, I believe I have addressed the most significant problems.

    I’m not going to try and say companies like Monsanto aren’t doing anything wrong. However, I think it is important to know the scientific facts and not be tricked by false information like that which was presented in this study. And the fact is that this article is completely fraudulent and GMO’s have shown absolutely no correlation to tumor incidence in rats or mortality rate. If you don’t believe me I encourage you to read this article and see these errors for yourself.

    Source: A degree in both biology and environmental studies :)

    • Hi Emily, the study you are referring to was actually re-published, and all of the criticisms are answered. I wrote about it here: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/07/15/new-study-links-gmos-to-cancer-liverkidney-damage-severe-hormonal-disruption/ and you can access the updated study there also. It’s important to mention that the original retraction of the study was condemned by over 100 scientists from around the world.

      Secondly, it’s great that you have a degree in biology and environmental studies, but there are a number of studies published in peer reviewed scientific journals, as well as a large amount of independent research that have outlined the dangers associated with GMOs as well as the pesticides that go with them. This is one of multiple reasons so many countries are banning them, or have severe restrictions on them…

      It’s great that you have a degree in biology, but it’s not hard to understand, especially when we have experts…with degree’s, PHd’s so on and so forth in these fields break it down for us.

      Thanks for commenting :)

  3. Steve

    Great article and well researched. Couldn’t agree more.

    • Horace Boothroyd III

      No propaganda dump that pushes Seralini and his tragically inept study could be mistaken for “well researched.” Your agreement speaks volumes about your own gullibility and your need to consume far fetched lies to prop up your incoherent belief system.

  4. Michael Marshall

    The only one of these “studies,” most are but some were not peer-reviewed, that is somewhat troubling is that claiming Roundup has estrogen-like activity for the stimulation of some breast cancer cells in-vitro. The others have been roundly criticized and refuted by experts. You might want to look into some of these counter-claims before you post articles like this one which impute more significance to these works than the scientific community does..

    • Not all are peer reviewed..but some are and there are many out there…not to mention independent research. We can’t always use the peer reviewed argument, we have to look at independent research done my experts in the field that are not sponsored by the food corps too……

      I have looked into the counter claims…for example, here is an updated study that addresses many of the criticisms it was criticized for in the first placed. It was totally updated and re-published.

      Thanks for commenting:)

      • Ben

        Blogs like yours are corrupting science and constitute libel against the good people who produce GM food. You are clueless about science and have absolutely no credibility to speak on the subject of GM food. Yet, you do, and you make wild, unsupported claims (such as claiming that there are many peer-reviewed studies showing that GM food is harmful, when there are literally none). The peer review process is the best we have. Authors must publish the sources of their funding and any conflicts of interest, and the sole motivation of the reviewers is to conduct a careful and thorough evaluation of the study under review.

        Myself and many others who are trained in the biological sciences have repeatedly refuted each one of these “scientific studies” (most of which do not even resemble science) and all of your claims about the harmfulness of GM food. If you want to keep any shred of credibility as a journalist, I suggest that you stick to subject areas that you know something about.

        • Completely disagree, there is a lot of science and plenty of credibility on the topic from a number of different sources (including peer reviewed journals) and great independent research. Not only for human health but the environment, and that’s why they are being banned in multiple countries around the world!

          For anyone who does the research it’s quite clear…GMOs are just unnecessary..bottom line. In my opinion, and that’s the opinion of many many others as well! :)

          And your claim that there is no good peer-reviewed work is just wrong. Here is an example :And just to let you know I never said “bad.” I said….cause for concern, we don’t know enough, lots of evidence to point to the fact that they might not be completely safe! Here is a great example:

          “Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed, particularly those using the placental transfer approach. Thus, our present results will provide baseline data for future studies exploring a new area of research relating to nutrition, toxicology and reproduction in women. Today, obstetric-gynecological disorders that are associated with environmental chemicals are not known. Thus, knowing the actual concentration of genetically modified foods in humans constitutes a cornerstone in the advancement of research in this area.”

          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623811000566

          Here is another:

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19146501

          • Ben

            You said “GMOs are just unnecesary”. So anything unnecessary should be banned? That doesn’t make any sense. Do you actually read what you write before posting it?

            You said “I never said bad”. Yes you did. Your title is “10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs can be Harmful to Human Health”.

            Your first reference has absolutely nothing to do with demonstrating that GM food causes harm. The authors simply measured pesticide levels in mothers and their fetuses. Why do you repeatedly cite this paper?

            Your second reference is a review, not a study, another small piece of evidence of how completely ignorant you are about what a scientific study is. It reviewed multiple studies and found that occasionally minor molecular effects of GM food on some animals (none of which involved humans, in contrast to your blog title) have been reported. This is expected even if GM food has no effect. Why? Because all studies involve statistics, and in statistics there’s something called the “false discovery rate”. If GM food has absolutely no effect on any aspect of health, you still expect to find a “significant” result with a p-value of < 0.05 every 20 statistical tests you do. Each of those 31 studies tested multiple parameters, so probably at least 200 statistical tests were carried out, and only a few p-values were less than 0.05.

            Billions of humans have eaten GM food for decades, and not a single study has shown that they are harmful to human health.

            With you, it's like I've repeatedly shown you a video of your parents putting toys under your Christmas tree, but you won't stop believing in Santa Claus. Please do everyone a favor and stop writing about things you're clueless about.

          • Yes unnecessary…Not quite sure how you draw the conclusion “so anything unnecessary should be banned?” from that…Basically unnecessary because it can be done a better way, and organically. Also because of all the evidence pointing to the fact that they’re probably not the safest things to have on our body and/environment!

            And yes, the get in that title of my article is “CAN”. :)

            The first reference does indeed demonstrate cause for concern, it clear states it in the study..multiple times..

            Again, yes studies have shown they can be harmful to human health..

            I am wondered if you are being paid to write what you are writing because some of the statements you make are making zero sense, and you are repeating yourself a lot. If you have said what you’ve needed to say you might as well stop instead of saying it again! :)

          • http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/26/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/

            There – that’s all I’m adding to this shitty article you’ve written…what a load of complete crap…

            Stop trying to stand against technology YOU do not understand…

            The EU is also one of the only “organisations” [if I may call it that] that has pushed for the banning of GMO’s based on…wait for it…

            Public Opinion and Political Interests – NOT Agricultural or Scientific Reports…

            The EU has also removed their Chief Science Advisory Role and have put Science in general on the back-burner…

            The EU is an INSULT to Modern technology…

            the TRUTH is this:

            Anti-GMO and Anti-Vaxxers have NOTHING to support their ludicrous claims and trying to convince people who refuse to be educated in modern technology and science is simply a waste of our time and efforts…

            At the end of the day – GE is more reliable than ANY OTHER AGRICULTURAL METHOD currently employed…

            Stop posting bogus crap “research” and start posting actual Science!!!

  5. its nice post………..!

  6. best…………..!

    • Sally

      I, as a consumer, a citizen , & a member of this shared planet, I DEMAND to know what is in the food I PURCHASE. It is my body & my right to know!!! Point blank, argue that pro GMOers, I will and do!

      • Ben

        That information is on the nutrition facts label, which have been required since 1992. DNA is in everything we eat. We don’t turn into chickens when we eat chicken DNA, do we? What else do you demand to know about your food? As far as your rights, you have the right to act as irrationally as you want when purchasing your own food, and you have the right to grow and produce your own food, but you don’t have the right to ban genetically modified food without any knowledge of what it is.

        • No, in MANY products not ALL the information is found on the nutrition facts label.I sure don’t see a “may contain one or more GMOs label” either. Irrational, really? That’s a matter of opinion and yours doesn’t matter. I think manipulating genes and putting them out there without knowing how it’s going to effect everything else is irrational & irresponsible. BTW I DO have the right to ban GMO food if I and the MAJORITY see fit to do so. I have knowledge of what it is, still have concerns TYVM.

          • Kathy

            Actually Ben’s opinion DOES matter. Its not even a matter of opinion, its a FACT that most GMO’s are actually safe. You yourself don’t actually have the right to ban GMO’s, now if it were a majority then maybe, but not you yourself. You on your own have the right as a consumer to buy what you wish. If you want to spend more money on produce and grains that actually leave a larger carbon footprint, and actually can leave a larger impact on our environment so be it that is your choice. At the same time if others (myself included) want affordable groceries that actually in the end result in a lower carbon footprint, and in some cases a healthier product, we have that right too. One reference to a healthier product actually comes from a new potato that creates less of a cancer causing agent than conventional and organic potatoes when fried or cooked. You’re actually showing with the comments that you have no clue what a GMO actually is.

          • I said the MAJORITY did I not, not myself. Don’t treat me like I am ignorant, none of your bisiness but I’ve done plenty of research on this, have a degree, and am plenty aware of what a GMO is! To say Monsanto leaves a smaller carbon footprint is almost laughable if it weren’t so downright disgusting! You know how many pesticides, herbicides, insecticides are in the environment, wildlife, water sources, us!! Your mono-cultured crops are the worst thing for keeping, building healthy soil life! Your fumigants destroy this life actually!! You know how many sicknesses, birth defects, deaths are caused by exposure to your AG chemicals?!!!!!! Yeah, No thank you to your Round-Up ready stuff!!!t And you damn right I am willing to pay more for a healthier, ethically raised/made product/food. Oh, and your “special potato” what’s the LONG term effects of that?!! You’re actually showing by your comments that you have no clue what ethics, respect, and compassion actually are.

      • Kathy

        Well, in your ORGANIC apple we have:
        aqua–water, H2O.
        vegetable oils–fats produced by the plant itself
        sugars–mostly fructose.
        starch–all plants contain starches to some extent. Some are more digestible than others.
        carotene–an orange photosynthetic pigment important for photosynthesis. Comes in multiple forms including beta-carotene which you may recognize from carrots.
        tocopherol–Vitamin E
        riboflavin–Vitamin B2
        nicotinamide–the amide of Nicotinic acid (Niacin, Vitamin B3). Interestingly, Nicotine has a similar structure which can interfere with the body’s absorption of vitamin B3.
        pantothenic acid–Vitamin B5
        biotin–Vitamin B7
        folic acid–Vitamin B9
        ascorbic acid–Vitamin C
        palmitic acid–the most common fatty acid found in plants, animals, and microorganisms.
        stearic acid–one of the most common fatty acids found in nature following palmitic acid.
        oleic acid–another fatty acid that occurs naturally.
        linolic acid(sic)–linoleic acid belongs to one of the two families of essential fatty acids, which means that the human body cannot synthesize it from other food components.
        malic acid–a dicarboxylic acid that is made by all living organisms and contributes to the pleasantly sour taste of fruits. Was first isolated from apple juice.
        oxalic acid–a naturally occurring acid. Consumption of large amounts can lead to kidney stones.
        salicylic acid–a naturally occurring acid that functions as a plant hormone. Eases aches and pains, reduces fevers, and is an effective topical treatment for acne.
        Purines–there are many purines. Two are found in DNA, adenine and guanine. Theobromine (the stimulant in chocolate) and caffeine are two more, though these two do not occur naturally in apples.
        sodium–an essential electrolyte.
        potassium–an essential mineral.
        manganese–an essential trace element.
        iron–an essential mineral.
        copper–an essential trace element.
        zinc–an essential trace element.
        phosphorus–an essential element.
        chloride–an essential electrolyte.
        colors–naturally occurring pigments found mostly in the peel.
        antioxidant–naturally occurring antioxidant.

        Other chemicals naturally found in (even organically grown) apples (mostly concentrated in the seeds);

        Arsenic
        Formaldehyde
        Cyanide

        • Yes, nature contains many things, naturally, but BIG difference between that and man-made manipulation without responsibility. Nature has a way of adapting together, to throw something else entirely new in the intricate system without care of consequence is careless. I have NOTHING against responsible technology, but question, is the planet in better or worse shape presently?! Not to mention the motive behind the Genetic Manipulation of our food;To privately own seeds and make it an extreme hardship for farmers & gardeners to collect & grow their own without paying big fees & fines is SOCIOPATHIC, GREEDY, INSANE!!!

          • Kathy

            Sally, I live in a semi-rural setting, I deal with farmers on a daily bases, those “big fees and fines” are actually a myth. And FYI even organic seeds have patent holders.

          • I live in a very rural setting. I am a farmer. Monsanto DOES sue farmers for trying to save seed from their patented stock. Johnny’s, Baker Creek, Territorial, not so much. For I can save their seed, it’ll revert back (not be “true to seed”) or be whatever I’ve breed it to be, call it something else, & it’s mine. The GMOers want to eventually control all the seed, have it all patented. That would be complete control then they could monopolize the market & set whatever price they want on it. NO WAY!!

          • I’d just ignore them. It sounds like some paid people leaving comments. Who else would push GMO’s so strongly. Completely ignoring any scientific research proving GMO’s are not safe. I really believe many of the studies promoting GMO’s are government or Monsanto backed. Another question I have for the GMO lovers…why are 26 countries banning GMO’s?

          • Joy, I agree, obviously representatives of Monsanto, Dow Chem, & or DuPont. Yes, product “testing” is most often done by the companies themselves and NOT unbiased third parties. This is one area the EPA fails us, oking these products without proper testing & investigation. They’ve even been busted for holding illegal private meetings with chemical makers without the required third parties. EPA employees have said they’ve felt coerced into approving these products for the market. So NO, they are not to be trusted!! To answer your question is they are racist, they call these other 26 countries ignorant, blind, stupid, lacking scientific knowledge etc etc. Like these countries don’t have educated, intelligent citizens! Watch the ‘World according to Monsanto’ for more info. Well, I still believe in majority rules,not in dictatorship, & guess what pro-GMOers, looks like you’re outnumbered 26 (and growing) to 1!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Featured TEDx Talk

TEDx - Agents of Change

Free Exclusive Film Screening!

Free Film Screening
advertisement - learn more
Connect, Inspire, Chat & Share!
CE Radio - Listen now!
advertisement - learn more
Amazers
Subscribe to CE Magazine Monthly For Exclusive Content!
The Mind Unleashed

We Recommend

www.truththeory.com

Trending Now

lackvitamins

Why We’re All Deficient In Magnesium, The Many Signs & What To Do

Signs of magnesium deficiency are everywhere in the United States, if you know what to look for. Unfortunately, the symptoms are so incredibly common that they constantly slip under the radar! Hardly anyone, especially doctors, notice that the ailments we…