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


Take The 30 Days of YOU Challenge!

Take the free 30 Days of You Challenge and discover more about your heart, mind and soul.

There are powerful benefits associated with taking time to relax, meditate, do things you love etc, but that means taking YOU time!

This challenge will help you set out on a journey to getting powerful habits started that can transform your life.

Join the free challenge and get the full guidelines on how to do it as well as support throughout the challenge.

Click Here!

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. mergon

    GMO for corn would be ok if the corn was only to be used for methanol production
    but as usual the Americans like to make a billion dollars , in doing this we have to wonder why they are [A] allowed to keep poisoning the planet ,forcing farmers into bankruptcy and killing the worlds Bees with there Round up weed killer !

    You just have to wonder what the master plan is ?
    In the uk the houses of parliament and the house of lords get all of there food from certified organic farms in the north of the country they do not buy any GM products !

    Americans grow appx 50% of their corn for fuel !

    Reply
    • Kathy

      I think you should do a little research on the history of corn before you type up your myths… In reality ALL the corn we eat, including “organic” is really GMO. If you want a truely organic corn you’ll likely not want to eat it. Here I’ll help a little, and before you cry out that its not all GMO, any selective or cross breeding is a form of GMO because it is still modified genetically. Main difference now is we have labs and can do much better things, and much more efficiently. AND we can test them to make sure they’re safe. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/corn/

      Reply
      • Sally

        Oh yeah, because we have done sooo much better than nature right?! Like super weeds, air & water quality, endless ever-growing garbage dumps, treatment of animals, treatment of each other right?! So much better & healthier looking now than what Lewis & Clark saw right?! All technologies are good right? Owning seed patents & controling our food is good too right? For you maybe, as a citizen of this shared planet I vote no, that IS my right that I am entitled to.

        Reply
        • Chris H

          There are plenty of organic seed companies that have patented seeds. It makes sense since they’re the ones that have put the time,effort and money into developing them. That is like saying that a musician should make music and not make money off of their hard work. Speaking to water quality (as I am a former employee at a municipal public utility); I can say that while we may not have improved the quality of water coming from the ground (assuming you’re talking about a natural, unpolluted, earth filtered spring), but we have certainly been able to use technology to ensure there is enough of the good stuff to go around.

          Reply
        • Kathy

          You didn’t look at the link I gave did you Sally? I’m not talking about where its done better, but organic foods aren’t innocent either. Just because they’re organic doesn’t mean they don’t use herbicides and pesticides, in fact often they use more than a GMO crop needs.

          Reply
        • Ben

          I think you’ve driven yourself insane.

          Reply
          • Sally

            No, people like you do. Weak comeback btw but nice try.

            Reply
            • Ben

              That wasn’t a comeback. You literally sound insane. You don’t know what a GMO is, but you’re against it.

    • Ben

      Did you write this while drunk? I have no idea what you’re talking about.

      Reply
    • Dennis Manns

      What I’ve learned from this post is there a pile people that wear TIN FOIL HATS !!!!!!

      Reply
  2. Surely the people behind this gmos are serious about changing the world,totally satanic acts.

    Reply
  3. Francesca

    Actually GMOs have been around for longer than 20 years. Seedless grapes aren’t natural…

    Reply
    • - Collective Evolution

      Hey, GMOs and hybrids are very different things. In the case of seedless grapes or watermelon, they are hybrids. They have been cross bred with similar species thus making it something that can even happen quite naturally. GMOs are crossing genetics from two species that are not at all related. These changes in genes cannot happen naturally and can only occur through human intervention. It goes back to the idea that if two species can naturally become a hybrid without human intervention, it’s likely to be completely safe. Where as when humans cross two completely unrelated and unlinked species to create something new, it may very well create genes and DNA that aren’t safe for human consumption and that can disrupt the environment.

      • Eric Bjerregaard

        Joe Martino, look up the latest on sweet potato. Further even if an engineer uses unrelated species. Why would that be more dangerous than natural? And sometimes they engineer by turning on or off traits. As in the Arctic apple.

        Reply
      • Rob Brinkman

        Wrong, any assortment of genetic code can and does happen naturally. There is no such thing as unnatural DNA.

        Reply
      • Dennis Manns

        Sweet potatoes are natural GMO created!!!

        Reply
      • Very eloquently said.

        Reply
        • Ben

          That’s completely wrong! Genetic modification often involves finding “alleles” or “copies” of genes from crop varieties which gives these crop varieties their desirable traits, such as fruit size and texture, taste, and nutrient content. These copies are just different versions of the same gene that every crop variety has. These different versions of these genes can be introduced into one plant so that it has all of these desirable characteristics.

          Where did you get the idea that genetic modification involves combining genes from unrelated species?

          Reply
          • Jaybo

            Maybe he got the idea from reality? The most common forms of genetically modified corn and soy have DNA from bacteria inserted in to their genetic structure. Not only is that cross-species, it’s cross-kingdom. Maybe you might wanna do a little research before spouting nonsense in a public forum?

            Reply
            • Ben

              DNA yes, but usually not genes. You know the difference, right? A GMO might have a gene introduced into its genome that codes for a protein that it already makes but be under the control of a strong constitutive promoter from bacteria so that the protein is made at higher than normal levels.

      • Rachel Rose

        What you explained is hybridization which is actually considered conventional breeding, not GM. But you now, most people don’t realize that non-GM foods don’t actually exist unless you buy only organic, which can actually be dangerous. Take organic potatoes…basic research…

        Reply
      • kris mccleery

        Thank you !

        Reply
        • Ben

          “GMOs are crossing genetics from species that are not at all related”. Is that really what you think GMOs are?

          Reply
      • Ben

        Why would DNA be unsafe? We eat DNA at every meal.

        Reply
        • Angie

          DNA is not unsafe. On the other hand, proteins that are expressed from DNA could be toxic. Also, expression of a (trans)gene that does not naturally occurs in an organism could potentially have an effect on the expression of other natural genes. This could, subsequently, change the whole homeostasis of the cell. So it is not that simple and it is not safe by default.

          Reply
          • reese

            Yeah but you do realize that this DNA would have to enter the cell, then enter the nucleus AND then manage to get itself transcribed. Quite a feat for some free floating DNA.

            Reply
          • Ben

            Angie, it’s nice to see someone who understands chromatin structure. Your ideas of how GMOs could potentially harm humans are valid. However, they remain theories because no one has presented real evidence to support them!

            Reply
          • Ben

            Potentially, could, might, may, possibly. Show me the evidence! You’re welcome to believe in santa claus, but don’t ban people from flying to the north pole because they might hit santa’s sled!

            Reply
        • - Collective Evolution

          We feel that there is a difference between natural and genetically modified.

          • Ben

            When new evidence disproves something, real scientists change their minds. Despite seeing real evidence for why the data do not show harm in GMO food, you’re unwilling to change your mind. You blindly believe hype and continue spreading dangerous and irrational fear no matter how much evidence there is against what you believe.

            Reply
            • - Collective Evolution

              Because there is real evidence that shows there is a chance they could be bad. I am aware of the studies defending GMOs, as many are I feel. It’s important to look at the studies opposing them too:) Don’t you think? Both sides of the coin?

            • Ben

              I’ve clearly shown why these studies are not real evidence. Tell me specifying what evidence you do have. Would you change your mind if there was enough evidence in favor of GMOs?

            • - Collective Evolution

              Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree :)

          • Ben

            Your information is not credible. You’re spreading irrational fear, which is very dangerous. Hawaii has banned GMO food, which harms the good people who produce it. All because of hype. What if you lost your job because people convinced themselves that looking at a computer screen causes cancer??

            Reply
            • - Collective Evolution

              No hype at all…there are a number of studies..and more….that clearly indicated they should not be approved safe!

            • - Collective Evolution

              The information is indeed credible, but that depends how the reader defines credibility. It’s no mystery why their are severe restrictions and bans on GMOs all over the world. Scientists have demonstrated time and time again that they are not safe and we don’t know enough about them.

              It’s all about presenting research, especially when it comes to topics such as GMOs…:)

          • - Collective Evolution

            I think it’s pretty clear that there is lots of evidence to suggest that they definitely shouldn’t be approved safe for consumption. That’s pretty clear, there is no misinformation here, just information :)

          • Ben

            You feel? Or you know? And you didn’t answer my question. What do you mean “natural” and “genetically modified” and what’s the difference in terms of DNA? Why would one be more harmful? Quick answer..there’s no difference. DNA is DNA. When we eat DNA, we digest it completely. It doesn’t go into our cells and insert itself into our genome.

            Reply
            • - Collective Evolution

              he 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. 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…this is one out of MANY problems (aside from the fact that they’ve been linked to various diseases, and environmental harm.)

              The point is, there is an enormous amount of publications already out there that you can look at, it’s why so many countries around the world have banned GMOs, or have restrictions on them! :) It’s not a mystery, the science is available for all to see, published numerous times in various reputable scientific journals! You can contact these scientists, talk to a geneticist, or more if you are truly interested. You will not find that truth on your television screen.

              There is absolutely no way we can say that they are completely safe for human consumption…..and again…the science is there, all you have to do is some research. (numerous credible publications.)

            • Ben

              No, there are literally zero credible, peer-reviewed publications demonstrating that GMO food is harmful to humans. You’ve identified ten, all of which are bogus, as countless commenters have pointed out. If there are more that we should read, please tell us what they are! The reason governments have banned GMO food is because of irrational paranoia spread by people like you who don’t know anything about the subject. I don’t want that happening in the US. By the way, I don’t need to talk to a geneticist because I am one.

            • Sally Stephens

              Good for you, who do work for??? No bias going around among scientists huh, you all are in it for the goodness of feeding the world right? You are all just so honest right? Never bought by the highest bidder right? Yeah, let’s GM everything and let the companies own the patents to the seeds-I THINK YOU KNOW WHAT YOU CAN DO!!!!!!!!!! BTW it wasn’t to long ago that many of the EPA’s own scientists/staff came forward and said they felt coerced into labeling certain chemicals as safe, conveniently left out third parties & held private meetings with chemical makers. Nah, we have nothing to worry about right because the US is all about caring for “the people” & not about top dollar/mega companies?! pphhpt

            • Ben

              Despite what you, Arjun Walia, and other conspiracy theorists think, scientists aren’t evil. You’re right, most people are not in science to feed or cure the world, and the ones who are are delusional. I’m in science because it’s interesting to me. I work in academia, not industry so I have no ties to any companies. I don’t climb the ladder by being dishonest, fooling people, or “selling out” as you claim. I climb the ladder by doing two main things. One is coming up with important scientific questions to answer, developing good strategies ot answer them, and then following through with the plan. The second thing is evaluating other scientists’ work objectively. What makes me valuable to others is my reputation–being honest and objective, as well as knowledgeable.

            • Sally

              Not once have I ever said that all scientists are corrupt, comprehend what I wrote before calling me out as a “conspiracy theorists”. There are legit reasons to have concerns whether you like to hear it or not. As I said before, even if all GMO’s are perfectly safe (not saying they are), giving control of our food supply to a select few is certainly not safe & cause for serious concern.

            • - Collective Evolution

              Given the amount of evidence available….it’s up to people to make there own decisions. That’s why we present the information, because very rarely do you see it even presented.

              Genetically modified DNA….as far as why it could be harmful you can read the sources and do your own research. It gets into our blood stream. we don’t know if it gets into our cells (that doesn’t mean it doesn’t) And given the fact that GMOs have been linked to disease that involve cell mutation, it is definitely a possibility, I believe.

      • Ever taken a Genetic Engineering class? What basis you do you have for saying that a “hybrid” is more likely to be completely safe, simply because it could in principle occur without human intervention? Poison ivy is natural, and you will likely die if you eat it. The argument that because something is natural, it is automatically more likely to be safe is utter garbage. Look,I’m not sure you understand how DNA works. We have a wide variety of options available to target genes we want, and insert them precisely where we want them. There is nothing haphazardous about the way that we modify genes, and you clearly don’t realize that mutations occur randomly in cells every day, due to errors in transcription. There is no inherent difference between those “natural” mutations and our carefully induced ones in the lab. A gene is just a sequence of nucleotides that codes for a specific protein. We insert genes that code for the proteins we want, to produce the products we need. That’s it.

        Reply
        • Jeremy Smith

          Scotty…
          First of all, toxicity is one of the biggest problem in GMOs. Because it has an impact over non-targeted organisms, such as bees and butterflies for example (and you probably know their importance in nature)… Furthermore, the longterm effects of GMOs are not certain. There is a chance that the pests may adapt to the dna changes, making them resistent, and as a result – GMOs will not always be effective, but the toxicity will stay and is permament. Lastly, I can mention biodiversity. Another important factor for the sustainability of all species. And it will no doubt be at risk by the GMOs.
          The main concern is that GMOs are introduced SO confidently by corporations like Monsanto, while if you really care about the health and environment, you should first do a long-term research over its effects and influence on Earth. They defend by saying “so far there is no significant evidence for harmful effects”, while that’s obvious since such a research requires time and long-term effects are still unknown. The arogance of this companies is so obvious… + having in mind the law that states – they (GMOs corp) take no responsibility if some studies confirms the danger of GMOs… all this obviously will make people suspicious….
          That’s just my opinion. Everyone is entitled to his own.

          Reply
          • “toxicity is one of the biggest problem in GMOs” absolutely ZERO evidence that GMos are toxic “Because it has an impact over non-targeted organisms, such as bees and butterflies for example ” Where is your evidence that GMO plants hurt bees and butterflies?

            Reply
        • yepitssandra

          It’s not so much that human genetic modification is any better/worse than nature’s own hybrids. But it makes a HUGE difference when the gene injected into GMOs are BT-toxins. Ever taken an organic chemistry class? If so, then I’m sure you are aware of what Bacillus thuringiensis is. It pokes holes in the cell bodies of certain bacteria and corrupts them, many of which can be found in our gut and are essential to our digestion system. Trace amounts of BT (it IS a naturally occurring organism after all) is harmless. However, it is now in/on almost all vegetables and fruits, including grains and plants that are used in animal feed. This build-up DOES make a difference, especially when the BT gene is capable of being transferred into the DNA of our guts’ microflora. The protein that BT produces CAN erode stomach lining. It kills off many probiotics, leaving ample space & resources for other potentially harmful bacteria that are resistant to it. Contrary to what the FDA would like us to believe, regular and persistent ingestion of GMOs (specifically those that contain the BT-toxin or Round-Up Ready chemicals) lead to inflammation, development of tumors that lead to cancer, tissue damage, food allergies, immune system disorders, etc. The list goes on. Did you know that in 1992 when Michael Taylor was first appointed the overseer of the FDA’s “Substantially Equivalent Doctrine” (basically says that since GMOs are structurally similar to non-GMOs, there is no need whatsoever to do premarket testing), he was one of Monsanto’s lawyers? And that after his stint in the FDA, he became VP at Monsanto…and now sits as one of the heads of the FDA? And most importantly, during the initial drafting of this FDA policy, THOUSANDS of scientists in the FDA warned about the risks of GMOs and urged the FDA to require testing, because by their own calculations and studies, GMOs are INDEED toxic & cause harm to the body. Yet their petitions and requests for further research/regulation were ignored and denied.

          Another thing – did you know that most studies done on the effects of GMOs on rats last only 90 days? To many scientists, that is an insufficient time period to test the effects of the BT-toxin or Round-Up chemicals. There was actually a recent study done where rats fed GMO soy were studied for 2 years, the average life span of the rat. Their conclusion? There were FIFTY significant statistical differences in the GMO rats as compared to the control group (no GMOs). In addition, in those GMO rats there were FOUR HUNDRED gene differences that control biological mechanisms such as cell reproduction, digestion, enzyme production, etc.

          So no, it’s not a problem that we genetically modify organisms or whatever people want to call it, whether natural or in a lab. The problem is HOW they are modified, WITH WHAT they are modified, and the extent to which such GMOs are touted as safe despite there being a policy that denies a requirement to test them.

          Reply
        • - Collective Evolution

          It’s not hard to understand, the authors of these studies explain it quite well. Evidence is evidence, if you have any concerns about their conclusions you can contact them I am sure. Bottom line, there is an overwhelming consensus by hundreds of ‘experts’ that GMOs should not be approved safe to consume.

          • Jomes

            Some of these bits of evidence are so flawed though. Entropy journal is a meaningless publication! Studies don’t even mention GM. Some have been retracted which, unlike stated above, is not uncommon at all.

            There is no evidence or proof here! Just Noise

            Reply
          • kris mccleery

            It would be nice to start atleast with labelling them so we have knowledge and a choice of whether to buy them or not … I choose NOT …

            Reply
      • westcentralfarmer

        So, what about gene splicing? Where the actual gene from one plant is removed and put into another plant of the same family because of what that gene does?

        Reply
        • Angie

          Gene splicing is something totally different. look it up.

          Reply
  4. Ben

    1) GMO byproducts detected in fetuses, but no evidence of harm. And no “non-GMO” controls to confirm that levels were elevated.
    2) GMO DNA can enter our blood (but not our cells). Oh no!! By the way, so can DNA from any organism we eat.
    3) GMO consumption “linked” to 5 “disorders”. Not a peer-reviewed journal. Literally no data reported. Not even translated in English, for crying out loud! Completely bogus!! The study was by the Institute for Responsible Technology, so their agenda is obviously to stir up worry and get people to use their “non-GMO shopping guide”.
    4) Article was RETRACTED after journal editors looked at the raw data.
    5) Study found that glyphosate (an herbicide chemical, not a GMO byproduct) caused cancer cells to divide faster. First, these are cancer cells in a petri dish, and the concentrations used were way above levels we’re exposed to. Second, the cells were already cancer cells–you know that insulin also has the same effect?
    6) Another “report” linking glyphosate to birth defects. Again, not peer-reviewed!! A second study found that FROG EMBRYOs treated directly with purified glyphosate looked abnormal. The concentration used was 1000 times greater than has ever been detected even in urine (which is much more concentrated than blood).
    7) A “review” by a self-proclaimed “independent scientist” (I have no idea what that means) and a computer scientist about glyphosate’s effects on gut bacteria. The journal is called “Entropy”, and the author’s work was funded by Quanta Computers of Taiwan. Huh??
    8) Glyphosate “significantly higher” in chronically ill humans vs. healthy. The journal they published in is not allowed on PubMed, which means real scientists don’t take it seriously. They literally don’t even mention how much higher it was, or where their human samples came from.
    9) Another study in a journal not featured in PubMed (meaning not taken seriously). See more information on this “peer-reviewed” journal (http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/).
    10) Review article saying that more research should be done on GMO, but they acknowledge that there are probably no adverse health effects.

    Reply
    • I find this discussion fascinating. Personally, I do not know a ton about GMOs but I tend to listen to scientists about these “controversial” issues like climate change, vaccines, GMOs, etc. It is very interesting to read these comments and how you completely showed that none of these “scientific studies” prove that “GMOs can be harmful to human health. While I am by no means a fan of Monsanto, I also believe there are some truly dedicated food scientists who are trying to figure out how to adapt crops to our changing world. And when you disagree with some of the folks on here and show facts, they then accuse you of being involved in some way!

      Reply
    • Jenn Mc

      Thank you, Ben, for refuting the links used as evidence. You make sense. I have a hard time trusting a website like this one, anyway, because it has an ad for “happiness training.” Yes. Happiness training.

      Reply
    • Angie

      Here are some journals that these articles were published in:

      Food and Chemical Toxicology, impact factor 3.125
      Chem. Res. Toxicol, impact factor 3.66
      Entropy, imact factor 1.33
      Nutr Rev., imact factor 4.597

      Pretty decent I would say, therefore your argument “not taken seriously” is not based on facts.

      About point nr 4) You say that the article was retracted after the analysis of raw data. Well this is the comment they gave: ” Due to the nature of the concerns raised about this paper, the Editor-in-Chief examined all aspects of the peer review process and requested permission from the corresponding author to review the raw data. The request to view raw data is not often made; however, it is in accordance with the journal’s policy that authors of submitted manuscripts must be willing to provide the original data if so requested.2 The corresponding author agreed and supplied all material that was requested by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief wishes to acknowledge the co-operation of the corresponding author in this matter, and commends him for his commitment to the scientific process.

      Unequivocally, the Editor-in-Chief found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. ”

      However, they still retracted the paper with some excuse about number of animals used…10 animals per group it might be on a lower side but still enough to achieve a significant difference. There are plenty other studies with the same or lower amount of animals but not retracted. I guess here there were other things at stake, profits and all.

      I have a question for you. You say that the amount they used is much higher than what is found in human. You say that difference is 1000x. How do you know how much if found in human? Do you have any PubMed reference for that?

      Reply
      • Ben

        Entropy doesn’t count, it’s not on PubMed because it’s not taken seriously. The others are legitimate, but those articles didn’t report anything harmful about GMOs.

        Your comment about the retraction…The editor found no evidence of intentional fraud, but still decided the data didn’t support the authors’ conclusions. It was because of small sample size and because the rat strain they used already has a predisposition for tumors. Small sample size is not trivial, it’s a big deal.

        About the human concentration of glyphosate in urine. Reference #6 found that 1e-8 and 1e-9 M glyphosate caused caused cancer cells to divide faster. Although, they also used 1e-6 M and found no effect. By the way, they found the same thing with estradiol, a completely natural and healthy compound. It’s odd that higher concentrations didn’t have that effect. They only had a sample size of 3, so maybe it’s not surprising. The authors cite a study that found that the highest concentration of glyphosate in human urine (not including farmers who had just used RoundUp) was 1.7e-9 M. If I’m not mistaken, 1e-6 M is 1000 times more than 1e-9.

        Keep in mind that we’re talking about glyphosate, an herbicide (RoundUp). It’s completely unrelated to GMOs. I wouldn’t be surprised if glyphosate was harmful–after all it’s intended to kill plants.

        Reply
        • Ben, these points you make are completely irrelevant anyway. Look at the way GM foods are being used. At present 71% of gm foods are so that they can be drenched in pesticides (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php point 3)
          The other 29%, the majority are for bt toxins. Both pesticides and bt toxins are unequivocally shown to harm humans.
          Not to mention that gm foods = completely fucked soil, pollinating insects and agriculture in general.

          So you can debate all day about the authenticity of articles, whether or not gm directly harms humans and so on. The fact is, the way they are being used signals a death sentence for all of us, and the sooner people such as yourself zoom out a little and look at the bigger picture and see that these arguments are pointless, the sooner we can crack on making changes to get rid of this crap.

          • kris mccleery

            AGREED !

            Reply
          • Ben

            Banning GMOs, as they did in Hawaii, hurts the good people who produce them. What if you lost your job based on some irrational fear that whatever goods or services you sell are harmful, when there’s literally not a single peer-reviewed study to prove it? How would you feel? Yes, I’ll debate all day the authenticity of the articles…that’s how we distinguish real science from opinion.

            Reply
        • Angie

          I will look it up in the reference 6 about those concentrations…

          Roundup IS VERY RELATED to GMO’s because these GMO;s are made to be resistant to Roundup and they are sprayed with it. When sprayed, these resistant plants will grow but slower than if not sprayed because Roundup is also causing amino acid starvation. No wonder that GMO plants have less nutrients and vitamins than organic plants, which is also proven! You say that this herbicide is only made to be toxic to plants. Well, nevertheless, several studies have shown that it also affects insects, (gut) bacteria, mammals and amphibians. It also kills the bees which is pretty bad for the agriculture. In humans, it inhibits the activity of cyp p450 enzymes, which are very important for the detoxification of other toxic compounds in liver. The list of negative effects goes on and on.
          I wonder why do you defend it so much. Are you involved somehow?

          Reply
          • Ben

            All you said may be true, but show me evidence that GMOs harm human health. .not that some chemical was detected or that frog embryos grew faster in petri dishes that had an herbicide in them, but evidence that humans that eat more GMOs die earlier or get some disease… anything! No I have nothing to do with GMOs… I’m in graduate school studying genomics and lately people have been asking me about GMOs…I tell them it’s not talked about among scientists because it’s obviously just hype and it’s not important enough to study…trust me that if there were anything to GMOs that scientists would be all over it trying to demonstrate that they’re bad because it would be a lucrative topic for research grant funding…but it’s just not!

            Reply
    • - Collective Evolution

      1. The researches raise multiple health concerns in the paper cited.
      2. Same things, they raises possible health concerns
      3. The retracted paper is mentioned in the article, and why it was retracted is also discussed.

      …..So on and so forth. It’s just so clear that they should not be deemed completely safe for consumption.

      • Ben

        By the way, how did you get a job writing about science? That’s not an insult, I’m just curious.

        Reply
        • - Collective Evolution

          I have many interests, and one of them is science :) The sources are there for people to look at and read, I’m just providing the information.

          • I doing my PhD in Material Sciences and if I had said anything like this to justify my hypothesis I would be out of job the same day. How can you even say that your interests lies in Science. This is an insult to all the scientists who work hard and toil day and night in the lab. You can say that your interest lies in hyping up the hypes because this is nothing less than rumour-mongering.

            Reply
            • Sally Stephens

              The biggest “insult to all the scientists who work hard and toil day and night in the lab” (which they don’t) should be the peers that sell themselves to the highest bidders instead of hiring the very science they are supposedly representing! Science can create bombs, endless plastics that fill up landfills, chemicals & drugs that lead to so many side effects, industrial ecosystem destroying farming techniques, two headed cattle, etc but does that mean we should??? Not all scientists are ethical, upstanding citizens- Get over yourself & do your jobs UNBIASEDLY!

      • Ben

        So clear? If these are the best studies out there, then there’s nothing to worry about.

        The studies that raise health concerns about GMOs are all from illegitimate sources, and I easily recognized major flaws and even complete fabrications. I don’t even consider them science. The ones that are from credible sources have only observed GMO byproducts in humans, but haven’t demonstrated that they actually harms us.

        Reply
        • Angie

          And yet again, your statement about illegitimate source is not valid. The article are all published and accepted in legitimate articles with a significant impact factor.

          Reply
  5. Jason

    How do you have a Coke ad on your site?

    Reply
  6. To those debating whether gm foods are good for our health, take a look at this: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php

    Irrespective of whether you think the journals or authors are invalidated in the studies in this article, zoom out a little and you’ll see that 71% of gm foods are so that they can be drenched in pesticides. The rest are mostly bt toxin plants. Both pesticides and bt toxins have been shown to harm humans in many studies.
    So even if you somehow don’t believe that gm foods are directly harmful to humans, look at the big picture. Pesticides not only have been shown to be harmful to us, but it destroys the soil, the soil life, and is the cause of the huge collapses in pollinating insects.

    We literally don’t need gm food at all, last year the world produced enough food for 12 billion people. This practice is given vitality by money. These biotech companies and large corporations want to make money, they don’t care about feeding the world.

    • Ben

      Those authors didn’t cite a single peer-reviewed study showing that GMOs cause harm to human health. The big picture? The big picture is that thousands of people have been trying to find harm in GMOs for 25 years, but can’t!

      Reply
      • Angie

        Andrew, I totally agree with you. The whole food industry is going in the wrong direction.

        Ben, you claim that GMO’s are not bad dismissing every single argument provided here. Why don’t you google on statistic between GMO’s use and highest obesity per country and you will see that US is a leader in both. Some studies with animals already indicated the link. Also, just because an article is not submitted in Pubmed does not necessarily make it rubbish. That is a bit short sighted I would say.

        Reply
        • Ben

          Higher stork sightings correlate with higher birthrates. Does that mean babies come from storks? And yes, if it’s not in PubMed, it’s probably rubbish, with the exception of some physics/computer science/math publications. That’s because articles on PubMed are reviewed by unbiased experts who do try to make sure that the information is correct. There’s none of that elsewhere, which means that people can write whatever they want. There’s a reason these studies are not in PubMed–if they submitted their study it would be rejected.

          Reply
          • Dang

            Ben, thank you for doing a measured, instructive response to this woo.

            Reply
  7. Keenan

    I’m no expert, but to me it looks like most of the harmful effects could come from the pesticides. Is that not true? Not all genetic modification involves pesticides.

    Reply
    • Kevin

      There’s enough scientific evidence nowadays. Just look more… Animal testing, basic understanding of the gene…

      Reply
      • Ben

        The only evidence is the hundreds or thousands of studies that have found no harmful effects of GMOs on humans.

        Reply
        • Sally

          Universities, governments, and scientists bought & paid for by Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Syngenta. Research/read John Wargo’s (Yale University & LOTS of his academic friends) “Our Children’s Toxic Legacy” The World According to Monsanto video, scientist Tyrone Hayes from Berkeley, seed control, history of Sygenta & Monsanto, biowarfare, poisoning our troops, etc etc for UNBIASED well documented information on pesticides & GMO’s. I trust nature A LOT more than money hungry control sociopaths.

          Reply
          • Sally

            John, LOL believe what you want but I still stand by the majority that don’t want GMO’s. That is what a democracy is about-the “common” people. Shut up & go eat your GMO’s!

            Reply
          • John

            Unbiased? Nothing is unbiased. Ever. If anything, everything you point to is funded by the opposite side of the argument, who expect to find evidence that GMO’s are bad. Money can buy nearly any study. Just because they prove the point that you decide is correct, doesn’t mean they come to the actual correct conclusion.

            Reply
    • George

      Keenan, not only do I agree with you, but would go on to say that a lot of this article is based on unreliable/questionable sources (eg. PLOS ONE), and things that are taken out of context (in example number 3, the sources say that they are investigating possible links. No evidence, no proof, just possibilities).

      Also, the source on number 4 was further investigated and retracted (click the link and see for yourself).

      Reply
  8. Eamon

    Arjun Walia, I appreciate the effort you may be putting into a cause you believe in, but please consider the other side of the argument. After all, I get the feeling that if you are into the collective evolution, growth and understanding of our species on Earth, we must be compassionate and rational. Please check this response article to your piece that was written on the Genetic Literacy Project:

    http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/08/05/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/

    Reply
    • Lee

      obviously you didn’t even read the whole article or any of the studies. that website you posted is PROPAGANDA

      Reply
  9. Kathy

    Your logic is flawed and lacking science http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/08/05/10-studies-proving-gmos-are-harmful-not-if-science-matters/ there’s your proof. There is so much psuedoscience out there claiming GMO’s to be harmful where there is REAL science out there saying otherwise. And did you know even your so-called non GMO is still GMO at one point or another, plant speicies have been modified thru accidental cross-pollination since the dinosaurs roamed the earth there is proof of that in museums, and they teach that (or at least used to) in elementary school science classes.

    Reply
    • Sally

      Kathy, do some REAL research. Yes, PLANT species can crossbreed naturally but GMO’s manipulate genetics that wouldn’t in nature. Examples: Roundup Ready crops, putting the pesticide into the corn, soy etc. pig genes into broccoli, etc Ummmm, no thank you. I would rather eat what humans have ADAPTED to eat over centuries.

      Reply
      • Kathy

        Exactly Luis, the things they come up with lol… Sally Round Up Ready isn’t pesticides in the corn but pretty much exactly how Luis said it. Do you like worms in your corn? If you do great, but I sure don’t, that’s gross! Also without some level of GMO the planet will not be able to grow enough food to sustain the growing population. People think organics are over priced now wait till there is a food shortage because you kooks got GMO’s banned or scared too many people away from them, they won’t go down. As is groceries have gone up in some areas because of weather related shortages.

        Reply
        • Kathy despite you TRYING to sound superior, you are not. They. who’s they? Concerned citizens? Majority of the American people? Majority of the population of the globe, considering how many countries have already banned GMO’s? Many of “them” went to colleges & are even scientists themselves, so get off your unfounded soapbox & judgements of “them”. Screw Roundup Ready crops, they are creating bug resistance & superweeds. Why is Monsanto trying to get 2-4-D use approved along with other stronger dosage pesticides? Because they lied, using GMO crops are requiring MORE pesticides NOT less!! Monsanto, Dow Chem, DuPont and the like are about fear mongering and PROFITS not the people anyway, clearly. Birth control and education are the answers to feeding the world not GMO’s. Simple knowledge in carrying capacity & what available resources can support a certain number in population is and always has been the key. In regards to you calling us kooks: LOL You don’t know me or my educational background nor that of the majority of the people resisting GMO’s.

          Reply
          • Kathy, I sincerely don’t think you can speak for “most” people and know what people want, you can only truly know what you want, which I’m guessing is actually AFFORDABLE groceries. Only about half of these commenters agreed with you, so you’re obviously not in the majority on this.

            Secondly, in response to your question- organics are more expensive because “evil GMO” companies are in bed with the FDA and together have made becoming certified organic impossibly expensive for most small farms, not to mention the fact that they give special protections and subsidies (to make their seeds the cheapest and most widely available) to Monsanto, specifically so that they may continue to sue small farmers out of business whose crops are unintentionally contaminated by their trademarked seeds.

            Also, your argument about feeding the world with GMOs is not based in any sort of fact or backed up with any informational sources. Check out this TED Talk about food waste: http://www.ted.com/talks/tristram_stuart_the_global_food_waste_scandal?language=en and get back to us with with an argument other than a propaganda scare tactic that big food and chem companies perpetuate for their own profits and agenda.

            Reply
          • Kathy

            I’m not trying to sound superior, nor and I even claiming to be. I do however know what most people want. I can’t speak for you but MOST people want AFORDABLE groceries. So the “evil GMO” companies are all about profit yet the groceries that are organic are the ones that are most expensive? Explain that to me if you think you know it all. You wanna talk superweeds? Which have been around since before man made GMO read this http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/05/superweed/

            Reply
      • Luis

        no wonder about the pseudo-science community is getting strong between those who have no idea about the subjects that are needed to understand scientific topics like this one. Sally do some REAL SERIOUS AND SCIENTIFIC (and by scientific i mean, get to know what subjects are involved, and the basis of it, of course there are some things that need to be learned in college, but i assure you, there are also things that people learns in high school to understand a little about genetics) research, Round Up Ready resistant crops are just like the name says, they got genes from bacteria that are resistant to glyphosate, and that’s all, it’s not about the crop producing the pesticide, maybe your wires are messed up, what you are talking about is Bt crops, these are different they do produce a natural insectide that’s it’s even used in organic agriculture, the genes of a bacteria responsible of this toxin is passed on to the plant, and that’s all, if it really is harmful then a lot of organic consumers and farmers should be sick by tomorrow morning. “Pig genes into broccoli” this is the most stupid thing that the pseudo-science community had elaborated, like this is going to make broccoli 90% pig. If that logic would be correct then we should be part virus, bacteria, etc.

        Reply
        • Luis You must be so proud of your worthless “comeback.” You just took everything I said & twisted it around to suit your own agenda. LOL You didn’t even try that hard. BTW, I know what BT is, and using it in GMO’s is making it harder for the organic farmers because of RESISTANCE buildup. I stand by what I said in that nature does plant breeding different than what a lot of scientists are doing out their with our food. IE genetically manipulating a gene cross into a different species altogether that would’t do so in nature. That is why I used pig gene in broccoli as an EXAMPLE. Pig and broccoli aren’t going to breed naturally dough-head. So, you new trolls out there trying to spread your nonsense in that “creating GMO’s is no different than natural plant breeding” GET REAL!!!

          Reply
          • Sean Butterfield

            Sally, viruses do actually transfer genes quite commonly between different species. Much of your genome is random bits of DNA from bacteria, etc. A lot of it doesn’t do anything, of course. But every cell in your body is teeming with foreign DNA. Humans, and in fact all organisms on this planet, have been “genetically modified” for millions of years. Just because there’s some intelligence behind it this time (and we’re doing it to plants we eat) doesn’t mean it’s going to hurt you.

            Reply
          • Gee Sally, did Luis hit a nerve? Is that why you had to resort to name calling? Sounds like you are relying on instinct, not evidence.

            Reply
  10. Chris

    ‘Science’ or so-called ‘science’ is being used by industry daily to advance its purposes in a massive conflict of interest tainting most of the studies done on GMO’s. The fact is that scientists, by the nature of their profession, must follow the money and conform their activities to keeping that money flowing.. The real majority of studies done on GMO’s, as I understand it, have been commandeered by the very companies who want to have their product approved and sold worldwide, without disruption or controversy.

    This is a valid concern about objectivity, bias, and whether these studies are any good at all, or are following only a postive take on GMO”s and ignoring the potentially huge problems associated with them. READ the book “Our Daily Meds” by Melody Peterson, about the exceedingly corrupt nature of Big Pharma, its misrepresentation of studies on its products, and the blatant misuse of science, such as just not publishing studies that show their drugs aren’t effective or harmful, as most are in fact, causing many, many different ‘side effects’ which can be considered additional symptoms of what are really new diseases.

    The fields of biomedicine is extremely corrupt today, Frankly, it’s almost unbelievable what’s happening. Ms. Peterson’s book will shock anyone, except probably the pharmaceutical execs and other personnel who know darn well this stuff is going on–it’s how they do business,such as doing experimental trials of their drug way before it is safe to do so, using those naive folks willing to try some drug as their guinea pigs, but in reality just starting to sell it and get people hooked on it. Many pharmaceutical trials are 6 weeks or 3 months short, which is a joke, since most serious conditions don’t have time to develop in that short of a time frame.

    Major deception and hiding of adverse consequences is endemic in this field. For example, Lilly called incidents where experimental subjects committed suicide while it was running drug trials on Prozac as ‘non-drug events’ and other categories to hide the fact Prozac increased suicidality by 6-12 times in initial drug trials. That’s a pretty inconvenient fact. Well, they hid it by calling the suicide-related actions as caused by something other than the drug, but the drug, Prozac increased suicide-related incidents, including actual suicides, by 6-12 times over similar ‘controls’, people in exactly the same situation not given the drug. .

    You have companies doing studies in-house and then vouching for themselves to FDA. It’s a joke. A bad joke, that is, since the customers are the ones who get the downside to all this sham science and internal corruption of both the industry and ‘science’ that is used to support them. Look up “Mellon Institute for Industrial Research’ the group formed by major US industrialist Andrew Mellon to produce phony science to support industry, a prototype for some of what is going on today. . and the harm it is doing ..

    In biomedicine, corruption and misuse of so-called ‘science’ is rife, and I don’t doubt that these big seed patenting corporations aren’t backing and filling all the time, too, dropping unproductive lines and funding the others.. It’s really ludicrous, if you know what’s going on with some in Biotech, Big Pharma, and Big Agra, etc. to say that much of this field hasn’t been engineered to support these low- or no-moraled, profit-seeking industrial interests. Even a few well-run, honest studies showing human health or animal health problems from GMO’s would be reason to halt or severely limit their use in agriculture.

    We live in the strange circumstance of all sorts of industries allowed to ramify their products over the population with little or no concern for human health, often hiding things to avoid the public finding out about them. it is a perversion of what is most important in life–us and our bodies, our ability to function well and not degrade the physical, energetic, and genetic basis for our species as well-functioning natural creatures, animals of human sort.

    There’s been a lot done under wraps in this field that needs to be exposed. We need to know what is really going on. The idea that there is some stuff called ‘science’ that is innate and above repute just doesn’t line up with modern, for-profit, industrial reality. Of course scientists who get their living from approving GMO’s are wont to say anything that would jeopardize their grants and careers.

    We need whistleblowers to step forward and call it like it is on this subject. Apparently there are already a number of studies showing formation of tumors, physical abnormaliies, and serious health disruptions from GMO’s. We should ban these odd, for-profit pesticide-resistant seeds until there is a real balance of scientific work done on them away from industry engineering of information..

    Reply
  11. Chris

    I should also say that science today, though producing much critically important information to inform modern life, is often communicated as if it were a cult, where only those ‘in the know’ (i.e. scientists, and those who fund their activities) can pontificate on the subject, and others (the unknowing outsiders) are unqualified to understand or comment on the intricacies involved, which is simply untrue..

    It is the perfect formula for a powerful and untouchable cult, though. It’s not that there isnt good science. There is, but who is deciding what is legit and then interpreting it for us? We must exert our logical, deductive, and other faculties to ascertain what is going on at deeper levels, including the sociology of funding practices and standards of behavior in this field.

    I have seen scientists who didn’t know the first thing about nutrition talking like certain things were given and beyond question. It’s actually quite dangerous when you have such an elitist mode of operation. I have a very good mind (IQ in the 144-172 range) and like to question things, find logical flaws, or support ideas that are sound and ‘hold water’.

    Science is about objectivity, questioning, and looking into the nature of things, not withdrawing into professional circles and privileges, withholding knowledge, and demeaning those without, the commoners. Fundamental knowledge is important to be able to objectively assess information and discriminate on what is faulty or sound on a finer level. There has to be openness in science for it to survive and be considering legit.

    Reply
  12. medros

    Wow, just wow. You actually quoted the Seralini project without putting in WHY it was retracted. The lack of actual research in this “science” paper is shocking. The vagueness of its parallels and dealing in absolutes is appalling to anyone who understands the scientific method. Please learn to be less biased if you are going to pretend to be scientists.

    Reply
    • The study was re-printed after scientists came out supporting it.

      Reply
  13. Don Robertson

    Point 1 – Pesticide is bad for you. Okay

    Point 2 – Applies to all food – not just GMO’s. No indication GMO DNA is more likely to cause a problem than any other DNA.

    Point 3 – “Even with minimal exposure, glyphosate can significantly reduce the population of beneficial gut bacteria and promote the overgrowth of harmful strains,” the report found. It appears to rely heavily on a report titled ‘New study supports link between Roundup and gluten-related disorders’ – eg Pesticide is bad for you.
    I’d read the report, but I’m not allowed to see it unless I give him my email address.

    Point 4 – Seralini? Really? http://www.academie-sciences.fr/activite/rapport/avis1012_gb.pdf
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22287-study-linking-gm-crops-and-cancer-questioned.html

    Point 5 – Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors. Pesticide is bad for you.

    Point 6 – Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects. Pesticide is bad for you.

    Point 7 – Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Pesticide is bad for you.

    Point 8 – Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans. Pesticide is bad for you.

    Point 9 – Judy Carman – now how did I know she would be here?

    “He concluded that “it was incorrect for the researchers to conclude that one group had more stomach inflammation than the other group because the researchers did not examine stomach inflammation. They did a visual scoring of the colour of the lining of the stomach of pigs at the abattoir and misinterpreted redness to indicate evidence of inflammation. It does not.”
    http://tdaynard.com/2013/06/14/full-statement-by-professor-robert-friendship-university-of-guelph-on-study-by-carman-et-al-on-feeding-of-genetically-modified-corn-and-soybeans-to-pigs/

    “When the data are analyzed more appropriately, there appears to be no statistically significant difference between the groups, just as there was no real statistically significant difference in the tumor burden of the rats in the Séralini study. Come to think of it, Carman’s study resembles the Seralini study in that it basically looks at a whole lot of outcomes in a fairly arbitrary fashion and cherry picks the inevitable “positive” result.”
    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/once-more-bad-science-in-the-service-of-anti-gmo-activism/

    BTW – if you go and look at the Seralini and Carman reports, you’ll see in both cases the animals were in such bad condition that you’d be after them for animal cruelty if they hadn’t manufactured results you agree with.

    Study 9 – debatable. If you look at the studies, they make no claims about the safety of GMO’s. One study (13) states in the abstract that ‘More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods’, the other concludes ‘In order to prove the safety of transgenic foods, it is necessary to exhaust the available possibilities, not dis-card the previous studies.’

    So you have six points that show pesticide – glyphospate – is bad for you. Wow. One study that applies to all food, two points that use studies so poorly performed and inconclusive they show nothing, and a couple of reports recommending “The next step in GM crop safety assessment is to have regulatory agencies adopt the developments and recommendations that have been made by advisory committees convened by regulatory agencies and science organizations and put forth in scientific publications.” (12) – written in 2004.

    If these are the 10 most damning points that can be made about GMO’s … next time someone tells you they have 10 Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health, don’t believe them.

    Reply
    • None of that controls for phenotypes. I’d bet I would never show any problems and they would exclude me from their studies because it contradicts the findings they want to hear.

      Reply
    • ViviWannabe

      Thank you for this comment, now I don’t have to do the Google searches to debunk this, people can just click on your links to see for themselves.

      Reply
    • Dash

      Glyphosate is actually in herbicides, not pesticides, although I supposed the two terms can colloquially be interchanged. But it’s particularly relevant here because many gmo’s are modified to be resistant to the herbicide so that herbicide use can be increased without killing the gmo crops. A lot of issues with gmo’s are with what they’re gmo’d for and the farming practices they are associated with. I don’t know much about those other studies, but I would say for, this reason, the glyphosate studies are particularly applicable to gmo’s, rather than simply non-gmo non-organic foods.

      Reply
      • Just No

        This is just another case of pesticides(albeit herbicides in this case) being bad for you… They found those chemicals because they were using them on the crops.

        Reply
    • I dont believe in gmo food at all the idea itself sounds extremely wrong let alone being implemented without people knowing about it

      Reply
      • Just No

        GMO food has been made since before your great great great great great grandmother was born… We study them, and there is very little downside compared to the horrible pesticides being used on crops. Guess what is being said to be the real cause of the “Autism Epidemic”… Pesticides. You know what GMOs do? Have us use less pesticides. Organic farming is cool but it cant feed the country, if we want to keep our population it is either pesticides or GMOs…

        Reply
        • Sally

          I’d rather educate & offer free birth control to the globe on carrying capacity, quit over-using & abusing this planet & it’s resources so “feeding the unhealthy overpopulated world” isn’t an issue. Problem solved. BTW, these GMO supporters aren’t doing this our of the goodness of their hearts, it’s about giving control over seeds/food to a few companies that hold patents NO WAY!

          Reply
          • Ben

            I’ve repeatedly explained how the anti-GMO movement is silly and misguided, and how there is literally no credible evidence that GMO food is harmful to humans. I have no motivation for saying this other than my annoyance over people like Arjun Wala spreading irrational fear and paranoia.

            Reply
    • Kathy

      Very well said Don!

      Reply
    • Sean Butterfield

      Thanks for writing this, Don. Excellent rebuttal.

      Reply
  14. robert newman

    The insulin used by millions of diabetics is grown by genetically modified bacteria. Don’t like GMOs and diabetic-tough choice.

    Reply
    • And an all organic agricultural system wouldn’t result in billions of dead people.

      It would- they know it

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Collective Evolution welcomes differing viewpoints and thought-provoking opinions that add value to the discussion, but comments may be moderated to remove profanity or remarks that detract from a healthy conversation. For the best interest of the community, please refrain from posting vulgar comments, profanity, or personal attacks. Comments submitted may automatically be flagged for review by our moderation team before appearing on the website.

Featured TEDx Talk

TEDx - Agents of Change

This Month’s Film:

Free Film Screening
advertisement - learn more

CETV - What's On

Published: Jul 29, 2015

Subscribe:
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

cow

Milk Does Not Do A Body Good – Massive New Study Says

Milk seems to be making its way through various stages of truth, especially within the past couple of years. Like many other examples, what we once thought to be healthy for us to consume is turning out to be the…