10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health

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.


(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

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. Pingback: The biggest lies told by the food industry | WebInvestigatorKK

  2. Pingback: The biggest lies told by the food industry « Healthy Healed & Whole News

  3. Pingback: You did WHAT to my food? | A Re-Examined Life

  4. Pingback: What do the Codes on your Produce Mean? | Sensible Vegan

  5. Pingback: The big the bad GMO | lace and cakes

  6. 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.

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

  7. Pingback: NaturalNews – S.D. Wells – $7 Billion In Sales For Non-GMO Project-Verified Foods In One Year! – 25 August 2014 | Lucas 2012 Infos

  8. Pingback: Don’t be fooled… GMO’s are dangerous and deadly! | Alternative Truth

  9. Pingback: Why are people against GMOs as a food product?

  10. 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.

  11. 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..

  12. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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!!!

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • 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/

          • 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.

  13. Pingback: 10 studies proving GMOs are harmful? Not if science matters | Truth About Trade & Technology

  14. 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:


    • Lee

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

  15. Pingback: If GMOs are healthy, why aren't its proponents (Biotech and Big Food) excited about labeling it? | Cronyism,Corruption and Lies in D.C.

  16. Pingback: WikiLeaks Cables Reveal U.S. Gov't Planned To “Retaliate and Cause Pain” On Countries Refusing GMOs | Natural Wellness Review

  17. Pingback: GMOs, Monsanto, the future of food, and deGrasse Tyson

  18. Pingback: HuntingLife - Missouri River Bird Observatory Offers an Opposing View of Amendment 1

  19. 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.

    • 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).

    • Kevin

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

      • Ben

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

        • 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.

          • 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.

          • 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!

  20. Pingback: 10 Myths of Health | The Fat Loss Puzzle Blog

  21. Pingback: Are GMOs Harm Free? | Headline Health Now

  22. Pingback: Frankenfoods My Dear, I Don’t Give A Damn | The Mocking Bard

  23. Pingback: Americans Are Too Stupid For GMO Labeling - Page 4 - MyLesPaul.com

  24. Pingback: 10 Foods You Should Never Buy at a Supermarket

Leave a Reply

Upcoming Event

Connect, Inspire, Chat & Share!
advertisement - learn more
CE Radio - Listen now!
TEDx - Agents of Change
Subscribe to CE Magazine Monthly For Exclusive Content!
The Mind Unleashed
advertisement - learn more

We Recommend


Trending Now


You Can Eat To Make Your Brain Grow – Here Is How You Do It

“Can we change your human brain in just 15 minutes together? Sure, because there is something I know about you, you all eat food.” This remark comes from psychiatrist Dr. Drew Ramsey during a talk he gave for Revitalize, a…