Jump to navigation
Impact on Society
Impact on Environment
Impact on Farms
Safety, Health, and Nutrition
Future of GMO
Science and GMO Basics
Government Oversight and Product Approvals
Last 3 Months
Voting Closed Flag (field_voting_closed_flag)
- Any -
No questions match....
After Expert Answer
Before Expert Answer
@needs the truth – please remember to post constructive comments. Please cite your sources using links to assist moderators and users in keeping the conversation factual.
For true answers:
Evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops: www.gmo-news.com/2013/07/gmo-myths-and-truths/
as pdf download.
@cornlover - you are so right. people often get close-minded when it comes to science (as it relates to food) and I often can't figure out why. I would trust my entire life to science. And if I ever came down with a terminal illness, I certainly wouldn't look to the homeopathic store to keep me alive. I'd look to science.
@monsantan - your attacks on other members of the community are ... well - just not polite. And really,Monsantan. Calling people, companies - whatever, whoever - is juvenile.
A couple of things come to mind for me as I read some of this thread/look at the site...
1. Last I checked, this site is about GMOs - not one company.
2. Agent orange? What does that have to do w/ GMO? Off topic, perhaps?
This link has info on wheat breeding along with other wheat facts and info.
To date, there is no GMO wheat commercially available.
I think I'm more worried about the natural bio-feedback nature will do in order to deal with these crops and that is not predictable. How nature reacts to things can be powerful. How does Monsanto plan on dealing with this when the natural ecological order of things decides to take control. Does Monsanto really think they have the power or the know how to control natures complex ecology?
Anyone interested in the work of Gilles-Eric Séralini will gain perspective hear:
When GMO detractors have to wheel out Seralini, you know they're getting rather desperate.
Monsatan you sayy company, I don't work for them and I find your comments insulting.You sure are close minded and wrong about the science behind GMOs.
To Monsatan -- I'm truly sorry you lost family members and friends in Vietnam (Agent Orange). Thank you for sharing your truth. The people we lost should not be forgotten. As a society, if we forget and turn our backs to what happened, then the pattern is bound to repeat itself again. Blessings.
@Interested Bystander -- "Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead" is one of my favorite films of all time. Joe Cross, who filmed this documentary of his journey to healing through juicing, is doing a phenomenal job helping people across the world heal themselves. I can't recommend this movie enough. He is spot on.
That being said, there is a flip side to this coin. This all begs the question, what is in our food supply that people must turn to juicing to heal themselves? Shouldn't we all be able to eat solid food and stay healthy?
Second, what about children? They cannot live on juice alone for their growing bodies. So how do they avoid toxins in their solid food? I read about a recent study that found 100% of the children who participated in the study had unacceptable levels of pesticide and chemical toxins in their bodies -- beyond what is considered "safe" by the government.
The issue of GMOs goes hand-in-hand with pesticide toxicity -- so called superweeds resistant to Monsanto's Round-Up are requiring the use of more and more pesticides.
Thirdly, if we tacitly turn a blind eye to how corporations run the world and pollute the environment, we give our own personal power and sovereignity away. It is similar to saying we don't need to vote, as we just "trust" our government to do the "right thing" and make decisions for us.
Personally, I think it's time we make decisions for ourselves and stop turning a blind eye to corruption that is polluting our environment and causing so many people pain and suffering.
You'll notice your comment brought me no closer to being enthusiastic about human genocide. At best it got you a mention on Fascist Book, and a few new followers. I lost too many family members, friends, and neighbors in Viet Nam due to this poison factory. Those of us who are still living with the horror your company sells, really are not surprised or amused anymore by your greed and genocide.
I was recently inspired by a movie called Fat Sick and Nearly Dead where a man who was overweight, and suffering from other health conditions takes personal responsibility for his condition and changes his life. He switches to an all vegetarian diet and manages to reverse all of his health problems.
I have started doing doing the same thing, and I have been seeing the same results. I have been able to do this by taking personal responsibility for my health instead of blaming big corporations. Anyone reading this post has that power as well.
There you go again off topic.
i read the first sentence, and you are already lying. im not going to bother reading the rest. GMO do NOT have a safe track record. infact there are many cases to prove otherwise. stop lying. kthx
24d, Monsanto's new state of the art deadly poison, and it's connection to agent orange, a continuing long term health affect is an inconvenient truth. You asked me to stay on topic so here is my dilemma. Your company provided the weapon, and drove the get away car, so in your opinion, you are not complicit. Well only if you have Clarence Thomas sitting on the supreme court...Get that criminal off the Supreme Court, then try your case in a real court of law.
For now, I'll give you a break and temporarily ignore 24D
To Steve Kass Kass,
That is a good question. I refer to it as "GMO Wheat" based on Dr. Davis's book, "Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health." The following link summarizes his findings: http://preventdisease.com/news/13/052213_Modern-Wheat-Is-The-Perfect-Chronic-Poison-Says-Expert.shtml. "At some point in our history, this ancient grain was nutritious in some respects, however modern wheat really isn't wheat at all. Once agribusiness took over to develop a higher-yielding crop, wheat became hybridized to such an extent that it has been completely transformed from it's prehistorical genetic configuration. All nutrient content of modern wheat depreciated more than 30% in its natural unrefined state compared to its ancestral genetic line. The balance and ratio that mother nature created for wheat was also modified and human digestion and physiology could simply could not adapt quick enough to the changes." So it may not be "GMO" in the way we typically refer, but the wheat we eat has been so modified and hybridized, according to Davis, that it resembles nothing like what our ancestors ate.
"Davis said that the wheat we eat these days isn't the wheat your grandma had: 'It's an 18-inch tall plant created by genetic research in the '60s and '70s,' he said on "CBS This Morning." 'This thing has many new features nobody told you about, such as there's a new protein in this thing called gliadin. It's not gluten. I'm not addressing people with gluten sensitivities and celiac disease. I'm talking about everybody else because everybody else is susceptible to the gliadin protein that is an opiate. This thing binds into the opiate receptors in your brain and in most people stimulates appetite, such that we consume 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year.' So I ask, what is this gliadin protein doing in our wheat? Do we really need it?
This is a popular site meant to address concerns about GM crops. I am not pro- the sponsors of this site, being fairly anti-corporate myself. However, none of the information on this page is faulty. Quoting the discredited Séralini study is about as bad as it gets. This is meant to be a Q&A, and your false ideas of GM technology are not a good way to invade a proper response to a proper question.
@Transparency: You write "I personally am very sensitive to GMO wheat, and can only tolerate small amounts before my joints begin to swell, and I experience digestive pain."
No GMO wheat is grown commercially, so where are you getting it from? It's not in any food products sold anywhere.
Dear Cornlover...I love a good shill for monsatan.
Notice how the "long term health" is the topic. Then add your comment...
"if I have my facts right the US government came up with agent orange.Monsanto and other company's just made it.try staying on topic and stay in this decade".
This decade??? Really what you have just said is they have been doing this genocide for DECADES???? Well hmmm that's my point too!
A 50:50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, it was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical. The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange was contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), an extremely toxic dioxin compound.
Denneal, you say that "GMO foods have a long, safe track record (17 years in the marketplace)." I find it notable that in the last 15 years alone, rates and incidences of allergies, immune disorders, obesity, diabetes, and cancer have skyrocketed to become a US epidemic. So my question is, how do you come to the simple conclusion that GMOs have a long, safe track record? If Americans are sicker than ever, and our overburdened medical system is ranked as one of the lowest among Western countries, then the logical conclusion would be that we should examine what foods and chemicals are making us so sick, what it is we are ingesting, consuming on a daily basis that is making us a nation of chronically ill people. Look around you -- how many people do you know who have cancer, diabetes, suffer from arthritis, cancer, fatigue, debilitating allergies, and myriad other disorders? I personally am very sensitive to GMO wheat, and can only tolerate small amounts before my joints begin to swell, and I experience digestive pain. My body doesn't lie. Being sick or overweight is not "normal", and yet illness and disease has become the accepted norm for the majority of US citizens. Apparently the AMA now even labels obesity as a disease. So to say that GMOs have been proven safe -- well, to be frank -- over simplifies the issue, and ignores the complex biochemistry of humans. The human body can react to even the slightest hint of toxic chemicals and alterations in food, having evolved over millions of years to adapt to organic regional diets. Isn't it also interesting that in the last 10 years, the gluten free movement has swept the nation as more and more people find they cannot tolerate wheat? What a coincidence! It's not just a fad. The gluten free movement is growing exponentially. I would see this as a giant red flag that something in our wheat is "not right" and the human body is rejecting wheat. So in conclusion, to make an assumption that GMOs have a safe track record I think is to ignore the giant red flags waving right in front of us, warning us to take a deeper look.
Monsatan if I have my facts right the US government came up with agent orange.Monsanto and other company's just made it.try staying on topic and stay in this decade .
Tens of thousands of Veit Nam Veterans suffered horrific life long physical defects and death from Monsatan's agent orange...My question is...Have you murdered and maimed enough veterans yet, or do you have bigger plans, much bigger plans?
average man in the country
It is not so much labeling GMO as the associated paper work trail. In the European Union, gmo foods are apparently labeled, sometimes with a little footnoted asterisk. The packager is required lest he be fined to have a paper trail from the original grower of the crop. There is no requirement for certification of nonGMO ingredients.
From your comments, I am sure you would prefer the assurance that your food does not contain a GMO ingredient. There is also a very high probability that you want to avoid any pesticide and are not satisfied that the product is without pesticide residues. That being the case, you should simply seek out certified organic foods.
Since organic food producers were the money behind the effort to require labeling of GMO foods in California, it seems that the GMO labeling campaign is simply an effort to build distrust in the American Food supply as a negative marketing effort for organic foods.
Monsatan has developed crops that survive herbicide, insects/insecticide, fungicide/fungus, and even drought!!! Drought for chrissakes....why then, wouldn't they develop a crop that could survive weeds????....Oh...Weeds don't kill people, animals, and bees.
Anyone interested in the work done by Gilles-Eric Seralini will gain some perspective by looking here:
When GMO detractors have to wheel out Seralini et al., you know they're getting rather desperate.
Re: Community Manager:
"Many organizations have proven the safety of GMOs, affirming the health and safety. Including the following"
Really? Every single one of those organizations has issued a formal statement affirming their unequivocal belief that GMOs are perfectly safe for human and animal consumption? The only organizations I could find that have issued statements that are even remotely pro-GMO are those whose leaders are directly connected to Monsanto. Additionally, the WHO's website contains no such declaration. Your statement is intentionally misleading.
Also, the reason why you need 7 days to issue a response to questions is because that's how long it takes Monsanto's fancy new PR firm (who still remains unnamed) to provide whitewashed and misleading answers. Shame on you.
Steven don't worry they have been researching Bt for decades,plus your body can't process it.
Messing with the genes of food for desirable traits, like non browning apples is one thing. The traits that scare me are the ones that allow food to survive being tainted with pesticides, bt-toxins and herbicides. Tricking humans into swallowing those same killing traits. Of course the chemical company sponsors of this forum just want to sell more chemicals. Ironically their actions are for my benefit and anyone else who owns a mutual fund.
RE: Grace Joubarne
Several have asked questions about the Monsanto Protection Act - let us share that response with you for further background, which came from Drew Kershen: What is the Monsanto Protection Act? - http://gmoanswers.com/ask/what-%E2%80%9Cmonsanto-protection-act%E2%80%9D-1
What a joke these people are trying to clear things up with real science and all you can do is call them liers .I for would like to thank them.
RE: GMO Lies
More than 100 studies have been conducted regarding feed made from GM grain. Here's a link to that information: http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8183.pdf
The former head of the European Food Safety Authoritiy's GMO panel recently published a paper discussing the role of short and longer term feeding studies in the food and feed safety assessment of GMOs. The link is http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pbi.12091/full and the title is "New EU legislation for risk assessment of GM food: no scientific justification for mandatory animal feeding trials" (Kuiper et al., 2013).
One of the key points in the paper is, "There is general consensus amongst toxicologists that animal feeding trials with whole (GM) foods are difficult to perform, have a low power to detect adverse effects, carry inherent risks of matrix effects and contribute little, if anything, to the safety evaluation of whole foods. Therefore, this type of study should, in principle, be avoided and far better analytical, molecular and toxicological methods should be applied for the risk assessment of GM foods. Such methods will have a proven capacity to identify unintended effects resulting from plant breeding, including genetic modification."
What Dr. Kuiper and his co-authors are saying is that the data EFSA and other regulatory agencies around the world require for all new GMOs are sufficient to assess the potential for both short and long term effects.
GMO feed turns pig stomachs to mush! Shocking photos reveal severe damage caused by GM soy and corn
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040727_GMO_feed_severe_inflammation_pig_stomachs.html
Wow. Just wow. WOW!
This is not science. This is absurdity. "GMO foods have a long, safe track record (17 years in the marketplace)." And you have tracked this how? You fight those who seek label them, which is one way they could be tracked. Get on it, "scientists".
"Just look at how many recent cases there have been of people getting sick from organic foods." (a comment within this thread) Um. What are you talking about, exactly?
For science and reality, may I suggest http://www.responsibletechnology.org/ and http://geneticroulettemovie.com/
Now I'm going to go comment on the answer by the "scientist" who compared biotech risks with those of getting killed by a penguin. True story. Excellent site! Thank you so much. This is highly entertaining.
We are definitely here to ask questions and have a dialogue. We are definitely here to clear the waters that have been muddied by questionable research and groups with agendas. I would be ashamed to be a UCDavis alumni, except I am not the one who should be ashamed here.
The assertion Denneal Jamison-McClung makes that '"...GMO foods have a long, safe track record..." is just that, an unsupported assertion also known as an opinion. Problem is that she presents it as a fact. Without having a control group it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine if a product is safe. Since GMO's have been introduced into the population a number of disease and malady statistics have increased exponentially. I would like to see how Denneal has determined that none of these changes are related to GMO foods.
RE: The Man Above
Mark Lynas is an interesting voice of reason to share with this community. Consider the fact - he was in great opposition of GMOs. Like many he heard negative things about GMOs, and then became strongly opposed to them. In due time, he did the research, he reviewed the science and now has a better understanding of the technology.
Sorry for all the confusion on how to follow the threads. Question is always at the very top. Once answered (which can take up to 7 business days) - that text will following the Q+Person who submitted. The answer will end with a brief bio of the expert who shared the answer. The remainder of comments are in response to that question and time stamped. If you want to explore questions - go to the very top of the page and click on ask questions - from there, you can view latest, trending, etc. Questions - let us know. It's certainly hard to track with the volume of comments.
"If you aren't here to ask questions and have a dialogue, this site may not be for you."
I am very much here to engage in dialog about the safety of GMOs and the Biotech Industry resistance to labeling. My own extensive reading on the topics has helped me form my own opinions, which differ greatly from the official "answers" you are posting. I am not fooled by this feeble attempt to trick the naive into believing the GMO Lies.
GMO food has been proven to cause abnormalities in DNA and linked to Leukemia. In Argentina where they are growing GMO corn there has been a huge spike in birth defects and cancer amongst the neighboring villages.
Road fork you said: "Why don't we all just agree to disagree... If you don't want to eat GMO food, then buy organic, or grow your own food. The anti-GMO food people never explain why this simple solution isn't used."
Well... its true we don't have to agree. BUT if you think GMO's are so great & safe to eat then why is there SO MUCH resistance toward LABELING GMO's on food packaging?
If GMO's were labeled, then GMO lovers could seek out & purchase all the delicious GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS they so love & support, while others could avoid them.
YOU'RE RIGHT, we can definetly agree to disagree... BUT there needs to be labeling!!!
RE: GMO Lies
This community is intended for discussion. We strongly urge that you visit our section on how to post, what to post, etc. If you aren't here to ask questions and have a dialogue, this site may not be for you. We want to have a conversation with those wanting to learn more, ask questions - and try to clear the waters that have been muddied by questionable research. We want to provide sound research and honest answers from experts within the fields of genetics, biotechnology, crop breeding, and more.
Many organizations have proven the safety of GMOs, affirming the health and safety. Including the following:
• The National Research Council of the US National Academies of Science
• The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
• The World Health Organization
• The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
• American Medical Association
• The Council on Agriculture Science and British Medical Association
• The European Commission
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Society of Microbiology
• British Medical Association
• Australian Academy of Sciences
• Brazilian Academy of Sciences
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
• European Food Safety Authority
• Federation of Animal Science Societies
• French Academy of Science
• Indian National Science Academy
• Institute of Food Technologists
• International Council for Sciences
• International Life Sciences Institute
• International Union of Food Science and Technology
• Italian National Academy of Science
• Mexican Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society (United Kingdom)
This article has no authority! It does not contain even one citation to any peer reviewed studies, not even a junk-science study funded by a GMO producer and/or the FDA (a.k.a. Monsanto light), that supports your contention that GMOs are safe.
On the other hand, a simple Google search produces link after link to various studies from peer reviewed scientific journals that prove that GMOs are a major source of allergies, immune system abnormalities, hormone disruption, obesity, liver problems, and even cancer, not to mention the increased used of pesticides (supplied by the very same people who patented the seeds to which the pesticides are applied), decreased crop yields, and permanent damage to the environment. For ease of searching and finding a large group of studies in one place, here is a link to a story which cites 37 books, journal articles, and peer reviewed studies that support these facts:
Just recently, on July 18, 2013, there was a Boston Globe story about 22 children in India who were killed by the pesticide residue that was applied to GMO soy.
The readers might also remember the stories out of India about how many farmers were committing suicide because the GMO soy that they were promised would increase crop yields, decrease pesticide use, and increase profits did exactly the opposite causing many farmers into bankruptcy and many more into the hospitals with permanent damage caused by the pesticides that they were adding to there crops in ever increasing quantities. They were doing this because GMOs and there required pesticides were creating super-weeds and super-pests capable of surviving massive doses of pesticide. If these chemical pushes had there wish humans would also evolve a tolerance to these chemicals and they could just sell more and more and more. And all would be right in the world!!
Don't be fooled people, pesticides KILL! And do not forget that Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta and BASF are ALL CHEMICAL COMPANIES. They make money selling chemicals. The GMO business was a spin off, first designed to allow plants to withstand huge amounts of their chemicals and still survive. From their lab to your table!! We are the guinea pigs!!
If a company truly believed in their product, truly believed that what they produced was the best, better than all others, wouldn’t they want to label it? Companies spend billions marketing their products and putting labels on them to show how their products are superior. Why not GMOs? I’ll tell you why, because people instinctively know that GMOs are harmful. And do not let these people fool you into believe that hybridization and genetic modification are the same thing. They are not even close to the same thing.
Again a simple Google search will give you all the answers you need.
The GMOanswers.com website is the new-age propaganda ministry. Funded by the chemical industry and supported by a government body that is a wash with former Monsanto executives. The chemical industry and even our own government cannot be trusted anymore!!
BTW. For those of you in Boston, the Everett site that is currently being considered for a new casino, the former Monsanto site, is so contaminated that it might not be safe to build on. The proposal is to try to clean what can be reached and then to pour MORE chemicals into the ground that will somehow neutralize the current contamination. Sounds a lot like the dispersant action taken in the Gulf after the BP oil spill. The dispersants didn’t work in the Gulf and this won’t work either. MONSTANTO CANNOT BE TRUSTED!!!
The Man Above
This is for roadfork: enjoy.
This document largely validates the methodology and choices of Prof GE Seralini in his 2012 study on GM maize NK603 - methodology and choices that EFSA and countless other critics previously attacked him for.
Particular points to note:
1. EFSA admits that "no standardised protocol or guidelines exist for this type of study and [industry] applicants have to adapt protocols" - as Seralini did, too.
2. EFSA says the same strain of rat that was used in the 90-day study on the GM food should be used in the longer study - thus vindicating Seralini's use of the Sprague-Dawley rat, which Monsanto used in its 90-day study on the same maize.
3. EFSA says animals should be fed ad libitum, which Seralini did, but which critics complained made it impossible to measure individual food and water consumption.
4. EFSA admits that you do not necessarily need a narrow and fixed hypothesis and that such a study can be "exploratory", in spite of its previous claim that Seralini's experiment was flawed because it (according to EFSA) didn't have a clear hypothesis or objective.
5. EFSA recommends against using the extra control or "reference diet" groups commonly included by Monsanto in its 90-day studies and fed a variety of supposedly non-GM diets, on the grounds that the concurrent controls are the valid controls AND what is being tested is the difference between the GM variety and the non-GM comparator. Seralini was criticised by many for not including these spurious extra control groups and for thus having "inadequate controls".
6. EFSA cautions strongly AGAINST relying on historical control data and if it is used, restricts it to within 5 years of the current experiment and to the same testing facility. This is a much stricter requirement than industry ever applies; industry uses ancient data from a wide variety of sources.
EFSA says: "The use of historical control data should be considered with caution. The historical controls might not be useful because the incidences of neoplastic (or non-neoplastic) lesions would possibly be from control animals kept on different diets than the diet applied in whole food/feed study, and because the diet itself (high/low fat, type of fat, % of carbohydrate, type of carbohydrate, etc.) can influence the formation of neoplastic or non-neoplastic lesions. Where the diet formulation used in the experiment for the control groups cannot be demonstrated to be equivalent to that used for the generation of historical control data, the inclusion may be considered of an additional control group (as similar as possible to the historical controls), in addition to the concurrent control group(s)."
It's unfortunate that in rightly condemning the use of historical control data, however, EFSA allows in those extra control or "reference" groups that it rightly condemned in point (5) above.
7. EFSA recommends a minimum of 10 animals per sex per group for the chronic toxicity phase, the same number that Seralini used.
8. EFSA recommends housing animals in pairs, as Seralini did, so individual food consumption cannot be measured.
9. EFSA requires an a priori power analysis to ensure appropriate sample size, depending on the effect size that is being looked for. The GM industry doesn't do these, resulting in experiments that are virtually guaranteed not to find anything. For Seralini's team's comment on this, see:
I can't easily follow who is asking and who is answering. Which questions are the main topics? Which posted texts are comments on a question or comments on an answer? How do I follow the chronology of the posted texts? It would be nice if the questions had indented answers and then comments were threaded for clarity.
Gmomeals that murder
They can't! We are the test animals for that one
The Man Above
When GMO supporters have to wheel out Mark Lynas, you know they're getting rather desperate.
Monsanto et al, you will have to do better than that.
Thanks for posting the links - sharing information is always good. But as we all know, everyone has a study and a viewpoint. We'll try to review your links and provide some insights. In the interim, Mark Lynas had some comments regarding the pig study that you shared. Here's his post on the topic - see what you think: http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/
As you can see in our house rules (http://gmoanswers.com/house-rules), it may take up to 7 business day to provide a response. We are diligently working to provide responses to the community as soon as possible. Please stay tuned.
ESCNET's wall of text is simply not true. From the EFSA web site (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/121128.htm):
"Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603. These are the conclusions of separate and independent assessments carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and six EU Member States following publication of the paper in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology on 19 September 2012."
Since ESCNET fears GMO foods, why not simply buy foods that are not GMO?
It is absolutely not true that the Seralini was thoroughly criticized by the "science community." What is true is that there was a rapid and orchestrated set of criticisms by scientists directly affiliated with the biotech industry that were later proven to be entirely without merit. Normally, scientists will take weeks or months to analyze a peer-reviewed, published study such as Seralini's. Criticisms will be well-reasoned and carefully thought out. In this case, whole cadres of scientists, many of whom are known advocates of biotechnology and GMOs, responded within days with a whole series of superficial and poorly thought out criticisms that were later shown to be of little merit or substance. It was clear to many that most of these scientists were working from talking points likely prepared by biotech companies such as Monsanto and merely parroting the points they were supplied with. It certainly looked like the biotech industry was trying to discredit Seralini by latching onto virtually anything that could create doubt or uncertainty about this study (which was, again, peer-reviewed and published in a well-known scientific journal). Why? Because any study that showed negative side effects in animals from long-term consumption of GMOs would be devastating to the biotech industry's continued efforts to get GMOs accepted in Europe and other markets. Today, the European Food Safety Authority in fact endorsed almost every aspect of Seralini's experimental design including the specific aspects that were the targets of criticisms by the so-called "science community" of biased scientists. It is also a fact that the biotech industry has done everything possible to prevent independent long-term research on the health and safety of GMOs from threatening scientists, to threatening institutions, to preventing access to seeds, etc. Why? Because they know from their own studies that the results will show serious negative side effects in animals. Contrary to some of the claims of some of the posters on this site, there are actually dozens of animal studies in peer-reviewed journals that show deleterious impacts from feeding animals GMOs. Of course, such studies do note bode well for how eating GMOs might affect the health of humans. Just go to the site earthopensource.org and read the paper GMOs: Myths and Truths. Am I against GMOs? I didn't start out that way but my own research into this area has convinced me that the negatives outweigh the positives. GMOs don't have higher yields, they don't result in lower pesticide or herbicide use, they haven't been successful in creating meaningful drought tolerance, they haven't lowered the cost of food, and they have almost no value to small farmers in third world countries. In fact, the UN conducted a four year study with several hundred scientists around the world and concluded that as far as feeding the world in the future, GMOs had very little to contribute (for all the reasons cited). I live in Iowa and we now see the soy bean fields all over the state overrun with weeds. Even in the Roundup system was great for farmers in the early years, it is quickly losing its effectiveness and will now require more herbicides than ever and will require the reintroduction of a number of very nasty, very toxic herbicides to control the emerging Roundup-resistant weeds. Any objective person would have to conclude that genetic engineering is now a failed technology.
What if the worst case scenario for GMO's is established? We all know that eating GMO's won't make us immediately drop dead like a plant or bug, size matters. We are populated with trillions of beneficial microscopic bacteria, bugs, fauna and flora. Damaging them leaves us to suffer many long term ailments like Autism, Alzheimer's, Cancer, Diabetes, Allergies etc., other factors dictate which one. The ramifications of Glyphosate could be insidiously obscured. There is parallels with the introduction of Roundup-Ready seeds to increases of the above ailments making suspect the "safe in humans" argument. It would take a Nuremberg type trial investigating how anyone would be that reckless with the future of humanity and who knew what and when.
I don't understand the question. Pretty much everything that we do affects long-term health. Not enough sleep affects your health, not brushing your teeth affects your health. Does using a cell phone affect your health? Do using electronic devices affect your health? What if we find out that it does in 30 years? Will we stop using them? We don't label all of those things.
Science is a tool for control. It is also used to justify products on the market. Science is constantly evolving as new knowledge is discovered. It operates in hindsight. There are so many products science claimed safe and good for humanity, only to be wrong in hindsight years later. Products like DDT and Thalidomide come quickly to mind, along with bisphenol a. There are no long term full spectrum ecological studies to prove transgenic GMO is "safe" - we will find out years from now...
thanks Grace Joubarne - what you said convinced me: "You can be sure that GMOs have negative health effects because Monsanto has already taken steps to prevent you from obtaining compensation through the courts for that damage. Check out the Monsanto Protection Act that was quickly and secretly added to a bill recently signed by Obama. If there was nothing to worry about, why the need for protection from lawsuits?"
truth or dare
Anyone who thinks GMO foods are okay to eat is, according to those in opposition, is a "Big Ag shill'. Repeating that catchy little code phrase doesn't make it true. We all need some perspective. I offer this, for starters:
Addendum: It's pretty difficult to prove a negative. How can you be sure that any particular conventional food or production technique won't harm human health long-term?
Let's face it, Monsanto-haters and GMOfoodphobes will never alter their outlook, especially not from anything posted on this forum. I've seen the same "debate" elsewhere, whenever the topic of GMO food is raised on-line. People are also still debating whether vaccinations cause autism, and whether humans are causing climate change. When you treat factual science as opinion debates, the reality-based side loses.
Given the overwhelming evidence that GMO foods are safe, and the fact that some people fear them despite the evidence, why don't we all just agree to disagree? If you don't want to eat GMO food, then buy organic, or grow your own food. The anti-GMO food people never explain why this simple solution isn't used.
Seeds of Death
Andi, Mark Lynas only found it more profitable to be a shill for Big Ag and working for the health and public interests of consumers. He has been discredited extensively and he is best ignored. Here is critique of Lynas' GMO propaganda by Prof. John Vandermeer at Univ of Michigan
Not one case of harm documented? According to who? Monsanto? Here are a couple of links for those who say there are no reports of harm. I found these in 30 seconds:
Hello- is this website working? I am still waiting for probably the most important question currently posed on this site to be answered here? It's not cool to start a website to give answers and then not give them. I think someone in marketing is probably gonna get fired over this one...
I am also "sick" of people saying things are "safe" or "good" because they make $$ if people buy it. We are talking about things that will affect the entire human race- our kids and future generations. Quit lying and answer the questions honestly please. Not all of the public is as stupid as you think.
The editor of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology that published the paper Séralini, 2012 study on the health effects of GM NK603 maize and Roundup was bombarded with letters from GM proponents demanding that the paper be retracted. For the most part, the critics of the report did not present their case in the normal way of science -- by published argument and debate. Hundreds of scientists have publicly supported Seralini's study and researchers.
EU has started a follow-up 2-year carcinogenicity study on NK603 maize
The question "How can you be sure that GMO foods won't affect human health long-term?" has yet to be answered by a representative/ "expert". from this website, however, after reading the comments posted thus far, I am starting to believe that if we eat "GMO" based foods we are doomed. If we eat organic foods we are doomed. Are there any safe foods out there that are not "GMO" or organic?
GMO Free America
GMO food DOES affect humans' short-term and long-term health.
The following information, research and links are quoted from: "Genetically Modified Organisms and the deterioration of health in the United States N.L. Swanson, 4/24/2013"
(http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/glyphosate/NancySwanson.pdf) (Emphasis mine)
*The USDA estimates that in 2012, 93% of all soy, 88% of the corn and 94% of the cotton grown in the U.S. was genetically engineered. The USDA only collects GE data on these three crops. The figure below shows the percent change of GE crops planted since 1996. (1996-1999 data: USDA Agricultural Economic Report No. (AER-810) 67 pp, May 2002 2000-2012 data: USDA:NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer-agricultural-economic-report/aer810.aspx#.UUJRZuNIxY8 & http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1000) (pg. 4)
*It could be argued that not all of these crops are grown for human consumption. Some are grown for animal feed. But the percentage of the crops grown for animal feed are still in the food supply in the form of meat, eggs, milk and milk products. (pg. 4)
*Contrary to claims made by the chemical industries, glyphosate use increased 6,504% from 1991 to 2010 according to data from the USDA (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do;jsessionid=3BF3CE4B11024BC1081B70050C7FECE6?documentID=1560): National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). States participating in the USDA surveys reported applying a whopping 91,200 tons (1 rail car holds approximately100 tons) of glyphosate on corn, cotton and soy crops alone in 2010 (see graph). Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup™, the herbicide used on Roundup Ready™ crops genetically engineered (GE) to withstand glyphosate. Glyphosate residues of up to 4.4 mg/kg have been detected in stems, leaves and beans of glyphosate-resistant soy (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14971683), indicating metabolism of the herbicide. This means that the Roundup Ready™ plants are absorbing the herbicide and you cannot simply wash it off. (pg. 5)
*DATA TRENDS SHOW CORRELATIONS BEWEEN INCREASES IN ORGAN DISEASES AND GMOs...There are many scientific studies showing that glyphosate and the additives in Roundup are toxic to human cells. Below is a list of those most pertinent to this discussion.
*In 2004, Marc et al(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15182708). reported that GLYPHOSATE-BASED PESTICIDES CAUSE CELL-CYCLE DYSFUNCTION THAT LEADS TO DEVELOPMENT OF CANCER.
*In 2009 Gasnier et al(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539684). published an article in the journal Toxicology citing evidence that GLYPHOSATE BASED (G-based) HERBICIDES ARE ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS IN HUMAN CELLS. They reported TOXIC EFFECTS TO LIVER CELLS “at 5 ppm [parts per million], and the first ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING ACTIONS at 0.5 ppm, WHICH IS 800 TIMES LOWER THAN THE LEVEL AUTHORIZED IN SOME FOOD OR FEED (400 ppm, USEPA, 1998). ... In conclusion, ACCORDING TO THESE DATA AND THE LITERATURE, G-based HERBICIDES PRESENT DNA DAMAGES... ON HUMAN CELLS.”
*In 2012 Koller et al(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331240). reported that glyphosate and its formulation (Roundup) is TOXIC TO CELLS, PARTICULARLY ORGAN CELLS, and exhibits DNA-damaging properties “ AFTER SHORT EXPOSURE to concentrations that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture.”
*What is often overlooked is the role of “inert” ingredients in glyphosate formulations like Roundup, which have been found to amplify glyphosate toxicity.
*In 2005, Richard et al(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/). reported that “glyphosate is TOXIC TO HUMAN PLACENTAL JEG3 CELLS within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use, and this effect increases with concentration and time or in the presence of Roundup adjuvants. Surprisingly, Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient. ... We conclude that endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup, not just glyphosate, can be observed in mammals.”
*In 2012, Mesnage et al(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X12003459). reported, “This study demonstrates that all the glyphosate-based herbicides tested are more toxic than glyphosate alone ... The formulated herbicides (including Roundup) CAN AFFECT ALL LIVING CELLS, ESPECIALLY HUMAN CELLS. Among them, POE-15 clearly appears to be the most toxic principle against human cells, ... We demonstrate in addition that POE-15 induces necrosis when its first micellization process occurs, by contrast to glyphosate which is known to promote endocrine disrupting effects after entering cells.”' (See Graphs & Charts on pp. 8-14)
*Diabetes incidence data: CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/incidence/fig1.htm)
*Diabetes prevalence data: CDC(http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/prev/national/figpersons.htm)
*ESRD data: U.S. Renal Data System(http://www.usrds.org/reference.aspx)
*Blood pressure data: CDC (http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/display.asp?cat=HA&yr=2009&qkey=4420&state=UB)
*Obesity data: CDC (http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/page.asp?yr=2004&state=UB&cat=OB#OB)
*Acute Kidney Injury: National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse (http://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/KUDiseases/pubs/kustats/index.aspx) (NKUDIC) a service of NIH (public domain).
*Cancer data: National Cancer Institute-Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) (http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009_pops09/browse_csr.php?section=14&page=sect_14_table.05.html) SEER 9 areas (San Francisco, Connecticut, Detroit, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, Seattle, Utah, and Atlanta). Rates are per 100,000 and are age-adjusted to the 2000 US Std Population (19 age groups - Census P25-1130).
*Glyphosate: USDA:NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do;jsessionid=3BF3CE4B11024BC1081B70050C7FECE6?documentID=1560)
PERCENT OF GE CORN & SOY DATA:
*1996-1999 data: USDA Agricultural Economic Report No. (AER-810) 67 pp, May 2002 (http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer-agricultural-economic-report/aer810.aspx#.UUJRZuNIxY8)
*2000-2012 data: USDA:NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service.) (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1000)(pg.15)
*Mounting evidence that GMO crops can cause INFERTILITY AND BIRTH DEFECTS The endocrine disrupting properties of glyphosate can lead to reproductive problems: INFERTILITY, MISCARRIAGE, BIRTH DEFECTS, AND SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT (see notes). FETUSES, INFANTS AND CHILDREN ARE ESPECIALLY SUSCEPTIBLE because they are continually experiencing growth and hormonal changes...There are increasing reports of glyphosates and glyphosate formulations causing SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION, LOW BIRTH WEIGHT, FEWER BIRTHS AND STERILITY IN LAGABORTORY ANIMALS, FARM ANIMALS AND HUMANS (see notes).
*A Russian study found that feeding hamsters GMO soy resulted in COMPLETE STERILITY AFTER TWO OR THREE GENERATIONS (http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765.html/). (pg. 16)
*INFERTILITY AND LOW BIRTH RATES:
*Laboratory animals: In 1995 Yousef et al(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7797819). reported on toxic effects of glyphosate on semen characteristics in rabbits, “Pesticide treatment resulted in a DECLINE IN BODY WEIGHT, LIBIDO, EJACULATE VOLUME, SPERM CONCENTRATION, SEMEN INITIAL FRUCTOSE AND SEMEN OSMOLALITY. This was accompanied with increases in the ABNORMAL AND DEAD SPERM.”
*In 2002 Markaverich et al (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240732/). found that, “Housing adult rats on ground corncob bedding IMPEDES MALE AND FEMALE MATING BEHAVIOR and CAUSES ACYCLICITY IN FEMALES [not according to regular cycles].”
*In 2008, Austrian researchers found that mice fed GM corn produced FEWER AND SMALLER BABIES than those fed a non-GM diet (http://www.biosicherheit.de/pdf/aktuell/zentek_studie_2008.pdf).
*In April 2010, a Russian study (http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765.html/)found that after feeding hamsters GM soy for two years over three generations, most were STERILE BY THE THIRD GENERATION.
*2011 Siepmann et al(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21353476). reported, “HYPOGONADISM [functional incompetence of the gonads especially in the male with subnormal or impaired production of hormones and germ cells] and ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION associated with soy product
*In 2012 Antoniou et al(http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/glyphosate/NancySwanson.pdf). published a review of the evidence of the reproductive toxicity of glyphosate herbicides and concluded that a new and transparent risk assessment needs to be conducted.
*In 2012 Irina Ermakova (http://www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html)reported low birth weight and a 55.6% mortality rate in the babies of rats fed GMO soy compared to 6.8% in the control group.
*An Iowa pig farmer reports sterility and false pregnancies in pigs fed GMO corn (http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-01-23/former-agribusiness-farmer-loses-biz-to-gmos-now-promotes-organic/).
*A Danish pig farmer reports birth defects, infertility and low birth rate in pigs fed GMO corn. (http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/danish_dossier.html).
*In 2001 Arbuckle et al, reported on the effect of pesticide exposure on the risk of SPONTANEOUS ABORTION.... (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240415/)
*In 2005, Richard et al(Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257596/). reported that “glyphosate is TOXIC TO HUMAN PLACENTAL JEG3 CELLS within 18 hr with concentrations lower than those found with agricultural use, and this effect increases with concentration and time or in the presence of Roundup adjuvants.”
*In 2009, Benachour et al (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx800218n). evaluated the toxicity of four glyphosate (G)-based herbicides in Roundup formulations on three different human cell types using a dilution far below agricultural recommendations and corresponds to low levels of residues in food or feed. They reported that glyphosate formulations induce APOPTOSIS [CELL SELF-DESTRUCTION] and NECROSIS [TISSUE DEATH IN HUMAN UMBILICAL, EMBRYONIC, AND PLACENTAL CELLS.
In 2010, Paganelli et al(http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749). injected low doses (lower than levels used in fumigating) of glyphosate into AMPHIBIAN EMBRYOS and recorded BRAINS, INTESTINAL AND HEART DEFECTS IN THE FETUSES. Effects included REDUCED HEAD SIZE, GENETIC ALTERATION IN THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM, INCREASED DEATH OF CELLS THAT HELP FORM THE SKULL, DEFORMED CARTLAGE, EYE DEFECTS, AND UNDEVELOPED KIDNEYS. In addition, the GLYPHOSATE WAS NOT BREAKING DOWN IN THE CELLS, BUT WAS ACCUMULATING. According to the authors THESE RESULTS ARE "COMPLETELY COMPARABLE TO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE DEVELPMENT OF THE HUMAN EMBRYO”
*In 2009, Mesnage et al(http://oem.bmj.com/content/early/2009/11/30/oem.2009.052969.abstract). reported TWO CASES OF BIRTH DEFECTS in the same family in France after multiple pesticide exposure. “Many pesticides were used by this family around pregnancies. The father sprayed, without protection, more than 1.3 tons of pesticides per year including 300 liters of glyphosate based herbicides.”
In 2009, Winchester et al.(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667895/), reported, “Elevated concentrations of agrichemicals in surface water in April–July coincided with HIGHER RISK OF BIRTH DEFECTS IN LIVE BIRTHS WITH LMPs [last menstrual periods] April–July.”
ART data: CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/art/ART2009/section5.htm)
Infant mortality data: CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/Vitalstatsonline.htm)
LBW and preterm birth data: CDC (http://22.214.171.124/Vitalstats/ReportFolders/reportFolders.aspx) and CDC Interactive tables (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/vitalstats/VitalStats_Births.htm) (pp 17-20)
DATA SHOW CORRELATIONS BEWEEN INCREASE IN NEUROLOGICAL DISEASES AND GMOs (pg. 21)
*The endocrine disrupting (http://www.examiner.com/article/data-trends-show-correlation-between-increase-organ-disease-and-gmos) properties of glyphosate can lead to neurological disorders(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3983024) (learning disabilities (LD), attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22458970), autism, dementia, Alzheimer's, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder). Those most susceptible are children and the elderly.
Correlation does not necessarily imply causation and there are now a host of chemicals in our food and our environment. The huge increase in the amount of glyphosate applied to GE food and feed crops has significantly increased our exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals. In a previous article, correlations were shown between glyphosate use, GMO crop increase and: thyroid cancer, liver cancer, obesity, high blood pressure, acute kidney injury, incidence and prevalence of diabetes and end stage renal disease. All of these diseases and disorders were carefully chosen based on:
1 Glyphosate is a known endocrine disruptor.
2. Endocrine disruptors can cause organ and neurological damage.
3. Roundup™ and GMOs have shown liver and kidney damage and abnormal behavior in rat studies.
4. Use of glyphosate on herbicide-resistant crops has skyrocketed since 1995.
5. Incidence, prevalence and deaths due to these diseases has also skyrocketed since 1995. (pg. 23)
It seems improbable that the correlations in the nine graphs of glyphosates and organ disease, and the three presented here (for a total of 12), can all be coincidence. There has been a trend among the agriculrural and food industries and their regulators ro engage in practices that place the consumers at risk, emerging in the mid-1990s and growing. It involves nor just GMOs bur many other things as well and those factors may may be correlated with each other. That may make it impossible to separate our which one caused a particular effect. Much more research needs to be done. Our children are disturbed and our elders are dying horribly. (pg. 24)
*In 2006 Irena Ermakova reported (http://www.kenes.com/aep2006/program/session1.asp?SessionId=POS13&SSessionDate=3/5/2006) to the European Congress of Psychiatry that, “As in previous series the behavior of males from GM group was compared with the behavior of control rats. Obtained data showed a high level of anxiety and aggression in males, females and young pups from GM groups. Aggression was more expressed in females and rat pups: they attacked and bite each other and the
worker.” 14th European Congress of Psychiatry, Nice, France, Sunday, March 5 2006, Poster #048.
*In 2010 Shelton et al(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404662/). published a paper describing potential mechanisms linking pesticides and autism.
*In 2006, Grandjean and Landrigan reported on developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. “Neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, attention deficit disorder, mental retardation, and cerebral palsy are common, costly, and can cause lifelong disability. ... Exposure to these chemicals during early fetal development can cause brain injury at doses much lower than those affecting adult brain function.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17174709/)
GMOs AND MULTIPLE CHRONIC DISEASES
*A paper published 18 April 2013 in the scientific journal Entropy (http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416) explains the connection between glyphosate and gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.
*Since GMOs were introduced into the food supply the rate of chronic health conditions among children in the United States increased from 12.8% in 1994 to 26.6% in 2006, particularly for asthma, obesity, and behavior and learning problems. The rate of chronic disease in the entire U.S. population has been dramatically increasing with an estimated 25% of the U.S. population suffering from multiple chronic diseases (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20159870).
*THE ACADAMY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE has issued a position statement on GMO food stating, “...several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation as defined by Hill's Criteria in the areas of strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.” They further state that “because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and because there is ample evidence of probable harm,” they call on physicians to educate the public and warn their
patients to avoid GM foods (http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html).
(GMO Free America on Facebook)
Just a few products tested by hindsight...smoking, asbestos, agent orange etc. Products currently tested in this way ....aspartame, fluoride, isopropylamine salt of glyphosate (in roundup) etc.
Why are you releasing poisons that help commercial tyranny and the expense of you grandchildren??
WE HAVE TO STOP YOU, it's for your own good.
Ich bin mit einem sprachlichen Übersetzung Programm, aber es funktioniert nicht richtig. Ich würde gerne wissen, wie gentechnisch veränderte Mais kann helfen, den menschlichen Körper besser als Mais, die nicht gentechnisch verändert. Wenn es nicht für Sie gesund, dann warum so viele Produkte haben?
Ist genetisch Mais besser für Sie als Mais, das nicht gentechnisch veränderten geändert? Bitte antworten Sie auf Deutsch da mein Übersetzer ist nicht mit mir heute. Vielen Dank.
Robert Wager says "After 17 years of commercial GM crops and therefore food, there has not been a single documented case of harm from consuming GM food." With all due respect, that is a lie. There are scores of well-documented cases, in the peer-reviewed literature, of mammals being harmed directly as a consequence of consuming GM materials. One of the first documented cases was the study by Pusztai and Ewen, which demonstrated damage to rats when GM potatoes were incorporated into their diet. Pusztai was of course sacked and vilified for announcing this finding to the media, but the following research paper was peer-reviewed, accepted, and never shown to be deficient in any way. More tellingly, the Pusztai experiments have never been repeated, falsified or improved. Is Mr Wager unaware of that study, and of the scores that have followed it?
Here is an article I just read yesterday: http://www.pccnaturalmarkets.com/sc/1308/ge_corn_soy.html
Most of the rest of the world has decided that these foods are not safe and do not allow GE foods to be sold in their countries or require labeling warning of the poisonous nature of the product. We are far behind the curve when it comes to this issue. Along with gov't flouride in our water, aluminum and other metals being sprayed in our air, and mercury and other poisons in our vaccines, and a complicit media telling us everything is okay, we are being killed at a rapid rate. And with the infiltration of former-Monsanto "scientists and exec's" into FDA we have big problems on our hands here and must start to take personal responsibility for our own well being until we restore our federal gov't to its intended size and intention, and not purchase products which are made with/from GMO
You can be sure that GMOs have negative health effects because Monsanto has already taken steps to prevent you from obtaining compensation through the courts for that damage. Check out the Monsanto Protection Act that was quickly and secretly added to a bill recently signed by Obama. If there was nothing to worry about, why the need for protection from lawsuits?
The huge problem for GMOs is that even the most brain-damaged among us can sense there is a hidden agenda, because any company whose product is 100% safe and good for us would be delighted to label their products clearly and they would not need to have legislation that protects them from the damage they know their products are causing. All ethical companies label their products clearly, are proud to label clearly and none take such profound steps to prevent people harmed by their products from seeking compensation. So actually, it is not misinformation that is causing people to hate GMOs and Monsanto ... it is their behavior. Most people are now aware of the depopulation agenda and the dissolution of North American democracies, so non-labelling policies and interference with the legal system only fuel their resistance.
My theory is that we don't know how GMO products will affect people in the future. And I don't think this company cares, as long as they can make mind blowing amounts of money doing it. Isn't it strange how everyone on this message board is accepting of GMO products ... What propaganda. Lets see if this comment is posted
This is about science and you need to get a bit of an education to underatnd it- that's the problem. Cornlover says no receptors and Danaless says whaare you talking about.....BT proteins harm by binding to specific receptors in the insect gut. People and mammals don't have these receptors and hence are unharmed. There is a vast set of literature out there on this. Add a pure Bt protein to a human cell culture it doesn't bind. Add it to a target insectcell culture and it binds and kills. All studied for decades. Bts used in organic farming actually are not pure and may produce proteins or metabolites that are toxic the alpha exotoxin is known to harm human cells - so some organic Bts are less safe than GM Bt in a plant.Organic Bt bacteria aren't useful really because they disappear before the insect eats them
@ Seeds of Death - in regards to Seralini study, the (authentic) scientific community has posted clear reasons to challenge the findings of Seralini, et al. The Wikipedia (peer reviewed) page only documents this in simple fashion. One of the major problems with the Seralini study methodology is they did NOT appropriately adjust their testing protocols when conducting a longer-term study, 2 years compared to 90 days. There are very straightforward implications of this which compromise their statistical analysis and ruin any credibility they have. I would suggest you encourage other research groups to repeat the study with sound science, and then we can debate the findings.
FoodieHere - very well put. There is no way that organic crops alone are able to feed the world's population. Back to the original question - as another person posted, there are no absolutes. Can you say with 100% certainty that organic crops are safe for long term human consumption? No. Just look at how many recent cases there have been of people getting sick from organic foods.
Seeds of Death
Jeffrey.. but you are offering nothing substantial to this discussion, Just more of black and white world view so you can continue with your blind "fooled again" religious faith in GMOs.. By the way, are you receiving any other perks on the side for posting on this site?
Seeds of Death
Jeffrey.. but you are offering nothing substantial to this discussion, Just more of black and white world view so you can continue with your blind "fooled again" religious faith in GMOs.. By the way, are you receiving any other perks on the side for posting on this site?
Seeds of Death
Excellent documentary that will answer everyone's questions here and deconstruct the lies being promoted by the organizers of this site and those "so-called" propagandists (woops, i meant scientists) posting on this sitehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A
Seeds of Death
jtr... you are going to give us a reference to Wikipedia regarding the Seralini study? Do you have any idea how many lawsuits have been filed against Wikipedia for scientific bias favoring big corporations? That aside. You are patently wrong and you are spreading misinformation and lies if you say that the Seralini study has been thoroughly discredited. So stop lying if you want an honest debate here. Seralini used the same protocol, the same rat strain as Monsanto's own supposed safety trials for is bt corn...
The World Health Organization, the European Food Safety Authority, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Medical Association, and every other preeminent scientific body agree that GMOs are safer than conventional alternatives. The world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050 and we will have to produce twice as much food to feed these people given increase in population in the developing world. To do this, we will have to convert significant rainforest to farmland, not to mention that 70% of the world's fresh water goes to produce crops. GMOs increase yield, minimizing deforestation, reduce the amount of insecticide and herbicide needed in farming (when compared to conventional), and new technology is capable of growing crops while using less water. Mark Lynas, the long-time leader of the anti-GMO movement for Greenpeace recently gave a lecture at Oxford explaining that he was wrong about GMOs. Take a look at the video if you're interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf86QYf4Suo
Robert Wager Wager,
"After 17 years of commercial GM crops and therefore food, there has not been a single documented case of harm from consuming GM food."
How can any one claim harm done when GM food is not labeled? In this experiment that has been conducted on the American people, there are no controls (people that are known not to have consumed GM food) and no valid test cases (people that are known to have consumed certain types of GM food). The GM industry has gambled for 17 years that people have not gotten sick from eating GM foods.
The only way to know if there is harm being done is to perform double-blind life-long studies of people consuming GM food versus GM free food. Only recently are long-term test results coming out from long-term studies. The results are not pretty.
The other danger of GM food that is not being talked about here is the harm being done from people ingesting the pesticides that were applied to the fruits and vegetables during their production. The damage to a human body may take 20-40 years to show up. It's already known that rats develop cancer after being long-term exposed to glyphosate. How can anyone determine if foods have glyphosate on them before being consumed? Again, we need foods labeled properly.
Hi - We welcome all of the questions in this thread. Please remember to submit your questions via the formal submission process here: http://gmoanswers.com/ask-your-question.
Danalee your lack of knowledge of gmo shows.There are fresh picked gmo food.I do eat processed food sometimes.Feeling great doing just fine.
I don't need any Science to tell me anything, although I have read tons of pro and anti-gmo studies. It comes down to common sense for me...we shouldn't try and alter the nature of.... Nature
Cornlover get real. Who says stuff like that and means it? "I eat a lot of gmo food" means that you eat a lot of processed food, which has been proven to be unhealthy. No one feels good after eating processed food. lol
We don't have receptors to process it.
Corn, soy, cottonseed. How can you be so sure the built in pesticides in these plants are safe for birds us, and other creatures if it causes insects to blow up when they eat it.??
Monsanto employees eat and love gmo foods.I eat a lot of gmo foods and have never felt better,so that means nothing.you guys eat organic foods and they use the se thing that's in corn.
GMO Free America
"Groundbreaking investigation reveals Monsanto teaming up with US military to target GMO activists" The report, which recently appeared in the July 13 print edition of Suddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), explains in rigorous detail how both individuals and groups opposed to GMOs and other chemical-based crop technologies have been threatened, hacked, slandered and terrorized for daring to digress from the pro-GMO status quo. On numerous documented occasions, pertinent information about the dangers of GMOs or lack of GMO safety data has been effectively blocked from timely release by mysterious forces that many say are the chemical industry in disguise. (http://www.naturalnews.com/041396_Monsanto_GMOs_US_government.html) - as posted on GMO Free America on Facebook
It is interesting that while Monsanto claims their products are so healthy why is it that their own employees refuse to eat it?
danalee, I stop eating GMO too, my health is better since, the GMO are labbeled in CUP code in Canada.
On Monsanto's own website they confirm that no human testing has ever been done on their product. So, since they have an excuse to get out of testing their own products, this is indisputable proof that there has never been any real evidence shown that GMOs are safe for human consumption. Those people that believe that they are safe, are basing their opinion on irrational and illogical information. We were once told lobotomies were effective treatment against mental illness, we were once told that smoking cigarettes helped relax pregnant women.
Since there is no way to prove that GMOs are safe or dangerous unless we experiment on humans for years and years, I choose to avoid them, which is why I support labeling. It is my right to choose not to eat these unnatural plants. (source: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx)
I read your PDF link, it never tells there is no danger, it tells ''no signifiant danger'', beside, most of GMO are used to be glyphosate resistant when we know glyphosate is a realy dangerous chemical (I use to work on a farm). Finally, I just want to add that polyphenol used to be cleared from food when 10 years later we admit it's good for health, so modifying food to add nutritous value is not a good thing.
Robert Wager Wager, are you saying that your lobeist have nerer give nothing to any politician, are saying that no scientifist ever have tell that it coul be dangerous, are you saying that every independant study are false but Monsanto study are the only possibility for truth... this:
I think you should first of all return at scool too learn about plasmide and all the infecion linked to this, secondly, you should try to understand that block the contamination of plasmide is impossible with GMO so how can you say that those link you are giving to us are ''official'' and that they proove that GMO are non-toxic or worse, this is non-sense, everybody know that all process have been overpass, all rechearch doesn't extend 3 months and all ''official studies'' have been financed by Monsanto. All scientist approuve that GMO are foung in urine and overuse immunity. We know they make it pass by false scientific conclusion with mathematic probability to proove that result that shows a difference between non GMO and GMO tested rat where possibly mathematic hasard, the real problem is that even Monsanto are not able to prof that GMO are without danger.
Oh and one more point about testing. The type of test, the number of tests, the type of controls, the number of controls are all determined by international agreed standards. The company that wants to market any GM food has zero say in the testing protocols.
This link to the European Food Safety Authority reviewed over 300 published reports on testing of GM food/feed. A very informative read for those who want to understand how and why we test GM food/feed.
Blanket statements like "The USDA, FDA, etc. ...have lost the faith of the America people with this entire issue" are meaningless.
And yes, other independent bodies monitor safety of cars and airplanes. Just as hundreds of independent bodies (by universities and the like) have done their own research and analyzed the data coming from corporations. This data is in the GENERA database at http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/independent-funding/
@GMO Free America- I should point out that I typically support GMOs, I am just willing to listen to both sides of the argument (which is the purpose of this website), and arguments are stronger when you have data to support them.
Simply saying that "there was a study" will devolve the debate into a "He said-She said" argument which will get us no where.
GMO Free America
GMO Free America - on Facebook