loyola90's picture
Hasn’t the rise in obesity been linked directly to when GMOs were introduced into our diet?

A:Expert Answer

First, let’s start with the definition of obesity. “Obesity occurs when, over time, the body takes in more calories than it burns,” according to the Endocrine Society.  When a person’s body mass index (BMI) is over 30, that person is considered obese. 


Because obesity is related to the number of calories a person consumes, a GM crop would have to contain considerably more calories than non-GM varieties of that crop to be linked to obesity. But the fact is that GM crops are carefully reviewed to make sure they are substantially equivalent to non-GM crops in their composition and nutritional qualities.  This includes levels of protein, carbohydrate, fat, vitamin, mineral, fiber and moisture, among others.  The caloric value of food from a GM plant will be in the same range as that of the comparable non-GM plant.


Whatever is causing obesity today, it isn’t the calories from GM plants.

Some people have claimed that GM crops cause obesity in ways unrelated to the caloric content of the food. However, more than 150 studies have been conducted, and the results of these studies do not provide any cause for concern about weight gain or other negative impacts from GMOs.


Some have raised concern that high-fructose corn syrup, which is processed primarily from GM corn, may be especially responsible for the obesity rise. However, research has shown HFCS provides the same calories and is used by the body in the same way as table sugar. Excessive calorie intake, regardless of the source, with inadequate physical activity is the primary cause of obesity in most people. 


Some companies are using genetic modification to improve the nutritional value of crops, such as soybeans. These nutritionally improved GM soybeans contain more oleic acid―an unsaturated fatty acid found in olive oil―and significantly fewer saturated fatty acids than traditional soybeans.



“Feed from Transgenic Plants in Animal Nutrition,” Gerhard Flachowsky, Institute of Animal Nutrition, German Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Braunschweig, Germany, GMSAFOOD Conference, Vienna, March 2012.


For information about obesity and its causes, check out the following resources:

Content Topics: 


rickspalding's picture

If you are truly concerned on this, you need to do your own research. You can't ask a pro GMO website to actually give an answer that is objective with integrity. Not that the answer here would be full of obfuscation. But whatever is given, take it with a grain of salt and look at a multitude of peer reviews for a non biased conclusion.

PirateGirl's picture

rickspalding, I think you have the wrong idea of this site. Its suppose to be a forum where people can come and ask the questions they've had about GMOs and get quality scientific data, whether that data supports GMOs or not. Everyone that is against GMOs wants answers to their questions and now there is a site that directly informs people about GMOs. If the information that is presented is for GMOs, its based on scientific evidence, not an opinion. So while this site may appear to be pro GMO, its because the scientific literature pushes it in that direction. But it is an open forum so instead of posting negative comments to everyone's questions feel free to post the scientific studies that show GMOs are bad, just make sure that they are creditable scientific resources/studies, that is what people need to hear, the facts not someones opinion. This is a place for both sides to be heard so lets take advantage of this opportunity.

Chyatt's picture

David Kessler wrote a book "The End To Overeating"

Also, BBC did a great three part series on "The Men Who Made Us Fat". It also link big agriculture, the intro to GMO's and artificial flavorings and colorings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6nGlLUBkOQ

Rdewitt's picture

Obesity is one of the simplest questions to answer. People are overweight because they eat too much and get too little exercise. Yes, 99% of the time it is that simple with this specific issue.

danalee's picture

They are absolutely connected. GMOs are about producing the most food for the cheapest amount of money. So, when sugar from sugar canes become costly, the industry looked for alternatives. They found they could make high fructose corn syrup and sell it for cheaper, so companies like Post and General Mills and Pepsi started using it instead of real sugar.
Processed food is on the rise and it is certainly this higher concentration of high caloric low nutritional cheaper options that has led to the laziness and obesity prevalent in our society. 70% of processed food has GMOs in it. This is no coincidence.
Countries that do not allow the use of GMOs in their foods have fewer people who are obese. Food can make us sick, but it can also heal us. We need to stop buying this crap and get back to a natural, whole food based diet full or fruits and veggies.

Cornlover's picture

Danalee,what a poor assessment of things and no proof.

Robert F Davis Davis's picture

Danalee - you wrote "Processed food is on the rise and it is certainly this higher concentration of high caloric low nutritional cheaper options that has led to the laziness and obesity prevalent in our society."

No one forces anyone to overeat and not exercise. Choosing to be less active and choosing to eat calorie dense foods (whether it has GMO in it or not) sounds more reasonable a claim.

Some good advice from my grandmother including her famous "pushback method" -- Pushback from the table, spend more time outdoors / physical activity and make good personal choices when you eat / drink. Amazing how the pounds will shed and stay away when the metabolism is working like a well oiled machine.

Robert F Davis Davis's picture

Not sure why my username showed up as hybridauth_Twitter_1625331200

So my comment should state: Robert Davis as my name.

danalee's picture

I think my statements are fueled by common sense.
Have you watched this movie? http://youtu.be/nvMxIEgbsIo

Robert F Davis Davis's picture

Hi Danalee - thanks for the response and the movie link. Yes, I have seen the docudrama / movie on Netflix last year. My take away is American's food cost is still low overall, we choose to eat foods that are full of calories (I know when I played World of Warcraft I would eat a bag of Doritos a night!) that are quick to get. When I made a conscious effort to watch what I put in my mouth, get up and move / exercise (change my habits) and drink water instead of soda the pounds came off. Today it takes me on average less than 15 minutes to make a meal (which may include rice and corn) but mostly vegetables and meat. Choices that I make impact my health. It isn't something that is done to me. I don't eat a bag of Doritos at once or eat that 4th meal late at night. Instead I choose an apple or other piece of fruit....going back to what my grandparents taught me - recognize if you are really hungry or just eating because you are thirsty (sometimes we eat when we are really thirsty). And instead of drinking sugary drinks it is back to water. Choosing healthier options can still be cost effective (bag of apples will last a week and it is less than $5 vs. 1 candy bar for $1). I agree there is an obesity problem, just don't agree it is GMO vs non-GMO. Will be interested in seeing how the experts weigh in when the question is answered.

Seeds of Death's picture

this full length documentary, Seeds of Death, exposes what is behind much of the rhetoric, propaganda and misinformation that will be posted on this site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A

Rex Peterson's picture

Consider the other very important social changes that have happened since GMO technology was developed:
latch key children
zoning with parking required
computers, in home movies, TV and computer games
collapse of the family meal and the rise of grazing or snacking
Putting GMO's into the obesity discussion is like trying to blame someone else for our own behavioral problems.

Mark Ludwig's picture

GMOs come along right about the time the internet takes off. Seems to me the extra screen time that caused is more likely to cause fatter people, not to mention the creeping increase in portion sizes, got a "medium" soda the other day, it was 30 ounces! Also consider the proliferation of remote controls for everything and other labor saving gadgets. Occum's razor people, the simpler and more direct the explanation the more likely it is to be true.

Grace Joubarne's picture

I've been an organic proponent for decades, but I also like to decide things for myself...do my own 'personal' research. For one month in 2012, I ate regular food...regular breads, pastas, etc. I put on 25 lbs within 3 weeks and then abandoned my project. A year later, I am still trying to undo the damage of the GMO-laced foods I ate for that 3 weeks. I was never a slouch -once I started eating that garbage, I lost my vitality. Getting it back slowly, but no one can convince me of the safety of these GMOs and processed foods or that there is any health benefit whatever. I counsel my clients to abandon all GMOs and processed foods and they too see amazing results in pretty short order. Most report that the bloating stops once they stop eating GMOs. Bloating was one of the effects I noticed first and foremost about eating GMOs. Getting the Roundup out of their systems however require homeopathic detoxs, as it did with me.

Grace Joubarne's picture

BTW, the book Wheat Belly is an awesome read!

klivreri's picture

It is not as simple as eating too much with no exercise. When I found out about GMO (election time) I quit eating them. I lost 10 pounds. I am not heavy, I am 99 pounds. Very petite. But I had 10 pounds around the middle. GMO causes inflammation which adds weight gain. 10 pounds was not in my head, it was real. My sons asthsma also disappeared when avoiding GMO.

WheatLover's picture

Grace, you mentioned you were eating regular breads and pastas. Those are wheat based foods and as of 2013 there is no GMO wheat grown or sold for commercial reasons. Nor does anyone in the wheat industry expect to see commercial GMO wheat for 7-10 years. Research has been conducted and GMO varieties have been created, but those are strictly for research and would not be sold on the market.
Of course people will respond that GMO wheat was found in a field in Organ, and this is true. However only a few plants had been found and no additional GMO wheat has been found. And just this week the Japanese government has lifted a ban on wheat imports when they found no GMO contamination after months of study, just as South Korea and Taiwan did.
Additionally I would like to point out that I lost 20 pounds after I joined Weight Watchers, and I did not change the types of food I ate, I just became stricter in how I scheduled my eating.

Ban_All_GMO's picture

Excepting, of course, the GMO wheat that the UK found; which came from where? USA. Why was it in the UK?? Oh my, it was sold, for COMMERCIAL REASONS.

WheatLover's picture

To Ban_All_GMO, neither of those articles stated that GMO wheat was found in the UK, just that the UK was among many countries testing to see if their wheat imports had GM wheat, and it makes no indication that they found any. Further more they are a little out of date since they both mention that Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have stopped wheat imports, but did not mention that those three countries have resumed imports after failing to find GM wheat in their imports. The Guardian article even reinforces the point that GM wheat is not sold commercially, and that research into GM wheat has been a low priority for market reasons.

If you have a credible source of information that states GM wheat was found in the UK, please share it. Though you might need to post it in a different location since this question asks about obesity, not where GM wheat was found.
The purpose of my previous comment was simply that if people are going to list the foods they ate to prove GMOs made them gain weight, then they should list foods where the ingredients contain GMOs. At this point in time there are no commercial GMOs that are common ingredients in bread and pasta. Grace's argument would have been stronger if she listed foods that were full of corn, soybeans, sugar beets, canola oil, and papayas since those are among the few commercially grown GMO crops meant for human consumption.

rickspalding's picture

Wait............ this "scientist" is using the BMI scale to determine obesity? The BMI scale has over a 30 percent margin of error. No respectable scientist uses more than a 3 percent margin of error. This in itself discredits this answer.

ashepherd's picture

WheatLover - I don't know if you are aware but the US had stored the unapproved Monsanto wheat up until 2011. How did it get stored if it wasn't grown and cultivated???

Rickinreallife's picture

Grace -- Wheat Belly has been the subject of ridicule and even scorn by nutritionists and others. Even a leading gluten free blogger has condemned the book as a compilation of junk science and misrepresentation, finding the book not only disappointing but insulting.. I am on my droid and dontdon't have ability to paste websites, but Would challenge you to type in "wheat belly criticisms" into google search and check out some of the sites that come up. Also, as has been pointed out, there are currently no commercial Gmo wheat varieties.

amberwaves's picture

After having read several replies from so-called experts to questions on this site, it's already becoming apparent that the scientific views being expressed are extremely one-sided and, I'm disappointed to say, seem to want to deceive more than to inform.

The question whether the prevalence of GM foods in our food supply MIGHT be contributing to obesity cannot be dismissed as easily as your reply rather patronizingly suggests - and most disturbingly, suggests with certainty.

A search on "much high fructose corn syrup is in our food", brought up as the first result the following article - that totally refutes your position:

WheatLover's picture

To ashepherd, I said that the GM wheat had not been grown for commercial reasons. That means the GM wheat was never intended to be sold to farmers and other seed users. The GM wheat had been grown for the purposes of research and development.
Monsanto's ultimate goal would have been to create a GM wheat variety that could be sold commercially, but the GM varieties they created never made it to that stage of development because of market forces. Of course when they shelved the project they would have saved and stored some seed in the event they wanted to revisit their work or if market forces became more favorable to GM wheat.
But again this is a subject for another discussion forum. This forum concerns whether obesity is related to GM foods.

ConcernedMomOf5's picture

So I want to make sure I understand--- the medical conditions that can lend to obesity (thyroid, PCOS, allergies) that are well documented and accepted in the medical community-- even treated-- are irrelevant and only calorie intake dictates weight gain or loss?? Honestly. So you are telling me a fat baby on breast milk only eats too much? *sigh*. This is a canned response to the question at hand. The question is really-- does the modification of foods to include bacteria and chemicals not normally found in food interact with the body and create an environment where the body does not properly absorb the food, thereby leading to increased weight, heightened food allergies, and a myriad of other, unknown affects? If the narrow answer by the above "Doctor" is any indication of the amount of research done then I would say no research was done. The answer above is one I would expect from someone with very little nutritional education.
I was stunned when I read it. If calories dictate-- then how do you explain the starving obese children??
Our bodies adjust and if they feel deprived of nutrients they go into starvation mode, storing calories rather than using them. It's basic knowledge. You can actually get fat my eating too little. But---- if what you are eating does not have the nutritional value your body needs your body goes into starvation mode--not because of a lack of calories, but because of a lack of nutrition.
These canned questions and answers are singularly meant to mis-inform. Very Very dissapointing.

Cornlover's picture

Can't make you fat if your body can't process it.

ProGMOfarmer's picture

The anecdotal, individual "studies" of the commenters are excruciatingly revealing. Obviously we no longer need science PhDs...

gmosrock's picture

Unless it has been studied over time, one cannot determine for sure that GMOs do not play a role in obesity or any other health issue. And when we have studies to work with, let's look at who's researching and who's regulating. Furthermore, let's examine whether these 2 groups--the researchers and the regulators--are the same people. Finally, let's look at the regulatory process itself.

A court ruling on September 29, 2000 released key FDA documents revealing the hazards of Genetically Modified foods and flaws with how the agency made its policy. The ruling determined:

- The FDA is not regulating GE foods at all.

- The FDA's politically appointed bureaucrats did not follow the advice and warnings of the agency's scientific staff about GE foods but disregarded them.

- There is currently significant disagreement among scientific experts about the safety of GE foods.


Cornlover's picture

Gmosrock babble on all you want but you can get around the science.

Community Manager's picture

Re: Grace and others
Here's a link to some info on wheat that you might enjoy reading.

alisa53's picture

How exactly is it that you say GM HFCS is used by the body in the same way and can't cause obesity at a higher rate that sugar, when there are many peer-reviewed studies by top-tier researchers (hello? - Princeton) that have shown otherwise. @pirategirl, most of the studies that support safety of GMOs were done by the companies that manufacture them with little oversight. Sorry, but what you're doing here is the worst sort of spin-doctoring. This site isn't about answering questions - it's about manufacturing beliefs.

Community Manager's picture

More information about the Health and Safety of GMOs is available in our Explore section. A Scientist's Analysis of Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods also provides detailed information on this topic: http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/9Ntsbp8nBKFATMuPqVje/full/10.1146/an...

Thank you @average man in the country and @hybridauth_Twitter_1625331200 for bringing forward your perspective

WheatLover's picture

High Fructose Corn Syrup has been mentioned a lot on this thread, but is it really GMO? High fructose corn syrup was invented back in the 70's and its created in a process that uses enzymes to convert a percentage of the glucose naturally found in corn syrup into fructose, both of which are naturally occurring monosaccharaides. So even if all of the GMO corn was replaced by organic corn, wouldn't high fructose corn syrup still be available?

Furthermore, since high fructose corn syrup is just supposed to be a mixture of fructose, glucose, and water there shouldn't be any genetic material (aside from some trace amounts) of the corn in there.

So my question remains, does high fructose corn syrup belong in a discussion thread about whether GMOs cause obesity, or would it be better off discussed in a discussion thread asking if high fructose corn syrup causes obesity?

Fun Fact: Table Sugar is a chemical compound known as sucrose, a disaccharide created from an even 50-50 mixture of glucose and fructose. The two common sources of table sugar are sugarcane and sugar beets, with sugar beets gaining in popularity because they require one-fourth of the water that sugarcane needs to grow. This makes them particularly attractive in regions where water is a scarcer resource. Sugar beets are also one of the GMO crops available for commercial use.

Blake Drolson's picture

"A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain"

" A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same."

NeedsTheTruth's picture

to answer ur question, gmo doesnt pertain to just hfcs. aspartame is gmo bacteria poop, with zero calories, and causes obesity. widen your horizons

WheatLover's picture

To NeedsTheTruth. That doesn't answer my question at all. A simple "Yes, high fructose corn syrup needs to be discussed in this thread" or a simple "No, we should discuss other possible ways GMOs cause obesity" would answer my question. The conclusion I came to with my information is that high fructose corn syrup is not really a GMO topic aside from the fact that corn is a common GM crop, but the syrup would still exist even if all of the corn was organic. If someone has information that refutes my conclusion, please share it.

I also recognize that GMOs don't only pertain to high fructose corn syrup (I even doubt if GMOs pertain to high fructose corn syrup at all). That was one of the reasons I mentioned that another common source of sugar (sucrose) is the sugar beet, a vegetable that the experts on this website have identified as one of the main GMO crops.

But since you want to talk about aspartame, lets talk about aspartame. First, you claim that aspartame is "GMO bacteria poop". What information are you using to support this claim? Second, how is aspartame connected to the rise in obesity rates that is the central topic point of this discussion?

NeedsTheTruth's picture

aspartame actually has been linked to increased waist sizes 70% faster. the aspartame's sweetness tricks your brain into thinking it is consuming sugar, activating the pancreas, which in turn shouldnt happen. this is also the reason that aspartame can lead to diabetes.

and a simple google search will reveal all the information i have brought to light. instead of asking me like im the expert, why dont u learn to use your noggin, and google it? or are u just trying to defend monsanto?

NeedsTheTruth's picture

and the connection between fullness and sweetness/sugar diminishes very very quickly, which leads to over eating. Also, when your immune system is busy fighting off this poison, it takes away from energy you would put towards burning calories. You cannot cheat with food, it doesnt work. 20 years of bio "technology" cannot compete with how ever many millions of years of evolution.

also, i have been working in restaurants a long time. 95% of the people who order diet drinks, are fat. its all a pattern, you should take notice.

Transparency's picture

@NeedsTheTruth, thank you for your comment. If the body is over-stressed with toxins and/or chronic illness, a person may not have the metabolic energy or motivation to go outside and exercise to lose weight -- this is such a crucial point. Not to mention the fact that toxins can throw off the thyroid and overall cellular function. Calorie intake is only facet of weight gain or loss. There are so many more factors to consider. For me, a good rule of thumb is that if someone gives you a quick, "simple" or "pat" answer -- and I don't just mean on this site, but in any situation -- that is a big red flag. I believe there are usually many layers, sides, and complexities to consider with most big issues.

WheatLover's picture

To NeedsTheTruth - The reason I asked you to provide your sources of information is because I believe when someone makes a claim, it is their responsibility to provide the evidence that supports their claim. It can make their argument stronger when the people they are talking to do their own research because it provides a starting point. For instance when I looked up your claim that aspartame is "GMO bacteria poop" I found an article by Anthony Gucciardi on the NatrualSociety website, which is more or less quoting an article from the Independent that dates back to the year 1999 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/worlds-top-sweetener-is-made-with-gm-b...). My problem with these articles is again the lack of evidence, specifically limiting itself to just saying that there was a source in Monsanto that told them, but did not identify the source's identity or any sort of paperwork that could confirm this statement.

I have also seen the trove of websites (many of them blogs) that state that aspartame causes various medical issues. I don't readily believe these articles because many people I personally know drink diet sodas (a common source of aspartame) but suffer none of the listed issues. Many of them are even downright skinny which I attribute to their active lifestyle. The website Snopes even has a page in regards to these claims, http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

Now here is some information about aspartame that I found from the following source http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/aspartame/aspartameh.html

It was discovered in December, 1965, by Jim Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle, was working on a project to discover new treatments for gastric ulcers.

Aspartame is a dipeptide methyl ester: L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methyl ester.
Molecular formula: C14H18N2O5
Molecular weight: 294.31

Aspartame is metabolized in the body to its components: aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. Like other amino acids, it provides 4 calories per gram. Since it is about 180 times as sweet as sugar, the amount of aspartame needed to achieve a given level of sweetness is less than 1% of the amount of sugar required. Thus 99.4% of the calories can be replaced.

Aspartic acid (also called "aspartate") is a naturally occurring amino acid which is a component of all proteins. It is classified as a "non-essential" amino acid, meaning that humans do not need to get it from their diets since they can make it from other things in the diet. Aspartic acid is important in the synthesis of new DNA, in urea synthesis, and as a neurotransmitter in the brain. As such, its levels in the body are carefully regulated. If the body needs more aspartic acid, it makes more, using oxaloacetate from the tricarboxylic acid cycle (Krebs cycle) of energy metabolism. If the body has a surplus of aspartic acid, it converts the excess to fumarate, which enters the tricarboxylic acid cycle and provides energy.

Phenylalanine is one of the "essential" amino acids, meaning that humans must get it from their diet. It is a precursor for the synthesis of tyrosine and several neurotransmitters. Excess phenylalanine is broken down to fumarate and acetoacetate, both of which are part of normal energy metabolism. People who lack the enzyme to convert phenylalanine to tyrosine are not able to metabolize phenylalanine normally. This condition is called phenylketonuria because, in these people, excess phenylalanine is instead converted to phenylketones which appear in the urine. If it is not detected and treated, this condition can lead to mental retardation. This was the first genetic disease for which a routine screening test became available. Persons having this genetic defect must monitor their intake of phenylalanine. For this reason, products containing aspartame carry an information label for phenylketonurics.

Methanol is commonly encountered in the diet. The table below shows the amount of methanol you would get from a can of diet soft drink, along with amounts found in the same volume of several fruit juices. Methanol is well known to be poisonous in large quantity. "Large quantity" means tens or hundreds of grams. Your liver can deal with reasonable quantities of methanol, metabolizing it so that it can be excreted. If you start drinking enough methanol to get inebriated, you overwhelm your liver's metabolic machinery, and serious problems result.

Diet soft drink (12 oz can) 0.024 gram
Orange juice 0.018 gram
Apple juice 0.021 gram
Grape juice 0.046 gram
Tomato juice 0.085 gram

For some information on the legal history of aspartame you can try the website of the US Government Accountability Office, http://www.gao.gov/products/HRD-87-46

I also looked into your belief that " when your immune system is busy fighting off this poison, it takes away from energy you would put towards burning calories". The human body obtains the energy it uses to do anything by burning calories. Simply breathing or your heart pumping blood burns calories, just not at a quick pace. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/human-biology/calorie.htm By the way this website does reference the need to be aware of the nutritional content of your calorie sources.

And while 20 years of biotechnology can't compete with millions of years of evolution. Just watch this video of the top 5 deadliest substances that show nature can produce toxins far beyond what humans can do http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z35_1e1MtI However domestic plants and animals of today show that a few thousands years of human intervention can do a pretty good job when it comes to altering species to better suit human needs. Just look at dogs. http://www.mans-best-friend.org.uk/history-evolution-dogs.htm

My conclusions on aspartame based on the information above: First, the substance has been around since the late sixties, and ever since it was submitted to the FDA for approval in the early 70's it has been surrounded by controversy.
Second, the fact that there are articles out on the web suggesting (OK they are outright stating but I question their validity) that aspartame comes from GMO bacteria that is not being reported to the public by company officials supports the idea that the topic is within the purview of this website and should be discussed. Anyone can ask the question on this website or present evidence for or against this notion.
Third, it seems clear that many people believe aspartame is dangerous. I will list myself as skeptical of this claim since I have never met anyone who seemed to be affected so negatively by the consumption of aspartame. It has been shown that the chemical compound is unquestionably dangerous to a small group of people with the condition phenylketonuria, though in comparison it is no more dangerous then a peanut is to a person with a peanut allergy and quite possibly less dangerous.

Does anyone have anything else they wish to had to this discussion?

whyusegmoseeds's picture

pirate girl, this wanna be q&a forum is biased in nature and contains only rhetoric from monsanto employees, the scientific studies you reference in your comment are against the law in america if they do not support the use of gm foods! monsanto lobbyist's have gotten laws passed banning the research and funding to find out!!! turns out it's bad for business!! so search all you want!! you will not find any such studies!! i am only on here to read what the people have to say! and by the way this comment will probably be removed! it is all part of the plan! this is only a part of the bigger picture!

Cornlover's picture


Possum72's picture

It's hard to take most of these comments seriously... I think we can all agree that the abundance of processed foods and the use of HFCS is contributing to the increase in obesity. It is convinient for the anti-gmo crowd to say that since most processed foods contain GMOs, they must cause weight gain. The end result is going to be the same whether or not GMO crops were used. As Wheat Lover stated, HFCS contains no genetic material - it is chemically the same regardless of the variety of corn used to produce it.
I really can't even believe this is an argument. Our society has given up on personal responsibility and embraced junk science to explain why people are getting fat.

Transparency's picture

@Possum72 -- No doubt processed food and refined sugars can cause weight gain, I agree. But have you heard of a protein called gliadin, a byproduct of hybridized wheat? 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-Chr.... "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? And how why did agribusiness decide it would be a good idea for our brains to be stimulated so that we would overeat? My point here is all is not what it seems...question everything because much goes on behind the scenes that Big Agra does not tell you about.

Rex Peterson's picture

Are folks here referring to this Davis and Wheat Belly?

OpenMinded's picture

Realistically, I feel like wheat has no part of this conversation. Aren't we all here to talk about GMO and for those really wanting to talk "real GMO" wheat isn't even an option for discussion. It's not GMO.

So I watched - whatever morning show - ABC perhaps - when they covered the wheat belly thing. It wasn't long after that the wheat groups starting sharing information on the topic. I farm and therefore trust groups - like the state wheat commissions. I felt this post outlined some pretty good points, and wanted to share: http://wawg.org/news/&slug=wheat-is-not-unhealthy-a-rebuttal-to-claims

With that said - I'm not going to chat about wheat any more, but rather GMOs.

Community Manager's picture

Thanks for your comments – one point of clarification, there is are no commercially-available wheat in the world today that has been genetically engineered.
From the National Wheat Improvement Committee (NWIC)
“MYTH: Wheat has been genetically modified.
FACT: Today’s wheat is the product of the painstaking process of crossing parents and selecting offspring, a process called conventional breeding.
FACT: Wheat breeding has always involved crossing two or more parents followed by selection for improved and recombined traits that improve yield, increase resistance to diseases or improve baking characteristics. The wheat varieties that have been developed through breeding have taken advantage of the natural variation that exists in wheat and wheat ancestors and relatives.”
More information available here: http://www.thebestgrains.com/wheat-improvement-the-truth-unveiled

Transparency's picture

To Community Manager -- Thank you for the clarification about GMO wheat. Yes, I understand there is no GMO wheat commercially available. What is confusing is that the term "modified" could technically apply to both cross-bred plants and GMOs as well.

My point here is that there may be issues relating to cross-bred wheat that Dr. Davis highlights. And if there are previously unknown issues about cross-bred wheat coming to light, it is not too far of a stretch to wonder about the safety of GMO wheat...

NeedsTheTruth's picture

transparency, Occam's razor google it, and u will understand, short simple answers > long complex answers. notice how many long answers are being given here on this website, every single one of those answers are just long explanations that avoid the truth. i heard once "if i talk long enough, i can make anything right". simple is better

Community Manager's picture

@NeedsTheTruth Please remember to post respectful comments which focus on the facts. We want to have a conversation with those wanting to learn more and ask questions about GMOs and biotechnology. Our goal is to provide fact-based responses, backed by sound research.

@Rickspalding- Please be mindful and respectful of the experts who volunteer their time to answer this community's questions.