jim722's picture
I know there haven't been definitive studies that conclude that GMOs can do harm to one's body, but have there been studies done that show GMOs do NOT harm our health?

A:Expert Answer

This is a good, thoughtful question. However, it is impossible for science to absolutely prove a negative. I can’t prove that you won’t be attacked by an emperor penguin next year; I can report only that, from our knowledge of penguins, almost certainly this will not occur, but no matter how much research is done, I can’t prove it. The same applies to GM foods. The science says that there should be no harm, and reliable studies to date have not shown any harm, but we cannot prove that there will never be any harm. All we can say is that all the evidence points toward GM crops being no different from non-GM crops of the same species with regard to safety for the traits currently approved and on the market.


GM crops are not expected to present any new food risk, as the changes are simply in molecules (protein and DNA) that have been in our diet for ever, and the small quantity of added material is degraded in our gut in exactly the same way as has always occurred. There has been very extensive safety testing carried out in many countries around the world, and GM crops have been found to be no different from non-GM crops of the same species in terms of food safety or environmental effects.


The European Union has said, “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies” ("A decade of EU-funded GMO research," Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Union, 2010).


A multitude of studies by academic scientists have been conducted to assess the food safety of GM crops. Summing them up, the American Association for the Advancement of Science recently said, “The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe."


After 16 years of consumption by billions of livestock, pets and humans, there have been no cases of allergy, cancer or death, or indication that GMOs are of any health concern. Claims of effects have been found to be anecdotal and without merit and are rejected by the overwhelming majority of scientists worldwide.


Should any new information or studies be discovered indicating adverse information about a GM product on the market, the law requires that such information be brought to the FDA, which regulates the safety of all foods and food products―including from GM plants.

Content Topics: 


danalee's picture

There is no proof they are safe. But there is proof that proteins can act in different ways in different environments. By changing the DNA, we are creating a new organism that has never been studied, and then we are loosing it in the environment which is very very dangerous.
We should have learned our lessons even from the Cane Toad which was brought to Australia to eat a certain beetle, but became prolific breeders without predators as their bufotoxin kills native animals.
Fact is, we just don't know how a new species will behave, so we should just stay away from playing "god" and let nature be.

danalee's picture

Seeds of Death's picture

Davis, this is patently false. You know certainly well of the many studies showing serious adverse health risks to animals from a predominate GMO diet. To say there are NO cases of allergy, cancer, and lets add death is misinforming the public and discrediting this website. Please stop lying if you wish there to be constructive dialogue on this site.

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

jtrav21's picture

@ Seeds of Death - which studies are you referring to? Can you be specific, so that we all can participate in the discussion? You are accusing a highly experienced person in this field of lying. I trust you can somehow back that accusation up with facts and not just vitriol?

Leigh Lennox's picture

cr1111's picture

Dr. Puztai studying GMO and lost his job for publishing his findings. All the lab rats died of cancer and tumors. The Russians studied GMO and their lab rats died of cancer and tumors, too. AMERICANS have "MORGELLONS DISEASE," which comes from GMO.

amberwaves's picture

There are indeed studies that strongly suggest GMOs, as well as the accompanying use of pesticides required to grow them, have the potential to be very harmful to human and animal life.
Here are links to only two such studies:

University of Caen, Institute of Biology and The University of Verona, Department of Neurological, Neuropsychological, Morphological and Motor Sciences

BT Brinjal, Review of Oral Toxicity Studies in Rats, Dr Lou M Gallagher, PhD, New Zealand

It is important to make clear that a far greater number of studies resulting in similar findings to these would be available, if independent research was not actively suppressed, and the careers of independent scientists, like Dr. Puztai, were not ruined by the vested interests of the companies who are producing GMO seeds and pesticides.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that correct scientific research is reluctant to "definitively conclude" results. That is one thing for all of us to keep in mind when we read that scientists "have proven" or are "certain" that GMOs are NOT harmful, or that GMOs are "substantially the same" as their non-GMO counterparts.

Cornlover's picture

We do know,the Bt protein can't hurt you unless you are a bug.That would be a fact for now.

Cornlover's picture

What sad look at public schools when you have so many people that don't know you can't prove a negative:(

Chris123's picture

This is an irresponsible answer and should be banned from this site. There are studies indicating major organ mutations in rats fed with GMO-potatoes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNjMJIvI3RY). A quick search for "studies health GMO" also reveals that latest studies indicate that livestock is harmed by GMO feed (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-gmo-pigs-study-idUKBRE95A14K...).

Peter J. Davies, can you please reply to this to clarify.

Sorgfelt's picture

This answer needs to qualify "scientists" to include primarily scientists employed by the GM industry. I have been involved in other arguments with people who don't have "definitive" evidence of this or that, while the matter is obvious to everyone else. It is a sign of denial and cries of a need for psychotherapy or spiritual assistance. It is not a sign of a scientist.

Chris123's picture

The answer should be NO, there have been no studies that show that digesting GM foods are safe.

Cornlover's picture

Chris123 what gmo you talking about?

JessicaV's picture

@danalee If you just want to let nature be, I hope that you never have to take medicine, go to a hospital, or buy produce from a supermarket. The human population is always increasing, and we need food to provide to humans. Science has done a lot of good things in order to provide for humans. What would be considered more humane - providing food via GMO, or letting people starve?

Brian John's picture

Prof Davies says: "The science says that there should be no harm, and reliable studies to date have not shown any harm, but we cannot prove that there will never be any harm. All we can say is that all the evidence points towards GM crops being no different from non-GM crops of the same species with regards to safety for the traits currently approved and on the market." His answer to the question is disingenuous and thoroughly misleading. What does he mean by "the science"? There is no such thing as "the science" -- and he must know that. Some scientific articles purport to show no harm from GMOs, and others purport to show harm. That is the way with science. There is scientific disagreement, and as long as that exists, precaution should prevail. Science says that there SHOULD be no harm? With all due respect, that is nonsense -- whose science is he talking about? Not mine, that's for sure. And then this: "... all the evidence points towards GM crops being no different from non-GM crops...." All the evidence does NOT show that at all -- the GM plant patent holders have to show that their GM varieties are distinct, stable and uniform, and the fact that they jealously protect their patents and their "intellectual property rights" confirms that GMO varieties and their isolines are NOT substantially equivalent. That idea is a scam, and has nothing to do with biology.

I could go on -- but the effort really isn't worth it. The answer from Prof Davies is so misleading as to be absurd. Please take it off the site.

Sunny Sandhu's picture

The cancer survey conducted by state of punjab has shown the area where the Bt cotton is growing has much higher cancer incidence than the other parts of the states where conventional agriculture is being conducted . So thats the scientific evidence which should allow the health services to say we dont want biotech crops. But the State governments has bought into monsantos path and now wants to introduce Monsantos GM corn . These are corrupt practices . This site is nothing but a fraud , both scientifically and economically .
Dr Sunny Sandhu

jtrav21's picture

Dr. Sunny Sandhu - can you further substantiate the study you refer to? As a doctor, you are likely familiar with the principle that "correlation does not imply causation"? The claim that cancer rates are higher in an area that BT crops are grown does not provide any rational basis for defining causation. It also does not appear to give a basis for determining environmental policy decisions as you indicate.

cudspan's picture

The answer says studies show no environmental risks. But simple experience does show environmental risk. The cultivation of Roundup Ready cotton has produced strains of super Pig Weed that also resist Roundup. As a result, even more toxic herbicides are being poured onto these crops. This was reported in the NY Times. So on the one hand, we have an increase in toxins. On the other hand, we have natural selection responding to these genetic modifications in ways that certainly do affect the environment, but in ways we cannot predict.

gmosrock's picture

I can't believe you compared the safety of GMOs to that of being attacked by a penguin. What a brilliant illustration of the "science" that backs this industry.

Kim Kasey's picture

" There has been very extensive safety testing carried out in many countries around the world, and GM-crops have been found to be no different from non GM-crops of the same species in terms of safety as food, or in environmental effects."

Which extensive safety testing was that? Who did it? Was it peer reviewed, or was it Monsanto's own "studies"?

Monsanto_is_evil188's picture

Okay first of all I love it how the in the first sentence. Monsanto admits that they cannot prove that it doesn't harm anyone to eat GMO's. Also they say that only a majority of scientist (Which just means the scientist that are published on TV and news) agrees with that GMO's are harmless. If they are so awesome then why don't all scientist agree. If you actually read scientific journals on the subject you'll find many scientist are very much against GMO's.

Also, I have done experiments with eating GMO's myself. I started eating only organics and I cut out all corn and soy, (which are the two biggest GMO's crops). Not only did I start losing weight, feeling healthier, and having more energy, but every time I accidentally eat GMO's it makes my stomach hurt and bloated. Monsanto is evil and protected by the government. They poison the food to control the population. It makes people sick and spending more money on medicine and at the doctors. There is a reason the president has his own organic garden. Ask members of congress what they eat. Hell, ask anyone with political or corporation power, all they don't eat GMO's.

Ps. This post will be deleted soon because they don't want you to know the truth.

Foodie Mom's picture

Just out of curiosity, if the EU is in support of GMO safety, why do products containing them require labels, or in some instances outright ban GMO's in many of their countries?

Cornlover's picture

You can't prove a negative.

Chyatt's picture

If you read the US President's Annual Cancer Panel Report from 2008-2009 linking pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides used on GMO crops to cancers and diseases you will see GMO crops do cause harm to humans and the environment http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/

Community Manager's picture

@Kim Kasey
Yes, countless studies have been conducted - check out this listing of studies: http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

GMO Free America's picture

@jim722. Your information is incorrect. There HAVE BEEN many definitive studies that conclude that GMOs can do harm to your health and one's body.

In his answer Dr. Davies conveniently says that "GM crops are not expected to present any new food risk." Well now after years of unregulated introduction into our food supply and animal feed supply you might want to scan the study and some of the highlights below:

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/ae... & http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID...) (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=...): 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&stat...)
*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&pa...) 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=...)
*1996-1999 data: USDA Agricultural Economic Report No. (AER-810) 67 pp, May 2002 (http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer-agricultural-economic-report/ae...)
*2000-2012 data: USDA:NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service.) (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID...)(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)
*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-l...).
*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 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 ( and CDC Interactive tables (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/vitalstats/VitalStats_Births.htm) (pp 17-20)

*The endocrine disrupting (http://www.examiner.com/article/data-trends-show-correlation-between-inc...) 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&SSessi...) 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/)
*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).

joanne aubertin's picture

No they can't prove a negative so why mess with somthing as complex as changing a genetic makeup of our foodstuff. Don't mess with mother nature. Its gonna jump up and bite someone someday.

Community Manager's picture

Please remember to post comments which align to the question and response above. Sticking to the subject makes conversational threads easier for others to follow. Also, please be mindful and respectful of the experts working to answer this community's questions.
Thanks @ Chyatt, expert will be addressing your previously submitted question about the President’s Report.
@FoodieMom – we encourage you to submit your comment as a question. You may be interested in this page which shows where in the world GMOs are approved for cultivation, food, feed and trial. http://gmoanswers.com/public-review.

Rickinreallife's picture

GMO Free America wrote "There HAVE BEEN many definitive studies that conclude that GMOs can do harm to your health and one's body."

Definitive? It would be more accurate to say that there is a body of work that has advanced theories that GMO's (or glysophate, or both) may have adverse health effects in contradiction to widely-held assumptions of safety. I would note that many of these "definitive" studies take the form of something like "We soaked human pancreas cells in a petri dish with chlorine and water at chlorine concentrations well below that found in swimming pools. After 1/2 hour, we found the cells died or their functioning was drastically impaired. If pancreas cells are somehow being exposed to solutions of chlorine in water, it would spell doom for all of us. Therefore, we should drain all swimming pools and not allow any new ones to be built and all of us swim in the river like our grandparents did until science can satisfy us that human pancreas cells are not being exposed to chlorine from this source. By the way, we also could get the same result by exposing cells to Snapple, melted Ben and Jerry's ice cream, and apple cider vinegar and maybe we should take them off the market too.

Kevin Folta gave a great answer to a question posted about a study, stating that many of the studies promoted in GMO skeptic literature can advance important hypothesis that guide further study, but before we go off the deep end, we should be aware of the weaknesses and limitations. I suspect there is a lot of chaff to be winnowed from the of literature GMO Free America listed.

tomcalwriter's picture

Not a very good answer to this question because you use a poor example that is not relevant to it. None of the studies "take the form" that you describe. How about giving us a substantive response to the question?

Deanna Toro's picture

This answer is embarrassing to read. Not only does his penguin story have nothing to do with GMO's but he answers a question not providing any factual information or cites any actual studies. This answer should be removed as it is an uneducated opinion. There are comments here that give more factual answers--actual cited information and studies. So maybe these comments should turn into the answer for this question, and definitely remove this "professors" ridiculous ignorant answer. I am not sure if this guy works for Monsanto or something, but anybody who has access to a brain and a computer can actually pull up studies that prove GMO's are not safe and cause organ damage, miscarriages, cancer, obesity, and much more. You can actually pull up these studies yourself and see negative results from every single study out there, even studies that result in death. I could go on and on and list facts on here, but since this answer is so embarrassing to read, I do not want to spend anymore time on this site.