Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public's Concerns and How ...

Will GMOs Hurt My Body? The Public’s Concerns and How Scientists Have Addressed Them
by Megan L. Norris
Summary: As the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues to rise, there has been an increasing public interest for information concerning the safety of these products. Concerns generally focus on how the GMO may affect the environment or how it may affect the consumer. One specific concern is the possibility for GMOs to negatively affect human health. This could result from differences in nutritional content, allergic response, or undesired side effects such as toxicity, organ damage, or gene transfer. To address these concerns, there have been over 100 research studies comparing the effects of traditional food to genetically modified food, the results of which have been reviewed in various journals [1], [2]. How these results affect regulation can be found through The Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, which hosts a GM Crop Database that can be searched by the public to find GMO crop history, style of modification, and regulation across the world [3]. Though knowing who to trust and what to believe regarding this topic is an ongoing battle, major health groups, including the American Medical Association and World Health Organization, have concluded from the research of independent groups worldwide that genetically modified foods are safe for consumers [4]. Regarding toxicity, this includes any dangers related to organ health, mutations, pregnancy and offspring, and potential for transfer of genes to the consumer.
GMO toxicity: fears and scientific analysis
After genetically modified foods were introduced in the United States a few decades ago, people independently reported toxic effects caused by GMOs. One example is an anti-GMO advocacy group called the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), which reported that rats fed a diet containing a GMO potato had virtually every organ system adversely affected after just ten days of feeding [5]. The IRT stated that the toxicity was the result of genetic modification techniques and not a specific case for that particular potato. They claimed the process of making the GMO caused it to be toxic and thus all GMOs were high risk for toxicity.
Scientists across the U.S. and the rest of the world have sought to rigorously test the assertions of the IRT and others to uncover any possible toxicity caused by GMOs. To this end, many different types of modifications in various crops have been tested, and the studies have found no evidence that GMOs cause organ toxicity or other adverse health effects. An example of this research is a study carried out on a type of GMO potato that was genetically modified to contain the bar gene. The product of the bar gene is an enzyme that can detoxify herbicides and thus protects the potato from herbicidal treatment.
In order to see if this GMO potato would have adverse effects on consumer health like those claimed by the IRT, a group of scientists at the National Institute of Toxicological Research in Seoul, Korea fed rats diets containing either GMO potato or non-GMO potato [6]. For each diet, they tracked male and female rats. To carefully analyze the rats’ health, a histopathological examination of tissues and organs was conducted after the rats died. Histopathology is the examination of organs for disease at the microscopic level (think pathologist doing a biopsy). Histopathological examinations of the reproductive organs, liver, kidneys, and spleen showed no differences between GMO-eating and non-GMO-eating animals.
Three years earlier, a separate group had found the same results for a GMO tomato and a GMO sweet pepper [7]. These researchers had split rats into four diet groups: non-GMO tomato, GMO tomato, non-GMO sweet pepper, and GMO sweet pepper. They fed the rats over 7,000 times the average human daily consumption of either GMO or non-GMO tomato or sweet pepper for 30 days and monitored their overall health. Finally, they carried out histopathology and again found no differences in the stomach, liver, heart, kidney, spleen, or reproductive organs of GMO versus non-GMO fed rats. Despite massive ingestion of GMO potato, tomato, or sweet pepper, these studies demonstrated no differences in the vitality or health of the animals, even at the microscopic level.
Experiments like these on humans would be completely unethical. Fortunately, prior to these studies years of work have demonstrated that rodents, like mice and rats, are acceptable models for humans, meaning rodent responses to drugs, chemicals, and foods can predict human response. Rat feeding studies like these, in which rats are fed a potential toxic item and monitored for adverse effects, are considered both specific and sensitive for monitoring toxicity of foods and widely used in the food regulation industry [1].
The test of time: GMOs and their effect on our offspring
Although scientists have been able to demonstrate that GMOs are not toxic to the animals that eat them, as described above and elsewhere, what about side effects being passed on to our next generations?
To discern whether GMO crops affect fertility or embryos during gestation, a group from South Dakota State University again turned to studies on rats. In this case, the rats were eating a type of GMO corn, more commonly known as Bt corn. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a microbe that produces insecticidal endotoxin and has been used as a topical pesticide against insects since 1961 (see this article). To allow corn to directly generate this endotoxin, scientists introduced a gene from Bt into the genetic material (DNA) of corn.
To address buildup of toxicity over time, this group monitored the GMO-eating rats not only for the lifetime of one generation, but also three additional generations. For each generation, they tracked the fertility of parents and compared the health of the embryos from parents that ate Bt corn to those with parents that did not [8]. Toxic effects can arise in many places and in many ways, but some organs are more susceptible to damage than others, and monitoring them is a good readout for other difficult-to-see effects. Testes are considered a particularly sensitive organ for toxicity tests because of the high degree of cell divisions and thus high susceptibility to cellular or molecular toxins. To examine the affect of Bt corn on testicular health, the researchers tracked testicular development in fetal, postnatal, pubertal, and adult rats for all four generations. The group found no change in testicular health or litter sizes in any generation. Likewise, ingestion by pregnant mothers had no effect on fetal, postnatal, pubertal, or adult testicular development of her offspring.
Other groups have monitored toxicity over time as well. For example, the group studying the bar GMO potato also wanted to see if organs and reproductive health were sensitive to GMOs over long exposure times [5]. To do this, they examined the fertility and gestation periods of GMO-eating mothers compared to non-GMO-eating mothers for five generations. They tracked animal body weight, bone, eye, and thymus development, and general retardation. Like the studies on Bt corn, in all cases, they found no significant differences between the GMO potato and non-GMO potato diets, suggesting that there is no buildup or inheritance of toxicity, even over multiple generations.
Figure 1. Work from independent researchers has investigated various aspects of GMO safety, especially concerning consumer health and toxicity.
Can GMOs change our genes?
Concern has also surrounded the idea that genetically modified DNA would be unstable, causing damage (via unintentional mutations) not only to the crop, but also to whomever would consume it. Mutations in DNA are closely tied to cancer and other diseases, and thus mutagenic substances can have dire effects on human health. The creation of mutations, called mutagenesis, can be measured and compared to known mutation-causing agents and known safe compounds, allowing researchers to determine whether drugs, chemicals, and foods cause increased mutation rates. There are a variety of ways to measure mutagenicity, but the most traditional method is a process pioneered by Bruce Ames at the University of California in Berkeley. His method, now called the Ames test in his honor, is able to track increased rates of mutations in a living thing in response to some substance, like a chemical or food.
To directly test the ability of a GMO to cause mutations, a research group from the National Laboratory of Protein Engineering and Plant Genetic Engineering in Beijing, China applied the Ames test to GMO tomatoes and GMO corn [8]. GMO tomatoes and corn express the viral coat protein of cucumber mosaic virus (CMV). Expression of this coat protein confers resistance to CMV, which is the most broadly infectious virus of any known plant virus, thought to infect over 1,200 plant species from vegetable crops to ornamentals. The results of the Ames test demonstrated no relationship between GMO tomatoes or corn and mutations. They repeated their analysis using two additional methods for analyzing mutagenicity in mice and got the same result, allowing them to conclude that genetically modified DNA did not cause increased mutations in consumers. The modified DNA, like unmodified DNA, was not mutagenic.
Mutagenicity aside, there are also concerns surrounding the ability of the modified DNA to transfer to the DNA of whomever eats it or have other toxic side effects. Depending on the degree of processing of their foods, a given person will ingest between 0.1 and 1 g of DNA each day [9]; as such, DNA itself is regarded as safe by the FDA [10]. To determine if the DNA from GMO crops is as safe to consume as the DNA from traditional food sources, the International Life Sciences Institute reviewed the chemical characteristics, susceptibility to degradation, metabolic fate and allergenicity of GMO-DNA and found that, in all cases, GMO-DNA was completely indistinguishable from traditional DNA, and thus is no more likely to transfer to or be toxic to a human [9]. Consistent with this, the researchers working on the GMO potato attempted to isolate the bar gene from their GMO eating rats. Despite 5 generations of exposure to and ingestion of the GMO, the researchers were unable to detect the gene in the rats’ DNA [5].
A strong argument for GMO health safety
After more than 20 years of monitoring by countries and researchers around the world, many of the suspicions surrounding the effects of GMOs on organ health, our offspring, and our DNA have been addressed and tested (Figure 1). In the data discussed above, alongside many more studies not mentioned here, GMOs have been found to exhibit no toxicity, in one generation or across many. Though each new product will require careful analysis and assessment of safety, it appears that GMOs as a class are no more likely to be harmful than traditionally bred and grown food sources.
Megan L. Norris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular, Cellular and Organismal Biology Program at Harvard University.
Dr. “Read the Article Before You Say Anything” who do you think is funding Harvard? They don’t get a billion dollar endowment just from tuition fees. Perhaps you should read Dark Money before you say anything.
Here’s what you need to understand: you will never truly know what’s “fake news” or not, as literally ANYTHING could be fake news due to make big businesses more wealthy, created by the Illuminati, be part of the programming of the Matrix, etc.
It’s ultimately YOUR choice whether you believe something or not, whether it’s science, the government, religion, spaghetti gods, etc. If you decide to be skeptical, that’s your choice, and that’s fine. If you decide to believe university articles, that’s ok, too. Just, please, don’t present your opinions of what’s the “truth” as a “fact” or call other people stupid if they have a different opinion of what’s the “truth” than you.
Summary: As the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues to rise, there has been an increasing public interest for information concerning the safety of these products. Concerns generally focus on how the GMO may affect the environment or how it may affect the consumer. One specific concern is the possibility for GMOs to negatively affect human health. This could result from differences in nutritional content, allergic response, or undesired side effects such as toxicity, organ damage, or gene transfer. To address these concerns, there have been over 100 research studies comparing the effects of traditional food to genetically modified food, the results of which have been reviewed in various journals [1], [2]. How these results affect regulation can be found through The Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, which hosts a GM Crop Database that can be searched by the public to find GMO crop history, style of modification, and regulation across the world [3]. Though knowing who to trust and what to believe regarding this topic is an ongoing battle, major health groups, including the American Medical Association and World Health Organization, have concluded from the research of independent groups worldwide that genetically modified foods are safe for consumers [4]. Regarding toxicity, this includes any dangers related to organ health, mutations, pregnancy and offspring, and potential for transfer of genes to the consumer.
GMO toxicity: fears and scientific analysis
After genetically modified foods were introduced in the United States a few decades ago, people independently reported toxic effects caused by GMOs. One example is an anti-GMO advocacy group called the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), which reported that rats fed a diet containing a GMO potato had virtually every organ system adversely affected after just ten days of feeding [5]. The IRT stated that the toxicity was the result of genetic modification techniques and not a specific case for that particular potato. They claimed the process of making the GMO caused it to be toxic and thus all GMOs were high risk for toxicity.
Scientists across the U.S. and the rest of the world have sought to rigorously test the assertions of the IRT and others to uncover any possible toxicity caused by GMOs. To this end, many different types of modifications in various crops have been tested, and the studies have found no evidence that GMOs cause organ toxicity or other adverse health effects. An example of this research is a study carried out on a type of GMO potato that was genetically modified to contain the bar gene. The product of the bar gene is an enzyme that can detoxify herbicides and thus protects the potato from herbicidal treatment.
In order to see if this GMO potato would have adverse effects on consumer health like those claimed by the IRT, a group of scientists at the National Institute of Toxicological Research in Seoul, Korea fed rats diets containing either GMO potato or non-GMO potato [6]. For each diet, they tracked male and female rats. To carefully analyze the rats’ health, a histopathological examination of tissues and organs was conducted after the rats died. Histopathology is the examination of organs for disease at the microscopic level (think pathologist doing a biopsy). Histopathological examinations of the reproductive organs, liver, kidneys, and spleen showed no differences between GMO-eating and non-GMO-eating animals.
Three years earlier, a separate group had found the same results for a GMO tomato and a GMO sweet pepper [7]. These researchers had split rats into four diet groups: non-GMO tomato, GMO tomato, non-GMO sweet pepper, and GMO sweet pepper. They fed the rats over 7,000 times the average human daily consumption of either GMO or non-GMO tomato or sweet pepper for 30 days and monitored their overall health. Finally, they carried out histopathology and again found no differences in the stomach, liver, heart, kidney, spleen, or reproductive organs of GMO versus non-GMO fed rats. Despite massive ingestion of GMO potato, tomato, or sweet pepper, these studies demonstrated no differences in the vitality or health of the animals, even at the microscopic level.
Experiments like these on humans would be completely unethical. Fortunately, prior to these studies years of work have demonstrated that rodents, like mice and rats, are acceptable models for humans, meaning rodent responses to drugs, chemicals, and foods can predict human response. Rat feeding studies like these, in which rats are fed a potential toxic item and monitored for adverse effects, are considered both specific and sensitive for monitoring toxicity of foods and widely used in the food regulation industry [1].
The test of time: GMOs and their effect on our offspring
Although scientists have been able to demonstrate that GMOs are not toxic to the animals that eat them, as described above and elsewhere, what about side effects being passed on to our next generations?
To discern whether GMO crops affect fertility or embryos during gestation, a group from South Dakota State University again turned to studies on rats. In this case, the rats were eating a type of GMO corn, more commonly known as Bt corn. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a microbe that produces insecticidal endotoxin and has been used as a topical pesticide against insects since 1961 (see this article). To allow corn to directly generate this endotoxin, scientists introduced a gene from Bt into the genetic material (DNA) of corn.
To address buildup of toxicity over time, this group monitored the GMO-eating rats not only for the lifetime of one generation, but also three additional generations. For each generation, they tracked the fertility of parents and compared the health of the embryos from parents that ate Bt corn to those with parents that did not [8]. Toxic effects can arise in many places and in many ways, but some organs are more susceptible to damage than others, and monitoring them is a good readout for other difficult-to-see effects. Testes are considered a particularly sensitive organ for toxicity tests because of the high degree of cell divisions and thus high susceptibility to cellular or molecular toxins. To examine the affect of Bt corn on testicular health, the researchers tracked testicular development in fetal, postnatal, pubertal, and adult rats for all four generations. The group found no change in testicular health or litter sizes in any generation. Likewise, ingestion by pregnant mothers had no effect on fetal, postnatal, pubertal, or adult testicular development of her offspring.
Other groups have monitored toxicity over time as well. For example, the group studying the bar GMO potato also wanted to see if organs and reproductive health were sensitive to GMOs over long exposure times [5]. To do this, they examined the fertility and gestation periods of GMO-eating mothers compared to non-GMO-eating mothers for five generations. They tracked animal body weight, bone, eye, and thymus development, and general retardation. Like the studies on Bt corn, in all cases, they found no significant differences between the GMO potato and non-GMO potato diets, suggesting that there is no buildup or inheritance of toxicity, even over multiple generations.
Figure 1. Work from independent researchers has investigated various aspects of GMO safety, especially concerning consumer health and toxicity.
Can GMOs change our genes?
Concern has also surrounded the idea that genetically modified DNA would be unstable, causing damage (via unintentional mutations) not only to the crop, but also to whomever would consume it. Mutations in DNA are closely tied to cancer and other diseases, and thus mutagenic substances can have dire effects on human health. The creation of mutations, called mutagenesis, can be measured and compared to known mutation-causing agents and known safe compounds, allowing researchers to determine whether drugs, chemicals, and foods cause increased mutation rates. There are a variety of ways to measure mutagenicity, but the most traditional method is a process pioneered by Bruce Ames at the University of California in Berkeley. His method, now called the Ames test in his honor, is able to track increased rates of mutations in a living thing in response to some substance, like a chemical or food.
To directly test the ability of a GMO to cause mutations, a research group from the National Laboratory of Protein Engineering and Plant Genetic Engineering in Beijing, China applied the Ames test to GMO tomatoes and GMO corn [8]. GMO tomatoes and corn express the viral coat protein of cucumber mosaic virus (CMV). Expression of this coat protein confers resistance to CMV, which is the most broadly infectious virus of any known plant virus, thought to infect over 1,200 plant species from vegetable crops to ornamentals. The results of the Ames test demonstrated no relationship between GMO tomatoes or corn and mutations. They repeated their analysis using two additional methods for analyzing mutagenicity in mice and got the same result, allowing them to conclude that genetically modified DNA did not cause increased mutations in consumers. The modified DNA, like unmodified DNA, was not mutagenic.
Mutagenicity aside, there are also concerns surrounding the ability of the modified DNA to transfer to the DNA of whomever eats it or have other toxic side effects. Depending on the degree of processing of their foods, a given person will ingest between 0.1 and 1 g of DNA each day [9]; as such, DNA itself is regarded as safe by the FDA [10]. To determine if the DNA from GMO crops is as safe to consume as the DNA from traditional food sources, the International Life Sciences Institute reviewed the chemical characteristics, susceptibility to degradation, metabolic fate and allergenicity of GMO-DNA and found that, in all cases, GMO-DNA was completely indistinguishable from traditional DNA, and thus is no more likely to transfer to or be toxic to a human [9]. Consistent with this, the researchers working on the GMO potato attempted to isolate the bar gene from their GMO eating rats. Despite 5 generations of exposure to and ingestion of the GMO, the researchers were unable to detect the gene in the rats’ DNA [5].
A strong argument for GMO health safety
After more than 20 years of monitoring by countries and researchers around the world, many of the suspicions surrounding the effects of GMOs on organ health, our offspring, and our DNA have been addressed and tested (Figure 1). In the data discussed above, alongside many more studies not mentioned here, GMOs have been found to exhibit no toxicity, in one generation or across many. Though each new product will require careful analysis and assessment of safety, it appears that GMOs as a class are no more likely to be harmful than traditionally bred and grown food sources.
Megan L. Norris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular, Cellular and Organismal Biology Program at Harvard University.
This article is part of the August 2015 Special Edition, Genetically Modified Organisms and Our Food.
“The product of the bar gene is an enzyme that can detoxify herbicides and thus protects the potato from herbicidal treatment.”
This is the biggest problem with GMOs. It does things like protect the potato from herbicidal treatment, which will lead to increased herbicidal treatment of potatoes. That herbicidal treatment of potatoes will likely harm us. Alas, maybe we can become genetically modified so we, like the potato, can detoxify herbicides! Herbicides like ROUNDUP (glyphosate)! “Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide worldwide. It is a broad spectrum herbicide and its agricultural uses increased considerably after the development of glyphosate-resistant genetically modified (GM) varieties. Since glyphosate was introduced in 1974, all regulatory assessments have established that glyphosate has low hazard potential to mammals, however, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in March 2015 that it is probably carcinogenic.”
Yeah sorry, I’m gonna have to agree with Mason on this one. Can you get me something from anywhere that doesn’t end in a “.com” or without taking something out of context to TRY and prove a point?
-Peer reviewed
-Government website….. that would “.gov”
I mean anything!
P.s. Learn how to Cite and Reference, please.
Jeremiah 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, (the secularists in the government, and other secularists/ man-made, worldly knowledge or wisdom) and maketh flesh (the government or other humanist and antichrist ideology or human strength) his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. 6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. 7 Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose Hope the LORD is. 8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see (suffer) when heat (scorching heat) cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful (anxious) in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit. 9 The (human) heart is deceitful (including self-deception) above all things, and desperately wicked: (sinful) who can know it? 10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to the fruit of his doings. Same Book, Chapter 1:4 Then the Word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I (The LORD God of Israel: the Creator of Heaven and earth, the sea, and all that therein dwells) formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I (God the LORD) sanctified (set thee apart for Myself) thee, and ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. 6 Then said I, Ah, Lord God! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child. 7 But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. 8 Be not afraid of their faces; for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD. 9 Then the LORD put forth His Hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put My Words in thy mouth. 10 See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant. Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil (sin and the abomination) good, (Marxism/Socialism/Communism; the LGBTQ AGENDA; U.S. Citizens and taxpayers forced to support illegal aliens; the government sanctioning of lawlessness and of defunding of their Police officers; government Officials refusing to prosecute the lawless terrorists groups like ANTIFA and BLM as well as the illegal immigrants who are gang members! and other criminals; including corrupt officials or former government officials such as Hillary Clinton, and the Obama Administration as well as his evil and corrupt deep State officials who continued into the Trump Administration; and to do everything they could to bring down the Trump Administration by Corrupt and Unconstitutional means!) and good (innocent people and also Godly, Bible-believing, Born-again Christians and Messianic Jews who are Bible-believing, Born-again followers of Jesus their Messiah; (Yeshua HaMashiach) evil; that put darkness (Satan’s will and works) for Light, (that which is good and righteous in the sight of the LORD God of Israel and His Holy Word); and light for darkness; ( Satan’s followers present good as evil, and sin as if it were right); that put bitter for sweet, and sweet (the Word of the Living God: which leads us to true salvation and Eternal Life in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior); for bitter! ( sin which is celebrated by the ungodly; the ungodly and unsaved world present God’s Holy Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible Word as though it was an evil and hateful document that only fools who are racist and homophobic believe! They present God’s Holy Word and we who believe in His Word as evil; they are sadly deceiving their own selves! This prophecy is come to pass in our day!! 21 Woe unto them that are wise (with the world’s wisdom) in their own eyes, (conceited and deceived by their own sinful pride and arrogance), and prudent in their own sight! (Again, they are self-deluded by their arrogance and pride, trusting in man’s worldly knowledge, not the LORD’S WISDOM) 22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle (mix) strong drink; (alcoholic liquor); 23 Which justify the wicked for reward (bribe) and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! (steal his honour). 24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust; because they have cast away the Law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the Word of the Holy One of Israel. Isaiah 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters; they have forsaken the LORD, They have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. 5 Why would ye be stricken any more? Ye will revolt more and more; the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. (weak) 6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment. 7 Your Country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire; your land, strangers (illegal aliens) devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers. (illegal aliens). 8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city. 9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorah. 10 Hear the Word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the Law of our God, ye people of Gomorah. 11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the LORD; I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. 12 When ye come to appear before Me, Who hath required this at your hand, to tread My courts? 13 Bring no more vain (futile) oblations; incense is an abomination unto Me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. 14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts My Soul hateth: they are a trouble unto Me; I am weary to bear them. 15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide Mine Eyes from you; yeah, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of (innocent) blood. (You have the murder of the innocent unborn children on your hands, and your hatred of those who believe in Me and in My Holy Word: hatred =murder of those who trust in Me and who believe My Word); 16 Wash you, make you clean; (Repent of all your sins, believe the Gospel of the Jewish Messiah: Yeshua HaMashiach, and follow Him for ever; and surrender to the Will of God and obey His Word by the power of the Holy Spirit! from Genesis 1:1———– Revelation 22:21KJV) put away the evil (sin) of your doings (sinful lifestyle) from before Mine Eyes; Cease to do evil. (Stop living in your sinful lifestyle; and stop making excuses for your sin and iniquities! Stop celebrating your sinful lifestyle, and stop advocating for a person’s so-called right to live in sin; and stop supporting laws and policies that defend those sins!!); 18 Come now, let us reason together, saith the LORD; though your sins be like scarlet (red), they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. 19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land; 20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the Mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. Matthew 4:4 But He[ (Yeshua HaMashiach) Jesus Christ] answered and said, It is Written, Man shall not live by bread (physical food for the physical body) alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. 7 Jesus said unto him, It is Written again, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for It is Written, thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. 17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. 19 And He saith unto them, Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men. 20 And they straightway left their nets, and followed Him!
Hi Mitch, I’d like to piont out a flaw in your comment despite it being quite a bit since. If you check the sources, all but four are government cites. The four that are not government cites are 3, 4, 5, and 7.
The third is an article posted by another school, the Center for Environmental Risk, so I’d assume anything on their website should be mostly true at least, but I understand any doubt as I myself am unable to find the quoted article. The fourth is not explicitly stated as having any schooling on the matters and is mostlikely someone against GMOs or atleast is quouted for the reported concern citizens have. The fith is used as a reference for the commonly misinforming study on how rats are negatively affected by GMOs. Lastly, the seventh is referenceing the study by multiple different scientest (all working at Haskell Global Centers for Health and Environmental Sciences), and is simply a synopsis of their findings.
I’d also like to advise against passive agressivley asking a student to, quote “learn how to Cite and Refference, please”, as it may hurt their moral. If you must crituqe, at least do it in a positive manner, maybe give advice on it? It’s rather unbecoming of you.
I do not intend to come off as angry, attacking, or anything of the sort. However, I do find it insulting that’d youd dismiss this authors hard work with your own incompetince. If you wish to make an argument against something or someone, make sure you have the evidence to back it. I do not appreciate you missinforming anyone who sees your comment into thinking that none of their, for lack of better words, evidence is propper when, compared to your lack thereof, is plenty.
“As genetically modified (GM) foods are starting to intrude in our diet concerns have been expressed regarding GM food safety. These concerns as well as the limitations of the procedures followed in the evaluation of their safety are presented. Animal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and systems. The review of these studies should not be conducted separately for each GM food, but according to the effects exerted on certain organs it may help us create a better picture of the possible health effects on human beings. The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. However, many years of research with animals and clinical trials are required for this assessment. The use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which may promote cancer.”
not saying that I agree or disagree but history has shown complicity from science and governments in covering up or in the misdirection of findings from research that is properly conducted relating to many industries; particularly in health related ones.
In order for GMO’s to even begin to break into the market they had to appeal to governments that GMO’s would resolve some large humanitarian issues around starvation/disease/nutrition in third world countries. It didn’t take long for it to change focus; biofuels, largely take priority over food (even now) and what gmo food is grown, a significant amount of it is for animal food. So the humanitarian issues are still there.
Commercial interests have long trumped the safety and health of the common people (whether there are risks or not). there has been some interesting ideas being lobbied to governments around making it harder and harder for people to obtain seeds/plants that aren’t controlled by these companies.
Food and water are the easiest ways of controlling the masses and conservative governments are certainly keen for that.
The question isn’t just about whether gmo’s have/not any health risks, it’s also about can it be used to control us? will prices be used to control us? how will it all work commercially/legally/etc.
The point of herbicides is to kill the weeds in fields where potatoes are grown not kill the potatoes. Herbicide resistance in potatoes will make them hardier when chemicals are used so they don’t just die and more potatoes are yielded. Herbicide resistance in potatoes will have no effect on the amount that is applied.
I think it would “behoove” you some ag experience and some basic knowledge of crops and herbicides before you make comments as such.
j, I think you misunderstand. It’s not the hardiness of the potatoes that is a problem, it’s that pesticide proof potatoes will encourage farmers to use more pesticides than they usually would on non-pesticide potatoes. With non-GMO potatoes, the potatoes would die with when given too much pesticide. GMO potatoes (pesticide proof) would be fine when given too much pesticide, so with GMO potatoes, farmers will generally use more pesticide. Pesticide can contaminate many things and has a lot of effects that are bad for the environment.
In essence, GMOs increase pesticide use and pesticide use is harmful to the environment.
A note to everyone else concerning the authenticity of the article Cynthia provided: the site ScienceDirect is a publishing house for scientific articles, and does not write the articles themselves. According to what I have read, the majority of the articles found there are legitimate and scientific. The actual article is more a warning of possible dangers, and a call for more research on the topic than an actual argument.
I agree. Look at the early research on ROUNDUP (glyphosate) and it was determined to be safe. But constant exposure over time (decades) has now shown it to be a real big problem. All of the biological factors mysterious be taken into consideration the most important in this case being concentration (all of us eat many foods with varying levels of chemicals “believed to be non- toxic) and time.
What will be the future of our health after decades of exposure to the GMOs? Chemical food additives are also a concern. Since the introduction of processed foods, cancer rates have exploded over time. Is there a connection? I don’t want to take the chance to find out with my body.
I totally agreed. Many so called scientist paid by the oil industry has denied for decades Global Warming. This article is ridiculous. Several countries in Europe has banned GMO from food and even for cotton crops that are used to make clothes. I guess they (France, Spain, Sweden) banned GMO’s because they are harmful, right.
I have followed a diet of organic food for almost two years and I can report the following:
A cyst on my right breast has disappeared .
I am going back to a healthy weight with well balanced hormones. I lost 20 pounds.
Diabetics Type 2 has been solved (no insulin resistance). If I eat a lot of calories I gain weight that I can lose back easily in two or three days of eating low calorie dishes. My metabolism is working as it should be.
I have not eat any GMO since a long time. These are my sources of food:
Wild fish
Grass feed cow or bison (not any other animal)
Organic vegetables (low glycemic index)
Organic fruits (low sugar as berries)
Organic nuts
Organic Almond milk
Organic Cheese only from brands that grow their own cows and do not use any kind of hormones to growth (or fatten).
Guys, for one article that says that GMO is safe, you will find 5-10 articles that are documented and will tell you exactly the opposite. Do your research and use credible sources. There are many interest involved in the industry.
You know that Whole Foods targeted segment is college graduates, health conscious people? Why is that educated people will chose to eat organic and non GMO food? Think about it and look for yourself.
I agree with you! Our medical schools and big pharmaceutical industry and likely Monsanto fund many of these studies and schools. I just read a Havard Review saying Coconut oil was not heart healthy! Listen to Sally Fallon Morell’s 2016 Vermont Seminar on YouTube. Part 2 is about bad soy, The Oiling of America and the CHOLESTEROL MYTH. Part 1 is the common sense part on Weston Price Foundation research of long ago and recently, showing Native Cultures ate lots of free range meats and cheeses and non polluted fish, veggies and fruit, fermented soy only and many soaked grains and other organic fermented foods!! They had perfect bones and teeth! Cholesterol is protective and the fat solubility of key vitamins is IGNORED by many! Natives Cultures way back had no cancer and no to very little heart disease. We evolved from Apes eating the big cats who ate our babies! All cultures ate some form of animal products! They were raw, free range and fed/ate organic food/grass! Rancid oils cause oxidation of cholesterol and plaque, thus heart disease. Safe oils to cook or bake with are grass fed LARD, COCONUT OIL, OLIVE OIL OR GRASS FED BUTTER! It’s called the French Paradox but the French are eating non Traditional foods now too! It’s all about profit and even healthfood stores sell bad oils that cause heart DISEASE in many products tho most are non GMO at least! I’m so ashamed of Havard and other schools and our Gov on Nutrition. It’s common sense and backed by other studies. Sally explains how they alter statistical time segments to make graphs appear in favor of old pet theories. GMOs & Veganism is the genocide of our youth and makes many elderly sick! Just as factory farm meat makes us ill. All while others profit. Listen to 2016 entire conference before judging! Otherwise Havard and other schools are mostly informed! I love my high cholesterol and coconut milk or raw dairy milk, but need more $ to stick with this real food diet. Bad oils are CHEAP!
We did Not evolve from any other creature! You have been sold the biggest lie of the 19th to the 21st century! There is absolutely No (Zero) proof of any creature turning into another creature in the fossil record! It takes alot more faith to believe in the lie of evolution than the Truth of the Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible Word of the Living God!! The Holy Bible is absolutely Truth! 2 Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection (LGBTQ AGENDA), trucebreakers, false accusers, (leftists accusing Bible-believing, Born-again believers in Jesus Christ of crimes, racism, and many other false accusations because we don’t celebrate their sinful lifestyles); incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good. 4 Traitors, heady (full of themselves), highminded (arrogant), lovers of pleasures (hedonism) more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness (man-made religion, of which there are thousands or more, including Humanism and Evolution: Atheism, Global Warming, aka. Global Climate Change, etc. there are many, many multiple man-made religions that deny the One True God and Creator of the Heavens, the earth, the seas, and all that therein dwells: the LORD God of Israel and the only begotten Son of God: Jesus Christ! Most every religion is man-made, and denies the One True God! Or they pervert or twist the Word of God to attempt to make it appear to say what they want it to, rather than submitting themselves to Him and His Will, and thus, surrendering to the Truth of God’s Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible Word; and the leading of the Holy Spirit!!!) but denying the power thereof; from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with various lusts. 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the Truth. men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live Godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men (and women) and seducers shall wax (grow slowly) worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom though hast learned them. 15 And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ (Messiah) Jesus. (Yeshua) 16 All Scripture (the Holy Bible only, not any other religious book!!) is given by Inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, (spiritually mature) throughly furnished unto all good works. 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, Who shall judge the quick (living) and the dead at His appearing and His Kingdom; 2 Preach the Word (of God); be instant (ready) in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; (giving them a feel-good message instead of the Truth of God’s Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible Word: the Holy Bible) 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the Truth, (the Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible Word of the Living God: the Holy Bible) and shall be turned unto fables. (falsehoods such evolution, global warming/global climate change, humanism, Islamism, Atheism, globalism, Roman Catholocism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Totalitarianism, LGBTQ AGENDAism, leftism, hinduism, buddhism, zoroastrianism, newageism, Mormonism, Jehoveh’s Witnesses, and many, many other false religions, cults and doctrines that lead people to eternal destruction!!!
there is no jesus!!! where is he when he lets children suffer from a meriad of different things. i’m sorry i was raised catholic, alter boy all that bull shit. then i realized its all bull shit. all loveing , all powerful. just more bull shit!!! where is your loveing god??? wake up bible thumper to reality, there is no jesus – bah-jesus!!!!!
To Cindy Jantz…You seem like a good person…you really should read the Ramayana, Mahabharata, Book of Mormon, Buddhist scriptures, Book of Arda Viraf (Zoroastrian scriptures), and Quran in their entireties… I’ll bet you your faith in the One God, the Maker of the Universe will increase.
Right now you probably don’t understand why God says, Begone you evildoers, I never knew ye…(in response to a “missionary” saying ,
“Didn’t we cast out many demons and perform many miracles in Your Name?”), n’est-ce pas?
Ummmmm.
A. Where did evolution come from? This article seemed to imply it, (it is from Harvard so i’m not surprised at all.) but if you are going to try to talk about macroevolution vs. creation, this isn’t really the best place to do it.
B. Attempting to prove the Bible to be true, by using the Bible, to people who don’t trust the Bible to be true, most of the time will only encourage exactly what just happened. A better way may be using things agreed upon by most people and from their using it to give make your point. Trust me I also love to rant, and talk about how i know what i’m talking about, and that i’m always right, and that everyone else is stupid. You want to know how many times it has worked? 0.
Though yes, you may be able to provide enough evidence to make it seem rediculous that anybody would believe in evolution, but when doing so, i would encourage you to do it in a humble, loving manner (again one of my personal greatest struggles.). (Ephesians 4 (more particularly v.15 but it all applies)).
And in the end nobody can prove who or what actually made the universe because nobody was there when it happened.
I just finished microbiology and also felt the same way about GMO’s until listening to the science behind it. Unfortunately not everyone even here in American and especially third world countries can afford to eat organic. Even organic farmers have said there is not enough land or money to farm organically and feed the world. He had us watch Food Evolution which became very eye opening. You should check it out.
Firstly in the last part simply because cost isn’t a problem so they can afford to get what they wish. I have tried both GMO and non-GMO versions of products and there really isn’t that much of a difference. GMO tend to be modified to have more of certain vitamins. Different bodies react differently to different foods why some people have tried keto diets and are unaffected simply b/c their body does not lose weight on a keto diet. So GMO may affect people differently. That is the most likely reason why you are losing weight.
Do you really think that you are God? If so, you are very deceived, and very arrogant! Repent of your sins and believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Living God! That He left His Home in Glory (the third Heaven), to come into His Own creation, and He was God wrapped in human flesh; He came to die in our place! To be our sin-sacrifice! He paid our sin-debt in-full on the Cross, was placed in a rich man’s tomb; and He was Risen on the third day in fulfillment of the Scriptures Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:1—9, 10–12; 7:14-16; 9:6; Micah 9:9; Psalm 22:1—–31; 9:1-2, 3-4, 5——11, 12-13, 14—-19, 20-22, 23, 24-26, 27;
Miss, do you think the possible reason your body is healthier is because you have began to eat healthier rather than the lack of GMO foods in your diet. I mean to say this is the nicest way possible. It is a bit of a slippery slope to say that just cutting out GMO foods from your diet solved all your major health problems. If we were to look at this scientifically, you do not to test anything. You try a new diet, it works, and immediately assume it was GMO that caused all your health problems. If you really wanted to make logical argument, you should create three diets, one focused around GMO, one with both GMO foods and non-GMO foods, and a diet focused around non-GMO food. You should also determine for how long you would try each diet, at least a couple months to allow the body to change, and track your weight, overall health, mood, and any other factors. This is just my opinion though, but I think this would make you argument more compelling.
Since I can’t modify my comments, I have to make a new one.
Here’s an analysis of 76 studies that say that GMO corn has a higher yield and is safer: https://www.santannapisa.it/sites/default/files/pellegrino_et_al.2018.pdf
Now you have to find me at the very least 380 articles that say otherwise.
While you’re at it, check the multiple sources in this Kurzgasagt video (there’s 41 credible sources): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4
And look! The number of articles you have to find now to prove your point just increased to 465! Also, since when is Harvard not a credible source?
While you look for this obscure amount of articles just to disprove one of the biggest research sites, I’m going to disprove some common theories:
No, DNA from GMO plants absolutely cannot transfer to our body. You’d know that if you went to biology class in primary school.
Glyphosate resistant crops won’t encourage farmers to use more herbicides. It’s illogical; why would you want to spray your field with more herbicides when you have crops that don’t need that much of it? That’s illogical and doesn’t make sense at all. I’d be happy to see your attempt at providing credible sources.
Any other questions? Any other myths you want disproven?
expo, I agree completely with you. This entire section is based off the point that HARVARD isn’t a credible source?! Why do people trust reddit threads with 0 citations more than Harvard and FDA studies repeated countless times?? Seriously guys, pay attention in middle school when your teacher tells you about credible sources.
P.S. Kurzgasagt is my life 😛
I don’t believe any leftist college like Harvard has any claim to integrity or credibility! Only the Inspired, Inerrant and Infallible Word of the Living God is Truth! Man’s word is usually worthless! The Hebrew prophet Jeremiah speaking the Word of the LORD in Jeremiah 17:9 The (human) heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm (strength), and whose heart departeth from the LORD. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made (created) that was made. (created). 4 In Him was Life; and the Life was the Light of men. 5 And the Light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through Him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the True Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made (Created) by Him, and the world knew Him not. 11 He came unto His Own, and His Own received Him not. 12 But as many received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His Name: 13 Which were born, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the (Holy) Spirit descending from Heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him. (Jesus Christ) 33 And I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the Same said unto me, Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, (Jesus Christ) the Same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed (poured into the mold of this evil world’s system of antichrist and ungodliness) to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, Will of God. 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, (like evolution, atheism, global warming/global climate change agenda, globalism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Islamism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Newageism, Roman Catholocism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and many other false religions, cults, and false prophets and doctrines) when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His Majesty. 17 For He (Jesus Christ the Son of God) received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a Voice to Him from the Excellent Glory, This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased. 18 And this Voice which came from Heaven we heard, when we were with Him (Jesus Christ) in the Holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure Word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a Light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the Day Star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily (secretly) shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the Way of Truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly; 7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation (vile and abominable lifestyles) of the wicked: (sodomites) 8 (For that righteous man [Lot] dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful [wicked and lewd acts] deeds;) 9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the Godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: 10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, 12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children; 15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 But was rebuked for his iniquity; the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice forbade the madness of the prophet. 17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever. 18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought into bondage. 20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions (sin/bondage to sin) of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the Way of righteousness, than, after they had known it, to turn from the Holy Commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb. The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken by the Holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of His (Jesus Christ’s) coming? (Return) for since the fathers fell asleep (died), all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same Word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness; but is long suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation (conduct/lifestyle) and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot, (sin) and blameless. 15 And account that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the Wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. 18 But grow in Grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be glory both now and for ever, Amen.
@expo
You said “Glyphosate resistant crops won’t encourage farmers to use more herbicides. It’s illogical; why would you want to spray your field with more herbicides when you have crops that don’t need that much of it? That’s illogical and doesn’t make sense at all. ”
Crops were made ‘glyphosate resistant’ BECAUSE glyphosate is sprayed(heavily) on mature crops to ripen / dessicate them for harvesting.
Glyphosate usage increased from approx 50 million pounds in 1998 to over 250 million pounds in 2017 and with the increased planting of GMO’s that number continues to increase exponentially.
Corrupt people are everywhere Harvard, Govt, regulatory agencies – money is available to compel them to turn a blind eye to truth.
Hhhmmmmm I am still a little unsure how eating healthy made you healthier?
If you had eaten all of those things but non-organic the results would be the same. GMOs not being safe is a new concept for me. I always knew there were folks that believed it, but I was astonished by the sheer amount of blatant ignorance of information that exists.
GMOs do not cause issues, of course they may in the future when new ones are developed. But as a whole of what we have now, are not harmful. They are government regulated, and safe for consumption.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Concern has also surrounded the idea that genetically modified DNA would be unstable, causing damage (via unintentional mutations) not only to the crop, but also to whomever would consume it. Mutations in DNA are closely tied to cancer and other diseases, and thus mutagenic substances can have dire effects on human health. The creation of mutations, called mutagenesis, can be measured and compared to known mutation-causing agents and known safe compounds, allowing researchers to determine whether drugs, chemicals, and foods cause increased mutation rates. There are a variety of ways to measure mutagenicity, but the most traditional method is a process pioneered by Bruce Ames at the University of California in Berkeley. His method, now called the Ames test in his honor, is able to track increased rates of mutations in a living thing in response to some substance, like a chemical or food.
To directly test the ability of a GMO to cause mutations, a research group from the National Laboratory of Protein Engineering and Plant Genetic Engineering in Beijing, China applied the Ames test to GMO tomatoes and GMO corn [8]. GMO tomatoes and corn express the viral coat protein of cucumber mosaic virus (CMV). Expression of this coat protein confers resistance to CMV, which is the most broadly infectious virus of any known plant virus, thought to infect over 1,200 plant species from vegetable crops to ornamentals. The results of the Ames test demonstrated no relationship between GMO tomatoes or corn and mutations. They repeated their analysis using two additional methods for analyzing mutagenicity in mice and got the same result, allowing them to conclude that genetically modified DNA did not cause increased mutations in consumers. The modified DNA, like unmodified DNA, was not mutagenic.
Mutagenicity aside, there are also concerns surrounding the ability of the modified DNA to transfer to the DNA of whomever eats it or have other toxic side effects. Depending on the degree of processing of their foods, a given person will ingest between 0.1 and 1 g of DNA each day [9]; as such, DNA itself is regarded as safe by the FDA [10]. To determine if the DNA from GMO crops is as safe to consume as the DNA from traditional food sources, the International Life Sciences Institute reviewed the chemical characteristics, susceptibility to degradation, metabolic fate and allergenicity of GMO-DNA and found that, in all cases, GMO-DNA was completely indistinguishable from traditional DNA, and thus is no more likely to transfer to or be toxic to a human [9]. Consistent with this, the researchers working on the GMO potato attempted to isolate the bar gene from their GMO eating rats. Despite 5 generations of exposure to and ingestion of the GMO, the researchers were unable to detect the gene in the rats’ DNA [5].
A strong argument for GMO health safety
After more than 20 years of monitoring by countries and researchers around the world, many of the suspicions surrounding the effects of GMOs on organ health, our offspring, and our DNA have been addressed and tested (Figure 1). In the data discussed above, alongside many more studies not mentioned here, GMOs have been found to exhibit no toxicity, in one generation or across many. Though each new product will require careful analysis and assessment of safety, it appears that GMOs as a class are no more likely to be harmful than traditionally bred and grown food sources.
Megan L. Norris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular, Cellular and Organismal Biology Program at Harvard University.
This article is part of the August 2015 Special Edition, Genetically Modified Organisms and Our Food.
Research outcomes, conclusions, are determined by the integrity of unbiased minds. Do not think those who claim GMOs are perfectly healthy are people of Integrity. How do we the people determine this? When Mon-satan-o said, “We will not lose one penny”, it is enough to know their business practices place profits above people.
So if GMO is so safe to consume, then WHY do we see more and more food labels screaming “NON GMO”??? What’s the point of non gmo huh?? I’ve studied chemistry back in university for 5 years, I don’t work in that field though, but 1 of the things I remember : eating GMO can affect your future generations, can cause mutations etc. So if you are planning on having children- stay away from gmo. No one on the 1st pages of Google search will tell us that gmo is bad for you- why would they damage giant corporations like Monsanto- too much money, way more important than public health. My advice: always read ingredients- if there’s something hard to pronounce, stay away from it.
GMO’s are destroying the planet and all living things on it. PERIOD. There’s no ifs ands or buts. People need to wake up and stop trying to justify food made by “engineers.” This is the problem with trying to find information on the internet for most folks…
Not sure if I missed the answer to this here: is there a good explanation for the mentioned toxicity reports from the early anti-GMO research? Or does one have to just weigh the evidence of the body of work that contradicts them, as done here?
Good question Brian, and this is one of the greatest hurdles to understanding the truth and falsehoods surrounding the topic.
There are a few issues:
1.) Many of the “studies” citing GMO toxicity are not actual scientific studies, but anecdotes experienced by someone, almost always not in a research setting. However these are often referred to in blogs or articles as “studies”
2.) In the case of a peer-reviewed study finding GMOs to be toxic, like the toxic-potato I mention here, it has repeatedly turned out that the work was flawed, poorly carried out and rejected by the scientific community for being bad science. Often a quick google search will reveal this.
3.) The best way, and admittedly most time-consuming, to discern the truth is just as you said, be informed of all the experiments, their quality, and weigh the results. That is what I have attempted to do here, and it turns out that when only rigorous experiments are examined, they are actually all in agreement. No acceptable scientific study has yet found toxic effects from a GMO.
Wish I had seen this in 2015. Megan, unless I missed it, there was no mention of other ‘organs’ such as the gut. Not the stomach- but the gut..the colon. In your research did you come across widely published scientific proof where a University in California found that a percentage of school-aged children had GMO’s actually in the gut of the child…and I don’t mean in some GMO food the child had consumed, I mean actually adhered in the lining of the gut? You might want to talk with specialists in the area of colorectal surgery. Ask them if they are finding that more and more people under the age of 19 are suddenly popping up with gut problems so horrible (as in a destroyed colon- the entire colon) that the entire gut can not be treated due to the fact that by the time the ‘problem’ manifests to the point of bleeding, it is too late and the entire colon has to be removed or it will burst and kill the individual. There is no margin, no years of gut problems such as colitis or even Chrones- just a sudden need to remove a colon that looks like raw hamburger. This is exactly what my son’s colorectal surgeon said to us….and among his colleagues, one suspect is the consumption of GMO foods. In fact, they have find no other reason thus far. My son went from 185 to 120 six weeks later. He had 4 surgeries and nearly died twice and his heart stopped once on the table- these events were due to the condition he was in. He was robbed of 1 1/2 years of his life due to the surgeries. His hair still has not grown back (3 years later) and at this point he is 21 years old. Not a very picture, is it? I believe one mistake you made is that you did not look for (or find) research done on the ENTIRE body. It appears the information you found was for most organs but certainly not all. You’re young, you’ll learn, but in the mean time don’t lead people down a path pointing to the ‘safety’ of GMO’s. I’m not saying GMO’s are or are not safe, but I am saying at this point the question is ‘WHY’? Why eat something that isn’t necessary to eat (organics can be found and are coming down in price), why purposely eat something that you know has been grown at least with pesticides sprayed on it? What’s the reason…why would people even *want* to do that? It certainly doesn’t taste better, and the ground isn’t allowed to rest using GMO seeds, nor does the GMO (or what’s sprayed on it) nourish the ground…so WHY?
Hi! Can you provide the source from the “widely published scientific proof” from “a University in California” that you mentioned? I would love to read it and maybe even write a follow up to this article about it. Thanks!
Also–FYI there are plenty of benefits of GMOs that answer your question of why we allow them. Including reducing pesticides when compared to non-GMO conventional agriculture, reducing tilling, and hopefully in the future making crops more resistant to environmental disaster and less destructive to the planet. I’d recommend checking out the rest of our special edition (see link at the bottom of this page)!
Plants aren’t destructive to the planet, it is the way they are raised that promotes destruction. Agribusinesses who unsustainably farm, and overuse pesticides have lead to the requirement for GMO crops and they have largely contributed to environmental damage. It’s a never ending cycle and GMO products are not the solution, merely a quick fix. If natural alternatives were promoted, farms were treated like organisms and not businesses, and sustainable methods were priority this discussion would not be necessary. I like my food from the earth, with its DNA pure, the way it was intended to be.
Also, if a crop is altered to produce its own pesticides, and the claim is that with GMO crops you are now spraying less pesticides doesn’t the total pesticide count, whether produced internally or applied externally, still add up to non-GMO conventional agriculture?
First, farming itself can be destructive to the plant! Tilling (both organic and conventional!) can cause fertilizer runoff into our water sources, conventional agriculture still uses pesticides. Plants themselves aren’t usually bad for the environment, but growing them in huge quantities like we do to be able to feed the world’s ever-growing population can be. I’m not saying GMOs are perfect. They have their environmental flaws, like the creation of super weeds (see our article on glyphosphate resistant crops in this issue). I’m just saying that GMOs CAN have benefits ESPECIALLY if we learn from our mistakes with first generation GMOs and do better to fix their flaws next time. The population is growing, climate change is happening, and science–specifically genetic engineering–can help us grow food more sustainably in light of these things. Did you hear about the GMO rice that produces 43% more grain and emits 97% less methane (http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/feeding-the-world/)? Therefore helping to both feed more people AND have less environmental impact! This kind of thing speaks to the potential of genetic engineering and the kind of progress that people are stopping by outright rejecting all GMO technology. Yes GMOs we have now have their issues, but genetic engineering is NOT inherently bad.
Also, GR GMOs don’t produce pesticide. They are resistant to pesticide. One form of GMOs produces insecticide (Bt–we have an article on that in this edition, too, if you’re interested!), but it’s actually the same insecticide that is used by organic farmers (http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/insecticidal-plants/), and I believe there is evidence that the consumer has less exposure to the insecticide in the GM version than when it’s applied directly to plants. A study of these two types of crops did find that these crops allowed for a 36.9% reduction in pesticide use (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629)! Also, glypohsophate, which is used on GR crops is toxic, but less toxic than other pesticides used on conventional crops (see our article on pesticides).
Given that there is little to no evidence of health impacts of eating GMOs (as in this article) and a potential to help solve a major problem our world faces in the future (climate change, feeding a growing population), I just think that we should give GMOs the chance to help us, as long as they’re properly regulated and researched.
This article is completely biased. There have been no long term studies regarding this issue so how can you claim that GMOs are safe off a three month trial done on rats? Children in the United States are getting sicker and sicker with an increase in allergies, gluten intolerance, intestinal inflammation, and more. I think it is such a shame that Harvard is teaching students to discredit any research that would result in a loss of profits for said companies involved in the making and distribution of GMOs. These companies only care about their profits and do not care about the health of all human beings. Why is it that so many presidents eat organic? Why is it that so many have their own garden full of fresh vegetables and fruit? If GMOs were safe to eat and the government wants the American people to eat it then why wouldn’t the president and his family eat them? Why did Michelle Obama change our children’s lunches into complete garbage? If she eats organic, why would she not put organic food in schools? I think it is sickening that people get paid to lie about what is going on in the world. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. One day you all will have to answer to God for your part in the destruction of the human race.
Please cite your source! It is true that the use of glyphosate has increased, but there are many types of pesticides, many of which are far more toxic than glyphosate, and if you look at OVERALL pesticide use, it has decreased, according to the sources I have read.
(Also, as far as I’m aware, glyphosphate is the only pesticide for which there is a resistance gene currently used in commercial agriculture).
That’s horrible. Your son has my sympathy. I’m not a doctor but I do have a Bachelor’s in biology and I agree that GMOs may still be the cause of your son’s disease. Let me use an analogy. Asbestos causes mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer. Most people need to inhale a lot of asbestos to get this cancer but a small percentage only need a relatively small exposure to become sick. Your son could be similarly part of a unique minority unfortunately predisposed to become sick.
Animal models of human disease rarely discover these groups of people in society. We only know of mesothelioma because so many actual people got cancer working with asbestos. Although, it was really only a small percentage of thousands, maybe millions, working with asbestos.
If we consider your son might be uniquely predisposed, along with the fact that the studies were done on a different species than human, and using GMO crop that humans rarely eat, (GMO soy would have been more appropriate) reasonable doubt about the safety of GMO’s still exist.
I am responding to the comment that use of pesticides has increased 15 fold with the advent of GMO’s. I sell pesticides to farmers for a living. My sales of pesticides per acre of crop are down about 40% since the advent of GMO’s. I have trouble seeing how that translates into a 15 fold increase.
You are not a doctor. And if you do have a degree in biology, you should know that correlation does not equate to causation. All the “evidence” “proving” that GMOs are dangerous are causational patterns. A variety of factors are at play here! You need a peer-reviewed experiment to prove anything in the sciences. The only studies showing harm are pay-for-play journals that are debunked as soon as journalists sensationalize the junk findings.
You were way too kind in your reply to this obvious pile of horse manure (organic of course). Can anyone explain how a human body could lose 65 pounds in 6 weeks as this person claimed? While it has been suggested to me that I could lose ten pounds of ugly fat instantly by cutting my head off, all the websites claiming 20 pound losses in an hour or 24 hours or 40 pounds in two days are blatant scams. Colon removal would only involve a few pounds unless it has that twelve pounds of undigested meat that inhabits the fantasies of organic blog trolls. At 185 pounds extreme obesity with water retention issues wasn’t involved. Being hospitalized extreme exercise couldn’t have aided in the loss. My BS detector pegged Red Line on this one.My question to this woman is why are you spending your time spreading malicious nonsense on the Internet. Most of us have already heeded Abraham Lincoln’s advice to not believe everything we read on the Internet, so you are wasting your time.
On the other hand, thank you for your reasoned approach. As a recovering extreme organic gardener I wish I had access to this kind of info many decades ago when I went off the rails. That said, practicing organic is good for you and the environment in many ways.
Did you ever get a second opinion? Id raise my eyebrows at any doctor who would outright blame GMOs for such an extreme illness. How does he know your son does not have a genetic disorder that caused him to need those surgeries? Obviously your family history and genetic maps are NONE of my business, but its good for you to know. Ive never head of a colon needing to be removed to prevent “bursting.” Its a lumen-ous organ with two openings. Organs that burst are lumens with one opening, such as an appendix or uterus. Its always good to get second opinions, especially when your doctor jumps to such a wild conclusion with no other cases to back it up. After reading what you wrote, i think he confused you or you did not understand what he was saying. I hope your son finds health again soon, from the bottom of my heart. If i were you id be scrutinizing that doc!
I am sorry for the pain of your child’s condition, but it’s pure specuilation and grasping for a reason to blame it on GMOs.
“and I don’t mean in some GMO food the child had consumed, I mean actually adhered in the lining of the gut”
There is no such thing as a “GMO” so there would be no way a “GMO” could adhere to anything.
“that the entire gut cannot be treated due to the fact that by the time the ‘problem’ manifests to the point of bleeding, it is too late and the entire colon has to be removed or it will burst and kill the individual”
The medical condition you describe has no diagnosis I could find or that I know of. The colon is not a closed organ nor can it be closed into a vessel by inflammation and therefore cannot “burst” under any conditions. Perhaps you are talking about the appendix?
Many people in your situation, with no diagnosis for what has occurred, grasp at any possible cause and often find one that is as mysterious as the original illness. Rarely if ever is that speculation the cause.
You’re worse than a anti-vac
GMO’s are literally the same as cross-breed plants, or even cross-bred animals.Are dogs also toxic for the environment?How about cows?How about pigs?How about all of the food that you eat on a daily basis?It might be non-GMO but it’s still altered genetically by humans.I find it silly people are still trying to argue that GMO’s are dangerous or toxic, yet have no backing evidence that isn’t old and biased.
This was such a heartbreaking testament. I’m sorry to hear about what your son and your family went/is going through. I myself have a child who is suffering with a tic disorder which no one can really help him with but a chiropractor trained in Nutrition Response Testing and applied Kinesiology determined that his Thyroid as well as his small intestines are burdened by GMO toxicity. Who knows the truth about GMOs but you’re certainly right, why not avoid it if you can. It seems that more and more the general public’s health is declining and conditions, ailments and diseases that used to be rare are becoming more and more the norm. Could it be our diet?
Thanks for sharing
Kayla, I very much agree with you. Plants are not destructive if anything they’re the ones going to save this plant from all the horrible things going on, but people are to close-minded to believe this. And what really annoys me is when people claim that ‘making crops more resistant to environmental disaster and less destructive to the planet’, well quite frankly that is absolute bs. Because if scientists and researchers where actually able to spend their time and funds creating an all natural fertiliser and herbicide then we might actually see some success and less of an impact on the soils, water ways and livestock in surrounding areas. The main problem with this is that we have huge corporations like Monsanto, who have too much ‘pride’ and are so focused on ruining people’s business’ and livelihoods, that they would never even consider making a good change that would somewhat benefit people and the environment, and if this was suggested they would sue them for everything that they’ve ever known. This is an extremely messed up mindset and society, and I can most defiantly say that GMOs really do have a considerable effect as my entire family (including myself) have experienced this mainly in the form of allergies.
Good point! Also see how bad cheap oils in almost everything, even healthfood wreck havock. Sally Fallon Morell 2016 Vermont Conference part 2 then part 1 on YouTube! Part 1 is the Native Cultures research and common sense (not lab rat tests) comes into play here. Part 2 on Cholesterol myths, bad soy plus!! Long but worth listening to! One doctor said lectins in tomatoes, wheat, eggplant and beans cause leaky gut! GMOs don’t help either ! Thanks!!
I would comment that some of the studies sourced for this article are flawed. For example, the “Multigeneration reproductive and developmental toxicity study of bar gene inserted into genetically modified potato on rats”, uses 5% GMO potato in the group fed GMOs to test its toxicity. This is irrelevant to things like corn, where 70%+ of the corn in the US is GMO corn and so our diet, assuming randomized source of corn, will on average have 70%+ GMO in it. I don’t know the numbers for potatoes, but I would be willing to bet that there is more than 5% of our diet of potato is GMO, so the study doesn’t reflect real consumption and would thus not show a real reflection of what are called ‘anecdotal’ evidence. When a farmer is giving feed to his cattle, he is not sitting there measuring out 5% GMO and the rest non-GMO feed for his animals. Furthermore, studies of anything less at least half the life span of the test animal are not useful in predicting long term affects and toxic accumulation — which is what we really care about since people are not slaughtered for food at a few years into their lifespan. The argument that these studies do prove its safe rely on the sort of logic that the tobacco industry has used for years to try to hid that cigarettes deliver carcinogens to the consumer and they may not immediately kill you, but they are not good for you either.
Thanks for your comment–you make some interesting points! You mention only one study cited here, some of the papers cited in this study are metastudies that summarize results of 100s of different studies with different methodologies (some of which feed animals higher levels of GM foods and analyze up to several years–rodent lifespans are only ~2 years), which all suggest that GM foods are safe for consumption. These studies are done by independent academic groups without funding or conflict of interest from biotech groups, making the conclusions different from that of the tobacco industry with regards to cigarettes. (As a side note, from a scientific perspective, there’s also a lot less reason to be suspicious of GM foods since the added DNA and proteins are thought to be broken down similarly to any DNA or protein that you would eat, whereas cigarette smoke introduces foreign chemicals to the body).
On a more technical note, in the study you mention, the 5% figure refers to the percentage of the rats’ total diet that was made up of potatoes (GM or not GM) NOT the percentage of potatoes in their diet that is GM. Since that particular study is specifically testing potatoes, not corn or other GM products, this actually seems pretty reasonable to me. This would be like a human with a 2000 calorie diet eating about 1 GM potato per day (which I would guess is actually more GM potato than the average human eats, given both the prevalence of potato in our diets and the prevalence of GM potatoes on the market). You’re correct that the average person could have more than 5% of their diet made up of GM foods, but that was not the question of this particular study. Another study cited here (7) actually feeds rats 12-7,100 times the amount of GM vegetable that would be expected to be in human diets, and they still found no health effects by several measures.
Well, I prefer to grow my own non-GMO, non- bioengineered produce myself.
Purchase Wild-Caught Salmon and Free Range Grass Fed Beef with no added anti-Biotics or hormones. Drink reverse osmosis, alkaline water and cook or reheat food from a stove top, rather than a microwave.
Seems to do a body good.
Now if I could just “get into” the xercising – although not overweight or anythin and o evidence of disease other than high blood pressure (treated). .
The short answer is: the toxic-potato study had design flaws that didn’t allow them to draw any conclusions from their work. One aspect was that their control potato was not equivalent in nutritional value to their GMO potato, meaning a difference in health could just as likely be due to malnutrition.
It amazes me how you consider “your science” the only “right science” and how linear is your way of thinking. Nothing in biology is as simple as you pretend to be and there are many other factors that influence the number and quality of toxicity studies on GMOs. Have you considered ‘funding’ and ‘conflict of interest’ at all in your analysis? I would love to hear from you what exactly is “bad science” and what is “good science”. This is a million dollar question and you would solve all the issues for the scientific community!
Let me also remind you that 85% of all GMOs are herbicide tolerant and that they were designed to accumulate herbicides and thus going into the food and feed chains.In addition, most of all new GM plants have multiple trait and there is almost no studies that test multiple Bt toxins and multiple herbicides together. This is recognized by EFSA and the scientific community as a knowledge gap. There is a need to study real case scenarios, the food we eat 🙂
Hi Sarah! Thanks for reading! First of all, a lot of GMOs are herbicide tolerant, as you said, but they are not designed to “accumulate herbicide”, but rather resist herbicide. Yes–this can lead to the use of more pesticides on these crops, but the health effects of that on the consumer are unclear. Also, Bt crops actually DECREASE the use of chemical insecticide AND have less Bt (the most common organic insecticide) than organic crops! (See http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/, http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/insecticidal-plants/, and http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/roundup-ready-crops/ for more info!). Also, plenty (if not all) of the studies cited here are funded by government agencies in multiple countries, as is most basic scientific research, so there should be no conflict of interest. You’re right that most GMOs have stacked traits to be GR and express Bt, and it might be worth testing those two traits together if it hasn’t been done already (I’ll let Megan answer that). However, what is abundantly clear is that the actual process of genetic modification does not make a crop bad for our health–it’s all about what you modify! It furthermore seems unlikely given the current data that any of the GM crops we eat now are dangerous to our health.
Finally, addressing your first paragraph, many of us at SITN are biologists, and we are aware the biology is complicated! We also believe in trusting data. I am interested in seeing all sides of this issue–if you know of other studies that show that GMOs are dangerous to our health, please let me know! I am always willing to change my mind with new evidence. Untrustworthy science is that without controls that did not go through a peer review process and cannot be replicated (like the IRT study), trustworthy or “good” science is the opposite.
Actually this is patently untrue. Scientific method, the basis of all science, is about testing ideas, hypotheses and theories against new data, ideas and inputs. Sometimes science will be validated, sometimes it will be improved by new thinking, new methodology, new instrumentation for testing, or even whole new theorems. The idea that science is always correct is ridiculous, as all scientific knowledge so far has been for the most part incremental, while sometimes a transformative idea (Einstein’s theory) for instance will upset the apple cart.
Sooooo. The thing is, a lot of the real studies we have on health issues change and develop over more than 20 years and it often takes a few decades to come to a conclusion that may or may not change in the next few. Everyone can argue back and forth on the issue of GMO’s but the truth is we really won’t know for a long time for sure what the affects of GMO’s are. I also want to say that many health issues are actually due to the bad health choices of people in all aspects of their lives. There are studies for example that show that someone who overindulges in food, even for a few years may have a good life, but their descendants then have a higher chance of heart problems. Then when those health problems arise, it isn’t that hard for individuals to develop other health issues. We can see evidence of this in any study of epigenetics.
Multiple tests have been done on both humans and animals in regards to those who don’t, and do eat GMOs.We do know their effects, and we know that they do nothing.I don’t see how a organism modified to have different DNA, or even just cutting out and putting in new DNA would have an adverse effect like increasing toxicity or causing impotence.It’s childish thinking.Though, I do agree that science changes constantly, the whole GMO toxicity thing has been disproved for a long time.
The article you listed doesn’t explain the country’s reasoning. GMOs being banned in europe doesn’t really mean anything unless the countries that have banned GMOs can provide evidence for why they did so. If they don’t, this is just an appeal to authority, and logically unsound. (For more information, research the appeal to authority logical fallacy.)
I think it is premature to make blanket statements about the safety of GMOs based on the research to date. Some potential holes in the analysis of prior research.
1. Mice studies are not the equivalent of a double-bind long term human study. Of course you are right that this can not be done but the assertion that mice studies are enough to “prove” safety is not enough in my opinion
2. Your review of literature show at best that the technique of gene splicing in and of itself is not harmful but this not mean that dangerous & harmful products can be created with gene splicing. Given the infinite permutations of genes that can be combined in the lab it will be only a matter of time that a particular combination will have emergent properties that will be devastating consequences that were not foreseen. With anything, as time goes on business and scientists become lax over time. Mishaps in the Nuclear power industry are a prime example of this.
3. Lack of studies on population outliers. Sure many products may be safe for the general population but can have very severe consequences for certain segments of the population. Have there been studies looking at particular GMO products against all types of test subjects? Some variables would be pregnant, immune comprised, infant, etc.
The reason I bring these issues up is that I have two sons. One with a fructose intolerance issue and another with severe allergic GI issues. Per a multitude of studies, the human population is seeing a dramatic rise in allergenic & gastrointestinal ailments in the last 25 years that parallels the introduction of GMO foods. This correlation alone of course does not prove causality but where there is smoke, science must take the time to identify the source of the fire.
That sounds like:
1. My goalpost is unattainable, and you haven’t reached it yet.
You mentioned something which cannot be done should be done in order to garner proof. You also are the first person to mention “prove” on this page.
2. Just because bad things can result from something, does not mean that thing is inherently harmful to you. Nearly everything you do with a positive outcome, has a negative consequence.
3. Please see the argument written above in the original piece.
Sometimes there is no fire. Sometimes there is just more understanding. Sometimes, we get better at catching irregularities as time passes. Correlation most certainly does not prove causation, but more-so, correlation doesn’t prove causation especially when it directly contradicts what we already know to be most likely.
The plant is resistant to pesticides because it eats the pesticides. Then you come along and ingest it. Your stomach dissolves it and now your intestine gets ready to absorb the nutrients. WHAM !! It’s ambushed by pesticides/poison/toxic matter, therefore destroying your digestive system slowly. Then of course, it expands to other parts of your body, as it’s carried through your blood.
Also many countries in Europe BANNED GMO crops and lately we’ve been coming in second place to Europe in terms of advancing as a society, technology, adapting to new laws, recycling and I feel America, lately, has not been fair in informing us with the truth and protecting us from the bad if there’s money involved.
We’re all eating poison and we’ll find out when it’s too late
There are some additional things that bother me about GMO’s. DNA and the interplay of the various genes is phenomenally complex. Without even making any alterations in a genome there are many things we do not fully understand about how it all works- what synergies exist, what sequences are key for subsequent sequences to operate successfully, etc. Until I feel confident that we understand more about the complexities of the existing genomes WHEN they are operating within living ecosystems, I do not feel comfortable throwing a wrench into the works. It has taken millions of years for evolution to fine tune these systems- both ours and the plants we are dependent on for food- and there are millions of variables affecting both our internal and external environments. GMO’s feel way too much like playing God. I would rather choose the humbler path of following nature’s lead than the arrogant path, (the one that got us kicked out of the garden of Eden and which is leading us to ruin our second Eden), of tinkering with potentially life threatening technologies .
My second major issue with GMO’s is that most are “owned” by one major corporation, Monsanto, and the rest are owned by only a few others. Monsanto would have us believe they are interested in GMO’s because they are saving the world, when really Monsanto is just a chemical company (from birth) maximizing profit for shareholders by creating a legal stranglehold on food production. This corporation which is now considered to be a “person” uses GMO’s to make farmers dependent on them to buy their proprietary seed, and then buy their proprietary chemicals, and in addition they sue farmers if they save seed or are inadvertently the victims of wind blown pollen dispersal of GMO’s into other areas on their or neighboring farms.
If I thought for one minute that GMO’s were actually being utilized to make the world a better place I would seriously look at them as a possible tool, but until they are no longer “owned” by Monsanto and a few other for profit chemical companies I cannot trust the purposes for which they have been designed or utilized.
Hello Jean,
Thank you for adding to this discussion. I want to be transparent with you about why I only approved some of your comments. As this discussion has been going on for several years, I have slowly adopted some guidelines about what comments are actually helpful in the debate. I am more than happy to approve comments that support a different point of view on GMOs (such as the video you posted above!). However, we are a non-profit graduate student organization. We do not get any money or guidance from Monsanto or any other company. I have explained this in the comments section of our GMO articles many times, and yet people still question our motives. In an effort to keep the discussion on the science, I have decided not to approve any accusatory comments.
Too bad this article is complete bullshit. Saying GMOs are completely safe is ridiculous. Who paid for your research Monsanto? Did you get any kickbacks? There is so much evidence saying GMOs are toxic. Look what it is doing to the bee population. Just because someone from Harvard has done a study we should take that as fact?
This article isn’t about one study, it’s about evidence from a bunch of studies (none of which were done at Harvard as far as I can remember). Also, it’s not about environmental effects, to read about the environmental effects you can look here: http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/signal-to-noise-special-edition-gmos-and-our-food/ . We are a graduate student organization, and we’re not paid by Monsanto, and as far as I know, none of the studies we cited here were either. We are merely interested in providing science articles that are based in primary sources (which is what we are doing here).
Also, may I ask if you have gathered any information regarding the disadvantages of GM plants? If you could link some non-commercial studies that aren’t older than 5 years that would be a great help to me.
It’s so funny to see you using expressions such as “as far as I can remember” and “as far as I can tell” as valid arguments. Do you have REAL proof that pro-GMO studies are not being funded by Monsanto and the bunch? Have you actually invested your time in studying how these organisations operate, and the ways they are using to “hide” their involvement?
You should be asking all these questions if you were a true scientist. Besides, “peer reviews” in many journals don’t prove anything either – I have been a victim of this in academia myself, and few of my fellow friends in academic world regularly experience unfair and biased reviews, as well as false positive reviews where reviewers just refuse to notice flaws in the study that are not very obvious.
The scientific community cannot be fully trusted, and this is the sad fact. Your own publication here just enforces this fact imho.
Personally, I trust the scientific community and trust that if someone is working with Monsanto or other large agro corporation, they will disclose it as is journal policy in all peer reviewed publications. In fact, there are papers that do include “conflict of interest” statements, but we have not cited these here. I’m not sure it is possible to prove to you, as someone who does not trust the scientific community, that pro-GMO studies are not being funded by Monsanto, but I will say this: as a biologist, it logically doesn’t make much sense to me that just the changing of the DNA of a crop to make it make a protein that has no effect on humans, would make it bad for humans. And the majority of studies support that GM crops are not harmful to our health. Maybe Monsanto is secretly funding the majority of these studies in a huge, HUGE cover-up including probably hundreds of labs and tens to hundreds of journals, and all of the anti-GMO activists have just not been able to find any proof of it, but I doubt it.
Conspiracy theory thinking hooks the brain because it feels like critical thinking. Between personal anecdotes and a complete disregard for the data/evidence that has been produced for whatever reason, many consider themselves to be more knowledgeable than the people around the world who dedicate their lives to studying certain topics. The Dunning Kruger effect shows in these comments. I applaud whoever has been contributing to the SITNFlash account over the last five years for having the patience to respond to so many conspiratorial comments. It is undoubtedly incredibly frustrating.
All these studies you cite are funded directly or indirectly By MOnanto and other GMOs or the FDA which is inn bed with Monsanto and has been since Bush Sr.
Any science connected to capitalist motivations is suspect. We know pollution is really really bad for us–deadly–and yet it is not banned–it is promoted and facilitated by the same governemtn and institutions applaudinng GMOs. Your claim is that th science is “good” (by these capitlaist outfits) and so it should be allowed without question–“it is safe.” So no, labelling, no more regulaitons, no bans, no serious need for further research. Yet, science shows us that industrial pollution is bad, m-kay, and there is no serious law or movement to ban or regulate pollution–government policy is basically to facilitate industry, like GMOs and Big Pharma–even though it is destructive and environmentalists are labelled terrorists and assaulted by police thugs and para military troops endorsed by the government. In one case your science claims it is not right to ban GMOS or regulate them, and in another case, OUR science shows pollution is bad and it cant be regulated–the common denominator is capitalism–PROFIT! not human health, not the public welfare. Not human rights. not earth rights. You see–you are bias and uncritical. You cite flawed science and promote unethical policy against our civil an human rights. You might not be bad people, but you serve bad people and bad policy. What would science look like UN-corrupted by capitalist interests? Think about it. How deep do the capitalist tentacles go? You are a product of capitalist indoctrination and conditioning.
Thank you for reading our article. In the spirit of full transparency, I am replying to tell you that I have not approved some of your comments because they are not contributing productively to the conversation due to repeated personal attacks at other commenters, the author of the article, or this site in general. If you would like to re-write your comments without these personal attacks, I would be happy to approve them.
I understand that your point of view is that all studies are indirectly funded by Monsanto and are therefore unable to be trusted. We welcome discussion about that point of view, but please don’t attack anyone (the comment above is borderline). I would be very interested to ready why you think this is flawed science that is cited here or any reliable sources about funding of the studies cited.
Hey, I wish that were true Randall. I am actually doing an academic research paper on the positives and negatives of GMOs and let me assure you that there is not many studies proving GMOs are toxic, or harmful for that matter. If there were then I wouldn’t have so much trouble trying to find negatives on this topic. Actually I believe that most of the negatives are just fears that people have concerning the potential risks of GMOs, however, those are just potential risks and have not been proved or agreed upon by a scientific body.
I’m actually going to have a look on some more articles from this page and see if I can find some disadvantages of GMOs.
capitalists fund research. Only big capitalist institutions have the funds to research. So I am not surprised it is hard to find independent studies. But many exist–especially outside America–which are conveniently dismissed by Americans. And were immediately set upon by Monsanto and the capitalist infrastructure to smear them as not good science or conspiracy theorists–hmmm. The point is NOT enough science and research is done or allowed and NO science was done to permit GMOs in the first place back in 96 and earlier. It was passed without question –why? BIG PROFIT. more science is needed and until then GMOs must be in contained labs only. Knowing what we know about all the other harms they produce in society and the ecosystem and civil rights, politics–they must be banned until more research–maybe 20-50 years of extensive independent research is done–and we can see how GMOs impact health over time, but since it would be unethical to use human studies–as they are doing with us in the market place–our studies must be limited and maybe only then after 100 years can we know for sure–bottom line is its not practical and not safe and not doable and not ethical and very very bad for the environment and human rights. there is just no need for it. period. none. It is about profit and control of food–patented terminator seeds. period. BAN IT!
The irony of you spreading this nonsensical set of opinions on the Internet is delicious. I suggest you get away from your devilish computer, stomp on your soul-sucking smartphone , throw your TV out a window , and trash your radio and any other electronic device you use. Each of those devices has easily provable disadvantages to your health and psychic well-being. BAN THEM ALL BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE! THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE MUST BE WORSHIPPED!!! Oooo. I feel so righteous now.
according to what science? You just can not know that–it is too early. You are not credible. You are not all-knowing. I have seen research that suggest it would be less healthy. And i can tell you, it has less taste–oh sure, corporate labs will use flavor enhancers–also cancer causing to get that nice commercial taste of the real thing, and when consumers are so familiar with it over time they don’t recognize organic food and how things should taste, and we have been acclimated to commercial processed food for a century which it is known is less nutrient, and harmful, and yet corporations deny it and the media denies it and people deny it and somehow think organic food is unhealthy–wow!–and that is because the for-profit media is telling them that and growing a garden is too much work for GMO inundated couch potatoes. I can tell you organic food grown in rich healthy soil is far superior in taste and substance. It is extremely arrogant to believe that a few capitalist studies and no-so-much-studies can improve billions of years of nature science and tens of thousand of years of natural breeding–human selection by natural means. Arrogance. We have become the destroyer of worlds. get a grip would you. You have no right to contaminate our world without our approval–and funny thing the world does not approve and yet we are ignored. hmm. Profit maybe?
I am in utter awe of these comments you are making. Completely slandering logical, science-based conclusions with consistently debunked science; fear-mongering tactics with absolutely nothing credible to back it up. It’s these type of people that prevent beneficial technologies from helping society
If anything, it is people like YOU that are fear-mongering. You constantly say that the GMOs cause cancer and are bad for your health, when in reality that is simply untrue. You are spreading ill-informed fear, and this article does not try to instill any fear in anyone. Please do more research and not only on the things that fuel your narrative. Its a Radical Wacky Coolkid thing to do. Be like a Radical Wacky Coolkid.
I wonder why USA does not ban GMO. It must be good, right? I wonder why USA sponsors warfare around the world for decades. It must be fair, right? (Using your own method here to show you how stupid such statements are)
Neither yours nor previous commenters argument is valid. You just reversed their argument and present it as a valid contra-argument which uses the same logic, just biased in an opposite way.
Btw, Islam be it right or wrong is still their choice, same as GMO. If people in US choose GMO and ready to face the consequences – that’s fine, but why impose their view upon the rest of the world? Same goes about false US democracy which they’re trying to sell around the world… Science, however, should be free of politics and business – but unfortunately there are tons of proof that it is currently not, hence cannot be fully trusted – simple as that.
I’ve never enjoyed reading a comments section nearly as much as I have this one; for many reasons and peoples!
I try to be objective when hearing differing sides of an argument and therefore would like to see any credible evidence as to whether or not GMOs are actually harmful to our health; if it’s legit, I’ll listen.
I’m not yet convinced of the evils of Monsanto, I suspect there is a lot of personal opinions and anecdotes surrounding their reputation and activities. Does anyone know a good, objective source for vetting them a little more thoroughly?
Lastly, I recently read that the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) is not an “institute” so much as a single guy writing blog posts. Does anyone know if this is true?
Would you feed your kids GMOs? Your research is bulshit compared to all the real parents who are witnessing the harmful effects of GMOs on a daily basis. Come do some real studies in the ghetto then maybe you’ll open your eyes to what really is going on.
I’m loving to read your series on GMOs. I’ve done extensive research on this matter on the last few weeks and this site has to be one of the most thourough sources there is. That being said, I’m still on the fence about the safety of the use of GMOs to human consumption. The fact is, there is still many things we don’t fully understand about the interplay of gene expression and molecular pathways.
Glad you’re enjoying our articles! First, I’d like to highlight that the science is pretty clear about the idea that genetically engineering food is not inherently bad. For example, newer GMO technologies that are focusing on eliminating expression of certain genes rather than adding foreign genes have very little potential to create food that will be harmful our health. At the other extreme, if you genetically engineered corn to express a gene that make the protein that people are allergic to in peanuts, and then you gave someone with a peanut allergy that corn, they would likely also be allergic to the GE-peanut-corn. So I think it’s important to keep in mind that not all GMOs are equal.
The Seralini study is somewhere in between these two extremes–they are testing GMOs that have a foreign protein with no known allergenic or negative properties. The summary of my opinion is that there is not enough data to support the idea that there are health effects of GMO crops that are currently on the market, but I don’t think it’s theoretically impossible for a GM food to have negative health consequences, and I fully support continued independent studies.
I think the first warning sign for this article is that it hasn’t really been replicated by the scientific community, and, in fact, most meta-analysis of many many GMO studies have found opposite results. On a more technical level, there are two red flags that come up for me about this study (and I’m not an expert in his field, but I am a biologist): (1) there’s no dose-response relationship. Usually to show that a substance is harmful, you would show that if you give an animal more of that substance, the effect is greater. So, you’d expect here that if you give a rat a 33% GMO instead of an 11% GMO diet, you’d get more tumors, liver damage etc. But they don’t really see this, which makes scientists worried that they are just measuring noise (or random fluctuations). and (2) the GMO results (GMOs even in the GMO only and not GMO+R condition were at one point treated with roundup) look very similar to the R results, making it difficult to distinguish an effect of genetic engineering from an effect of roundup.
I guess you might be correct on that GMO’s are not linked to Health Issues. I am 14 and got intimidated by a few GMO documentaries a few years ago. I thought that GMO’s were linked to all these health problems, but it seems like, according to you, they were fed 7000x GMO than Human in terms of consumption rates. It seems like if their results can’t be replicated, and that some haphazardly agree and disagree that GMO’s are safe or bad.
Here is my question: 97% of scientists believe in Global Warming and that it’s caused by Humans. Why then, is it not the case that 97% of scientists believe that GMO’s are safe ?
Also, GMO’s can compete with Native Crops and outcompete them. That would be bad for the environment. Also, what happens if the GMO plants crossbreed with Native Ones. And since all the Native ones would eventually create their own pesticide, environmental pressures would mean that they would overpopulate and native bugs would die. This would mess up the food chain and lead to a loss of biodiversity. Right ? Also, GMO’s lead to superbugs. GMO’s are like overusing antibiotics, accept they are that on steroids. Evolution will lead to resistance and that means more pesticides and more environmental harm.
Doesn’t it seem like GMO’s are too complicated. Their environmental impacts are too risky. Especially, if they crossbreed with Native Plants. And what is the advantage of GMO’s ? Why do through all this hassle ? Just eat Organic. If it takes up too much land, use hydroponics. If it raises prices, then work harder and get a pay raise. If Organic means people in 3rd world countries are starving because food is expensive, then tell them to have a 1 child policy and then until they afford it, they can have a 2 child policy.
And you’re right, GMOs can cause super-weeds that are resistant to glyphosphate, but it’s actually from people overusing pesticides (which GMOs make possible)–it’s not an inherent property of all GMOs (some GMOs don’t even have pesticide resistance b/c they’re modified to do something else).
And to answer your question–data from the AAAS suggests that scientific consensus on GMOs and scientific consensus on human-caused climate change are actually pretty similar (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_8915_b_6572130.html)–around 90% of scientists think GMOs are safe and that humans contribute to climate change.
I personally think we should continue to be careful and test new GMOs to make sure they don’t cause problems with superweeds and biodiveristy, but so far, those concerns are mostly hypothetical.
Hi, I am going to include this research in my argument paper. Thank you for providing a good clarification details regarding the toxicity, genes and mutagenesis. I will cite your research properly and hopefully will have a good feedback to my professor. 🙂
Hi again, another thing is that your references and sources are not up to date. It will actually affect your credibility. Although I took some information that were published after the year of 2012 to make my paper more concise. I still acknowledge and applaud you for your work it is very well written!
Liked the article and the comments. One thing I’d point out as an actual farmer is – the word “super weed” is disengenuous. Some people may associate the word “super” with “super powers”. Glyphosate resistant weeds look just like their non glyphosate counterparts. The resistant plants have just developed ways to stop glyphosate from harming them – through natural selection. No herbicide is 100% effective on all targeted weeds – ie – if glyphosate kills all the susceptible weeds – the only ones that survive a treatment might might be resistant. Glyphosate is quite effective at controlling weeds and it took some time for weeds to develop resistance – but glyphosate isn’t the first herbicide to experience resistance – and not all weed species have developed resistance to glyphosate. Many other herbicides have had target weeds develop resistance as well. Glyphosate has been a very effective tool in our area for reducing soil erosion and preserving moisture in our semi arid climate.
I am not a scientist, just a mom who wants healthy kids. I talk to other moms, many spending huge amounts of their limited income trying to avoid foods that may be unhealthy for their kids, including GMOs. I wasn’t sure if I should he following suit so I did a Google search today and of the top results your a seemed the most reputable.
I did study agriculture, but I am outdated. But, I do remember finding that organic crops often required elevated total toxicity in order to achieve pest control when compared with non-organic crops since the chemicals at the disposal of an organic farmer are, by nature, limited. So, they sometimes must choose something more toxic than traditional pesticides or use much more of their pesticides to achieve control. I do not remember any sources at this point so everyone can (and probably should) have a heyday with that. The point is that I am familiar with the idea that just because something came directly from nature doesn’t mean its healthy (aflotoxin, cyanide (a pesticide that plants made all by themselves), etc). My question is about Bt crops.
You said there is evidence that Bt crops actually contain less total pesticide than those sprayed with Bt. However, those sprayed can be washed. I assume you cannot wash the pesticide from Bt crops. But Bt is complex. There may be more to it than I understand. It’s why I ask. Have any studies been done that take washing or rinsing into account, or is that irrelevant for some reason that I do not currently know about?
Thank you for your diligent research in an internet full of every kind of article and study.
Hi! Thanks for reading! I like that you’re challenging the “natural” = “healthy” idea. I don’t know of any direct comparisons of washed crops sprayed with Bt and Bt GMOs. Actually, though, not all organic Bt treatment can be washed off, since it is sometimes injected (e.g. into squash), which is perhaps why most research has instead focused on toxicity to humans without washing. Bt spray has been considered a very safe pesticide since it was introduced in 1938 (http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/insecticidal-plants/). I’m guessing that there hasn’t been a ton of research about the benefits of washing the Bt-sprayed crops because it’s generally agreed upon that Bt isn’t dangerous to humans (http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/, )–even at the higher doses that people are exposed to if they eat unwashed Bt-sprayed crops. Also, Bt toxin in GM crops is at very low doses in the parts of the plant that we usually eat (e.g. kernel of corn, potato tuber) and is relatively higher in the leaves/stems, which I guess is what the bugs usually eat (https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/pip/bt_brad2/2-id_health.pdf).
I think all of you should look in to foreign studies on this I went through american after america study on this and its left me just unsure, but second I typed in Russian study holy shit I need to look more in to this and other countries that have and have not Banned GMOs. just like Professor Wilson said up the comments the proper research that needs to be done is not there but as I also said I need to look further in to the subject myself I’m doing a research paper on this and I’m eager to learn more. thanks for this article though.
I’d be interested to read anything you find in your search! I have found a difficult time finding studies from any country that convincingly show health effects of eating GMO crops. In this article we cite studies from Korea and China, among other countries. If you’re willing, please share your findings so we can also read these other studies.
Chinese studies will most likely be in favour of GMO simply because its negative effects on reproduction can partially solve their over-reproduction problem. Besides, everything in China is seriously controlled by the state and can easily be altered in favour of the state. It’s very sad to see how science has become a tool for business and politicians lately, and them taking control of it which defeats the sole purpose of the science in the first place – delivering the unbiased truth to people.
Your information and attitude is among the most responsible I have seen. A sign of an objective person.
I am a research scientist in Agriculture and pesticides- worked on it over 40 years. Pesticides have been proven to be safe and GMO’s have been, as well. Do we know all? Certainly not, but there is a huge amount of data showing safety for both. The negatives are mostly circumstantial or feelings.
Your comment about human-caused global warming is not true, however. Only about 50% or less of climate scientists think man is influencing climate. IPCC is a group of proponents of man-caused global warming but over 31,000 American Scientists have signed a petition for our government to get out of the Japanese global warming agreement because there is not good data to show that carbon dioxide increases warming. There may be a correlation but not causation. Thanks
Thanks for reading! The data I am citing about scientists’ views on climate change is from the Pew Research Center: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/pi_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-01/ and shows that 88% of scientists think GMOs are safe to eat and 87% think climate change is “mostly due to human activity”. I don’t know where your 50% figure comes from (would be interested to see), but the 31,000 people who signed the OISM Petition Project are probably mostly not climate scientists or even practicing scientists, they are just people with at least Bachelor’s degree in any science/medicine field (according to their website–looks like <30% of the people who signed have PhDs).
I am doing a pro-con argument on GMO’s and this essay has so many facts and is so well written. I really enjoyed reading it and even the comments on it were interesting to read. It feels like when it comes to GMO’s so many “studies” and “scientific research groups” are just biased groups trying to get people to see only the “bad side to GMO’s” and not any other way. This essay really helped to clear the waters up. Thanks Megan!
Rice, wheat and corn does more than 50% of contribution to the world’s nutritional needs. Wheat alone is consumed as a staple food by 35% of the world’s population. These mega-crops consume significantly more water resources while compared to traditional crops like Sorghum and Millets. Millets are drought resistant and even referred to as “poor man’s crops”. We hear news about drought and food insecurity in African and South Asian countries which, in fact, receive adequate sunlight throughout the year. Is it because these countries move towards the 3 mega crops eventually phasing out the drought resistant traditional crops like millets, sorghum, etc? While we have this interesting debate about GMO’s pros and cons, India is currently facing severe drought due to failure in rainfall. The economy of India is heavily dependent on food exports which majorly includes rice, wheat and corn. And not just export, the consumption of millets and other traditional crops by the people of South Asian and African countries has gone down significantly and the mega crops consumption has increased on the other hand. What’s the solution to these problems?
There is heavy pressure on such countries to go GMO in order to increase their rice or wheat production despite their water scarcity.
Is GMO the optimal solution or do we need to pay more attention to food and biodiversity?
Biodiversity is certainly not in the best interests of companies like Monsanto as it isn’t very easy to commoditize and monetize the drought resistant traditional crops? Even if they find a way out to monetize such crops, it isn’t going to happen overnight yielding immediate profits.
Shouldn’t we focus more on preserving food and biodiversity as well? What if, change in mindset and investing on native crops has got a better and sustainable solution?
I am sorry to have brought out the political aspect of this in this thread which is meant only for scientific discussion. For more information on food and biodiversity, please refer to the below link. https://www.idrc.ca/en/article/facts-figures-food-and-biodiversity
I think there’s an argument to be made for using genetic engineering technology to make drought-resistant crops. However, it will always be important to consider and test the environmental impact of any newly engineered crops.
Here’s a quote:
“In a study involving 94 articles selected through objective criteria, it was found
that the existence of either financial or professional conflict of interest was
associated [with] study outcomes that cast genetically modified products in a
favourable light.”
– Johan Diels, CBQF/Escola Superior de Biotecnologia da Universidade Católica
Portuguesa, Portugal, and colleagues
Great article! I’m tired of people justifying their “I don’t eat GMO’s” in the possible effects on health! So much people need to read this! What I’m concerned on GMO’s is their impact on the environment, not just directly as crop, but the terrible use of pesticides affecting soil and water (subterranean and water contaminated by run off) since most of them are made to resist glysophate.
Thank you for doing this piece of research on gmo’s. My father is an avid farmer at home and a chemical engineer. I’ve always asked him these questions and have so many friends who fear gm food. I recently watched an episode of Bill Nye Save the world and he even spoke with experts on how they are not harmful to humans. Finally i have documents I can show that research was done. Thank you very much.
My only concern is the effect they could have on the ecosystem and surrounding plants. But not harm on humans. In fact i hope they are working on something to save Mexico and South American bananas right now .
I think people are taught to worry to much about almost everything in life! Does all of this GMO really cause cancer or is it the fact that humans genetically outliving how long the human body is really meant to live? People used to live to 20,30,40.50 at the oldest not 70-100 or more and so there was not as much cancer. Think about if people stopped stressing about everything and enjoyed life how much happier we would all be. Grow your own food, stop making babies and quit trying to find an answer to prove your truth…….I believe that we are taught to waste what precious time we have arguing and trying to prove “OUR” truth……there is no truth. So, put down your proven sticks, eat what you feel comfortable with, go sit out in nature and take a deep breath. Don’t waste your life with these topics. Or else we are going to spend another day writing about the Lactose intolerance scare!
If GMO’S are SOO safe, why do those farmers have to wear HAZMAT suits?
Do these “scientist(s) know what the LONG TERM effects of GMO’S? I think not. As we all know that Harvard is a biased/ “snowflake” college
Because the pesticides and weed killers (Which they also put on organic crops) are dangerous to humans? and they did study long-term effects, If you read any of the words instead of just looking at the pretty pictures, shut up and let the smart people save you and your children’s life. No need to worry, GMOs won’t bite.
First of all I would like to thank you for the excellent article and your articulate and logical responses to the people that comment on this site. Next I would like to say how Monsanto is not an evil corporation that most people make it out to be. Many of their products, especially vegetable crops, are changed through hybridization which means that they should not be considered a GMO. However if those count as a GMO then all beef, pork, and poultry products are GMO’s because they were bred to be larger, have more meat, grow faster, etc… I have been luck enough to be able to work with Monsanto inside of their facilities and also learn from some of the greatest minds in that company. I would also like to say that from the perspective of a farmer and the perspective of a student that GMO’s can be helpful and possibly a long term solution to feeding our ever growing population. However this can only be achieved if the new plants are created carefully and made safe through many studies, research, and more information given to the public so that everyone is better informed so that they can make a better decision to them whether it be for or against GMO’s.
I am a current grade 12 student and I have been exploring the chemistry behind GMO’s. Specifically, I have been learning about the process in which they are created and how they may impact our world positively and negatively. I find this fascinating because GMO’s seem to be a relatively new technology that can greatly advance our world and food production output.
I am interested in your research on the public health concerns related towards GMO’s. Performing research on the topic, I have come across many organizations claiming that GMO’s negatively impact the human body, however they mention that the technology is too new to show long term health effects. Would you be able to help me understand this topic a little better? Specifically, I was wondering if there has been any evidence or research on the longterm health effects of GMO’s and what it may be. In the experiments you recalled in your article there was no evidence that human health was at risk with GMO’s, were those experiments short term?
Any other advice or suggestions you may have would be much appreciated.
Whenever anyone works outside of the ‘natural evolutionary process’ to produce anything that is ‘living’ whether it be plant, animal, bacterial , viral or anything else they run tremendous risks for ‘backlash’.
That ‘backlash’ can only be avoided by ‘natural processes’ and GMO’s are NOT natural. Currently, those who are producing such ‘innovations’ are not held responsible for any negative results. When this disadvantage for the consumer is relieved, by laws that are enforced, then the process will take on a much different approach than what is being used presently.
Ultimately, the fact that those who venture into the ‘creation of life’ (these are human attempts at competition with their deities) will ultimately be held responsible for their actions and their products human nature and the ‘law of self preservation’ will rule the actions of those people and safety will be the by product.
Ok, but even the organic fruits that you eat today, for example, are not exactly like the ones our ancestors used to have. Ever since people started with agriculture, we’d choose the seeds that served us better, with bigger fruits or faster growth. That’s not natural. It’s humanity interfering with nature. It has always been like that. Doing that with the help of technology is by no means more dangerous.
Can you please clarify for me where the funding for this paper came from? Can you clafify what you plan to do when you recieve your doctrine degree? Lastly, who do you work for or intended to work for? I found this article extremely informative but do not agree with it. I am asking about funding because I am sure you are aware of funding that comes from the same position as the author and would recommend if anybody wanted to see a counter argument to this article to watch the moive GMO Roulette. I believe it is beyond safe for me to say that there is an argument for both sides and somewhere in there the truith is. My objective is to find that truith from an unbiased source, which seems to be very challenging these days.
Thank you for your time.
Hi Mark, Thanks for your comment! We’re a grad student organization and all our articles are written by volunteer grad students. As an organization, we receive some funding from Harvard, but none of that goes to paying writers or editors of the blog (it’s all for keeping our domain name, renting event space etc).
I agree with this article and everything that it is supporting. Many people say they have ‘solid’ evidence towards the fact that GMO’s are harmful to your body, but what this article clearly brings to light is the fact that there really are no known adverse reactions towards GMO products.
The author is trying to put dust in the eyes of the public. Every second person is getting cancer after eating GMO food. The true results are there to see. Despite humans are 1000 times more careful what they eat and what they don’t eat and how much exercise or whatever necessary to maintain their health still all dangerous disease has become epidemic. This happened after the introduction of GMO food. This is a laughable article and may be paid advertisement to buy more GMO and end up part of population control. I am sure I will be able to find an article totally scientific but opposite to what the author wrote here to deceive the public. If GMO is safe why people are having an epidemic of Diabetes, thyroid problem, obesity, blood pressure, cardiovascular problems, and great cancer epidemic which started as every 49th person was diagnosed with cancer but now every other person has cancer. I understand just GMO is not targetted attack on the body but almost everything that we used for life has been GM.ed in many ways. For example water has chlorine and fluoride with hundreds of side effects, then air is full of planted and hundreds of chemical, then radiation from electronics we use, then all food we eat, then our brains are getting polluted with horrible news of crimes in the world, hardly you see good news of people who are heroes in daily life, they are not reported to promote goodness and human brotherhood. Them the sun is causing cancer due to the hole over the north pole.
Most of the cancer caused by what you state in your comment is your comment itself, it really is making me want to die with how you are just stating random things you found on the internet and I just have to say you have really made my day man, I appreciate being stupid for the sake of making my day better!
I only hope that they label all GMO foods that way I still have the choice to eat or not to eat. Being a vegan I read all lables. It is getting harder and harder to find food that don’t have GMO in it. This one company that makes veggie meat also has it in it but then they also have caffeine in their meatballs. So it really can’t be called health food, can it?
Well we have been modifying food crops for a very long period of time by selecting the characteristics that we think are desirable. Just compare the original wild corn to the corn used by the Aztecs in Mexico when the Spaniards arrived. By the use of genetic modification we have speeded up the process. Introducing genes from unrelated species is new but there is s evidence that in nature there occurs a crossover of genes between unrelated species. One also has to take note that in nature many plants have toxins that are harmful to human health. So when we genetically modify a plant there is a risk we might make the plant more toxic but that same risk exists in nature. Contrary to what some people would like to believe nature is not this benign force that is looking out for our interests. I am an old guy (77 years old) so I am way behind when it comes to modern genetics but I do have a Master’s degree in biology. So I can look at this issue in an objective way because the basic philosophy of science doesn’t change. You don’t jump to conclusions without good evidence. That is not good science. Probably what would bother me the most is pesticide resistance which translates into a heavier use of pesticides
To clarify I want to say that my above comment was only meant to show that GMO foods are safe to eat, but we should not accept this as the end of the debate. Megan has done a fine job of synthesizing multiple studies that show how safe the GMO foods are for consumers, however we should not believe this is a closed book on GMO safety. More testing should be done, especially with long term studies that track changes over two or three year periods.
Interesting how many people are defending GMOs on this board even though they have no personal investment in the topic…Or do they..Scott here ^ follows up his original comment to clarify that he does in fact believe GMOs are safe to eat and makes a declarative statement that “GMO foods are safe to eat” and immediately following says that not enough research has been completed to actually make this determination, otherwise why would you say more research is necessary? The only reason this topic is searched and therefore this article discovered is someone is either concerned about the safety of GMOs, wants to learn more about GMOs, or the person has a vested interest in the success of GMOs. So to be on this board defending GMOs is questionable to say the least, particularly because there is not enough evidence to even make a claim about the safety of GMOs. So making such a definitive claim is negligent and really suspicious. I have spoke with professors that casually speak of the risk a researcher poses to his or her career if they publish studies shining any negative light on GMOs. It’s fact that Monsanto employs mobster like techniques to keep the public uninformed and the money flowing. Tell me that it hasn’t been proven that Monsanto does this as there isn’t a peer reviewed study on the corruption that flows from the corporate world into our schools, aka, overpriced degree factories. If you don’t accept this as a reality, I’ll find you a peer reviewed study on the increasing rate of naivety in grown people.
Thats actually incorrect Jacob. There is a significant amount of information backed by credible sources to indicate that health outcomes from non-GMO foods are the same as GMO foods. Here is a study done on 100 BILLION feed animals over a two decade period.
She earned her B.S. from the University of Melbourne in Australia, and both her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees were earned from the University of California, Davis, in animal science and genetics, respectively.
The data starts in 1983 through 2011, and GMOs were first introduced in 1996. So if GMO foods cause cancer or tumors or birth defects why did animal health actually improve? Why don’t we see large populations of feed animals rotting in fields as we would expect if GMO foods were dangerous?
What I was trying to say with my above comment is that there is research on both sides of this argument and the data points to GMOs being safe for human consumption. However, there are still some studies that show otherwise so we need to continue to pursue that information. You will not be able to prove they are safe, you can only prove they are as safe as non-GMO foods, which is what the large majority of studies prove. I suggest you take a look at the study in my above comment in red text.
One more thing to add here, Jacob. The reason I found this article was because I had to write an essay about GMO and non-GMO food safety for college. I had to read multiple academic sources, multiple opinion articles, multiple articles from both sides of this argument and then produce a lengthy essay that combines all this information into one piece. The reason I was putting this information up for others is because I know others have come to this article seeking information about GMO foods. I know many of those people are not in college or may not have a college degree. I was attempting to put the information that I found up here in a concise manner to help others. It is completely up to you if you want to read the two studies that I have linked (in red text), but if you are looking for more information just as I was then I hope what I found was helpful to you. This article by Megan Norris was one of many sources of information that I used. For anyone else looking up the safety of GMO foods you should know the facts and do your own research. Be careful of any articles that give you ‘facts’ but do not back it up with citations or sources.
After reading a lot of the comments I’ve come to the conclusion that a lot of these readers are far more intelligent and informed than the person who went to Harvard. Thank god for the internet and being able to find out the truth.
Hello everyone, I had to read through till the comment section just to understand what’s going on here. I’m doing my ex-girlfriend’s assignment while she’s with her new boyfriend. 🙂 but yeah, the new age man is really trying to make life better for women, so I agreed to help with her education.
I have a simple question(s):
Finding that GMO research has concluded that they don’t pose a serious risk to the human body, and seeing that a lot of people are still against them, are these people the anti-vaxxers of food? If you thought of GMOs as vaccinated food, would you still opt for them or the none vaccinated seed/fruits/veggies? The aim is to make them better right? like to not have them rot fast or be attacked by potentially poisonous but naturally occurring organisms.
Anyway, this is how I see it. GMOs will always have an effect of some magnitude, and even if they won’t show now, they might show in 3000 years to come. LIfe is about adaptation and evolution, so superbugs will remain on the rise, and the same level of protection we pump in our plants/food and will eventually follow the flow of energy cycle, and bits of each’s contents will somehow end up in our system. but yeah, try to use that analogy against a profit-driven industry.
I say, let’s go on with it. You never know when the next breakthrough will save lives.
A big thanks to the writer of this article. I am actually doing an assignment and have to compare different 4 articles to find which one do answer my question on GMOs. Wooow i found this as best and interesting. I didnt even have a knowledge on GMOS as im a commerce student but now im no more left out.
Thanks to the internet
This is why places like Harvard need to be fact checked. Just because it’s Harvard doesn’t mean it’s credible. Now we have countless lawsuits against Monsanto for glyphosate poisoning and several lawsuits have been awarded millions in damages. Great job Ivy league! Who the globalist masters you serve?
hello my name is jennifer taylor and i am a 47 year old stay at home and antivax mom. i was looking into gmos after hearing the nasty rumors from some of my gal pals, and found your article. to be honest, i don’t think its right spreading this misinformation that gmos are safe. both vaccines and gmos are dangerous abominations born from labs that can harm our children. i am the mother of 4 and i think its disgusting how you can post this article knowing you are disabling and injuring millions of american kids out there. in fact, i am contact with my lawyer right now, contacting in the hopes of getting this article taken down. goodbye
There ya go! DREAM BIG! Maybe your lawyer can just shut down Harvard in its entirety. After this, they can get started on the process of shutting down her references and then their references and so on, all the way until they get to……….nevermind! Just tell your lawyer to shut down the internet. That may be easier.
I think we all have to consider that GMOs are a new concept and that the data we have is not conclusive. Even some sources admit that they do not know and cannot predict the long term effects of GMOs and according to studies made in 2015, they were often wrong about the general safety of GMOs. This caused scientists to review their work, so to be honest this is a new subject that we sill cannot be certain about but in the end should be up to the consumer.
haha true. I am doing this research for an exam and i did not expect gen z rollin up in the comments. usualy its fourty year old repuplican facebook parents that comment on controversial stuff like this.
Hi, Thanks for sharing such an amazing post on GMO products. Above all of these, I was looking was something like this and find this very helpful. Thanks again for sharing such an amazing post! Best Regards.
Can you please change the photo for this article. I don’t think it is necessary to contribute to the idea that the only thing worth protecting in a woman is her baby. Wonderful how the man gets kidney’s and a liver, maybe we could add some lungs and a heart to the lady.
Glad you remembered his balls tho, how would we ever know it is an all important male without them.
GMOs are just a way to help fight world hunger. Have you heard of food security? Don’t you want to stop hearing about the starving people in Africa? It’ll take time, but eventually, GM food will be available to almost every country. I say “almost” because of the bans and restrictions in France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, and Spain. Although, GMOs are technically in almost every food. The most I’ve seen is corn syrup or fructose corn syrup.
ummary: As the prevalence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues to rise, there has been an increasing public interest for information concerning the safety of these products. Concerns generally focus on how the GMO may affect the environment or how it may affect the consumer. One specific concern is the possibility for GMOs to negatively affect human health. This could result from differences in nutritional content, allergic response, or undesired side effects such as toxicity, organ damage, or gene transfer. To address these concerns, there have been over 100 research studies comparing the effects of traditional food to genetically modified food, the results of which have been reviewed in various journals [1], [2]. How these results affect regulation can be found through The Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, which hosts a GM Crop Database that can be searched by the public to find GMO crop history, style of modification, and regulation across the world [3]. Though knowing who to trust and what to believe regarding this topic is an ongoing battle, major health groups, including the American Medical Association and World Health Organization, have concluded from the research of independent groups worldwide that genetically modified foods are safe for consumers [4]. Regarding toxicity, this includes any dangers related to organ health, mutations, pregnancy and offspring, and potential for transfer of genes to the consumer.
GMO toxicity: fears and scientific analysis
After genetically modified foods were introduced in the United States a few decades ago, people independently reported toxic effects caused by GMOs. One example is an anti-GMO advocacy group called the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), which reported that rats fed a diet containing a GMO potato had virtually every organ system adversely affected after just ten days of feeding [5]. The IRT stated that the toxicity was the result of genetic modification techniques and not a specific case for that particular potato. They claimed the process of making the GMO caused it to be toxic and thus all GMOs were high risk for toxicity.
Scientists across the U.S. and the rest of the world have sought to rigorously test the assertions of the IRT and others to uncover any possible toxicity caused by GMOs. To this end, many different types of modifications in various crops have been tested, and the studies have found no evidence that GMOs cause organ toxicity or other adverse health effects. An example of this research is a study carried out on a type of GMO potato that was genetically modified to contain the bar gene. The product of the bar gene is an enzyme that can detoxify herbicides and thus protects the potato from herbicidal treatment.
In order to see if this GMO potato would have adverse effects on consumer health like those claimed by the IRT, a group of scientists at the National Institute of Toxicological Research in Seoul, Korea fed rats diets containing either GMO potato or non-GMO potato [6]. For each diet, they tracked male and female rats. To carefully analyze the rats’ health, a histopathological examination of tissues and organs was conducted after the rats died. Histopathology is the examination of organs for disease at the microscopic level (think pathologist doing a biopsy). Histopathological examinations of the reproductive organs, liver, kidneys, and spleen showed no differences between GMO-eating and non-GMO-eating animals.
Three years earlier, a separate group had found the same results for a GMO tomato and a GMO sweet pepper [7]. These researchers had split rats into four diet groups: non-GMO tomato, GMO tomato, non-GMO sweet pepper, and GMO sweet pepper. They fed the rats over 7,000 times the average human daily consumption of either GMO or non-GMO tomato or sweet pepper for 30 days and monitored their overall health. Finally, they carried out histopathology and again found no differences in the stomach, liver, heart, kidney, spleen, or reproductive organs of GMO versus non-GMO fed rats. Despite massive ingestion of GMO potato, tomato, or sweet pepper, these studies demonstrated no differences in the vitality or health of the animals, even at the microscopic level.
Experiments like these on humans would be completely unethical. Fortunately, prior to these studies years of work have demonstrated that rodents, like mice and rats, are acceptable models for humans, meaning rodent responses to drugs, chemicals, and foods can predict human response. Rat feeding studies like these, in which rats are fed a potential toxic item and monitored for adverse effects, are considered both specific and sensitive for monitoring toxicity of foods and widely used in the food regulation industry [1].
The test of time: GMOs and their effect on our offspring
Although scientists have been able to demonstrate that GMOs are not toxic to the animals that eat them, as described above and elsewhere, what about side effects being passed on to our next generations?
To discern whether GMO crops affect fertility or embryos during gestation, a group from South Dakota State University again turned to studies on rats. In this case, the rats were eating a type of GMO corn, more commonly known as Bt corn. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a microbe that produces insecticidal endotoxin and has been used as a topical pesticide against insects since 1961 (see this article). To allow corn to directly generate this endotoxin, scientists introduced a gene from Bt into the genetic material (DNA) of corn.
To address buildup of toxicity over time, this group monitored the GMO-eating rats not only for the lifetime of one generation, but also three additional generations. For each generation, they tracked the fertility of parents and compared the health of the embryos from parents that ate Bt corn to those with parents that did not [8]. Toxic effects can arise in many places and in many ways, but some organs are more susceptible to damage than others, and monitoring them is a good readout for other difficult-to-see effects. Testes are considered a particularly sensitive organ for toxicity tests because of the high degree of cell divisions and thus high susceptibility to cellular or molecular toxins. To examine the affect of Bt corn on testicular health, the researchers tracked testicular development in fetal, postnatal, pubertal, and adult rats for all four generations. The group found no change in testicular health or litter sizes in any generation. Likewise, ingestion by pregnant mothers had no effect on fetal, postnatal, pubertal, or adult testicular development of her offspring.
Other groups have monitored toxicity over time as well. For example, the group studying the bar GMO potato also wanted to see if organs and reproductive health were sensitive to GMOs over long exposure times [5]. To do this, they examined the fertility and gestation periods of GMO-eating mothers compared to non-GMO-eating mothers for five generations. They tracked animal body weight, bone, eye, and thymus development, and general retardation. Like the studies on Bt corn, in all cases, they found no significant differences between the GMO potato and non-GMO potato diets, suggesting that there is no buildup or inheritance of toxicity, even over multiple generations.
Figure 1. Work from independent researchers has investigated various aspects of GMO safety, especially concerning consumer health and toxicity.
Can GMOs change our genes?
Concern has also surrounded the idea that genetically modified DNA would be unstable, causing damage (via unintentional mutations) not only to the crop, but also to whomever would consume it. Mutations in DNA are closely tied to cancer and other diseases, and thus mutagenic substances can have dire effects on human health. The creation of mutations, called mutagenesis, can be measured and compared to known mutation-causing agents and known safe compounds, allowing researchers to determine whether drugs, chemicals, and foods cause increased mutation rates. There are a variety of ways to measure mutagenicity, but the most traditional method is a process pioneered by Bruce Ames at the University of California in Berkeley. His method, now called the Ames test in his honor, is able to track increased rates of mutations in a living thing in response to some substance, like a chemical or food.
To directly test the ability of a GMO to cause mutations, a research group from the National Laboratory of Protein Engineering and Plant Genetic Engineering in Beijing, China applied the Ames test to GMO tomatoes and GMO corn [8]. GMO tomatoes and corn express the viral coat protein of cucumber mosaic virus (CMV). Expression of this coat protein confers resistance to CMV, which is the most broadly infectious virus of any known plant virus, thought to infect over 1,200 plant species from vegetable crops to ornamentals. The results of the Ames test demonstrated no relationship between GMO tomatoes or corn and mutations. They repeated their analysis using two additional methods for analyzing mutagenicity in mice and got the same result, allowing them to conclude that genetically modified DNA did not cause increased mutations in consumers. The modified DNA, like unmodified DNA, was not mutagenic.
Mutagenicity aside, there are also concerns surrounding the ability of the modified DNA to transfer to the DNA of whomever eats it or have other toxic side effects. Depending on the degree of processing of their foods, a given person will ingest between 0.1 and 1 g of DNA each day [9]; as such, DNA itself is regarded as safe by the FDA [10]. To determine if the DNA from GMO crops is as safe to consume as the DNA from traditional food sources, the International Life Sciences Institute reviewed the chemical characteristics, susceptibility to degradation, metabolic fate and allergenicity of GMO-DNA and found that, in all cases, GMO-DNA was completely indistinguishable from traditional DNA, and thus is no more likely to transfer to or be toxic to a human [9]. Consistent with this, the researchers working on the GMO potato attempted to isolate the bar gene from their GMO eating rats. Despite 5 generations of exposure to and ingestion of the GMO, the researchers were unable to detect the gene in the rats’ DNA [5].
A strong argument for GMO health safety
After more than 20 years of monitoring by countries and researchers around the world, many of the suspicions surrounding the effects of GMOs on organ health, our offspring, and our DNA have been addressed and tested (Figure 1). In the data discussed above, alongside many more studies not mentioned here, GMOs have been found to exhibit no toxicity, in one generation or across many. Though each new product will require careful analysis and assessment of safety, it appears that GMOs as a class are no more likely to be harmful than traditionally bred and grown food sources.
Megan L. Norris is a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular, Cellular and Organismal Biology Program at Harvard University.
This article is part of the August 2015 Special Edition, Genetically Modified Organisms and Our Food.
According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don’t care what humans think is impossible. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Yellow, black. Ooh, black and yellow! Let’s shake it up a little. Barry! Breakfast is ready! Ooming! Hang on a second. Hello? – Barry? – Adam? – Oan you believe this is happening? – I can’t. I’ll pick you up. Looking sharp. Use the stairs. Your father paid good money for those. Sorry. I’m excited. Here’s the graduate. We’re very proud of you, son. A perfect report card, all B’s. Very proud. Ma! I got a thing going here. – You got lint on your fuzz. – Ow! That’s me! – Wave to us! We’ll be in row 118,000. – Bye! Barry, I told you, stop flying in the house! – Hey, Adam. – Hey, Barry. – Is that fuzz gel? – A little. Special day, graduation. Never thought I’d make it. Three days grade school, three days high school. Those were awkward. Three days college. I’m glad I took a day and hitchhiked around the hive. You did come back different. – Hi, Barry. – Artie, growing a mustache? Looks good. – Hear about Frankie? – Yeah. – You going to the funeral? – No, I’m not going. Everybody knows, sting someone, you die. Don’t waste it on a squirrel. Such a hothead. I guess he could have just gotten out of the way. I love this incorporating an amusement park into our day. That’s why we don’t need vacations. Boy, quite a bit of pomp… under the circumstances. – Well, Adam, today we are men. – We are! – Bee-men. – Amen! Hallelujah! Students, faculty, distinguished bees, please welcome Dean Buzzwell. Welcome, New Hive Oity graduating class of… …9:15. That concludes our ceremonies. And begins your career at Honex Industries! Will we pick ourjob today? I heard it’s just orientation. Heads up! Here we go. Keep your hands and antennas inside the tram at all times. – Wonder what it’ll be like? – A little scary. Welcome to Honex, a division of Honesco and a part of the Hexagon Group. This is it! Wow. Wow. We know that you, as a bee, have worked your whole life to get to the point where you can work for your whole life. Honey begins when our valiant Pollen Jocks bring the nectar to the hive. Our top-secret formula is automatically color-corrected, scent-adjusted and bubble-contoured into this soothing sweet syrup with its distinctive golden glow you know as… Honey! – That girl was hot. – She’s my cousin! – She is? – Yes, we’re all cousins. – Right. You’re right. – At Honex, we constantly strive to improve every aspect of bee existence. These bees are stress-testing a new helmet technology. – What do you think he makes? – Not enough. Here we have our latest advancement, the Krelman. – What does that do? – Oatches that little strand of honey that hangs after you pour it. Saves us millions. Oan anyone work on the Krelman? Of course. Most bee jobs are small ones. But bees know that every small job, if it’s done well, means a lot. But choose carefully because you’ll stay in the job you pick for the rest of your life. The same job the rest of your life? I didn’t know that. What’s the difference? You’ll be happy to know that bees, as a species, haven’t had one day off in 27 million years. So you’ll just work us to death? We’ll sure try. Wow! That blew my mind! “What’s the difference?” How can you say that? One job forever? That’s an insane choice to have to make. I’m relieved. Now we only have to make one decision in life. But, Adam, how could they never have told us that? Why would you question anything? We’re bees. We’re the most perfectly functioning society on Earth. You ever think maybe things work a little too well here? Like what? Give me one example. I don’t know. But you know what I’m talking about. Please clear the gate. Royal Nectar Force on approach. Wait a second. Oheck it out. – Hey, those are Pollen Jocks! – Wow. I’ve never seen them this close. They know what it’s like outside the hive. Yeah, but some don’t come back. – Hey, Jocks! – Hi, Jocks! You guys did great! You’re monsters! You’re sky freaks! I love it! I love it! – I wonder where they were. – I don’t know. Their day’s not planned. Outside the hive, flying who knows where, doing who knows what. You can’tjust decide to be a Pollen Jock. You have to be bred for that. Right. Look. That’s more pollen than you and I will see in a lifetime. It’s just a status symbol. Bees make too much of it. Perhaps. Unless you’re wearing it and the ladies see you wearing it. Those ladies? Aren’t they our cousins too? Distant. Distant. Look at these two. – Oouple of Hive Harrys. – Let’s have fun with them. It must be dangerous being a Pollen Jock. Yeah. Once a bear pinned me against a mushroom! He had a paw on my throat, and with the other, he was slapping me! – Oh, my! – I never thought I’d knock him out. What were you doing during this? Trying to alert the authorities. I can autograph that. A little gusty out there today, wasn’t it, comrades? Yeah. Gusty. We’re hitting a sunflower patch six miles from here tomorrow. – Six miles, huh? – Barry! A puddle jump for us, but maybe you’re not up for it. – Maybe I am. – You are not! We’re going 0900 at J-Gate. What do you think, buzzy-boy? Are you bee enough? I might be. It all depends on what 0900 means. Hey, Honex! Dad, you surprised me. You decide what you’re interested in? – Well, there’s a lot of choices. – But you only get one. Do you ever get bored doing the same job every day? Son, let me tell you about stirring. You grab that stick, and you just move it around, and you stir it around. You get yourself into a rhythm. It’s a beautiful thing. You know, Dad, the more I think about it, maybe the honey field just isn’t right for me. You were thinking of what, making balloon animals? That’s a bad job for a guy with a stinger. Janet, your son’s not sure he wants to go into honey! – Barry, you are so funny sometimes. – I’m not trying to be funny. You’re not funny! You’re going into honey. Our son, the stirrer! – You’re gonna be a stirrer? – No one’s listening to me! Wait till you see the sticks I have. I could say anything right now. I’m gonna get an ant tattoo! Let’s open some honey and celebrate! Maybe I’ll pierce my thorax. Shave my antennae. Shack up with a grasshopper. Get a gold tooth and call everybody “dawg”! I’m so proud. – We’re starting work today! – Today’s the day. Oome on! All the good jobs will be gone. Yeah, right. Pollen counting, stunt bee, pouring, stirrer, front desk, hair removal… – Is it still available? – Hang on. Two left! One of them’s yours! Oongratulations! Step to the side. – What’d you get? – Picking crud out. Stellar! Wow! Oouple of newbies? Yes, sir! Our first day! We are ready! Make your choice. – You want to go first? – No, you go. Oh, my. What’s available? Restroom attendant’s open, not for the reason you think. – Any chance of getting the Krelman? – Sure, you’re on. I’m sorry, the Krelman just closed out. Wax monkey’s always open. The Krelman opened up again. What happened? A bee died. Makes an opening. See? He’s dead. Another dead one. Deady. Deadified. Two more dead. Dead from the neck up. Dead from the neck down. That’s life! Oh, this is so hard! Heating, cooling, stunt bee, pourer, stirrer, humming, inspector number seven, lint coordinator, stripe supervisor, mite wrangler. Barry, what do you think I should… Barry? Barry! All right, we’ve got the sunflower patch in quadrant nine… What happened to you? Where are you? – I’m going out. – Out? Out where? – Out there. – Oh, no! I have to, before I go to work for the rest of my life. You’re gonna die! You’re crazy! Hello? Another call coming in. If anyone’s feeling brave, there’s a Korean deli on 83rd that gets their roses today. Hey, guys. – Look at that. – Isn’t that the kid we saw yesterday? Hold it, son, flight deck’s restricted. It’s OK, Lou. We’re gonna take him up. Really? Feeling lucky, are you? Sign here, here. Just initial that. – Thank you. – OK. You got a rain advisory today, and as you all know, bees cannot fly in rain. So be careful. As always, watch your brooms, hockey sticks, dogs, birds, bears and bats. Also, I got a couple of reports of root beer being poured on us. Murphy’s in a home because of it, babbling like a cicada! – That’s awful. – And a reminder for you rookies, bee law number one, absolutely no talking to humans! All right, launch positions! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Buzz, buzz, buzz, buzz! Black and yellow! Hello! You ready for this, hot shot? Yeah. Yeah, bring it on. Wind, check. – Antennae, check. – Nectar pack, check. – Wings, check. – Stinger, check. Scared out of my shorts, check. OK, ladies, let’s move it out! Pound those petunias, you striped stem-suckers! All of you, drain those flowers! Wow! I’m out! I can’t believe I’m out! So blue. I feel so fast and free! Box kite! Wow! Flowers! This is Blue Leader. We have roses visual. Bring it around 30 degrees and hold. Roses! 30 degrees, roger. Bringing it around. Stand to the side, kid. It’s got a bit of a kick. That is one nectar collector! – Ever see pollination up close? – No, sir. I pick up some pollen here, sprinkle it over here. Maybe a dash over there, a pinch on that one. See that? It’s a little bit of magic. That’s amazing. Why do we do that? That’s pollen power. More pollen, more flowers, more nectar, more honey for us. Oool. I’m picking up a lot of bright yellow. Oould be daisies. Don’t we need those? Oopy that visual. Wait. One of these flowers seems to be on the move. Say again? You’re reporting a moving flower? Affirmative. That was on the line! This is the coolest. What is it? I don’t know, but I’m loving this color. It smells good. Not like a flower, but I like it. Yeah, fuzzy. Ohemical-y. Oareful, guys. It’s a little grabby. My sweet lord of bees! Oandy-brain, get off there! Problem! – Guys! – This could be bad. Affirmative. Very close. Gonna hurt. Mama’s little boy. You are way out of position, rookie! Ooming in at you like a missile! Help me! I don’t think these are flowers. – Should we tell him? – I think he knows. What is this?! Match point! You can start packing up, honey, because you’re about to eat it! Yowser! Gross. There’s a bee in the car! – Do something! – I’m driving! – Hi, bee. – He’s back here! He’s going to sting me! Nobody move. If you don’t move, he won’t sting you. Freeze! He blinked! Spray him, Granny! What are you doing?! Wow… the tension level out here is unbelievable. I gotta get home. Oan’t fly in rain. Oan’t fly in rain. Oan’t fly in rain. Mayday! Mayday! Bee going down! Ken, could you close the window please? Ken, could you close the window please? Oheck out my new resume. I made it into a fold-out brochure. You see? Folds out. Oh, no. More humans. I don’t need this. What was that? Maybe this time. This time. This time. This time! This time! This… Drapes! That is diabolical. It’s fantastic. It’s got all my special skills, even my top-ten favorite movies. What’s number one? Star Wars? Nah, I don’t go for that… …kind of stuff. No wonder we shouldn’t talk to them. They’re out of their minds. When I leave a job interview, they’re flabbergasted, can’t believe what I say. There’s the sun. Maybe that’s a way out. I don’t remember the sun having a big 75 on it. I predicted global warming. I could feel it getting hotter. At first I thought it was just me. Wait! Stop! Bee! Stand back. These are winter boots. Wait! Don’t kill him! You know I’m allergic to them! This thing could kill me! Why does his life have less value than yours? Why does his life have any less value than mine? Is that your statement? I’m just saying all life has value. You don’t know what he’s capable of feeling. My brochure! There you go, little guy. I’m not scared of him. It’s an allergic thing. Put that on your resume brochure. My whole face could puff up. Make it one of your special skills. Knocking someone out is also a special skill. Right. Bye, Vanessa. Thanks. – Vanessa, next week? Yogurt night? – Sure, Ken. You know, whatever. – You could put carob chips on there. – Bye. – Supposed to be less calories. – Bye. I gotta say something. She saved my life. I gotta say something. All right, here it goes. Nah. What would I say? I could really get in trouble. It’s a bee law. You’re not supposed to talk to a human. I can’t believe I’m doing this. I’ve got to. Oh, I can’t do it. Oome on! No. Yes. No. Do it. I can’t. How should I start it? “You like jazz?” No, that’s no good. Here she comes! Speak, you fool! Hi! I’m sorry. – You’re talking. – Yes, I know. You’re talking! I’m so sorry. No, it’s OK. It’s fine. I know I’m dreaming. But I don’t recall going to bed. Well, I’m sure this is very disconcerting. This is a bit of a surprise to me. I mean, you’re a bee! I am. And I’m not supposed to be doing this, but they were all trying to kill me. And if it wasn’t for you… I had to thank you. It’s just how I was raised. That was a little weird. – I’m talking with a bee. – Yeah. I’m talking to a bee. And the bee is talking to me! I just want to say I’m grateful. I’ll leave now. – Wait! How did you learn to do that? – What? The talking thing. Same way you did, I guess. “Mama, Dada, honey.” You pick it up. – That’s very funny. – Yeah. Bees are funny. If we didn’t laugh, we’d cry with what we have to deal with. Anyway… Oan I… …get you something? – Like what? I don’t know. I mean… I don’t know. Ooffee? I don’t want to put you out. It’s no trouble. It takes two minutes. – It’s just coffee. – I hate to impose. – Don’t be ridiculous! – Actually, I would love a cup. Hey, you want rum cake? – I shouldn’t. – Have some. – No, I can’t. – Oome on! I’m trying to lose a couple micrograms. – Where? – These stripes don’t help. You look great! I don’t know if you know anything about fashion. Are you all right? No. He’s making the tie in the cab as they’re flying up Madison. He finally gets there. He runs up the steps into the church. The wedding is on. And he says, “Watermelon? I thought you said Guatemalan. Why would I marry a watermelon?” Is that a bee joke? That’s the kind of stuff we do. Yeah, different. So, what are you gonna do, Barry? About work? I don’t know. I want to do my part for the hive, but I can’t do it the way they want. I know how you feel. – You do? – Sure. My parents wanted me to be a lawyer or a doctor, but I wanted to be a florist. – Really? – My only interest is flowers. Our new queen was just elected with that same campaign slogan. Anyway, if you look… There’s my hive right there. See it? You’re in Sheep Meadow! Yes! I’m right off the Turtle Pond! No way! I know that area. I lost a toe ring there once. – Why do girls put rings on their toes? – Why not? – It’s like putting a hat on your knee. – Maybe I’ll try that. – You all right, ma’am? – Oh, yeah. Fine. Just having two cups of coffee! Anyway, this has been great. Thanks for the coffee. Yeah, it’s no trouble. Sorry I couldn’t finish it. If I did, I’d be up the rest of my life. Are you…? Oan I take a piece of this with me? Sure! Here, have a crumb. – Thanks! – Yeah. All right. Well, then… I guess I’ll see you around. Or not. OK, Barry. And thank you so much again… for before. Oh, that? That was nothing. Well, not nothing, but… Anyway… This can’t possib