GMOs: The Walking Dead of the Food Industry

Image compliments of Guide to Nursing Degrees

George Soros and the GMO Cannabis Revolution

From 21stCenturyWire.com:

MAY 7, 2014 BY 21WIRE 4 COMMENTS

21st Century Wire says…

Is there a globalist agenda behind the legalisation of pot?

George Soros and his Open Society Institute has pushed hard, dumping substantial sums of money into a public campaign to legalise marijuana in Uruguay. Why? TheWashington Times confirmed the extent of their public relations investment into this issue:

“Through a network of nonprofit groups, Mr. Soros has spent at least $80 million on the legalization effort since 1994, when he diverted a portion of his foundation’s funds to organizations exploring alternative drug policies, according to tax filings”.

In 2013, the Marijuana Policy Project listed its “Top 50 Most Influential Marijuana Users”, which they claim is “meant to identify people who have used marijuana and achieved high levels of success or influence”. George Soros is ranked 9th, alongside Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher (one can only guess which other ‘users’ lists this crowd also falls under). Not to mention, it’s always comforting to know that your President might be stoned at the wheel of the nation (by contrast, the golf doesn’t seem so bad).

In the US, the much-celebrated Colorado story has dominated pot news, and there are a number of other states set to follow.

“It’s only a matter of time before marijuana is legalized under federal law,” Tom Angell, founder and chairman of the Marijuana Majority advocacy group, told the Times. “We now have 20 states plus the District of Columbia considering legalization efforts, two states have already legalized it for all adults over the age of 21 — politicians will have to follow the will of the people on this.”

Aside from the Soros agenda for a One World Government, financing the Occupy Movement and of overthrowing governments, destablising nations and fomenting civil wars around the globe through carefully planned ‘color revolutions’, how does the Open Society Institute’s push for legalisation of drugs fit into all of this?

Critics are wondering if it could have something to do with influencing the governments in those countries where the legalisation efforts are most intense. Is this connected to the UN’s Agenda 21? Or is this paving the way for gene giants in big pharma to replace natural strands of cannabis with their own patented GMO variety? Definitely the latter…

They say 

The Uruguayan government hopes legalising the sale of marijuana will tackle drug cartels – See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/34833/Monsanto-Marijuana-Initiative-Grows-in-Uruguay/#sthash.UN1i0nra.dpuf

The Uruguayan government hopes legalising the sale of marijuana will tackle drug cartels – See more at: http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/34833/Monsanto-Marijuana-Initiative-Grows-in-Uruguay/#sthash.UN1i0nra.dpuf

the Uruguayan government hopes legalising the sale of marijuana “will tackle drug cartels”, but what they’re not telling you is that they are paving the way for a bigger drug cartel to take over. Soros is reportedly also a big Monsanto shareholder, and guess who is test planting their GMO version of cannabis later this year in Uruguay? Yes, it’s Monsanto.

BTW – Monsanto’s best lobbyist right now is Barack Obama himself (it’s not about cool, or pot – it’s about eugenics).

New Study: FDA-Approved Levels of Aspartame Distort Brain Function, Kill Brain Cells

From NutritionalAnarchy:

 Melissa Melton

 Features, Learn

 May 3rd, 2014

As reported before, aspartame has been shown time and again in studies (the ones not commissioned by the industry) to be bad for you.

Now yet another new study, this one published in the journal Redox Biology, has concluded what lots of other research over the past decades has repeatedly shown — aspartame, the popular sweetener in over 6,000 grocery store items, including everything from soup mixes to carbonated beverages to chewing gum — can essentially program your brain cells to kill themselves.

Key study findings include:

• Aspartame administration alters the functional activity in the brain by elevating the antioxidant levels.
• Chronic aspartame consumption altered the neuronal function and neurodegeneration in brain.
• Observed changes may be due to the methanol or its metabolite.
• Long-term FDA approved daily acceptable intake (40 mg/kg bwt) aspartame administration distorted the brain function and generated apoptosis in brain regions.

Apoptosis is defined as, “the process of programmed cell death in multicellular organisms. Biochemical events lead to characteristic cell changes and death.”

So even at the FDA acceptable levels, consuming this chemical is just not good for you, no matter what the mega food corporations and their lobbies say.

Aspartame (otherwise known by its brand names NutraSweet and Equal) is one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners in foods today. It breaks down into three components: 50 percent phenylalanine, 40 percent aspartic acid, and 10 percent methanol (yummy). It comes from genetically modified (GM) E. coli bacteria, and by “comes from”, I mean aspartame is GM bacteria poop (super yummy). Aspartic acid is an excitotoxin, methanol is the wood alcohol used in antifreeze, and too much of the amino acid phenylalanine in the brain can decrease serotonin levels over time, leading to chemical imbalances that can actually induce mood disorders and depression.

Dr. Mercola has noted that aspartame actually accounts for over 75 percent of adverse food additive reactions reported to the FDA, including:

“Headaches/migraines, dizziness, seizures, nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain, rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability, tachycardia, insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinnitus, vertigo, memory loss, and joint pain.”

In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even lists aspartame as a “chemical with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity” on its database of developmental neurotoxicants.

It’s the methanol released during aspartame’s metabolism, in this particular case, which these researchers say is helping to generate free radicals that lead to cell damage and death:

This study provides a scientific evidence to conclude that aspartame is toxic to the body system and particularly in brain it increase the free radicals and triggers the apoptosis. Aspartame consumption in a long-term basis may affect the brain. It may be due to its metabolite methanol Aspartame may act as a chemical stressor as indicated by the corticosteroid level. (source)

But I guess we should just keep on consuming it, right?

When I typed “FDA Aspartame” into Google’s search engine to get the FDA’s official take on how safe and wonderful this chemical is for everyone to eat all the time, ironically, the first thing that popped up was a file on the FDA.gov website about aspartame’s toxicity that lists off at least 50 horrible side effects people have experienced from eating and drinking this stuff.

The document, Docket # 02P-0317 Recall Aspartame as a Neurotoxic Drug: File#4: Reported Aspartame Toxicity Reactions by Mark Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Information Center, also notes that the FDA admittedly stopped recording aspartame toxicity reactions back in 1995, so its figures on exactly who is being negatively affected by aspartame and how aren’t just sketchy, they’re apparently nonexistent:

 The FDA and NutraSweet have claimed that the number of reported adverse reactions have declined substantially since the mid-1980s (Pauli 1995, Butchko 1994). In addition, the FDA recently claimed that the number of reported toxicity reactions for 1995 was only 11 (WSJ 1996)! It is important to realize that during the mid-1970s the FDA was investigating wrong-doings of the aspartame manufacturer and stated the facts exactly as they found them:

 ”[The manufacturer] lied and they didn’t submit the real nature of their observations because had they done that it is more than likely that a great number of these studies would have been rejected simply for adequacy. What Searle did, they took great pains to camouflage these shortcomings of the study. As I say filter and just present to the FDA what they wished the FDA to know and they did other terrible things for instance animals would develop tumors while they were under study. Well they would remove these tumors from the animals.” [FDA Toxicologist and Task Force member, Dr. Andrian Gross (Wilson 1985)]

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, a number of key government and FDA officials left their jobs to work with companies related to the aspartame industry (GAO 1986). This included key FDA officials such as the head of the FDA Bureau of Foods becoming a Vice President of the National Drink Association and the FDA Commissioner becoming a high-paid consultant for the manufacturer’s PR firm, Burston Marsteller (Gordon 1987). After this period of time, there was no scientific evidence and no amount of serious toxicity reports that could get the FDA to seriously consider funding independent, properly-conducted (e.g., chronic exposure) research. That appearance of the FDA being under the total control of the manufacturer, Monsanto, continues to this day.

I include these comments about the FDA to demonstrate why no independent scientist familiar with the aspartame issue takes statements from the FDA such as “11 reported reactions in 1995″ seriously.  There are many people, including myself who have received that many toxicity reaction reports in a single day during 1995. The reality is that independent organizations have noted that aspartame toxicity reaction reports given to them have *increased* every year since the late 1980s (Stoddard 1995).  It is also important to note that in mid-1995, the FDA admited that it had stopped recording aspartame toxicity reactions (Food 1995).  That may have something to do with why the numbers that the FDA reported to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ 1996) were so small! (source)

Why does aspartame continue to be approved and allowed in food after food after drink after gum after food?

That might be a good question for our current FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods, Michael Taylor, who used to be Vice President of Public Policy and a lawyer for Monsanto. He might have some special insight, considering thatMonsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, back in 1985.

Effective Immediately: France Bans All GMO Cultivation

From Activist Post:

"I do not want"

Heather Callaghan
Activist Post

The French National Assembly has made a sweeping declaration with a new bill, effective immediately. No more genetically modified crops.

On Tuesday, the French lower house of parliament adopted a law immediately banning cultivation of any GMO corn, due to environmental safety concerns.

Recently, they also made a halt decree to prohibit plantingthe only GM crop allowed in the EU - Monsanto's MON810 corn, with built-in insect resistance.

Jean-Marie Le Guen, the minister in charge of relations with parliament, said:

It is essential today to renew a widely shared desire to maintain the French ban. This bill strengthens the decree passed last March by preventing the immediate cultivation of GMO and extending their reach to all transgenic maize varieties.

Farmers and seed companies are challenging the rule, as they have blocked similar decrees before, viewing safety concerns insufficient. But Le Guen bound the rule so that member state decisions could not be litigated against.

The ban heads back to the Senate for final approval - if rejected, the French National Assembly gets to cast the final ruling. Future strains will be banned even if the EU states approve more.

Of course big biotech companies are not satisfied to let bans rest. If companies like Monsanto have any say, they'll be back. The EU actually wants to give them that final say.

Additionally, DuPont and Dow Chemical are poised to crash the EU again, if allowed. They already jointly developed Pioneer 1507 GM corn and most of the member states did not gather enough votes to block it.

It appears these companies have money, power and persistence on their side to keep pushing despite wide-spread consumer and safety concerns.

Sources:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/15/us-france-gmo-idUSBREA3E1NY20140415
http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/16/french-parliament-bans-gmo-corn/

Heather Callaghan is a natural health blogger and food freedom activist. You can see her work at NaturalBlaze.com and ActivistPost.com. Like at Facebook. 

UK: Ministers 'covering up secret meetings with GM food lobby'

From Daily Mail:

• Ministers are trying to cover up secret briefings with GM companies
• Owen Paterson has refused FOI request to supply details about talks
• Has encouraged public to accept GM crops being sold in supermarkets
• Has also been lobbying EU to let Britain grow crops banned elsewhere
• He is working in partnership with Agricultural Biotechnology Council 

By SEAN POULTER, CONSUMER AFFAIRS EDITOR

PUBLISHED: 17:38 EST, 15 April 2014 | UPDATED: 02:42 EST, 16 April 2014

+3

Refusal: Owen Paterson has refused a Freedom of Information Act request to supply details about talks with the GM industry trade body

Ministers are trying to cover up secret briefings with GM companies hoping to push ‘Frankenfood’ on to dinner tables.

Owen Paterson has refused a Freedom of Information Act request to supply details about talks with the GM industry trade body.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary has led the charge to encourage a sceptical public to accept genetically modified crops being grown on UK farms and sold in supermarkets.

He has also been lobbying the EU to let Britain grow crops such as GM maize even if they are banned in other countries.

It has emerged that these efforts are being carried out in partnership with the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, which is financed by GM companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer CropScience.

The revelations come weeks after it was revealed that a group of scientists behind an official government study backing GM all had links to the industry.

Now there is evidence of meetings and briefings involving ministers and the ABC and its industry backers. There have been no such meetings with groups worried about the impact of GM on human health and the countryside.

The campaign group GeneWatch UK made a Freedom of Information request to find out what was said at the briefings, but Mr Paterson’s department has refused to give details.

 

The group has lodged a formal complaint with the Information Commissioner in the hope that ministers will be forced to admit how GM companies are driving government policy.

+3

Action: The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary has led the charge to encourage a sceptical public to accept genetically modified crops being grown on UK farms and sold in supermarkets (file picture)

GeneWatch director Dr Helen Wallace said: ‘The evidence strongly suggests the Government is colluding with the GM industry to manipulate the media, undermine access to GM-free-fed meat and dairy products and plot the return of GM crops to Britain. 

‘The public have a right to know what is going on behind closed doors.’

Dr Wallace added: ‘Ministers who should be protecting our environment have put Monsanto and Syngenta in the driving seat of policy on GM crops and foods, despite growing evidence that the GM crops... will harm British wildlife such as butterflies.’ 

+3

Defra has refused to provide details of a telephone conference between the department and the ABC on June 10 last year.

Ten days later, Mr Paterson made a speech calling for opposition to be dropped and claiming GM crops and food were ‘probably safer’ than the conventional equivalent.

The ministry has also refused to release a ‘message on media suggestions’ sent by the ABC to Defra last April, or details of discussions between Monsanto and Defra two months before.

‘The public have a right to know what is going on behind closed doors'

Dr Helen Wallace

 

Tesco, Marks & Spencer, the Co-op and Sainsbury’s later decided to end bans on using GM feed for chickens.

Defra has also refused to provide details of a meeting and emails between former environment minister David Heath and the ABC in January last year.

Defra said: ‘We provided as much information as possible  in response to GeneWatch’s request. Any information withheld was within the legislation.’

ABC deputy chairman Dr Tom Lyall said: ‘We have regular dialogue with a range of stakeholders, including policy makers.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2605570/Ministers-covering-secret-meetings-GM-food-lobby-Owen-Paterson-refused-Freedom-Information-request-talks-Frankenfood.html#ixzz2z2zW372A
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

RT: US corn exports to China drop 85 percent after ban on GMO strains

From RT.com:

Published time: April 12, 2014 12:11

AFP Photo / Philippe Huguen

hare on tumblr

Overall, China has barred nearly 1.45 million tons of corn shipments since last year, the National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), an American industry association, said Friday.China’s rejection of shipments of US corn containing traces of unapproved genetically modified maize has caused a significant drop in exports. According to a new report, US traders have lost $427 million in sales.

The tally is based on data from export companies and is significantly higher than the previous numbers reported by the media, which said roughly 900,000 tons were affected. US corn exports to China since January are down 85 percent from the same period last year, the report says.

China has been blocking shipments of American corn from its market since November. This was caused by the presence of the MIR162 genetically modified corn strain in the shipments. It was developed by the company Syngenta and has not been approved by the Chinese government since an application was submitted in March 2010.

China has sharply increased corn imports since the late 2000s, with purchases increasing from 47,000 tons in 2008 to an estimated 5 million tons last year. It was the third-largest importer of American corn before the imports of Syngenta’s GMO strain were blocked.

US traders want seed companies to shoulder some of the losses. They also say seed companies should not introduce new varieties of seeds to farmers until they are approved by major markets, including China.

Part of the ire is also falling on the Chinese government, which, traders say, maintains an opaque process of approving and rejecting GMO strains, an accusation that Beijing rejects. China has so far approved 15 genetically modified corn strains for import.

Rebranding a Toxin: Aspartame

From NaturalSociety.com:

by Christina Sarich
April 10th, 2014
Updated 04/10/2014 at 1:00 am

Follow them: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

Natural Society has been talking about the dangers of Aspartame for quite some time now. It is a dangerous artificial sweetener found in many of the foods we consume every day, including soft drinks, chewing gum, breakfast cereals, and jams. Now, it’s important to know that aspartame may be disguised as a new name in your favorite foods – aminosweet.

Used as a sugar substitute and often marketed as Nutrasweet and Equal, aspartame is an excitotoxin that destroys the brain and body. Its use has been a controversial subject since the 1980s when the CEO of Searle, Donald Rumsfeld, pushed for it’s approval to be sold on the market. Now, its name is being changed, with FDA approval, to try to dupe millions into purchasing and consuming this toxin once again.

Aspartame, even renamed Amino Sweet, is not safe. This substance is made using genetically modified bacteria in the US, but according to a Monsanto source, the UK market does not have to eat genetically modified bacteria excrement. Many ‘low-calorie’ foods contain GMO aspartame, however, even overseas. Aspartame may cause blindness, cancer, and brain tumors.

Just as a reminder of who is pushing this excrement – quite literally – on the consumers of the United states, it was Mr. Rumsfeld who went on to become George W. Bush’s secretary of Defense, and crony-Capitalist agenda-pusher. This one substance has continually been shown to cause harm to human health, so why is the FDA renaming it instead of banning it completely from the food supply? There is considerable evidence that artificial sweeteners cause cancer, including aspartame specifically – so why not name it something more appropriate at least? ‘Sickeningly Sweet’ might be more appropriate.

Even saccharin eventually had to be made with a label, mandated by Congress, that says, “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals”. The FDA’s own toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumors and brain cancer and that it violated the Delaney Amendment. Aside from cancers and tumors, top researchers have linked aspartame with the following symptoms and diseases:

• Headaches
• Memory loss
• Seizures
• Vision Loss
• Coma
• ADD
• Lupus
• Fibromyalgia
• Muscular Dystrophy
• Alzheimer’s
• Chrnoic Fatigue
• Diabetes
• Depression

Aspartame is Dangerous

European scientists have been telling us about the dangers of aspartame since 2005. Why on earth is it still allowed in our food? Partly? Because a politically biased FDA, then swayed by Rumsfeld’s corporation, said that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)’s decision about aspartame was not conclusive enough to prove that it was a dangerous substance, and that there was no “further review [on an] earlier scientific opinion on the safety of aspartame or [reason] to revise the Acceptable Daily Intake.”

The problem, and what more research concluded, is that aspartame breaks down into something calledPhenylalanine, among other things. This can cause a disorder known as Phenylketonuria.

“. . .one in 15,000 people in the world has a genetic disorder called Phenylketonuria. Their bodycan’t metabolize synthesizde phenylalanine. As it builds up in the body, it causes all sorts of bad things to happen, such as mental retardation, seizures, and other brain damage. People suffering from Phenylketonuria (or PKU) are called phenylketonurics. They need to constantly monitor their protein intake. They are also warned about consumption of products containing aspartame – hence the warning on labels – ‘Phenylketonurics – contains phenylalanine.”

Not only that, but aspartame is also chemically addictive to the body, even though it damages it profoundly – just like other drugs. This is why food makers want to put it in their products – so you will buy more of them.

Aspartame, or Amino Sweet – its all the same toxic substance. Watch out for it on food labels. Eat honey, apple sauce, raw, non-GMO sugar, and other REAL food sweeteners instead. You deserve to live a sweet life without being a sucker.

Additional Sources:

NCBI

Operation Monsanto Stock Plunge

From Natural News:

Friday, April 11, 2014
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

(NaturalNews) Biotech stocks plummeted Thursday following the release of Operation Monsanto Stock Plunge by Food Democracy Now -- a campaign that urged investors to sell shares of biotech companies like Monsanto.

"On Thursday, the Nasdaq composite, which is weighted heavily toward tech and biotech companies, had its worst day since November 2011," reported the Associated Press, less than 24 hours after the launch of Operation Monsanto Stock Plunge. The story was carried across thousands of newspapers such as the L.A. Times. (1)

"Biogen Idec, Gilead Sciences and other biotech companies plunged. Gilead Sciences slid $5.17, or 7 percent, to $65.48 on Thursday. Biogen Idec dropped $13.33, or 4 percent, to $287.35. Both roughly doubled in value last year."

U.S. News and World Report declared, "Stocks drop as investors dump biotech" (see screen shot below), and other newspapers reported headlines like "Dow, Nasdaq fall dramatically as investors dump biotech stocks."

The L.A. Times declared the plunge "Nasdaq's worst day since 2011" (see screen shot below).

Monsanto stocks fell precipitously all day long, as is shown in the following stock price graph:

See the proof of the biotech selloff following Operation Monsanto Stock Plunge

Organic Spies strikes again!

Operation Monsanto Stock Plunge was, of course, the brainchild of the anonymous group known as "Organic Spies." This group, together with whistleblowing website Natural News, is widely credited with pressuring Whole Foods to announce store-wide GMO labeling by the year 2018.

Now, together with Food Democracy Now which took the lead on Operation Monsanto Stock Plunge, we have directly influenced the movement of billions of dollars on Wall Street, contributing to the global selloff of biotech stocks and encouraging investors to put their money in more ethical, less evil businesses.

Biotech industry trolls and negative P.R. flacks will of course say, "It was just a coincidence," which is exactly what they say when people who eat GMOs are diagnosed with infertility, cancer and organ failure, much like the GMO-fed rats revealed by the Seralini study. But consider it: What are the odds that biotech stocks would just coincidentally happen to experience a near-record plunge on the very next day after activists launched Operation Monsanto Stock Plunge? Any way you slice it, the odds are at least 1,000 to 1.

So either we activists are incredibly lucky at picking stocks, or we influenced the markets and helped cause the plunge that just took place.

See the full video of Operation Monsanto Stock Plunge here: (and note, YouTube is artificially suppressing the view numbers. This video has been sent to over 1.2 million people and the actual views are easily above 100,000 by now.)



Sources for this article include:
(1) http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fiw-wall-...
--------------------------------------
This is the way it should be. The power of an informed free market society. Since the government is in Monsanto's pocket, take matters into our own hands. If the market makes GMOs and other Monsanto products economically unviable they will be forced to stop production.
-AA

10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health

From Activist Post:

Monday, April 7, 2014

Arjun Walia
Activist Post

Over the past few years, a number of countries have completely banned GMOs and the pesticides that go along with them, and they are doing so for a reason. The latest country to consider a complete ban is Russia after top government scientists recommended at least a 10-year ban.

The truth is, we don’t know enough about GMOs to deem them safe for human consumption. Believe it or not the very first commercial sale of them was only twenty years ago. There is no possible way that our health authorities can test all possible combinations on a large enough population, over a long enough period of time to be able to say with absolute certainty that they are harmless.

There are a multitude of credible scientific studies that clearly demonstrate why GMOs should not be consumed, and more are emerging every year. There are also a number of scientists all around the world who oppose them.

By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment.The FDA has said that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food, so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this, geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it horizontally into a totally unrelated species. Now David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot and exchange genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without regard to the biological constraints. It’s very very bad science, we assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically, applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion – Geneticist David Suzuki

If anybody ever tells you that we know with one hundred percent certainty that GMOs are totally safe to eat, they haven’t done their research. There is no reason GM foods should be approved safe for consumption, we just don’t know enough about them. We could easily feed the planet through organic, GMO-free methods, so there is absolutely no reason we need GM foods around.

Below I’ve presented just a bit of information to get you started on your research.

1. Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood

Research from Canada (the first of its kind) has successfully identified the presence of pesticides -associated with genetically modified foods in maternal, fetal and non-pregnant women’s blood. They also found the presence of Monsanto’s Bt toxin. The study was published in the journalReproductive Toxicology in 2011.(1) You can read the FULL study here.

Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed, particularly those using the placental transfer approach. Thus, our present results will provide baseline data for future studies exploring a new area of research relating to nutrition, toxicology and reproduction in women. Today, obstetric-gynecological disorders that are associated with environmental chemicals are not known. Thus, knowing the actual concentration of genetically modified foods in humans constitutes a cornerstone in the advancement of research in this area.” (1)

The study used blood samples from thirty pregnant women and thirty non-pregnant women. The study also pointed out that the fetus is considered to be highly susceptible to the adverse affects of xenobiotics (foreign chemical substance found within an organism that is not naturally produced.) This is why the study emphasizes that knowing more about GMOs is crucial, because environmental agents could disrupt the biological events that are required to ensure normal growth and development.


2. DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them

In a new study published in the peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS), researchers emphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism.(2)

In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The study was based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies. PLOS is an open access, well respected peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers primary research from disciplines within science and medicine. It’s great to see this study published in it, confirming what many have been suspected for years.

Our bloodstream is considered to be an environment well separated from the outside world and the digestive tract. According to the standard paradigm large macromolecules consumed with food cannot pass directly to the circulatory system. During digestion proteins and DNA are thought to be degraded into small constituents, amino acids and nucleic acids, respectively, and then absorbed by a complex active process and distributed to various parts of the body through the circulation system. Here, based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies, we report evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and through an unknown mechanism enter the human circulation system. In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The plant DNA concentration shows a surprisingly precise log-normal distribution in the plasma samples while non-plasma (cord blood) control sample was found to be free of plant DNA. (2)

This still doesn’t mean that GMOs can enter into our cells, but given the fact GMOs have been linked to cancer (later in this article) it is safe to assume it is indeed a possibility. The bottom line is that we don’t know, and this study demonstrates another cause for concern.

3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans

This study was recently released by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and uses data from the US department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency, medical journal reviews as well as other independent research. (3)(4) The authors relate GM foods to five conditions that may either trigger or exacerbate gluten-related disorders, including the autoimmune disorder, Celiac Disease:

• Intestinal permeability
• Imbalanced gut bacteria
• Immune activation and allergic response
• Impaired digestion
• Damage to the intestinal wall

The Institute for Responsible technology is a world leader in educating policy makers and the public about GMO foods and crops. The institute reports and investigates on the impact GM foods can have on health, environment, agriculture and more.

4. Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors

In November 2012, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. (5)


It was a very significant study, which obviously looks bad for the big biotech companies like Monsanto, being the first and only long-term study under controlled conditions examining the possible effects of a diet of GMO maize treated with Monsanto roundup herbicide.

This study has since been retracted, which is odd, because the journal it was published in is a very well known, reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. In order for a study to be published here it has to go through a rigorous review process.

It’s also important to note that hundreds of scientists from around the world have condemned the retraction of the study. This study was done by experts, and a correlation between GMOs and these tumors can’t be denied, something happened.

The multiple criticisms of the study have also been answered by the team of researchers that conducted the study. You can read them and find out more about the study here.

GM Crop Production is Lowering US Yields and Increasing Pesticide Use

5. Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors

A study is published in the US National Library of Medicine (4) and will soon be published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. Several recent studies showed glyphosate’s potential to be an endocrine disruptor. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the hormone system in mammals. These disruptors can cause developmental disorders, birth defects and cancer tumors. (6)

Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer. We found that glyphosate exhibited a weaker estrogenic activity than estradiol. 

Furthermore, this study demonstrated the additive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genisein which implied that the use of contaminated soybean products as dietary supplements may pose a risk of breast cancer because of their potential additive estrogenicity. (6)

Researchers also determined that Monsanto’s roundup is considered an “xenoestrogen,” which is a foreign estrogen that mimics real estrogen in our bodies. This can cause a number of problems that include an increased risk of various cancers, early onset of puberty, thyroid issues, infertility and more.

6. Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects

A group of scientists put together a comprehensive review of existing data that shows how European regulators have known that Monsanto’s glyphosate causes a number of birth malformations since at least 2002. Regulators misled the public about glyphosate’s safety, and in Germany the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety told the European Commission that there was no evidence to suggest that glyphosate causes birth defects. (7)

Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable. In this report, we examine the industry studies and regulatory documents that led to the approval of glyphosate. We show that industry and regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s and 1990s that glyphosate causes malformation – but that this information was not made public. We demonstrate how EU regulators reasoned their way from clear evidence of glyphosate’s teratogenicity in industry’s own studies to a conclusion that minimized these findings in the EU Commission’s final review report. (7)

Here is a summary of the report:

• Multiple peer-reviewed scientific literature documenting serious health hazards posed by glyphosate
• Industry (including Monsanto) has known since the 1980s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses
• Industry has known since 1993 that these effects could also occur at lower and mid doses
• The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations
• The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations
• The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year DG SANCO division published its final review report, laying out the basis for the current approval of glyphosate

Another study published by the American Chemical Society, from the university of Buenos Aires, Argentina also showed that Glyphosate can cause abnormalities.(8)

The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to glyphosate in agricultural fields (8)

7. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

When you ingest Glyphosate, you are in essence altering the chemistry of your body. It’s completely unnatural and the body doesn’t resonate with it. P450 (CYP) is the gene pathway disrupted when the body takes in Glyphosate. P450 creates enzymes that assist with the formation of molecules in cells, as well as breaking them down. CYP enzymes are abundant and have many important functions. They are responsible for detoxifying xenobiotics from the body, things like the various chemicals found in pesticides, drugs and carcinogens. Glyphosate inhibits the CYP enzymes. The CYP pathway is critical for normal, natural functioning of multiple biological systems within our bodies. Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease. (9)

8. Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans

A new study out of Germany concludes that Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and can be excreted in urine. It outlines how presence of glyphosate in urine and its accumulation in animal tissues is alarming even at low concentrations. (10)

To this day, Monsanto continues to advertise its Roundup products as environmentally friendly and claims that neither animals nor humans are affected by this toxin. 

Environmentalists, veterinarians, medical doctors and scientists however, have raised increasing alarms about the danger of glyphosate in the animal and human food chain as well as the environment. The fact that glyphosate has been found in animals and humans is of great concern. In search for the causes of serious diseases amongst entire herds of animals in northern Germany, especially cattle, glyphosate has repeatedly been detected in the urine, feces, milk and feed of the animals. Even more alarming, glyphosate was detected in the urine of the farmers. (10)

9. Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs

A study by scientist Judy Carman, PhD that was recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Organic Systems outlines the effects of a diet mixed with GMO feed for pigs, and how it is a cause for concern when it comes to health. (11) Scientists randomized and fed isowean pigs either a mixed GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet for approximately 23 weeks (nothing out of the ordinary for most pigs in the United States), which is unfortunately the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter. Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each group. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs. GM-fed pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% compared to 125 of non-GM fed pigs.

The study concluded that pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited a heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs who weren’t fed a GMO diet. Because the use of GMO feed for livestock and humans is so widespread, this is definitely another cause for concern when it comes to GMO consumption. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are consumed widely by people, especially in the United States.

10. GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety. (12)(13)(14)

Deficiencies have been revealed numerous times with regards to testing GM foods.

The first guidelines were originally designed to regulate the introduction of GM microbes and plants into the environment with no attention being paid to food safety concerns. However, they have been widely cited as adding authoritative scientific support to food safety assessment. Additionally, the Statement of Policy released by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States, presumptively recognizing the GM foods as GRAS (generally recognized as safe), was prepared while there were critical guidelines prepared by the International Life Sciences Institute Europe and FAO/WHO recommend that safety evaluation should be based on the concept of substantial equivalence, considering parameters such as molecular characterization, phenotypic characteristics, key nutrients, toxicants and allergens. Since 2003, official standards for food safety assessment have been published by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO. Published reviews with around 25 peer-reviewed studies have found that despite the guidelines, the risk assessment of GM foods has not followed a defined prototype.(12) (15) 

The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic. Evaluations for each GM crop or trait have been conducted using different feeding periods, animal models and parameters. The most common results is that GM and conventional sources include similar nutritional performance and growth in animals. However, adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues have been reported. While there are currently no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods, attempts towards harmonization are on the way. More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods. (12) (15)

So, if anybody ever tells you that GMOs are completely safe for consumption, it’s not true. We just don’t know enough about them to make such a definitive statement. A lot of evidence actually points to the contrary.

Sources:

(1) https://www.uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf
(2) http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069805
(3) http://rt.com/usa/gmo-gluten-sensitivity-trigger-343/
(4) http://responsibletechnology.org/media/images/content/Press_Release_Gluten_11_25.pdf
(5) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637
(6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170
(7) http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/Roundup-and-birth-defects/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5.pdf
(8) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749
(9) http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416
(10) http://omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf
(11) http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf
(12)http://static.aboca.com/www.aboca.com/files/attach/news/risk_assessment_of_genetically_modified_crops_for_nutrition.pdf
(13) Reese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2004;21:299–324
(14) Schubert D. A different perspective on GM food. Nat Biotechnol. 2002;20:969–969.
(15) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19146501

Arjun Walia writes for Collective Evolution, where this first appeared.