Your Guide to Natural Health
About Us  |  Contact Us  |  Subscribe  |  Advertise


GMO Dangers: How Much More Proof Do We Need?

Posted by
     

GMO Dangers Last week, a reader posted a critical comment on an article I wrote that explained why, in my opinion, we as consumers should be concerned about () entering our food supply.

Here’s some of what he had to say:

“Despite all the assertions and hype, the author cites not a single reference to a specific peer reviewed study on the harmful effects of GMOs. You can get such damning papers for asbestos, nicotine, dioxin and PCBs, but good luck on finding it for GMOs. What the author also fails to mention, GMOs, developed for the 3rd world are designed to be pest and drought resistant as well as increase yield sizes. Compared to organics, which indisputably use twice the land and resources for similar yields as conventional farming (as reflected in the price), how can you reconcile your flat out rejection of GMOs as being environmentally friendly?….Do you hope to get a few billion more notches in your belt by banning GMO’s while you sit safe and sound in the West, nibbling on your overpriced organic carrots?”

My initial reaction upon reading this comment was that it was a classic example of GMO “greenwashing.” This is the term applied when non-green practices and products are made to seem green – usually by the PR departments of large companies. I recently read a Food & Water Watch fact sheet on the greenwashing of genetically engineered crops by companies like . These companies and their supporters claim that GMO crops are needed to solve the global food production problems caused by climate change.

Here’s an excerpt:

“Monsanto advertises that biotech crops can feed the world “from a raindrop,” suggesting that GE crops are especially climate change resistant. In 2011, Roger Beachy, then director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s primary research agency, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, suggested to Scientific American magazine that GE crops protect traditional small farmers by reducing the need for agrochemicals. But this greenwashing doesn’t change what is just agribusiness as usual: more agrochemicals, more fossil fuels and more intensive agricultural production.”

I encourage you to download the full fact sheet and read it in its entirety to learn more about how GMOs benefit Big Agra companies  — not farmers, not American consumers, and not even people in areas of the world facing food shortages.

The other bogus claim that Big Agra makes is that GMO foods are perfectly safe. Yet there is undeniable scientific evidence that proves the contrary — GMOs pose a grave threat to human health.

1) 19 studies link GMOs to organ disruption

Here are two examples of condemning research that has been in the news just in the last few weeks:

In April, disturbing headlines announced that a review of 19 studies concluded that consuming GMO corn or soybeans leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, particularly in livers and kidneys. The researchers who conducted the review stated that the GMO soybean and corn varieties used in the studies “constitute 83% of the commercialized GMOs” that Americans currently consume.”

Writing about the review in the Institute for Responsible Technology’s blog, Jeffrey Smith explains that Big Agra often makes excuses when study findings point to health risks associated with GMOs:

“If statistically significant problems show up in their studies, biotech company researchers often attempt to explain away the adverse findings. But the authors of this review paper describe their excuses as unscientific, obsolete, or unjustified.”

2) Toxic insecticide found in human blood

According to an article that appeared on NaturalNews.com the results of new research, which detected a GMO insecticide chemical, known as Bt toxin, in human blood is proof that its widespread use is a threat to human health and a major public health concer.

“The biotechnology industry’s house of cards appears to be crumbling, as a new study out of the University of Sherbrooke, Canada, recently found Bt toxin, a component of certain genetically-modified (GM) crops, in human blood samples for the first time. Set to be published in the peer-reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology the new study shreds the false notion that Bt is broken down by the digestive system, and instead shows that the toxin definitively persists in the bloodstream….Upon taking blood samples, researchers detected the Bt Cry1Ab toxin in a shocking 93 percent of maternal and 80 percent of fetal blood samples. And 69 percent of non-pregnant women tested positive for the toxin in their blood….The fact that Bt toxin was detected even in unborn babies shows that the chemical is easily passed from mother to child, and that it persists far longer than the biotechnology industry claims it does.”

These two studies are certainly cause for concern, in my opinion, and these are just a few of the most recent ones. There may not yet be a vast body of peer-reviewed clinical research (i.e. hundreds or thousands of studies) demonstrating the grave dangers of consuming GMOs, but the fact is GMOs are relatively new and many long term human studies have yet to be completed. In the absence of these studies, to just assume that GMOs do not pose a threat to human health defies all logic. Do we really need to wait…until it’s too late?

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)’s official position on GMOs is that they “have not been properly tested and pose a serious health risk” and that a moratorium on GMO foods should be put in place until long-term studies demonstrate their safety. Many other environmental, public health and consumer protection organizations around the world have echoed these sentiments.

My final parting comment is this. If Monsanto and the other Big Agra companies are so sure that GMOs are completely safe, why do they vigorously lobby against any efforts to label foods containing GMOs? If their GMOs are so amazing and solve so many problems, wouldn’t they want to flaunt it, rather than hide it? I think they surely would, unless they have something to hide, and are concerned about liability.

So, I challenge anyone out there who thinks they have proof that GMOs are in fact safe, to post a comment below with a link to such a study. Or, if you have additional evidence that GMOs are dangerous, I encourage you to share that as well!

Recommended reading:


Josh Corn Joshua Corn - Editor-in-Chief
Josh is a health freedom advocate and veteran of the natural health industry. He has been actively involved in the natural health movement for over 15 years, and has been dedicated to the promotion of health, vitality, longevity and natural living throughout his career. Josh has successfully overcome several personal health challenges through natural means, and believes that sharing information can empower people to take control of their health so they can solve their own problems and live life to its fullest potential. Josh is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Live in the Now. Additionally he serves as CEO of Stop Aging Now, a company that has been formulating premium dietary supplements since 1995. Josh is currently working on his first book about natural health, and is gearing up to launch the Live in the Now radio show. In addition to his work in the natural health field, Josh is an avid outdoorsman, animal lover and enjoys “living in the now” with his wife and two sons.



Join Our Email List

Share the knowledge!
   
Article updated on: February 13th, 2012

Tags: , , , , ,


Leave a Comment Below


Share Your Thoughts

73 Responses to “ GMO Dangers: How Much More Proof Do We Need? ”

  1. Anonymous on May 23, 2011 at 10:26 PM

    Yes, why don’t they label GMO on foods if it is safe as they say?  Why?  Consumers are demanding it and they turn a deaf ear on us.

    I for one would not buy a GMO labeled food and here is why.  The very idea that they will not label it is so revolting to me that I avoid it as much as I can by buying organic.

    I want CHOICES and they are not giving me any!

    • Josh (Live in the Now) on May 23, 2011 at 11:19 PM

       I agree with you 100%. In a free, democratic nation, when the Government, together with big corporations, makes very specific efforts to hide information from consumers, that is when we should be most concerned, and most afraid. That to me is proof enough that there’s something fishy going on. And I have never heard a compelling reason why they wouldn’t want to label foods that have GMOs. They do so for peanuts, shellfish, etc, etc.

      • Farmer joe on January 14, 2013 at 11:08 AM

        i know people are allergic to peanuts… but someone allergic to GMOs? thats a good one.

    • princessmendez on June 2, 2011 at 3:42 PM

      i agree with u in everything u say :)

  2. GMO Journal on May 23, 2011 at 6:56 PM

    Andrew Kimbrell, the Executive Director of Center for Food Safety put it best when he stated in the documentary entitled The Future Of Food:biotech companies are opposing labeling not just because it creates a choice and they are afraid their products will not be sold, but also because labeling is the key way we can trace the health affects of those GE foods and the key way we can get the corporations liable for these health affects. (paraphrasing).GMO Journal.www.gmo-journal.com

  3. Melissa on May 23, 2011 at 9:32 PM

    It has never been more critical than ever to contact your state and local representatives.   I found that the Organic Consumer’s Association provides the names, addresses and phone numbers that you will need to put pressure on government and grocery stores.  TWO FORKS UP! http://www.organicconsumers.org/  Simply click on your state.

  4. Stupidityrules on May 24, 2011 at 3:02 AM

    Amazing how your logic works. Ignore the FAO the WHO and about 15national academies of science, but find 16 poorly conducted surveys and you’ve got proof. Do you honestly believe these groups are all run by Monsanto? If so I have a friend who makes good tinfoil hats. You’re worse than climate change denialists… They have more evidence but are just as ignorant as you are. Hypocrite.

    • Bill Bishop on May 24, 2011 at 3:33 AM

      Dear Stupidtyrules, putting your faith in the FAO and WHO adds a touch of irony to your screen name. I think the underlying point of this article is, why should there just be an assumption that GMOs are absolutely harmless. If you are correct, then what’s your answers as to why the U.S. Gov’t won’t require labeling of GMO foods, and why the companies that use GMO products staunchly support this decision, especially when according to recent surveys the vast majority of Amercan consumers favor such labeling. Also, why is the entire EU moving towards banning GMOs. I am very interested in seeing how you explain this one away.

    • Ginny0015 on May 24, 2011 at 4:49 AM

      You haven’t done your research have you? Follow the money! Find out about Monsanto’s revolving door.

    • Dnirt on May 24, 2011 at 5:22 PM

       Moron!
       Whenever I quote facts from studies done in my writings, I have scientists and educated fools try to kill me for telling truth. 
       These imbeciles only suppress truth and spread lies. They bury true scientific reports. Morons like yourself may be okay with that but actual intelligent people don’t.

    • GMO=BAD.Trolls=BAD. on November 23, 2011 at 7:00 AM

      To: Stupidityrules – your name describes you well & you are a paid shill/troll (by none-other-than the GMO’s MAD so-called scientists who attempt to play god). You and those you serve are our enemy and are psychopaths You cannot fool any of the educated people here who also have common sense … which you “Stupidityrules” LACK. FAIL! Now you can crawl back under your troll bridge.

  5. Voice of reason on May 24, 2011 at 8:16 AM

    I suggest everyone obtain the above studies and digest the data for themself rather than relying on whoever ‘reviews’ the studies for their perspectives as they are by definition their perspectives. The data in any study (GM or organic) can be misinterpreted somewhat depending on your preducices. If you don’t undestand the science and data contained within these studies then you probably shouldn’t be commenting on the issues. With that in mind, if I supplied GM foods I wouldn’t want the products labelled so because ignorant people who read misleading material may disciminate my product on misguided grounds. Similarily I wouldn’t want a health warning on my organic custard apple that excess consumption may lead to neurotoxicity.

  6. warrior on May 24, 2011 at 5:59 AM

    Trouble is one one cares untill its too late, GM is bad for everyone, not just humans but every living thing, that lives above and below the soil… its only a matter of time before it collapses, in the US i feel they should wake up, already many GM plants are spitting out dying before ripe
    as for india, they just a puppet for the companies… people india support this site her tireless work for natural hybrid seed
    http://www.navdanya.org/

  7. SickandTired on May 24, 2011 at 11:53 AM

    As with ALL NWO Zionist controlled evil systems and institutions….the BIGGER the LIE….the BIGGER the PROFITS

  8. Darth on May 24, 2011 at 1:23 PM

    The fact that you reference NaturalNews.com as a source destroys any and all credibility.

    • DJ Setay on May 24, 2011 at 3:43 PM

      Darth… although I’m inclined to agree with you that citing a content destination like Natural News is not a great reference point, keep in mind that it is also a “news aggregator”.

      Citing sources can be done with just doing a little original thought, and “following the trail” to the source.  Who cares who aggregates good information?  Anyone who has learned to think for themselves, instead of following the rest of “the herd” can pretty easily discern truth from fallacy.

      There ARE studies that have been conducted using accepted research quality controls… Dr. Arpad Pusztai’s study comes to mind as one example.  Top flight controls from a researcher who had a sterling career and excellent reputation as a researcher of genetics and animal nutrition.

      When the result of his study suggested significant changes to the internal organs of the studies test animals, his own superiors muzzled him to prevent the results of the study becoming public.

      As a scientist who had no bias as to the outcome, Dr. Pusztai was rather surprised at the attempts to muzzle his research data… I would guess that his world view, regards to the ethics of some corporations and governments got a bit of a shift as well.

      Eventually… his data was published in the British medical journal Lancet… the biotech industry was certainly not amused, Pusztai’s 40 year career was ruined for standing behind his data, despite it being a rigorous high quality study.

    • Mindi Klein on May 26, 2011 at 5:55 PM

      The author might have referenced NaturalNews.com, but the study in question is a peer-reviewed study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670 
      Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.

      • Farmer joe on January 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM

        are we talking about pesticides or GM plants

    • GMO=BAD.Trolls=BAD. on November 23, 2011 at 7:23 AM

      To: Darth (vador) – you are a troll if I ever saw one. Why would anyone in their right mind defend GMO (fake food) anyway? Just saying. FAIL! Can’t fool those of us who actually have common sense.

      • Farmer joe on January 14, 2013 at 11:14 AM

        well do you want your mcdonalds or not?

  9. Alexander on May 24, 2011 at 2:32 PM

    No hard evidence exists of GMOs affecting human or domestic animal health after 15 years of consumption of food with GMO components of derivatives. Last year some 180 million acres of GM soybeans and 113 million acres of GM corn were planted worldwide. The technology increases at the fastest rate of any previous agricultural technology. At the same time, the World Health of Organization, Acdemies of Science and Medicine and regulatory agencies in 29 countires plus the European Union´s EFSA, all have established that GMO food is no different than their conventional equivalents regardin human health. Shall I believe them or the authority of Jeffrey Smith, who makes a living out of denigrating GM food? Concerning the Cry protein in the blood, if the case is confirmed, yet it would not amount to any problem as this protein has no fixing or harboring places in human or vertebrate cells.

    Labelling food for no reason but curiosity is expensive. It would require establishing a threshold for GMO presence and then analyzing chemically thousands upon thousands of samples of at least 30,000 different food items and their different daily or weekly production lots for over 50 different GM events. This is an impossible task unless consumers are willing to pay much higher prices for food getting nothing substantial in return. 

    Allegro

    • DJ Setay on May 24, 2011 at 3:05 PM

      Alexander… it would be more honest to say, if I don’t look for good data other than the whitewashed biotech research studies, I won’t find anything wrong with GMO.

      Will I take the time to cite the studies that suggest GMO is dangerous?  HELL NO!

      It wouldn’t matter to you one bit.  Odds are good you’re being remunerated by the bio-tech industry anyway… and if that’s not so… there’s a way to get at the truth in 1/100th of the time it would take me to post research data…

      If you are sincere about finding fact… you’re in luck!

      There’s this cool online tool that will deliver you all the research data on GMO’s you could ever desire, and amazingly, you can even find out who’s behind the studies, so as to eliminate those that are engaged in conflict of interest!

      Awesome, right?

      You can find it here:

      http://www.Google.com

      • Farmer joe on January 14, 2013 at 11:16 AM

        you will not take the time to look it up because any scientific study proving Gmos are bad do not exist.. exept on tree hugger sites

    • Dnirt on May 24, 2011 at 5:26 PM

       Another moron!
       Maybe the studies that say GM garbage destroys life are hidden just like all the studies that conclude marijunana is not toxic and cures cancer are hidden.
       Small minds just can’t grasp how this world really works.

      • Harold Masters on June 28, 2011 at 7:57 PM

        Dnirt…
        I have never heard an intelligent person refer to anone with a differing opinion as moron, stupid or ignorant.  That type of language probably eliminates your opinion as being meaningful to many people.
        H Masters

    • Mindi Klein on May 26, 2011 at 6:06 PM

      No evidence exists of GMOs affecting human or domestic animal health? Well, the study finding toxins from GM food in human blood is pretty recent (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338670  Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada), and it doesn’t identify what affect those toxins have on humans and unborn babies, but the fact that the toxins are there, despite assurances that they would break down via the digestive system and not be absorbed into the body, seems to be evidence enough that we don’t understand GMOs enough to deem them safe.

      These foods should be labeled so people can make a choice in whether they want to be human lab rats by consuming them.  

    • Jen on September 29, 2011 at 7:22 PM

      15 years is a very short period of time, in regards to such a cycle. Barely one generation has grown up exposed to GMO foods.. It’s not enough time for “substantial proof”.    

      If people would rather wait for this proof to be available before we take action, it may very well be too late.Me? I’d rather be safe than sorry.

  10. Sharon Perry on May 24, 2011 at 5:16 PM

    Yes, I can share what gmo soy has done to my friend.  He can not consume any food product that contains soy in any form including food prepared in restaurants.  I bake bread for him because it is next to impossible to find bread in a store, any store that does not contain soy.  When he consumes soy it causes sores in his mouth, a stomach ache, chest pains, diarrhea, and makes him sleepy.  Sometimes he gets a combination of these symptoms or all of them.  It is a real challenge today to find anything without soy.  Restaurants are another challenge because so many use soybean oil.  One place even put this soybean oil on the bun they toasted on the grill.  One of the only places that does not use soybean oil is McDonalds.  It get tiresome eating out at McDonalds. 

  11. [...] GMO Dangers: How Much More Proof Do We Need? [...]

  12. [...] Click here for more on this story from Live In The Now [...]

  13. SickandTired on May 25, 2011 at 9:51 AM

    As with ALL Zionist controlled institutions…..the BIGGER the LIE….the BIGGER the PROFITS….so it is with Monsanto…they are a evil government zionist controlled entity…nothing about what they do is for the people it is all about profits for the zionist agenda…

  14. Interested Party on May 26, 2011 at 4:46 AM

    Voice of Reason. That is an ironic name for such a bi-polar argument. On one hand you tell people to do their own research,  then on the back hand you claim they are too ignorant to be informed properly.

  15. Me on May 27, 2011 at 2:15 AM

    OMG.
    “2) Toxic insecticide found in human blood” (incl. the following quote from NaturalNews.com)
    Scared to breath. Scared to eat. Scared to take medicine, to take vitamins. ‘Land of the free, home of the Brave’….free? to be guinea-pigged? tested on like lab-rats without our knowledge? home of the brave…yea, to eat/breathe/medicate/live you have to be brave now days…..they don’t give us enough information to be educated, to make our choices wisely …so we have to be brave. It reminds me of alot of stories as a High School-er of Governments and Churches of the ‘Way Backs’ keeping people illiterate so they couldn’t gain the knowledge to become self sufficient, and to know that they were being done very wrong. In this case its lack of labeling. So whether or not its good or bad for us….it isnt even being put on the label. Things that arent on labels arent supposed to be in our food. If they are hiding that information than yes, we start to wonder ‘Why?’ If there is nothing to hide, then why hide it?Would you agree and sign into a contract knowing that the paperwork infront of your eyes is Not all inclusive? Knowing that you may never see the ‘other’ terms and agreements you just signed up to?

  16. Valentine Dyall on May 27, 2011 at 8:58 AM

    You will no doubt have noticed that once more people are dying from contaminated organic food, this time in Germany (http://www.bbc.co.uk/world-europe-13540497). It has happened before: in San Francisco, you will remember, in 2006 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/16/MNGN6L72NR1.DTL). But all the claims about the dangers of eating GM have so far failed to show any convincing effect among either people or animals that have been consuming such foods for years: subject to rigorous scientific analysis, those claims have always failed as a consequence of poor or inappropriate experimental design, or inadequate statistical analysis — always and all of them. So how about accepting a challenge to provide the evidence that organic foods are safe? You might have a problem.

  17. Bruce Miller on May 28, 2011 at 11:59 PM

    Watch! Sherbrooke University, Quebec, Canada, about to receive huge grants from corporatists in a bid to muzzle her fine, truthful, Scientists!  What a magnificent play for massive corporate funding for damn near any other study that will preoccupy these innocents. They are a naturally French University and have possibly been influenced by astoundingly honest European Scientists, probably from France, and if you look, French Science makes a lot of very honest, very similar, very anti-GMO claims, as well as Germans and even astute Russian Scientists. We have yet to hear form Western Canadian Universities, perhaps they are looking at other matters, encouraged with huge corporate grants, American Universities’ affiliations, and have no time and no inclination to pis into the wind for the moment, prefer instead a blinkered, muzzled but well healed survival mode. After all, world class labs are harder and harder to finance aren’t they? All the American schools have made this important study, have censored curriculum, well tailored, and play the game very well don’t they! Quebecois caught playing hard-ball? Bet your ass!

  18. princessmendez on June 2, 2011 at 3:40 PM

    i agrre 100 % with kukaipresident

  19. Spotjanser on June 2, 2011 at 6:32 PM

    Biological systems have evolved in tandem with nature. Why would anyone in their right mind believe that science can change the molecular structure of a substance and improve upon something that has taken millions of years to develop? Secondly, crossbreeding(hybridization) of every variety of plant, as demonstrated by Luther Burbank and many others following him, can provide the same results with little to no risk.

    • Joel on November 22, 2012 at 4:24 AM

      Because they’re not IN their ‘right mind’.

  20. [...] the long term health consequences of consuming genetically modified foods are not yet know, scientists do know one thing. Consuming genetically modifying plant DNA leads to [...]

  21. Rubarb78 on June 3, 2011 at 5:49 PM

    The author of the above fails to realize it is all about the bottom line.  Those countries being “helped” buy those transgender seeds at 4 times the cost of regular plants, fail poorly during harvest and requiring pesticides/herbicides that can only be purchased from the manufacturer of the GM SEEDS.  Monopoly much? 
      Don’t you dare try to save those seeds, as a farmer to replant, FOR IT IS FORBIDDEN by Monsanto!  Did Monsanto find gm crop somehow growing?  LAW SUITS!  Because Monsanto is concerned about feeding the 3rd world?  Really?  Doesn’t seem so to me. 
       Watch The World According to Monsanto, a little eye opener. 
       The crops are NOT doing well.  People are losing their livelihoods, their food – they are taking their own lives in many cases (India).  Where is concern by any of the large corporations?
      Mexico’s corn is in jeopardy now of being made into this junk. 

    He who owns the food, owns the world.  I refuse to sell my soul to Monsanto in order to keep their profits fat.  Wake up.  Smell the greed.

    • Farmer joe on January 14, 2013 at 11:19 AM

      well, if you spent millions of dollars developing a new variety, would you want it stolen?

  22. [...] the long term health consequences of consuming genetically modified foods are not yet know, scientists do know one thing. Consuming genetically modifying plant DNA leads to [...]

  23. [...] (Live In The Now)  While the long term health consequences of consuming genetically modified foods are not yet know, scientists do know one thing. Consuming genetically modifying plant DNA leads to [...]

  24. [...] the long term health consequences of consuming genetically modified foods are not yet know, scientists do know one thing. Consuming genetically modifying plant DNA leads to [...]

  25. AmbigramMan on June 9, 2011 at 7:23 AM

    Sigh. Why are humans such idiots? Most of us don’t even seem to be able to recognize a good thing if it is dancing a jig in front of us, and instead must make up blatant lies to try and lead astray knowledgeable people. It is a good thing the entire world isn’t full of them, or we would still be in the Stone Age.

  26. Bob on June 10, 2011 at 11:20 AM

    organic foods are great – if you grow and raise the stuff you eat yourself, good for you – if however one trys to demonise GMOs (because frankly speaking, even more people would die of starvation if we wouldn’t have them) they should think about the implications.

    it’s the same with nuclear energy – sure, wind power and solar power are great – it’s just that there isn’t enough to pass around (yet) and no adequate infrastructure for providing it.

    • Farmer joe on January 14, 2013 at 11:21 AM

      way to go!

  27. [...] in the Now: Guide to Natural Health– this article on the dangers of GMOs really caught my attention and I’ve been slowly working my way through their content [...]

  28. [...] of new GMO crops an open and honest process? They know that consumers and many scientists are concerned about the safety of GMOs entering our food supply, and surely they are aware of recent surveys, which have indicated that [...]

  29. [...] that it will introduce GMO fresh sweet corn to the U.S. consumer market beginning this Fall. Genetically modified ingredients, courtesy of Monsanto, are present in many of the processed foods found on grocery store shelves in [...]

  30. [...] (66). The Bt Corn Controversy is yet another indication of how dangerous GMOs can be for our food supply and our [...]

  31. StayEngaged,thePriceofLiberty! on August 15, 2011 at 7:25 PM

    GMO’s are banned in Europe – how come we Americans are treated like guinea pigs?  I think this is one more side effect of electing people who don’t care about the Constitution.  Was it Reagan who said “The bigger the government the smaller the person.”  Stop electing people who want to control every aspect of your lives.  These elitists are egotistical and self-serving (follow the money trail).  Don’t always assume they have your best interest in mind (a politician is known by what he does, not what he says)!  I think the Dems & Repubs are both corrupted (with exceptions).  That’s why the Tea Party has been such a threat to them, it puts Americans in control of their government, not the other way around.

  32. Sheyna Steiner on August 16, 2011 at 6:22 PM

    Back in 2009 the New York Times reported on the agreements biotech firms, such as Monsanto, require seed purchasers to sign. Independent scientists are prohibited from researching patented GMO seeds. The USDA when allowing these seeds doesn’t do it’s own testing — they rely on industry and company reports. 

    That’s never caused a problem, has it? Independent scientists are not allowed to research the seeds and yet we get all this industry-verified sciency facts about how safe GMOs are…meanwhile there are ever increasing ills from GMOs, including a brand-new pathogen. http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/02/20/scientists-warn-of-link-between-dangerou

    here’s the link to the New York Times article. 
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

  33. [...] there is tangible evidence that GMO crops (and the large amounts of pesticides used to grow them) pose a significant threat to organic agriculture. Proponents of GMOs may contend that contamination of non-GMO crops is a [...]

  34. [...] fascinating (and disturbing) new study reveals how consuming GMO foods could have unexpected effects on human health. For the first time ever, researchers have shown that plant genetic material is capable of [...]

  35. [...] farming practices that rely on toxic chemicals and genetically engineered crops are not just undermining public health — they’re destroying the planet. Here’s [...]

  36. How to Create a Sick Society | Live Nakedly on April 2, 2012 at 10:12 AM

    [...] a result, despite growing evidence of the harm of GMOs via experimentation (the same style of experiments that test drugs or herbs prior to human [...]

  37. [...] are told that small doses of toxic chemicals on our food have no impact on our health. The millions of people who choose to have their food grown organically obviously disagree, [...]

  38. faffa on August 8, 2012 at 5:15 PM

    interesting fact- there have been NO deaths traced directly to GMOs.

    • Joel on November 22, 2012 at 4:31 AM

      Uh huh, and who’s doing the ‘tracing’? Did you really look? Or did you depend on not finding any by not looking?

  39. [...] aware of the growing body of research showing that GMOs are hazardous to human health. I’ve written before about the known dangers of GMOs. Nineteen studies link GMO consumption to organ disruption, and [...]

  40. NATURAL|HEALTH on December 23, 2012 at 12:15 AM

    Wonderful paintings! This is the type of info that are supposed to be shared across the web. Shame on the search engines for now not positioning this publish upper! Come on over and talk over with my website . Thank you =)

  41. Farmer joe on January 14, 2013 at 11:05 AM

    there is not one single problem with gmos. they enable food to be uniform and last. who wants to eat a hamburger that looks like a piece of cardboard. there is NO proof anywhere based off of UnBIASED Scientific research that GMOs are harmful to human health and saftey. not one Scientific research has shown negative results of gmos. just a thought to roll over in your mind. you actually don’t need any more proof, its all there… just not in the way you thought.

  42. [...] right? Even if one believes the push to rid of GMOs is hype without merit (as one commenter argued in the comments section of this article), isn’t it still just safer to consume organic foods in the interest of sparing your body [...]

  43. [...] to ban the selling or planting of genetically modified or engineered seeds, even if found to be harmful to the consumer (spoiler: research shows they are).  Yes, you read that correctly.  And no, it probably [...]

  44. SPEAK UP and STAY ALIVE | Dr. Sara Speaks Up on November 15, 2013 at 9:28 AM

    […] GMOs differ from hybrid foods as night differs from day—they are made in completely different ways, using techniques that could not be more dissimilar. While some may feel the effect of hybrid foods on health is open for debate, such effects cannot be compared to the devastating health and environmental consequences associated with GM foods. […]

  45. […] food is non-GMO is to buy organic foods (or to grow your own). Consumption of GMO foods has been linked to wide-ranging health problems, and no one knows yet what the long-term consequences for our health and the environment may […]

  46. […] GMOs differ from hybrid foods as night differs from day—they are made in completely different ways, using techniques that could not be more dissimilar. While some may feel the effect of hybrid foods on health is open for debate, such effects cannot be compared to the devastating health and environmental consequences associated with GM foods. […]

  47. Do GMO Feeds Harm Livestock?-healthy for living tips on September 26, 2014 at 6:47 PM

    […] GMO Dangers: How Much More Proof Do We Need? | Live in the … […]

  48. | McDonalds Canola SIngapore on October 3, 2014 at 4:00 AM

    […] Last week, a reader posted a critical comment on an article I wrote that explained why, in my opinion, we as consumers should be concerned about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) entering our food supply.“Despite all the assertions and hype, the author cites not a single reference to a specific peer reviewed study on the harmful effects of GMOs. You can get such damning papers for asbestos, nicotine, dioxin and PCBs, but good luck on finding it for GMOs. What the author also fails to mention, GMOs, developed for the 3rd world are designed to be pest and drought resistant as well as increase yield sizes. Compared to organics, which indisputably use twice the land and resources for similar yields as conventional farming (as reflected in the price), how can you reconcile your flat out rejection of GMOs as being environmentally friendly?….Do you hope to get a few billion more notches in your belt by banning GMO’s while you sit safe and sound in the West, nibbling on your overpriced organic carrots?”My initial reaction upon reading this comment was that it was a classic example of GMO “greenwashing.” This is the term applied when non-green practices and products are made to seem green – usually by the PR departments of large companies. I recently read a Food & Water Watch fact sheet on the greenwashing of genetically engineered crops by Big Agra companies like Monsanto. These companies and their supporters claim that GMO crops are needed to solve the global food production problems caused by climate change.“Monsanto advertises that biotech crops can feed the world “from a raindrop,” suggesting that GE crops are especially climate change resistant. In 2011, Roger Beachy, then director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s primary research agency, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, suggested to Scientific American magazine that GE crops protect traditional small farmers by reducing the need for agrochemicals. But this greenwashing doesn’t change what is just agribusiness as usual: more agrochemicals, more fossil fuels and more intensive agricultural production.”I encourage you to download the full fact sheet and read it in its entirety to learn more about how GMOs benefit Big Agra companies  — not farmers, not American consumers, and not even people in areas of the world facing food shortages.The other bogus claim that Big Agra makes is that GMO foods are perfectly safe. Yet there is undeniable scientific evidence that proves the contrary — GMOs pose a grave threat to human health.Here are two examples of condemning research that has been in the news just in the last few weeks:In April, disturbing headlines announced that a review of 19 studies concluded that consuming GMO corn or soybeans leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, particularly in livers and kidneys. The researchers who conducted the review stated that the GMO soybean and corn varieties used in the studies “constitute 83% of the commercialized GMOs” that Americans currently consume.”Writing about the review in the Institute for Responsible Technology’s blog, Jeffrey Smith explains that Big Agra often makes excuses when study findings point to health risks associated with GMOs:“If statistically significant problems show up in their studies, biotech company researchers often attempt to explain away the adverse findings. But the authors of this review paper describe their excuses as unscientific, obsolete, or unjustified.”According to an article that appeared on NaturalNews.com the results of new research, which detected a GMO insecticide chemical, known as Bt toxin, in human blood is proof that its widespread use is a threat to human health and a major public health concer.“The biotechnology industry’s house of cards appears to be crumbling, as a new study out of the University of Sherbrooke, Canada, recently found Bt toxin, a component of certain genetically-modified (GM) crops, in human blood samples for the first time. Set to be published in the peer-reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology the new study shreds the false notion that Bt is broken down by the digestive system, and instead shows that the toxin definitively persists in the bloodstream….Upon taking blood samples, researchers detected the Bt Cry1Ab toxin in a shocking 93 percent of maternal and 80 percent of fetal blood samples. And 69 percent of non-pregnant women tested positive for the toxin in their blood….The fact that Bt toxin was detected even in unborn babies shows that the chemical is easily passed from mother to child, and that it persists far longer than the biotechnology industry claims it does.”These two studies are certainly cause for concern, in my opinion, and these are just a few of the most recent ones. There may not yet be a vast body of peer-reviewed clinical research (i.e. hundreds or thousands of studies) demonstrating the grave dangers of consuming GMOs, but the fact is GMOs are relatively new and many long term human studies have yet to be completed. In the absence of these studies, to just assume that GMOs do not pose a threat to human health defies all logic. Do we really need to wait…until it’s too late?The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)’s official position on GMOs is that they “have not been properly tested and pose a serious health risk” and that a moratorium on GMO foods should be put in place until long-term studies demonstrate their safety. Many other environmental, public health and consumer protection organizations around the world have echoed these sentiments.My final parting comment is this. If Monsanto and the other Big Agra companies are so sure that GMOs are completely safe, why do they vigorously lobby against any efforts to label foods containing GMOs? If their GMOs are so amazing and solve so many problems, wouldn’t they want to flaunt it, rather than hide it? I think they surely would, unless they have something to hide, and are concerned about liability.So, I challenge anyone out there who thinks they have proof that GMOs are in fact safe, to post a comment below with a link to such a study. Or, if you have additional evidence that GMOs are dangerous, I encourage you to share that as well! Joshua Corn – Editor-in-Chief Josh is a health freedom advocate and veteran of the natural health industry. He has been actively involved in the natural health movement for over 15 years, and has been dedicated to the promotion of health, vitality, longevity and natural living throughout his career. Josh has successfully overcome several personal health challenges through natural means, and believes that sharing information can empower people to take control of their health so they can solve their own problems and live life to its fullest potential. Josh is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Live in the Now. Additionally he serves as CEO of Stop Aging Now, a company that has been formulating premium dietary supplements since 1995. Josh is currently working on his first book about natural health, and is gearing up to launch the Live in the Now radio show. In addition to his work in the natural health field, Josh is an avid outdoorsman, animal lover and enjoys “living in the now” with his wife and two sons.Originally published here. […]

  49. | McDonald's Canola Singapore on October 6, 2014 at 4:51 AM

    […] Last week, a reader posted a critical comment on an article I wrote that explained why, in my opinion, we as consumers should be concerned about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) entering our food supply.“Despite all the assertions and hype, the author cites not a single reference to a specific peer reviewed study on the harmful effects of GMOs. You can get such damning papers for asbestos, nicotine, dioxin and PCBs, but good luck on finding it for GMOs. What the author also fails to mention, GMOs, developed for the 3rd world are designed to be pest and drought resistant as well as increase yield sizes. Compared to organics, which indisputably use twice the land and resources for similar yields as conventional farming (as reflected in the price), how can you reconcile your flat out rejection of GMOs as being environmentally friendly?….Do you hope to get a few billion more notches in your belt by banning GMO’s while you sit safe and sound in the West, nibbling on your overpriced organic carrots?”My initial reaction upon reading this comment was that it was a classic example of GMO “greenwashing.” This is the term applied when non-green practices and products are made to seem green – usually by the PR departments of large companies. I recently read a Food & Water Watch fact sheet on the greenwashing of genetically engineered crops by Big Agra companies like Monsanto. These companies and their supporters claim that GMO crops are needed to solve the global food production problems caused by climate change.“Monsanto advertises that biotech crops can feed the world “from a raindrop,” suggesting that GE crops are especially climate change resistant. In 2011, Roger Beachy, then director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s primary research agency, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, suggested to Scientific American magazine that GE crops protect traditional small farmers by reducing the need for agrochemicals. But this greenwashing doesn’t change what is just agribusiness as usual: more agrochemicals, more fossil fuels and more intensive agricultural production.”I encourage you to download the full fact sheet and read it in its entirety to learn more about how GMOs benefit Big Agra companies  — not farmers, not American consumers, and not even people in areas of the world facing food shortages.The other bogus claim that Big Agra makes is that GMO foods are perfectly safe. Yet there is undeniable scientific evidence that proves the contrary — GMOs pose a grave threat to human health.Here are two examples of condemning research that has been in the news just in the last few weeks:In April, disturbing headlines announced that a review of 19 studies concluded that consuming GMO corn or soybeans leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, particularly in livers and kidneys. The researchers who conducted the review stated that the GMO soybean and corn varieties used in the studies “constitute 83% of the commercialized GMOs” that Americans currently consume.”Writing about the review in the Institute for Responsible Technology’s blog, Jeffrey Smith explains that Big Agra often makes excuses when study findings point to health risks associated with GMOs:“If statistically significant problems show up in their studies, biotech company researchers often attempt to explain away the adverse findings. But the authors of this review paper describe their excuses as unscientific, obsolete, or unjustified.”According to an article that appeared on NaturalNews.com the results of new research, which detected a GMO insecticide chemical, known as Bt toxin, in human blood is proof that its widespread use is a threat to human health and a major public health concer.“The biotechnology industry’s house of cards appears to be crumbling, as a new study out of the University of Sherbrooke, Canada, recently found Bt toxin, a component of certain genetically-modified (GM) crops, in human blood samples for the first time. Set to be published in the peer-reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology the new study shreds the false notion that Bt is broken down by the digestive system, and instead shows that the toxin definitively persists in the bloodstream….Upon taking blood samples, researchers detected the Bt Cry1Ab toxin in a shocking 93 percent of maternal and 80 percent of fetal blood samples. And 69 percent of non-pregnant women tested positive for the toxin in their blood….The fact that Bt toxin was detected even in unborn babies shows that the chemical is easily passed from mother to child, and that it persists far longer than the biotechnology industry claims it does.”These two studies are certainly cause for concern, in my opinion, and these are just a few of the most recent ones. There may not yet be a vast body of peer-reviewed clinical research (i.e. hundreds or thousands of studies) demonstrating the grave dangers of consuming GMOs, but the fact is GMOs are relatively new and many long term human studies have yet to be completed. In the absence of these studies, to just assume that GMOs do not pose a threat to human health defies all logic. Do we really need to wait…until it’s too late?The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)’s official position on GMOs is that they “have not been properly tested and pose a serious health risk” and that a moratorium on GMO foods should be put in place until long-term studies demonstrate their safety. Many other environmental, public health and consumer protection organizations around the world have echoed these sentiments.My final parting comment is this. If Monsanto and the other Big Agra companies are so sure that GMOs are completely safe, why do they vigorously lobby against any efforts to label foods containing GMOs? If their GMOs are so amazing and solve so many problems, wouldn’t they want to flaunt it, rather than hide it? I think they surely would, unless they have something to hide, and are concerned about liability.So, I challenge anyone out there who thinks they have proof that GMOs are in fact safe, to post a comment below with a link to such a study. Or, if you have additional evidence that GMOs are dangerous, I encourage you to share that as well! Joshua Corn – Editor-in-Chief Josh is a health freedom advocate and veteran of the natural health industry. He has been actively involved in the natural health movement for over 15 years, and has been dedicated to the promotion of health, vitality, longevity and natural living throughout his career. Josh has successfully overcome several personal health challenges through natural means, and believes that sharing information can empower people to take control of their health so they can solve their own problems and live life to its fullest potential. Josh is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Live in the Now. Additionally he serves as CEO of Stop Aging Now, a company that has been formulating premium dietary supplements since 1995. Josh is currently working on his first book about natural health, and is gearing up to launch the Live in the Now radio show. In addition to his work in the natural health field, Josh is an avid outdoorsman, animal lover and enjoys “living in the now” with his wife and two sons.Originally published here. […]