There has been a debate raging about GMOs for a long time now.
On one side of the debate is the idea that genetic engineering is progress for humanity, and it is a natural extension of more traditional breeding techniques.
The other side believes genetically modified foods are unsafe for human consumption and harmful to the environment.
Biotech companies claim that genetic modification yields more precise control over artificial selection. Studies funded by the industry consistently demonstrate safety, but only over the short term.
Nothing to worry about?
For years Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta, and other biotech based agricultural companies have told the public that we have nothing to worry about.
This will be the technology that will improve food in every conceivable way. Food will be more nutritious, more vigorous, more disease resistant, etc. There are literally thousands of studies demonstrating GMO safety.
A pattern has emerged, however
Their glowing, short-term studies are funded or performed by the industry itself.
As more and more independent scientists complete long-term studies, a very different picture has emerged about the safety of GMOs and their many other drawbacks.
When these studies are not funded by industry, the results show us an uncontrollable, uncontainable, and dangerous technology with serious health hazards.
The Research That Broke New Ground
One of the first studies to ring the alarm was a 2-year, long-term chronic toxicity study.
Don’t believe the hype churned out by biotech that criticizes the Seralini study until you take the time to look into the defense of their methods.
The Seralini study was actually a well-designed and well-conducted study. If we are to accept the argument that Seralini’s study does not provide substantial evidence that genetically modified food is dangerous, then we must also conclude that the short-term toxicity studies funded by the agriculture industry (primarily Monsanto) on GM foods cannot prove that they are safe.
They are in fact the same type of studies, done the same way and they even used the same type of rats. The only significant difference was the duration of the study.
Seralini’s study showed how the previously 90 day studies are misleading as 90 days is not long enough to test for long term effects like organ damage, cancer, and premature death. The first tumors appeared in the rats after four months.
This study was able to distinguish the effects of GM food from GM food grown with allotted pesticides.
The results provide strong evidence supporting the claim that genetically modified food, especially genetically modified food grown with Roundup, is highly toxic and unfit for animal or human consumption.
The Overwhelming Evidence
The following studies were compiled by GMO Free USA and proves the detrimental effects of GMOs.
-Increased intestinal infections
-Weight-increase and higher incidence of mortality
-Organ pathologies in the liver, kidneys, pancreas, ovaries, testes, and adrenals
-Major issues with both the intestinal tracts and immunity of the animals tested
1. E. Abdo, et al. “Feeding Study with Bt Corn (MON810: Ajeeb YG) on Rats: Biochemical Analysis and Liver Histopathology,” Food and Nutrition Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 2, 2014, pp. 185-195.
2. Battistelli S., Baldelli B., Malatesta M. (2008), Influence of a GMO-containing diet on pancreatic acinar cells of adult mice: effects of a short-term diet reversion, “Microscopie”, 10, pp. 36-43
3. S. Battistelli, B.Citterio, B. Baldelli, C. Parlani, and M. Malatesta (2010) Histochemical and morpho-metrical study of mouse intestine epithelium after a long term diet containing genetically modified soybean Eur J Histochem. September 26;54(3): e36
4. Brasil FB, Soares LL, Faria TS, Boaventura GT, Sampaio FJ, Ramos CF.(2009) The impact of dietary organic and transgenic soy on the reproductive system of female adult rat. Anat Rec(Hoboken).292(4):587594.
5. B Cisterna, F Flach, L Vecchio, SML Barabino, S Battistelli, TE Martin, M Malatesta, M Biggiogera (2008) Can a genetically modified organism-containing diet influence embryonic development? A preliminary study on pre- implantation mouse embryos.Cisterna.Vol.52(4)