GMOs Linked to Organ Disruption in 19 Studies

A new paper shows that consuming genetically modified (GM) corn or soybeans leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, particularly in livers and kidneys. By reviewing data from 19 animal studies, Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and others reveal that 9% of the measured parameters, including blood and urine biochemistry, organ weights, and microscopic analyses (histopathology), were significantly disrupted in the GM-fed animals. The kidneys of males fared the worst, with 43.5% of all the changes. The liver of females followed, with 30.8%. The report, published in Environmental Sciences Europe on March 1, 2011, confirms that “several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects.” The authors point out that livers and kidneys “are the major reactive organs” in cases of chronic food toxicity.

“Other organs may be affected too, such as the heart and spleen, or blood cells,” stated the paper. In fact some of the animals fed genetically modified organisms had altered body weights in at least one gender, which is “a very good predictor of side effects in various organs.”

The GM soybean and corn varieties used in the feeding trials “constitute 83% of the commercialized GMOs” that are currently consumed by billions of people. While the findings may have serious ramifications for the human population, the authors demonstrate how a multitude of GMO-related health problems could easily pass undetected through the superficial and largely incompetent safety assessments that are used around the world.

Feed’em longer!

One of the most glaring faults in the current regulatory regime is the short duration of animals feeding studies. The industry limits trials to 90 days at most, with some less than a month. Only two studies reviewed in this new publication were over 90 days—both were non-industry research.

Short studies could easily miss many serious effects of GMOs. It is well established that some pesticides and drugs, for example, can create effects that are passed on through generations, only showing up decades later. IN the case of the drug DES (diethylstilbestrol), “induced female genital cancers among other problems in the second generation.” The authors urge regulators to require long-term multi-generational studies, to “provide evidence of carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural, and reproductive potential dysfunctions, as it does for pesticides or drugs.”

Pesticide Plants”

Nearly all GM crops are described as “pesticide plants.” They either tolerate doses of weed killer, such as Roundup, or produce an insecticide called Bt-toxin. In both cases, the added toxin—weedkiller or bug killer—is found inside the corn or soybeans we consume.

When regulators evaluate the toxic effects of pesticides, they typically require studies using three types of animals, with at least one feeding trial lasting 2 years or more. One third or more of the side effects produced by these toxins will show up only in the longer study—not the shorter ones. But for no good reason, regulators ignore the lessons learned from pesticides and waive the GM crops-containing-pesticides onto the market with a single species tested for just 90 days. The authors affirm that “it is impossible, within only 13 weeks, to conclude about the kind of pathology that could be induced by pesticide GMOs and whether it is a major pathology or a minor one. It is therefore necessary to prolong the tests.”

GMO approvals also ignore the new understanding that toxins don’t always follow a linear dose-response. Sometimes a smaller amount of toxins have greater impact than larger doses. Approvals also overlook the fact that mixtures can be far more dangerous than single chemicals acting alone. Roundup residues, for example, have been “shown to be toxic for human placental, embryonic, and umbilical cord cells,” whereas Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate does not on its own provoke the same degree of damage. One reason for this is that the chemicals in Roundup “stabilize glyphosate and allow its penetration into cells.”

Furthermore, toxins may generate new substances (metabolites) “either in the GM plant or in the animals fed with it.” Current assessments completely ignore the potential danger from these new components in our diets, such as the “new metabolites” in GMOs engineered to withstand Roundup. The authors warn, “We consider this as a major oversight in the present regulations.”

It’s not the same stuff that farmers spray

Regulators claim that the Bt-toxin produced inside GM corn is safe. They say that the Bt gene comes from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has been safely applied as a spray-on insecticide by farmers in the past. But the authors insist that “the argument about ‘safe use history’ of the wild Bt protein . . . cannot, on a sound scientific basis, be used for direct authorizations of . . . GM corns,” without conducting proper long-term animal feeding studies.

In order to justify their claim that the wild Bt-toxin is safe, the authors state that it must first be separately tested on animals and humans and then authorized individually for food or feed, which it has not. And even if the wild variety had been confirmed as safe, the GM versions are so different, they must require their own independent studies. The paper states:

“The Bt toxins in GMOs are new and modified, truncated, or chimerical in order to change their activities/solubility in comparison to wild Bt. For instance, there is at least a 40% difference between the toxin in Bt176 [corn] and its wild counterpart.”

Even though the isolated Bt-toxin from GM corn has not been tested on animals, rodent studies on corn containing the toxin do show problems. Male rats fed Monsanto’s MON863 corn, for example, had smaller kidneys with more focal inflammation and other “disrupted biochemical markers typical of kidney filtration or function problems.”

Stop with the dumb excuses

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.

When male and female animals have different results, for example, biotech advocates claim that this couldn’t possibly be related to the feed. Since both genders eat the same amount, they argue, both would have to show the same reaction in all of their organs, etc. And if the group of animals fed with less of the GMO feed exhibit more severe reactions than the group fed the larger amount, advocates claim that this discrepancy also means that the GMOs could not be the cause, since there must always be a linear dose relationship.

The authors of this paper, however, point out that effects found in a GMO animal feeding study “cannot be disregarded on the rationale that it is not linear to the dose (or dose-related) or not comparable in genders. This would not be scientifically acceptable.” In fact, most “pathological and endocrine effects in environmental health are not directly proportional to the dose, and they have a differential threshold of sensitivity in both sexes. This is, for instance, the case with carcinogenesis and endocrine disruption.”

What’s the culprit, pesticide or plant?

The shortcomings of the feeding studies make it impossible to determine whether a particular problem is due to the added pesticide, such as Roundup residues or Bt-toxin, or due to the genetic changes in the modified plants’ DNA.

Mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans, for example, showed numerous changes indicating increased metabolic rates in the liver (i.e. irregular hepatocyte nuclei, more nuclear pores, numerous small fibrillar centers, and abundant dense fibrillar components). Since studies on Roundup herbicide also show changes in the liver cells of mice and humans, the Roundup residues within the soybeans may be a significant contributing factor to the metabolic changes.

Similarly, rats fed Roundup Ready corn showed indications that their kidneys leaked. Such an effect “is well correlated with the effects of glyphosate-based herbicides (like Roundup) observed on embryonic kidney cells.” Thus, the rats’ kidney problems may also be caused by the Roundup that is accumulated within Roundup Ready corn kernels.

In addition to the herbicide, the Bt-toxin insecticide produced inside GM corn might also cause disorders. The authors state, “The insecticide produced by MON810 [corn] could also induce liver reactions, like many other pesticides.” Studies do confirm significant liver changes in rats fed Bt corn.

On the other hand, “unintended effects of the genetic modification itself cannot be excluded” as the possible cause of these very same health problems. The process of gene insertion followed by cloning plant cells (tissue culture) can cause massive collateral damage in the plant’s DNA with potentially harmful side-effects. In MON810 corn, for example, the insertion “caused a complex recombination event, leading to the synthesis of new RNA products encoding unknown proteins.” The authors warn that “genetic modifications can induce global changes” in the DNA, RNA, proteins, and the numerous natural products (metabolites), but the faulty safety assessments are not designed to adequately identify these changes or their health impacts.

Population at risk

In addition to the shortcomings mentioned above, the paper shows how GMO feeding trials are “based on ancient paradigms” with “serious conceptual and methodological flaws,” employ statistical methods that obscure the findings, add irrelevant control groups that confuse and confound the analysis, and rely on numerous assumptions that either remain untested or have already proved false.

Unlike drug approvals, biotech companies do not conduct human studies. They would therefore fail to identify both general human health reactions, and the potentially more serious ones endured by sub-populations. “If some consumers suffer from stomach problems or ulcers,” for example, the paper states, “the new toxins will possibly act differently; the digestion in children could be affected too.” The paper recommends the implementation of post market monitoring, which, among other things, “should be linked with the possibility of detecting allergenicity reactions to GMOs in routine medicine.”

But even if authorities wanted to conduct epidemiological studies on GMOs, the authors acknowledge that they “are not feasible in America, since there is no organized traceability of GMOs anywhere on the continent.” Not only is labeling of GMOs urgently needed to allow such studies to proceed, the study says:

“The traceability of products from animals fed on GMOs is also crucial. The reason for this is because they can develop chronic diseases which are not utterly known today…. Labeling animals fed on GMOs is therefore necessary because some pesticide residues linked to GMOs could pass into the food chain.”

They also point out that “even if pesticides residues or DNA fragments are not toxic nor transmitted by themselves” nevertheless, “nobody would want to eat disabled or physiologically modified animals after long-term GMOs ingestion.”

“New experiments,” they concluded, “should be systematically performed to protect the health of billions of people that could consume directly or indirectly these transformed products.”

In the meantime, for those not willing to wait for the new studies, we recommend consulting the Non-GMO Shopping Guide at www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.

39 Comments

  1. Dear Jeffrey Smith: Could you provide any more detail regarding the Kidney leaking data? What are the kidneys leaking? I have been on a legume diet for the past year in concert with testing high levels of urine calcium. The Dr. states my kidney leaks calcium instead of reabsorbing it through the kidney loop. I do not eat corn or soybeans. This diet is lentils, black, red, white beans. I am trying to ascertain if there is any correlation between the two. Respectfully.

  2. There’s a widescale human trial being conducted on most of the US population. Many members of this population are approaching retirement; others are very young. As these groups develop previously rare cancers, or reproductive and other endocrine problems, the corporations whose “food” caused their illnesses and disorders will not be held responsible.

    This is one of many reasons to know where our food comes from, as well as what’s in it. Watch what you put in your mouth, and I wish you health and peace.

  3. We have been eating only organic foods at home for some 20 years. Although on the rare occasions when we travel and/or eat in restaurants, finding organics is a challenge.
    We consistently recommend organic foods on our healthy cooking & food safety blog, http://www.FreeRangeClub.com.
    QUESTION: Would an even 100% organic diet protect us from GMOs? If not, why? Does our organic food supply get contaminated with GMOs–and if so, how? Do you have information or advice on best ways to protect consumers of organic foods from accidental inclusion of GMOs in their diet?
    Thank you.
    Dina

  4. When, oh when will this end? When GMO’s 1st were put on the market we in the Seed Saver’s Exchange thought logically this was ridiculous, nobody in their right minds will fall for this obvious profit-driven scam. But somehow, we were run over. All of us. Every week I call at least one food company and tell them they should take out a GMO ingredient. If everyone did the same, maybe the phone lines being so boggled they can’t stand it will have an effect. For sure, I’m growing more of my own food. That includes chickens, lamb, eggs, and now another family is raising 2 pigs, one for us,l with non-GMO feed. GMO alfalfa is a desecration. It will even be a challenge to raise grass-fed sheep, because alfalfa is the most nutritious hay. PLEASE, FARMERS, FIGHT BACK! TELL YOUR SUPPLIERS YOU WILL NOT GROW IT, YOU WILL NOT FEED IT TO YOUR ANIMALS! YOU WILL NOT GROW GMO SALAD SPROUTS! THIS MUST END!

    • Why do you think this is wrong? Is it wrong for us to drink milk that simulates that of our own species, but not to drink milk optimized for the young of another species? If cow’s milk was more like human milk, babies could be fed milk rather than expensive, processed, artificially produced formula when they are not breastfed. The idea behind this is to produce milk that is more nutritious and easily used by our bodies, so why the mockery?

  5. The fact that our government approves GMO crops and does not require labeling GMO ingredients only illustrates the broader design: population reduction through disease and death. Oh, and let’s not forget the financial benefits to the pharmaceutical companies for all the cancers and other illnesses people will suffer from eating GMO foods. There’s LOTS of money to be made with GMOs!

    • The article has been peer reviewed. Here is the link to the actual study. http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10
      As you will read, this study is significant for an number of reasons. First, much of this data was not available until now. Through court actions the researchers uncovered never before seen data. Secondly, this study calls out the practice of extrapolating data from 90-day tests, making conclusions and calling it two-year testing. As the study suggests, 90 days is not long enough to predict out the outcome for gender specific and age specific outcomes. As a journalist in this field, this study is very significant and should be yet another reason for labeling transparency.

      http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

  6. Don’t forget, the GMOs feed the world. Without them we have to use more herbicides and pesticides. Which is worse? I am not quite convinced since the “global warming” hoax has been revealed.

    • No, GMOs do not feed the world. They do not produce greater yields, and since many of the crops and their manufacturer Monsanto encourage the use of Roundup, the soil is ruined in several seasons and yields sick plants. Read up.

    • GMO’s feed the world. ?????? Dream on !!! RISABLE !!!! Realists and true sciencists will oppose them. Will the GM industry become more devious and secretive, will they go underground ??. YES !!!! THEY’LL BE BURIED LIKE THE GARBAGE THAT THEY ARE BEING PROVED TO BE.

  7. Thank You so MUCH to Professor Seralini! Thank you for the time effort and caring for humanity enough to produce some real and irrefutable facts about this heinous science. I think this is the way to break down the blind and dense ignorance of the US government. When people see these studies there will be a demand for labelling! Please keep it up. You are my hero.
    Mary

    • This is a great idea, but they have modified our food so much that the longer we wait the harder it will to be to get off of GMOs. For example they have dwindled the different types of corn so much that we are in danger of losing all corn. A few diseases that affect corn, say byebye.

      Variety = king.

      No variety = edit food, control the population.

  8. @ Barbara, if there is a problem of feces smelling of urine or vice/versa then that would most likely be a fistula. An abnormal opening between the vagina and the rectum. Not good in any case and usually requires surgery. If you have friends complaining of that, they need to be seen by a Doctor.

    • Well, GMOs certainly aren’t fixing the starvation problem, that’s for sure. They’ve had decades to prove they can do this, and it hasn’t happened. It’s increasing risk of disease, instead, not to mention the increase in pesticide usage, which GMO farmers *must* use. Indian farmers are committing suicide b/c GMO cotton has ruined their lives. Now *their* families may die of starvation b/c the head of the family is gone. Saying GMOs will feed the world is ridiculous. Show us the proof. They can’t, because there isn’t any. This world has gone to hell in a handbasket with regards to our food and environment, and organic culture will be part of what fixes it.

  9. as a organic sustainable heritage farmer in oregon… Let me say that there are some farms like ours working hard not only to educate, but also to provide wholesome heritage foods and show that a small farm CAN make a decent profit while improving the land. It is incredibly hard as there is little to no guidance today for farmers to do things rigt. We have to figure out on our own what our grandfathers knew by heart.

  10. My neighbor stopped by last fall to show me his new sprayer- and to offer to spray my fields. I declined. I would rather mow them. This spring he lost 17 calves from his 50 cows. He did not make the connection until I told him about Don Huber PhD’s letter to Secy Vilsack. I’m betting he sells his sprayer. Farmers need to be informed and the USDA isn’t going to do the job! Yelling at grocers won’t either. Target your audience.

  11. The official U.S. position on genetically-modified organisms is that there is no difference between them and natural organisms. The issue goes even further to suggest that no country should be able to require mandatory GMO labeling on food items, even though science shows that GMOs act differently in the body than do natural organisms and are a threat to health

  12. Observations from feeding horses:

    1) Ulcers are rampant.
    2) A lot of horses seem to have sore backs now. Could low grade kidney damage be the cause?
    3) Many horses can no longer tolerate traditional “sweet feed” grain, which is primarily corn & oats– they will lose weight if it is fed.

    These issues have arisen since GMOs were introduced. There does not seem to be as much of a problem YET feeding high fat (rice bran) soybean/alfalfa based feeds. I am dreading having to feed the GMO alfalfa for this reason.

  13. Excellent article and ‘food for thought’. If GMO modified foods are not causing health issues in the general population, why are 80% of Americans sensitive to wheat here in the United States, but can consume wheat products in Canada and Europe (not GMO) with no issues? Gluten from GMO crops negatively affect not only intestines, but brain and pancreas.

  14. This is just one aspect of the bigger picture:

    How’s Your Mental Well-being?
    Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 09:18PM
    AChinook in Human Ecology, Natural Health

    The title is seemingly a tactless question, but intended to focus attention on a serious issue of our declining well-being. Given the scope and extent of recognized mental health issues (e.g. hyperactivity, depression, hostility and aggression, dementia, schizophrenia, and so on), there are obviously a lot of people with such today. A review [by this author] of multiple sources [CDC, NIMH, PHS, WHO, NCS] of recent estimates in the U.S. indicate a range of somewhere around 5% of adults with serious mental health disabilities, to somewhere around one in four adults overall when less severe mental health issues are included (children and adolescents much higher). For one explanation of why estimates of mental health issues vary widely, see the 01/14/11 WSJ Blogs article “How Many People Suffer From Mental Illness?”.

    Beyond the more recognized cases though, there is the highly probable, vastly larger population of those with varying degrees of mental health issues that aren’t yet obvious enough to be recognized and/or dealt with. This statement may seem questionable, but it’s based on what we know of our physiology and biochemistry, in relation to our well documented dietary patterns today (as distinct from less common factors like genetic deficiencies and trauma). A small sampling of the evidence is how nutrition has been found to have close links with overall educational success [e.g. 1,2], and nutritional treatment has been found to be appropriate for mental health issues [e.g. 3,4,5].

    At the chemical level, food is the brain’s primary link to its evolution and its ongoing physiology (i.e. how well it functions). It’s scientifically established that diet is correlated with (among other physiological aspects) the brain chemicals that influence mood and behavior [e.g. 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. That is, diet notably influences the thought processes and emotional reactions that ultimately guide us on our path through life. Thus, if our diet is lacking, then at a minimum our brain is not functioning optimally.

    Ongoing research into how the human brain developed to its current state encompasses a number of theories and considerable conjecture. Two aspects that can’t be denied though, are genetic facilitation and diet including contributing nutrients our bodies can’t synthesize. Leaving genetic facilitation aside, there are various natural sourced nutrients important to our brain’s physiology, such as B vitamins, antioxidants, electrolytes, amino acids, and fatty acids [e.g. 16,17].

    The term “natural sourced nutrients” is an important distinction, because we likely don’t yet know all the nutrients our body needs, and we for sure don’t yet know all the necessary and optimal combinations, nor all the cofactors, applicable to our complex biochemistry. An example is our less than complete understanding of the convoluted metabolism relative to brain chemicals. So we’re talking about adequate combinations of the natural, whole, mostly raw foods our bodies evolved on, and the naturally packaged combinations of substances within such that promote homeostasis in maintaining our overall well-being.

    With the obvious benefits of quality diet to our overall well-being, and more specifically to mental well-being, you’d think more would recognize such. However, given our well documented dietary patterns, too many have fallen to the siren song of commercial manipulation, and addiction to excessive processed simple sugars, carbohydrates, and starches and/or their artificial substitutes (our industrial diets are laden with). A question that begs to be answered is, how much do our inferior diets contribute to a dumbing down of the majority to further this commercial exploitation? In turn, one might contemplate the role of personal responsibility in this situation.

    With the extent of more objective research, one could get into considerable detail on the relationship between diet and our mental well-being. However, there is the bigger issue of how we can even source a quality diet given our deteriorating food chain. To better understand the big picture, see the article Natural World Consciousness.

    This article was written in contemplation of how much poor diet influences reduced understanding of the big picture and/or reaction to such. Any comments on the connection?

    “Courage doesn’t always roar. Sometimes courage is the little voice at the end of the day that says I’ll try again tomorrow.” ~ Mary Anne Radmacher

    [1] Jere R. Behrman (1996). “The impact of health and nutrition on education”. World Bank Research Observer 11 (1): 23–37.

    [2] Glewwe P, Jacoby H, King E (2001). “Early childhood nutrition and academic achievement: A longitudinal analysis”. Journal of Public Economics 81 (3): 345–68. doi:10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00118-3.

    [3] Lakhan SE, Vieira KF (2008). “Nutritional therapies for mental disorders”. Nutr J 7: 2. doi:10.1186/1475-2891-7-2. PMC 2248201. PMID 18208598. http://www.nutritionj.com/content/7/1/2

    [4] Joseph J, et al. (2009). “Nutrition, Brain Aging, and Neurodegeneration”. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(41): 12795-12801; doi: 10.1523/​JNEUROSCI.3520-09.2009 http://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/41/12795.full

    [5] Michael-Titus A. (2009) Omega-3 fatty acids: their neuroprotective and regenerative potential in traumatic neurological injury. Clin Lipid. 2009; 4(3): 343-353. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/712117

    [6] USDA Agricultural Research Service (August 2007). Nutrition and Brain Function http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/aug07/aging0807.htm

    [7] Uauy, R. and Dangour, A. D. (2006), Nutrition in Brain Development and Aging: Role of Essential Fatty Acids. Nutrition Reviews, 64: S24–S33. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2006.tb00242.x http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2006.tb00242.x/abstract

    [8] Sandstead, H. H. (1986), Nutrition and Brain Function: Trace Elements. Nutrition Reviews, 44: 37–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.1986.tb07676.x http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-4887.1986.tb07676.x/abstract

    [9] Penland, J.G. (1998), The importance of boron nutrition for brain and psychological function. Biological Trace Element Research Volume 66, Numbers 1-3, 299-317, DOI: 10.1007/BF02783144 http://www.springerlink.com/content/01351l026155x911/abstract/

    [10] Perkins, A.J., et al (1998) Association of Antioxidants with Memory in a Multiethnic Elderly Sample Using the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am. J. Epidemiol. (1999) 150 (1): 37-44. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/150/1/37.short

    [11] Duthie SJ, Whalley LJ, Collins AR, Leaper S, Berger K, Deary IJ (May 2002). “Homocysteine, B vitamin status, and cognitive function in the elderly”. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 75 (5): 908–13. PMID 11976166. Erratum in: Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 77 (2): 523. February 2003.

    [12] “The omega point”. The Economist. January 19, 2006. http://www.economist.com/node/5407595

    [13] Muldoon M.F., et al., (2010) Higher DHA Blood Levels Associated with Better Cognitive Functioning in Middle Age, J. Nutrition, 140: 848-853. http://www.dhaomega3.org/Cognitive-Performance/Higher-DHA-Blood-Levels-Associated-with-Better-Cognitive-Functioning-in-Middle-Age

    [14] Ivanovic D.M., et al., (2003) Head size and intelligence, learning, nutritional status and brain development: Head, IQ, learning, nutrition and brain. Neuropsychologia Volume 42, Issue 8, 2004, Pages 1118-1131 doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.11.022 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0D-4BRSCGB-1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1726535346&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=55573f0ea052f29aab438400d3e59daa&searchtype=a

    [15] Liu J, Raine A, Venables PH, Mednick SA. (2004) Malnutrition at Age 3 Years and Externalizing Behavior Problems at Ages 8, 11, and 17 Years. Am J Psychiatry 161:2005-2013 Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1061, USA. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/11/2005 and http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/10773.html

    [16] Broadhurst CL, Cunnane SC, Crawford MA (1998) Rift Valley lake fish and shellfish provided brain-specific nutrition for early Homo. British Journal of Nutrition, 79: 3-21 DOI: 10.1079/BJN19980004 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=880996

    [17] Leonard WR, Robertson ML (1994) Evolutionary perspectives on human nutrition: The influence of brain and body size on diet and metabolism. American Journal of Human Biology Volume 6, Issue 1, pages 77–88, 1994 DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.1310060111 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajhb.1310060111/abstract

    Article originally appeared on AChinook (http://www.achinook.com/).
    See website for complete article licensing information.

  15. What a breath of fresh air to read this, and see the growing awareness amongst people in the population.

    The best line was stop with the excuses… so true! To prove GMO’s safe it would take at least 2-3 generations of people. Then if there is no increased infertility, immune, organ and other disease increases or problems, perhaps we can feel better about the whole thing. But naturally, no one is willing to hold such a study…. oh wait, we are the study. We are the guinea pigs that are eating this stuff and living the results as we go. So sad.

    This is why awareness is key and positive action. We can sit back and say this or that will eventually kill us, but the whole point to evolve this human race to a better way of existing is to keep evolving our conscious awareness of the intricate nature of the Universe and all life. We cannot go against the natural laws of the Universe, messing up species and expect to have no negative consequences for this.

    Thank you so much for sharing this.

  16. Just wondering… I recently bought two asian pear trees for my yard. Does this mean they are GMO? I am unsure how this all works. I also bought two chestnut trees two blueberry bushes and a walnut tree. What do I ask the company that I bought them from or is this a silly question.

  17. I just created a petition entitled Label Genetically Modified (GMO) Food Products, because I care deeply about this very important issue.

    I’m trying to collect 10,000 or more signatures, and I could really use your help. (maybe you can put the petition on your website?)

    To read more about what I’m trying to do and to sign my petition, click here:
    http://www.change.org/petitions/label-genetically-modified-gmo-food-products?share_id=ifyQgjyEuw&pe=d2e

    It’ll just take a minute!

    Once you’re done, please ask your friends to sign the petition as well. Grassroots movements succeed because people like you are willing to spread the word!

    susan

  18. I am 24 years old, and recently had a kidney removed. My doctor said “You are perfectly fine, perfect vitals, fit, great blood work….I have no idea why your kidney is ruined.” I dont smoke, I dont drink, BUT I do eat allot of veggies and meats. (Non organic because of cost.)

    When I went into the urologist, they were shocked to say the least. My kidney was 4 times the normal size. It was swollen and non-functioning. I had no blockages at all and everyone was dumbfounded about what was the cause.

    After my surgery, decided to analyze my diet and figure out what’s going on. Cook all my meals, drink water and orange juice… but it hit me that “Everything I eat is GMO.”. Now, I eat everything organic (as possible).

    Never felt better in my life, and feel good I’m giving my body just what nature intended. Still…in the back of my mind, I wonder if GMO foods was the cause…and if so, then are other people at risk and how many more people has this happened to?

Leave a Comment.