10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health

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.

As an advanced healthcare provider, I know there is nothing more convincing than a placebo-controlled, double-blind study. It's the gold standard from which all medical care should be rendered. Peer-reviewed, evidenced-based is the 'way to go.' As stated above, there just is too much over a short period of time of which we don't know enough about GMOs to equate their safety.
Having said that, however...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 that oppose them.

1. Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood
2. DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them
3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans
4. Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors
5. Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors
6. Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects
7. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
8. Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans
9. Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs
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

The article lists each study with reference below. The link between (CYP) P450 pathway and metabolism of drugs and medications is so important and crucial it's difficult to state it's importance to lay persons, but anyone with an understanding of this pathway knows just how crucial it is to normal and healthy functions of the human body. I think #10 resonates the most to me, and succinctly summarizes the entire GMO issue.
GMO Studies

Whats a uteri???

Thank you, Cosmic911 for the OP. It seems I've read before how other countries are very opposed to GMO's and I can't figure out why Americans don't worry about it too much. Are people in USA the guinea pigs to see what happens over a long period of time!?!
I voted for labeling of GMO's and am so disheartened it didn't come to pass. What is wrong with USA? Yeah, yeah, money, media... why can't people work with Mother nature and not against it? GMO's are so disturbing to me

originally posted by: peppycat
Thank you, Cosmic911 for the OP. It seems I've read before how other countries are very opposed to GMO's and I can't figure out why Americans don't worry about it too much. Are people in USA the guinea pigs to see what happens over a long period of time!?!
I voted for labeling of GMO's and am so disheartened it didn't come to pass. What is wrong with USA? Yeah, yeah, money, media... why can't people work with Mother nature and not against it? GMO's are so disturbing to me

Thanks for the reply. It seems we can get along just fine WITHOUT GMOs. In regards to mother nature, she always wins...I wonder what the long term health effects of GMOs will be? It's scary to think about really.

originally posted by: starfoxxx
Whats a uteri???

What an offal joke!

a reply to: Cosmic911

1. The first study is about the presence of pesticides in pregnant women's blood. The pesticides aren't from GM crops; they are used on them. The argument is that because GM crops tolerate pesticides better, farmers use more of them and some ends up in the blood of pregnant women. Or maybe not. The paper is from 2010; have the findings been replicated?
   
   
2. So what? DNA from any crop can be ingested this way, and is. That is what the paper is about. What's so special about DNA from GM crops? It's still DNA.
   
   
3. No link to the study, just to a conspiracy-theory web site and a press release from a nutzo organization.
   
   
4. The authors of the study have retracted their claims. Go to the link and see why.
   
   
5. This is about glyphosphate, a herbicide, not about GM crops.
   
   
6. Again, this is about glyphosphate, not GM crops, and the paper has come in for massive criticism by peers.
   
   
7. Glyphosphate yet again.
   
   
8. And again.
   
   
9. Potentially a matter of genuine concern. Note that the study authors did not find most of the scary effects they set out to find, though; instead they found pigs with bigger wombs ('uteri', starfoxxx) and sore stomachs. The conclusion of the study hardly justifies the OP's alarmism:
   
   

   
   CONCLUSION
   Pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs fed a comparable non-GMO diet. Given the widespread use of GMO feed for livestock as well as humans this is a cause for concern. The results
   indicate that it would be prudent for GM crops that are destined for human food and animal feed, including stacked GM crops, to undergo long-term animal feeding studies preferably before commercial planting, particularly for toxicological and reproductive effects. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are widely consumed by people, particularly in the USA, so it would be be prudent to determine if the findings of this study are applicable to humans.

   
   Emphasis mine.
   
   
10. Two broken links and two papers calling for standardization of tests applied to GM crops.

In other words, a lot of alarmist blether.

If you don't want to eat GM foods, don't. Of course you'll have to pay the price.

It's the gold standard from which all medical care should be rendered. Peer-reviewed, evidenced-based is the 'way to go.

a reply to: Cosmic911

Seriously??

Major Publisher Retracts 43 papers


Springer retracts 64 Papers in Wake of Peer Review Fraud

Need another?

Fraudulent Peer Review...32 Articles Questioned

Yeah, peer reviews...Way to go...!

(I do not support GMOs or peer reviews, neither has proven to be healthy for me.)

Interesting topic. the findings about strontium and nitrates are very interesting. Nitrates as you would know, are used in fertilizers pesticides that results in what we call g m o. Research has shown strontium reacts with the nitrates and causd birth defects full stop the nitrates are absorbed the same way we absorb calcium.

a reply to: starfoxxx

Medical term for in the womb. In utero

a reply to: Astyanax

The use of nitrates especially has contaminated the water and the soil full stop it has contaminated everything.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Cosmic911

1. The first study is about the presence of pesticides in pregnant women's blood. The pesticides aren't from GM crops; they are used on them. The argument is that because GM crops tolerate pesticides better, farmers use more of them and some ends up in the blood of pregnant women. Or maybe not. The paper is from 2010; have the findings been replicated? Yes, the pesticides are used on genetically modified foods and cross the placenta in gravid women...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. It should be noted that the presence of Bt toxin is really irrelevant, as it's nontoxic to humans. It is important to reiterate how susceptible the placenta is to xenobiotics.
   
   
2. So what? DNA from any crop can be ingested this way, and is. That is what the paper is about. What's so special about DNA from GM crops? It's still DNA. I believe the concern is the unknown variable of how the DNA does and does not cross into the circulatory system. As GMO's have been linked to cancer, GMO DNA crossing into the circulatory system is concerning. What is special are the high blood plasma levels of undegraded GMO DNA.
   
   
3. No link to the study, just to a conspiracy-theory web site and a press release from a nutzo organization. “...Bt-toxin, glyphosate, and other components of GMOs, are linked to five conditions that may either initiate or exacerbate gluten-related disorders...” There's some other information regarding the link between GMOs and auto-immune digestive diseases.
   
   
4. The authors of the study have retracted their claims. Go to the link and see why. ...no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data. However, there is a legitimate cause for concern regarding both the number of animals in each study group and the particular strain selected. The low number of animals had been identified as a cause for concern during the initial review process, but the peer review decision ultimately weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation. A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size regarding the role of either NK603 or glyphosate in regards to overall mortality or tumor incidence. I can appreciate how a small sample might alter, or not, test results. However, It’s also important to note that hundreds of scientists from around the world have condemned the retraction of the study, according to the article and author.
   
   
5. This is about glyphosphate, a herbicide, not about GM crops. It's relevant because the glyphosate herbicide is used on GMO crops.
   
   
6. Again, this is about glyphosphate, not GM crops, and the paper has come in for massive criticism by peers. Again, the glyphosate is applied to GMO crops.
   
   
7. Glyphosphate yet again. Yet, again, problems with glyphosate linked with ill effects.
   
   
8. And again. Yes, I know, more glyphosate lol...but seriously, glyphosate alters the CYP450 pathway, which can lead to serious disruptions in the way the human body metabolizes a variety of things, especially medications. Drug metabolism dependent upon CYP450 enzymes under significant alterations and can result in undesirable side effects, especially in black populations. Examples of this are seen with the anticoagulant medication Coumadin and pain relieving drugs like Tramadol/Ultram.
   
   
9. Potentially a matter of genuine concern. Note that the study authors did not find most of the scary effects they set out to find, though; instead they found pigs with bigger wombs ('uteri', starfoxxx) and sore stomachs. The conclusion of the study hardly justifies the OP's alarmism: Poor little piggies with sore tummies! That's just not nice! lol. Although I'm not an obstetrician, I'm fairly certain a heavier and/or larger gravid uterus would not be desirable, and could potentially result in delivery issues, for both mom and baby.
   
   

   
   CONCLUSION
   Pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs fed a comparable non-GMO diet. Given the widespread use of GMO feed for livestock as well as humans this is a cause for concern. The results
   indicate that it would be prudent for GM crops that are destined for human food and animal feed, including stacked GM crops, to undergo long-term animal feeding studies preferably before commercial planting, particularly for toxicological and reproductive effects. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are widely consumed by people, particularly in the USA, so it would be be prudent to determine if the findings of this study are applicable to humans.

   
   Emphasis mine.
   
   
10. Two broken links and two papers calling for standardization of tests applied to GM crops.

In other words, a lot of alarmist blether. The (12) article nicely defined the three generations of GM crops. It also stated, "It is apparent that no standardized design to test the safety of GM foods yet exists." (Gives us a goal to achieve) It also reported, "The absence of negative effects attributable to glyphosate-tolerant soybean intake in gross indicators of nutrition and health was constant in all studies. However,10 Nutrition Reviews® Vol. 67(1):1–16 a tendency towards microscopic and molecular changes was observed, suggesting some kind of cell damage. These studies should be used to support further experiments using profiling techniques to screen for potential changes at different cellular levels: gene expression, protein translation, or metabolic pathways." It concluded by stating, "Over time, studies assessing the risk of GM foods have improved, and publications have begun including sensible and specific indicators about the safety of GM food consumption..." That's a positive! (15) Basically agrees with (12)...More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods.

If you don't want to eat GM foods, don't. Of course you'll have to pay the price. I agree! If you aren't comfortable eating GMO foods, don't eat them. I try to buy as much organic food as I can. Sometimes it's cost prohibitive, but that's the price we pay. Of course the best veggies come right out of your own garden! Cheaper too!

Astyanax, thanks for the well-conceived rebutall and post!

a reply to: NJE777

In my country, there is a mysterious epidemic of kidney disease among people living in one particular rice-farming region. The epidemic has existed for some time, and glyphosphate-based herbicide (Roundup) has been blamed for it by some, even though there is no actual evidence that it is the cause. As a result, my country's government has now banned the import and use of glyphosphate-based agricultural chemicals. The problem is being closely studied, so we shall see what we shall see.

Industrial agriculture in general is destructive to the environment and its products may not be very good for humans. Organic agriculture is, of course, a good deal worse, and takes up more land into the bargain. The problem isn't GM crops or factory farming; it's farming itself. Agriculture is destructive to the planet, and agricultural societies are essentially exploitative slave societies. Unfortunately, it's too late to do anything about this without a mass cull of humanity.

But don't worry; that's coming. And it will be Nature herself, not some fanciful conspiracy-theory cabal, that institutes it.

a reply to: Astyanax

there is a mysterious epidemic of kidney disease among people living in one particular rice-farming region.

Have they identified any other potential variables? No other links except the glyphosphate?

a reply to: NewzNose

Regardless, in medicine it's gotta be evidenced-based, nothing retrospective or prospective.

a reply to: Astyanax
Hello, it is a quandry. We need more food and so we use fertilizers. The fertilisers, the nitrates will also cause us problems. We will have to learn to live with it and find a cure.

a reply to: Cosmic911

There are plenty.

a reply to: Cosmic911

Glyphosphate is used on all crops, but GM crops can tolerate higher levels so farmers use higher levels. How does that make the crops themselves harmful to human health?

I've been convinced for some time now that glyphosates are the number one problem with GMO's.

We we're always taught in school that that GMO's would be good and that they would make bigger, better fruits and vegetables...then why are the only things they are doing to our wonderful nature is making it's gifts less nutritious and concentrating on making them grow DESPITE of pesticides and herbicides that would kill them too if they weren't modified??!

To kill us.
They are evil.

What else is there to say?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Cosmic911

There are plenty.

Mostly environmental; modifiable factors? Any non-modifiable factors, like race, etc?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Cosmic911

Glyphosphate is used on all crops, but GM crops can tolerate higher levels so farmers use higher levels. How does that make the crops themselves harmful to human health?

Well, if glyphosphate was found to be pathogenic, or teratogenic, or whatever, it's basically contaminating the crops, right? It may not be an acute, illicit danger, but more insidious and chronic?