Major Study Links GMOs To Serious Health Issues

Major Study Links GMOs To Serious Health Issues
Pin on PinterestShare on FacebookEmail this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+

When in 2012 the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published an article that showed genetically modified maize was harmful, a whirlwind was created. It was one of the pioneer scientific studies that looked at the effects a GMO maize diet had on rats. However, the article was later retracted by the journal, which caused an uproar in the scientific community. It was clear that GMO crop supporters, led by the indestructible Monsanto, forced the removal of the publication.

In June 2014, the study was republished in Environmental Sciences Europe. Its findings became a part of the growing body of knowledge that warns against GMO crop consumption. The study lasted for two years and included rats that were fed commercialized genetically modified maize, alongside Monsanto’s NK603 glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup. These rats developed severe liver and kidney damage as well as hormonal disturbances. Large tumors were also found in the significant amount of animals.


Monsanto published a similar study, but they followed the rats for 90 days only, and observed no harm in this short time. In this way they neglected the long-term effects GMOs have on body and its genetic code. The study published in Environmental Sciences Europe, conducted by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his colleagues, noted that the anomalies started showing after about 9 months. The full impact of GMO feeding only manifests after a period of time, and there is other evidence that suggests that. For example, there has been a dramatic increase in birth defects and cancer in areas of Argentina that have grown GM soy for a decade.

Geneticist David Suzuki urges people and governments to take extreme precautions when using GMOs. By eating food treated in this way, we allow foreign genes to enter our system through an unknown mechanism. We don’t know how safe that is, and that is why many countries all over the world still don’t allow GMOs. But they are caving in to pressure from GMO giants, so it’s very likely that we will all soon be exposed to a massive experiment, without giving our consent.


The FDA claims that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food. However, numerous studies have shown just the opposite. GMO consumption has been linked to tumors (specifically human breast cancer), birth defects, autism, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s. The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) has also shown a connection to gluten allergies, which affect 18 million Americans.

A very important thing to consider is also the environmental impact of growing GMOs. Entire eco-systems and communities are being destroyed for the sake of mass production. In addition to the toxicity inherent to GMO plants, there is a huge issue surrounding chemical pesticides and herbicides which are commonly used with GMOs. Bees and monarch butterflies are just two of the innocent victims of GMO’s toxicity. When we think of our health and well-being, this cannot be separated from the health of our planet.

Pin on PinterestShare on FacebookEmail this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+



2 Responses to Major Study Links GMOs To Serious Health Issues

  1. Bob says:

    terrible reporting. It is far from unusual for papers to be retracted in journals, this is how the peer review process works. Once the wider community has a chance to look at the study they can challenge its methods and conclusions. This is how the scientific method works; by having your work studied and challenged by others. And it’s largely effective. And thank god it is because it was exactly this process that uncovered the fraudulent study that Andrew Wakefield did into the MMR vaccine and categorically showed his study to be no better than lies, effectively.

    Saying that the paper got retracted by a mysterious cabal of GMO supporters is at best a guess, and at worse a lie. And then you go on to ignore another study that did not return positive results because you arbitrarily decided that 90 days was not a long enough study. Was this because you have scientific data that indicates 90 was insufficient? Or was it just a way of sweeping that study aside because it didn’t support the conclusions your have obviously already decided on?

    I’m not for or against GMO crops as such. I do believe however that they will be crucial subsistence in developing countries where hardier crops can help reduce seasonal hunger. But what dismays me is that this sort of reporting where inconvenient data is swept aside and claims are made using an emotive rather than scientific basis.

    And if you are going to make claims about the links between GMO and health then at least provide a link to the source of the information (by this I mean a study that has been performed, not another article you wrote earlier – that is NOT a source of information) so that your readers can make an informed conclusion themselves.

    • Jenny says:

      It’s you opinion Bob and I respect it. I have the references I’ve used listed at the end, and none of them is a previous article I’ve written. I totally disagree to what you’ve said, so lets agree to disagree. It’s every person’s choice whether to consume GMO or not, and people can decide for themselves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *