As May 21st approaches, offering us a chance to stand united in a global March Against Monsanto, the website March Against Monsanto has put out 40 independent studies to persuade us on the harms that GMOs and the use of glyphosate cause.
For years now, we have been aware of the potential health effects we face from Monsanto’s persistent and often unrelenting lobbying against Citizen Joe. Only recently, activists have travelled again to Washington D.C. to meet with senators in their quest to establish GMO labelling as something uniform and standard. Only again, has this call for labeling, demanded by the majority of the population, fallen on deaf ears.
One would think that after recent WHO suggestions that the common worldwide pesticide used on the bulk of agriculture – glyphosate (or Roundup) is a “probable carcinogen,” that mandatory labelling would be immediately initiated. Is it hardly unreasonable to expect labelling on the foods that have been sprayed?
March Against Monsanto have helped bring attention to a GMO Free USA compiled list of 40 rodent studies involving the use of Roundup Ready or Bt-toxin GM feed. As they say on the website:
“When you see this sort of evidence, it really is quite mind-boggling that our elected officials are seemingly putting corporate interests and profiteering above public health.”
Here are just 15 of them found on March Against Monsanto Website:
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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)
- Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, François Roullier, Dominique Cellier, Gilles-Eric Séralini (2009) A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health Int J Biol Sci; 5(7):706-726.
- O. P. Dolaychuk, R. S. Fedoruk (2013) Biological Effects of Different Levels of Soybeans Conventional and Transgenic Varieties in the Second-Generation Female Rats Ration. The Animal Biology, 2013, vol. 15, no. 2
- Thanaa A. El-Kholy, Mohammad Abu Hilal, Hatim Ali Al-Abbadi, Abdulhalim Salim Serafi, Ahmad K. Al-Ghamdi, Hanan M. Sobhy and John R. C. Richardson (2014) The Effect of Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Soybean on DNA, Cytogenicity and Some Antioxidant Enzymes in Rats. Nutrients, 6(6), 2376-2386
- El-Shamei ZS et al. Histopathological changes in some organs of male rats fed on genetically modified corn (Ajeeb YG). J Am Sci. 2012;8(10):684–696.
- Ermakova IV (2006) Genetically modified soy leads to weight loss and increased mortality of pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies. EkosInform. Federal Environmental Law Gazette. a | -1,, p. 4-10.
- Ermakova IV (2007) New data on the impact of GMOs on physiological state and the higher nervous activities mammals. All-Russia Symposium TRANSGENIC PLANTS AND BIOSAFETY Moscow, October 22 – 25, pages 38-39
- Irina Ermakova (2007) GM soybeans—revisiting a controversial format NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOLUME 25 NUMBER 12 DECEMBER 1351-1354
- Ermakova IV, IV Barskov (2008) Study of the physiological and morphological parameters in rats and their offspring using a diet containing soybean transgenic EPSPS CP4 Biological sciences. 6. p.19-20.
- Ermakova IV (2009) Influence of soybean gene EPSPS CP4 on the physiological state and reproductive functions of rats in the first two generations Contemporary Problems in Science and Education Number 5, p.15-20.
- Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A, Mengheri E. (2008) Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem. Dec 10;56(23):11533-9.
This article (40 Studies Saying GMOs are Bad for You) is a free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author AnonWatcher and AnonHQ.com.
I literally read every word of the 12 studies(not 40 as titled). Stop capitalizing on the laziness of the typical reader. Your science is FLAWED.
1.Small sample size, only 12 per batch. Strictly speaking, they didn’t conclude that GMOs are bad, just that they need to be investigated.
2.Italian scientists didn’t share info from sample size and the data is not linked in the study.
3.No difference found between control and GM-fed over a fairly large sample size, in face the gm corn actually appear to relieve a few issues.
4.The change in average of the control group is invalidated by the large variance in the data. Strictly speaking, an average that is only 6% different, with a variance of nearly 25% is inconclusive at best.
5.Preliminary results show no overall difference between the control groups. pre-mRNA transcription was slower on average during the first mitosis, but the second and third generations were normal. Warrants investigation, but nothing conclusive in this study.
6. FINALLY, A SERIOUS STUDY! This literally should have been the first one you listed. This shows signs of acute toxicity in the group fed MON810. We already knew mon810 was bad, though to my knowledge I believe it was removed from circulation.
7. Mon810 investigation again from 2008, since removed from circulation.
8. MON810 once more, the AJEEB strain. Small sample sizes and extreme testing environment seem to have exaggerated the effects, but I will not fight for MON810.
9. This is really controversial, as the “GM” corn they used wasn’t of a known concentration or origin, the results were inconclusive at best, and so many unknowns were left unexplained it basically isn’t a valid study at all.
10. Could not obtain full paper, also it’s in russian. Abstract lacks enough information to make a judgement as to the listed conclusion.
11. Merely correlated age of consumer with potential risk factors for gm side-effects.
Thanks for pointing this out. its sad that even though the intentions of this whole thing is good (having completely natural food), the information in the title is still misleading.
Your inability to follow the links to the 40+ references is telling since your laziness is also shown in your misinterpretation/flat out lying about the references you claim to have read.
#1. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The ALT levels suggest liver damage and I’m just getting started. They are obviously statistically significant and so your claim is just nonsensical.
#2 The researchers clearly include this info in the “Materials and Methods” section which you lied about reading.
#3 Huh? Either you are a liar or you are science illiterate, “in the duodenal villi of GM-fed animals, a lower amount of acidic mucins (Figure 1e, f) and sulpho-mucins (Figure 1g, h) was observed in comparison to controls.””acidic and sulpho-mucins are characterised by a higher viscosity compared to the neutral mucins, thus conferring a higher degree of protection to the intestinal surface,1 and their decrease could make the intestine less resistant to infections.” So the GE SOY potentially increases the risk of intestinal infections. Yet you claimed,”the gm corn actually appear to relieve a few issues”!!! Huh???? They fed them soy, not corn you liar!!!
At this point it is pretty obvious that you are just making things up. Like for #6 when you claim, “We already knew mon810 was bad, though to my knowledge I believe it was removed from circulation.”
No it hasn’t!!! You just keep making things up! You go on to claim for #7 “Mon810 investigation again from 2008, since removed from circulation.”
No it hasn’t!!! In your post for #6 you said, “I believe it was removed from circulation.” then for #7 you say, “since removed from circulation.” You claimed your “belief” was a fact!!! LOL!
Nobody can take you serious if they actually follow the links and read these studies. There are over 40, the sample size is in the study, they used soy and not corn, Mon810 is still on the market, etc. You are just making things up and hoping the laziness of the typical reader will keep them from exposing you as a fraud. Too bad, you’ve been exposed!!!
What’s even more funny is this list shows the weight of the relevant long-term evidence. You are actually trying to deny the weight of the relevant long-term evidence making you no better than a science-denying flatearther!!!
Loved it…thank you! Kick the mf where it hurts!! I love it when someone stands up to these Monsatan butt lickers!
Even with flawed information as you say, would you drink Round up? Would you eat food that has been sprayed with it without washing it. I have learned more and more from people who have cured themselves of diseases such as Crohns disease just by changing their diet to organic, not the organic in our stores but that they grow themselves. I believe that the chemicals used in Farming and in the oilfield definitely have an impact on our health. I have noticed changes in myself with changes in my diet. I wonder how many other diseases would be affected by a change in our diets. Do your own research. The lies told by corporations is all about Money. It is all about greed.