Image Credit: Jen Wilton / Flickr. This image has been modified.

Is Insecticidal GMO Corn Safe?

Recently, the prominent science journal Nature editorialized that we are now swimming in information about genetically modified crops, but that much of the information is wrong—on both sides of the debate. “But a lot of this incorrect information is sophisticated, backed by legitimate-sounding research and written with certitude,” adding that with GMOs, “a good gauge of a statement’s fallacy is the conviction with which it is delivered.”

To many in the scientific community, GMO concerns are dismissed as one big conspiracy theory. In fact, one item in a psychological test of belief in conspiracy theories asked people if they thought food companies would have the audacity to be dishonest about genetically modified food. The study concluded that many people were cynical and skeptical with regard to advertising tricks, as well as the tactics of organizations like banks and alcohol, drug, and tobacco companies. That doesn’t sound like conspiracy theory to me; that sounds like business as usual.

We must remember there is a long legacy of scientific misconduct. Throw in a multi-billion dollar industry, and one can imagine how hard it is to get to the truth of the matter. There are social, environmental, economic, food security, and biodiversity arguments both pro and con about GMOs, but those are outside my area of expertise. I’m going to stick to food safety. And as a physician, I’m a very limited veterinarian—I only know one species (us!). So, I will skip the lab animal data and ask instead: What human data do we have about GMO safety?

One study “confirmed” that DNA from genetically modified crops can be transferred into humans who eat them, but that’s not what the study found, just that plant DNA in general may be found in the human bloodstream, with no stipulations of harm (See Are GMOs Safe? The Case of Bt Corn).

Another study, however, did find a GMO crop protein in people. The “toxin” was detected in 93 percent of blood samples of pregnant women, 80 percent of umbilical cord blood samples, and 69 percent of samples from non-pregnant women. The toxin they’re talking about is an insecticidal protein produced by Bt bacteria whose gene was inserted into the corn’s DNA to create so-called Bt-corn, which has been incorporated into animal feed. If it’s mainly in animal feed, how did it get into the bodies of women? They suggest it may be through exposure to contaminated meat.

Of course, why get GMO’s second-hand when you can get them directly? The next great frontier is transgenic farm animals. A genetically modified salmon was first to vie for a spot at the dinner table. And then in 2010, transgenic cows, sheep, goats and pigs were created, genetically modified for increased muscle mass, based on the so-called mighty mouse model. Frankenfurters!

But back to children of the corn and their mothers. When they say it’s a toxin, it’s a toxin to corn worms, not necessarily to people. In fact I couldn’t find any data linking BT toxin to human harm, which is a good thing since it’s considered one of the few pesticides considered so non-toxic that it’s sprayed on organic fruits and vegetables.

For more on on the public health implications of genetically modified crops, see:

I did a similar “controversial issue” video series on gluten. See:

For those interested in the genetic engineering of livestock, I published a few papers myself on the topic:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live year-in-review presentations Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death, More Than an Apple a Day, From Table to Able, and Food as Medicine.

Discuss

Michael Greger M.D., FACLM

Michael Greger, M.D. FACLM, is a physician, New York Times bestselling author, and internationally recognized professional speaker on a number of important public health issues. Dr. Greger has lectured at the Conference on World Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the International Bird Flu Summit, testified before Congress, appeared on The Dr. Oz Show and The Colbert Report, and was invited as an expert witness in defense of Oprah Winfrey at the infamous "meat defamation" trial.


72 responses to “Is Insecticidal GMO Corn Safe?

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. At one time corn breeders would breed characteristics into the corn ,like really tight leaves on top of the ear corn and the corn would be very resistant to ear worms. Most likely they stopped doing that once they GM’d the corn with BT.
    Sweet corn attracts corn ear worms a lot more than field corn. We used to grow burgundy delight sweet corn, was very resistant to corn ear worms , plus huge yields as there would be two full size cobs on each plant. I don’t think I ever seen one ear worm that made it into the cob, sometimes the odd one in the tassel, oh and that variety really is purple, the whole plant is purple not green and the kernels bicolour .Grew 12 acres of it one year .
    cheers

      1. The plants were purple ,the kernels were yellow and white, it was one of the best tasting corns for regular su. Seedway used to sell as well as stokes.

  2. What about organically grown corn? It’s almost always sprayed with Bt. Should we worry about that too? Bt corn carries a lower aflatoxin burden than non-Bt corn. Is that an issue or is aflatoxin “natural” and therefore not a problem?

    1. Sprayed on Bt bacteria is biodegradable and washes off easily. However, when the Bt bacteria is inserted into every cell, as in GM corn, then there is no way to get rid of it. The “residual dose” thus goes way up in your gut. What’s for dinner? Insecticide — and a fouled up biome (human gut bacteria). Given the recent advances regarding the importance of a healthy biome, it’s not too surprising that the effects of Bt on it have not been researched much yet. And researchers cannot get samples of Bt corn to test since it’s a patented product and the patent owners (Monsanto) do not want such research done (they don’t even want it labelled in the grocery store). So, the missing links to human health are unlikely to come forth anytime soon, if ever.

      1. “…when the Bt bacteria is inserted into every cell, as in GM corn, then there is no way to get rid of it. The “residual dose” thus goes way up in your gut. What’s for dinner? Insecticide — and a fouled up biome (human gut bacteria)”

        Then, strangely, the very next sentence that you wrote dismisses your first comment. “Given the recent advances regarding the importance of a healthy biome, it’s not too surprising that the effects of Bt on it have not been researched much yet.”

        According to the article right above you:

        “When they say it’s a toxin, it’s a toxin to corn worms, not necessarily to people. In fact I couldn’t find any data linking BT toxin to human harm, which is a good thing since it’s considered one of the few pesticides considered so non-toxic that it’s sprayed on organic fruits and vegetables.”

        That is about as close, if not fully in, the realm of cognitive dissonance.

        You imply that it will mess up your gut biome then you tell StellaBarbone (and everyone who reads your post) that it has not been tested. So then how do you know that it will mess up anything? The article, a very short one, adds in that BT is toxic to corn worms and that not data linking it to harming people could be found. Additionally, that it is one of the few pesticides “…considered so non-toxic that it’s sprayed on organic fruits and vegetables.”

        Even if Monsanto won’t directly give anyone corn to test it can easily be had in many other ways including, drum roll please……the grocery store.

        “So, the missing links to human health are unlikely to come forth anytime soon, if ever.” Is that because no researcher will go to the grocery store?

        Are you actually a Doctor as your name has you titled? If so, you are very a very confusing one.

        1. Do you know what “cognitive dissonance” means (your reply does not suggest that you do)? You sound like one of those who are willingly encouraging this huge and dangerous experiment on people, but I will answer as if your questions are genuine. You can keep your insults.

          How would you test a known or suspected poison on humans? Such an experiment is highly unethical and the necessary human review board would never approve such a controlled experiment on people. And, you cannot buy Bt corn in a grocery store BECAUSE IT IS NOT LABELLED. I agree with Dr Greger that we do not KNOW that it will mess up the human biome because there has been no testing, thanks to Monsanto, which is obviously why Dr G could find no data. Nevertheless, there are some things that we do know that indicate caution.

          By the way, as every med student knows, the dose makes the poison. Bt corn raises the per-mouthful dose to way above natural levels (Bt is a naturally occurring bacteria), and it delivers it efficiently to the human deep gut. I suppose you eat corn, and when you do you’ve seen a few intact kernels in your stools? This implies release throughout the digestive tract. Anyway, how does this affect human health?

          We do know that Bt corn works by releasing the Bt bacteria in the gut of the corn worms where it penetrates the bowel and causes leaky gut to kill the insects. This is exactly why so many MDs are now recommending organic diets to those people who show up in their offices with various bowel problems, and they are achieving great success with this approach. Dr G may be familiar with such current clinical practices (his research so far in this area seems to be only in the area of published research). So, while we could never get an experiment on humans approved, it is nevertheless happening right now. Anyone want to be a guinea pig?

          The GMO crops that are mostly either Bt or Roundup-ready are corn, soybeans, and canola, which are each over 80% GMO. Some short-term testing on Roundup-ready crops was done for the EU, and the results were not good in any sense (body-sized tumors, rashes, and sterility in mice and rats). So, GMO crops are highly restricted in the EU. In the US, the Union of Concerned Scientists has recommended that long-term testing on animals (over 90 days) be implemented as soon as possible, but the corporate interests have stymied such efforts so far. At a minimum, consumers should eat these three crops as organic-only until some better data comes in, whenever that might be. Such is only common sense.

          Please readers, we know enough that caution is indicated, especially for our kids. Avoid GMOs.

          1. “Do you know what “cognitive dissonance” means (your reply does not suggest that you do)?”

            I do, but you are right on this one. I can see that I misapplied it. It is not your thoughts that are inconsistent, but your thoughts as compared to what is presented right in the information above. CD was the wrong term to use, that was my bad.

            “How would you test a known or suspected poison on humans?”

            No and not relevant as the information above states.

            “And, you cannot buy Bt corn in a grocery store BECAUSE IT IS NOT LABELLED”

            Not labeling something does not mean that you cannot buy it. It means that you cannot be sure of what you are buying. This does not mean that corn cannot be bought and tested. You can also get corn from other sources, like right from the farm. But, I am sure in your mind, no farmer that grows any MON seed would give any of it or sell any of it to anyone less a giant reseller so it gets lost in the system.

            “By the way, as every med student knows, the dose makes the poison”

            You don’t need to be a med student to know that. Even water will kill you at high enough doses, as will salt, Vit A, iron and other normally harmless compounds and elements.

            “…consumers should eat these three crops as organic-only until some better data comes in, whenever that might be”

            agrees but that doesn’t mean that what the information in this article is meaningless nor does it make BT in corn automatically harmful. It just means that organic might be a better option in this case…or it may not. Organic is not always best.

            “Please readers, we know enough that caution is indicated, especially for our kids. Avoid GMOs.”

            So avoid GMOs which are specifically targeted modifications but eating foods that have been cross-bred for centuries at a time when many harmful effects would not have been known, even if you slowly poisoned yourself over a period of months?

            How will you know if the food you buy is an original breed rather than some hybrid? You want random unknown mutations in a fruit that maybe hidden in their but since the fruit is larger and sweeter it is ok?

            GMO is such a bunk argument. Avoid them if you want but to just blindly act like GMO is bad is bandwagon thinking. Any med student would be smart enough to know that, right?

          2. Well if even organic has it, the only recourse would be to abstain from all corn and/or soybean products. I didn’t know organic could be gmo. Not good news if true. Someone please tell me it isn’t true.

            1. Maybe you were answered and I missed it, but no, GE/GMOs are forbidden to organic farmers.
              There’s a bad drift problem, notably with corn, and it’s possible that the hedgerows and windbreaks round organic farms to obviate various kinds of drift may at times fail.
              That’s why I tend to favor organic blue corn, since yellow or white kernels from drift are excluded.
              Organic soy is safer too, because varieties used for human tofu etc are not GMO.

              When at last buyers are informed which products are GMO, relatively whole foods will be easier to identify. A Consumer Reports attempt to see what proportion of corn flakes from different makers were GMO failed because the corn proteins in the flakes were TOO DEGRADED for them to tell. That’s a good reason to shun corn flakes even if they’re organic.

          3. Do you have a reference for this statement below/
            ” Some short-term testing on Roundup-ready crops was done for the EU, and the results were not good in any sense (body-sized tumors, rashes, and sterility in mice and rats).”

            1. Check out the web site responsbiletechnology.org The original paper, done in England, resulted in all kinds of attacks on the author and his lab, and eventually, intervention by the British PM. I believe that paper was pulled by the journal, not sure if it was republished or not.

              1. Thanks. The paper has been republished and is now freely available. I thought that this brief article by Nature offered an even-handed description of the controversy.
                http://www.nature.com/news/paper-claiming-gm-link-with-tumours-republished-1.15463

                It is hardly surprising that individuals and institutions with conflicts of interest would bitterly attack such studies. However, it is also clear that the study was too small to establish unambiguous associations. Nevertheless, there is no reason why consumers should choose to eat GMO products. There are no health benefits and any financial benefits appear not to go to consumers but straight to corporate bottom lines.

                You do not have to be a genius to conclude that, if there is no benefit from eating this stuff and a potential (even if small) risk, the sensible course is to avoid it. Little surprise then that corporate interests seek to remove the consumers’ right to know whether the foods they buy contain GMO elements.

          4. It is interesting that the huge rise in irritable bowel diseases, gluten intolerance, Crones, and a range of immune system related bowel disorders seem to have all become much more common since the introduction of Bt-toxin containing food. A mechanism involving thinning of the gut epithelial layer leading to in increased permeability and reduced barrier function due to Bt toxin modulated changes in the gut biome would make an excellent research topic.
            If Bt toxin is causing caterpillar death due to changes in gut function, why would we assume that the toxin is safe for our guts? I cannot believe the FDA etc let this through with such a massive hole in the safety data.
            Even outside the USA, it is extremely difficult to avoid due to lax or non-existent labelling laws for GM products, making the release of Bt toxin filled food for humans and livestock one of the most bizarre and potentially catastrophic experiments in human history.

  3. There is a difference between spraying organic plants with BT that degrades in sunlight and can be washed off and actually integrating the Bt into the corn kernel. The toxin is not washed off, it is consumed with every bite. If the jury is out…then best to avoid GMO corn.

    1. The jury is not out. The verdict is in. Numerous countries around the world have conducted their own evaluations and found it safe. Including the European Food Safety Agency, Brazil, and China.
      The toxin requires an alkaline digestive system to work. Humans are acidic. Human stomach acids and enzymes destroy the protein.

      1. Davesandbrook: You wrote: ” Human stomach acids and enzymes destroy the protein.”

        Here is a quote from the article: “The “toxin” was detected in 93 percent of blood samples of pregnant
        women, 80 percent of umbilical cord blood samples, and 69 percent of
        samples from non-pregnant women.”

        How do you think it gets into the blood stream if the stomach destroys the protein?

        1. Extremely small amounts, like a few individual protein molecules, survive the digestion process. Modern analysis can detect individual molecules in a blood sample. Still harmless to humans.

            1. Actually, I have seen it in thousands of peer reviewed and published research studies from independent labs around the world. Over 90 countries have independently verified Bt is harmless to not only humans, but all mammals. Not only does it have no effect, there is no known biochemical process by which Bt could affect humans. Want more proof — look in a mirror. Bt is a common soil bacterium found around the world. Billions of people have been breathing and ingesting Bt since before history. Not a single documented case Bt has ever harmed anyone.

              1. Even assuming you’re right that thousands of studies have proved this one particular aspect (digestion of this protein) is relatively harmless so far as we know (i.e. no detectable harm), see my point above. Whole foods are carefully balanced combinations of macro and micronutrients, various phytochemicals, etc. the sums of which are more than their parts. That’s why, say, isolated vitamin pills can be harmful, can increase cancer risk – they’re meant to act in concert with the right mix of other chemicals found in our food naturally. When we start genetically altering foods to contain substances they’re not supposed to, bits of DNA they’re not meant to have, how does this alter the relationships between these various chemicals? If we modify rice, for instance, to contain beta carotene, a vitamin precursor it’s not even meant to contain much of, how can we be so sure that this is a healthy modification? Is it not possible that “balancing constituents” might not be present, that in a sense we should perhaps no longer think of this rice as a whole food anymore because of the way it’s constituents have been “unbalanced”?

                The reality is, there’s so much we still don’t know about our food, how its various components work together to protect health, etc. Why on Earth would we go messing around with that more than we already have? We’ve already made our food less nutritious through conventional agriculture, and through agriculture/breeding in general as well (making our food more sugary and less “seedy”, for instance, reducing its content of omega-3s, etc.). What’s done is done, and we can try to switch to methods (organic, permaculture) to bring back more nutrition to our food, but for Pete’s sake, let’s not start inflicting completely unnecessary change – with unknown risks – of a whole other order onto our food.

              2. How would you know that “over 90 countries have independently verified” anything? This sounds like a talking point right off the Monsanto PR guidance. Like the comment that “there is no known biochemical process,” which fits right into Einstein’s comment that “absence of proof is not proof of absence.”

                While Bt is a common bacteria, the compound that is created by inserting Bt genes into corn DNA is completely outside of nature. Further, the body does not split the DNA when protein molecules are digested. Therefore, we know for a fact that a huge dose of this perverted DNA is entering into our bodies, if we eat such corn. We can have have no idea how such a molecule is handled by the human body until proper experiments are conducted.

                Caution is indicated and the wise will listen. Everyone else will become part of the great experiment.

              3. I guess in your “thousands” of BS “studies” you didn’t stumble on these:

                New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity.
                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17356802

                Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified
                foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada
                https://www.uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf

                Pests plague GMO corn — and Monsanto
                http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morning_call/2013/08/pests-plague-gmo-corn—and-monsanto.html

                Roundup: Birth Defects Caused By World’s Top-Selling Weedkiller, Scientists Say
                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/roundup-scientists-birth-defects_n_883578.html

                As a bonus, read this:

                http://qz.com/638059/many-scientific-truths-are-in-fact-false/
                http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress
                http://www.fastcompany.com/3041493/body-week/why-a-fake-article-cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs-was-accepted-by-17-medical-journals

              4. Who do you work for Dave? If you are here on behalf of a chem-ag company to perform company interest protectionism? If so, then you will need to disclose your affiliations by law. Please tell us who you are working for sir. This site is about human health, not quarterly earnings reports of the chem companies you are invested in.

      2. until there are long term studies demonstrating GMO safety, why take the risk? There are no demonstrated health benefits from consuming this stuff, so why eat it in the first place?

        And the efforts of the industry via its influence (donations etc) on legislators, to deny Americans information about what is in their food, and thus their ability to make an informed choice, seems undemocratic at the very least. It does not benefit consumers, that is for sure, and sits oddly with a society that trumpets its commitment to “freedom”.

        1. The tired old precautionary principle argument…
          OK, let us apply the precautionary principle to all food — starting with organic. Organic food has never been proven safe either. As a matter of fact, more people have died from eating organic food than GMO.

          1. That is a totally specious comparison. People have been eating organic food since before we became human. Also, organic food hasn’t killed people – contaminated and improperly prepared food has. To use the US terminology, it is GRAS.

            You have still not provided a reason to justify eating such products. There is no health reason to eat such products. That is the key issue.

            have no problem if you choose to eat them -good luck to you – but why deny other people the right to choose not to?

            IMHO, legislation to deny people the right to choose is egregious and simply fuels sssoicions about these products.

          2. Yes, the tired old precautionary principle argument. it is why i wear a seatbelt in the car and a helmet riding a bike. There is nothing tired about avoiding unnecessary risks. I think that it is more usually called common sense. Eating GMO foods is not a necessary risk even if the risk is small.

            1. Do you wear a seat belt and wear a helmet in bed? Perhaps you should. More people have been injured falling out of bed than from Bt. It is not common sense. It is misplaced fear. Psychologically it is similar to global warming denial. Whole textbooks have been written about the phenomenon.

      3. Given corporate interference, it seems we each need to find our own verdicts. But I think you mean the European Food Safety AUTHORITY. Here is a quote lifted today from their web site “EFSA does not authorise GMOs. EFSA provides science-based risk assessments to the European Commission and EU Member States who take these into account, along with other factors, when deciding on the authorization of GMOs.” Last I heard, China and Brazil are not EU members, nor do I think their standards for safety are up to those of the west. What have the EU members done, like Germany, France, and at one-time, Britain?

        I am curious to understand how you know how Bt corn is digested since no published experimentation on humans has been performed, as Dr G noted. How about a few specific journal references? We do know that it gets to the blood in the US from typical consumption of grocery store corn products.

  4. I think another part of the problem is that so much of the focus is only looking at the final product. Is the corn safe? What about the whole process before it even gets to your plate! Let’s not forget that the whole purpose of GMO corn is to sell pesticides. It is just a delivery vehicle for Roundup, the pesticide that the corn has been genetically engineered to resist. And glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, has been classified as ‘probably carcinogenic’. This chemical is being sprayed in mass quantities all over fields, running off into streams, polluting everything. And many of these fields are close to elementary schools, some as close as 200 yards away! The people spraying have to wear hazmat suits, and yet unprotected school children in many cases are close by.

    The problem with GMOs is that you need to look at the whole picture, not just the end product. These foods serve the purpose of being vehicles for selling chemicals and increasing profits of chemical companies. Why are we letting chemical companies control our food? Let’s not forget that Monsanto has a history of lying to people, and are responsible for chemicals such as Agent Orange. Do we really want them controlling our food?

  5. I see a glaring omission in Dr. Gerger’s brief summary on the question of Insecticidal GMO Corn Safety. And, veiled insinuation about its safety by his deliberate choice to display an image that inflames the uninformed consumer . So, tell me again why the people in the image are wearing hazmat suits ? I’ve enjoyed many of Dr. Greger’s videos and summaries in the past, but it is obvious that he is deliberately subverting the best in class science that has validated the safety of transgenic crops and ones with insecticidal proteins. On May 17, 2016, the National Academy Of Science, Engineering, and Medicine released their report : ” A Science-Based Look At Genetically Engineered Crops” . https://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2016/04/27/report-release/ Quoting from the press release: ” Effects on human health. The committee carefully searched all available research studies for persuasive evidence of adverse health effects directly attributable to consumption of foods derived from GE crops but found none. Studies with animals and research on the chemical composition of GE foods currently on the market reveal no differences that would implicate a higher risk to human health and safety than from eating their non-GE counterparts. Though long-term epidemiological studies have not directly addressed GE food consumption, available epidemiological data do not show associations between any disease or chronic conditions and the consumption of GE foods. There is some evidence that GE insect-resistant crops have had benefits to human health by reducing insecticide poisonings. In addition, several GE crops are in development that are designed to benefit human health, such as rice with increased beta-carotene content to help prevent blindness and death caused by vitamin A deficiencies in some developing nations.”

    1. Your reply sounds as if you have an invested interest in GMOs. This site is interested in health issues, not the promotion of the insecticide industry.

    2. Dr. Gregor has written a book that advocates a plant based diet. I think his point here is to subtly explain that eating meat that is laced with Bt corn proteins adds to his argument that meat leads to myriad morbidities and mortalities. His research is solid. If cancer can potentially take seed 10 years or longer before you get a tumor, how do we know that eating meat and GMO corn is not planting a mutation seed at some point? How do we know that by changing the microbiome of the gut, that we are not disabling our immune system to catch the small genetic changes that could lead to tumor growth? Who is doing the research on the changes of the gut bacteria in relationship to ingesting these new proteins?

      1. A simple point to be made is that humans consume foreign DNA and gene products (proteins) every day of their lives. The research and body of knowledge to-date affirms that human physiology handles the transgenic DNA and gene products just like it does with the myriad of foreign DNA and proteins on all our food and in the environment, not withstanding allergenicity and true pathology. In the link below Dr. Alison L Van Eenennaam , a leading researcher on veterinary biotechnology, summarizes this. “Fate of recombinant (rDNA) and protein from GE crops:
        A number of studies have been conducted to look for the presence of rDNA or the protein encoded by the rDNA construct in the milk, meat and eggs from animals fed GE feed [116-120]. To date GE DNA and expression protein products have not been detected in animal protein products derived from food animals fed GE feed. The reason that scientists are researching this topic, even though the presence of DNA and protein from conventional crops in the diet of food animal has not been considered to be problematic, is that consumers are allegedly concerned that GE DNA could alter animal health and in turn eventually pose a threat to human health [121]. The scientific merit of this perception is dubious given that animals and people eat foreign DNA from various crop species every day, and DNA is generally recognized as safe whether it is derived from a GE or conventionally-bred organism. ” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015968/

        1. We can’t even access accurate dietary information without effort because of vested interests, but we are supposed to be fine with the assessment that a wealthy chemical company will care that the frankenfood they bastardized to assure their profit is safe or harmless? Personally, I think releasing these monstrosities into the environment is arrogant insanity, let alone ingesting it! Nobody can be SURE of anything since these things have never existed before and we are the unwilling guinea pigs in this and other ridiculous experiments man created. Since the “technology” only benefits the company producing it by the nefarious manipulation of insuring profits on many levels, it is literal insanity to allow it to proliferate on the ASSumption it is safe if we don’t even have a clue what we should be looking for, let alone finding proof of anything specific! Erring on the side of caution is certainly not a trait this $$$ corporatocracy is enamoured of, and look where it’s gotten us so far!

        2. Dr Van Eenennaam, immediately after getting a UC Davis PhD, went to work first for Monsanto, and has pushed for genetically modified farmed salmon among other distinctions. Her approach is notable in saying “consumers are allegedly concerned” about GE/GMOs.
          Responses here and elsewhere on the net, and in various polls, would suggest to most objective observers that the word ‘allegedly’ bespeaks a less than objective attitude about this issue.

    3. I recently heard a radio documentary report. I can’t remember the speakers or the specifics, but a very credentialed person made a pretty convincing argument that none of the promises of the last 30 years for genetically engineered crops producing higher yields, more nutrition etc has ever panned out. It’s all been marketing hype for other big ag and big chem companies to get laws changed and farmers stuck buying only their product. So it’s hard for me to believe any purported benefit without specifics on proven results.

    4. SWITCHING THE PARADIGM TO ABUNDANCE
      John your basic miscalculation comes from false colonial indoctrination about 2-dimensional ‘Agriculture’ (Latin ‘ager’ = ‘field’) which poisons, burns & cuts down ‘indigenous’ (Latin ‘self-generating’) 3-D Polyculture Orchard & maintains 2-D production surfaces & environment In self-created scarcity, large agro-industrial corporations promote Genetically Modified Organisms GMO’s which harm human health & our ecosphere as well as having 1/100th the productivity of ‘indigenous’ (Latin ‘self-generating’) Polyculture Orchards, which are 10,000% more productive for food, materials, energy & water-cycle. Vertical growing fractal surfaces of trees PHOTOSYNTHESIZE 92-98% of solar energy into abundant food, materials, energy & water cycles. Agriculture only photosynthesizes 2 – 8% of solar energy.

      DEEP ROOTS pump water, mine minerals & develop nutrient colonies deep into the earth’s substrate. Agro-roots only descend short centimetres leaving the earth hard-packed & barren. 3-D Polyculture regions create cold energy spots which draw warm moist ocean winds inland. 2-D agriculture in reflecting solar energy create high pressure areas which push winds from the continent to the sea & desertification. 60% of ocean to continent water transfer is through condensation on trillions of square kilometres of fractal leaf & branch surfaces. Only 40% of water transfer is through rain or snow precipitation. Institutionalized out-of-touch individuals being indoctrinated have little knowledge of their abundant ‘indigenous’ roots.
      FOOD FOR ALL SPECIES
      Polyculture restores a 3-D productivity where all species thrive simultaneously, restore water balances, rivers, lakes, fish, air, soil etc. All species have a role in human polyculture productivity. A friend for example has had squirrels, chipmunks, groundhogs & blue-jays plant some 90,000 rather evenly spaced oak, butternut & other trees 35 years ago which now produce a tonne of nuts each times 40,000 nut trees. Tree foods are deeply mineralized, full of enzymes among other superior nutrient profiles as well as costing a fraction of the labour, typically harvesting massive quantities in the shade.
      ECO-SPHERE PRODUCTION
      Tree roots provide many biosphere services, pumping & holding water, mining minerals, developing extensive nutrient colonies. Canopies condense moist winds on their leaf & bark surfaces, attracting warm-moist sea-winds. Climate-wise each tree is a heat-pump warming the environment with moderation of frosts by 3 weeks earlier growing season in the spring & 3 weeks longer growing season in the fall. Whole regions change climate through biosphere multipliers such as food trees. Humans as primates only have to be aware of & convene life’s abundant natural processes.

      https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/design/1-how-to-grow-your-own-raw-vegan-food-garden

      https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/design/1-indigenous-welcome-orchard-food-production-efficiencies

    5. John: If you work for Monsanto or an agro-biz company and you are here in these forums as a hired gun to do GMO damage control, then you will need to disclose that (by law). Who you are working for? Your pro-GMO bias is obvious and we are requesting you disclose your affiliations please.
      Golden rice was a terrible failure and was never intended to help vit-A levels in third world countries. It was developed as a smoke and mirrors cover up to trick farmers in India to use expensive patented terminator seed that would need to be re-purchased every year, thereby enslaving the Indian farmers, hence the large numbers of Indian farmers committing suicide each year by DRINKING the herbicides intended for the GMO crops. Golden rice being one of those crops. A simple vit-A supplement would be far more effective and cost efficient that golden rice. Yet golden rice for all its downfalls is still promoted as a positive by unscrupulous chemical companies … It’s not. It’s an evil instrument of monopoly for profit…profit…profit. who do you work for John?

      1. While waiting for john’s reply and perhaps hearing crickets, you and others may want to consider the relative advantages of either dark green leafy veggies or sweetpotatoes, over GE/GM rice OR beta-carotene pills… and then, why so many third-worlders no longer have access to land for growing such easy crops for subsistence.
        Olivier de Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food from 2008-2014, has published much material on that subject.

  6. The Bt bacterium is a naturally occurring microbe found in soil worldwide. You have been breathing and eating Bt your entire life.

  7. This is why I have my own 1/2 acre organic garden. I grow my own corn. One good thing about GMO’s is that those at the top of the economic food chain who foist these GMO foods on the public will inevitably partake of their own soup. However, Putin has outlawed GMO foods in Russia and has kicked Monsanto out of his region of power.

  8. With GMOs there are always 2 questions. First is the engineered plant safe. Second are the chemicals it is being dosed with safe? Most of the GM plants are engineered to withstand glyphosate so they are sprayed with it at least twice a year. Now the farmers are desiccating even conventional crops with glyphosate at harvest time. Nice evenly died & dried fields all ready to be harvested.
    Given the track record of Monsanto you’d be foolhardy to trust anything they say even under oath. They lie as a matter of corporate policy.

  9. So, the GE propagators have “invested” millions upon millions of dollars (invested in politicians), have hired former politicians, have paid to have former Monsanto managers placed in political postures, have furiously lobbied to prevent the labeling of food, so that you do not know if you are consuming these products. With former Monsanto management in government positions, the federal government quietly passes the Monsanto Protection Act, preventing people from suing for damages to themselves, their health, the environment and agricultural industries. Dozens of developed nations will not allow GE products, crops or even crop research within their borders, citing fear of health degradation and a complete lack of transparency of research results, GMO pollen contamination and the obvious strong arming tactics of Monsanto, Dow, BASF, Dupont and others. The obvious seems to predominate … If a worm eats this, he dies, oh, and by the way, we sprayed the bejezzus out of it with Roundup (a proven carcinogen containing pesticide); uhhh, but, it’s OK for you. No, really, eat it.

    1. And lots of pollinators and butterflies die or are impacted with certain field applications of their products, but pay no attention to that; hey look over here, GE crops and their paired toxins are feeding the world, oh, and it means jobs.

    2. …and Roundup’s supposed excellence derives from it attacking the shikimate pathway of bacterial metabolism, making it ‘perfectly safe’ for human cells, lacking the pathway… tho not for your gut bacteria, who outnumber your cells…

  10. Your information on BT corn is incomplete in my humble opinion. Yes, BT is sprayed on organic fruits & veggies. But presumably people wash their fruits & vegs before consumption so the question is: is there residual left on even after washing and how does that compare to the amount in GMO corn? A further question is this: there has been an astronomical increase in the number of cases of irritable bowel syndrome & other abdominal issues in the past 20 years. (I’m not a medical doctor, but I am a chiropractor & have seen a significant increase in these conditions reported by my patients & have seen these problems in people at younger ages as well as having read studies about the increase in these conditions.) Admittedly, those 20 years have seen numerous other negative diet changes but could things like BT corn, so pervasive in processed foods account for or partially account for the increase in IBS, IBD and other digestive syndromes & diseases especially considering that a whole host of digestive issues are becoming much more commonplace in children & young adults. Has anyone looked at BT concentrations in people with and without digestive issues? Has anyone looked at BT concentrations in people with digestive issues, taken them off of processed foods and meat, to eliminate the contamination you speak of & looked at whether or not decreasing the concentration of BT proteins in their blood corresponds to to decreasing symptoms? To presume that BT corn, in which BT toxin is produced INTERNALLY by the corn is substantially the same as using the entire BT organism Externally and then cleaning it off during processing is making a significant and scientifically unfounded assumption.

    1. here is where it gets weird: food may not be grown from a GMO but what if it is treated with enzymes produced by GMO microbes? Is all bread leavened by gmo yeast considered a gmo food?
      If it ain’t organic then all commercial yeasts are gmo. Same for a huge number of other fermenting microbes:
      beer soy sauce cheese etc are all altered by enzymes that AREN’T LABELLED GMO

      1. TBA, good point, for which a solution has been created for organics: an ingredients list *asterisks all organic components of a processed food, and can as easily mark all GE/GMO contents, IF the food processing/gov’t complex allows..

  11. Shun all food that isn’t organically produced. Grow your own, don’t processed or buy junk food from supermarkets and help to put the biggest offenders out of business. If only we all knew the power we have.

    1. The problem with organic is the certification process . If you have the skill and knowledge to grow a crop without the use of chemicals, guess what you get to pay extra for that privilege , which of course makes organic more expensive. The guy using all sorts of chemicals doesn’t have to pay labeling costs on his crops , he can legally sell anywhere. Now if you ask me he’s the one that should be paying for the special label , a label that spells out what his crop is contaminated with, so that people would better know what they are feeding their kids, so they could take extra precautions in washing and preparing this food. it’s a backwards system that help make only the richer people afford organics.

      1. …and non-organic food sources are called ‘conventional’, tho this discussion reveals they are anything but conventional.

  12. MonsterSanto is just a criminal corporation, if I can avoid giving my money to these scumbags, I’ll do it. Organic it is for me.

    1. In Ty-Ballinger’s quest for the cures series, the first episode explained why World War II would have never happened without Bayer and other chemical companies supporting Hitler’s cause. Sacrificing 6 million lives for their profits clearly indicates how little they care about what happens to us. Profits from selling seed and chemicals to the farmers; profits for selling prescriptions when their products make us sick…. Oh, what a spectacular bottom line for them!

  13. The real problem with GMO is that it’s a destructive way to grow food. Plants have grown fine for millions of years without poisons to protect them. In nature they grow in multi-cultures and covered soil. No wonder mono-cultures on barren ground are susceptible to pests. The arms race with pest will only grow more and more resistant pests, poisoned food and a poisoned soil. Besides Monsanto strives to gain a monopoly on food and seeds. They use any dirty trick to force people to buy their products.

    Even if GMO products are not unhealthy they are unhealthy.

  14. When vitamin supplements were first developed, there was massive interest and excitement within scientific and industrial circles. The touted benefits were impressive, and the profits to be made were immense. Over time, though, we found out that, actually, many of them are harmful. Vitamins and other food components are meant to be consumed as part of whole foods, where their action is balanced and assisted by other food substances, many of which we’ve yet to discover. Now, the supplements industry is still thriving, but many people know to get their nutrients from whole foods instead.

    Now enter genetic modification. Technically we’re working with whole foods now. When we decide to add vitamin A to rice, turning it a golden colour, we’re talking about the creation of what would still be considered a whole food by most people. It’s not the same as putting a vitamin A pill on top of a bowl of rice. But, does it not occur to anybody that since ordinary brown rice doesn’t naturally contain much vitamin A, perhaps engineering it to is not a good idea? That all the various components that, say, greens, sweet potatoes, and carrots, etc. contain that “balance and assist” beta carotene in these foods, are not present in brown rice? Is it not possible that the vitamin A artificially added to brown rice may be found out, years down the line, to also cause health issues as well? Even if we’re not talking the overt adverse effects that pills can cause, is it not possible that we’ll decrease the effectiveness of these foods in protecting us against disease (cancer, etc.), by causing imbalance in the way their various components work?

    There are so many unanswered questions with GM technology, and no ethical ways of answering these questions.

    1. Also,unless grown under controlled settings, interbreeding with non-GM crops is pretty well inevitable, meaning that choice is essentially obliterated. Those of us that want to consume non-GMO corn, soy, and increasingly other foods like certain squash, papaya, rice, and eventually apples, potatoes, etc. have no guarantee that the food we’re purchasing, or even growing ourselves in our own yards in some cases, will stay non-GMO. For the time being, we can still consume crops that haven’t been modified yet, but there’s interest in modifying pretty well everything. If this continues on, consuming guaranteed non-GMO food is going to be a near-impossible task.

  15. The thing is if you don’t want caterpillars eating your organic brassicas all you need is a commercially available BT powder. Put one teaspoon in a 10litre watering can. Stir and that’s enough to quickly sprinkle on a 10m x2m row. A lot more than that if you put in a spray bottle. The newly hatched caterpillar eats it and dies quickly. After a few days it breaks down washes off and isn’t there anymore. Who would want to eat a plant that actively produces it 24/7 even if its of no harm to humans. Not me that’s for sure! I’m not going to sprinkle the stuff on my kale salad right before I eat it!

    1. …and although Bt doesn’t fare well in the sun, after much is killed a residue remains in the soil for quite some time, waiting… so eternal Bt sprays may not be necessary, if crops are otherwise healthy.

Leave a Reply

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

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This