Are GMOs Safe? The Case of Bt Corn

Are GMOs Safe? The Case of Bt Corn
4.83 (96.67%) 42 votes

So much of the information about genetically modified crops is wrong—on both sides of the debate. What does the best available evidence have to say about the human health implications of Bt corn?


Recently the prominent science journal, Nature, editorialized that we are now swimming in information about genetically modified crops, but that much of that 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, quipping 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 believed food companies would have the audacity of being 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 doing business.

Minorities are blamed for conspiracist ideation for crackpot theories about AIDS, but 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 pro and con about GMOs, but those are outside my area of expertise so I’m going to stick to food safety, and as a physician I’m a very limited veterinarian, in that I only know one species, human beings, so will skip the lab animal data, which may inform what to feed one’s pet rat, but not necessarily what to feed one’s family. What human data do we have about GMO safety?

This study was purportedly to confirm 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.

This study, however, did find a GMO crop protein in people, detected in 93% of blood samples of pregnant women, 80% of umbilical cord blood, and 69% of sample from nonpregnant 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 women? They suggested it may be through exposure to contaminated meat.

Of course why get GMOs 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. Frankenfurters, one might say, are based off the so-called mighty mouse model.

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 nontoxic it is sprayed on organic fruits and vegetables.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Katie Schloer.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Recently the prominent science journal, Nature, editorialized that we are now swimming in information about genetically modified crops, but that much of that 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, quipping 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 believed food companies would have the audacity of being 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 doing business.

Minorities are blamed for conspiracist ideation for crackpot theories about AIDS, but 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 pro and con about GMOs, but those are outside my area of expertise so I’m going to stick to food safety, and as a physician I’m a very limited veterinarian, in that I only know one species, human beings, so will skip the lab animal data, which may inform what to feed one’s pet rat, but not necessarily what to feed one’s family. What human data do we have about GMO safety?

This study was purportedly to confirm 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.

This study, however, did find a GMO crop protein in people, detected in 93% of blood samples of pregnant women, 80% of umbilical cord blood, and 69% of sample from nonpregnant 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 women? They suggested it may be through exposure to contaminated meat.

Of course why get GMOs 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. Frankenfurters, one might say, are based off the so-called mighty mouse model.

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 nontoxic it is sprayed on organic fruits and vegetables.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Katie Schloer.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Doctor's Note

This is the first of a four part series on the public health implications of genetically modified crops. Stay tuned for the next three:

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:

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

203 responses to “Are GMOs Safe? The Case of Bt Corn

Comment Etiquette

On, 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. 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. Finally, my favorite doctor is making a video about GMO food. I’ve been waiting for this for a while.. I know the opinions of Dr McDougall and frankly I think he’s right, people are overly concerned about GMO and this create hysteria sometimes, they may tried to avoid it as much as possible while being obese and still consuming animals food (same thing happen with gluten). But GMO cannot be restrained to human health only, what about environnement issue and monopoly issue (the ability of patenting life and so on) ? If we want to see the big picture on this subject we cannot restrain ourselves just on the human data or even not on the scientific literature.. Beside, we start to do study human data when we have clue that it might be hazardous to health based on animal data, but what if animal data are bias, censored or even pulled back from the scientific literature ? When they are not going in the “good” way, due to lobbying. Because this is really what happened here in France with the Séralini study. I already talked about this in a previous post here on this website.

    I’m curious, what would think a independant person – like Dr greger – on this sensitive subject ?

    1. I real all I see od Dr. McDougall’s work. I subscribe to his newsletter, and occasionally correspond via email. If he stated he thinks people are overly concerned about GMO’s well them I missed it. Frankly, those don’t even sound like words he’d use. “people overly concerned”.
      My opinion is the pro GMO crowd manipulates the good doctors who point out the problems with GMO by steering the conversation to ‘IS GMO Good or Bad?” They can argue that until the cows come home…and continue to dominate our food source while doing so. Frankly, I’m suspicious of any GMO article that does not state clearly the intended purpose for creating GMO seeds. Once you understand their motive, the rest is almost a side issue.

      You see, Roundup and other poisons were made stronger to kill the mutant superbugs…the ones that survived the first Roundup formulation. Those bugs bred more superbugs so in response Monsanto made even stronger poisons, and stronger chemical killer, Roundup. the only problem is the stronger poisons also killed the plants! Monsanto upped their ante by genetically modifying the plants so they could survive the stronger poisons …the ones that kill the super bugs. So, the first question I ask is, “Are the new stronger bug killers on my GMO plants healthy for ME?

      The modified plant is of concern but it’s just a smoke screen hiding the root problem, very strong poisons on our food…err I should say, “On YOUR food”. That’s the discussion not being had.

      1. Yes Dr McDougall said it at the end of a lecture during the Q and A segment. He said he thinks it’s a distraction from the main issues.

        1. “Distraction from the main issues” is not the same as “people overreact to GMO’s” My main issue with GMO’s is Monsanto should not be designing foods so they can tolerate Monsanto’s new, even more poisonous chemicals. Change the poison, not the food. Maybe that was Dr. McDougall’s main issue too?

          1. His main issue was there are many other issues to be concerned about. Obesity, diabetes, heart disease.. The GMO issue distracts from other deadly issues that we know the solution to.

            1. We know the solution to GMO’s too (don’t do it).

              I’m not distracted by GMO’s. I just add it to my list of affronts to American’s by a few billionaires, an inept government, and scared politicians. You are right, however, the solutions are KNOWN. That’s why I keep saying poor health is a political issue, not a medical one. Government policy ruins American’s health. The same policy that sells formulated food, and insures te3h medical, and supporting industries are prosperous, kills millions of Americans. The ruthless food processors sell American’s all sorts of nastiness barred from less politically immoral countries. Other’s see a problem and ban the food. Here, we study it to infinity so the billionaires can keep the easy money rolling in.

              One day, when the time is right, we’ll all be switched to plant foods designed by Monsanto without them risking loss of profits…only then will all agree plant food is better. But by then who will remember heritage seeds? By then society will be dumbed down to the Rachael Ray mindset…”I’m fixin fried pork chops with white beans and sausage for hubby ’cause that’s what he likes.”

              1. Beans are good, fried pork chops and sausage are foods for an early grave. Where are the healthy nutritious and fiber rich vegetables and fruit. Most of what I see you serving is animal fat full of dioxins and fat soluble pesticides.

                    1. I’m not in sunny California but we can still grow three gardens by planting cool weather crops in the spring and fall, like cabbage and beets. The regular summer garden is the heat loving plants like tomatoes and corn. Anyone can garden but many don’t try because they get off to a bad start adding up the cost of chemicals and seeds. Organic gardening is cheap. The soil is maintained fertile with waste and seeds are saved (free) from our heritage plants. Most serious gardeners have surplus every year.

            2. I subscribe to a magazine called “Food Manufacturing Insider” (They are shamelessly calling it ” food manufacturing”.) Granny canned food and preserved food but she never manufactured any.

              Here’s today’s headline from one of their articles:

              How does commercialized pumpkin spice latte ingredients differ from ingredients found in your cabinet?

              Commercial pumpkin spice latte ingredients focus on giving you a complete and pleasurable experience that is consistent every time and evocative of pumpkin pie and the holidays. Pumpkin spice mix contains at least 340 flavor compounds and these are not found in one’s kitchen cupboard. But the human brain can fill in the blanks, so commercial operators use about 5-10 percent of the natural blend of spices.

              What are some common ingredients/chemicals that are found in pumpkin spice lattes?

              The major and common ingredients/chemicals in pumpkin spice lattes include: cinnamic aldehydes for cinnamon, eugenol for clove or allspice, terpenes such as sabinene for nutmeg, and zingiberene for ginger. They may also contain vanillin and cyclotene for the burnt butter or maple notes to round off the flavor.

                1. If food manufacturers were feeling any pressure to not formulate food through chemistry (for humans) the industry wouldn’t be so brazen with their gluttony of industry articles promoting the use of chemicals instead of food for their products. Sad fact is, no one is watching. They are proud of using every part of the animal as human food or other products. A carnivore eats all it’s pray, I guess the food industry copied the wild carnivores, and through the magic of chemistry, learned how to make bigger batches cheaply by adding all sorts of fillers and chemicals to keep us salivating. I like to quote the comedian who ask, “Why does dish soap have real lemon and lemon pie have artificial flavoring?

              1. It’s not necessarily good to have chemical isolates of this sort in food without sufficient regulation of the industry, but basically all the things that you iterate are actually f

                1. There’s nothing inherently “evil” about chemicals. “Evil” is a human condition. A gun isn’t evil. I’m sure we can find all sorts of chemical additives occurring naturally in plants. Human judgment as to how much and which ones should be “fortified” or concentrated” to create man-made foods is a Pandora’s box opened by a limited population out of sight of the rest of us. To argue they are already in our food (or other plants) doesn’t address the thousands of substitute foods created by money mongers who hire chemists full of themselves. The motive is money. Who can trust science to be objectively applied base on that?

                  1. Just a thought. I bought and ate sandwich bread for many, many years. I used to think how wonderful it was of the Sunbeam (sandwich bread) people to ¨fortify¨ their bread for us, it was on their label. Silly, silly me. (Well, I didn´t know, there wasn´t an internet at the time.) Little did I know at the time that these kind folk had used destroyed everything good in wheat, like the fiber, vitamins, etc. when they bleached it, ground it up into finite particles (thus increasing the glycemic index from a good grain to a crap substitute food). (Well, guess Sunbeam people didn´t grind up the wheat, just used it. But the fortified business was still on their packaging.) So, after taking all the good stuff out, they added some vitamins back in, thus ¨enriching¨ it. They couldn´t add the fiber back in, because then it´d be all stiff and such. And lordy help the general population if our bread is ¨stiff¨. Really, I don´t know and don´t care who did the ¨fortifying¨, but it was such a ploy on the populace, and still is today. Now, when I see ¨fortified¨, I say, ¨yeah, you took it out in your processing, now you´re gonna put a little back in. ¨ And the whole wheat label is no assurance either. Read that label. If it says ¨fortified¨, ask yourself why? So, bread, generally speaking, to me, is composed of only ¨empty¨ calories, it´s a ¨hollow¨ food, and I avoid it. I realize that this is off topic.

                    1. Jackie, as you know the wheat germ was originally removed from wheat grain so the oil could not spoil in long storage. Today the wheat germ is sold separately as “health food” for a premium price. Nothing is wasted. I think the food processors look around and see piles of waste in other industries, things that might otherwise end up as land fill, and study it to uncover how it might be used as filler in animal or human food. “Cellulose” is added to animal food…(it’s ground up wood or paper.) What are the fiber supplements sold to humans made of. That’s so bizarre! Humans don’t realize when they eat meat and dairy they are getting zero fiber because they choose the wrong food, as though nature has failed them. They are so grateful big business created fiber supplements to compliment their poor food choice.
                      In the military (boot camp) we had 30 seconds to go to the bathroom…it was EZ. I talk about tht today and people think it was a punishment…something impossible to achieve. Little do they know that unwittingly they are revealing they have nutritional problems brought on by ignorance. A hundred, or so, years ago there was a doctor who lectured on a plant based diet. During his lecture he pulled a chunk of poo form his suit pocket and lectured on it…how his was different form meat eaters. That knowledge is not often spoken of today. Instead a mufti billion dollar empire is built on constipation. The best psychologists work for the advertising industry. They are in everyone’s head forming thoughts and making decisions. They are the true “food police”.

                    2. thx for the great reply. And I love the “poo” message, as I am a fiber nut as hemorrhoidectomies “run” in my family, and I don’t want one! I aim for 40 g. a day of fiber, am happy to get 35, and no, it’s sure as heck not found in meat, or animal products. If I stray for ONE day even, It’s not fun. And I never thought about military having 30 secs. Wow.
                      And being “way out in left field” is an understatement, I think my friends, relatives are looking for that alum. hat on my head. About the only way I can feel comfortable with people anymore is on these “health nut” blogs. I just heard today, sounds like an overstatement, that seniors over 60 take on the avg. 11 meds a day! My meds are green tea and legumes.
                      so much for that.

                    3. Lemon peel rubbed on the skin, repels mosquitoes without harmful mixed xylene isomers that are in insect repellants and damage the central nervous system and the brain.

                    4. Seldom do I need to repel mosquitoes. Most lemon peels, whether a byproduct of commercial operations or used at home end up as waste….unless used as “filler” in a product.

                    5. When I ate sandwich bread, I always had a mouth full of cavities which became silver and gold fillings, root canals, crowns, and now the teeth are weak and need to be replaced. Breads, like cake turns to sugar in your body. It’s a fast track to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, periodontal disease. Not a healthy way of eating. Now that I eat more veggies, beans, quinoa, seeds and a few grains now and then, I have zero cavities.

                    6. True of manufactured bread, but not for homemade bread using unmodern strains of wheat I grind and using long rise sourdough methods instead of bromated flours and fast rising modified yeasts. Two completely different “creatures”!

                    7. Even bread made at home using organic ingredients can contribute to cavities and periodontal disease. Your ingredients may be delicious, but for me, some foods are best left to memory, rather than be eaten regularly.

                      Nearly all organic whole wheat as well as chlorine bleached white flour has been engineered to resist more glyphosate (example, Roundup). That is the purpose of genetic engineering of food. To profit the chemical manufacturer of the herbicide or in this case, the biocide, glyphosate when constant spraying of weeds, creates superweeds, and even more toxic chemicals are used on our food crops.

                      So it does not matter what you use in recipes. It matters how your food was grown, and irrigated. The laws do not protect us from fracking waste water being sold by the fossil fuel and fracking industries to farmers to irrigate certified organic crops all over the USA.

                      WHY ORGANIC? Because organic uses less water due to mulching, than conventional agriculture, which pours on the toxins that benefit only the bottom line of the chemical pesticide industries, but also keep the North American economy running. Sick people>need to spend big money for big pharma>hospitals>products wrapped in toxic plastics and more pharma drugs.

                      There are lots of studies in Europe on the side effects of glyphosate caused to animals. Scientists are studying animals to see if they are experiencing what people are experiencing. Example. Leaky gut syndrome.

                      Look at the sources as well as the article.

                  1. Vanillin is in vanilla, but can also be chemically synthesized as an artificial flavor. I looked at least as deep as wikipedia on all the compounds that I named, and suggest that you do the same.

                    1. Wikipedia has a way of distorting the facts. Synthetic vanillin stands alone as a single compound. The vanilla bean has several hundred different compounds in it. How they function together as a food is different than the single man-made chemical. Wikipedia also mentions how vanilla bean is “rare”. It’s only rare in the sense more people don’t grow it. Lemons are rare in my garden. That doesn’t mean there is a shortage or they are difficult to get.

                    2. Vanilla is an orchid and quite expensive to cultivate. This probably a good reason why there was so much industry cheering for chemical s

                    3. LT, you can’t believe everything you read on the internet. Vanilla orchids need humidity and sunshine and they’ll thrive indoors. Or if you are a vanilla coinsure, buy the whole beans still in their pods. They may seem pricy but a little goes a long way.
                      To measure it’s supposedly rare status just check ANY grocery store. Real vanilla extract is everywhere and reasonably priced. For rarity, try to find truffles.

                    4. I am well aware of the point that these are single chemicals and that the foods which they are found generally have a far more complex mixture of similar compounds. I think I alluded to it adequately in the post to which you first responded, so I don’t get what your point is here. I’m not arguing that the practice of isolating single compounds to flavor food is good but nor am I arguing that the complex mixture is inherently more protective of health in all cases; not all spices are necessarily good for you, just because they are whole.

                      Wikipedia gets flak, but it’s certainly a fast resource for finding some foods in which a flavoring chemical is found, and since you apparently did no research at all beyond recognizing that vanillin is used as an artificial(-ly produced) flavor, I don’t think you should be one to talk about being reliably informed.

                      Vanilla bean is a relatively rare crop in part because it’s quite expensive to produce; the source plant is an orchid, recall, and the spice is its fairly small fermented seed pod. Synthetic vanillin produces an almost equivalent flavor at a far cheaper price, which is part of why it is so ubiquitous in the food industry, both as a proportion of the flavor in all vanilla-flavored products and as an absolute amount of flavorant in various kinds of foods that don’t strive to remind the taster of vanilla. As far as I know the chief social harm caused by vanillin is not that it’s dangerously toxic as an isolated flavoring agent; the main thing that you haven’t yet seen fit to mention is the simple fact that artificial flavors like vanillin are used to inexpensively make highly processed foods taste better, and these highly processed foods are generally unhealthy in a variety of ways when compared to their whole counterparts.

                    5. I never said that the whole food wasn’t different in general or that it wasn’t possibly better due to its entourage of similar compounds (or some other difference). I think that my first reply was sufficiently clear on that. Wikipedia gets flack and contains distortions (as many sources do) but it is still relatively quick as a source of information on minor technical questions like the natural foods in which industrial flavoring chemicals are found, which was how I was purposing the site.

                      Vanilla is certainly relatively rare and has been relatively rare historically. It derives from the fermented seedpod of an orchid, which should give a big clue that yields per plant are not so high and that the individual plants in a crop are somewhat finicky to grow. Synthetic vanillin is far cheaper and this is why there is so much more vanillin in the food supply presently. I don’t know of any clear evidence that vanillin-by-itself is harmful whereas vanilla or vanilla extract as a whole ‘food’ is clearly beneficial for health, but your commentary so far ignores a big elephant in the room and perhaps the greatest social harm of artificial flavorings; they make highly processed foods taste much better at relatively low cost, and the highly processed foods generally have a lot more important things going wrong with them from a nutritional point of view.

                    6. LT, how is the reader suppose to know if your Wikipedia tidbit is based on fact, or “distortions” as you claim? I can guess without reading what you past from Wikipedia. I’d be more interested in hearing your opinion than suspect data from an unreliable source. At least yours’ is an obvious opinion.

                      Of course imitation vanilla is cheaper. It’s not the real food and it’s just a synthetic part of the whole. I could build cars cheaper if I just used a hood, two wheels. and a rear fender.

                    7. “LT, how is the reader suppose to know if your Wikipedia tidbit is based
                      on fact, or “distortions” as you claim?”

                      By checking their sources, no? Same business as usual, mostly.

                      “I can guess without reading what
                      you past from Wikipedia”

                      Your guesses are wrong. I don’t think I have pasted anything so far. I do take care to cite sources where I can and you are entirely free to take my uncited viewpoints as an opinion of some form or another.

                      Presuming that whole spices are automatically functional foods is what has me worried about your viewpoint, generally. The car analogy should not be used in all cases; it should only be used when earned by careful investigation of how the spice impacts bodily function.

                    8. LT, wouldn’t it be better if you posted facts first instead of depending on others to vet your information? No one has time to finish your posts. It would be a waste of my time to verify each Wikipedia citation you offer, especially since you’ve already told me they get it wrong.

                      How can you guess accurately that I have guessed wrong? Is it possible I might use my intellect and experience, and knowledge to form a valid and accurate view on some topics? If so then when you guess that I guess wrong it is YOU in fact who is wrong. Routinely I read a Wikipedia article and it does not ring true based on my knowledge. Do you suppose if I confined my guessing to writing Wikipedia articles you’d elevate my “correct” percentile based on your comfort level with citing Wikipedia and letting the reader figure out whether you guessed right as to whether Wikipedia got it right?

                    9. “…especially since you’ve already told me they get it wrong.”

                      Where did I even hint that I think that they get it all wrong in general, or that there aren’t areas in which they are quite likely to be correct?

                      “How can you guess accurately that I have guessed wrong?”

                      Because I know when I am pasting from wikipedia and when I am not. That is what you have definitely guessed wrong about, and the certainty that you put behind that opinion is one of several indicators about the reliability of your own reasoning processes, your ability to comprehend what another person is saying in an argument, and your ability to explain yourself.

                    10. LT, You have access to all you have posted. Read objectively and you’ll see you almost “apologize” for quoting from Wikipedia. My comment followed yours so it was in context at the time. I won’t chase it now.

                      So now you are saying Wikipedia is always accurate and reliable…even though caring teachers don’t allow it as a source. Can you imagine a PhD candidate turning in his paper citing Wikipedia as a source?

                      I’m not aware of anything I guessed wrong about and you have not named one. Likewise, you aren’t qualified to ascertain my level of “ability to comprehend…”. Your argumentative nature is a detriment to intelligent discussion.

                    11. It’s a style of communication to some extent. Recognizing that there are drawbacks to a source in terms of accuracy still doesn’t mean that the source isn’t reasonably accurate for the purpose for which I used it, and this type of ‘apology’ can be useful when your discussion partner is excoriating you for using Wikipedia as if you were oblivious to the pros and cons of doing so, and as if you were simply copying and pasting the bulk of the argument from Wikipedia articles.

                      I’m not doing a PhD that touches on the topic of finding example spices that contain eugenol. Methinks you protest too much for a relatively uncontroversial issue, as you are hardly doing PhD level work yourself in making your arguments and I repeat that I did make some effort to ensure that the kind of information I was pulling would be reasonably accurate where I did. And I did not stop at wikipedia in all cases. To lay this matter to rest in some sense, let me quickly give some explicit Pubmed IDs that corroborate what I’m saying:

                      eugenol in cloves: 24803704
                      vanillin in vanilla: 25344384
                      cinnemaldehyde in cinnamon: 25381741
                      sabinine (and eugenol) in nutmeg: 25238085
                      (alpha-)zingiberene in ginger: 24020099

                      A scholarly reference for the amount of cyclotene in maple is harder to place quickly, but this gives me an opportunity to show that a lot of this is fairly common knowledge in a diverse array of popular/trade sources:


                      I suggested Wegan look at least as deep as Wikipedia because wikipedia is still reasonably accurate on these questions (as these other sources confirm), and much easier to check both on the side of finding sources and in verifying the sources that others claim. Where I knew that a compound was present in the spice by other means, I still took care to check that it was in wikipedia so that my suggestion would be reasonably good for satisfying Wegan’s curiousity.

                      “Asking me how I know real pumpkin pie spice is better than fake pumpkin pie spice is like asking me how I know a real Tiffany lamp is better than a copy from China. It’s self evident”

                      Better in terms of what: taste, health, or both? There’s a strong indication that you may be reasoning from a bad analogy here. For example there is some indication that in some goods people like vanillin at least as much as real vanilla extract:





                    12. LT, my ex took what I said literally. Hopefully she’s matured. My authorities are accurate, as good or better than I’d do if writing a paper for close scrutiny. I state when it’s merely my opinion. What makes you think I’m interested in man made spice tidbits? Liking the taste of something isn’t the same as recognizing genuine quality. Red necks like rubber tires in their front yard. What they like has nothing to do with sophisticated taste. Likewise, cigar chompin bankers might have burnt out taste buds and not appreciate real spice. And why waste good liquor on a drunk…after a shot or two he’s likely to get the bottom shelf stuff.
                      I’ve accepted you don’t care for my analogies. I don’t care for your topic. My analogies humor me. Your topic bores me. Agreed, you have a recognizable “style” but it’s not so much “communication” as it is posturing.

                    13. LT, our nation’s health problem is not from eating poisonous spices and herbs. Unless of course, you’re referencing the Colonels eleven herbs and spices on his Kentucky Fried chicken? Even then it’s the meat causing the problem.
                      Pumpkin pie spice impacts my bodily functions in a positive way. What spices impact your bodily functions negatively? How are they impacted? Does pepper make you sneeze?

                    14. Have you researched coumarin at all or followed Greger’s video on cassia? It’s not unequivocally good for you if you use it very frequently as part of your cuisine, at relatively normal levels per dishes high in cassia. How about the identification of spicy food as one of a number of possible risk factors for gastric cancer in some populations?


                      I’m not arguing that pumpkin pie spice is destroying us all, or even that it is impacting us in a negative way. But haven’t your comments been suggesting that you think that artificial pumpkin pie spice is impacting us negatively to some extent, and that using the real stuff would be way better? What basis do you really have for claiming that to be likely?

                    15. LT, I have to plead ignorance on the two spices you call out as poisonous. I’ve never used or even heard of either but since you know they are not healthy I suggest you not eat them.

                      I’m not aware of the effects, if any, caused by fake pumpkin pie spice. Asking me how I know real pumpkin pie spice is better than fake pumpkin pie spice is like asking me how I know a real Tiffany lamp is better than a copy from China. It’s self evident.

                      Personally I don’t enjoy cheap imitations of most anything. I appreciate a good bargain but not when quality is compromised. In my personal life I use Bosch power tools, well engineered (mostly cordless). My new employees can only access the cheap stuff from Harbor Freight…always cheaply made in China. When they demonstrate they can respect and use a tool properly, they get to use the real stuff.

                    16. The car analogy was merely to illustrate the absurdity of taking a small piece of a whole food and chemically reproducing it as though it were comparable to the whole. A shrink might say, “Lemon flavoring is to a lemon as a steering wheel is to a;… *** ?

                      Personally I don’t worry about spices. I enjoy them. And I don’t fret over you relying on Wikipedia for “knowledge”. If you enjoy reading it then why not? If there is power in knowledge, what is there in Wiki knowledge?

                    17. LT, how do you conclude, “whole food is POSSIBLY better”? Why such marginal “support”? Do you prefer formulated mashed potatoes and peas? If you made a list, what concocted “food”, if anything man made, would be better than what grows in nature?

                      Again, referencing Wikipedia does not shore up your position. Whether artificial formulated or nature provided, spices, and sauces, and other flavorings mask the true taste of meat products. In fact natural spices were used to mask spoiled meat. It was (is) called “sausage”. Beyond that, the more serious abomination is that processed foods are formulated to be “addictive” or just please the palate. That covert intent is the ruination of America’s waistline.

                      I would think ANYTHING that “goes wrong with food” is important…it is to me!
                      Nope, I’m not “debating” or making a point…just citing facts in response to Wikipedia.

                    18. LT, how do you conclude, “whole food is POSSIBLY better”?

                      Because I’m referring to herbs, spices and other minor flavoring agents so arguments about fiber bulk and so on don’t readily apply, and in some cases you are invoking undesirable chemistry in these. Some herbs are bad for you and some may be bad for you precisely because of the complex symphony of compounds within. In either case, it seems that there would be situations in which some chemical isolate is less harmful than the whole spice; for example, we might do better with small amounts of cinnamaldehyde than with the full cassia bark that comes with its payload of coumarin.

                      What ‘facts’ did you ‘cite’ in response to me? I certainly missed the “citation” part. If you dispute my particular claims about the sources in which specific flavorants are found, go ahead and dispute them. But, so as to avoid hypocrisy, please bring your sources to the table.

                    19. LT, I didn’t realize you included herbs, spices, and minor flavoring agents as “whole foods”. I guess that’s somewhere in Wikipedia. For me “whole foods” are potatoes, corn, peas, peaches,…that sort of food. If you wrote “whole foods/spice/herbs/minor flavoring agents” It would have been clear to me you didn’t mean “whole foods”.
                      Yes, some whole foods, including spices, herbs, and “minor flavoring agents” whatever those are, can be, I suppose poisonous so should not be consumed. that being the case, I personally don’t desire a synthetic substitute. Herb ort spice do you crave but avoid because it’s poisonous? And which synthetic do you use instead? It was YOU who dispute your own information, declaring your source, Wikipedia, wasn’t reliable. Frankly, I’m not above quoting a phrase or two from them too except I make sure the information is correct. I pick and choose only the best and most accurate.
                      Since Wikipedia is your source, most anything I cite will likely be more reliable.

              2. I mean, how can this mix contain 340 compounds, not that I doubt you, but it boggles my mind. No, your kitchen cupboard couldn’t hold 340 compounds. I just can’t bear to read this stuff anymore.

                1. Those aren’t my claims, it right from the manufacturer’s mouth…it’s lifted from their article. Years ago an old engineer would say, those hamburgers aren’t made to eat, their made to sell. I was just a kid so didn’t realize what he was saying for many years. His take on franchise hamburgers applies to most everything sold in grocery stores today. Dr. McDougall thinks it’s important to read the ingredients on the label. I say, “If it’s got a list of ingredients it’s probably not food. A bag of beans is labeled “beans”. My peanut butter label is printed “”peanuts”. We seem to see consumer laws as a victory, But the truth is most don’t eat a starch based meal based on ingredients in their food. They eat what tastes good, which means they crave what big business has formulated to stimulate their taste buds. Food labeling is a red herring. They are addicted to the formulated food our government permits big industry to market to the masses. In return, processing nasty food creates jobs and taxable income. That justifies all the death and disease from eating the garbage. Most meat eaters can’t imagine a life after meat is taken from them. That world is so foreign it’s unimaginable.

            3. Obesity may be linked to Bt corn, which is widely used in processed or fast foods. Every ingredient in Coca-Cola has the potential of being GM. And if you look at what they have spent to stop mandatory labeling from being adopted in States across the country there is something they do not want known. Diabetes, sugar, corn, gmos as well as dioxin has been linked. Heart disease the Standard American Diet, not to mention, glufosinate, an herbicide used on conventional and GM crops.
              But with all of this, Americans including myself, do not get enough weigh bearing exercise every day. So we regularly get propaganda over the airways and in magazines but we don’t eat enough of the correct foods.
              My brother urged me to have tests for diabetes (of which I have no symptoms). He showed symptoms, but look what he ate: foods our mother made for us to get us to eat more like cinnamon sugar on rice; he loved Hostess Twinkies, Donuts, and other fried junk foods. They may taste delightful, but I avoid them like the addictive poisons they are. When he was unable to control his SADiet, he had surgery for his heart. His reasoning was so he could continue to eat the foods he likes.
              Not me. Food is my medicine –not drug or procedures. Dr. Greger has covered diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. And if that isn’t enough, Mercola also has studies at his web site.

              My father had heart disease, so did my grandparents, but I looked at their diet especially when I turned to vegan. They ate an ethnic diet of rich (and delicious) heart damaging foods and had clogged arteries, they ate rich meats and cheese high in animal fat and sugar as well as salt. And they died of related illnesses. Neither they nor I get enough exercise, but my diet is better. I may crave foods of my youth, but I don’t eat them any longer.
              My mother cut way back on the amounts of meat she ate, and she lived until just after her 90th birthday. Whereas, my father died at 56 and my grandparents had a relatively short lifetime, as well. We are what we eat.

              1. The primary cause of obesity is growing up in the USA. As KFC continues to saturate China their obesity is climbing. The obesity epidemic isn’t caused by heredity, or the fat gene, or corn…except maybe eating too much butter on corn.
                Your brother exemplifies the reason a starch based diet isn’t being adopted university. Folks think they have to give up the flavors they enjoy (or are addicted to). Too bad we can’t get them addicted to greens and beans instead of fried chicken and mac n cheeze.

              2. Dear Dr. Greger: I do not know if you have the opportunity to read the book of Jeffry Smith book: Genome Roulette, it is a very
                interesting book
                Thanks for your attention
                Jesus Bendezu.

            4. Obesity, diabetes, heart disease may be made worse with genetically modified foods. These issues are cited in Monika Kruger’s studies and many times she also has made the link.

              I suppose these vegan physicians will remain unconvinced until they eat out somewhere and receive some GM vegetable protein or potatoes, fruit, or nuts and seeds. And they become ill with ailments they’ve never had before, or their children develop new allergies to foods that were previously safe to eat. The time will come when they too see the light.

              Some of the diseases seen in humans are posted on the FB page of Thierry Vrain, Ph.D., former genetic engineer with Agriculture Canada, and since retired a Whistleblower Opposing GM food crops. Dr. Vrain and other scientists have seen the studies and are now seeing the light. Dr. Vrain posted the information to try to get a conversation with physicians.

              Dr. Vrain writes:

              This is from Dr. Hildegarde Staninger, Industrial Toxicologist/IH & Doctor of Integrative Medicine; Chairperson, NREP SCADA Special Task Force Committee, and Dr. Nancy Swanson, physicist in Seattle.

              I find this a bit long but also a well referenced manifesto.

              Open letter to medical professionals and the AMA: Start the conversation


          1. I agree with McDougall here. I am very much for eating starches, and even if someone is gluten intolerant, they can eat other grains. He doesn’t seem too concerned about GMO’s. I don’t agree with him about exercise at all. YES, absolutely completely cut out the meat and dairy and eat whole food starches. But to say that exercise is not good for one’s health does not follow from that. I lost a lot of weight and got off of statin drugs by exercising everyday and since then, I have cut out animal products and have lost even more weight and lowered my cholesterol even more. He seemed to agree with Gary Taubes about exercise and that somehow people are exercising more but still gaining weight. People are not exercising that much, and people often overestimate how much they exercise, just as they underestimate how much they eat. Diet is completely essential, but it doesn’t follow that exercise is of no importance. Having a strong social network is also important for health and I think it would also be a mistake to suggest that because diet is important, that having friends isn’t. It also would be mistaken to suggest that only exercise is important and that we don’t need to watch our diet- very few people argue for this. I would argue that exercise enables a person to eat a better diet, because they could lose weight without drastically restricting their calorie intake, therefore they could get more nutrients in their diet. There is no conflict between exercise and a plant based diet. There is a conflict between exercise and a low carb or very low calorie diet because these don’t support exercise, but no conflict whatsover with eating only plants, except a very low calorie plant based diet.

            1. Dr. McDougall is no more an expert on exercise than on GMO’s. You’re so right, exercise is very important. Although it doesn’t burn off fat in enough volume to be touted as a singular weight loss tactic , the act of exercising does speed up the metabolism and fat continues to burn hours after exercising. Walking one hour a day is an hour I’m not eating, and I’m not hungry for two hours after walking, for example. It’s funny what one learns by observing instead of listening to opinions. I feel active after my walk and continue to be energized, unlike if I don’t exercise and just sit around. Being active, whether walking, biking , ‘blading, ballroom dancing, or whatever, keeps the metabolism high and the weight in check.

              Caloric restriction and exercise are the one-two punch for weight loss. Anyone can lose weight tremendously with caloric restriction alone but it’s easier psychologically if one exercises too. As a bonus, strength improves, as does flexibility, and range of motion. And we’re less likely to injure ourselves when we are active doing work. Man is not meant to sit and eat a starch based diet. Our ancestors roamed around foraging to survive. It’s part of our DNA. Back injuries heal rapidly with weight bearing motion to pump the posterior chain of muscles with nourishing blood (hyperextension exercise). The elbow has maybe a drop of blood in it so needs to move to stay lubricated and working. Weight bearing exercise also jeeps our bones denser. Dr. McDougall seems to want listeners to follow a starch based diet to the exclusion of all else. We’re not suppose to think…just do as he proselytizes. He’s getting weird. If we just sit and eat a starch based diet our bodies atrophy so when we age we don’t have any marten of strength or muscle density to carry us through any down time in the event of injury or illness. I sleep thorough the night when I walk. Not so much when I don’t. I get a high exercising…my body makes it own drugs. Their legal and free.

              Covet Baily is the expert on exercise. He’s retired but his CD’s are still around.

              1. Goodmorning Larry,
                There is no comparison between my patients who have been active and exercised their entire life and those who have not. I have to agree. Dr McDougall has this point wrong.

              2. I haven’t responded to you for a long time. I think the bottom line is that when someone spouts something that sounds like what Gary Taubes would say, then that person is mistaken. Taubes states that exercise promotes obesity, because it makes people hungry. Conversely, when someone says something the opposite of what Gary would say, then they are almost always right on the money. McDougall is usually right, because he usually takes the opposite point of view of Taubes. Starches are wonderful, because Gary Taubes claims these, such as from whole grains, make people fat. Being against saturated fat, as McDougall is is right, because Taubes is a leading denier of the lipid hypothesis. Taubes also denies the calorie theory, which I tend to believe in, although McDougall might say fat is more fattening than carbs and Taubes would be the opposite. So therefore McDougall is more right on that. I may not be on a VERY low fat diet, but it certainly isn’t nearly as high as Taubes’ diet is- my fat is less than 30% of my calories. Taubes gets about 80% of his calories from fat, and much of it is saturated. I try to limit saturated fat. Taubes believes this is good for people. I believe it contributes to atherosclerosis, as well as insulin resistance.

                1. Sorry, I don’t know Gary Taubes. I try to evaluate based on the information, regardless of the messenger. If the source is off base a time or two I lose interest…too much good science to keep reading opinionated egotists. Someone like that is only confused by facts. If they don’t advocate “plant based” that’s a tip off they are misguided or trying to complicate the issue for folks who haven’t been informed of the problems caused by meat and dairy.

                  Agreed, McDougall is usually right. I have to wonder if he feels threatened business-wise by the attention to other issues?
                  Taubs autopsy some day will reveal his ignorance.

                  I received an email today linking me to a free showng of “Origins” at: The doctor who made it ask everyone to share it so I did my part. I don’t think Dr. McDougall would like it. It’s pretty long and I haven’t watched but a few minutes yet…but I think it’s important.

          2. Darn, wish I had downloaded Dr. McDougall’s video before it was banned for copyright infringement. Maybe he’ll choose to re-release it without whatever is cited as copyrighted. I wan that video for austerity. Imagine, the one video where Dr. McDougall is emotionally drained and almost seething at his listeners and now we can’t see it. The blockage benefits McDougall.

            1. You mean ‘posterity’, right?

              McDougall often adopts an emotionally drained, exasperated, or desparate tone over issues that touch on sustainability and has a style that is generally perceived as confrontational and unsugared, at least to those who start of with an opposing view. Have you at least considered that this ‘one video’ effect in your mind has much to do with the way you view ‘one topic’ in your own?

              1. Maybe you’re right, maybe I don’t know my own mind. Maybe I agree with Dr. McDougall and I have an issue with authoritarian figures. I’ll rest my mind and see if I can understand better. I don’t see any reason for him to “sugar” his comments either. He’s fine in those respects. But he doesn’t get to decide what is important to me. Or expect me to compromise my values so he can focus on his passion. I think he needs a long vacation. His “vacations” are work seminars. He needs to go oversees and disappear for three months, return, and realize the world is still spinning in his absence.
                I never considered McDougall “confrontational”. I always thought he was too tame.
                Yep, I prefer “posterity”, my spellcheck overruled me.

        2. Dr McDougall is in denial. From what I’ve learned, it is far more of importance about GMOs than the info he spews. I’ve been poisoned with an insecticidal fogger and a chemical floor stripper. Both had some of the same chemicals as what are likely in the weed killers used on genetically modified foods. The organism used for GMO is soy was found at a hazardous waste site growing in the presence of Roundup. And, Monsanto researchers said “Let’s put it in food.”
          Dr. Don Huber, retired professor from Purdue University has identified the toxic organism. But I also learned that Biologics often use E-coli bacteria to make their genetically modified pharms and vaccines. And I tripped over something that Dow Chemical was considering using which was amongst the antibiotic resistant bacteria found in hospitals. They are using that in food seeds, perhaps in corn to make the seed resist 2,4-D, which itself is often contaminated with the most toxic form of dioxin –2,3,7,8-TCDD. The most toxic chemical ever accidentally created by human kind.

        3. I’m a big fan of Dr Mcdougall, in fact I completed his course and have his certificate in Starch Based Nutrition. But this is the one thing I disagree with him. We should ALL be overly concerned about GMOs. And the fact that he used to live in Hawaii really confuses me. If people are going to go starch based, GREAT, I am all for it, but if you are consuming foreign proteins, the kind that are produced by GMOs, then your body’s immune system is going to kick into high gear because it is not recognized and therefore must be destroyed. An overworked immune system means that it can’t do it’s job properly, and that is to keep us healthy. What happens next? An acidic environment. Where does all disease start? From INFLAMMATION. I am not a doctor and I can understand this. Why is this so difficult for people to comprehend? And when people respond with “show me the scientific documentation to back up your point.” I just want to slap them. As the video says, there is a lot of information on both sides, but I think the Pro-GMO side has much more misinformation. My opinion and I am sticking to it. And lets not even go to the corporate side of it, that a few massive corporations, with only their bottom line in their sights, should be in control of the world food supply. Really? Tell me how that is a good thing.

      2. I agree with you Larry. So here’s a question for people that might believe that GMO is ok given the reality of what it is: would you pour Round Up onto your bowl of cornflakes feeling safe because you know that the corn was genetically modified to be ok with it? Food for thought….

      3. If you know what is attacking your plantings, contact Biocontrol Network and purchase some beneficial organisms.

        I use the book, “Commonsense Pest Control” by William Olkowski and Sheila Daar. There are several variations of this book from when I made the purchase. The drawings help me identify the pest and then I can chose which remedy is safest for me to use. Go to and type in the title and the author(s) name(s). Several editions will come up. If you can shop locally, it will be faster and you can compare the editions. I didn’t have that luxury. The hardcover original book sells for $14.95 plus shipping. As a used book, it is $14.95 plus + $3.99 shipping .
        This book is not an easy read, but it is very thorough.

        Once I ID the culprit, I could go to Biocontrol Network and order the predatory insect, beneficial nematode or other control that would remedy the situation.
        Since I was poisoned accidentally with a flea fogger in 1982 and a chemical floor stripper in 1999, both of which had mixed xylene isomers listed as the “active” ingredient, I avoid all chemical pesticides. I know the experience I had with xylene, and it is also widely used in insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides, and well as mosquito repellants. I avoid this chemical like the plaque!
        This is the only brain and central nervous system I have, I need to protect what’s left of it.
        Good luck.

        1. Great tip, Susan. I’ll check out the book. My local gardening center can’t even identify my garden creatures. It’s time for me to take a closer look. Biological Network is a good resourse too. Thanks.

    2. My concern with GMO is not if it’s unhealthy for humans, my concern is that’s it is dangerous for everything else, like ground life, farmers, economics etc. And that it is!

      Monsanto is trying to get a complete monopoly over the foodchain!

      Our food should be as far removed from material gain as possible. And Monsanto wants to make it as profitable as possible.

      1. It is not dangerous for everything else, for example it is true that soil conditions can be better in GM fields, overall less CO2 emissions since there is no need to remove weeds which won’t grow, less pesticides can be used and organic is not always better for environment, paradoxically, we could feed the hungry if we use GM plants, yes there are disdvantages too, of course, like GM production is company’s secret, not a material for universities to study, the other problem is big companies becoming too arrogat and suing innocent people for stealing their seeds.

        1. Unfortunately everything you’ve said here is untrue. When you kill the soil with pesticides you ruin the nutrition of your food. You also increase the intake of pesticides into your own system. What’s on the plant is also in it for your consumption. Organic is always better for the environment in the long run but , like anything else, it needs to be managed propertly. It has been proven by many organizations at this point that GM seeds do not increase yields. Sometimes the first couple of years, if lucky, are better but then it is a steep decline with superweeds because the weeds become impervious to Round-up. There are millions of acres of land in this country that are now not being farmed because of the super weeds. There is no need for additional food. We can feed the hungry but there are distribution probelms and poverty that prevent the hungry from being fed. It has nothing to do with producing enough food.

          1. Soil conditions can be better because GM crop fields do not need large heavy machines to be used like in general fields, where their usage can lead to soil degradation. GM does not icrease yields? Are you serious?… There are lots of scientific research articles to disprove such a bold statement. Yes, many scientist don’t support the use of Round-up and don’t deny its harm. Yes, I agree that enough food is produced but rich coutries waste tons of good produce which could be fed to other poor countries. But in today conditions, plus global warming, huge food distribution problems, GM foods may offer benefits for those people who are in dire need of foods. It is so terrible to see some activists destroying crop fields while they could really save local people’s lives. Everything I said backed up by scince, I had a GM lecture recently in my university, and I study ecology.

            1. Miranda,I suggest you learn some facts about soil before parroting what you’ve read. Healthy soil is ALIVE with microbes and bacteria. Most anything grows in healthy alive soil. The soil on commercial farms is dead, void of microbes and bacteria, and worms, etc. For that reason artificial fertilizers are added, otherwise the dead (over farmed, therefore nutrient depleted) soil would not grow crops.

              Sure, add more fertilizer to dead soil and it grows more crops. The soil is still dead and still dependent on chemistry to produce crops designed for storage, and shipment, and picking machines, not flavor and nutritional value. Those chemicals require much petroleum to produce. People in poor countries can grow their own food when governments aren’t at war. Big business rationalizes their corrupt practices and you promote them by declaring they feed the world. Millions starve around the world because of politics and greed. In Africa, governments fight over gold and diamonds and their people fee their borders or die! The crops America grows that could feed them is instead used to feed cows so ignorant Americans can eat high off the hog. “Feed the world” is a marketing practice to unload surplus grains. We’ve ben feeding the world for many generations but the world is still starving. The answer isn’t more chemical farms.

        2. You know what roundup does to any other living plant in the neighbourhood? It kills it! How does that exempt the soil from harm? That’s the whole definition of harm, all those other plants and bacteria that live in the soil get killed!

          You shouldn’t read monsanto brochures for your factssheets.

          1. Read my post above, roundup is a huge problem, I agree, but many other GM plants could be designed with other benefitial properties which could even lead to ecosystem improvement and feed people with less energy wasted in the production. Some GM fields don’t require heavy machines which degrade soil conditions and emit lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. There isn’t only just 1 side – good or bad, we should compare different effects and different GM organisms, and no, I never read Monsanto’s brochures, just listened to peple with competence talk about their field of research in my university.

            1. Miranda, crops have always grown sufficiently in nature to feed animals, including humans. The imbalance of plant food is caused by the very practices and procedure you promote and needed to increase production. Do you know how much food is thrown in the garbage in the USA? Some estimates say about half…counting what spools at home or the groceries toss. Societal problems aren’t solved by big business having their way. They ARE the problem.

          2. Here’s more on CO2: ‘Through the use of low- and no-till farming methods, fuel use and CO2 emissions can be decreased thanks to less tillage. In 2009, this led to global emissions reductions of 17.7 billion kg of CO2, equivalent to 7.8 million fewer cars on the road for one year.’ EuropaBio
            You can also read the peer-reviewed article:
            ‘Impact of GM crops on biodiversity’ DOI:10.4161/gmcr.2.1.15086

            I can compare being 100% anti-GMO movement only with stubborn pro-meateaters who deny scientific data.

        3. “Soil conditions can be better in GM fields…” , you say? Well, “better” is a relative term. “Soil conditions” is ambiguous. As long as crops are grown commercially with profit the primary goal our soil will continue to be bombarded with artificial fertilizers which contaminate our soil. Millions of cows will be born and raised and slaughtered. The growing process creates millions and millions of tons of chemically treated cow manure which also ends up in our soil. Rains wash the chemicals and nutrients into our streams, ponds, and rivers to grow algae which kills off all life , poisoning humans, and otherwise pollutes our drinking water. GM’s purpose is to allow the use of even stronger poisons. How is that “better” for soil conditions?

          Oh, “suing innocent people for stealing their seeds” is just a legal tactic to drive the small farmers out of business or force them to tow the line, get on board, and buy Monsanto’s modified seeds…while Dr. McDougall looks the other way. I ask him, ever hear the phrase, “Throw the baby out with the bath water”?

      2. By applying gross amounts of Roundup across expansive crop lands we are creating selective pressure favouring the development of Roundup-Resistant organisms. Sounds vaguely familiar. Roundup, which is known to accumulate in resistant plant tissues could become a significant part of SAD…and the band played on.

    3. Livestock are being cloned because they cannot reproduce after eating GMO corn. This according to retired professor from Purdue University (Indiana) and long time advisor to the USDA, Don Huber, Ph.D. Dr. Huber spent 50 years publishing research at Purdue and other educational venues.
      “Dr.” Mercola has numerous interviews and transcripts of the interviews online. Or, at least did, until Monsanto flacks removed them. They’ve been in my computers also, removing studies and videos. (Now I copy everything I find to paper and wma’s to share with family and interested parties.
      For example, there were numerous documents and even some videos of how Monsanto invaded German pig farms, stole the dna of the piglets to create clones in the USA because farmers could not maintain the size of their herds due to eating GMO corn, which is also herbicide resistant..

    4. Adrien, I accidentally “thumbs downed” your comment, meant to give it a thumbs up! While I disagree about a trillion percent that people are overly concerned about GMO’s (on the contrary, they are under concerned), you took the words right out of my mouth in regards to pointing out how studies like these are massively skewed and how it’s not just about human health in regards to consumption of the finished product, but about all animals and the environment. GMO “farming” is one of the most detrimental things to this planet’s entire ecosystem, it is insane at best to believe that due to this fact alone, that it is not one of the biggest threats to human beings among all other animals. For that matter, what about the humans WORKING on these farms? They undergo so much harm as do the people living near them and children playing near them–one little boy in India dropped dead while riding his bike past a Monsanto farm where they were spraying </3
      Why isn't any of this mentioned? And for that matter OF COURSE one is not going to find studies showing the immediate harm in consuming GMO produce when Monsanto and other leading GMO organizations dictate what is and isn't studied and/or published. There have been scientists who had their jobs threatened because they were studying the effects of GMO corn being fed to mice/rats, and this is of course just one example. There have been Fox News journalist FIRED for INVESTIGATING Monsanto and refusing to sign a contract which would inhibit them from EVER speaking about their findings. And Monsanto is NOTORIOUS for BURNING DOWN their own testing sites. I'm disappointed that none of this was mentioned here.

      1. Interestingly, I had a discussion with John McDougall, MD and Michael Klapper, MD about this subject and Dr. Klapper and I agreed that there is evidence to suggest that these toxins possess the ability to weaken the gut lining (punch holes in the GI tract) allowing the possibility for a “leaky” gut wall. Could be a reason that we are seeing more sensitivities to Gluten.

        How BT toxin works for those that are interested.

        Thanks for trying to tackle this subject.
        Sorry about the double image loading. Image wouldn’t come up when I first attached it.

        1. Hi Dr. Hemo,
          I understand your argument and I read the articles linked above. Have you run across any research that has been done to confirm the leaky gut issue in humans? This is such an important issue.

          1. I know of none to date. And it looks as if Dr. Greger hasn’t been able to dig up any either.
            I want to know who would want to volunteer for that study.

              1. Yes I have seen the video and I have had personal discussions with John McDougall regarding GMO’s. I agree with him that GMO’s are a Red Herring to the true cause of our health issues in the US that’s why I give all my patient the information about healthy lifestyles–minimizing (eliminating) animal food intake.

                In fact, I don’t even bring up the issue of GMO’s, gluten or salt with my patients unless specifically asked.

                Why, because it clouds the true issue at hand–50% of our population in the US dies from cardiovascular disease or cancer every year and everyone should know by now it’s the animal products that most significantly increase disease risk.

                What I don’t like about GMO’s is that they have known harmful effects on rabbits, sheep, rats, mice, and human cells in vitro but were never tested to see if there would be harmful effects on humans before dumping them into the worlds food supply.

                Secondly it is also very clear to me that Monsanto (they’re not the only ones) is trying to create a foodopoly in the world; for if you control the food supply you control the world! Everyone has to eat!

                Interestingly, I had a discussion with Jeffrey Smith (author of Genetic Roulette and vocal outspoken opponent of GMO’s) about all the evidence supporting animal products causing our chronic diseases and amazingly he hadn’t heard much about that and was very skeptical about what I said. So I had a book signed from Jeffrey to Dr. McDougall and tried to get Dr. McDougall to have Jeffrey Smith as a guest speaker at his advanced study weekends and have a debate. It hasn’t happened yet. Hmmmm.

                However, for me, I am already a low fat plant based eater and I don’t worry about getting cardiac disease, obesity, diabetes or cancer because I have done everything I know to place myself into the lowest disease risk category regarding lifestyle changes.

                What I do worry about is mucking with our planetary DNA in uncontrolled ways.

                1. Since the science is still out on genetically modified food and damage to humans form consuming Roundup are documented it’s premature to declare GMO’s benign…aka a “red herring” with regard to healthy nutrition. Conversely, I argue that Dr. McDougall’s ambition to sermonize on a starch based diet to meat eaters is a red herring which interferes with a higher goal, that of protecting the human species from more corporate dominance and deception. The whole eating healthy agenda falls on deaf ears. Most are doubters and wouldn’t give up meat and dairy if it would reverse a disease they suffered. Those folks equate “living” with “enjoying” that which they were raised to believe were “American” and right for humans, meat and dairy, Since nutrition is a political issue and these doctors want to debat3e “science” they are red herring’ing the topic to death. Why aren’t the more politically involved? American’s diet won’t change unt9il American’s perception of “American” changes, and that won’t happen by citing science to deaf ears. Lobbyist make noise and government listens. These doctors polity debate their red herrings corporate America loves them for it because while they are trying to make their point it’s business as usual.
                  I don’t need another video or lecture to motivate me to eat a plant based diet. Those who need the info don’t hear the message. In the meantime, since doctors want to continue arguing nutrition, please step aside and let the rest of us object to Monsanto monopolizing our food sources, genetically modifying our food, contaminating milk with their chemicals, and using extra strong poisons on the modified plants. I don’t live in the country of Monsanto. Or do I?

        2. Too many lectins from grains causing leaky gut? Nuts and seeds? Some vegans base there diet on grains, and they might not have guts that can handle all these lectins. They may also have altered macrobiome due to all these grains and beans. Causing leaky gut…..worth considering.

          1. The people eating the most grains and beans are the healthiest dude. Do your homework, those idea are coming from people like Loren Cordain to confuse you believing beans are not healthful when they are the healthiest starchy food on earth. And at the same time telling you that meat are good food based on the fact that cave man eat it, not peer review scientific journals.


            You can also look at many videos and articles on this website to learn the incredible power of beans :

        3. GMOs are banned in Europe, and I have patients who can’t touch bread or pasta here due to bloating and pain; yet they go to Italy and eat bowls of pasta, or France where they consume baguettes, and they are symptom free.

          1. Wheat isn’t genetically modified, so unless it’s cornbread or corn based pasta, linking their digestive issues to GMOs based on these particular consumption habits is questionable.

              1. Judith: Maybe so. I’m not an expert or anything, but I have another theory: Dr. Greger has a video somewhere that talks about gluten saying that maybe people aren’t reacting to the gluten itself at all. Maybe it is something else about the wheat. (I can’t remember exactly what the alternate theory is. Was it mold or something like that?) So, maybe grains are processed differently/more responsibly in Europe? So, that people don’t react to the grains there?

                Another theory: Dr. Greger also has a video on gluten that talked about how people diagnosed with gluten sensitivity often “fail” (my word) a blind test – where people given gluten report no symptoms and people not given gluten report having symptoms. So, *possibly* *some* of the symptoms people report are psychological and thus if they were told that they would be fine in Europe, may actually be fine there.

                Just some theories to share. I don’t actually know anything.

                  1. Judith: I have heard similar theories too. But for myself, I never found the theories all that compelling.

                    I did take a look at that page you linked to. There are a *lot* of comments. I didn’t look at them all. But I did look at quite a bit. One of the things I noted was that a lot of people who felt they had a case against wheat were quoting the book, “Wheat Belly”. And I know that the book is chock full of incorrect pseudo science. So, I would need some pretty good science from a reputable source in order to buy those arguments.

                    Here’s one comment from that discussion that I found to be very interesting: “It doesn’t make sense entirely because a lot of wheat is imported into Europe, from the US.” I don’t know if that is true or not. But if true, it suggests that wheat hybridization is not the concern that people make it out to be–not if it is true that: a) Europe does not use the same wheat that America does, b) America really does import some of that wheat, c) a sizable group of people who really can’t eat American wheat, really can eat European wheat. I don’t know if any of that is true or not.

                    I also happened to see this comment: “Wheat in the US is treated with azodicarbonamide to speed up the bleaching process. This practice is banned in Australia and Europe (In Singapore, you can go to jail for treating food products with it).” I also do not know if this is true. But if it is true, it is an interesting thought that I find more compelling than the hybridization argument. (Which is not to say I know enough to put down the hybridization argument. I’m just giving my lay person’s opinion.)

                    Anyway, it is a very interesting phenomenon that could theoretically be used to make the food in America safer, because the differences could be studied/tested. But I’m not holding my breath for that to happen. :-)

      2. Hi Dr. Greger, I’d like to recommend a document that I use as a “go to “ resource because I find it comprehensive, well referenced, and well organized: “GMO Myths and Truths, an evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops and foods.” The first edition, published two years ago, was 120 pages; the second edition, published last spring, has mushroomed to 330 pages. It can be read online or downloaded free by going to:
        A discussion of bt toxin is found on pages 180-186. It concludes by saying, “Studies on GM Bt crops show that Bt toxin is not specific to a narrow range of insect pests but can affect a wide variety of non-target organisms. Taken together, the studies on GM Bt crops and natural Bt toxin raise the possibility that eating GM crops containing Bt toxin may cause toxic effects to multiple organ systems or allergic reactions and/or sensitize people to other food substances.
        Aloha, Katherine

      3. That Damn Hippie quotes a study showing that Bt and Roundup type insecticides can damage or kill human kidney cells, while the study you cite indicates that it doesn’t harm brine shrimp. That really isn’t very reassuring. Plus, I find it odd that you would quote this particular study when you just got through saying [I] “will skip the lab animal data.” I understand that over 60 countries ban genetically modified foods based on the Precautionary Principle, that it’s best to avoid potentially harmful substances until there is proof that they’re safe. If we are going to error, let it be on the side of caution. That’s why I only eat organic corn, soy, crookneck squash and papaya. I don’t believe that GMO corn isn’t in the human food supply. There are other reasons for finding BT toxin in humans, other than contamination.

  2. What about fertilizers used in conventional produce? I hear these fertilizers produce synthetic properties in fruits and veggies, and when eat all conventional produce we end up ingesting the equivalent of synthetic vitamins and minerals. Is this true? I also hear that the big issue with all conventional is not the pesticides, but the synthetic growth mediums used in the soil/the fertilizers and such, we end absorbing nutrients that are completely foreign an unnatural to the human body. Like they put the plants, fruits on the equivalent of steroids. So maybe the EWG list of clean and dirty produce is not so accurate, as it is my understanding that this list mostly just refers to pesticide use.

  3. I’m hoping there is more info on human effects. I’m skeptical of both sides, but just because there aren’t any studies linking harm and humans doesn’t mean it’s not there. (I’m not a conspiracy theorist, just skeptical of big business.)

    1. You want to be convinced Monsanto is benefiting mankind by marketing even stronger poisons…so strong the have to modify the plants so they won’t die with the bugs? This is your lucky day…just ask Monsanto and they will tell you it’s OK; eat the corn…and soybean…and whatever else they concoct.

      1. I’ve never been convinced that GMO’s are inherently evil. I’m a natural born skeptic. Am I skeptic of Monsanto? Yes, political intentions absolutely, but not about the science. Until there is real concrete data to say otherwise, I am of the same opinion of Dr Mc Dougall (didn’t know this until I saw the video link above) – that food should be labelled as GMO, because people should have a choice, but I see no reason to personally avoid GMO’s.

        1. I haven’t seen Dr. McDougall weigh in on this (especially in “our” conversation.) Nor have I seen a quote of his on the topic of GMO’s (with regard to them not being a problem.) Although I agree, they may not be HIS problem.
          During our discourse I very diligently conveyed the problem with Monsanto’s MOTIVE for GMO’s but you disregard it and instead, “agree” with someone I (we) haven’t heard from.
          We’ve all heard the adage, “To a carpenter with a hammer in his hand, all things look like a nail.” Similarly, all “trades”, including medicine, have that tunnel-vision affliction. Within the group of maintenance personnel while troubleshooting an aluminum die cast machine, for example, the electrician looks for an electrical problem while a hydraulics expert looks for hydraulic problems, and the mechanical trades look for a broken piece of equipment, and their supervisor suspects all of what the others do plus is concerned the machine operator either operated the machine incorrectly…or perhaps even tried repairing it before calling maintenance, therefore adding to the machine’s down time. They can argue the merits of their limited view (and experience) but someone else, seeing the whole picture, realizes the root cause of all the maintenance problems is they have a greedy boss who buys junk machinery and then expects them to keep his junk running making him lots of money. Likewise, the myriad of issues evoked by the emergence of GMO’s as a predominant food source (whether for animals or humans) must cause us to see the entire picture if our goal is to truly assess the effects such a drastic change in evolutionary food consumption results in, if pursued . The relevant science is present today. The entire body of that science is lost in these discussions, I’m afraid.
          Suppose we all eat starch based GMO’s owned by Monsanto, will mankind be free of heart disease and not realize new, even worse health (or even social) issues?
          I suspect Dr. McDougall is being mis-quoted, or perhaps more is read into his comments than he would support if posting here. Regardless, GMO’s are available to all in the USA (not so much world-wide) but to paraphrase, “Eat em if you got em.”

            1. This is truly a sad day! Dr. McDougall is guilty of what he accuses his followers of (I don’t care, he says), he’s “misplaced” his focus. I’ve never seen him so emotional. He does comment on my objection to GMO’s…that the purpose of splicing in new genes is to make plants (our food) more resistant to “Roundup” (a poison). He poo poo’s it as a distraction from his great work which was listening to Pritikin tapes before the rest of us heard them. But there is more to the story than he’s telling.

              Dr. McDougall misstates Monsanto’s motive for gene modifications.. He dismisses the practice as harmless. Monsanto’s motive isn’t as Dr McDougall states “to resist Roundup.” Which Roundup, I ask? You see, the reason they modify our plants (food) is because the old Roundup stopped killing the bugs so Monsanto formulated a new stronger Roundup poison that would kill the new super bugs. Unfortunately,, the stronger poison also kills the natural plants and so farmers baulked at using it. Since the bugs are stronger, necessitating stronger poisons (in Monsanto’s mind), their next step was to make the food we eat and feed to animals, resistant to the poisons. What Monsanto hasn’t done is make humans resistant to their new stronger poison, the latest formulation of Roundup. Dr. McDougal would be forthcoming to state, Roundup stopped killing bugs so Monsanto created a stronger poison in order to keep their customer base…we can all eat broccoli and hopefully the stronger poisons won’t kill us too.”

              Dr. McDougall hasn’t explained, how human genes should be spliced so we can handle the poison he and his buddies, Monsanto, advocates. There is a movement in this country to exchange and grow “heritage seeds”, explicitly to avoid what Dr. McDougall embraces.

              My goal is to continue eating healthy natural plant food. Dr. McDougall is focus on followers eating any plant food, even those genetically modified by Monsanto…so long as they don’t eat meat and dairy. There is a greater goal and purpose here, to prevent corporate America from adding more artificial food to our artificial existence in an artificial environment, to block Monsanto form owning food, and to prevent Monsanto form prohibiting farmers form growing what mankind has grown for eons. Dr. McDougall himself, has been highly critical of Monsanto’s creation of injection (or pills?) causing cows to double their milk production. Dr. McDougall also is critical of Monsanto “forcing” farmers to buy their milk producing drug and give it to their cows even thought they couldn’t sell all the milk already being produced. Yet Dr. McDougall scolds others for not trusting Monsanto? How hypocritical is that? I’ve followed GMO’s from day one and there is more to the story than Dr. McDougall shares (does he even know?). Still the verdict is out on this forum…until Dr. Greger completes his series of videos on GMO’s. If he concludes as has Dr. McDougall, I will conclude both have gone over to the other side and question all “science” distributed on this site. If I change my views you should know, in advance, it’s highly likely I got a visit from Monsanto and they made an offer I couldn’t refuse.


                Planet Earth faces enormous challenges regarding food safety and accessibility. Industries trying to brighten our future (and make a fat profit) have turned modern science towards the production of GMO foods. These “frankenfoods” are synthesized by inserting genetic material (DNA) from one species of plant or animal into an entirely different species. This advancement in genetic engineering allows humans to do what nature will not do: transfer genes between species. Cutting and pasting DNA in a laboratory seems so unnatural, if not unhealthy and unethical.

                Just to be on the Safe Side: Avoid GMO foods. Short of universal implementation of mandatory labeling, the two best ways to avoid GMO grown crops are to (1) not buy processed foods and (2) to buy “certified-organic.” Products labeled “made with organic ingredients,” are made from both organic and non-organic ingredients, but are not allowed to contain genetically engineered ingredients. Eating out should generally be avoided because restaurants rarely are concerned about cooking with GMO ingredients.
                Dr. McDougall uses organic non-gmo foods personally, in the foods they sell, and at their seminars, etc.

                1. Now I’m really cornfused, Jean. Do you suppose Dr. McDougall sells only non-GMO for fear of losing customers? My, my, that’s the very same reason Monsanto is making stronger bug poisons to spray on our plants. There’s nothing worse that a bunch of PO’d farmers except maybe a bunch of PO’d vegans…we vote with every purchase. Doesn’t Dr. McDougall’s personal preference for NON-GMO sound a little hypocritical? Don’t do as I do, do as I say. “Let them eat GMO”, decrees King McDougall.

                  1. Sorry, Larry, you are really off base. Sounds like you have a biased mind set again Dr. McDougall and do not hear what he is saying. He does not endorse eating GMO foods but fighting against it is not where his energy and focus is. There are many others doing it so he can focus on getting people off of the unhealthy eating of the disease promoting Standard American Diet.

                    “unnatural, if not unhealthy and unethical.” “Just to be on the Safe Side: Avoid GMO foods.” Are you intentionally ignoring these statements of his?

                    1. No, I’m not off base. Even if what you say is correct, people choosing to eat meat and dairy is not a crime. But when Monsanto gets a pass from Dr. McDougall because he’s focuses on his baby, well, it’s time for someone else to l make the point. Sometimes I follow. Sometimes I lead. If Dr. McDougall wants to limit his social concern to what constitutes an unhealthy diet then so be it. But please don’t condescend others for seeing the bigger picture. No, he doesn’t have to fight it…it’s his choice, but he takes offense others are fighting it. He’s fighting a battle (HIs chosen battle) Others are fighting a war…a war they did not choose. Is he purposely ignoring Monsanto’s past behavior with drugs to produce double the cows milk?

                      Besides, his battle is lost if Monsanto has its way.

                    2. I’ve supported Dr. McDougall for close to thirty years. I own most all his books and videos. I’ve exchanged many emails over the years with him. What I have not done is go to one of his twelve day retreats in CA…which I intended to do this winter. How’s Dr. McDougall going to get the world on a healthy diet when he is at best regional and Monsanto, and his brothers are international and content to maintain the status quo? What would Vegas odds be on McDougall beating Monsanto at their game?
                      Are you introducing new information into our exchanges that are not in the McDougall video I am referencing? I’ve listened to it three times and have yet to hear Dr. McDougall voice the words you quote. He does however, claim his mission is to change the world and somehow our failure to share his vision is somehow impeding his success. As he criticizes his viewers it’s as though he’s unwittingly describing himself. his mission s so important and our voices are so distracting. He’s not a businessman…a not in the cut-throat world of big business. The companies that control our food sources and medicines are bigger financially than many countries. Their obligation (so they claim) is to investors…not a starch based diet. Several of the really big food suppliers are privately owned (Cargill) so are closed to public scrutiny. The first thing dr. McDougall needs to remember about running a business is it’s easier (and cheaper) to keep a customer than find a new one.

              2. you know, heritage seeds are pretty hard to find. When I was planting garden, veggies and flower, it was about impossible to find them anywhere, except on internet. I lived in the country, and would get stuff at our local “co-op”, there I saw signs warning farmers that it was illegal to plant the seeds from their soy plants! I don’t know if they’d even grow or not, but it doesn’t matter. It’s illegal! I couldn’t believe that when I first saw it.

                I’m not really sure how anyone is going to be able to eat anything that hasn’t been touched by Monsanto. I think the only way to “continue eating healthy natural plant food” is maybe grow it yourself. Organic labels or not. And, sadly, it’s already out of the consumers’ hands, if it ever was in our hands to begin with. Corp. Monsanto marches on.

                1. Jackie, I live in Ohio and can still plant spring, summer, and fall gardens. I found a couple suppliers of heritage seeds on the internet too. Occasionally store seeds are marked “heritage”. Around here there are many local farmer’s markets. One is every Tuesday, another on Saturdays across town. I even see ads for free walnuts..just have to pick them up and shell them (I’ll pass). Of course we have organic fruits and veggies in all the grocery stores too. I’m not shy about buying canned beets either. Too bad Rachael Ray only demonstrates how to combine bacon with ground hamburger. I wonder who’ll drop first from their glutinous lifestyle, her or her husband, the sausage lover? That woman is sooo good to her man. No wonder America doesn’t hear the good news about a starch based diet, all the television and radio promotions are about meat and dairy consumption and how great it is for the body. Hmm, I haven’t seen a story on evening news yet this week aobut the latest study showing chocolate is good for our health. Well, technically it’s still Tuesday.

        2. Unhealthy does not mean “evil”. Since Dr. McDougall and you have declared GMO healthy then there is absolutely no reason to disclose tot he consumer when they consume GMO. It’s suffice to admit to a list of chemicals added to our food. The fact that the plant is a healthy GMO plant might cause Monsanto to raise prices .

          Since Dr; McDougall has decided the risk of GMO’s for me maybe he could post here and answer a few questions?

          Off topic, but Dr. McDougall just this past week circulated several “Lost Pritikin tapes”. They are pretty good actually. But I’m puzzled how he came to possess lost tapes and who lost them and how they were found and how he acquired the rights to publically distribute them? Maybe someone found a 1954 Corvette with six thousand miles on it hidden away in a barn in New England and the tapes were in the trunk? He must have a great story about his coming to possess these lost tapes. I want to hear his story. I wonder what Pritikin would say about GMO’s?

          1. Larry, Don’t attack people you aren’t capable of understanding.
            “Since Dr. McDougall and you have declared GMO healthy” This was not stated by Dr. McDougall or myself.

            1. Jean, don’t presume I can’t understand “people”, please. What’s to understand? He clearly stated GMO is not his battle. Then he loses it emotionally when relaying concerns of his listeners. Maybe you just don’t appreciate my satire. Of course he’s not giving a ringing endorsement of GMO’s…must I spell that out? He is, however, ticking off a lot of “followers” for his hypocritical attitude toward Monsanto. When he was attacking people he doesn’t understand he could have instead said, “So what if Monsanto doubles milk production by giving drugs to cows…does it really matter?” “After all WE don’t advocate drinking milk anyway.” But McDougall didn’t do that, did he? He took Monsanto to task for forcing farmers to use their chemicals in the nation’s milk supply. You should apply your critique to Dr. McDougall.

              I’d rather live in a world where some choose to eat meat and dairy based on ignorance than live in a world where we all are vegan but Monsanto chooses the plants. My vision is some doctors are so naïve they don’t see the root cause of our health problems. Here’s a hint…it’s big business. Doctors running health clinics…getting wonderful results, don’t compete with big business selling vitamins, medicine, surgeries, manufactured foods, etc. How often do these doctors advertise on television? Big business has Rachael Ray and her latest burger with bacon in front of a buying public every day. Same for all networks throughout the day. Cook show aftr cook show…they are the ones “educating” America. That’s real POWER.

              In the United States of Monsanto, where all humans follow a plant based diet (of GMO’s) does Dr. McDougall see our society as evolved?

  4. Did I miss the connection? It seems that this video looked only for a link such as Bt corn, which is eaten by an animal, which animal is eaten by a human. However, given the widespread cropping of Bt corn, why not a link like Bt corn eaten directly by humans, just like the lab rats? Or even airborne Bt pollen infecting humans such as those you mentioned. After all, if it’s not organic, there is a virtual certainty that Bt corn is present in the product (like chips and cereals, or frozen corn, or corn on the cob). Even if it is organic, there is some probability that it is contaminated to some degree. Corn pollen has a tendency to drift on the wind and the pollution of organic fields by GMO crops is a catastrophe unfolding before our eyes and in our courts right now. Moreover, the concentrations of Bt delivered to the gut by the GMO method are vastly higher than any spray-on method since each kernel has Bt embedded within each DNA molecule – it can’t be washed off and is not degraded by digestion or weathering in the field like the spray on stuff. Why does your video sound so apologetic to this rash science experiment on us? I have been calling for long term (greater than 90 days) testing in humans OR animals for a long time now. I believe that the industry is resisting this because it knows what will be found. Sounds like tobacco science again, doesn’t it, this time with the full cooperation of the white house and the FDA?

    1. Dave, you are right on the money!

      Michael missed the big picture this time in my opinion. GMO could be used for good but when inserted into the capitalist greed system, it cannot produce anything good! Bt in animals and humans alike is outside the realm of evolutionary adaptation. The cautionary principle, never embraced in the US, should be our guide. Lets not experiment on huge populations later to find out that it was a bad idea.

      1. What “good” do you speak of? Is mankind so arrogant (ignorant) we believe we can, without knowing 100% of everything about us, modify plants that will be beneficial…not knowing what we’ve evolved to need? Science is way too ignorant to go into a lab and create feed for humans. They can’t even make cat feed my kitties won’t chuck up. What a world, it’s profitable to feed plant food to carnivor pets but we feed meat to plant eating humans. Both species are sick as a result. Just what we need, more chemistry. Our food policies are much about politics. What other countries protect their citizens from, our Government condones, or looks the other way so billionaires can massage money from our wallets.

  5. What exactly does it mean when we say that a substance is toxic to humans? For example, I have lupus and other autoimmune diseases (in remission now!), and I cannot take dairy products without causing a whole host of problems. Nevertheless, dairy is not considered to be toxic generally. If after thousands of years of humans consuming dairy there are still many people whose genes have not evolved to handle dairy, isn’t it likely that few people are genetically equipped to handle these pesticides and “Frankenfoods”? Even if there are no immediate effects from ingesting GMOs, what are the long-term implications? I, for one, would rather not gamble with my health and, therefore, think that GMO labeling should be mandatory.

    1. You’ve got it all wrong Deb. I suggest you read Dr. John McDougall on “autoimmune disease”. You’ll learn it’s caused by dairy. I doubt any of us have evolved to process cow milk. It’s contrary to nature. Adult cows don’t drink cow’s milk. Why not? Do you suppose humans have problems digesting cow milk because it’s nature’s way of keeping us from stealing baby’s milk? Do you drink human milk? It’s not for you either. It’s especially formulated for human babies, not you, and not cows. Why would cow milk, formulated evolution-wise, for baby cow’s benefit you? May I suggest you get a better understanding of “autoimmune’ At least read McDougall before rebutting here. Just type “Dr. McDougall autoimmune” and see what pops up. You can thank me later.

  6. It is interesting that in a discussion about the safety of genetically engineered organisms that the Precautionary Principle is not mentioned nor is the Hippocratic Oath (First do no harm). The fact that the novel genetic material can spread from plant to plant and to the soil and since once in the environment it can never be recalled it would seem that it fails the requirements of both the Precautionary Principle and the Hippocratic Oath. Additionally, we must consider the effect on human health and the environment of the added load of poisons such as Roundup that is being used in exponential quantities to kill weeds on these GE cropped lands. Of course now because, as predicted, we have super weeds that no longer can be killed by Roundup the USDA has approved the use of 2-4 D which contains dioxin, one of the most carcinogenic agents known – it was one of the main lovely ingredients of Agent Orange that continues to cause birth defects in Vietnam until this day.

  7. To identify someone as a conspiracy theorist is a form of character assassination. It is more useful to marginalize an opponents credibility, than to engage in a substantive discussion of issues where the desire effect is to deflect the conversation away from that topic.

  8. I was under the impression that GMO “Genetically Modified Organisms” could cause “leaky Gut” which would make it difficult to absorb the nutrients from our food and allow toxins to leak into our body without the protection of our liver. And that GMO’s would cause inflammation since the body would consider them to be a toxin that the body needed to protect itself from. This was not covered so I am a bit confused as to the answer if “GMO’s” are dangerous.

    1. Look at reply below by Dr. Greger to “That Damn Hippie” and my reply as well to Dr. Greger and click the links. This may help a little. ;)

  9. I am looking forward to you addressing the issue of pesticidal transgenic crops on human gut bacteria. Thanks for finally getting to this gritty issue!

  10. All discussion of GMO products resolve themselves to the basic for me. There is a strong danger to life (people have gotten sick and may have died). It is NOT (genetic) engineering, since it cannot be reversed or the results predicted As Dr. Greger points out, we still have LOTS to learn about nutrients in food. The argument for feeding starving people fails because for the past decades no one on planet Earth has starved for lack of food, only for political or economic reasons. Why do potentially dangerous business just to make a buck because large companies have more political clout than we do?

  11. I think the biggest problem not talked about often enough in relation to GMO’s is what it is doing to our environment. Pesticide run off from these crops is polluting our water table.

  12. While everyone focuses on human health issues, the environmental issues often get overlooked. But, there is another aspect of the story that is almost never even brought up. This is all about control. Plain and simple.

    You can’t patent food that’s been here since the beginning of recorded civilization. But, as soon as you insert a foreign gene into that food, suddenly you ‘own’ it. That is what this is about. Control of the food supply. Not only do they control the food, but, that food becomes a vehicle for the selling of their toxic chemicals.

    It’s the same with pharmaceuticals. Many of them are derived from plants. But, you can’t patent the plants. So, derive a pill from the plant and suddenly you ‘own’ it. That’s what all of this is about. Control, control, control. Corporations want to ‘own’ every inch of the world and make us pay for it.

    This concept of ‘ownership’ is humanity’s biggest failing.

  13. I suggest you people go and watch a video: ‘Mark Lynas on his conversion to supporting GMOs – Oxford Lecture on Farming’. GMOs are not always bad, even for the environment, they can even boost genetical diversity of the systems, improve soil conditions, less CO2 could be emitted into the atmosphere, less pesticides could be used in some cases, more foods, more vegan plant food for poor countries, it’s been years since GMO launch, we would already see negative effects on human’s health if it was THAT dangerous, but we don’t see it. Some large problems lie in the use of some herbicides, effects on sensitive species, invasion, Bt resistance and shameful actions of large companies.

    1. “it’s been years since GMO launch, we would already see negative effects
      on human’s health if it was THAT dangerous, but we don’t see it.”

      Miranda, there is a diet-related disease epidemic that unfolded just as GMO-food came to be. Your assertion implies that you know the causes of the epidemic even though nobody else seems totally sure of that. You do realize that we were told that DDT was safe too, and that, along with one assurance after another, turned out to be UN-safe, and after a similar amount of time!

  14. Dear Dr Greger: I read the book Genetic Roulett by Jeffry Smith where there are very good examples of toxicity of GMO”s, explain with a variety of serious studies on animals and some examples of damaging on men.

  15. One reason that animal studies are helpful here is that humans lack a birth-cycle of a short enough duration to study the ramifications related to fertility, and to any bio-accumulative effects that may be passed from one generation to another. GMO foods have only been consumed for about 20 years now, and so, there are just recently human babies being born who could begin to provide some data. But, there are studies on animals with short birth-cycles that show problems with fertility and especially so after 3 generations.

    There are also studies showing a long list of problems in humans. The following link briefly explains some of these studies and some done on animals:

    1. Personally I avoid GMOs where possible. The real issue is overpopulation…and I’d suspect that humans will not EVER have the ability overall to deal with this issue…voluntarily. Obama is currently in China trying to convince them to admit GMOs.

      You have many countries with high populations…where organic farming would be ideal…but not profitable for Monsanto…et al. So give some $ to those in charge…get most people herded into cities where they can be sold crap…and make big bucks. GMO crops are the basis for cheap junk food.

      Avoiding GMOs is not a “religion”….it is a precautionary act. I’m at an age where I do not expect much to change before I pass on…considering the history of humankind?….so ask me if I really give a damn…I only try to live a relatively healthy life for the years remaining…wasting good energy and intentions trying to divert the herd from it’s headlong dash to insanity in not a good use of my resources…assuming I could…that is. One does need to closely watch the herd to avoid getting trampled.

  16. Any GMO’s. If there is nothing to hide, then hide nothing. We want labeling on products, this should not be a problem. Right. Well, it’s not happening.

    1. With consumer issues, truth-in-labeling tends to bring out the worst in The Usual (Industrial) Suspects. In 2014, for example, after Vermont passed a consumer-friendly, GMO-transparent labeling law, and a state-by-state effort began, industry lobbies panicked, rushing legislation through the US congress just in time to prevent the Vermont measure from taking effect.

      The supplanting US house bill provided for disclosure of ingredients through a variety of measures like QR codes– as though printing a paper label readable by any consumer were simply too difficult. In 2016, Pres. Obama signed the bill, and the USDA was given two years to develop standards, rules and specifics for labeling of food products containing GMOs.

      Even the watered-down US law, however, is not a complete reversal for consumers, but provides legal framework for expansion of labeling transparency requirements. The amended Agricultural Marketing Act of 1046 recognizes the existence of GMOs, for the first time.

      The major “catch” to the amended law, and a provision for which industry fought so hard, is the US Secretary of Agriculture can determine whether substances in a food product reach a certain threshold requiring they be included in the product label. More than theoretically, this provides ample basis to omit mention of GMO in the product.

      Encouraged by recent progress, the national truth-in-labeling movement is stronger than ever–

      1. Typo– “The amended Agricultural Marketing Act of 1046 recognizes the existence of GMOs, for the first time…” should have been–
        “The amended Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 recognizes the existence of GMOs, for the first time.”

        Posting corrections via a Reply is now the only means available. At one time, forum users had the option to edit recently submitted text for corrections and additions, within a timed window.

      2. After submission, my hyperlinked text did not carry through its codes, although these were present and displayed in the pre-submitted text. That means I must make the link manually, instead of using the link button.

        If readers find the intended hyperlink does not work, simply copy the web address below, and paste it into a browser address window.

        “Encouraged by recent progress, the national truth-in-labeling movement is stronger than ever–”

  17. From your video, it sounds like GMO food is okay to eat. I looked up “GMO” on wikipedia and here is what the article said, among other things: “There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.” Do you agree?

    1. That’s my general opinion, although I’d point out that this very much depends on the type of genetic modification. As with any plant, including conventional crops, there can be genes that lead to harmful proteins that lead to some sort of harmful effect in humans eating the plant material. Provided that the introduced gene doesn’t code for a protein that will interact in unexpected ways with the machinery of the plant, you can predict the change in the chemistry of the plant-as-food and judge whether the new chemicals are harmful. Sometimes the prediction task will be easy and reliable and sometimes it will be hard and fallible: a transgenic plant is sort of like a plant that has been given some sort of drug except perhaps that there’s much greater potential to control which tissues get the drug and somewhat less potential to determine the chemical structure of the drug.

      Conventional breeding can introduce harmful mutations that humans select for without knowing that they are harmful (or it can simply select for harmful alleles that were in the crop population to begin with). You could get more root growth, for example, but do so by selecting for genetic traits which also increase the concentration of a carcinogen in the leaves whose carcinogenic effect is not yet known. Nor is the fact that a plant has been eaten for centuries a guarantee that it is safe: bracken consumption in Korea, for example, is thought to be linked with higher rates of stomach cancer that have been observed there.

      There are a variety of things that can go wrong and the scope of possible change with recombinant technology is certainly much greater than it was in the past, at much lower cost to industry and therefore also at much greater possible speed. However, there is nothing inherent in the fact that a plant is transgenic that adds a harmful quality to it when consumed. Many people are also unaware of the scope of mutation breeding ( ) in the past and present and this needs to be kept in mind when trying to be consistent about what aspects of a crop modification technology should call for what types of regulation.

  18. What many people choose to ignore is that almost everything we buy at a supermarket has been genetically modified to suit a number of factors concerning production, transportation or shelf life of the product. Even when a food item has been grown organically, it doesn’t necessarily mean it has not been modified genetically. GMOs are here to stay, whether many people want them or not.

  19. I’ve been wary of the GMO hysteria since day one and I’m glad I found this video, and the Dr McDougall one (which someone linked on this page). Being skeptical of Monsanto is one thing, but trashing GMO’s in general always felt like throwing the baby out with the bath water to me.

    1. By definition, everyone should be wary of “hysteria”– but hysteria on whose part? Scientists not wishing to take sides have been excluded from years of proprietary research, as though Monsanto and allies had something to hide, and expression of the slightest reluctance or even overt criticism of Monsanto sometimes brought swift retribution. Commercial funding of academic research is a powerful tool, and grant of tenure, even more so.

      As for “throwing out the baby with the bath water”, feeling and knowing are quite different experiences, and represent a major distinction between intuition and science. Sometimes, no baby is to be found– especially, after careful, complete examination.

      Dr. Greger deserves credit for his emphasis on valid research, but it is equally important to include all valid research, and to acknowledge all confounding factors, oversight and unwarranted exclusion of data– all of which might alter results significantly. Methodology is (almost) everything.

  20. No one seems to be mentioning, Dr. Greger just said he couldn’t find any studies showing much…..

    Is Dr. Greger aware that GMO’s are owned property and they deny them to anyone who wants to make a study if that person is considered a potential non-GMO enthusiast? You can’t just get them unless they allow you to use the seeds. They are property. Yes, our food sources are all becoming patented property that can be denied legally for others to access. If you have ever published something that could be considered non-friendly to MOnsanto or gmo, they won’t let you use the seeds. How are you going to do that study? This is a huge issue.
    John S

  21. I would like to see creativity in food production being made creative commons and sharable. Then I would trust them. It’s just not possible to trust someone trying to make a profit. It’s a contradiction. And do we need GMO’s to be healthier? Even hunger is not a problem of lack of food but lack of access to food. “One Straw Revolution” is an inspiring book on this:

  22. I was so hoping Dr Greger would be the Bernie Sanders of the
    medical world with regard to GMOs and put Monsantos lack of long term
    human testing in question. Also, in the absence of long term human
    testings, not be so quick to throw out animal testing. We all
    remember the ‘smoking mice’? If Dr Greger is fine with mice/rat data in
    general… why not GMO mice/rat data? What about peoples
    concerns about GMOs and leaky gut, auto immune issues, digestive issue
    and DNA/gene mutation? Are not GMO free diets prescribed to some patients with digestion problems? This topic needs an
    hour long video in depth covering all the health and safety implications
    of GMOs like Dr Greger’s wonderful pandemic disease video. I don’t think the book can be closed on the debate yet. Not by a long shot… much more human trials and testing need to be done by independent testing labs outside of Monsantos influence.

  23. We are still understanding food effects on our biochemistry and now we have this GMO issue to manage, trying to separate the truth from the false.

    Really hard work.

  24. Has anyone ever seen or tasted Sweet Potato Leaves which the abstract below highly praises?

    Nutr Rev. 2010 Oct;68(10):604-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2010.00320.x.

    Sweet potato leaves: properties and synergistic interactions that promote health and prevent disease.

    Johnson M1, Pace RD.

    Author information

    1Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama 36088, USA.


    Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) leaves provide a dietary source of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, dietary fiber, and essential fatty acids. Bioactive compounds contained in this vegetable play a role in health promotion by improving immune function, reducing oxidative stress and free radical damage, reducing cardiovascular disease risk, and suppressing cancer cell growth. Currently, sweet potato leaves are consumed primarily in the islands of the Pacific Ocean and in Asian and African countries; limited consumption occurs in the United States. This comprehensive review assesses research examining the nutritional characteristics and bioactive compounds within sweet potato leaves that contribute to health promotion and chronic disease prevention. Research has affirmed the potential cardioprotective and chemopreventive advantages of consuming sweet potato leaves, thus indicating that increased consumption of this vegetable should be advocated. Since reducing the prevalence of chronic diseases is of public health concern, promoting the consumption of sweet potato leaves warrants further and more intensive research investigation.

    © 2010 International Life Sciences Institute.

    PMID: 20883418 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

  25. Both Drs. Gregor and McDougall, despite their massive contributions to health and nutrition, are woefully remiss, and late the discussion regarding the GMO issue. To critique this video please be aware that it is true that BT has been used for at least 3 decades in organic farming. Note that BT has been used as a topical insecticide on an as needed basis. Contrast this to genetically altering a gene to produce the BT toxoids CRY and CYT CONTINUOUSLY and realize it kills insects by lysing midgut epithlial cells causing hemolysis.
    Animal studies and the experience of farmers show gut dysfunction and malignancy even in animals with short life spans showing up in approximately 18 months.

    There is no Shut Off mechanism! Plants altered will produce BT consistently. Waiting for the smoking gun is quite frankly extremely dangerous at best, when we might have learned that these companies have already set the record straight with Agent Orange, 2,4D, 2,4,5T, Dioxin, DDT, PCB’s Aspartame, Nutrasweet, Equal, Saccharin, Polystyrene, Roundup (Glyphosate) and many others.

    Producing GMO seed uses as least 70 restricted use pesticides many of which have been banned. None of the details concerning use is available to any member of the judiciary much less the public. The inherent danger of this type of technology controlled by the most hated Corporation in the world ought to raise more than a few eyebrows.

    FYI there was a time when McDougall proudly denounced all supplements and herbs being a board certified internist. He since has had to backpedal…

    Glossing over the animal studies that show serious damage and deformity in animals fed a GMO diet is worse than remaining silent…
    Please note the fate of any scientist who dares publish any finding adverse to the Biotech industry. The examples are many… Science has in this way been so compromised that scrutiny must fall on an paper to track its origins and funding. We should be wary of assumptions based on the once hallowed peer review process.

    Take no comfort in your ABC government agencies, its even worse there.

    Not addressing food safety, pesticide contamination, destroying the meaning of the word Organic by cross pollination contamination or pandering to our Governments ABC agencies is a serious breach of credibility…

    That is why this video is not useful for persons concerned about the GMO issue in general or the BT producing alteration in particular…

  26. Dr Greger – I’d like to point out one important point which you skipped over:

    There is a big difference between the topical application of the BT toxin and the systemic application. When BT is applied topically, it gets destroyed by sunlight, and so very little actually gets into the food chain. I used it on my cabbages, and frequent reapplication is needed. But when the plant produces it in every cell, the dose is thousands of times higher because the majority avoids sunlight.

    The safety data for BT comes from its topical application – not from this new use. As you know – the dose makes the poison, and I suspect we will see problems arising from this when we finally get to see a decent amount of independent research, which for now doesn’t exist.

    This void of independent research is worrying for something so widespead – mainly because the FDA declared GMOs ‘not substantially different’. This contradicts the US government patent which says they are different enough to get a patent!! With this issue, I think we cannot avoid the political angles – and I think that thanks to this, and the massive profits involved, it will be a while before we will know the truth.

  27. I think the point is the toxin is sprayed on organic produce and not part of the plants DNA. It can break down when it is sprayed on the produce and it can be washed off. You can’t wash it off if it is part of the plant; hence it ends up in the blood stream. What tests have been done to prove that it is not harmful in the blood stream? This also does not address how the toxin is actually released from the pores of the Bt corn.

    1. Bt toxin is still found on produce sold in grocery stores.

      A couple Cry1Ab safety studies:

      You can find more online if you look.

      “This also does not address how the toxin is actually released from the pores of the Bt corn.”

      >>Why do you think this is relevant? As far as I know, Cry1Ab is retained in the plant tissue.

  28. Various comments have brought up valid points that should be addressed by Dr. Greger. Claiming safety of Bt toxin for humans merely by stating that it is sprayed on organic foods is not scientific. The article and graph by Mader et al that was referenced supporting the safety of Bt toxin only mentioned a reference of safety to bees. It says nothing about safety to humans. Comments, claiming safety because GMO’s have been used for so many years without apparent ill effects, defy the rules of proper epidemiological studies. Eventually the well-known nurses study may eventually shed light on the side effects on humans of GMO’s when one can compare those nurses that regularly consumed GMO’s and those that did not. However, even that study can be flawed because the control group of people eating organic foods may be too small. For Bt toxin we now know that organic food is also exposed to Bt toxin, compromising the validity of studies comparing GMO versus organic foods.

  29. When my German Shorthair pointer was alive, she would lie in a low part of the yard in the sun. That area collected rainwater and I tried to reduce the mosquitoes by using a variety of Bt called Bacillus Thringensis Israelinus. Purchasing the granular, it was sprinkled over the area. Its purpose was to reduce mosquitoes, gnats and other misery.

    When my dog slept in the sun in this area, she would receive nasty red, itchy bumps all over her skin wherever it touched the ground. Her body became so inflamed she needed to go to the Veterinarian, who put her on antibiotics and urged me to NEVER use this product again.

    I also recalled reading about farmers in India who developed a horrible rash all over their body where their skin came in contact with the cotton leaves, stalks, and so forth from the growing of genetically modified cotton. When the waste material was fed to livestock, the livestock sickened and died. So here we have dermal side effects to humans, and internal side effects to animals eating the Bt cotton.

    Bt cotton is grown here in Louisiana and other states. The seeds are genetically modified to contain the cell of the Bt soil bacterium in every portion of the dna of cotton alike corn. No matter what is done with the cotton/corn the Bt is present and when the crop is turned, all the herbicides and other pesticides along with the Bt, enters the air, soils, waters inc. precipitation from the herbicide resistant Bt crop. Negative health damage has occurred to the people and the animals who have ingested or come in contact through ski contact with the Bt in every cell of its dna crop.

    Perhaps, the reason that studies on people are so difficult to find is because Monsanto had put their scientists on oversight committees of various journals and screened out are commenters who bring negative results to light. This happened in the case of Eric Seralini with GM soy and maize.

    The rats had huge tumors, but Monsanto scientists criticized everything about the study.

    It turned out that Professor Seralini was on the committee that looked at presenters studies –presenters like Monsanto, were found to only study the rats for 3 years before ending their lives and showing that no harm was created. When Seralini’s team studied the rats fed the same quantity of GMO seed/crop/herbicide as human ate in the USA, the animals were not thrown out of the study because they died, or began developing humongous tumors, but left in over the lifetime of the rat. This was something that Monsanto did not allow. They pulled the animals out of the study before the really bad side effects occurred. Was this predetermined by Monsanto? Did they know that nothing showed up at 3 months, but may have occurred at 6 months or even a year? Was the study done knowing what the outcome would be and then making certain that the study was stopped before the evidence of demise came into view?

    Séralini retraction is black mark on scientific publishing – Georgetown professors

    “Hundreds of studies should be permanently removed from the scientific literature, but the Séralini study is not one of them, say two professors at Georgetown University Medical Center.”

    Read more at:

    Dr. Don Huber, Ph.D., retired from Purdue University where he was a soil and plant pathologist and microbiologist for 50 years says that Glyphosate is the most chronically toxic herbicide every registered by the U.S. EPA. Glyphosate was registered based on the acute effects. But the chronic effects show a different story. Listen to the interview at:

    or read the transcript
    There have been numerous interviews of Dr. Huber at over the years on findings in the field with livestock. There are some epidemiological studies cited by Dr. Huber on large groups of human conditions that may be linked to glyphosate, such as autism, even Parkison’s Disease,which is rising since the first GM crops came into the marketplace .
    Meanwhile, Monsanto has blocked studies from being published in Europe and around the world so that nothing gets out that they don’t approve first. They have their own people on the boards of various journals. Fortunately, some scientists are relentless in getting information out.
    I’ve taken to heart what Dr. Huber said about mineral chelators with herbicides in general, and especially with glyphosate of which 100% was seen in precipitation studies by the USGS. When I fractured my pelvis last year, I began eating even larger amounts of collard green, organically grown, of course. My former surgeon whom I requested when I was admitted to the hospital looked at my x-ray and had another one done 3 weeks later in his office. He said he would expect to see someone build bone in 3 months, but not in 3 weeks. When he ordered me x-rayed again 7 weeks after the initial fracture, my pelvis was totally healed. That’s the difference in absorbing the nutrients needed in food when one eats vegan and organic!
    Vegan and organically grown foods without the use of GMO’s which are herbicide intensive, and without herbicides found in conventionally agriculture is needed to repair our bodies.
    I avoid eating corn unless its frozen and certified organic, and even then, I use it sparingly. It’s not that I don’t like corn, but I’ve learned that the vitamin C from corn in vitamins, no longer works as well as it did before crops were gm. The same is true with vitamin E from soy. It no longer helps me. I look for other sources of vitamin E. And always eat organic.

  30. I think there’s at least one article testing BT proteins on human cells
    ( Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt toxins (10ppb to 100ppm) on the humanembryonic
    kidney cell line 293). They found that Cry1Ab caused cell death from
    100ppm and it seems to me that it happens trhough the formation of pores
    on the cell membrane as it hapens for many of the Cry genes on insect
    gut epithelia. Well, I haven’t read this article for a while, but I
    think it could be a key answer to the question of wether canadians
    having the protein in their tissues should worry about… Anyway, I’m
    not adoctor, only a biologist, but waht do you think about?

    Here is the reference:

    Cytotoxicity on human cells of Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac Bt insecticidal toxins alone or with a glyphosate-based herbicide

    Journal of Applied Toxicology. Volume 33, Issue 7, pages 695–699, July 2013

  31. Someone requested my opinion on some videos, so here it is. Nicely done, but the Bt in umbilical cords and fetuses needs your careful consideration. If you read the materials and methods, and reconstruct the standard curve, you see that the levels reported are below the curve– in other words, they can’t know if detection is real or background noise. They also used a kit that is not designed for human serum, which could offer all kinds of cross reactivity. Finally, let’s say it is real. Did it come from consumption of organic produce where Bt is used as an insecticide? There are no proper controls for that. However, my expert reviewer opinion is that they are measuring noise. A proper curve extending to the tiny levels they claim would be very helpful before making such claims. Nice that you mentioned it was not toxic to humans anyway.

    The “mighty mouse” gene was a naturally occurring mutation in Belgian Blue bulls. Not a GM thing.

  32. Conspiracy theories rise and become legitimate when ONE side is ridiculed, silenced and censored. This issue should be debated nationally and internationally, not swept under the rug and dismissed like the industry has successfully done so far (the same with USA animal concentration torture factories). The capitalist censors rule the USA media by pumping advertising dollars to dismiss any scientific fact that endangers their corporate profit and control of masses.

  33. Looks like Monsanto flacks have altered the video rendering it unable to be played and shared. They have also been attacking Joseph Mercola’s web site, as well as my own taking down studies right and left.

    I’ve found that Glyphosate which was originally owned by Monsanto leaves residues in (both) Animals and Humans. Get the study: Detection of Glyphosate Residues in Animals and Humans authored by Monika Krüger et al. This is not specifically on GM corn, but on the herbicide per se.

    1. The study showed that “Glyphosate was significantly higher (P<0.0002) in humans feed conventional feed compared with predominantly organic feed humans (Figure 3).'' …Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and excreted in urine. Presence of glyphosate in urine and its accumulation in animal tissues is alarming even at low concentrations.
      Unknown impacts of glyphosate on human and animal health warrants further investigations of glyphosate residues in vertebrates and other non-target organisms. Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and excreted in urine. Presence of glyphosate in urine and its accumulation in animal tissues is alarming even at low concentrations. Unknown impacts of glyphosate on human and animal health warrants further investigations of glyphosate residues in vertebrates and other non-target organisms."

      Bottom line in my opinion is to grow food using the organic method and only eat organic. Even though people in Germany and other European countries had low levels of glyphosate in their urine, they UNLIKE WE in the USA, had mandatory labeling and the right to know of all foods except feed for livestock. They carefully chose not to import feed from the USA, opting instead for feed from either Brazil or Argentina. But, those countries were also growing GMO soy predominantly for animal feed, so they were ingesting it regardless.

      GM Corn uses another organism for bacillus Thuringiensis/Bt corn, but even this transgenic corn is also herbicide resistant to Roundup, called Roundup Ready corn. And because both Bt and Glyphosate (labeled ingredient in Roundup) are intensively used in the USA on corn and cotton, the organisms they are created to control are become immune to the soil pathogens. GM Bt is creating Superbugs. And herbicide resistant glyphosate has also created weeds that are immune to Roundup.

      Hence Monsanto and their biotech-pesticide allies, began using 2,4-D to help control the herbicide resistance. But
      2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (created as a defoliant during the Vietnam war by Dow Chemical –now Dow Agrosciences) has its own herbicide resistant weeds. Hence, Monsanto and allies have added additional herbicides to the mix and genetically engineered the seeds of soy and corn, as well as other transgenic plants to be resistant to 3 or 4 different herbicides including dicamba and glufosinate. Talk about a toxic soup of poisons people and animals are eating. No one knows what the synergistic effects of these chemicals are on people, and no people know specifically what they are eating if they choose NOT to eat organic. Organic agriculture by law does not allow the use of such toxic chemicals on organic feed or produce or grains. Recall, Monsanto is now genetically modifying wheat ALSO, READ: "In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences also criticized serious deficiencies in USDA’s regulation of genetically engineered crops." But nothing has changed. Monsanto still calls the shots in the Obama Administration just like the Bush Administration.

      In the mean time, in the Obama Administration, Alfalfa has been de-regulated in the marketplace. wheat, and potatoes, as well as sugar beets (labeled as sugar). All are GM to withstand huge amounts of various herbicides, not based on peer reviewed safety testing, but so that Monsanto can maintain the integrity of their herbicide. And where the toxicity of glyphosate shows up in ppb or trillion in humans, the tolerant levels are now 200 fold higher to maintain the integrity of the product, according to the study by Bohn et al on soy.

      What I also learned in my paper research is that during 2006, the Bush-Cheney administration allowed corporations to go through the US EPA libraries and remove any study they did not like for a sizable contribution to the Republican Party. Not only was the EPA library hit, but the Library of Congress, the National Institutes of Health/National Library of Medicines data banks (where I was gathering research at the time) even the IARC (International Agency for the Research on Cancer). Studies on chemicals all disappeared. Included in the disappearance were new studies on the pesticides to be used with genetically modified foods/plants/herbs/ and fiber. To learn more, go the P.E.E.R. and use the search words: Library Closures.

      Other studies may have disappeared as well, but I was gathering information about the chemicals to which I had been exposed years previously. And, I found myself on pages where there would be a colon [:] and zero information was on the other side of the colon. When the file came back it was white washed of all data that made a particular chemical listed in the Hazardous Substances Data Bank, which included spontaneous abortions in people as well as animals.. But now, everything has been eliminated and it's as if it's a totally new pesticide that has never been tested.

      There was mountains of evidence on the toxicity of Glyphosate, 2,4-D, Dicamba, Glufosinate during the years before Bush. But now, that's all gone and when Dow Agrosciences re-registered 2,4-D for use on GM crops, the Obama US EPA simply took the company's word for its safety.

      Here is part of what was known prior to the Bush-Cheney administration allowing the studies to be stolen.

      Read about the long term feeding study of rats and the increase in the frequency of adrenal medullary tumors, "but insufficient dose were used in the rats and the mice, so EPA recommended that they be repeated." "There is no publically available studies about glufosinate – containing products to cause cancer." Herbicides are not just toxic to plants, they are also toxic to other animals and people as well.

      The Bush Administration, according to P.E.E.R., allowed the chemical companies to test pesticides on human infants and toddlers who were orphaned and had no relatives to protect them from harm. This practice was very distasteful and was immediately halted partially because abuse that occurred by the chemical companies.

      There are now lots of studies of Glyphosate, and presumably other herbicides at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. But, I don't go there regularly.
      Copy these urls and print out the information, as Monsanto flacks regularly eliminates them from my computer. So when I get a new study, I now have to print it out. Makes it harder to share, but that's their point.

  34. The Aris and Lebanc study about Bt in blood and mother’s milk has been SOUNDLY debunked for using incorrect tests that could NOT detect what they claimed.

  35. You need to look more carefully at the paper in Reproductive Toxicology about the detection of Cry1Ab in maternal and fetal blood samples. The values detected were at or below the lowest concentration used in the standard curve. The method, and ELISA, uses a sigmoidal standard curve. Accurate results can ONLY be obtained for values that fall on the linear portion (i.e. the middle) of the curve. The findings are highly questionable.

  36. Doc, i really appreciate your analysis here. However, there’s one thing you might want to reconsider about the safety of Bt as used in organic farming. What i’ve learned is that the Bt that’s sprayed on organic crops can be washed off before consumption by people, but the Bt in GMO crops are self-generating, i.e. it’s inside the crops and keeps producing inside. That means, after humans consume food with such Bt crops, pesticides keeps being produced even inside the human body. The Bt crops are pesticide factories. These toxins ingested can then contribute to leaky gut which then causes a plethora of health problems. There is quite some info about this. Here’s one reference:

  37. Big difference between spraying a product that can be washed off and one that is present within the DNA of a plant cell. Animals fed this show harm. Yes we are different than those animals but if something harms them are you sure you want to eat it? 20 million Canadians are diagnosed with gut issues….double what we had 10 years ago! Could it be we are eating something that doesn’t agree with us?

  38. i really like Dr. Greger’s talks, and have also been waiting for talks on GMOs. Gladly they’re come!

    However, i’ve got interesting info about Bt toxin, and it seems convincing. What is said by anti-GMO experts is that the Bt used in organic farming is different from Bt in GM crops. Bt toxin used in organic farming can be washed off, but the Bt inside GM crops are produced by the plants themselves, and would keep producing the pesticide by itself. Intestinal permeability (leaky gut) is a big topic being discussed in the medical circles these days, and that is linked to GMO foods among other things. According to those experts, there is indeed a food safety issue with GMOs. i would recommend everyone to watch Genetic Roulette and see what they’re really talking about:

  39. Are we not the only developed nation WITHOUT labelling laws for GMO products? This alone shows the power of the $ to control the rules. I think even some SAD eaters would like to know what sort of genetics are involved in their produce and products.

  40. hi thanks for putting all these videos up i really like them but i am wondering about the fact sheet you show in this video referring to organic approved pesticides and there toxicity is that study about the toxicity to humans or bees?

  41. Not solely using BT corn but a mix of GMO corn & GMO soy:”Pigs fed the mixed GM soy and GM corn diet showed 2.6 times the rate of severe stomach inflammation compared to non-GM fed pigs”.

    Which brings up a lot of issues. Most GMO foods are sprayed with Roundup (glyphosate) and separating the effects of that from the effects of the BT or the other changes to the plant DNA itself will require studies of each component independently and in combination.

    I avoid all GMO foods and all foods sprayed with Roundup as much as I can. The use of Roundup as a method of uniformly drying grains and other foods is common. I’m not going to be a lab rat for large corporations with horrible track records and blatant conflicts of interest and I’m certainly not going to pay for the honour of being a lab rat for them.

  42. Your information on this article 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) 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?

  43. I know this. My toddler was diagnosed with a “corn allergy.” After eating corn, she would break out into hives, rashes, and then scratch herself bloody. Of course, this impacted her mood and behaviors. We then removed all corn and corn products from her diet. Not easy to do. No dextrose, corn syrup, maltodextin or the rest of the corn list. Then I watched “Genetic Roulette” and got to thinking so we tried a little experiment. I fed her “organic” corn and corn products over one weekend in abundance. Guess what? No reaction. She is not a rat or a farm animal. I am not a scientist. I am a mom and I KNOW there is something wrong with conventional corn.

    1. Diane Gordon: I’m not a GMO proponent. That said, I have an honest question/thought for you: How do you know it was the GMO-ness of the corn that was the problem? Maybe it’s the pesticide(s)? Or a combination of both?
      I say this both to raise the question, but also to potentially be helpful in the future. If your toddler similarly reacts to a non-GMO food in the future, it may be because of the pesticide on the food. Knowing the potential cause could help you steer the little one away from other dangerous foods in the future. I’m thinking you don’t have enough information to know one way or another right now? But it would be a good idea to keep the possibilities in mind.
      I think I remember a famous personality (but don’t remember who) saying that she used to think she was allergic to almost all fruits and veggies. Then one day, she realized that it was the pesticides on the foods that she was allergic to. She can eat organic food just fine.
      Good luck. I hope your toddler never has to go through that again!

  44. Watch ‘GMO OMG’ and ‘Genetic Roulette’. The Genetic Roulette video claims that ever since GM crops were introduced, Autism in children skyrocketed. Furthermore, since the genetic coding of the crop is different to nature, our bodies won’t recognize it since it does not exist in nature and possibly initiate leukocytosis within the body. I’m not 100% sure but I do know that GM foods are not safe. If it isn’t then why are so many people out to bring down GMO and countries like Germany, Italy, France and India have banned GM seeds from being sowed in their lands?

  45. I love Dr. Greger, but I find this video very short-sighted. As mentioned in so many other videos, big business has always “bought the best science money could buy.” Money is the reason our ecosystem is so contaminated with lead, money is the reason smoking was able to be promoted with little to no warning for so long, and so on… Monsanto, along with other leading GMO companies and advocates, is one of THE most powerful forces behind our government. It’s one of the most corrupt and one of the richest organizations in the world. They are notorious for buying their own “science,” threatening and in some cases even ending the jobs of scientists and journalists for studying/investigating them, as well as burning down their own testing sites. So OF COURSE we’re not going to find relevant studies about the immediate harm done to humans after consumption of GMO foods, the scientific community is bullied by Monsanto.

    But for that matter, what about the harm done to the farm workers, their children, and those living near these GMO farms? I know that birth defects are an issue with workers on GMO farms. And I know how dangerous Round Up is as well as other chemicals by other GMO corporations such as DOW who literally use AGENT ORANGE for crying out loud! One little boy dropped dead in India while riding his bike past a Monsanto farm.
    Then you have to take into account the ecological effects, and what could be more unhealthy to a human being (or any animal) than a dying planet?

Leave a Reply

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

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This