New Study Finds GMO Soy Toxic to Kidneys, Liver, and Reproduction
In North America, approximately 75 to 89% of the soy beans grown are genetically modified (GM). One may not realize it, but this is concerning news – especially because recent research found that GM soy is toxic to the kidneys, liver, and more.
There isn’t just one smoking gun anymore pointing at GMO toxicology. There is now an entire arsenal of scientific research proving that genetically modified organisms adversely affect the body. In yet another new study conducted by Egyptian researchers, rats given GM soy were found to have deadly amounts of toxicity in their kidneys, liver, testes, sperm, blood and even DNA.
Is there any question anymore about the true poisons that are biotech’s squalid wares?
The histopathological assessments made by the researchers of the rat’s bodily tissues leave no room for mistakes or misjudgments. You can’t argue over the results as some GMO-supporters have tried to do with other studies (like Seralini’s). Seralini’s study is one of the most quoted papers on the Internet, yet Monsanto gave a lengthy refutation of its findings.
Seralini stands firm in his findings, with the support of thousands of other scientists around the world. Though you’d think that he was some sort of quack with the comments that biotech makes to try to discredit him. What does Monsanto do when studies like this one, keep mounting? The evidence comes out again and again against GMOs – then what? What happens when research finds GM soy to be linked to sterility and infant mortality?
Just some of the sordid highlights of GMO-fed rats from the study’s findings include:
- DNA fragmentation increased significantly after the rats were fed GM soy, and the levels of toxicity increased at 30, 60 and 90 days.
- Glyphosate tolerant enzymes were found in the blood, and as researchers pointed out, “There is a growing concern that introducing foreign genes into food plants may have an unexpected and negative impact on human health.”
- The kidney’s bio-pathology increased. Blood creatinine and uric acid concentrations increased significantly in rats fed the GM diet for 30, 60, or 90 days.
- Chromosomal aberrations were observed. There was a “highly significant” number of abnormal cells.
Almost every organ observed, along with the blood and DNA showed damage from the GM diet. The researchers stated:
“The results of all the param-eters evaluated in our investigation were consistent and confirm that the GM diet fed to rats for 30, 60, or 90 days caused significant histopathological, biochemical, and cytogenetic changes in all examined tissues.”
No animals were tested for toxic affects after 90 days – but it didn’t take more than this to see an obvious correlation between the toxicity levels of the rats and their GM diet. The wheat-based control diet did not cause the same results.
So here’s the kicker — the largest U.S. producer of hybrid seeds for agriculture, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, created a genetically engineered soybean which was approved in 2010. Soy is also on the seven most commonly grown GM crops list.
Read: 4 Huge Reasons Why Soy Should be Avoided
Since that time, numerous food products have been processed and sold on grocery store shelves in the US contain GM soy.
Many people have soy allergies now, too, which are likely due to GM varieties. Symptoms often include:
- Hives; itching; or itchy, scaly skin (eczema)
- Swelling of lips, face, tongue and throat, or other body parts
- Asthma or wheezing, runny nose, cold symptoms
- Skin redness
- A tingling mouth
- Abdominal pains, nausea, and diarrhea
The Non-GMO Shopping Guide lists GM soy as one of the hidden ingredients that biotech has so sneakily infiltrated our food system with. Even many ‘health foods’ contain GM soy. Ironically, if you consume protein drinks and health food bars in an attempt to stay fit, you’re especially in danger of eating too much GM soy.
Soy protein isolate can be found in protein bars, meal replacement shakes, bottled fruit drinks, soups and sauces, meat analogs, baked goods, breakfast cereals, and some dietary supplements. Then there’s soy milk, tofu, and other more obvious culprits. Soy lecithin is another problem, and there’s even GM soy in baby formula! Companies that make Similac and Enfamil don’t seem to care.
This should come as no surprise to some – as biotech has even hidden GM in citric acid.
Other findings on GM soy from previous studies include these startling facts:
More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks.
- Soy changes the testicle cells of rats fed a GM variety.
- Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen
- Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced
- GM Soy made the third generation sterile in one Russian study.
- GM proteins are continually produced inside our bodies once we eat GM products – including soy.
Millions of acres of crops are planted with GM soy every year. Let’s face it, GM soy is hard to avoid. Did Monsanto know about all these toxicity factors when they started selling GM Soy? It’s a moot point now. Monsanto frantically recalled GM canola seed in Canada once, but once its planted, is it too late?
For now, you should be vigilant about checking labels, making sure that our government upholds labeling laws, and boycott all companies who sell anything with GM Soy in it. You can also look for substitutes for soy sauce, tofu, miso soup, and other soy-obvious foods. Even committed vegans can choose non-GMO varieties of soy to protect their health.
Additional Sources:
Sounds like it’s working as intended.
Speaking of abberrations, how’bout that control group!
If this is all true, why don’t we hear something from some of the excellent agricultural based universities in our country?
I’ll chime in on that, as a public, independent scientist. The reason is, because we are expected to publish real science in higher-impact journals. Feeding rats two completely different diets, one containing 30% soybeans (that we know contain phytoestrogens and other bioactives) for 90 days and then showing that the mice are different than those eating wheat, is no big surprise. It is in an irrelevant journal that only Sarich would consider meaningful, as she never met a bad study she didn’t like.
You can. Just go to Google Scholar and enter search terms relevant to the issue you want to know more about. Then look for articles in credible journals (preferably with in impact factor of 2 or higher).
I am not a Physician, but was given Medical Power Of Attorney of an individual this past year. I asked only one question to first Dr. That I was introduced too, “Does he or any other Practicioner associated, employed or contracted with the hospital system and addressing the CAUSE of the Patient I am RESPONSIBLE FOR, Involve themselves with ” DETOXIFICATION OF THE PATIENTS BLOOD STREAM? RESPONSE: “WE CAN’T DO THAT.” MY RESPONSE: CAN’T IS NOT IN MY VOCABULARY, YOU WILL NOTIFY ALL LEGAL, MANAGEMENT, MEDICAL, EMPLOYEES, & ANY SUBSTITUTE, SITIN, OR REPLACEMENT, THAT ALL WILL LOSE THEIR LICENSE TO PRACTICE, BE SUED FOR MAL-PRACTICE, RESULTING IN A FELONY RECORD, AND NEVER PRACTICE IN ANY 50 PUBLIC STATES FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES!” RESULTING IN MY DIRECTIVES BEING FOLLOWED, THAT FOUND METABOLIC ACIDOSIS IN KIDNEYS/LIVER CAUSING THE CO2 TO DROP 50% THE NORMAL RANGE AND THE PH LEVEL TO DROP 45% THE NORMAL RANGE DUE TOO MISDIAGNOSING, MISTREATING, AND FINDING ALLERGY TO GLUTEN. I SAVED THE INDIVIDUALS LIFE FROM THEMSELF AND ANY/ALL DOCTORS THAT COMMITTED MAL-PRACTICE FOR THEIR OWN FINANCIAL GREED.
What exactly does “detoxification of the patient’s blood” mean? What specifically is the toxin(s) that require removal by medical intervention? Is the patient in the hospital for acute poisoning? The doctor you spoke with is right, you can’t “detoxify” something when you have no idea of what the “toxins” are.
The control group and the experimental groups have totally different diets. Adding wheat to the diet is not a non-GMO equivalent. They didn’t even ever identify what kind of GM traits were in the test group or how much of the food was actually genetically modified. They undernourished all of the rats in the study by feeding them only soy beans and grains with no supplementation, which was unnecessarily cruel and yielded no useful data. The first sentence of the conclusion actually makes no sense. Overall, this study is almost as poorly constructed as the Seralini study and certainly unethical in a similar way.
Also, this article makes ridiculous claims that cannot be called anything other than dishonest. There aren’t thousands of scientists that support Seralini. It’s not biotech that is smearing his name; he has done that just fine on his own. At my university, we actually have used his rat study as an example of how not to design and report animal studies. I really just don’t understand the point of lying to your readers.
Noticed that too about the “control” group, eh? Pretty much torpedos the entire study. Pretty amateurish science.
Paid Monsanto-trolls everywhere.
What did Doug and Guest say that wasn’t true?
Seralini’s study was a duplicate of the study that Monsanto did. Except, his study was longer. He used the same rats. He faced accusations of cruelty but since when have researchers really cared about lab animals’ wellbeing? Seralini was also accused of having small groups of test animals that are statistically insignificant but in the end Monsanto only analyzed half of its lab animals. Seralini’s study was retracted after an ex-Monsanto executive was hired as editor for the journal. And it was retracted for reasons that are not valid. It was not retracted because it was fraudulent or for plagiarism but for being inconclusive. That is no valid reason and it is not even inconclusive. If that would be the case then many studies including Monsanto’s should be retracted. In the meanwhile Seralini’s study has been accepted by another journal.
You are just a troll as so many who have commented here. Biotech companies are using agents to troll and ‘respond’ to articles that are critical of GMO.
It is the percentage of tumours in a group in any period of time that counts, not whether some of the control got tumours or not. In the Seralini test, the results clearly showed MORE tumours in the GMO and Roundup group. Stop your misrepresentations.
Yes, I don’t think it can be emphasized enough that in feeding studies if the feed is not identical, except for the molecule(s) of interest, it is impossible to have any confidence that any changes were due to the feed.
So all these studies that don’t control diets adequately just kill animals for no benefit.
Complete garbage. People who believe this might just as well believe in Santa Claus. It’s that childish…
Another Paid Monsanto-troll with a Zio Zombi background and a mind poisoned, bio-accumulated and controlled by Monsanto’s Glyphosate. Look for the deadly GMO-garbage in your food before your Alzheimer gets serious.
How much do you get paid by Monsanto to write so much useless garbage ?
My advice : drink your Roundup-Glyphosate and you are really done very soon with no further prove needed.
Does anyone know how to contact the author of this article?
There are so many articles that come out like this each day. Have some originality!