Print Friendly and PDF

Study Proves Three Monsanto GM Corn Varieties Pose Health Hazard

Anthony Gucciardi
by
December 19th, 2009
Updated 11/16/2012 at 12:13 pm
Pin It

gmo 210x145 Study Proves Three Monsanto GM Corn Varieties Pose Health HazardA new study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences ends the debate regarding the health effects of genetically modified food (GMO). With their findings almost as shocking as the fact that genetically modified food was ever allowed on the shelf, the study is gaining some intense coverage even in the mainstream media, specifically regarding gm corn varieties.

Study Proves Three Monsanto GM Corn Varieties Pose Health Hazard

“There is a world-wide debate concerning the safety and regulatory approval process of genetically modified (GM) crops and foods. In order to scientifically address this issue, it is necessary to have access to toxicological tests, preferably on mammals, performed over the longest time-scales involving detailed blood and organ system analyses. Furthermore, these tests should, if possible, be in accordance with OECD guidelines.” states the introduction.

GM foods been shown time and time again to not only cause bodily and environment harm, but also be ineffective at saving the world from mass starvation.  The primarily known supplier and creator of GM seeds, foods, and crops is a biotechnology company known as Monsanto. For decades, Monsanto has been creating genetically modified seeds which are forced on many farmers. Some of the crops, such as GM corn, grown from the GM seeds are created to kill insects to make for easier farming, but the result has been the creation of resistant superweeds and superbugs, and subsequently increased pesticide use – leading to further human and environmental harm.

“For the first time in the world, we’ve proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized. [...] Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems,” indicated Gilles-Eric Séralini, an expert member of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation, created by the EU in 2008.

The study also found that GM corn fed to mice led to an increase in overall body weight of about 3.7 percent, while also increasing the weight of the liver by up to 11 percent. We know genetically modified food like GM corn is known to cause short term damage to nature and your biology, but the concern may primarily revolves around the unknown long-term consequences. We currently have information and research regarding the detrimental effects of GMO foods in the short term, but they continue to be used while long-term effects are still a mystery even to GMO supporters.

About Anthony Gucciardi:
1.thumbnail Study Proves Three Monsanto GM Corn Varieties Pose Health HazardGoogle Plus ProfileAnthony is the Editor of NaturalSociety whose work has been read by millions worldwide and is routinely featured on major alternative and mainstream news website alike, including the powerful Drudge Report, NaturalNews, Daily Mail, and many others. Anthony has appeared on programs like Russia Today (RT), Savage Nation, The Alex Jones Show, Coast to Coast AM, and many others. Anthony is also dedicated to aiding various non-profit organizations focused around health and rehabilitation as well as the creator of the independent political website Storyleak

From around the web:

  • http://www.assistirthewalkingdeadonline.com/ tom

    I remember watching a documetary on monstanto a while back when i was in highschool. Obviously I checked in on the other side of the debate before drawing any conclusions but i think its pretty obvious a monopoly on crop aids is a huge problem, especially when they have huge ties and connections into governments. walking dead

  • Darren

    As for Anthony Winter the precautionary principle isn't a legal principle. The standard for new technology never has been, nor ever will be 100% the precautionary principle because it is impossible to meet that burden. If you want to live in a world without drugs (including anti-malarials, vaccines, and other things that save IDK how many lives, despite any alleged side effects) then go, and see if you can live past 30. If you want to live in a world without modified ag, too late, hybrids from thousands of years ago are already all over the planet. (You think cows were naturally fat and docile before we got to them?) In an ethically sound legal system the likelihood of harm and its magnitude are balanced against the likelihood of benefit and its magnitude.

  • Darren

    Nevermind the fact that bias and inadequate research are intolerable, in an attempt to appeal to you to do your homework I will point out that your "journalism" is doing a disservice to GMO opponents. You fail to read or comprehend the study (see previous comments). If sound evidence against GMO is ever uncovered, you will unable to publish it with credibility as you have chosen to have none. Good luck with that.

  • anthony winter

    the slightest suspicion regarding the safety of gmo foods should be legally enough to prevent them from being brought into circulation. ethically it is the producers`s duty to prove scientifically that gmos are safe to consume.

    sub scientific proof should naturally be by longterm, profound studies, while even the slightest scientific indication of any dangers from gmo – like an initial study as referenced in the article, should be sufficient to stop them from being used a foods, even being grown – until proven safe.

    in an ethically sound legal system, the rules are made to protect life, not to facilitate life threatening product creation and marketing.

    those who reverse this priority in their comments are easily parading their interests.

    any legal system which favors the marketing side over the safety side is deeply corrupt and foremost, dangerous.

    let the class action court cases start. where are the law firms which are smart enough to see the huge potential of income from taking on monsanto and the other gmos firms which push such unsafe and potentially life threatening foods into the market. this could be the most lucrative court cases in modern history, surpassing the tobacco cases.

  • Logan

    John is exactly correct, the study finishes up by saying:

    "In conclusion, our data presented here strongly

    recommend that additional long-term (up to 2 years)

    animal feeding studies be performed in at least three

    species, preferably also multi-generational, to provide

    true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic

    toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods."

    this debate is far from over, as you stated in the very first sentence of your article. Did you even read the scientific article before writing this?

  • Anonymous

    In addition, large effects (e.g. 40% increase in triglycerides) in all likelihood will be missed with the protocol of the current studies, since they are limited by the number of animals used in each feeding group and by the nature of the parameters studied.

  • Anonymous

    Firstly, the feeding trials in each case have been conducted only once, and with only one mammalian species. The experiments clearly need to be repeated preferably with more than one species of animal. Secondly, the length of feeding was at most only three months, and thus only relatively acute and medium-term effects can be observed if any similar to what can be derived in a process such as carcinogenesis [19, 20]

  • John

    The study referenced states the exact opposite conclusion as the first sentence in this article.

  • ana de trucos para q

    I didnt know it until now, thanks for the info, Ill be reading your blog