New Study: GMO Soy Accumulates Cancerous Formaldehyde
As if there weren’t plenty of reasons already to avoid genetically modified soy and other soy products – now a new study has made eating this GM crop even less appetizing.
As I previously reported for Natural Society, GM soy is toxic to the kidneys, liver, and reproductive system – and that’s not good considering that almost 90 percent of the soy grown in the US is genetically modified.
In a study we recently shared with you, researchers in Egypt who studied rats fed a GM soy diet found that:
- 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.
Now, a study has just been released by Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, Ph.D., an MIT-trained systems biologist, which states that in vitro and in vivo lab tests reveal that a diet of GM soy results in:
“[the] accumulation of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, and a dramatic depletion of glutathione, an anti-oxidant necessary for cellular detoxification, in GMO soy, indicating that formaldehyde and glutathione are likely critical criteria for distinguishing the GMO from its non-GMO counterpart.”
This means that all those biotech claims that GM and non-GM soy are essentially the same, are nothing but hogwash.
Dr. Ayyadurai stated:
“The results demand immediate testing along with rigorous scientific standards to assure such testing is objective and replicable. It’s unbelievable such standards for testing do not already exist. The safety of our food supply demands that science deliver such modern scientific standards for approval of GMOs.”
This is yet another reason to avoid GM soy.
Anyone check the facts on this paper? Neither of the authors appear to have any expertise in biochemistry. They’re system biologists (i.e. computer scientists who model biological systems). Not to mention the fact that the journal the paper is published in has an impact factor of less than 1.
The paper itself is quite odd. The first section is a discussion about the controversy surrounding GMOs. This is highly unusual in scientific papers. Primary scientific papers are traditional objective and present just the evidence and conclude with an interpretation of the evidence.
Finally, the paper doesn’t present any empirical data. None. All it presents are computer models, which at best can form a hypothesis. Why didn’t the authors take this a step further, collaborate with a plant biochemist and actually see if formaldehyde accumulates in GM soya? If that were true, they would have been able to publish a far, far, far more impactful paper that people might actually pay attention to. But they didn’t. Instead we have this piece of bad science.
Actually, I did notice this when an anti-GMO doof tossed this into a thread yesterday or the day before. It is another Seneff joining the fray, hooray!
If people like Christina Sarich applied even half as much scepticism towards these anti-GMO studies as they do towards the evidence supporting GMOs, they would pay even the slightest bit of attention to these anti-GMO studies. Take a hint Christina, there’s a very good reason that this paper was published in a journal with an impact factor of less than one and why it hasn’t received any attention from the scientific community.
I believe these GMO scientist are being bought off by Monsanto.
I’m not being paid by Monsanto. And that’s not a logical argument. It’s an ad hominem fallacy.
Oh really proved that to me. So what is wrong organic food that is prove to be safer and healthier to eat?
I never said there was anything wrong with organic food. I like organic food. I often buy organic produce. However, I don’t think it’s universally true that non-organic food is inherently unsafe or unhealthy. This may be true for some foods but I am not convinced that it’s true for all foods. I would want to see evidence to convince me of that.
I can tell you one thing from my personal experience, I haven’t gone to the doctors for many years because I am very careful what I eat and drink. Unlike many people who don’t take care themselves by not being careful enough what they’re eating and drinking that they end it up being in hospital. Lot of these process foods are full of unsafe ingredients that is causing health issues. Many of these process foods does contain GMO ingredients and not only that, but also are made from petroleum base ingredients like dye colors. I stay clear from them and I that is why I don’t have any health issues. I have been making my own remedy for cold & flu for the preventive measure. I have been eating foods that is GMO free and I don’t have any health problem at all, and I’m slim and fit, also riding bicycle at the age near 60. I did took a flu vaccines about one or twice about past 8 or 9 years ago and it didn’t prevent me from getting sick and almost cripple me because of these vaccines has those toxin ingredient in them, I found out soon afterward. So I never took any these vaccines again and it took me awhile to recover from that stuff. I just take herbal remedy and colloidal silver to kill cold & flu viruses instantly, also I took fresh coconut with water & meat in it because it is known to be anti-viral and it will kills all kind of viruses instantly. many of these medical establishment doesn’t want you to know because they will lose money from lack of sales of drugs.
Personal experience is not the same as scientific evidence. I eat healthy and exercise a lot, but I also make no special effort to avoid GMOs, I have gotten and continue to get recommended vaccines, and I take pharmaceuticals as recommended by a doctor. And I’m perfectly healthy. So does that serve as counter evidence? Of course not. All it demonstrates is that personal experience differs between people and thus is not evidence to support an argument.
Yes it is because it is a natural law of human body design, and science is just a philosophy of opinion of men and it NOT always prove to be right. Go read the bible and you will know the true meaning life and its designer (GRAND CREATOR) who design our human bodies and all the basic of life on earth. As for you guys out there are perverting and destroying the its creation on earth.
I’ll make you a deal. I’ll read the Bible if you go and get yourself a PhD in biology (that’s my background). Sound good?
Don’t even get me started on creation nonsense. It’s beyond ignorant.
I took biology years ago, too, and it just tells how cells of the body performed, and lot more, but the scientist still hasn’t figure it out how and why it is design that way and how did it design on its own, so has to do with someone in high order has an Intelligent to create this sophisticated life. You are being ignorant because there is lots of things in the world that you are missing a great deal of it. Like it said in the scripture, “The wisdom of man is a foolishness of GOD.” Another word, you got a lot to learn about how things got started.
If you think cells are “designed” then you haven’t learned much about biology. Look up argument from ignorance fallacy. It sounds like you’re committing one.
Sure there are people out there who are smarter than me. But that cuts both ways. There are people out there who are smarter than you too. I’m one of those people.
No, you’re not. Lol!
You know nothing about me and my background, fool. Lol! Get lost and you’re wasting your time because you’re acting like a five year old, grow up!
If you think cells are “designed ” then you’ve demonstrated limited critical thinking.
Also mechanical field of automotive technology is my field.
“The DNA and its code”? I’m sure you’re a regular Watson and Crick all in one.
Don’t confuse religious beliefs with the natural world. Not the same.
You’re bluffing, it’s the same, The Grand Creator who the started a true religion with starting a faithful man Abel, the early human history started their natural cultivation in the garden, so you nothing about the history of early humankind.
Hey, it’s a study by that guy who claims he invented email! Hurrah!