New Study: Goats Who Eat Monsanto GM Soy Produce Abnormal Milk
Are humans next in line?
Latest News
Monsanto likes to say (with the FDA’s help) that their Round Up Ready GM soy is substantially equivalent to its non-GM counterparts. But a new study proves that GM-fed goat milk is completely abnormal – is human milk next?
Is it any wonder that the US has such a high infant mortality rate compared to other ‘civilized’ nations? (Ours is more than twice the rate of countries like Sweden or Japan.) Though it is due to a confluence of factors, Monsanto is likely contributing to our atrocious infant mortality rate.
When baby goats die more often due to their mothers eating Round Up Ready soy feed, it isn’t a far stretch to understand that human milk is being affected as well. This is especially true since glyphosate residues have been found in fetal cells and pregnant women’s breast milk. (Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells as evidenced in this study.)
What exactly is wrong with the GM-fed goat’s milk?
- It has significantly reduced antibodies
- It had reduced protein and fat content
- It contains transgenic DNA
Just as with human milk, a goat’s first milk, called colostrums, is normally filled with proteins, important fats, vitamins, and antibodies that protect newborn babies from disease. All of these important factors were altered in the GM soy-fed goat’s milk.
In this study, offspring from conventional and GM-fed mothers weighed the same at birth, but those from GM-fed mothers weigh significantly less 30 days after birth.
As reported by Institute of Science in Society:
“A new study finds that feeding goats the genetically modified (GM) glyphosate-tolerant soybean MON40-3-2 changes the composition of colostrum, the nutrient-rich first milk produced during pregnancy. Colostrum is ordinarily packed with proteins, vitamins as well as antibodies to protect the new-born against disease. Offspring from conventional and GM-fed mothers weigh the same at birth but those from GM-fed mothers weigh significantly less 30 days after birth. The researchers also discovered transgenic DNA in the milk of mothers fed the GM diet.”
The gig is up. If biotech’s GM foods aren’t altering our reproductive health, permanently altering the human genome, killing us via cancer, and organ damage, then their GM poisons are targeting our infant children in their first days of life. It has to stop. Now.
 | Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga. |
Only buy organic, grass fed milk (no grains at all) whether it be cow, goat, sheep or even camel!
Lots of accusations no facts, typical Christina article.
Kinda like your posts, Mr. Monsanto Roberts, lots of accusations, no facts. Well put.
Did you not read the Benachour & Seralini peer-reviewed article from the Chemical Research in Toxicology journal, GMO Roberts? I understand that the abstract provided in PubMed is a bit thick with the chemical names and biochemical processes, so read it slowly. I recommend anyone desiring to understand the research to take each term and look up the meanings to get at least the concept of why the researchers are describing the process.
And if the abstract is not clear enough, then pay for the whole study review or ask someone you know in medicine or research if they will open via their subscription.
As a medical provider with a side specialty in obstetrics, I can tell you that the study conclusions are as Ms Christina is reporting…. disturbing and sad news for the current and future health of those taking in not only goat’s milk but human milk or any milk of a mammal ingesting GMO.
The conclusions are also yet more substantiation in a growing body of study results that are revealing the effect of GMOs do have long term effects to the health and well-being of mammals ingesting them regularly. Simple scholarly searches through research and medical libraries open many studies. Choose to read the ones where the study contributors do NOT have funding from a GMO related source.
I am happy to provide the links to medical libraries to open abstracts for non subscribers to at least read abstracts, which are probably plenty of information for the layman.
Very well put, Ms. Still. Please continue to post. More and more people are posting and it is refreshing when people such as yourself have very well thought out logical replies and posts. Thank you for your imput.
I’m sorry but Bobo can’t read because he’s a trained parrot. I’ve given him peer reviewed papers before, and I’m sure he never reads them. As he has given me shill reporter stories as proof. It’s like talking to a cow pattie.
Here’s something that’s really interesting.
Cuba, the Caribbean, Capitalism, and Coral Reefs
http://smokinggmogun.blogspot.com/2015/01/cuba-caribbean-capitalism-and-coral.html
Plenty of links, though. Or are they blocked by your employers security filters?
Mr Monsanto Roberts, I understand if it will take you some time to formulate a laughable response. After all, make sure you check with your supervisors and they may need to consult legal to make sure the deceipt isnt indictable on the company that pays you to post. But in the meantime, my nose is just pressed to that screen waiting for your reply.
Hey Monsanto Roberts, where are you on this one? I thought GM products had absolutely NO adverse effects on anything and they were good for anyone consuming them. Please bestow on us non-GMO’ers your divine wisdom on this matter and pray tell how you can justify this one. My nose will be pressed against the computer screen waiting for your divine wisdom to enlighten us poor non-GMO simpleton folk on this article and the issues of GM fed animals producing ABNORMAL MILK!!!!!
Is it any wonder that the US has such a high infant mortality rate compared to other ‘civilized’ nations? … Though it is due to a confluence of factors, Monsanto is likely contributing to our atrocious infant mortality rate.
Classic Sarich! ‘There’s no evidence to support my belief, but that won’t stop me from asserting my conclusions as a matter of faith!’
Nope, the “ABNORMAL MILK” produced in animals fed GM crops couldnt have anything to do with it? C’mon skeptologist. So please pray tell what a posteriori evidence based argument are you going to hypothesize? So if it isn’t GM products in some way, what could be an alternative explanation? Couldn’t you possibly admit there might be a link or do the denial spectacles due to lack of rigorous studies magnified too greatly cause you to turn the other way. I seem to remember cigarette companies saying there was no objective evidence that directly links smoking causing cancer. I am not an anti tobacco guy, but unless there are some other causative factors as far as GM products and infant mortality, what else could it be that has changed so significantly?
I had a look over the paper (link below) that presented these findings. The findings are not nearly as concerning as this story makes them appear.
The authors of the study concluded that the “fat and protein content in colostrum and milk until 15 days after kidding was lower in the GM group, and this difference disappeared at the successive milk samplings.” The difference was only observed in the colostrum, not the milk collected later than 15 days. This is odd, but jumping from this to “Monsanto causes infant mortality” is simply irrational (I hate being put in a position where I sound like I’m defending Monsanto. I’m not, I’m defending critical thinking).
I don’t have any explanation for why this occurred, and significant, neither do the authors of the study. Sure, there might be a link. But there might also be no link. It could be a fluke. The authors used a significant threshold of p < 0.05, which means there is a 5% chance the the difference is due to chance alone. This is a standard threshold used in biology, but when there is only a single study showing an effect at a this threshold it is not enough to declare a definitive link. This finding needs to be repeated.
Read the study for yourself. Stop jumping to conclusions.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921448815000528