A 2015 study has shown that children exposed to pesticides used to grow GM soy suffer serious genetic damage. Does this mean that our children will suffer the same fate as those unfortunate enough to live near GM soy fields in Argentina?
Researchers from the National University of Río Cuarto, Cordoba (UNRC) compared children who lived close to a GM-soy growing area in Argentina to children who lived in another city in Cordoba that was not adjacent to GM soy fields.
Genetic damage in the group of exposed children was 44% higher than in the unexposed children.
Children living less than 500m from crops routinely sprayed with glyphosate, cypermethrin, and chlorpyrifos were seriously damaged.
The researchers found that of the exposed children, 40% had varying persistent symptoms, such as repetitive sneezing, respiratory distress, cough, bronchospasm, skin itching or stains, nose itching or bleeding, lacrimation, and eye and ear burning or itching. None of the children who had not been exposed described any persistent symptoms.
The level of genetic damage detected in this experiment is reversible, so the authors suggested that the children should be followed up to establish whether biological markers of cell damage continue to be present.
The lead researcher, Delia Aiassa, wanted to study children because their genes are still developing, and genetic damage at their young age could determine future health (epigenetics). Damage observed in the exposed children included:
- Cytogenetic damage (damage to the structure and function of the cell, especially chromosomes)
- Increased frequency of DNA damage to chromosomes in childhood that is predictive of the development of cancer in adults.
The study abstract concludes:
“Results. A significant difference was observed between exposed children living less than 500 m from areas subjected to spraying and those who were not exposed. Forty percent of exposed children suffer some type of persistent condition, which may be associated with chronic exposure to pesticides.
Conclusions. Results indicate that genotoxicity is present in a group of children compared to the other one, and highlight the importance of the micronucleus assay in buccal mucosa cells for genetic biomonitoring and public health surveillance. This assay is capable of detecting a level of damage that can be reversible”
Approximately 94% of soy grown in the US is genetically modified, according to some estimates.
31 thoughts on “Study: Children Exposed to GMO Soy Pesticides Suffer ‘Serious Genetic Damage’”
Gee, chrissy out of the three chemicals you named, glyphosate, cypermethrin, and chlorpyrifos, all three can be applied to non-gmo crops (glyphosate at planting before the beans come up). The two insecticides are used on non-gmo beans quite often as well. Why run down gmos when the real culprit is the insecticides? Maybe she is wanting a Bt soybean to do away with those two chemicals as well.
GMO and pesticides can potentially pose health risks.
So your point is?
Well your half right there traitor, thats 50% more than usual.
Half right about what, and a traitor based on what factual information that you have, since the burden of proof lies on the accuser.
Isn’t that defamation and slander?
Those are violations of Federal law, especially since this is the internet.
Remember, I predicted you’d get the needed mental treatment for your ASPD in prison.
LOL, you sound amazed you were half right.
Half right about what?
That pesticides can potentially pose help risks just like your hero did with zyklon-B.
activity private and NO followers and how many times do you comment a day. GET LOST SHILL BOY
Sorry, it is the slowest time of the year for me until harvest starts and the feedlot cattle start coming in, and it takes all of thirty seconds to answer a reply.
slowest time bs. You do this year round. NOBODY here believes any of you BS. I have a feeling you’ll have a long long time to think about what your doing spreading dis info.
All my facts can be backed up as well as you going back and seeing how much I posted in the spring months. In the end I have facts and science on my side you only have your wet dreams on yours.
You have never provided any facts?
Mostly hate followed by occasional copy and paste if even that
Oh, I’m sorry I forgot you only pay attention to things that agree with you.
There are many dangers in this world, many will just sneak up on us.
What do we need to prepare for?
The naturally occurring disasters, as well as the man made.
We cannot begin to fathom the many unknowns, but we have also lived through many.
Water, food, shelter.
I have been through many personal disasters, from nature to financial. My preparedness efforts were key in my ability to survive= self reliance.
I survived, without any loss, then I restocked my preparedness stocks.
Again, preparedness=self reliance= survival.
You are your best keeper.
I wouldnt give him the time of day my friend. He works for Monsanto, so as you can imagine, he has to promote the products. Its good for business and corporate shareholders.
How are GMOs a health risk?
BOB-OH! I see your still promoting GMO products like its your job. Ohh…wait…your paychecks are signed by Monsanto. Of course it all makes sense now.
Yes and your word is gospel now isn’t it. I’m sure they would be really happy to pay someone who has said that Monsanto is quickly falling behind in gmo research.
Someday you and I will sit back, enjoy a cup of GMO coffee, and laugh about everything. Maybe the world falls apart in direct relation to the corporate stronghold that companies like Monsanto want on society, or maybe they were right, whats good for them is good for society. Maybe your pro GMO campaign is right. Or maybe your GMO campaign is wrong. I guess we will find out wont we ?
That’s true, but with twenty years and zero issues and eighty eight percent of scientists agreeing on safety I would say we are well on the way to knowing.
zero issues, ya right I’ve got ocean front property in Iowa I’d love to sell you also. You are a paid shill and everyone on here knows it.
So instead of giving any facts the best you can do is accuse me of being paid?
I’ve read hundred of your comments and of others who blatantly take you to school on gmo’s and mon satan. You just deny it. Your not worth the time because every one on here knows your a dis info shill.
For someone not worth the time you seem to be engaging quite a lot. By the way no one has been able to prove my statements wrong, but I’m more than happy to listen to you try.
I have, on many occasions.
A statement is opinion based and in your case not including facts, very hard to disprove.
But it’s ok, to err is human.
When you going to down a jug of round up to prove it’s safety Bobo? I thought you were going to do that 6 months ago?
Now Abe why do you wish to say such stupid things? Just when our friendship was really starting to blossom.
That study doesn’t even contain the term “GMO”. It’s a study about the risk of pesticides, not genetic engineering. Conflating the findings of this study with genetically modified crops is nothing short of being deliberately deceitful.
Neither does the PDF report mention soy. The report also doesn’t mention the type of pesticide being used. The report does mention potential damage to people down wind from burning at waste dumps. What’s good to note here is that just like the report linked at the top, many reports are not written very well.
Then you look at the the second linked article, that’s where you see the GM soy. GMO and GM are synonymous.
Excuse me, but can you elaborate a bit? I’m not sure what you’re point it.
Yes, I know GM and GMO are used interchangeably.
Lets just pick and choose what laws to follow. Oh yeah we do do that don’t we.
The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), or H.R.1627, was passed unanimously by Congress in 1996 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on August 3, 1996. The FQPA standardized the way the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would manage the use of pesticides and amended the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. It mandated a health-based standard for pesticides used in foods, provided special protections for babies and infants, streamlined the approval of safe pesticides, established incentives for the creation of safer pesticides, and required that pesticide registrations remain current