Study: GMO Soy Accumulates Cancer-Causing Formaldehyde
Should the GM crop be deemed unsafe?
cancer
In a groundbreaking new study published in the peer-reviewed journal Agricultural Sciences, researchers have found that when soy is genetically engineered, it disrupts the plant’s natural ability to control stress and even sparks the production of carcinogenic formaldehyde.
This new research led by an MIT trained biologist, Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, Ph.D., an MIT-trained systems biologist, utilized a method to integrate 6,497 in vitro and in vivo laboratory experiments from 184 scientific institutions, across 23 countries. The researchers discovered that the accumulation of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, and a dramatic depletion of glutathione, an anti-oxidant necessary for cellular detoxification, is the result of genetic tinkering with soy plants.
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.”
Dr.Ray Seidler, a former EPA Senior Scientist, said:
“The discovery reported by Dr. Ayyadurai reveals a new molecular paradigm associated with genetic engineering that will require research to discover why, and how much formaldehyde and glutathione concentration, and what other cellular chemicals relevant to human and animal health, are altered. We need the kinds of standards Dr. Ayyadurai demands to conduct such research.
Formaldehyde is a known class1 carcinogen. Its elevated presence in soybeans caused by a common genetic engineering event is alarming and deserves immediate attention and action from the FDA and the Obama administration. Soy is widely grown and consumed in the U.S., including by infants fed baby food products, with 94% of soy grown here being genetically engineered.”
The study abstract reads:
“…The results predict significant accumulation of formaldehyde and concomitant depletion of glutathione in the GMO, suggesting how a “small” and single GM creates “large” and systemic perturbations to molecular systems equilibria.
Regulatory agencies, currently reviewing rules for GMO safety, may wish to adopt a systems biology approach using a combination of in silico, computational methods used herein, and subsequent targeted experimental in vitro and in vivo designs, to develop a systems understanding of “equivalence” using biomarkers, such as formaldehyde and glutathione, which predict metabolic disruptions, towards modernizing the safety assessment of GMOs.”
These findings should completely reverse the FDA’s regulatory protocols that call GMOs ‘substantially equivalent’ to their non-GMO counterparts. This stance allows the FDA, in cahoots with biotech, to continue to give green-light, fast-track approval to more varieties of GM soy, corn, and other crops that are only meant to be used with ever-greater doses and mixtures of carcinogenic chemicals, like the new glyphosate, 2-4D combination which the Environmental Protection Agency just recently approved.
Perhaps the FDA and the EPA should get together and have a GM soy-eating party. If they won’t eat their own creations, why should we be expected to?
 | 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. |
text me443) 732-5770 See Available strains Good
for Pain, cancer,
insomnia We got some MEDICAL marijuana/weeds realMary Jane good for and
we do also provide medical cards to all our clients willing to buy meds
for their sick and doesn’t have a card jhgjgjhgjgui
This is a bunch of hogwash. The ‘study’ was entirely in silico, i.e. no actual biological samples were ever tested. Testing for formaldehyde is relatively easy. The fact that the authors did not do this says one of two things: 1) They aren’t interested in actually determining if their computer model is accurate and instead are only interested in pursuing an agenda and/or generating press for their company (more on that below), or 2) they did the tests but got results that showed their computer model was wrong and so didn’t include the results.
Also, at least one of the authors is the founder of a company that is trying to market the very software used in this study. Yet, Sarich doesn’t seem to see this as problem, which is grossly hypocritical of her as I have read articles by her before that bemoan the conflict of interest in industry funded studies. Funny how that concern vanished when the study in question supports Sarich’s pseudoscience beliefs.
What an utter pile of bull dung.
Here we go again chrissy, using a known liar like Ayyadurai as proof? He is a computer professional, not a plant biologist. Oh wait, you don’t care who you quote or what kind of knowledge they have as long as you like what they are saying don’t you.
Shiva Ayyadurai, obtained a Ph.D. in biological engineering from MIT in systems biology
biosystems engineering tends to focus on agriculture, ecosystems, and food science. It involves aspects of genetic engineering, particularly regarding the agricultural applications. The discipline
focuses broadly on environmentally sound and sustainable engineering
solutions to meet societies’ ecologically-related needs.
He is also known to take credit for things he didn’t invent, so he has been proven unreliable.
He holds the patent. His colleagues even stated it was his invention.
“Our interaction with CSIR scientists revealed that they work in a
medieval, feudal environment,” says Ayyadurai. “Our report said the
system required a major overhaul because innovation cannot take place in
this environment.”
Sardana shares Ayyadurai’s views. Describing their report as an in-depth
study of the management of the CSIR, he wrote to science minister
Prithviraj Chavan on 19 October saying that “it is not possible for me
to continue working without your immediate direct intervention” because
of the problems triggered by the report.
“I have seen many cases of vindictiveness in the CSIR, but this is the
worst,” says Pushpa Bhargava, founder director of the CSIR’s
Hyderabad-based Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB).
Bhargava, who has also written to Singh supporting Ayyadurai, says:
“Ayyadurai’s report tells the truth about how the CSIR is being run
today. The fact that CSIR administration is impervious to healthy and
fair criticism is bound to send the wrong message not only to
expatriates but also [to scientists] within the country.”
Then he got Blacklisted by the scientific community.
This guy claim he invented EMAIL. “Shiva Ayyadurai, obtained a Ph.D.
in “”biological engineering from MIT in systems biology” check what is
systems biology and check other like for example toxicology and what
here apply more.
“CSIR” search one more time and stop spreading myths. ”
Tell me one simple thing if he is so sure his results why he dont check lvl in soy only perform simulation?
In other words, it was a computer modeling study, so it “measured”
what the researchers inputted. That works when the data is robust and
independently verified. Otherwise the old adage applies: junk in, junk
out. Systems biology can be a useful approach if employed properly,
and that’s a big “if” the results from such methodology are only
reliable if the data were derived from previous published work analyzed
in silico, meaning performed on a computer model rather than in a
living organism (in vivo) or in a test tube or petri dish (in vitro), to
generate new hypotheses.
In this case, it is unclear what data were used, and where Ayyadurai
sourced them. “Online databases including PuMed and Google Scholar were
searched,” the paper indicated. Though Ayyadurai asserts that he
aggregated data from over six thousand studies, it’s unclear what data,
in particular, were plugged in to Ayyadurai’s algorithms
Ayyadurai is certainly a smart and interesting person. While in high
school in the early 1980s, he developed an electronic office messaging
system that he dubbed EMAIL, which he copyrighted. He long claimed that
he “invented” email, but that’s now widely dismissed as resume padding;
we know that email took its first primitive steps in 1971, if not
earlier. After the controversy unfolded, MIT disassociated itself from
Ayyadurai’s EMAIL Lab and funding was dropped. MIT also revoked
Ayyadurai’s contract to lecture in the bioengineering department.
Along the way, Ayyadurai received a degree in
electrical engineering and computer science and later in biological
engineering… He later secured a grant to study the integration
of Siddha,
India’s oldest system of traditional medicine with biology. Kind of woo
woo. Last year, he married rabid anti-GMO activist Fran Drescher,
better known as the actress who played The Nanny in the popular 1990s
sitcom, in a spiritual ceremony.
Within days of lead author Ayyadurai and co-author Prabhakar Deonikar
publishing the study, dozens of anti-GMO organizations, from Organic
Consumers Association to GMO Inside, were hyping the paper with
scaremongering
headlines such as “Formaldehyde in GMO Soy?” and “New Study Shows GMO
Soy Accumulates Cancer Causing Chemical Formaldehyde” with alarmist
graphics to accompany them.
GMO Free USA, an anti-GMO lobbying organization, released an
infographic meme declaring: “Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen.
GMO soy is carcinogenic?
Anti GMO activists are capitalizing on what’s known as “chemophobia”–
irrational fear of chemicals (see book by GLP’s Jon Entine on the
phenomenon, Scared to Death).
Chemophobia is grounded in the simplistic, unscientific
belief that chemicals are potentially dangerous simply because they
are synthetic, while all things natural are chemical-free and therefore
safe. So naturally, a scary-sounding chemical name can induce
widespread public panic about a product or food.
The fact is that anything and everything is composed of chemicals,
including all foods. A central tenet of toxicology, “the dose makes the
poison” underscores the reality that everything from vitamins to
Viagra can be toxic at certain levels. Take dihydrogen
monoxide (DHMO), a colorless, odorless compound that causes death with
inhalation, erodes metals, and is responsible for thousands of severe
childhood burns every year, yet is found in almost all food and drink on
the market. Pretty alarming right? But it’s a false alarm. DHMO is
an unconventional term for H20, better known as water. A 1994 hoax used
these scare tactics about good old water to demonstrate the need for
critical thinking.
This guy claim he invented EMAIL. “Shiva Ayyadurai, obtained a Ph.D.
in “”biological engineering from MIT in systems biology” check what is
systems biology and check other like for example toxicology and what
here apply more.
“CSIR” search one more time and stop spreading myths. ”
Tell me one simple thing if he is so sure his results why he dont check lvl in soy only perform simulation?
In other words, it was a computer modeling study, so it “measured”
what the researchers inputted. That works when the data is robust and
independently verified. Otherwise the old adage applies: junk in, junk
out. Systems biology can be a useful approach if employed properly,
and that’s a big “if” the results from such methodology are only
reliable if the data were derived from previous published work analyzed
in silico, meaning performed on a computer model rather than in a
living organism (in vivo) or in a test tube or petri dish (in vitro), to
generate new hypotheses.
In this case, it is unclear what data were used, and where Ayyadurai
sourced them. “Online databases including PuMed and Google Scholar were
searched,” the paper indicated. Though Ayyadurai asserts that he
aggregated data from over six thousand studies, it’s unclear what data,
in particular, were plugged in to Ayyadurai’s algorithms
Ayyadurai is certainly a smart and interesting person. While in high
school in the early 1980s, he developed an electronic office messaging
system that he dubbed EMAIL, which he copyrighted. He long claimed that
he “invented” email, but that’s now widely dismissed as resume padding;
we know that email took its first primitive steps in 1971, if not
earlier. After the controversy unfolded, MIT disassociated itself from
Ayyadurai’s EMAIL Lab and funding was dropped. MIT also revoked
Ayyadurai’s contract to lecture in the bioengineering department.
Along the way, Ayyadurai received a degree in
electrical engineering and computer science and later in biological
engineering… He later secured a grant to study the integration
of Siddha,
India’s oldest system of traditional medicine with biology. Kind of woo
woo. Last year, he married rabid anti-GMO activist Fran Drescher,
better known as the actress who played The Nanny in the popular 1990s
sitcom, in a spiritual ceremony.
Within days of lead author Ayyadurai and co-author Prabhakar Deonikar
publishing the study, dozens of anti-GMO organizations, from Organic
Consumers Association to GMO Inside, were hyping the paper with
scaremongering
headlines such as “Formaldehyde in GMO Soy?” and “New Study Shows GMO
Soy Accumulates Cancer Causing Chemical Formaldehyde” with alarmist
graphics to accompany them.
GMO Free USA, an anti-GMO lobbying organization, released an
infographic meme declaring: “Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen.
GMO soy is carcinogenic?
Anti GMO activists are capitalizing on what’s known as “chemophobia”–
irrational fear of chemicals (see book by GLP’s Jon Entine on the
phenomenon, Scared to Death).
Chemophobia is grounded in the simplistic, unscientific
belief that chemicals are potentially dangerous simply because they
are synthetic, while all things natural are chemical-free and therefore
safe. So naturally, a scary-sounding chemical name can induce
widespread public panic about a product or food.
The fact is that anything and everything is composed of chemicals,
including all foods. A central tenet of toxicology, “the dose makes the
poison” underscores the reality that everything from vitamins to
Viagra can be toxic at certain levels. Take dihydrogen
monoxide (DHMO), a colorless, odorless compound that causes death with
inhalation, erodes metals, and is responsible for thousands of severe
childhood burns every year, yet is found in almost all food and drink on
the market. Pretty alarming right? But it’s a false alarm. DHMO is
an unconventional term for H20, better known as water. A 1994 hoax used
these scare tactics about good old water to demonstrate the need for
critical thinking.
Yes, and remember he was 17 years old at the time. The adults did a very good job discrediting him. Probably reason, age and experience.
Systems Biology has a very broad definition, did I select the part of the description that gave merit to the story, yes.
At CSIR he made statements as to the inner leadership, went above their heads to be exact. Yes that got him black listed.
I have went above my boss many times, the resulting chaos pretty much describes the associates within the CSIR’s description of the whole situation.
Many stepped up on his behalf, for the reason of what he stated within his internal memo.
All information came from well documented sources, extensive research was conducted to verify the information, except the EMAIL issue. That happened so long ago and information has been clouded. But human nature would dictate they took advantage of the young adult out of complete jealousy and for the purpose of establishing their names through the discredit of him. It’s happened a thousand times, just have to look at history.
I have seen it a lot throughout my career, it’s a dog eat dog world and everybody wants to be noticed.
And the big DRMO conspiracy theory was,
It was planned so the Gov could register water under the federal regulatory agency as a hazardous substance, or create a MSDS, for future water regulation specific use under govt regulations. A MSDS gives the gov regulatory authority.
Go google the H2o MSDS, the fed has authority over all water.
“Yes, and remember he was 17 years old at the time. The adults did a very
” a” good job discrediting him. Probably reason, age and experience.” so you claim that he invented email?hehe good one “The adults did a very
good job discrediting him” the same we can say that he do good job to discredit others(also monsanto).
“Yes, and remember he was 17 years old at the time. The adults did a very
“””
” a” good job discrediting him. Probably reason, age and experience.”
so you claim that he invented email?hehe good one “The adults did a very
good job discrediting him” the same we can say that he do good job to discredit others(also monsanto).
“Systems
Biology has a very broad definition, did I select the part of the
description that gave merit to the story, yes.” yeap but tell me what
you understand by that, I hold PhD in toxicology/neurology. and
therefore know something in this issue.
“At CSIR he made statements as to the inner leadership, went above their heads to be exact. Yes that got him black listed.
I
have went above my boss many times, the resulting chaos pretty much
describes the associates within the CSIR’s description of the whole
situation”
again check exactly why he was fired not what he sad because in the” you know
same manner always can say its not me only boss fault.”Many stepped up
on his behalf, for the reason of what he stated within his internal
memo.” many also belive that earth is flat…. “All information came
from well documented sources, extensive research
was conducted to
verify the information, except the EMAIL issue.” again check sources and
show as this information sources because Im not awate of any.
” But human nature would dictate they took advantage of the young adult
out of complete jealousy and for the purpose of establishing their names
through the discredit of him. It’s happened a thousand times, just have
to look at history. One more time we can the same wrote that he want
discredit others.. Yeap I look at histories the same people wrote about
2012 dooms day that they are not crazy only others want discredit them, you know what we have 2015…
“I have seen it a lot throughout my career, it’s a dog eat dog world and everybody wants to be noticed.” yes and the same want your Ayyadurai he make noise around him to be noticed, for someone even bad image is better than any.
“And the big DRMO conspiracy theory was,
It was planned so the Gov
could register water under the federal regulatory agency as a hazardous
substance, or create a MSDS, for future water regulation specific use
under govt regulations. A MSDS gives the gov regulatory authority.
Go google the H2o MSDS, the fed has authority over all water.” pls read what you wrote because you compromite yourself Check what is MSDS is a Material Safety Data Sheet evaluation of material safety and what they wrote there?
”
Potential Acute Health Effects:
Non-corrosive for skin. Non-irritant for skin. Non-sensitizer for skin. Non-permeator by skin. Non-irritating to the eyes. Non-
hazardous in case of ingestion. Non-hazardous in case of inhalation. Non-irritant for lungs. Non-sensitizer for lungs. Non-
corrosive to the eyes. Non-corrosive for lungs.
Potential Chronic Health Effects:
Non-corrosive for skin. Non-irritant for skin. Non-sensitizer for skin. Non-permeator by skin. Non-irritating to the eyes.
Non-hazardous in case of ingestion. Non-hazardous in case of inhalation. Non-irritant for lungs. Non-sensitizer for lungs.
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available.
DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available.”
Every substance must be under govt regulations to prevent toxicity I think you wrote about things you dont understand.
P,S Whater also can cause toxicity because dose make poison there are cases from whater posioning(and belive there is no so hard way to be posioned by water).
He didn’t invent email, he invented EMAIL, do your research then get back to me. I just researched the topic and made my professional analysis as to what I saw.
Never forget that to an expert in a
completely different field, you are the public.
I stated the DRMO had a conspiracy theory attached to it and related the story.
“He didn’t invent email, he invented EMAIL, do your research then get
“back to me. I just researched the topic and made my professional
analysis as to what I saw.” you think that if you use big letters(my frends childrens do that make your claims the problem he didint invented email he can give any evidence to support such stu… claims. “I just researched the topic and made my professional analysis as to what I saw.” im sorry but you dont say who you are and by your nick “Mommies little boy” I will dont know what kind of “expert” you are.
“Never forget that to an expert in a
completely different field, you are the public.” so you claim that toxicology not apply here? I more and more wondered what kin of expert you are.
” stated the DRMO had a conspiracy theory attached to it and related the story.” and I staded why you claims are false. P.S please maybe send this evidence to him that he invented email because even he himself cant prove that.
“do your research then get back to me.” doing research is my job also searching on internet. you try prove something what is simply false so you should
I spent hours digging and researching, and I made my professional assessment.
Research and my experience would indicate that there are enough discrepancies to warrant further investigation, not to take any stories in this affair too seriously till then. But I’ll stick to my determination, I fully am aware of the fact, neither of us can prove any different. So in truth it really doesn’t matter.
I hope you saw what he regarded as his and what his claimed improvements were, there were screen shots. He didn’t claim to invent email, the email claim was perverted and that could be presumed to be a smear campaign. Off the conflicting stories, I would go in favor of him.
Let me correct my email error, EMAIL ©. I had said above earlier that he had patented EMAIL, and was corrected, it was a copyright, this can be verified through research.
But in all honesty, it doesn’t matter it is his to deal with, we cannot effect these things.
NO ONE CAN PROVE IN FAVOR OF ANY ON THIS MATTER, at least not here.
LOL, your name is guest.
“I spent hours digging and researching, and I made my ” “”professional assessment.
Research
and my experience would indicate that there are enough discrepancies to
warrant further investigation, not to take any stories in this affair
too seriously till then.” if research show some evidence why you dont provide him?
“Let me correct my email error, EMAIL ©. I had said above earlier that he had patented EMAIL” yes he invented indeed program which he call email but he also claim that he invented email which we know today and that is why he is fraud.
“LOL, your name is guest.” and what this have to do whith this? I tell you who am I (toxicologist/neurologist) and about your name only pointed that you dont say who you are and by your nick cant figure what kind of claimed by you expert you are.
“NO ONE CAN PROVE IN FAVOR OF ANY ON THIS MATTER, at least not here.” in my profession I learn one by searching we can prove almost everything and if you really will dig you will se why I call this guy fraud check all his claims check history
“I fully am aware of the fact, neither of us can prove any different. So in truth it really doesn’t matter.” so you say truth doesnt matter? really I think is one of the most important things.
“I
hope you saw what he regarded as his and what his claimed improvements
were, there were screen shots. ” I see what he do history of frauds he will tell anything to show in media .He didn’t claim to invent email, the
email claim was perverted and that could be presumed to be a smear
campaign.” the problem is he claim that he invented this email which we know.
“NO ONE CAN PROVE IN FAVOR OF ANY ON THIS MATTER, at least not here.” you can easly prove check his claims and then history in matter of email its will took less than 30min.
P.S Please dont use big letter because this not turn them in to evidence(always say that my sister childrens). Of course about email is only my private opinion only skills from my work(research skills) help me here, but about study he perform I can say as profesionalist that he is incompetent or fraud.
Some time ago, it was by third day that I realized I had to stop drinking Silk’s Chocolate Milk (Soy base) because it was so phyto-estrogenic that it was interfering with already deficient Thyroid function. In other words, even a juice glass was enough to make the (former) hypothyroid problems worse.
So, to think that newborn infants are routinely being given a Soy Formula as “food” is beyond the pale! As I learned, while these two major hormones compete for the same uptake receptor in the brain, it is the mighty Estrogen that always wins (prevails) over Thyroid. Put another way: while there is far less metabolism (via thyroid), so is there more potential to grow (via estrogen) whatever. While, traditionally, it is fermented Soy that has been a healthy food in Asiatic countries for centuries…it is Soy that is found in many US products like Silk’s that are not fermented and yet are being sold as ‘healthy’ when, in fact, they are most certainly not…and as the author reports, are now often to be of GMO-derived sourcing.
More recently, our daughter’s aged dog’s Veterinarian recommended a Hydrolyzed Soy Protein canine kibble that was touted to be less allergenic (then those with common grains, chicken, etc.) so as to stop the awful smell from his coat and to deter the oft’ repeated bacterial infection in his ears or on his belly. Come to find out, hydrolyzed has to do with reducing the Soy plant material to such microscopic size that it ‘fools’ the hyperactive or overly sensitive innate immune system and for some dogs is (supposedly) able to quell these problems, at least initially. In our case, after the dog had been eating this faux (unnatural) food for an omnivore for about three months, he began to display a new habit which was to not only turn around to smell, but eat his feces.
Yikes, when I heard this, I immediately deduced he was starving for species-appropriate protein that, in NO way, can be provided by Soy. In the wild, a dog would never seek out such plant source as a food so to think this could provide a dog with some degree of balanced nutrition defies all common sense. Thus, once I confirmed how it was about the lack of B vitamins in his diet that was causing this new grossly unhealthy behavior, I implored of our daughter to find another Vet and kibble which she did and by now, not only is the doggy smell gone due to a more shiny, full coat, but so are the bacterial infections less prevalent and neither is our pooch at all interested in eating his own stool.
Therefore, now that we have this day’s scientific evidence (yet another great report, Christina!) as well as real life experiences like these to compare, I say there is NO safe Soy…other than in its ancient fermented form…which means that all ‘processed’ (hydrolyzed, GMO, Monsanto sprayed) Soy is NEVER a good source of nutrition for we as humans or the animals who depend on us for their safety.
We are reliable suppliers of both indoor and outdoor grown marijuana
strains. We supply both Indica and Sativa strains TEXTME 443) 732-5770 SDDQ
And corn products — which are often used as food additives or as binders in vitamin supplements. Most likely GMOs. .
http://multiplefoodallergyhelp.com/common-allergens/corn-allergy/
Ever since the “conservative revolution” of Ronald Reagan, government regulators no longer do their jobs. Corporate profits take precedence over everything. This has become the norm, and the price we pay for conservative ideology is astronomical. Poisoning of the food supply is just one part of it.