The Debate Around GMOs is Over: They Are Unsafe

In a recent Forbes article from 2014, author Jon Entine claimed that the debate around GMO foods was over because of a “new trillion meal study” that showed through common sense that they do not pose a significant or unusual health threat to either livestock eating them or the humans that consume them as well. Entine claims that recent publication in the Journal of Animal Science declares that, through a comprehensive study of GMOs and food, scientists have found GM-feed to be “safe and nutritionally equivalent tio non-GMO feed”. He cites the fact that the field data for the study allegedly represented more than 100 billion animals covering a period before 1996 when animal feed was 100% non-GMO, and after its introduction when it jumped to 90% and more. To Entine, this means that the debate about GMO foods is closed, simply because the outlying studies that do connect cancer-growth and horrific side effects with animal GMO consumption are allegedly dismissible in the face of a larger volume of data studied.

So why do scientists continue to ignore these “outlying” studies that point to significant risks with GMO food products? Why is there a unilateral dismissal of these studies in the interests of protecting GMO interests? The rejection of these important findings in the interest of bigger studies (the funding and publication of which could be questionable) is unsettling, especially from those who claim to seek scientific truths. How can real, undeniable evidence of dangers be ignored as verifiable data?

According to the Academy of Environmental Medicine and the Institute of Responsible Technology, “several animal studies [have actually] indicate[d] serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system.” In fact, prior to the Food and Drug Administration allowing GMO foods without labelling , FDA scientists repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects including allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. The presumption by critics like Entine that if GM foods were really bad, people and livestock “would be dropping like flies” is at best hyperbole and at worst, a gross underestimation of the negative impact that unstudied, unnatural foods can have on our biological systems.

Additionally, this gross and dangerous statements ignore international concern that is growing over GMO foods, following the findings of numerous studies outside of North America. These findings include the following disturbing realities:

  • Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants
  • Mice eating GM corn for the long term had fewer, and smaller, babies
  • More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, and were smaller
  • Testicle cells of mice and rats on a GM soy change significantly
  • By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies
  • Rodents fed GM corn and soy showed immune system responses and signs of toxicity
  • Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen
  • Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced
  • The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer.
  • Studies showed organ lesions, altered liver and pancreas cells, changed enzyme levels, etc.

What is truly disturbing in this, beyond the health and environmental disaster that is imminent due to GMOs, is the political battle waged against those who are raising the alarm on their dangers. Attempts to discredit those who warn about GMO dangers usually involves arguing that they make claims without scientific evidence. For a list and summary of at least ten credible studies exposing the dangers of GMOs and glyphosate in our food system, click here.

Further to this point, how can the activity of entire countries be ignored and dismissed as mere conspiracy? How can GMO advocates ignore the fact that many countries have banned GM-crop cultivation and feed on their soil, and still others require its labelling on foodstuffs so their populations know exactly what they are consuming (due to its health risks!).

The list that follows includes just some of the over 60 countries that have banned all or some GMO production:

  • Italy
  • Austria
  • France
  • Germany
  • Luxembourg
  • Portugal
  • Greece
  • Spain
  • United Kingdom
  • Switzerland
  • Norway
  • Australia
  • New Zealand
  • Thailand
  • Philippines
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Egypt
  • Algeria
  • Brazil
  • Paraguay
  • Russia
  • Japan

Can the entire European Union and many other nations around the world be totally wrong? It would seem that writers who work for business-oriented publications are much more interested in promoting and protecting the business status-quo (meaning the big business status quo) than in protecting and informing the consumers who read those publications. As far as we are concerned, the science is clear and the wishes of dozens of nation-states have been made clear in light of those findings – the debate on GMOs is over: they are unsafe.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s