40 Different studies showing GM foods are destroying our health
there has been a growing debate over transgenic long. On one side of the debate is the idea that genetic engineering is the progress of humanity, and is a natural extension of traditional breeding techniques more. The other side believes that genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption and harmful to the environment.
Biotechnology companies claim that genetic modification yields more precise control over artificial selection. The industry-funded studies consistently demonstrate safety, but only in the short term. For years, Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and other companies based agricultural biotechnology have told the public that we have nothing to worry about. This will be the technology that will improve nutrition in every conceivable way. Food will be more nutritious, more vigorous, more resistant to diseases, etc. There are literally thousands of studies demonstrating the safety of GMOs. a pattern has emerged, however. His brilliant studies, short-term are financed or implemented by the industry itself.
As more and more independent scientists complete long-term studies, a very different picture has emerged about the safety of GMOs and many other inconveniences. When these studies are not funded by industry, the results show an uncontrolled, uncontrollable, and dangerous technology, with serious health risks.
One of the first studies to sound the alarm was 2 years, long-term chronic toxicity study. Do not believe the hype biotechnology beaten by criticizing the Seralini study until you take the time to look in the defense of its methods. The Seralini study was actually a well-designed and well-conducted study. If we accept the argument that the study Seralini not provide substantial evidence that GM food is dangerous, then we must also conclude that studies of short-term toxicity funded by the agriculture industry (mainly Monsanto) on GM foods can not prove they are safe. They are, in fact, the same type of studies, done in the same way and even use the same type of rats. The only significant difference was the duration of the study. Seralini study showed how 90 days earlier studies are misleading as 90 days is not enough to prove the long-term effects such as organ damage, cancer and premature death time. The first tumors appeared in rats after four months. This study was able to distinguish the effects of genetically modified foods GM food grown with pesticides assigned. The results provide strong evidence to support the claim that genetically modified foods, especially foods grown with genetically modified Roundup, is highly toxic and unfit for human or animal consumption.
There are other studies showing that GMOs are even worse than what was feared at first. Dr. Kruger’s research shows how chronically ill patients have higher levels of glyphosate than healthy people. Dr. Swanson has connected the use of glyphosate with the deteriorating health of the United States. Dr. Young’s work showed how the Roundup is an endocrine disruptor in human cells in surprisingly low amounts. Not much to Roundup affects hormones; Roundup levels allowed in municipal drinking water is sufficient to cause harm. There are many other studies that have shown that other problems with GMOs. independent science is coming to a different conclusion from the science funded by industry. That does not seem quite surprising, though, right?
Dr. Oraby rats fed a soy diet GM and GM corn for 1-3 months. Despite the short duration of the study, the study ended with a surprising number of dead and unhealthy rats, except of course the control rats that were not fed on GM food group. The damage done to these rats OMG consumption in the short term was amazing. This study showed a wide range of toxic effects, including DNA damage, abnormal sperm, blood changes, and damage to the liver, kidneys and testicles. This study shows concrete evidence that GM foods are dangerous to your health. Most Americans eat GMOs for much longer than three months. The only reason we’re not all dead because GM foods are not the only food we eat. If 100% of all our food is genetically modified, then our overall health as a nation would be even worse than it already is. As a nation, the US It is in very poor health, and we have every reason to believe that genetically modified foods are a big part of the problem. Rats can thrive in all sorts of garbage and junk food. But if you feed enough rats GM foods, they cause all kinds of health problems.
The following studies compiled by GMO Free USA, demonstrate how rats suffered a variety of ailments:
1. E. Abdo, et al. “Feeding study with Bt corn (MON810: Ajeeb YG) in rats: Biochemical analysis and liver histopathology,” Food Science and Nutrition, Volume 5 No. 2, 2014, pp.. 185-195.
2. Battistelli S., B. Baldelli, Malatesta M. (2008) Influence of a diet containing GMOs in pancreatic acinar cells of adult mice :. Effects of short-term diet reversal “microscopie”, 10, pp 36-43
3. S. Battistelli, B.Citterio, B. Baldelli, Parlani C., and M. Malatesta (2010) and histochemical study morpho-metric mouse intestinal epithelium after a long-term diet containing genetically modified soybean Eur J Histochem. September 26; 54 (3): e36
4. Brazil FB, LL Soares, Faria TS, GT Boaventura, FJ Sampaio, Ramos CF (2009) The impact of organic and transgenic soy in the diet on the reproductive system female adult rat. Anat Rec (Hoboken) .292 (4) :. 587 594
5. B Cisterna, M Flach, L Vecchio, SML Barabino, S Battistelli, TE Martin, M Malatesta, M Biggiogera (2008) Can a diet affect embryonic development containing genetically modified organisms? A preliminary study on pre-implantation mouse embryos. Cisterna.Vol.52 (4)
6. Joël Spiroux of Vendômois, François Roullier, Dominique Cellier, Gilles-Eric Séralini (2009) A comparison of the effects of three GM maize varieties in mammals Int J Health Biol Sci; 5 (7) :. 706-726
7. O. P. Dolaychuk, R. S. Fedoruk (2013) Biological Effects of different levels of conventional varieties and transgenic soybean in the second generation-serving female rats. Animal Biology, 2013, vol. 15, no. 2
8. Thanaa A. El-Kholy, Mohammad Abu Hilal, Hatim Ali Al-Abbadi, Abdulhalim Serafí Salim Ahmad Al-Ghamdi K., Hanan M. Sobhy and John Richardson RC (2014) The effect of extra virgin olive oil and soybean on DNA, Cytogenicity and some antioxidant enzymes in rats. Nutrients, 6 (6), 2376-2386
9. Shamei-ZS et al. Histopathological changes in some organs of male rats fed genetically modified maize (Ajeeb YG). Am J Sci 2012.; 8 (10) :. 684-696
10. Ermakova IV (2006) genetically modified soybean cables for weight loss and increased mortality of the first generation offspring. Preliminary studies. EkosInform. Federal Law Gazette Environmental Law. a | -1 ,, P. 4-10.
11. Ermakova IV (2007) New data on the impact of GMOs on the physiological status and activities of the higher nervous mammals. All-Russia Symposium TRANSGENIC PLANTS AND BIOSEGURIDAD Moscow on October 22 – 25, pages 38-39
12. Irina Ermakova (2007) GM-soy revisiting a controversial format Nature Biotechnology VOLUME 25 DECEMBER 1351-1354 number 12
13. Ermakova IV, IV Barskov (2008) Study of the physiological and morphological parameters in rats and their offspring through a diet containing GM soy CP4 EPSPS biological sciences. 6. p.19-20.
14. Ermakova IV (2009) Influence of gene CP4 EPSPS soybean state functions and reproductive physiology of rats in the first two generations contemporary problems in Science and Education Number 5, p.15-20.
15. Finamore A, M Roselli, Britti S, Monastra G, R Ambra, Turrini A, Mengheri E. (2008) intestinal and peripheral immune response to ingestion of MON810 at weaning and mice old. J Agric Food Chem Dec. 10; 56 (23) :. 11533-9
16. Gab-Alla AA et al. Morphological and biochemical changes in male rats fed genetically modified maize (Ajeeb YG). J Sci Am.. 2012; 8 (9): 1117-1123
17. Т. V. Gorbach, I. U. Kuzminа, G. I. Gubina-Vakulik, N. G. Kolousova (2012) hormonal regulation of sexual function and ovarian histological features in the experiment with the use of GMO-SOYA IN FOOD. Taurian LIFE SCIENCES BULLETIN 2012, Volume 15, № 2, Part 2 (58) pages 235-238
18. AMERICAN SOLDIER. Gubin-Vakulik, S.A. Denisenko, T.V. Horbach, N. G. Kolousova, T. M. Popova (2012) MORPHOFUNCTIONAL state of adrenal gland in female Wistar rats INCLUSION transgenic soy in the diet. Taurian LIFE SCIENCES BULLETIN 2012, Volume 15, № 3, Part 1 (59) pages 85-88
19. GI-Gubin VAKULIK TV, GORBACH BB, NG KOLOUSOVA SA, GOPKALOV (2013) and metabolic changes histology of the kidneys in female rats and the first generation after consumption of genetically modified soybeans. Scientific Statements of Medicine of the series. Pharmacy. 2013. № 11 (154). Issue 22 pages 150-155
20. AMERICAN SOLDIER. Gubina-Vakulik, S.A. Denisenko, T.V. Gorbach, N. G. Kolousova, A. V. Andreev (2014) morfofuncional State adrenal adult offspring with genetically modified soybean diet. ЕКСПЕРИМЕНТАЛЬНА І КЛІНІЧНА МЕДИЦИНА. 2014. № 2 (63)
21. SERDAR KARAKUŞLU (2014) Research on the potential effects of genetically modified maize (GMO) (Zea mays L.) in Swiss albino mice. June 2014, 25 pages
22. A Kiliç, Akay MT. (2008) A study of three generations with genetically modified Bt maize in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol. 2008 Mar; 46 (3) :. 1164-1170
23. Hasan Kiliçgün, Cebrail Gürsul, Mukadder Sunar, Gülden Gökşen (2013) Comparative effects of genetically modified maize and conventional maize in rats J Clin Med anal; 4 (2): 136-9
24. MA Konovalova, VA Blinov (2006) Influence of genetically modified soybeans in mice and their offspring. Commercial Biotechnology 2006
25. Konovalova, MA, VA Blinov (2007) morphometric parameters and characteristics of the mice that received spectrum enzymes transgenic soy blood. All-Russia Symposium TRANSGENIC PLANTS AND BIOSEGURIDAD Moscow on October 22 – 25, page 48
In view of this overwhelming evidence, the labeling is only a beginning. Ultimately, follow a ban. These foods’ have nothing poisonous on our tables or in our bodies. We need to grow food with carcinogenic herbicides.
participate and help fight for our food supply, public health and the environment. March Against Monsanto Pledge everywhere on May 21, 2016. This is a global event that happens in hundreds of cities. Find your local event here. For questions or to register a city is not listed, email [email protected]
to see the full list of more than 40 studies showing GMOs are causing damage in our bodies, visit here .
For years, biotechnology has tried to frame the argument for genetic modification as a conflict between good and unknowledgeable. In their efforts to change their image, they have even managed to recruit help from Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson to advocate the science of genetic engineering. Bill and Neil portray critics of GMO technology as superstitious and ignorant. Respond to criticism of the GMO technology as if they were dealing with irrational fears. When Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson speak OMG, they do all kinds of bold statements declaring safe and wonderful OMG. The way they present only one side of the argument; It is what you want biotechnology.
would be nice to believe that Bill Nye the Science Guy and Neil deGrasse Tyson never accept money from biotechnology to change his mind. But both visited the headquarters of Monsanto and the two began to sing the praises of OMG immediately afterwards. Monsanto is a master of lobbying (also known as the legal bribery). It would have been good for business to buy off Neil Bill and opinions. Fortunately, not all scientists is for sale.
By not cope with the evidence provided by long-term studies, independent studies, or the concerns of many prominent scientists, biotechnology it promotes the misconception that they are those who know and everyone else is misinformed. Indeed, science is not that complicated. Anyone can understand OMG well enough to be informed.
The public sees both Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson as spokesmen for science. Unfortunately, none of them are trained in science as widely as most people think. They talk about a wide variety of scientific topics, so they give the impression that just about know everything. Indeed, there has been no enough knowledge to fill the shoes of Carl Sagan after his death, although Bill and Neil have certainly tried. They give the impression of being knowledgeable in all fields of science, as his teacher Carl Sagan reality was. (Carl Sagan is firmly opposed to genetic engineering and had advanced training in biology). Science needs a spokesman or spokeswoman is not for sale.
This is not a debate of irrational fears against a pragmatic technology. This is a discussion among scientists and governments. There are scientists who are employed by the US government and biotechnology, and then there is almost everyone. On the issue of labeling of GMOs, most of us agree. Many countries around the world prohibit the cultivation of GMOs, and many countries require that GMOs be labeled. The debate went global long ago. While the rest of the world prohibits GM, Americans have succeeded in getting fair labeling GMOs.
Scientists have been speaking against GM for some time. For years they have been pointing out the flaws in the OMG performance, toxicity, safety and containment. Recently, the World Health Organization has called Roundup a probable carcinogen. One of the most common genetic modification is the modification by Roundup Ready crops and immune to Roundup herbicide. In light of the health problems posed by skeptical scientists, one might think that the US scaling would again using Roundup and other known or suspected in agriculture toxic chemicals. Instead of scale back on the use of pesticides, these types of chemicals have been used more widely.
Before picking conventional oats, wheat and other crops, Roundup is now often applied in large quantities. This dramatically increases the exposure of US consumers to this probable carcinogen. The US government It has approved the use of Agent Orange prepared (24-D) soybean and corn. No one should consume these chemicals in food, but the government says it’s okay. Common sense says otherwise. Or if that does not work some of us, there are a lot of testing and hundreds of experts to fall back on.
Scientists like Prof. Ruth Hubbard, a geneticist at Harvard University, USA 814 and other scientists have written an open letter to governments and international forums. These prominent scientists are extremely concerned about the risks that GMOs pose to biodiversity and food security. They are “very concerned” about the risks posed by GMOs to human health and animal health. Experts from around the world are saying it’s time to change the way we do agriculture.
These and hundreds of other scientists around the world are calling for a ban patents on life. Patents on life forms threaten food security and health worldwide. Patents, they say, have the effect of legally sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources. Lifestyles, such as organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes are discoveries. These findings should not belong to corporations but must belong to all of us. These findings should not be the kind of discoveries that a person or corporation should be able to patent.
transgenic pollen from GM crops can travel miles. It is a common place for birds, insects, and time to bring GM pollen and seeds. Animals and natural processes can spread to other farms patented genes. When this happens, the unfortunate farmers are sued, and contrary to all common sense, are those who often lose in court.
GM crops cross-pollination with other crops so voraciously that we can not seem to get rid of some unapproved GM varieties. Genetically modified wheat is still listed in farm fields across the country even though it was ordered to be destroyed completely 14 years ago, back in 2001.
Patents are intended to protect the rights property, but patents on genetically modified foods have been used to take land from farmers outside their owners and farmers to control. Instead of protecting the freedom to own property, these patents are eroding the rights of the owners.
Current techniques used to genetically modify foods are unreliable, uncontrollable and unpredictable. Hundreds, sometimes thousands, of the desired mutations are not the result of genetic engineering. These can lead to new allergens or toxins, and even new virus. This makes sense when you consider that GM foods are made either immune to poison or to create their own poisons, or both. traditional breeding techniques are simply more controllable and predictable.
This is formulated by thousands of farmers and scientific argument.
GM crops are neither necessary nor beneficial for agriculture. There have been many failures of genetically modified crops. Now that independent research is working on genetically modified crops, the image of a technology not clear from the investigation.
The 815 scientists who wrote his open letter to the so-called world support for research and development of sustainable non-corporate agriculture. Much of this valuable research has already been done. Bill Mollison and David Holmgren have developed, not corporate sustainable organic agriculture. They can grow anywhere and yields are impressive. His techniques are called permaculture, which means permanent culture. If agriculture does not become sustainable, then not only will not last for agriculture, we will not survive.
When the genetic modification of foods, the biotech industry would have the public believe they are improving in life, and do so sustainably. We are told that the benefits outweigh the risks, or even less credible, that genetic engineering is a risk-free technology.
When implemented, the benefits accrue in Big Agriculture, while costs are paid by the consumer and society in the form of higher prices, toxic food, and environmental degradation.
Costs genetic modification of food is also paid by farmers. They face the threat of GMO contamination, pesticide runoff, soil degradation, and higher seed prices. The same genetically modified crops that become increasingly expensive, in all its transgenic and non-transgenic varieties. In a successful attempt to manipulate the market, biotech companies have been buying seed companies for some time. This enables biotechnology companies to no more expensive and harder to obtain after genetically modified crop in particular as corn genetically modified seeds. non-GMO corn seeds became much more expensive in North America after Monsanto produces seeds of transgenic corn. Although this is a violation of our laws antitrust, biotechnology companies are coming out with it. The same is happening in Spain. After allowing the cultivation of GMO maize variety available for Spanish farmers it has been drastically reduced. Rising corn prices are sure to follow.
Genetic engineering is not big of Agriculture says it is, and will never do what they say they will. Critics of GMO technology are condemned for being anti-science, as if being against a type of technology is the same as being against all forms of technological progress.
Health problems are increasing with increased consumption of GMOs. Many argue that it is a coincidence, but a firm belief in coincidence is what biotechnology has been counting since the technology has been released to the public.
No tags, which means no responsibility, and no traceability. That’s just part of their protection. You can not sue Monsanto for damages caused to their products. They enjoy special legal protection that pushed and large amounts of money are paid for. (That’s right US politicians are for sale, or who do not know you?) These legal protections could be separated from them if more of us question these coincidences, and investigate these correlations.
will take an overwhelming majority of us demanding a change to the change. The Vietnam War ended under intense sustained pressure of the US population. That was not what the military industrial complex wanted, so it was an uphill battle. This will be an uphill battle as well. desintoxicante output from GMOs and see the two primary sources for more information on how to avoid GMOs.
http: // www.truthwiki.org/The_Green_Revolution_-_Agriculture
About the author:
Joel learned long ago that pharmaceuticals were not the answer to health and vitality. He gave up on pharmaceuticals for many years, and wheat and refined sugars are also paid. His hobbies include gluten free baking, gardening and fitness. Joel is passionate about agriculture and the environment. Joel believes that cutting-edge, progressive organic agriculture can feed the world.
Original Article Source:
GMO Free USA
This article was originally published on healthy-holistic-living.com, Read the original article here