Jump to  

Report: Monsanto Corn Causes Organ Damage in Mammals

by Adam Shake · 95 comments


A report released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences states that three types of Monsanto corn, cause cancer and organ damage in mammals.

In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize.

Three varieties of Monsanto’s GM corn – Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 – were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities.

The Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and Universities of Caen and Rouen obtained Monsanto’s confidential raw data of its 2002 feeding trials on rats after a European court made it public in 2005.

The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.

Their December 2009 study appears in the International Journal of Biological Sciences (IJBS). This latest study conforms with a 2007 analysis by CRIIGEN on Mon 863, published in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data.

The researchers conclude that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.

They have called for “an immediate ban on the import and cultivation of these GMOs and strongly recommend additional long-term (up to two years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods.”

This may be the reason we see bee colony collapse disorder and massive butterfly deaths. If GMOs are wiping out Earth’s pollinators, they are far more disastrous than the threat they pose to humans and other mammals.

UPDATE: I received an Email from Monsanto shortly after publication of this article with a rebuttal. In deference to journalistic fairness, because we consider ourselves unbiased in our reporting and because Monsanto has a history of litigation and heavy handedness, here is there response…

Hi Adam,

I saw your post on Twilight earth about Monsanto corn causing organ damage and wanted to let you know we have a response page on our website and a comment that was forwarded to me from one of our medical directors, Dan Goldstein. Please see below. I hope you can add this to your blog post. If not, I would be happy to leave this information in the comments section.

In the current paper (de Vendomois et al., 2009) that is cited in your post, as with the prior publication (Seralini et al, 2007), Seralini and his colleagues use non-traditional statistical methods to reassess toxicology data from studies conducted with MON 863, MON 810 and NK603 corn varieties, and reach unsubstantiated conclusions.

The French High Counsel on Biotechnology (HCB) has considered both the de Vendomois (2009) and Seralini (2007) papers and has found that these papers make no useful contribution to the safety assessment.

Statistical fluctuations occur commonly in any large study with many endpoints, and statistical significance alone does not determine when an observation can be translated into evidence of risk. Making this determination requires consideration of:
• dose-related trends (higher dose should produce greater effect)
• reproducibility
• relationship to other findings such as abnormal organ appearance on pathology examinations
• the magnitude of the differences and the relationship of the findings to the normal range of values
• occurrence of a particular finding in both sexes (adjusting for known gender related differences in some tests)

When considered using proper statistical analysis in conjunction with these other criteria, the toxicology studies cited fail to demonstrate any adverse effects of these products.

A more complete discussion of the issues related to this publication, as well as references to pertinent publications, see is available on the Monsanto website: Monsanto Response: de Vendomois et al. 2009

Dan also wrote a blog post about Seralini’s past studies and their lack of validity. http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/06/23/seralini-safety-study/

Thanks so much,

Kathleen Manning

Monsanto Company

(Twilight Earth) The creator of the study has a follow up to Monsanto’s rebuttal:

Séralini explained that their study goes beyond Monsanto’s analysis by exploring the sex-differentiated health effects on mammals, which Doull, et al. ignored:

“Our study contradicts Monsanto conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only careful reanalysis of Monsanto crude statistical data.” [Communication to author]

Other problems with Monsanto’s conclusions

When testing for drug or pesticide safety, the standard protocol uses three mammalian species. The subject studies only used rats, yet won GMO approval in more than a dozen nations.

Chronic problems are rarely discovered in 90 days; most often such tests run for up to two years. Tests “lasting longer than three months give more chances to reveal metabolic, nervous, immune, hormonal or cancer diseases,” wrote Seralini, et al. in their Doull rebuttal. [See “How Subchronic and Chronic Health Effects can be Neglected for GMOs, Pesticides or Chemicals.” IJBS; 2009; 5(5):438-443.]

Further, Monsanto’s analysis compared unrelated feeding groups, muddying the results. The June 2009 rebuttal explains, “In order to isolate the effect of the GM transformation process from other variables, it is only valid to compare the GMO … with its isogenic non-GM equivalent.”

Some material sourced from food for freedom website by Rady Ananda

For more on Monsanto, visit Organic Lifestyle Magazine.

Creative Commons License photo credit: PhotoVandal

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Related posts:

  1. Monsanto News Roundup – A Frankenfood Extravaganza of GMO News Articles
  2. Monsanto: They Made good WMD’s–I bet They Make Healthy Food! (cartoon)
  3. Alfalfa at the Eleventh Hour

Gaiam.com, Inc

{ 11 trackbacks }

GMO corn and organ damage? « lorigami
January 12, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Fold/Spindle/Mutilate 2.1 » Blog Archive » Monsanto’s GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure
January 12, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Monsanto Genetically Modified Corn Causes Organ Failure in Rats « Beaver County Blue
January 13, 2010 at 12:12 am
Monsanto’s GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals : Federal Jack
January 13, 2010 at 2:06 am
The Truth! Die Wahrheit! » Blog Archive » Monsanto’s GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals
January 13, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Genetically Modified Food: Monsanto’s Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals « Wars & Rumor
January 13, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Monsanto’s GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals | We Are Change Utah
January 13, 2010 at 4:48 pm
This is one reason we must revitalize rural America. « The Arizona Sentinel
January 15, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Monsanto’s GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals | we must know
January 29, 2010 at 10:19 am
Genetically Engineered Corn and Organ Damage : Christopher Allen Jones
February 23, 2010 at 2:28 pm
New Animism Info » Blog Archive » GMO corn causes organ damage in mammals
March 27, 2010 at 12:59 pm

{ 84 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Dan Goldstein January 12, 2010 at 3:05 pm

In the current paper (de Vendomois et al., 2009) that is cited in your post, as with the prior publication (Seralini et al, 2007), Seralini and his colleagues use non-traditional statistical methods to reassess toxicology data from studies conducted with MON 863, MON 810 and NK603 corn varieties, and reach unsubstantiated conclusions.
The French High Counsel on Biotechnology (HCB) has considered both the de Vendomois (2009) and Seralini (2007) papers and has found that these papers make no useful contribution to the safety assessment.
Statistical fluctuations occur commonly in any large study with many endpoints, and statistical significance alone does not determine when an observation can be translated into evidence of risk. Making this determination requires consideration of:
• dose-related trends (higher dose should produce greater effect)
• reproducibility
• relationship to other findings such as abnormal organ appearance on pathology examinations
• the magnitude of the differences and the relationship of the findings to the normal range of values
• occurrence of a particular finding in both sexes (adjusting for known gender related differences in some tests)
When considered using proper statistical analysis in conjunction with these other criteria, the toxicology studies cited fail to demonstrate any adverse effects of these products.
A more complete discussion of the issues related to this publication, as well as references to pertinent publications, see is available on the Monsanto website: http://www.monsanto.com/products/techandsafety/fortherecord_science/2010/monsanto_response_de_vendomois.asp

Thank you,

Dan Goldstein
Monsanto Company
Director of Medical Sciences


2 Jessica January 13, 2010 at 12:16 pm

Dan was never referred to as a doctor nor was he referred to as a scientist, so I wonder what qualifies him to contest the findings of medical research.

I hope our friend Dan sleeps well at night knowing that he sold his soul to the devil for a fat salary. And if these findings are true, then the blood of many will likely be on his hands.


3 jjdoublej January 25, 2010 at 8:12 am

Here are Dan’s credentials….I believe you will find that he is more than qualified.

Dan is the Director of Medical Sciences and Outreach at Monsanto. He is a pediatrician, medical toxicologist, and clinical pharmacologist by training, and for the past 10 years his role at Monsanto has been devoted on human safety and health, with a focus on communications with the general public and with physicians, nutritionists, and other scientists both in the US and around the world. Dan received his undergraduate degree in Molecular Biology from the University of Wisconsin in 1976 and my MD degree from Johns Hopkins in 1981, followed by a residency in Pediatrics at Johns Hopkins and a fellowship in Clinical Pharmacology and Medical Toxicology at the University of Toronto. He is board certified by the American Boards of Pediatrics, Medical Toxicology, and Clinical Pharmacology, and by the Royal College of Physicians of Canada (Pediatrics).

Prior to Monsanto, Dan spent 10 years in private practice in Denver, Colorado, providing consultation in the area of Clinical, Occupational, Environmental and Forensic Toxicology. He joined Monsanto’s Medical Department in 1998, was appointed a Senior Science Fellow in 2002, and currently serves as Director of Medical Sciences and Outreach within Regulatory Affairs. Dr. Dan has been extensively involved in plant biotechnology, pesticide, and children’s environmental health issues, and served on the U.S. EPA’s Child Health Protection Advisory Committee, as a member of the EPA Science Advisory Board regarding the cancer risk assessment from early-life exposure to carcinogens, as an advisor to the NAFTA Commission for Environmental Cooperation regarding the development of international child health indicators, and as well as Board member for the American College of Medical Toxicology.


4 Deb March 19, 2010 at 8:37 am

Dan’s credentials as impressive as they may be, don’t amount to squat when he has financial benefits to gain through current employment and status at Monsanto.

Common sense would tell us to believe a 3rd party independent study that has no fianancial gain over one of Monsanto’s employees.


5 zaccai January 12, 2010 at 4:17 pm

Monsanto will destroy the world in pursuit of profit. There’s always someone willing to justify the indefensible for the right amount of money. Hopefully, people will look, listen and act on this information.


6 Anastasia January 12, 2010 at 4:44 pm

Why us it only valid to compare a genetically modified line with it’s isoline? There is a lot of variability within a crop species. Wouldn’t it make sense to have at least some of that diversity present in a study that *should* seek to answer the hypothesis: “is the biotech variety more toxic than nonbiotech varieties?”


7 Of course organic is better January 12, 2010 at 6:42 pm

Seems obvious that food with built-in insect repellant is bad. Who’d eat flyspray?


8 tom January 14, 2010 at 11:51 am

Many, many plants produce their own toxins that repel insects. Would you rather eat bug infested, moldy food? THAT IS PROVEN to be harmful to your health.


9 Darkmans Darkroom January 14, 2010 at 12:15 pm

Yes Tom, I would rather eat bug infested moldy food, than ingest Monsanto’s Deadly GMO, Round Up Plants.


10 AKos January 14, 2010 at 1:30 pm

A bit extreme, don’t you think? This is true, many plants create their own toxins to repel insects (like the parsnip, for example) but those toxins don’t have an adverse effect on humans or livestock…and if they did, we wouldn’t consume them. I truly don’t think it is one or the other here, Tom. I believe that as a society, we can come up with an agricultural plan that uses integrated crop management strategies to produce the food needed to feed the world. There’d be a lot less soda and junk food but our stores wouldn’t be filled with moldy food either.


11 kzak January 15, 2010 at 1:34 am

Have you seen a study of any sort, long or short term, that shows organic to be better?
I do seem to recall that the occurence of e. coli is higher in organic.
It also seems obvious that gmo crops have removed millions of pounds of pesticides from the environment. These were chemicals that were proven to be deadly to humans if used incorrectly.
For those who don’t want to be involved with the world’s safest food supply, there are several developing countries where gmo crops are not grown–have a good trip!


12 Chris Dudley January 15, 2010 at 12:34 pm

Briefly. They briefly allowed farmers to pour fewer herbicides on the crop. Of course selection by glyphosate based herbicides has produced super weeds, 11 described in the last 2 years. Now farmers are pouring the glyphosate plus all the old poisons. The net effect of the GMO glyphosate resistance is that farmers are pouring more herbicide. It’s a fact the industry can’t bs about because herbicide sales are tracked.


13 Chris Dudley January 20, 2010 at 12:58 pm

Oh, and thanks for agreeing with me. There is no long-term food safety study done on either GMO or organic products and it looks like we both want them done. Good on ya!

And your pesticide assertion is still demonstrably wrong, btw.


14 Ann January 25, 2010 at 2:43 pm

hulu.com documentary The Future of Food Eye opening to say the least. Biotech companies are altering veggies at cellular level with e.coli.


15 AM May 22, 2010 at 9:18 pm

Another good documentary to watch is “Food, Inc.”

One that may be less relevant to this discussion, though still deserves mention, is “King Corn.”


16 Solargroupies January 12, 2010 at 9:56 pm

Monsanto refused to show their own research data in support of approval of their bovine hormones in Vermont. Unfortunately, the state approved their milk production hormones because there was no research evidence available to correlate with health problems. Enough said.


17 Chris Dudley January 13, 2010 at 1:56 am

I spoke with Seralini over skype, interviewed him for a documentary I’m shooting. Why, Dan Goldstein, doesn’t Monsanto go ahead with a full feeding study, 2 years, multi-generational, of at least a couple of your GMO products? How about doing it publicly? For a multi-billion dollar company, a few million would seem a small price to pay to allay people’s fears, if they have no reason to fear. If the rats fed GM were found to have the same, normal biological changes as the rats fed non-GM, it would be a coup for your company.


18 Chris Dudley January 13, 2010 at 1:56 am

Also, before anyone listens to another industry scientist, he or she should read this:


19 Chris Dudley January 13, 2010 at 2:05 am

Monsanto, who spent years and millions of dollars telling you Agent Orange was safe, is now asking to be trusted when it tells you GMOs are safe. Know this, there has never been a long term feeding study of any Genetically modified crop for human consumption. They’ll dance around a lot of terms, isolines, cisgenic, transgenic, even the phrase ‘feeding study’ (they’ll obfuscate between human and animal feeding studies to confuse the issue).

Please note the logic of one of their most profound studies. They say that the GMOs were approved as safe already, so further analysis is not needed. But they don’t bother to tell you that governments approve the safety of GMOs based on their, Monsanto’s, analysis of the seed. So in a sense, Monsanto is saying the crop is safe because Monsanto said it was safe and the government regulatory agency (often headed by a Monsanto or other industry official) took Monsanto’s word for it.


20 AKos January 13, 2010 at 4:43 pm

There have been studies but none get published before the work mysteriously goes missing or a lab has an “accidental” fire.


21 Chris Dudley January 14, 2010 at 1:52 am

If you’re aware of any full-length food safety study that has been attempted, please provide some more information. I’m not aware, currently, of any such study, published or not. Thanks!


22 Randomguy January 15, 2010 at 3:48 am

Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: The role of animal feeding trials. Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 46, Supplement 1, March 2008, Pages S2-S70 doi:10.1016/j.fct.2008.02.008

Have you even looked? This took me less than a minute to find. There are plenty more out there, but I have better things to do with my time than refute poorly researched, emotive blog comments.


23 Chris Dudley January 15, 2010 at 12:38 pm

Help me find the ‘emotion’ in one of my posts. I’ll certainly look at this study. But I suspect, before I even go to the link, that it is not long-term (2 year, multi-generational) or that it is somehow proprietary, not done independently of the biotech industry.

24 Chris Dudley January 15, 2010 at 1:27 pm

Did you read the study you linked? It’s not a long-term safety study. First sentence of the abstract:

“In this report the various elements of the safety and nutritional assessment procedure for genetically modified (GM) plant derived
food and feed are discussed, in particular the potential and limitations of animal feeding trials for the safety and nutritional testing
of whole GM food and feed.”

You didn’t even link a 90 day feeding study, of which there are myriad. You linked a discussion of whether or not 90 day trials are adequate with some reference to the efficacy of using live animals for testing. One which appears to take at face value the HW Bush administrations executive proclomation that GM foods are “substantially equivalent”.

Tell me, please, is RandomGuy really Dan from Monsanto? I suspect it is.

25 Buvons January 14, 2010 at 12:25 am

Well said. They are so powerful, so intrenched in our Washington political machine, that they get to basically write the legislation for their needs. Other lobbies do the same things but they don’t directly and blatantly play with the health of the consumers.
95% of the people in this country wants the presence of GMO’s to be indicated on the product label but we can’t get it done.
The fact they were allowed to even start the commercialization of their GMO products with no prior independent long term effect studies is plainly criminal.


26 AKos January 14, 2010 at 10:14 am

They are intrenched in our Ottawa political machine too here in Canada (if you can call our government a machine…that’s a whole different can of worms). Our prairies are facing an interesting future when it comes to growing wheat, canola and corn.


27 Chris Dudley January 15, 2010 at 1:31 pm

where do you get the 95% number? I haven’t seen that. That’s a really interesting number.


28 Darkmans Darkroom January 13, 2010 at 12:21 pm

I am an amateur beekeeper and I have seen the decline of the bee population in N. America. Now that I see you talking about the possibility of the bee decline being attributed to the Deadly Monsanto GMO Strains of plants and such, I have to wonder how much of the honey I have been eating is contaminated by the Deadly Monsanto GMO stuff? I also have to wonder now the bees that pollinate out plants don’t just stick to one plant, they pollinate many different plants andthus spreading the Deadly Monsanto GMO Genes from Plant to Plant. This is making for a degenerative state of the human race. We, if we do not do anything about this, are essentially killing ourselves.

That said, the current state of affairs with the American Population, looking around and seeing no real protesting anymore, no one really standing up or going to jail for a cause, is making us weak. no wonder things are starting to hit on American soil more and more.

I fear for my daughters future.

As Metallica says “Sad But True…”


29 Scott Carefoot January 15, 2010 at 12:27 am

I have been in University for the past four years and a farmer as well and you should know that corn hybrids are self pollinated so the bees are not even involved with the process to spread it. Also, any Bt trait or traits to be glyphosate tolerant will not be harmful to any humans. Glyphosate can dam near be drank out of the jug and not cause problems in humans. Reading these forums just frustrates me on how much information is thrown around that is inaccurate.
Ps. Where I farm corn is not grown and I grow no GMO crops so I am not that biased.


30 Chris Dudley January 15, 2010 at 12:50 pm

Farmers in India kill themselves after going into debt because of the GM trap by drinking Roundup. Glyphosate is relatively harmless, true. But it’s also relatively harmless to plants until it’s mixed with other chemicals, over 20 of them. Please don’t prove me right by having a glass.

Also, Monsanto now owns 25 percent of the world’s seed supply. Does that bother you at all? In the least? When a private corporation has that much power bad things can happen, even if 90 percent of the people in the corporation are ‘good’ people. Agent Orange, DDT, RGbH, tobacco were all propagated by industry scientists, governments and farmers on the industrial treadmill in the same way, without a controlled, long-term safety study.

Again if they believed in their product they’d allow an independent, long-term feeding study. If it showed no signs of toxicity it would be a coup.


31 jjdoublej January 15, 2010 at 5:01 pm


Farmers in India have been committing suicide at the same rate for many years PRIOR to the introduction of GM crops. They go into debt and cant pay back at 50% interest rates. see below.
In India, farmers use hybrid cotton seed and the majority have been purchasing new seed each year.
Studies by research agency IMRB and MMB showed a 118 percent increase in profit for Indian farmers planting Bollgard cotton over traditional cotton varieties. The same survey showed a 64 percent increase in yield and a 25 percent reduction in pesticide costs.
- In India, Bt cotton farmers saved 5-10x per acre (US$ 52 / Rs. 2,250) on additional seed cost (US$ 5-12 / Rs. 200-475) using lesser pesticide per acre vs. conventional seed farmers, which equals to a net profit of ~US$ 40 – 47 / Rs. 1,560 – 1,833
- Got double yield and earned average 64% (US$ 222 / Rs. 8669) higher income per acre vs. conventional seed farmers, on an additional input cost of US$ 5-12 / Rs. 200-475
- Yielded 700 – 900 kg. per acre vs. 300-400 kg. per acre with conventional seeds
Higher incomes of India’s Bt cotton farmers result in farmers contributing Rs. 12,608+ crores to India’s GDP in 2007 (IMRB 2008). Across India’s cotton growing states, Bollgard Bt cotton farmers are leading better lives. 87% enjoy better lifestyles, 84% have more peace of mind, 72% invested in their children’s education, 67% repaid their long-pending debts (IMRB 2007). “


32 Chris Dudley January 16, 2010 at 4:01 pm

IMRB: Industry funded marketing company. I bet the newspapers and government regulatory agencies ate it up.

The question persists. Why don’t biothech firms allow an independent, long-term, peer-reviewed, food-safety study of their products?

33 Chris Dudley January 16, 2010 at 4:12 pm

Also, you’ve still not provided any evidence that Seralini is somehow ‘discredited’. Please, you can do me a great service by giving me this information before I march out with him into public. You’ve presented yourself as a knowledgeable, reasoned commentor (though I disagree with you) but your pause in backing your charges against Seralini makes me think I should probably ignore your posts as I do the other, more emotional ones.

34 P.O.Chica January 16, 2010 at 4:59 pm

When you said “Glyphosate can dam near be drank out of the jug and not cause problems in humans,” I was curious. A less than ten second search on the herbicide in question revealed this”

“Glyphosate has a United States Environmental Protection Agency‎ Toxicity Class of III in 1993. It has been rated as class I (Severe) for eye irritation. Glyphosate is being evaluated for effects to unborn fetuses and their development. It is currently on the USEPA Endocrine Disrupter Screening list, published in 2007.

Outside its intended use, glyphosate can be lethal. For example, with intentional poisonings there is approximately a 10% mortality for those ingesting glyphosate, compared to 70% for those ingesting paraquat.

Laboratory toxicology studies suggest that other ingredients combined with glyphosate may have greater toxicity than glyphosate alone. For example, a study comparing glyphosate and Roundup found that Roundup had a greater effect on aromatase than glyphosate alone.

Statistics from the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program indicate that glyphosate-related incidents are one of the highest reported of all pesticides. However, incident count does not take into account the number of people exposed and the severity of symptoms associated with each incident. For example, if hospitalization were used as a measure of the severity of pesticide related incidents, then glyphosate would be considered relatively safe, since, over a 13 year period in California, none of the 515 pesticide-related hospitalizations recorded were attributed to glyphosate.

Greenpeace states that the acute human toxicity of glyphosate is very low, but note that, as mentioned above, other added chemicals (particularly surfactants, e.g. polyoxy-ethyleneamine, POEA), can be more toxic than glyphosate itself. Over-application, or application directly to the soil may impact earthworms.

A review of the toxicological data on Roundup shows that there are at least 58 studies of the effects of Roundup itself on a range of organisms. This review concluded that “for terrestrial uses of Roundup minimal acute and chronic risk was predicted for potentially exposed non-target organisms”. It also concluded that there were some risks to aquatic organisms exposed to Roundup in shallow water. More recent research suggests glyphosate induces a variety of functional abnormalities in fetuses and pregnant rats. Also in recent mammalian research, glyphosate has been found to interfere with an enzyme involved testosterone production in mouse cell culture and to interfere with an estrogen biosynthesis enzyme in cultures of human placental cells.

There is a reasonable correlation between the amount of Roundup ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Ingestion of >85 mL of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults. Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent, and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion. Respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary oedema, infiltration on chest x-ray, shock, arrythmias, renal failure requiring haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis and hyperkalaemia may supervene in severe cases. Bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmias are often present pre-terminally. Dermal exposure to ready-to-use glyphosate formulations can cause irritation, and photo-contact dermatitis has been reported occasionally; these effects are probably due to the preservative Proxel (benzisothiazolin-3-one). Severe skin burns are very rare. Inhalation is a minor route of exposure, but spray mist may cause oral or nasal discomfort, an unpleasant taste in the mouth, tingling and throat irritation. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis, and superficial corneal injury is possible if irrigation is delayed or inadequate.”

So really, you believe this stuff can be consumed by a human with no ill effects? Really? Do you know what you’re talking about? Ok, go ahead and drink some to prove me wrong. But I’m not paying your hospital bills.

Seriously people, think before you write crap online. It’s not like you won’t get caught if you make shit up.


35 Chris Dudley January 18, 2010 at 4:23 pm

Good luck getting an answer to a direct question. I’ve asked the same ones over and over and not a peep from these guys on the most basic issues, long-term food safety studies, ownership, etc… Maybe they’ll answer with another study done by an industry sponsored PR firm.


36 jessica March 11, 2010 at 12:20 pm

How do the bees know the corn is self-pollinating?


37 Chris Dudley January 13, 2010 at 12:53 pm

Here’s Gil Seralini in his own words:


38 AKos January 13, 2010 at 4:34 pm

It really bothers me, as someone with a science background, when people try to question the validity of a study based on their statistical approach. It’s clear that Monsanto, along with any other corporation trying to make a buck, will use a variety of statistical analyses and publish the results that make them look the best.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to err on the side of caution? Monsanto, of course, doesn’t much care about the people. You don’t see Monsanto acknowledging the absolute mono-cropping system they’ve developed and peddled for years will be the end of our agricultural system as we know it. They brush of the severe decline in the world’s pollinators as though it wasn’t a problem.

How Monsanto employees and affiliates sleep at night is absolutely beyond me. That must be one hell of a horse tranquilizer.


39 Global Patriot January 14, 2010 at 1:49 am

At the end of the day, Monsanto will be remembered as the most dangerous company to ever inhabit the earth. They have the power to benefit mankind, but have instead chosen to poison the planet and destroy lives for the sake of profit.


40 lenlen January 14, 2010 at 10:23 am

Thanx for the well researched article re: Monsanto corn damaging affect on animals. My question is: I’m sure the product is palnted and harvested in the uSA, but when you say Europe do you mean all of Europe, the EU and Switzerland, non aligned European countries, and is it in production there and which countries? I was under the impression that these types of genetic modification were disallowed in the EU unless the end product is clearly marked genetically modified…thanx


41 AKos January 14, 2010 at 1:24 pm

For the most part, I think GMO has to be labelled in the EU. You can read more about the stipulations on GMO in the EU here http://www.biotethics.org/downloads/articles/EU%20Legislation%20GMOs.pdf

Hope that’s useful :)


42 Chris Dudley January 15, 2010 at 12:40 pm

As I understand it there are quite a few GM crops grown in Europe, mostly in Spain and Italy, but they are by and large feed crops.


43 str8shootr January 14, 2010 at 9:10 pm

Reminds me of their Milk issue and Fox News killing the story… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axU9ngbTxKw


44 Melissa January 15, 2010 at 11:49 am

Wow, I would like to hear what the nay sayers have to say about that, I would never trust a company like Mansanto to tell the truth.


45 bubba brazille January 15, 2010 at 10:14 pm
46 Soil Consult January 14, 2010 at 9:28 pm

If there are insects attacking a plant is the plant healthy? I don’t want to eat a plant that insects are attracted to. Having said this if we have healthy plants why do we need GMO’s? Having seen the protein level in the plants be cut in half, there is high tonnage low quality food. Is that the plan? If the soil and nutrients are balanced we get tasty nutrient dense food. Testing the brix level in GMO vs non-GMO there is a big difference. Sap sucking insects will not attack high brix plants if there is something else they can go to. With the GMO you don’t know because the insect eats the Bt protein gets a gut ache and dies. The bottom line is if we work on growing soil and keep the soil healthy we don’t have insects that are harmful to the plants we want to eat.


47 Gary McDonald January 15, 2010 at 11:57 am

Dear Soil Consultant,

You are 100% correct with your comments about insects not bothering a healthy plant that are grown on a healthy soil and healthy animals including man are not going to be bothered with pathogens either; all health of plants, animals and man starts in the soil. Is it any wonder why we have such poor health as a nation? The bright side to all of this is that God the Creator of Heaven and Earth has a plan the time has come for many things to come to pass so for all the beleivers out there stick together and stay the course because the truth will always set you free. I personally do what I can to eat everything certified organic much I grow and process myself this is a call for as many of us as possible to become self sufficient and to love and support one another. Do we not know the heart of God; Monsanto is no match for our God in the days to come Monsanto will come against a great and mighty force and they will be destroyed for if God is on our side who can be against us? All Monsanto’s big fancy lawyers and the corruption that surrounds them is no match for our God he will not even break a sweat the day he ends Monsanto’s rein of terror. Can anyone remember the Tobacco industry?

Yours for more Life,



48 Aeron February 9, 2010 at 2:59 pm

Of course insects will eat a healthy plant! If you were an insect, wouldn’t you? They, too, instinctually want to live and procreate. We small-scale farmers just take this into account and plant a little extra.


49 jjdoublej January 15, 2010 at 10:22 am

People, this Seralini guy is not credible at all. He is a leading activist. Of course he will try and twist results in his favor. For anyone to quote his findings just takes away your credibiliy.

Akos said, “It’s clear that Monsanto, along with any other corporation trying to make a buck, will use a variety of statistical analyses and publish the results that make them look the best.”

oh, but of course seralini doesnt do that!

Dudley says, “Monsanto, who spent years and millions of dollars telling you Agent Orange was safe”

Dudley, they did? They spent millions of dollars telling you agent orange was safe? I’d like to see that…please post that link.


50 Chris Dudley January 16, 2010 at 12:37 am

jjdoublej, well, perhaps you’re right. It would have taken Monsanto 1334 days to have paid Sir Richard Doll 2 million, which would have been ‘millions’. I may have exaggerated. But I suspect that there is more than one Doll out there, leaving open the possibility that Monsanto paid millions telling us Agent Orange was safe:
As to your denigration of Dr. Seralini, I spoke with the man. He has a PhD, he seemed credible enough to me. What actual evidence to you have against him?

The facts are: Biotech firms refuse to release their raw data, refuse to let their products be tested independently, and refuse to commit to even one long-term peer-reviewed public food safety study.

To my knowledge, Seralini has only asked biotech corporations to prove the products they bring to market (novel enough to patent but not enough to test) are safe. Again, please let me know if you have some actual discrediting evidence against Seralini. I’d like to know before I move ahead with my current project. I’m serious. Do you have irrefutable evidence Seralini has a bias so as to lie, withhold information or misrepresent his position in any way?


51 AKos January 18, 2010 at 5:01 pm

jjdoublej, I also said “why not err on the side of caution?” The precautionary principle is Law 101 and something that is entrenched in our legal system (at least the Canadian legal system) and dates back to the 1800s. Since Monsanto imposes terms and conditions to using their product, no independent study can be done to help form a scientific consensus. Any good, ethical and transparent study should be reporting to the scientific community for peer review, not back to the company who makes the product in question.

As to your comment about Seralini potentially getting paid off, I’d like to know what big organic or non-GMO corporation has the funds to pay off a scientist like Monsanto would.

You say he’s an activist like those working PR for Monsanto aren’t activists in their own right. When you look at information on these types of things don’t you think to yourself “Hmm, I could believe the company who tells me the product is safe OR I could believe the 1000s of people saying GMOs are questionable.”


52 jjdoublej January 20, 2010 at 8:54 am

Do you have any idea what pesticides were and are still used on conventional corn and soybean crops before GM crops were invented? You should do some research on traditional farming methods prior to GM crops and see what you find. Did you know that if you have rootworm issues in corn, Insect resistant corn doesnt even require the use of insecticides, where conventional corn requires insecticides so dangerous that applicators are supposed to wear masks and gloves when working with them?


53 Adam Shake January 20, 2010 at 10:39 am

Hi Jim, when you say “traditional farming methods” are you talking about the thousands of years that people grew crops before insecticides had even been invented? Are you talking about when we didn’t have a monoculture farming system where if a disease or insect populations struck, the entire populations of crops weren’t destroyed?

I guess our terms of “traditional” don’t exactly match up.


54 jjdoublej January 20, 2010 at 10:52 am

Hi Adam,

No, i am talking about conventional farming in the 70’s and 80’s prior to GM introduction. It is fruitless to talk about anything prior to that, because yields were so low, we as a world, could never go back to that way of farming because it is in no way sustainable. We could never feed the increased population.



55 Uncle B January 16, 2010 at 6:07 am

Monsanto: King of the ROI! don’t be so eager to swat them, just avoid their corn and get your dollars into their stocks! They behave above the law in America and cannot lose! Join the “Flesh Feast” it is backed by American corporate law. Remember the Ford Pinto in 1973, where corporate executives comitting certain murder were commended and taken as heroes for doing their “American Corporate Duty” in protecting shareholders interests? This is the same story all over again. Monsanto cannot lose, it is backed by American Corporate laws which place the executives liable for not taking care of the shareholders interests first, even if they poison the goddammit Pope! That is the law in America and a prime reason Americans are hated the world over, held in infamy and castigated by environmentalists and ecologists everywhere. American law is what it is, you innocents, Read up on Corporate law, and realize American works, Capitalism works Corporatism works, because American law gives shareholders astounding rights, their executives sickening responsibilities to the shareholders above all else, even treason – The Wall Street Banksters should have been charged with Treason, instead they got “Golden Parachute” Retirement plans and huge bonuses? Laws of incorporation are sick, and Monsanto knows just how they are worked!


56 Soil Consult January 16, 2010 at 12:57 pm

Has anyone heard or done research on how OMRI got started? Heard rumor that there was funding from Monsanto. Nothing to back this up at this time. Seemed somewhat reasonable from the following standpoint. If you regulate the products that can be applied the organic world will have a hard time getting food that is much better than using all the chemicals. With the limited amount of products, P, as an example you can never get the brix level up to continually fight off disease and insects. Using soft rock phos is great, but it seems they are trying to limit some of that as well. Soft rock also takes some time to be available. I am not organic, and have used high quality phos and first try on some really poor soil had sweet corn brix up to 30. Since the universities can’t teach these things, where does someone go to learn this. I am not a radical and will not associate with some of the crowd. It seems I often walk that fine line in between. I don’t need GMO to produce good food. If we would educate the farmers on how to GROW SOIL and forget about the plants GMO corn and beans would not be planted on the majority of the acres in the U.S.


57 Chris Dudley January 16, 2010 at 4:24 pm

The first paragraph is typical cut-and-paste, glossy-brochure industry PR, but the rest of the article is awesome, and why I pick up the Scientific American on occasion:



58 diana January 18, 2010 at 1:04 am

Glyphosate may not be terribly toxic when ingested as a liquid, but it is much more so when inhaled: “Experimentally induced inhalation of Roundup by rats produced 100% mortality in 24 hours.”


Also in the article is info on glyphosate killing soil.


59 tiramisu January 20, 2010 at 3:54 am

pcb, dioxin, rBGH…. Monsanto has an extremely consistent track record. That they actively have marketing shills hitting sites like this is even more telling.

As a Canadian it is extremely disconcerting to see that my food has been contaminated by the people running this company. An investigation needs to be started and charges need to be filed in civil and criminal court. Like Enron, these guys need to be put in jail.


60 Paul Sojourner January 24, 2010 at 6:55 pm



61 jjdoublej January 25, 2010 at 8:14 am

Wow Paul….thanks for that thought provoking comment…Im sure that will help.


62 diana January 25, 2010 at 12:43 pm

Chris, I really appreciate what you’re doing here, trying to get good info out. You don’t overstate the complexity, but I suspect you overstate the possibility. Yes, we could actually stop GM foods virtually overnight. If the motivation was other than pure profit, we could ditch NAFTA and genetic ownership laws pretty much overnight. We won’t. The US and the western world sees that there is a collision, a crash, looming, and the more-elite group is raking in all the dough it can, while it can. People below elite status are scared to move, and groomed into self-absorbed activity; keeps us outta the way. But those who aren’t fully embalmed by the brain-sucking teevee machine? We still tend to cling to “sustainable” industry and energy and economy. But civilization itself, and the ag that depletes the soil, kills the soil and degrades the surface water (while draining the aquifer waters), is not sustainable.

We can come down gently, or more-near gently, or we can crash mightily. So long as we cling to ag as viable, and not an interim step, and the same with power sources, the more distracted we are and the harder we’ll crash. We could be simultaneously working toward ending GMs now, funding farmers (not mega-ag, but farmers) to learn to scale down and move away from petrol and even learn, say forest gardening and keeping things local, and establishing communities that can pull together. We could get the fact that the Earth is primary and we’re participating in murdering the planet on which our very lives depend … and yet we’re still defending nuclear and continuing with pesticides and GM crops, ‘for now.’ Not good enough!


63 Chris Dudley January 26, 2010 at 1:29 am

Well, I see you’ve figured out that I’ve already borrowed a tux and ordered a cognac for the sinking. But water at my feet won’t stop me from discussing how to build a better life-boat.


64 Educated Food Supplier February 11, 2010 at 3:14 pm

Reading through these posts make me think the biggest problem above is that the VAST majority of people in the western world have no clue how and where their food is produced and at what cost. To those that think we can feed the world with the technology of 50 years ago – wake up! Not possible. A huge amount of the best farm land around is now under pavement in urban centers and will never be productive again. This means we are required to grow more with less land and that means using the best technology we have.
The “organic solutions” have been mentioned but not explored here and I know that they aren’t always as safe as the “toxic” methods modern farming uses. Just one example would be a product used to control weeds in organic carrots, carrot oil, is essentially varsol. It is technically organic – but not even close to as safe as using other chemical controls.
I would love to see the day where people much of their own food again, however, I am a realist and people don’t want to work like that and don’t want to pay the high prices that will be associated with a truly organic approach to farming – GMOs and chemicals are the reason that we have the standard of life we do in North America. After all the average price of grain hasn’t significantly changed since the 70’s.
I’m not a big fan of Monsanto, they can be heavy handed, but in our society we have the option to buy or not buy a product and that is ultimately the most powerful tool of change – but do remember there is always a consequence to any change, and in the case of eliminating GMO from the food chain it would be a HUGE increase in food costs. The last time I checked more people have died from starvation than glyphosate or GMO traits in the last 20yrs.


65 Christine February 23, 2010 at 10:44 am

I was feeding wild raccoon,skunks,birds from our home where we recently moved from.Corn was in the birdseed,plus we bought ears of corn for the wild life.Not knowing at the time there was something wrong with the corn.Not one bird or animal would eat the corn.The birds ate everything except the corn in the birdseed.Somehow all the wildlife knew there was something wrong with the corn.I find this truly amazing.Maybe we should listen to our animal friends,they are trying to tell us we are being poisoned.


66 maria February 23, 2010 at 10:52 am

this has been predicted in a book by michael brown from spirirtdaily.com. all these genetically enhanced products are not good for our helath and environment.


67 maria February 23, 2010 at 11:23 am

this also applies to all the genetically enhanced trees planted. i have read that animals wont go nearby those trees.


68 jjdoublej February 23, 2010 at 11:52 am

I’ve never heard of Genetically enhanced trees. By the way, cows and hogs eat all the BT corn they can get!


69 maria February 23, 2010 at 12:27 pm

you can start reading about them now.


70 AKos February 23, 2010 at 12:57 pm

The simple thing is this: GM foods should be a choice. If I don’t want to eat genetically modified food then I should not be forced to eat it. When farms start using GM foods it opens a whole new realm of issues for their neighbours. I don’t have a current count of cases but I know of at least one MAJOR court case in Saskatchewan, Canada that has farmers trying to fight Monsanto because some of the GM DNA was found on a non-Monsanto growing farm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

Nobody can reasonably prevent pollen travel. It’s part of the coding in plants to reproduce. It’s a product of evolution that has taken thousands and thousands of years to perfect. But it is this quality of pollen that is the basis of the issue.

GM DNA is able to spread to people who don’t want it. It’s the second-hand smoke of the agricultural industry.

In most (if not all) areas of Canada, smoking in public places is illegal (like restaurants, stores, etc). It is a person’s choice to smoke but that choice shouldn’t have an adverse effect on the people around him. It’s erring on the side of caution.

It’s time to take a solid look at how GM crops are regulated. I think the smoking analogy is a very good one that illustrates the importance of protecting our rights to choose.


71 RJP February 23, 2010 at 1:42 pm

There is a ten part video series called,”The world according to Monsanto”, where the talk all about how the monsanto monopoly with the help of congress, is poisoning the food supply. This series can be found by doing a search on Google.


72 Blake Helgoth February 23, 2010 at 2:42 pm

Um, the world population is falling. Several countries have birth rates that are below replacement levels. It has become a western crisis. Over population is a myth. If we could feed them 50 yrs. ago, we can feed fewer people now.


73 Garrett F February 23, 2010 at 4:58 pm

Oh Yea?


74 Jake S. June 4, 2010 at 4:44 pm

This is disgusting! The rich corporations won’t be happy until they’ve sucked up every last dollar in a dieing world. It kind of makes me wonder what the heads of the FDA eat for dinner? Surely they wouldn’t ingest this crap, right?


75 Adam Shake January 20, 2010 at 11:18 am

Hey Jim,

I understand your argument, but I don’t accept it. Here is why. More than 50% of the food grown on this blue marble is wasted. It’s grown, processed, shipped, bought, transported, refrigerated and thrown away.

I don’t blame you (Monsanto) for that, I blame our over consumptive and influenza ridden natures for that. I know, you are just supplying a demand. Much like a dope pusher does. If we weren’t such a greedy, obese and diabetic people, you may well be out of business.

Here is another reason I don’t accept the population argument. It takes 7 lbs of grain (think of it as plant material) to create 1 lb of beef. If we gave up beef (something we won’t do) or at least cut down, those 7 lbs of grain could be used to grow 7 lbs of some other plant, grain, vegetable or fruit. That’s a lot more food that could go to feed people than 1 lb of beef.



76 Darkmans Darkroom January 20, 2010 at 11:32 am

I’d just like to touch on your comment…
“It’s grown, processed, shipped, bought, transported, refrigerated and thrown away.”
all the energy, IE Fossil fuels that are used to do the previous line, hurt the earth and our environment….
and…”obese and diabetic people” and “It takes 7 lbs of grain (think of it as plant material) to create 1 lb of beef.”

a 4 letter word. The Grain you are talking about being “refridged, processed, transpported….obese and diabetic, and 7 pounds of grain to create 1 pound of beef”…….If beef is fed grass like it should be instead of corn, it is actually good for you, when it is raised on corn it is bad.

Farmers are subsidized to grow corn, tons of it. it’s then used to feed cows, turned into other food products especially high fructose corn syrup.

everyone should go watch Food Inc. and be horrified. Which is why I don’t eat as much of anything with corn or high fructose corn syrup anymore, which is why I buy mostly if not all local or organic produce anymore.

Corn the new four letter word.


77 jjdoublej January 20, 2010 at 12:19 pm

Hi Adam,

I dont know those figures about grain and beef, etc, or 50% of the food that is produced is thrown away, so i cant argue intelligently with you about that. My point is, in the current real world, we cant go back to farming in the olden days with a horse and plow (and who would?) to feed the world as it exists today, with the way we eat, etc. I dont think we will ever go back there. I am just saying that the way we farm now with GM crops is much better and safer in many ways than it was in the 40’s through early 90’s. The GM system allows for less or no toxic pesticides, more no-till farming which sequesters carbons in the soil and prevents soil erosion, and is more tolerant of climate conditions.

Thanks Adam,



78 diana January 20, 2010 at 2:10 pm

One of the best ways to control a population is to give a hate-target, restrict any other (public) feelgoods, and toss in a stat on occasion just to fuel the horizontal hate. Such is the case with *much* of the so-called obesity epidemic. A pop that has gained an average of 25 lbs has also gotten taller –but, hey, they don’t mention that; it’d mess up the targeting! The quickest way to weight gain is actually dieting, that thing that people do when they’re desperately trying to conform.

Did you mean affluenza, perhaps? There’s a great series of vids circulating on forums called The Century of the Self. Again, people make billions getting us to conform, hate the right ones, buy the right things (Gail Dines has an awesome explanation of the porn link at her gaildines.com site). That people jump on the horiztal hostility bandwagon isn’t surprising, but it is certainly tiresome.

Civilization ain’t gonna feed 6.7 billions, plus, on any version of beef, nor *healthily* on any version of non-meat foodstuffs. Civilization itself is unsustainable. Only way thru that I see is for people to do small and local, forest gardens and community plots with chickens at least. And meanwhile join in to dismantle Mon-insane-to one brick at a time. Corn *is* a four-letter word, and we’d better go back — to something we know was sustainable, or the damage will only get worse, faster and more furiously. IMO.


79 Chris Dudley January 20, 2010 at 1:49 pm

It’s public information that most GM production goes to cars and cows. The specific numbers are irrelevant to the fact that much more food is already produced than could be consumed by the world’s population. Hunger is not a production issue. It’s a poverty issue.

GM was certainly temporarily safer than Green Revolution, chemically-intense production of food; temporarily. And only in the United States and Canada where government regulations prevented over-application. And remember, the Green Revolution was started in exactly the same way as the GM one is being touted. Now GM is supposedly going to get us off the tracks where the Green Revolution put us.

Facts: there is no evidence GM crops increase yields, nutrition, drought resistance, etc… The only lasting effects of GM crops are the consolidation of farms and breeders and seed suppliers into fewer and fewer hands, deeper collusion of industry and public institutions, increasing unemployment (Argentina is a good example), an industry takeover of the U.S. government (google Vilsack on this issue), etc…

At least Green Revolution farmers could save their own environmentally specific, different seeds, guaranteeing some, minimal biodiversity and keeping the heart of food production away from the hands of amoral, quarterly-profit-driven multi-national corporations. Scientists could have done a long-term food-safety study on any one farmer’s corn versus another’s corn and organics. That was possible until patent ownership of seeds. Now one company owns 1/4th of all seed suppliers on earth and 80 percent of the corn and soy seeds sown in the United States. That company does not allow independent food-safety (or practically any safety) study of their products.

We all want to feed people. The Green Revolution introduced the idea that technology could do that. Well, 50 years later we have even more starving people. Now the industry is telling us technology can feed this even greater mass of starving people. We’re on the technology train and it’s moving fast, you got that part right. But anybody can look ahead and see we need to look at ways of getting off this train. GMO just throws more coal in the engine–oh and funnels more profits to the folks riding in the luxury car.


80 ushill January 23, 2010 at 9:33 pm

@jjdoublj: who needs toxic pesticides when the food itself is toxic?


81 jjdoublej January 20, 2010 at 4:14 pm

So Chris, you have all the answers, what is your solution? Lets say we get rid of GM corn and soybeans, then what should farmers plant?



82 Chris Dudley January 20, 2010 at 7:39 pm

I think I’ve only asked questions and provided information. I don’t think anywhere in my posts you will find ‘all the answers’.

That said, we should continue research into GMOs through our public institutions, much like we do with other controversial subjects. GM, like nuclear power, has tremendous potential, but that doesn’t mean it should be in our food supply anytime soon. Study it in a controlled environment, IMO. Figure out how to control spread, for one thing.

And, that research has to be publicly funded and open to tests and criticisms, like research was done before the concerted effort to destroy public education we’ve suffered for 30plus years. It was done in a spirit of sharing of information. Now, with the high-pressure grant and industry funding way, research in public and private institutions has become proprietary. Researchers don’t share ideas or discoveries, they patent them.

The main thing, the crux of the whole issue, is to rescind patent laws protecting these products that self-regenerate. Doing that would allow farmers to save seed and conduct breeding experiments of their own.

Thinking that we can simply stop selling GM seeds tomorrow and jump off the train the Green Revolution started is naive. I don’t know enough about the market, but I suspect with 80% of the corn and soy seeds in the US being GM (acreage about the size of California), they’re might not even be enough conventional seeds to plant this season without GM, not to mention the damage it would do to multiple markets.

The patent laws allow corporations to both follow the law and absolutely monopolize our food supply. We need only change the law.

Another huge issue is NAFTA. At the heart of the destruction of the American farmer is this wicked little parasite NAFTA. But that would be a long, long post. Enough to say NAFTA (and media consolidation) is what Clinton will be remembered for to his historical peril.

So my solutions are backing out of NAFTA (ending subsidies as well while revisiting the real reason for the Future’s Market–to protect small farmers against “Acts Of God”), ending biological patent regimes, revisiting the supposed SCOTUS decision that granted corporations status as individuals (it did not, the summary mistakenly did), and thus allowing the Green Revolution train to slowly come to a halt over time.

I have many reasons to distrust GMOs, health is at the bottom of my personal list. I think the visceral, emotional response you get from a lot of people is more because we all see this horrendous collision coming (of population vs the environment) and GMOs are just another step toward that collision. We need to look at alternatives to spraying poisons on our foods, while realizing that for some years to come we will be spraying poisons on our foods while we slowly apply brakes to the train.


83 jjdoublej January 25, 2010 at 8:15 am

huh? Why is the food toxic?


84 Chris Dudley January 25, 2010 at 11:35 am

Are you asking me? I never said it was toxic. I said that potential toxicity in GM food has never been tested properly, independently and long-term. Monsanto won’t allow their seeds to be tested by anyone but Monsanto, and then you can’t even see their raw data and the FDA just gets a summary of the conclusions, and only on three month tests.

Your defense of Dan (in which you use the word ‘my’ at some point) is important. How does Dan know that GM products are not toxic? Is he taking the company’s word like the US government? Has he done or does he know of an independent, long-term, food safety study? If Dan is privy to information that shows no toxicity from a long-term, multi-generational food safety study, then ask him to ask the independent person who did the study to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. That would alleviate a lot of fear.

The fact is, Dan is being paid by Monsanto, whether or not he’s an honest broker is irrelevant. Asking everyone to believe him for all his experience is also asking everyone to ignore the history of paid spokespeople, some of whom have been less than honest. Is Dan less than honest? Probably not, but he’s paid by Monsanto, so, it’s a fair question.

There has never been a long-term human food safety study on GM products. Why not? Why isn’t every single human being, pro or anti, calling for a long-term study to prove or disprove toxicity allegations?

To say that science backs GM’s safety and then refuse to allow independent scientists to evaluate that claim is specious. Don’t you think, Doc?


Leave a Comment

Previous post: Interior Secretary Tells Big Oil – Public Lands are Not Your Candy Store

Next post: Monsanto News Roundup – A Frankenfood Extravaganza of GMO News Articles