How GMO foods alter Human DNA

Mike_Adams_on_Alex_Jones_on_GMO_part_1_100848930_thumbnail Natural Health

The Health Ranger, Mike Adams, explains how studies in cell research have demonstrated the mechanism by which micro RNA from genetically engineered foods may alter organ function in humans.



What do you get when your cell doesn’t remember what identity it’s supposed to express? You can get a DNA mutation that results in the formation of a cancer cell that goes on to become a cancer tumor. Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs) do just that for ya! Not only does your physical body suffer, but your DNA actually changes over time because of them.


85 Comments on How GMO foods alter Human DNA

  1. Danielle Cousineau Dunn

    I think the statistics speak for themselves:
    •In the early 1900s, one in 20 people developed cancer
    •In the 1940s, one in 16 people developed cancer
    •In the 1970s, it was one in 10
    •Today, it’s one in three!

  2. Carol Bryant

    It's my understanding that the pesticides go on to kill the intestinal bacteria in our bodies. This, in turn, prevents the helpful balance of gut bacteria, which then causes all sorts of health problems. Best to avoid GMOs!

  3. Nico van Niekerk The first transgenic plant was 83, and genetically altered food didn't hit the market untll 94 bub, get your shit straight! As others have mentioned, cancer is through the roof and there ARE independent studies that show rises in cancer and infertility in mammals.
    If you don't believe it or don't care then by all means go gobble all the GM shit you can stuff down your gullet but quit trying to sway people into shoving their common sense aside for your opinions and unproven rhetoric? You are wasting your breath anyway.
    There's just too many people still capable of critical thinking.

  4. Nico van Niekerk GMO (gene splicing between different species) and selective breeding are not the same thing. GMO has only been around since the last 90's

  5. I have heard from many accredited Geneticists that DNA does not survive the digestion process and even if it did, we consume around some percentage of a gram of DNA all the time. It's in everything organic, right? If it were the case that merely consuming genes caused harm, then wouldn't everything we eat cause mutation? Mutation is natural. Having all sweet apples is not. Genetically modifying things has existed forever either through selection or grafting or other means. Once upon a time, only a primate who could climb a tree and find the sweet fruit could have the privilege of eating it. Now, we've "played God" so long that everything is genetically modified to taste good to us. All the "organic" apples on all the trees are sweet now. At one point, this was not what nature intended. So my question is, if we can eat the genes of these organisms whose genes are being inserted into other organisms as they naturally occur without ill effect, then why all the sudden does embedding them were they don't naturally occur suddenly become poisonous? I agree that in-vitro studies prove that certain herbicides and pesticides can harm human growth and development, and I also agree that a species that is highly favored and fostered by one species can become invasive, leading to a lack of biodiversity. These two facts are good reason to choose organic, but I still can't quite rationalize all the fear-mongering about the gene-splicing itself. Someone explain to me why you don't get crazy cancer from just eating other DNA and genetic material from say a fish and start turning into a crazy fish mutant, but when the same genes from that fish are cultivated in a tomato, say, it's all the sudden putting a wrench in the genetic code. I am seriously not for or against, although, my personal intuition is to eat mainly organic food, but I'd like some science to back up the way I feel for a change. Most of the studies I've found on health issues relating GMO are very weak and even the scientists themselves who perform them say they that there is only a weak correlation at best between health issues and GMO. In linguistics, the way that one sound influences all the other sounds around it and in turn is being influenced in it's phonetic environment is called "coarticulation". Example: "I can go" vs. "I can bake" Most people who are unaware of phonology and phonetic principles think, based on orthography, that the nasal sound at the end of the word "can" is the same. This is an erroneous belief. In actuality, the nasal /n/ changes based on the proceeding bilabial (sound using both lips) stop /b/ in "bake" vs. the glottal (sound at the back of the throat) stop (how the air moves through the mouth when the sound is being produced). This means you actually say, "I ca/n/ go" and "I ca/m/ bake". You see? You might believe you are making an N sound, when really you are making an M sound, because your brain and mouth take the easiest way to the sound. I know this sounds far-fetched, but if you've listened to my ramblings long enough, you might as well stick with what I'm about to say. If DNA is a language, then perhaps splicing genes can be akin to coarticulation. Perhaps the issue lies not in what the gene (an allegory for a single sound) says, but how it is being communicated between other genes. If this were the case though, would not the genetic experiments fail to live at all? Would we not have apples that are sweet? Perhaps at once people were afraid that all the apples could become sweet. Maybe we started speaking differently to the divine. Perhaps are language within nature is changing. Is it not always so because of some force or another? It is in constant flux, the genes, animals fighting the code to produce what they love more. It has always been between animals and nature. What makes this current change any different?

  6. Ursula Ahmed

    so why gmo seeds kills the seed which are close, i dont understand, does this people have no kids?There is enough food in this Earth just the distribution is wrong.

  7. Leah Rochelle Bookwalter

    Nico, GMO's have only entered out food supply as recently as the early 90's!!! Prior to that it was "cross pollination" and or cross breeding. A VERY DIFFERENT (and natural) process than GMO's!!!! Do some more research and you will see that they haven't even begun to truly study the effects of GMO's on human organs or DNA to know the ramifications (there simply hasn't been enough time yet). However, the entities that are not linked to Monsanto that have started to study these effects are find some very good proof that the outlook isn't good if we continue to contaminate our earth and our bodies with these Chemicals and Toxins. (and everyone else who reads these comments on sites like these, keep in mind, there our "trolls" out there who post on behalf of Monsanto (and interested parties) to mislead you!!!

  8. Leah Rochelle Bookwalter

    GMO's are being proven and shown in studies to cause infertility ! Isn't that enough!?? Also, causing IBS, Celiacs disease (while we blame Gluten, but more than likely it's genetically modified wheat!) … You can not insert toxins and chemicals into anything that we eat and say it will kill a pest but is safe for us!???

  9. Leah Rochelle Bookwalter

    Nico van Niekerk Come on!!!! REALLY??? Where are you getting your information from? I've had to write several papers on this topic and came away with very different information and facts than you seem to be presenting here!? You claim to not have a vested interest either way, but I somehow doubt that after reading your comments!?? Have you watched Genetic Roulette?

  10. Leah Rochelle Bookwalter

    Again I say…GMO's have only entered out food system since the 1990's!! Prior to that it was NOT GMO's, but rather cross pollination and cross breeding. They are in NO WAY comparable!!! Seeds are being infused with toxic pesticides and you consider that safe to eat??? IN WHAT WORLD! Sadly, people are so misinformed on this topic that MONSANTO continues to be successful in poisoning us as we "debate" the issue!??? GMO's need to stopped…infertility is rampant among girls in their 20's now…coincidental given the introduction into our food supply 24 years ago??????? PLEASE DO MORE LEGITIMATE RESEARCH AND STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE TO BELIEVE GMO's ARE SAFE!? Sadly, I have to wonder if you work for MONSANTO???

  11. Leah Rochelle Bookwalter

    I have absolutely no connections to Monsanto, Leah. I am, however, heavily invested in the truth and combating mob mentalities that almost always cause innocent people irreparable harm.

    I fought very hard to help defeat Prop 37 in California because I took the trouble of actually studying the proposition's provisions. It had very little to do with GMO labeling as was propagated. It was designed to destroy farmers who used GMO seeds, handicapping judges, forbidding them to use discretion, mandating that motions to bankrupt farmers should prevail. If the anti-GMO activists, who introduced Prop 37 to the ballot, had a believable case, why would they handcuff judges to prevent them from using discretion in cases before the court? I concluded that the activists had no basis for their GMO rants and tried to smuggle these destructive mandates into the proposition under the good sounding banner of fair labeling.

    Your scientific information is faulty. Seeds will not grow if they are "infused with toxic pesticides". That's a false statement. What you probably wanted to say is that the genetic strengthening of seeds against pestilence has caused super-bugs to evolve, which require more potent pesticides to kill. That is a legitimate danger for which there is no answer, yet.

    However, that doesn't make GMO the culprit. By inference your argument rallies against the use of any pesticides, because from the first time that pesticides were ever used, pests found a way to build a resistance to them. Flu viruses do the same for the same reason. More potent pesticides were developed, which, in turn, caused pests to build a higher resistance. So the war waged against pestilence to protect crops and prevent famine has always intensified, long before GMO.

    GMO is just another arrow in the quiver of those who strive to increase crop production per acre, increase fruit's shelf-life and to satisfy the ever increasing demand for food in the world. History has shown that unwelcome consequences are bound to follow, but that comes with the territory. It is no reason to falsely demonize the scientific advances that have been made to make the use of pesticides more effective.

    Unfortunately the potency of the pesticides has to take the potency of the bugs into account, as it has been for centuries. Doing away with GMO will not even begin to solve the problem of pesticides and the evolving of super bugs. Just as doing away with flu vaccines will not stop the flu. It would rather cause epidemics as it did in 1918, which made the case for research into disease prevention,which includes genetic manipulation. Common sense demands that we realize it will only intensify the calamities that follow such a restriction.

    Not one single case of human poisoning or birth defect has been produced by the anti-GMO activists, not one. As I said before, if one would pump sufficient quantities of sterile water into laboratory rats it will cause deformities.

    Do a bit of research out of the box as you admonished me to do. Start by avoiding the mob mentality. It usually brings a clearer perspective and it will stand you in good stead.

  12. Katherine Dunsmore
    Then, where is the studies of the anti-GMO activists? Why are they not producing the evidence if you say that "No one is even studying the results of GMO food."?

    Surely, if they were honest in there activism, they would have brought proof to shut the industry down, don't you think?

    Doesn't that mean they know there is nothing to see there? It's just about grabbing unimaginable fortunes from farmers and businesses? Just as the activists who promote the man-made global warming hoax are doing?

  13. Joseph Carlton Robertson

    Nico van Niekerk , by your comment I can tell your totally missing the point. The Point That We Have The Right To Know what is in OUR FOOD!

  14. You should add links to your "proof" of GMO's in relation to infertility. All the links I find just "allege" or say "they may" but none of the links give verifiable proof and none seem to come from accredited sites. I'm not saying you aren't correct, but if you feel you are correct, you should back it up so you can persuade others.

  15. Linda A Reynolds

    Brittany – when they GM our food system in the 1990s they added insect resistant and insect killing DNA into it – also they altered the DNA so the food would last in silos longer – this is NOT what are human body wants or needs for nutrition. I AM THE RESULT – Celiac and 2 auto-immune diseases as a result of my digestive system being destroyed and my immune system being destroyed from ingesting GMO corn, wheat and soy. May I suggest Robyn O' Brien as a starting point as to WHY and what GMO food is and WHY it is destroying the health of many, many people and how the government allowed this without human trial and WHY you can NOT sell GMO food on ANY PLACE ON THE GLOBE but America. There is a difference between making a hybrid and inserting insect killing DNA into your food. As I said Robyn O'Brien has an excellent little video that explains the entire REASON and has many answers for you.

  16. Linda A Reynolds Celiac disease is caused by intolerance to wheat gluten, whether or not it's GMO wheat. It's a known condition that existed long before GMO's were created.

  17. I and many of my peers were raised on "nutritious" and fiberless Wonderbread since the 1950's. It's nothing new that additives and omitted information apply only to today's world.

  18. Nico van Niekerk GMO is not the same thing is selective breeding. We have only been serving kids GMO foods since late 90's. Also in animals the worse damage isn't seen until the 3rd generation, so the idea that we would see all the effects the first generation is flawed.

  19. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall

    Nico van Niekerk Commercial sale of GMO's began in 1994 ,when Calgene first marketed its Flavr Savr delayed ripening tomato. In what fucking universe did GMO's start being fed to the masses 50 years ago? And there has been plenty of studies denoting GMO's cause harm to not only us but the environment as well with the chemicals they use on GM crops. GTFO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  20. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall

    Nico van Niekerk Nobody fall for this old sake of shit, he's trolling. The studies are everywhere Nico, done by independent scientists NOT MONSANTO's scientists, where if anything is where you are getting your con deluded facts from! Now global warming is a hoax? LMAO this guys funny, he knows damn well more than he's letting on, he's just a sociopath trying to get a rise out of everyone with B.S. Nobody is this oblivious, I guess the sky isn't blue either huh? Go spend time with your grandchildren old man, whom we are fighting for their future.

  21. Liz Caralyus

    Nico van Niekerk, we have NOT been eating pesticide-infused seeds for 50 years…we've been eating them since 2003. Of course you're not going to hear about harm to humans as a result of GMOs…you're going to hear about increased cases of cancer, digestive issues, obesity, developmental disorders. And just where do you think these increases are coming from?

  22. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall

    Nico van Niekerk You do not speak the truth, GMO's have only been commercialized on the market since 1994. The truth is, you're a fucking idiot!

  23. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall Well, finally you exposed your intellect. Then show one incident of damage to humans in 20 years, if 50 isn't good enough for you. You still don't have proof. In fact, food alarmists have scared people for centuries, which all turned out to be false. Just as this one is.

  24. Mike Miller

    first of all, those numbers are made up, without citations I had to search myself and found no matching meta analysis matching anything near that, secondly you are confusing "developed" and "diagnosed" we have much better detection now than ever before and like it or not cancer patients have the best outlooks now than in our history.

  25. Kim Blaufuss

    Hmmm, hybrids have been used for years. GM is new and started with the discovery of rDNA in 1974. The first GM food was introduced to us in 1994. GM is not an issue of any natural mutation. We take part of DNA from an animal like bacteria or mice and cram it into the DNA of corn or tomatoes. We are one of the few countries that allow a gmo into our food supply. Just last year alfalfa polluted with Monsanto's new GM alfalfa was rejected as Japan doesn't allow GM in. When the stem cell debate was huge, the biggest concern about US stem cells was that existing lines could not be used for human products as they all contained mice DNA. We really don't know enough about this. My preference would be to let you eat GM until the science becomes sure which should be another 5-7 years.

  26. Katherine Dunsmore And all the claims of deformed rats and other animals so-called because of GMO foods are a result of what? It was because millions of dollars are being spent on studies to try and prove that GMO foods are harmful and to date not a single case could be scientifically proven, or an incident produced by anyone. In spite of all the fear mongering going on.
    That is a fact. If not, produce the evidence. Then, any court would grant you an injunction prohibiting GMO foods.

  27. Suzy Quu: That's your right and privilege to eat what you like. Demonizing a process that is perfectly legitimate to prevent others from exercising their right to choose what they want to do is at the heart of this ridiculous and unfounded campaign against GMO foods.

  28. It's not against God's principles, Betty. God put man in charge of nature to be good custodians and to be enjoyed by us so that we may praise and adore Him, the One from whom all blessings flow. Altering genetics to feed more people and provide longer shelf life for fruit is being good custodians of nature. Otherwise, we could reason that it's wrong to use pesticides, wrong to build shelters against the forces of nature and so on.

  29. Ken Bagwell

    "An attempt to replicate the claims in this paper has been published here: Dickinson B, 2013. The researchers were unable to make the same observations."

    In other words, folks, other researchers have tried to replicate the results/observations of this study that Mike Adams is talking about, and have not been able to do so. I'm against GMOs for a number of reasons, but a single study does not solid evidence make.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?orig_db=PubMed&cmd=Search&term=mir168a+AND+cell+resjour

  30. Nico van Niekerk Yes nick & we all have the right to choose our food & it shouldn't be so hard to find the right food what ever that is & labeling just helps consumers find it. If gmo's are so good, why would corporations be so against labeling their food. If it's that good, they should ware the label with pride, right?

    Atleast I understand that gmo's have nothing to do with peoples or invoriments well being & EVERYTHING to do with money. Do your research & you'll find the correct answers.

  31. Leah Rochelle Bookwalter Then produce evidence or a single case in which any human was harmed in the past 20 years. It's still billions of people who are eating GMO foods by the boat loads every single day all over the world and not one incident? There is a point where you must realize the hype and hyperbole is false, trying to hype you up for another agenda.

  32. Linda A Reynolds And you are certain that GMO foods caused your condition, how?
    Celiac and auto-immune diseases are just as prevalent in countries where GMO foods are not consumed than in those that are. So, it would be interesting to see definitive medical, scientific proof that GMO's are the cause of your condition.

  33. Rizalyn Reyes I disagree, because its sophistication went through several improvements over 50 years. It doesn't mean that scientists suddenly bumped into GMO in the 90's. It was the product of years of study, testing, and application, just as science works. But, make it 20 years, then, if it will make you happy. You still cannot cite a single incident in the past 20 years.

  34. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall Well, for starters, GMO didn't just happen in 1994. It was the product of years of scientific research, study and application working its way towards GMO. It's important to know that because the breakthrough rests upon prior knowledge and experience, in which there is not a single incident that was caused by this process. And neither is there a single incident or any scientific evidence that it did so in past 20 years during which billions of people consumed these foods. One would've thought that perhaps one person could scientifically be linked to GMO foods.
    What plenty of studies are you referring to, Aidan? The studies that are marred by opinions and "perhaps", "could", and "might" when they draw their conclusions? Bring a scientific study that's definitive and then we can talk. If you can cut down on your foul language, that is. It's not a good filler.

  35. Kim Blaufuss

    Nico van Niekerk the FDA approves GMO foods and the first was approved in 1994. So, it's only been 20 years. As examples, bayonet was approved by the FDA in 1994 and recalled in 2006 as it could cause death. Darvocet was approved in 1957 and recalled in 2010 as it was found to cause death. Things take time to determine safety. It is best to remember that our insatiable desire to question is what made us one of the strongest countries in the world.

  36. Kim Blaufuss

    Nico van Niekerk people are not demonizing a process. Here in the US, Monsanto has taken away our right to choose. I grew up in Minnesota and was able to watch farmers forced to purchase Monsanto seeds because their seeds polluted everyone's fields. I would like the choice to eat non GMO food. If you support choice than you would also support overturning legal rulings that has allowed Monsanto to infest other fields.

  37. Kim Blaufuss

    Well, you'll be happy to know that Monsanto is one of the biggest producers of pesticides and neonicotinides in pesticides are being identified as the culprit in mass killing off of honey bees in the US. The pesticide lowers the immune system of the bee making them susceptible to key diseases. Last year, bee keepers in Washington estimated.that 75 percent of the bee keepers lost 100 percent of their hives due to the fungicide used on berries.

  38. Linda A Reynolds

    Nico van Niekerk I don't have the kind of proof you want but the start of my problems began in the mid 1990s and I am sure that GMOs were not the main cause but my body saw the "new" frankenfood as foreign and it triggered serious auto-immune diseases and gastro-intestinal problems. It wasn't until I totally removed them from my diet that my healing began. I cannot prove that they caused it but I am 100% sure that ingesting them changed something that made these diseases come to the forefront and when GMOs were removed – I started to heal – whenever a GMO is re-introduced 4 auto-immune diseases at once flairs up on me and when it's removed I heal. I have an integretive medical Dr., a Gastroenterologist and a Rheumatologist who has witnessed and documented this journey. GMO fed meat has the same effect on me. I am my proof. if you would like to eat food that is not even allowed in other countries then, by all means, be my guest. I can not and will not. It took me a long time to fight back and get my gut to heal and I KNOW the truth. I eat NO GMos nor do I eat grain, meat from CAFOs, soy, any of those oils like corn, canola and cottonseed. Canola oil was an industrial lubricant before they decided to make it a so called healthy food. Nope … I will stick to whole, organic foods TUVM.

  39. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall

    Nico van Niekerk This is what is fundamentally wrong with your logic, this company has poisoned the world with the most notorious chemicals ever synthesized by mankind, and yet was deemed "safe" during the time of there making, the worst of them, Agent orange, PCB's, Dioxin, all of which caused deformities, diseases, and DEATH. Now MONSANTO is making GMO's, those are deemed "safe", not willing to label their food, and force farmers to concede to using GMO with the malicious seed patents MONSANTO has to sue any farmers who have had cross crop contamination through pollen. Then they lie about it and say they don't sue farmers, and we should all take comfort in the idea! Then here's you: you want to eat their food simply because the evidence that's already out there isn't good enough for you, loss of hindsight over the years Nico? Or are you just that gullible when MONSANTO says their products are safe?

    No Nico 50 years is not good enough for me, because that would make me a revisionist! You are twisting facts to support your opinion, GMO's were first commercialized on the market in 1994, that isn't up for debate, that's a fact so SHUT UP!

    If your "evidence" to suggest the safety for consumption of GMO's just doesn't exist, that's a fallacy! There are all sorts of independent scientists conducting research on GMO consumption, plenty of articles, plenty of studies, MONSANTO is actually under heavy assault from the scientific community on the contrary. No reviews on the dangers of GMO's however are from the FDA, that's because people in the FDA work for MONSANTO! So of coarse you aren't going to hear about it when the FDA makes favourable decisions for MONSANTO. Here's an article on this scam:

    http://www.getholistichealth.com/39412/why-is-a-former-monsanto-vice-president-running-the-fda/

    Here's an article on why MONSANTO's "science" isn't living up to it's expectations.

    http://ecowatch.com/2014/02/28/monsantos-science-doesnt-add-up/

    Here's a site where you can educate yourself about the matter on a further intellectual level, and much more enlightened manner. But please do take the time to do your research before you open your mouth again, instead of manipulating facts to support your opinion like a total douche bag! Thanks :)

  40. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall You make so many assertions, such as the FDA works for Monsanto. If you are sure about that why don't you report them to the FBI? It's a felony for a government worker to be bribed into benefiting the subjects of their investigations. Or, better yet, why didn't anyone else call the FBI onto the FDA? Are the folks at the FBI also working for Monsanto?
    Yelling at me to "shut up" just further exposes your rants as nothing else but rants because you are unable to provide proof or evidence of a single human being that was harmed (or deformed) by GMO foods in the last 20 years, then. Pick any period you like. Just produce one piece of evidence. These studies you cite all are qualified with opinions and words like "might" "could" and "perhaps". That's not evidence in the real world. That's fear-mongering that apparently works on people who think the way you do. It does not work on courts, science, and rational people, that is clear.
    You obviously have a problem understanding what I am saying. You admit that GMO was COMMERCIALIZED in 1994. Scientists didn't just stumble on GMO science in 1994. It was the product of decades of study, trials, modification and more tests before it could be a viable procedure — and patentable. It is accurate to refer to GMO foods as a process for 50 years, but even if I should grant you 1994, you are still unable to show cause.
    Oh, and by the way. I don't shut up for irrational people. You can count on that.

  41. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall You make so many assertions, such as the FDA works for Monsanto. If you are sure about that why don't you report them to the FBI? It's a felony for a government worker to be bribed into benefiting the subjects of their investigations. Or, better yet, why didn't anyone else call the FBI onto the FDA? Are the folks at the FBI also working for Monsanto?
    Yelling at me to "shut up" just further exposes your rants as nothing else but rants because you are unable to provide proof or evidence of a single human being that was harmed (or deformed) by GMO foods in the last 20 years, then. Pick any period you like. Just produce one piece of evidence. These studies you cite all are qualified with opinions and words like "might" "could" and "perhaps". That's not evidence in the real world. That's fear-mongering that apparently works on people who think the way you do. It does not work on courts, science, and rational people, that is clear.
    You obviously have a problem understanding what I am saying. You admit that GMO was COMMERCIALIZED in 1994. Scientists didn't just stumble on GMO science in 1994. It was the product of decades of study, trials, modification and more tests before it could be a viable procedure — and patentable. It is accurate to refer to GMO foods as a process for 50 years, but even if I should grant you 1994, you are still unable to show cause.
    Oh, and by the way. I don't shut up for irrational people. You can count on that.

  42. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall

    How can it be our choice if MONSANTO refuses to label GMO food? We don't have a choice.

  43. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall

    Nico van Niekerk Nico van Niekerk Former MONSANTO vice president Michael R. Taylor IS running the FDA Nico, how is that an assertion? Apparently you did not read the links I have provided for you. Nico, this is the age of the corporatocracy, you can buy politicians now. Before Obama was elected he promised he would label GMO foods, once he got elected he proclaimed to the world that the FDA assured him there was nothing to worry about, and did not follow through with his promise. Where have you been? Civil servents do not represent the will of the people any more, you think the FBI a government program is going to investigate on government corruption? The only irrational behavior here is your logic, the world isn't what you think it is.

    Of coarse GMO technology was being studied before 1994, what do you think MONSANTO just magically pulled GMO's out of their ass? That doesn't mean people have been eating them for 50 years Nico! And if you want to make up lies about that, then it is indeed time for you to shut up on this particular note.

    The studies are not being conducted on humans, but on animals! Deformitites, tumors, dieseases, possible links to kidney failure, etc. GMO's have been banned, or labeled in many countries all around the world Nico, why do you think that is? Do you think it's rational to assume governments are passing bills to ban GMO's on a hunch? Read this my dear old chap, I want to know what you have to say.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/doctors-avoid-genetically-modified-food-and-gmos

    What is irrational Nico, is that I have just given you a brief history of MONSANTO whom have lied, poisoned, and killed people, and the environment with their products. Everything MONSANTO has declared safe in the past, is now unsafe and deadly. It doesn't take very much ingeniuty to see why MONSANTO can't be trusted when they say GMO's are safe. It would be most irrational to intrust your health, and food to this corporation.

    If you think GMO's are safe, based off on your inocent, good trusting nature, fine. MONSANTO is going to take control of the worlds food supply, and when it does lets say hypothetically speaking Nico, you're wrong. And the consequences of this would not much differ from the other corporate atrocities MONSANTO has been responcible for in the past. Can you even comprehend what the implications of this would mean for humanity?

    You can refute GMO's are dangerous to humans Nico, but look at what the round up ready pesticides are doing to our planet, you cannot however, refute the damage to the environment, and with the way it's going we don't have to debate the direct affects GMO's will have on humanity through consumption, because it will be irrelevant when bees, butterflys, and other pollinators completely die off. If the bees go extinct, we will too.

  44. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall Oh, I forgot, Elvis is running for president in 2016 if the Martians don't get them.
    You just repeat the same theories, fear mongering and flights of fear over and over again still not able to cite a single human that was harmed by GMO foods.
    We beat Prop 37 in California, not because of the labeling issue, but because of the huge overreach of the judiciary that was proposed in the bill. If the GMO case is that strong, why was it necessary to add such radical language into the bill? Because you have been suckered into a hoax, to which you probably also contribute money, but at least your intellect and efforts are going towards that cause.
    I am not shutting up, I am tired, and saddened, to see an intelligent person so consumed by so many things that are not so, and expressing them over and over again with what appears to be conviction, just with different words.
    At some stage in your life you should face facts, whether you like them or not. Such as that the planet cannot be destroyed by humans, not that they should, but even should they try. Your opinion of nature smacks of arrogance and will, eventually be the cause of more harm than good.
    Now I am eagerly waiting for you to go down the well expected route that I am in favor of harming nature. Quite the contrary, I am a huge proponent of preservation and protecting it. But, I don't lend an ear to willful ignorance either because it usually only results in getting good-faith people to part with their money. Like I guess you are, too.
    It's a hoax and all you cited was confirming that.

  45. Teneal Davidson

    The study is discussing the transfer of microRNA (miRNA) which is not DNA but contains information that can affect the functioning of cells. RNA is kind of the evolutionary precursor to DNA and is mostly found in our mitochondria (energy-producing components in cells) and in viruses and bacteria. When we contract a virus it takes over our cells using it's RNA to replicate more viruses and infect our bodies.

    The miRNA is being carried by high-density lipoproteins (HDL) through the gut and into the bloodstream. So, in this way, the miRNA survives the digestion process and can be absorbed through endothelial cells (the outer cells of blood and lymphatic vessels) and then make it's way to organs. It's not a rapid process but neither is the formation of cancer… but cancer rates are climbing higher every year.

  46. Teneal Davidson RNA is not strictly, or most likely, found in the mitochondria. It is found all over animal cells. RNA is found in all cells. Viruses dont strictly contain RNA, as there are enveloped/RNA, nonenveloped/RNA, enveloped/DNA, nonenveloped/DNA, enveloped/double-stranded RNA, nonenveloped/double-stranded RNA, enveloped/single-stranded DNA, nonenveloped/single-stranded DNA viruses in the world. I really don't see your point regarding transcription. It appears you just looked at a few wikipedia pages and posted that.

    Also, what difference does it make when "natural" or non-GMO food is ingested, vs. when you ingest GMO foods? None, your body undergoes the same exact process. Simply because "different" RNA is being ingested, doesnt mean that it will cause cancer any more than anything else you eat that you call "natural".

    Yes, miRNA plays a role in cancer causation as it inhibits protein synthesis. Yes, miRNA survives digestion. Yes, miRNA is in GMOs. The thing you dont realize is that this is also in ALL CELLS. Everything you eat has them. They all play the same exact role. If you think that miRNAs are so dangerous to ingest, the only way to solve any sort of problem would be to include all foods approved for resale in a database of miRNAs that certain foods contain. Paranoia to the max.

    There already is a database available for researchers (open-source I believe) that has many of these. But to restrict foods with specific miRNAs is beyond ridiculous, to the point that it would be inefficient, but also greatly unnecessary at this point in time. Maybe when we all live to be 150, we will do so. Until then, there is no need to worry about GMOs because they are exactly the same as anything else.

  47. I find it hilarious that you actually believe this guy. The study he was talking about had NOTHING to do with GMOs. Simply a discovery regarding gene flow, which we already knew about. Monsanto doesn't know shit about it honestly, it just happens to be the fact that you are clearly uneducated on the topic of biology that you think the "smart" people in the world are just trying to kill you, so you say "oh they know about it". No, they did not, they are just smart enough to know that changing an organisms genome won't do shit to a person if you do it correctly. Believe me when I say this, they could kill you if they really wanted to, very easily. Any (bio)chemist could.

  48. I find it hilarious that you actually believe this guy. The study he was talking about had NOTHING to do with GMOs. Simply a discovery regarding gene flow, which we already knew about. Monsanto doesn't know shit about it honestly, it just happens to be the fact that you are clearly uneducated on the topic of biology that you think the "smart" people in the world are just trying to kill you, so you say "oh they know about it". No, they did not, they are just smart enough to know that changing an organisms genome won't do shit to a person if you do it correctly. Believe me when I say this, they could kill you if they really wanted to, very easily. Any (bio)chemist could.

  49. "We dont understand it so we dont want it Evil corporations are just trying to kill us Bill Gates is a eugenist with his 'life saving vaccines' he is just trying to depolulate the earth of poor people so he can build a house over the entire continent of africa greedy greedy many that 'donates' billions he uses the money to kill all of us"

  50. "We dont understand it so we dont want it Evil corporations are just trying to kill us Bill Gates is a eugenist with his 'life saving vaccines' he is just trying to depolulate the earth of poor people so he can build a house over the entire continent of africa greedy greedy many that 'donates' billions he uses the money to kill all of us"

  51. Paula DelaFaria

    Peter Perrotta~Blah, blah, blah,….you have no idea what my educational level is and I will reserve the tongue lashing that you deserve for someone more worthy of my keystrokes. A LARGE amount of research would do you worlds of good!!!

  52. Paula DelaFaria If you are so damn smart, tell me how gene flow affects biodiversity. If you have any sort of intellect, you should be able to provide a decent answer. Might take you a few days to think hard enough about it.

    I write about GMOs all the time. I am the designated journal analyst for my microbiology course. I find flawed conclusions and horrible statistical data analyses all the.

    I'm still waiting for ANY evidence that supports your illogical reasoning. Use reputable sources ONLY. It kills me when I find an article that would make my life so much easier, only to analyze it and see that its results were skewed by even the most minute detail. So please, take the same procedure and never jump to an article just because it supports your moronic beliefs, such as the one in the video.

    Actually, I shouldn't even say that about the article shown here. It was conducted well, and the results are rather interesting to say the least. However, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH GMOS. If you eat an "organic" apple, the miRNAs survive digestion, just as the GMO miRNAs survive it. You are out of your god damn mind, not to mention the lack of common sense, if you think that the two are significantly dangerous.

    EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE That is how you debate. Show some sort of logic, I'm beginning to believe that you are the biggest tard that walked the earth.

  53. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall

    Nico van Niekerk I just illuminated the corruption entangled within MONSANTO and the FDA, then you dismiss it entirely adding an arrogant conspiracy theorist remark as desperate attempt to make my arguments a joke. Lovely. However I'm not going to be a condescending, chronic fuck tard with your points like you do mine, please do expand on this Prop 37 in California, and tell me more about this bill.

    Fear mongering Nico? Are you refuting that MONSANTO is responsible for poisoning hundreds of thousands of people through Agent Orange, PCB's, and Dioxin? Is that some crack pot conspiracy theory that conveniently involves countless deformities, death, suffering, and severe damages to the environment? These are facts, sorry to burst your naive bubble sweet heart, corruption is not a conspiracy. The GMO experiments conducted on lab rats showed deformities and disease occur in the 3rd generations, since we've only just been eating them in 1994, then logic would denote we will experience the effects of GMO's when I have grandchildren. Should we wait for the consequences of our actions instead of preventing the problem?

    Oh by the way, I love how you argue people have a right to choose what they eat, yet MONSANTO believes it's none of the consumers business, which is a contradiction to your argument as we don't even have the luxury of choice in this context. Otherwise MONSANTO would have no problem labelling GMO's. This is ultimately a crime against humanity, for everyone should have a right to know what they're eating. But this is ok with you, isn't it?

    Do you also refute that pesticides are a direct cause of the huge drops in bee population? Aren't there laws these days prohibiting the use of pesticides for this very reason? Wouldn't round up ready pesticides which are deemed the most notorious pesticides to be used today fall into this category? Or is this some crack pot theory too?

    Are you also ok with MONSANTO suing any farmers who grow organic but have had their natural crops contaminated with a GMO farmers crop, through cross crop pollination? Then having the audacity to state on the MONSANTO website they do not sue farmers for this reason, disregarding the countless court cases based on the unauthorized use of their patented seeds.

    The analogy of this are 2 house owners that own 2 white houses, and one decides to spray purple paint on their house, but some of that purple paint lands on the other white house, then that person suing them for "stealing" their purple paint. Does this make sense, this is ok to you?

  54. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall

    Nico van Niekerk I just illuminated the corruption entangled within MONSANTO and the FDA, then you dismiss it entirely adding an arrogant conspiracy theorist remark as desperate attempt to make my arguments a joke. Lovely. However I'm not going to be a condescending, chronic fuck tard with your points like you do mine, please do expand on this Prop 37 in California, and tell me more about this bill.

    Fear mongering Nico? Are you refuting that MONSANTO is responsible for poisoning hundreds of thousands of people through Agent Orange, PCB's, and Dioxin? Is that some crack pot conspiracy theory that conveniently involves countless deformities, death, suffering, and severe damages to the environment? These are facts, sorry to burst your naive bubble sweet heart, corruption is not a conspiracy. The GMO experiments conducted on lab rats showed deformities and disease occur in the 3rd generations, since we've only just been eating them in 1994, then logic would denote we will experience the effects of GMO's when I have grandchildren. Should we wait for the consequences of our actions instead of preventing the problem?

    Oh by the way, I love how you argue people have a right to choose what they eat, yet MONSANTO believes it's none of the consumers business, which is a contradiction to your argument as we don't even have the luxury of choice in this context. Otherwise MONSANTO would have no problem labelling GMO's. This is ultimately a crime against humanity, for everyone should have a right to know what they're eating. But this is ok with you, isn't it?

    Do you also refute that pesticides are a direct cause of the huge drops in bee population? Aren't there laws these days prohibiting the use of pesticides for this very reason? Wouldn't round up ready pesticides which are deemed the most notorious pesticides to be used today fall into this category? Or is this some crack pot theory too?

    Are you also ok with MONSANTO suing any farmers who grow organic but have had their natural crops contaminated with a GMO farmers crop, through cross crop pollination? Then having the audacity to state on the MONSANTO website they do not sue farmers for this reason, disregarding the countless court cases based on the unauthorized use of their patented seeds.

    The analogy of this are 2 house owners that own 2 white houses, and one decides to spray purple paint on their house, but some of that purple paint lands on the other white house, then that person suing them for "stealing" their purple paint. Does this make sense, this is ok to you?

  55. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall

    Nico van Niekerk
    No Nico I have not funded anti MONSANTO people, I have attended protests and spread awareness. But even if I did, so what? Are you saying if I fund Greenpeace so they can purchase equipment to fight for the environment, would make me a fool? Is Greenpeace creating hoaxes to get people to give donations? Do the Sea Shepard's fall into this category too? I'm pretty sure the donations that go to MONSANTO activist groups go towards spreading awareness and purchasing materials, and organizing rallies as they do annually.

    Your arrogance is distasteful Nico, you believe activist programs scam people but god forbid anyone suggest a notorious, destructive, con deluded, lying corporation like MONSANTO is hurting anyone.

    If there's any arrogance and ignorance in this debate, it's coming from you.

  56. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall And all this you cite without a single shred of proof? Overfeed lab rats distilled water would also cause deformities.
    Your reference to labeling of GMO foods has been addressed, but it appears as if you are reading selectively only. I am all for accurate labeling, but Prop 37 had nothing to do with labeling: its main petition was that the courts compel any farmer accused by anyone to fund the research of mere accusations, frivolous or not. My question is simple: if the GMO-ban lobby like yourself had truth on your side, why skew the Proposition?
    Again, all your doom prophecies are based on mere speculation. You got caught up in all these propaganda which causes you to wander around aimlessly in search of a coherent thought, from corruption in the FDA, CIA, FBI, without a single shred of evidence, to Greenpeace; from patent violation to organic food, which is another hoax.
    In the light of a myriad of food hoaxes in history, perpetrated on an unsuspecting public costing them a fortune and scaring them into panic, I'll oppose speculation on this matter, too, until there is proof that it has credibility.
    There are just too many assertions that are just patently absurd. And, yes, those are just what they are: assertions.

  57. Wigwamman Wigwam I disagree that there are more people who suffer from the ailments you cite, but even if I should grant your assertion, show the scientific proof that these increases are caused by GMO foods. There is none.

  58. Leah Rochelle Bookwalter Then publish your papers here, let's see for ourselves. I haven't seen your work, but I am willing to venture a guess that you have not drawn a single definitive conclusion as not a single reputable scientist could have done thus far. It's mere speculation and conjecture.

  59. Eric Hicke Well, after sifting through your poor use of language, it is obvious that the want in critical thinking is not on my part but yours. Not a single independent study links "rises in cancer and infertility in mammals" to GMO foods.

  60. Eric Hicke Well, after sifting through your poor use of language, it is obvious that the want in critical thinking is not on my part but yours. Not a single independent study links "rises in cancer and infertility in mammals" to GMO foods.

  61. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall

    Nico van Niekerk I sent you links, you disregarded them. I even gave you proof people from MONSANTO are being appointed to the FDA, but that's bogus too huh?

    You still fail to touch base on many of my points, which I have kept factual, and lucid. The experiments on the lab rats are also in the links I have provided.

    Are you one of those people who still think sodium fluoride cleans your teeth? I dare you to object and say it does lol I bet you were one of those "it's a hoax" guys when doctors were first saying cigarettes cause cancer, because you know, the tobacco company also denied that too at the time, and you seem to like big dirty corporations.

    You lay out the exact same argument yourself, "You cannot prove GMO's are unsafe", yet I have explained thoroughly through logic, and reason! Being skeptically of MONSANTO's claims is rational, trusting them with your food is foolish. Any how you cannot prove that GMO food is safe either, same bloody concept so it all boils down to philosophy which you don't seem to be doing very well with, taking into account I have made far more points on the matter than you have, very compelling ones which you seem to ignore.

    Hey is life itself a hoax? LMAO

  62. Aidan Carreiro Myshrall

    Nico van Niekerk I don't know enough to comment on the anti MONSANTO petition, or prop 37. However I would like some evidence as to why all of this is a hoax, considering even organic food is now a hoax too, lets add global warming to the various hoax too, I would much like to know Nico, what isn't a hoax, please do tell. And still would very much like to destroy you on the subject on sodium fluoride, so hurry up and tell me if it cleans our teeth or not, I find this all so very amusing! lol

Leave a Comment