http://gmo-awareness.com/all-about-gmos/gmo-risks/"..In April 2013, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 1 out of every 20 children has developed food allergies since the late 1990s; meanwhile a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics has seen incidences as high as 1 out of every 12 children. Scientists are speculating that by introducing a foreign gene into a plant, it may be creating a new allergen or allergic response in susceptible individuals. Especially now that we know these foreign genes do not “break apart†during the digestion process. Unfortunately, testing of GM foods to avoid the possibility of harm to consumers with food allergies has not been done. Labeling of GM foods and food that contains GM products has likewise not been done. When individual states try to pass labeling initiatives, Monsanto sues them back into silence. Just ask Vermont and Connecticut… Parallel Increase in Type 2 Diabetes Over the past seven years, increasing studies are documenting the direct connection between pesticides and a huge spike (as much as 250%) in diabetes. The first study was reported back in 2005 by Japanese scientists, and again in 2008 by the National Institutes of Health; another study by the University of Cambridge corroborated the findings; as did yet another study performed by Stanford University. By contrast, another study (last paragraph in the article) bolsters the argument: the association between obesity and diabetes was absent in people with low concentrations of pesticides in their blood. Essentially, individuals were more at risk of diabetes if they were thin, with high blood-levels of pesticides, than if they were overweight with low levels of pesticides. Parallel Increase in Autism In addition to allergies, another insidious problem is on the rise in our nation's children: autism. During the same time period corresponding to the prevalence of GMOs in our processed food - from 1997 to 2008 - the Pediatrics Journal reports a 250% increase in the prevalence of autism in American children - one out of 91 children are now diagnosed with autism. Once again, there have been no studies linking GMOs to developmental diseases (since studies of GMOs are not happening in the U.S.; see “Emerging Health Risks in Human Studies†below). However, there have been multiple reports from doctors, several food-related studies, countless autism websites, specific autism diet websites and Facebook pages, a number of books, as well as widespread reports from parents - all of which link diet to autism as “suggested evidence that a dietary theory may be true.†Coincidentally (or not), the main dietary culprits reported for autism include soy (the #1 GMO crop), milk (much of which still contains rBGH hormone), food starches (most of which are made from GMO corn), and gluten in all of its forms. Despite the mounting reports, one recent study claims there is no such diet corollary. More studies are now underway. Are all these a coincidence? You decide. 3. ECONOMIC CONCERNS Agriculture Subsidies for Food That Makes us Sick More than 60 percent of all deaths in the U.S. are from diseases linked to unhealthful saturated fat and a cholesterol laden diet: heart disease, cancer, stroke, liver disease, and high blood pressure. The annual medical cost of obesity reached $147 billion in 2008. The Medicare and Medicaid spending for obesity-related conditions now totals $61 billion per year. Heart disease costs $189.4 billion per year and that cost is expected to triple by 2030. Cancer costs $102.8 billion per year. Diabetes costs $128.1 billion annually. So why is Congress delegating billions of taxpayer dollars to boost the production of the most unhealthy food - GMO meat, hormone-laced dairy, and sweeteners for processed food - while fruits and vegetables receive almost none? Especially when the beneficiaries of agricultural subsidies (creatively named ‘The Farm Bill') are the very same corporations that promote GMO crops and convert these crops into high fructose corn syrup, and GMO feed for the cows and pigs who end up in a McDonald's wrapper, rather than the organic farmers who are raising more healthy food, healthy soil, and a healthier environment. Corporate Profits Outweigh Public Health Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process. Agri-biotech companies (and their shareholders) have a vested interest in maximizing profits on their investment by conserving expenses. Without any requirements from the FDA, they have no reason to invest money on pre-market human health safety studies. Corporate Patents Control Farming All of the new genetically engineered plant technologies and resulting GM plants and seeds have been patented. Patented seeds cost more, and these costs are controlled by corporations focused on maximizing profits. As a result, farmers in the US who agreed to a “better future through GMO crops†and signed contracts with Monsanto must pay royalty fees, licensing fees, and trade fees in addition to the higher cost of GMO seeds they are then required to plant on their farm. And it's not a one-time cost. The generations-old practice of cleaning and saving a portion of seeds from this year's crop to be replanted next year? No longer possible… that's considered illegal patent infringement in Monsanto's contract. Farmers are required to buy fresh seed every single year, and new laws against “seed cleaning†businesses are causing these service providers to go out of business - but not before Monsanto obtains their account records in order to track down farmers who are still cleaning and saving seeds. And if Monsanto seeds happen to contaminate a neighboring farmer's field? The farmer pays for clean up. It's not Monsanto's fault. Ever."
A lot more people are waking up and realizing how bad GMO food is. So many diseases are caused by GMO foods
"There haven't been nearly enough tests on GMOs.. but we know they are bad." Bout sums up most GMO arguments.
No, people are waking up and realizing that studies conducted on GMOs have either not conclusively proven to have any overtly negative impact on human health, and that studies that DO say that are always factually inaccurate, whether it be something stupid within the study or something being purposeful misleading. You really do believe way too many things you can't prove, bro.
There's literally no evidence that GMO crops have had any kind of negative impact on human health at all.
http://www.gmoseralini.org/research-papers/ I'm not interested at all in getting into a discussion about this. Read, or don't...
I don't think you read tthe op Many if these are legitimate concerns and mmore than mere correlation -Yuri
on the contrary The very first paragraph about allergies is spot on. There are even documented cases of doctors who cured corn allergies by switching patients off gmo corn -Yuri
Its actually really obvious.... Genetically modifying food involves adding genes to a plant that came from another plant. These genes obviously code for certain proteins. These genes come from plants that have certain disease and pest resistances but are not eaten by humans for various reasons. It was already suggested by doctors before gmos became cash crops that there was allergy potential. Obviously changing the proteins in the plants will affect allergies. And of coarse after gmos came out reports of allergies to corn soy and cotton sky rocket. But correlation doesn't equal causation. Keep telling yourself that. I became highly allergic to corn and soy in the years following the boom in gmo sales. I am living proof. -Yuri
"In June 2014, the original study was republished in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe.The editor said that the paper was republished without further scientific peer review, "because this had already been conducted by Food and Chemical Toxicology, and had concluded there had been no fraud nor misrepresentation". The republication renewed the controversy, but now with additional controversy over the behavior of the editors of both journals. In July 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer published a monograph on glyphosate, which contained an evaluation of the Séralini paper as republished in June 2014 and the conclusion, that the study “was inadequate for evaluation because the number of animals per group was small, the histopathological description of tumours was poor, and incidences of tumours for individual animals were not provided.†(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Séralini_affair...) The source is too poor to conclude this much about GMO's. There is overwhelming evidence against the notion that GMO's are harmful.
"Sponsored by NaturalNews". That's like saying "The Nazis are actually good people, Joseph Goebbels told me".
seems like you didn't read the OP. it really is all just pure, unfiltered correlation. in fact, the article explicitly asks its readers, "Are all these a coincidence? You decide." You shouldnt have to "decide" if the data and the drawn conclusions are unambiguous. That is the beauty of science. Can you link this peer-reviewed study? EDIT: someone recently posted on here a correlation between increased organic food usage and increased autism (forgot who it was). So organic food causes autism of course. And a decrease in leaded paint and leaded gasoline usage is correlated with the same increase in autism. So lead probably cures autism. And the same can be said about the decline in asbestos usage. Lead and asbestos in your non-organic Wheaties every day! Man i love correlation statistics!
Exactly, so much of the GMO debate is just pure fear-mongering and sensationalism. There have been studies showing GMO foods are not dangerous (https://www.animalsciencepublications.org/publicat...), but let's ignore those because GMO BAD GMO SCARY OH NO!
That's what frustrates me about this debate. The preponderance of evidence is very clear, GMOs on the whole are quite safe and very useful technology. It's a science we should be pursuing and perfecting, rather than shunning as evil out of fear.
I remember when scientist said the study they did proved weed causes brain damage, So yeah be on board these guys know their shit..
dood its a fact plain as day that people are allergic tto gmo foods. You dont nneed a peer reviewed study ifs something you can see just by looking -Yuri
No, it isn't. There has only been speculation from people who claimed to become healthier after cutting out GMO foods.. which, if anything, is more likely in their head. As for a peer reviewed scientific source.. there are no scientific studies that prove GMO foods increase allergies. They test all proteins for allergic reaction potential.. and there is minimal potential. Don't you think if it were clear as day, there would be some sort of scientific research that backs up the claim? Also, you say you cut out GMO foods.. mind giving us a semi detailed description of your current diet? Cause unless you grow all your own food and avoid all processed foods.. you're probably still getting GMO corn and soy.