Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
102. It's only a bunch of gobbledygook if you don't understand basic biology...
Sun Mar 15, 2015, 12:48 AM
Mar 2015

… and in fairness, when you don't understand biology, you tend to be distrustful of what falls outside your own common sense.

Look, metabolism isn't an easy subject. I say that as someone who has practiced as a registered and licensed respiratory therapist for 40 years. Having passed all my courses in biology, physiology, pathophysiology and managing patients on the respiratory end, this demands an understanding of metabolic pathways. IOW, how things break down from the time you ingest it from your mouth and it exits out the other end.

I found a rather simple map to what the literature discusses below. This is what's been scientifically studied for years, especially since large agribusiness started taking over the family farms in this country.




You didn't respond to my question regarding evidence of no harm associated with genetically modified organisms, so you might want to consider evidence showing some bad side effect of it. If you cannot "digest" the following information, I suggest you get some kids from the local high school biology class to sit down and explain the following. Then, maybe you'll start to make connections…

1. Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood
Research from Canada (the first of its kind) has successfully identified the presence of pesticides -associated with genetically modified foods in maternal, fetal and non-pregnant women’s blood. They also found the presence of Monsanto’s Bt toxin. The study was published in the Journal Reproductive Toxicology in 2011.

“Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed, particularly those using the placental transfer approach. Thus, our present results will provide baseline data for future studies exploring a new area of research relating to nutrition, toxicology and reproduction in women. Today, obstetric-gynecological disorders that are associated with environmental chemicals are not known. Thus, knowing the actual concentration of genetically modified foods in humans constitutes a cornerstone in the advancement of research in this area.”
The study used blood samples from thirty pregnant women and thirty non-pregnant women. The study also pointed out that the fetus is considered to be highly susceptible to the adverse affects of xenobiotics (foreign chemical substance found within an organism that is not naturally produced.) This is why the study emphasizes that knowing more about GMOs is crucial, because environmental agents could disrupt the biological events that are required to ensure normal growth and development.


2. DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them
In a new study published in the peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS), researchers emphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism.
In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The study was based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies. PLOS is an open access, well respected peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers primary research from disciplines within science and medicine. It’s great to see this study published in it, confirming what many have been suspected for years.

“Our bloodstream is considered to be an environment well separated from the outside world and the digestive tract. According to the standard paradigm large macromolecules consumed with food cannot pass directly to the circulatory system. During digestion proteins and DNA are thought to be degraded into small constituents, amino acids and nucleic acids, respectively, and then absorbed by a complex active process and distributed to various parts of the body through the circulation system. Here, based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies, we report evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and through an unknown mechanism enter the human circulation system. In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The plant DNA concentration shows a surprisingly precise log-normal distribution in the plasma samples while non-plasma (cord blood) control sample was found to be free of plant DNA.”


This still doesn’t mean that GMOs can enter into our cells, but given the fact GMOs have been linked to cancer (later in this article) it is safe to assume it is indeed a possibility. The bottom line is that we don’t know, and this study demonstrates another cause for concern.

3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans
This study was recently released by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and uses data from the US department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency, medical journal reviews as well as other independent research. The authors relate GM foods to five conditions that may either trigger or exacerbate gluten-related disorders, including the autoimmune disorder, Celiac Disease:

Intestinal permeability
Imbalanced gut bacteria
Immune activation and allergic response
Impaired digestion
Damage to the intestinal wall


The Institute for Responsible technology is a world leader in educating policy makers and the public about GMO foods and crops. The institute reports and investigates on the impact GM foods can have on health, environment, agriculture and more.

4. Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors
In November 2012, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University.

It was a very significant study, which obviously looks bad for the big bio tech companies like Monsanto, being the first and only long term study under controlled conditions examining the possible effects of a diet of GMO maize treated with Monsanto roundup herbicide.

This study has since been retracted, which is odd, because the journal it was published in is a very well known, reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. In order for a study to be published here it has to go through a rigorous review process.

It’s also important to note that hundreds of scientists from around the world have condemned the retraction of the study. This study was done by experts, and a correlation between GMOs and these tumors can’t be denied, something happened.


The multiple criticisms of the study have also been answered by the team of researchers that conducted the study.

GM Crop Production is Lowering US Yields and Increasing Pesticide Use

5. Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors
A study is published in the US National Library of Medicine (4) and will soon be published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. Several recent studies showed glyphosate’s potential to be an endocrine disruptor. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the hormone system in mammals. These disruptors can cause developmental disorders, birth defects and cancer tumors.

Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer. We found that glyphosate exhibited a weaker estrogenic activity than estradiol. Furthermore, this study demonstrated the additive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genisein which implied that the use of contaminated soybean products as dietary supplements may pose a risk of breast cancer because of their potential additive estrogenicity.
Researchers also determined that Monsanto’s roundup is considered an “xenoestrogen,” which is a foreign estrogen that mimics real estrogen in our bodies. This can cause a number of problems that include an increased risk of various cancers, early onset of puberty, thyroid issues, infertility and more.


6. Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects
A group of scientists put together a comprehensive review of existing data that shows how European regulators have known that Monsanto’s glyphosate causes a number of birth malformations since at least 2002. Regulators misled the public about glyphosate’s safety, and in Germany the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety told the European Commission that there was no evidence to suggest that glyphosate causes birth defects.

Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable. In this report, we examine the industry studies and regulatory documents that led to the approval of glyphosate. We show that industry and regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s and 1990s that glyphosate causes malformation – but that this information was not made public. We demonstrate how EU regulators reasoned their way from clear evidence of glyphosate’s teratogenicity in industry’s own studies to a conclusion that minimized these findings in the EU Commission’s final review report

Here is a summary of the report:

Multiple peer-reviewed scientific literature documenting serious health hazards posed by glyphosate
Industry (including Monsanto) has known since the 1980?s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses
Industry has known since 1993 that these effects could also occur at lower and mid doses
The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations
The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations
The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year DG SANCO division published its final review report, laying out the basis for the current approval of glyphosate
Another study published by the American Chemical Society, from the university of Buenos Aires, Argentina also showed that Glyphosate can cause abnormalities.


The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to glyphosate in agricultural fields

7. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
When you ingest Glyphosate, you are in essence altering the chemistry of your body. It’s completely unnatural and the body doesn’t resonate with it. P450 (CYP) is the gene pathway disrupted when the body takes in Glyphosate. P450 creates enzymes that assist with the formation of molecules in cells, as well as breaking them down. CYP enzymes are abundant and have many important functions. They are responsible for detoxifying xenobiotics from the body, things like the various chemicals found in pesticides, drugs and carcinogens. Glyphosate inhibits the CYP enzymes. The CYP pathway is critical for normal, natural functioning of multiple biological systems within our bodies. Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease.

8. Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans
A new study out of Germany concludes that Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and can be excreted in urine. It outlines how presence of glyphosate in urine and its accumulation in animal tissues is alarming even at low concentrations.

To this day, Monsanto continues to advertise its Roundup products as environmentally friendly and claims that neither animals nor humans are affected by this toxin. Environmentalists, veterinarians, medical doctors and scientists however, have raised increasing alarms about the danger of glyphosate in the animal and human food chain as well as the environment. The fact that glyphosate has been found in animals and humans is of great concern. In search for the causes of serious diseases amongst entire herds of animals in northern Germany, especially cattle, glyphosate has repeatedly been detected in the urine, feces, milk and feed of the animals. Even more alarming, glyphosate was detected in the urine of the farmers.

9. Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs
A study by scientist Judy Carman, PhD that was recently published in the peer reviewed journal Organic Systems outlines the effects of a diet mixed with GMO feed for pigs, and how it is a cause for concern when it comes to health. (11) Scientists randomized and fed isowean pigs either a mixed GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet for approximately 23 weeks (nothing out of the ordinary for most pigs in the United States), which is unfortunately the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter. Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each group. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs. GM-fed pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% compared to 125 of non-GM fed pigs.

The study concluded that pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited a heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs who weren’t fed a GMO diet. Because the use of GMO feed for livestock and humans is so widespread, this is definitely another cause for concern when it comes to GMO consumption. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are consumed widely by people, especially in the United States.
10. GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety.


Deficiencies have been revealed numerous times with regards to testing GM foods.

The first guidelines were originally designed to regulate the introduction of GM microbes and plants into the environment with no attention being paid to food safety concerns. However, they have been widely cited as adding authoritative scientific support to food safety assessment. Additionally, the Statement of Policy released by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States, presumptively recognizing the GM foods as GRAS (generally recognized as safe), was prepared while there were critical guidelines prepared by the International Life Sciences Institute Europe and FAO/WHO recommend that safety evaluation should be based on the concept of substantial equivalence, considering parameters such as molecular characterization, phenotypic characteristics, key nutrients, toxicants and allergens. Since 2003, official standards for food safety assessment have been published by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO. Published reviews with around 25 peer-reviewed studies have found that despite the guidelines, the risk assessment of GM foods has not followed a defined prototype.

“The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic. Evaluations for each GM crop or trait have been conducted using different feeding periods, animal models and parameters. The most common results is that GM and conventional sources include similar nutritional performance and growth in animals. However, adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues have been reported. While there are currently no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods, attempts towards harmonization are on the way. More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods.”


Sources:

http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/13

(1) https://www.uclm.es/Actividades/repositorio/pdf/doc_3721_4666.pdf

(2) http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0069805

(3) http://rt.com/usa/gmo-gluten-sensitivity-trigger-343/

(4) http://responsibletechnology.org/media/images/content/Press_Release_Gluten_11_25.pdf
(5) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

(6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23756170

(7) http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/Roundup-and-birth-defects/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5.pdf

(8) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749

(9) http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

(10) http://omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf

(11) http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf

(12) http://static.aboca.com/www.aboca.com/files/attach/news/risk_assessment_of_genetically_modified_crops_for_nutrition.pdf

(13) Reese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2004;21:299–324

(14) Schubert D. A different perspective on GM food. Nat Biotechnol. 2002 20 969–969.

(15) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19146501
Fine, label them so I can know what I am serving my family. If they are so great let me chose them peacebird Mar 2015 #1
Will you also be glad to make use of medical technology... Lancero Mar 2015 #2
If GMOs are so marvelous you should be able to label them & sell them for higher$$$$, right? peacebird Mar 2015 #5
The labeling movement shot themselves in the foot. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #7
Just last Wednesday I saw this firsthand. Archae Mar 2015 #10
I don't know from 'tender seedlings'. Or hippies. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #33
tell it to bill nye. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #51
Nye is not a trained geneticist or a food scientist, so the anti-GMO crowd dismisses him. Orrex Mar 2015 #111
Organic is a marketing label, nothing more. alarimer Mar 2015 #123
I'm proud to support GMOs - Can you link to any studies that show my examples have negative impacts? Lancero Mar 2015 #17
i hope the chemical companies hopemountain Mar 2015 #56
The Mexican government stopped Monsanto from selling the seeds. HuckleB Mar 2015 #59
"Peer review" is meaningless Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #105
very interesting. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #113
Your link is baseless. HuckleB Mar 2015 #120
Please list these "thousands of peer-reviewed" studies from around the world Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #126
Full disclosure please. How do you roody Mar 2015 #77
Full disclosure please. How do you HuckleB Mar 2015 #81
Not at all. roody Mar 2015 #83
You're scaring me. HuckleB Mar 2015 #88
This message was self-deleted by its author ND-Dem Mar 2015 #114
I don't. Lancero Mar 2015 #118
Listen, feel free to feed your family whatever you want. My family doesn't want GMOs. We don't sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #109
Well said. I don't get the attempt to FORCE people to eat what they don't want to eat. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #110
I don't have diabetes. I don't need insulin. Label the food so we can decide whether to put sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #108
+100. They want to feed ordinary people crap. Only the rich should be able to choose. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #115
Maybe you should learn about science, and get back to us. HuckleB Mar 2015 #50
bad propaganda sure does suck, especially the kind financed by the kochs. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #52
Follow the money.... peacebird Mar 2015 #58
How would you have them labled? Bradical79 Mar 2015 #61
Forget labeling GMOs! We Need "Mutation Bred" Labels NOW! HuckleB Mar 2015 #62
We're talking about... sendero Mar 2015 #3
Then call em GMF - Genetically Modified Foods. Lancero Mar 2015 #4
That's great, but a few people calling them that isn't going to change the dialogue. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #34
I think I will just keep on buying locally grown veggies and fruits and meats from the Amish leftofcool Mar 2015 #6
Yeah, that'll feed 7 billion people... Oktober Mar 2015 #13
GMO production in China nationalize the fed Mar 2015 #23
The 7 billion people can eat all the GMO foods they want leftofcool Mar 2015 #28
The Amish are notorious for abusing their animals. LeftyMom Mar 2015 #22
Having lived among them for the last 8 years leftofcool Mar 2015 #27
Most objections to GMO's are really objections to overuse of herbicides bhikkhu Mar 2015 #8
There's also the problem of cross pollination sakabatou Mar 2015 #15
Exactly. silverweb Mar 2015 #19
What about GMO's that remove the need for chemicals in the first place? luke102938 Mar 2015 #97
Please give examples. silverweb Mar 2015 #99
Hear, hear! Art_from_Ark Mar 2015 #106
+100 ND-Dem Mar 2015 #116
Except that isn't a objection to GMO's. Lancero Mar 2015 #24
One thing I've noticed, inevitably... Archae Mar 2015 #9
Unlike the pro-gmo side laundry_queen Mar 2015 #11
I'm pro GMO - Can any of the medical sites be linked to Monsanto? Lancero Mar 2015 #14
I said blogs, didn't I? laundry_queen Mar 2015 #20
I don't recall those names... MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #12
So should GMO technology be banned for potental risks? Lancero Mar 2015 #16
You just made the point of this clearer... MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #41
I have to in part, disagree. longship Mar 2015 #53
Let me state once again what I said to evaluate your understanding... MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #63
No, I said genes do not survive digestion, which is a fact. longship Mar 2015 #98
It's only a bunch of gobbledygook if you don't understand basic biology... MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #102
I am only aware of one of these studies. (Updated.) longship Mar 2015 #103
You won't bother? Apparently, you don't bother to read further than you want. MrMickeysMom Mar 2015 #107
I discard bogus science. longship Mar 2015 #112
once an editor with ties to monsanto was appointed. ND-Dem Mar 2015 #117
"...genes do not survive the digestion process" proverbialwisdom Mar 2015 #127
Read on: Orrex Mar 2015 #129
From your link... longship Mar 2015 #130
Complete fiction. proverbialwisdom Mar 2015 #84
Utter tosh! longship Mar 2015 #86
Science does not matter to that individual. HuckleB Mar 2015 #90
at least they don't 'cite' websites funded by the kochs and run by the living marxism group... ND-Dem Mar 2015 #66
Comon folks, if the ever stated claim of 'all GMO's are bad' is true... Lancero Mar 2015 #18
Some are, some aren't. The 1992 FDA (under the Rethugs) decreed that henceforth pnwmom Mar 2015 #21
If you are so effing proud of these products... 99Forever Mar 2015 #25
Why don't organic companies label food developed using mutation breeding? HuckleB Mar 2015 #68
This message was self-deleted by its author 99Forever Mar 2015 #69
Awww, cute. You don't like it when your BS is shown for what it is. HuckleB Mar 2015 #71
This message was self-deleted by its author 99Forever Mar 2015 #72
No one is insulting your intelligence. HuckleB Mar 2015 #73
This message was self-deleted by its author 99Forever Mar 2015 #74
The "link" you requested has nothing to do with reality. HuckleB Mar 2015 #75
This message was self-deleted by its author 99Forever Mar 2015 #79
No, you don't get it. HuckleB Mar 2015 #80
... 99Forever Mar 2015 #82
How much does BASF pay you? HuckleB Mar 2015 #91
Is this the new meme? We are saying GMO instead of GMF, so, um, so what? djean111 Mar 2015 #26
If GMO food is great why the need to trick people into eating it? GoneFishin Mar 2015 #29
People already buy pounds of junk food they know is horrible for their family. tridim Mar 2015 #32
And every consumer is exactly like every other consumer. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Mar 2015 #35
That's not true leftofcool Mar 2015 #36
People don't buy junk food? M'kay. tridim Mar 2015 #37
You said people are lazy consumers and will buy anything. leftofcool Mar 2015 #38
So the dedicated junk food aisles in every grocery store don't exist? tridim Mar 2015 #39
Re-read your post. you did NOT say most! leftofcool Mar 2015 #40
If mutation breeding food is great why the need to trick people into eating it? HuckleB Mar 2015 #49
Do You think we should label foods "Mutant" and "Cloned" also? luke102938 Mar 2015 #100
And the tonnage of pesticides needed to sustain them aren't great. no_hypocrisy Mar 2015 #30
Say what? HuckleB Mar 2015 #70
Good fucking grief! Not only are insulin-making bacteria living in vats separated from eridani Mar 2015 #31
The anti-GM lobby appears to be taking a page out of the Climategate playbook HuckleB Mar 2015 #42
"Some people.."? Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #43
Politics is not science. HuckleB Mar 2015 #44
Neither is agrobusiness. Apparently, Europe is out of scientists that agree with you. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #45
Europe has plenty of scientists and science that show GMOs are safe. HuckleB Mar 2015 #47
Have you found a paper yet that says GMOs are safe? immoderate Mar 2015 #54
Funny that none of the listed countries ban GMO medtech Lancero Mar 2015 #65
Some are, some are not. hunter Mar 2015 #46
"The HepB vaccine is ALSO produced by use of GMO technology. " KamaAina Mar 2015 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author proverbialwisdom Mar 2015 #57
LOL! HuckleB Mar 2015 #60
Safety and efficacy are the topics. proverbialwisdom Mar 2015 #76
You offer nothing but anti-vaccine con games. HuckleB Mar 2015 #78
Figured someone would get a kick out of that. Lancero Mar 2015 #64
There is a great deal of overlap already. HuckleB Mar 2015 #67
Oh, anti-GMO tends to go hand in hand with anti-vax, chemtrails, and the whole shebang. HuckleB May 2015 #133
Someone is kicking this thread, and it can only be one of two people. HuckleB Mar 2015 #55
They are so great! roody Mar 2015 #85
Why don't you want all seed development technologies labeled? HuckleB Mar 2015 #89
And all that extra roundup in our food means weeds will not grow in our intestines. randr Mar 2015 #87
So GMOs don't lead to increased yields? HuckleB Mar 2015 #92
Organically maintained soils produce the highest yields of healthy food randr Mar 2015 #94
Can you support those claims with a clear consensus of peer-reviewed science? HuckleB Mar 2015 #95
Do you mean 'scientists' employed by Monsanto etc? randr Mar 2015 #96
So you admit that you have no basis for your claims. HuckleB Mar 2015 #119
My claim is that GMO's are developed to allow an increased amount of randr Mar 2015 #121
Your argument is false, and you are already backing away from your previous claims. HuckleB Mar 2015 #124
I oppose GMO ingredients in food, I support the manufacture of novel GMO drugs unavailable otherwise proverbialwisdom Mar 2015 #93
More. proverbialwisdom Mar 2015 #132
The genetically modified food in your tummy is making you say those things. Rex Mar 2015 #101
What utter BULLSHIT. DeSwiss Mar 2015 #104
+ uh Brazillion. Me, I like how the seeds don't reproduce. Octafish Mar 2015 #131
Golden rice has the potential for ending many cases of blindness. alarimer Mar 2015 #122
But Vandana Shiva sez it's bad Orrex Mar 2015 #128
(Not directed toward KA) I saw the top link on Twitter the other night. proverbialwisdom Mar 2015 #125
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Yes, GMO's are great and ...»Reply #102