40 Studies Saying GMOs are Bad for You

9643868494_71e8da9a20_z

By AnonWatcher

As May 21st approaches, offering us a chance to stand united in a global March Against Monsanto, the website March Against Monsanto has put out 40 independent studies to persuade us on the harms that GMOs and the use of glyphosate cause.

For years now, we have been aware of the potential health effects we face from Monsanto’s persistent and often unrelenting lobbying against Citizen Joe. Only recently, activists have travelled again to Washington D.C. to meet with senators in their quest to establish GMO labelling as something uniform and standard. Only again, has this call for labeling, demanded by the majority of the population, fallen on deaf ears.

One would think that after recent WHO suggestions that the common worldwide pesticide used on the bulk of agriculture – glyphosate (or Roundup) is a “probable carcinogen,” that mandatory labelling would be immediately initiated. Is it hardly unreasonable to expect labelling on the foods that have been sprayed?

gmo-hero-768x426

March Against Monsanto have helped bring attention to a GMO Free USA compiled list of 40 rodent studies involving the use of Roundup Ready or Bt-toxin GM feed. As they say on the website:

“When you see this sort of evidence, it really is quite mind-boggling that our elected officials are seemingly putting corporate interests and profiteering above public health.”

Here are just 15 of them found on March Against Monsanto Website:

  1. E. Abdo, et al. “Feeding Study with Bt Corn (MON810: Ajeeb YG) on Rats: Biochemical Analysis and Liver Histopathology,” Food and Nutrition Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 2, 2014, pp. 185-195.
  2. Battistelli S., Baldelli B., Malatesta M. (2008), Influence of a GMO-containing diet on pancreatic acinar cells of adult mice: effects of a short-term diet reversion, “Microscopie”, 10, pp. 36-43
  3. S. Battistelli, B.Citterio, B. Baldelli, C. Parlani, and M. Malatesta (2010) Histochemical and morpho-metrical study of mouse intestine epithelium after a long term diet containing genetically modified soybean Eur J Histochem. September 26;54(3): e36
  4. Brasil FB, Soares LL, Faria TS, Boaventura GT, Sampaio FJ, Ramos CF.(2009) The impact of dietary organic and transgenic soy on the reproductive system of female adult rat. Anat Rec(Hoboken).292(4):587594.
  5. B Cisterna, F Flach, L Vecchio, SML Barabino, S Battistelli, TE Martin, M Malatesta, M Biggiogera (2008) Can a genetically modified organism-containing diet influence embryonic development? A preliminary study on pre- implantation mouse embryos. Cisterna.Vol.52(4)
  6. Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, François Roullier, Dominique Cellier, Gilles-Eric Séralini (2009) A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health Int J Biol Sci; 5(7):706-726.
  7. O. P. Dolaychuk, R. S. Fedoruk (2013) Biological Effects of Different Levels of Soybeans Conventional and Transgenic Varieties in the Second-Generation Female Rats Ration. The Animal Biology, 2013, vol. 15, no. 2
  8. Thanaa A. El-Kholy, Mohammad Abu Hilal, Hatim Ali Al-Abbadi, Abdulhalim Salim Serafi, Ahmad K. Al-Ghamdi, Hanan M. Sobhy and John R. C. Richardson (2014) The Effect of Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Soybean on DNA, Cytogenicity and Some Antioxidant Enzymes in Rats. Nutrients, 6(6), 2376-2386
  9. El-Shamei ZS et al. Histopathological changes in some organs of male rats fed on genetically modified corn (Ajeeb YG). J Am Sci. 2012;8(10):684–696.
  10. Ermakova IV (2006) Genetically modified soy leads to weight loss and increased mortality of pups of the first
    generation. Preliminary studies. EkosInform. Federal Environmental Law Gazette. a | -1,, p. 4-10.
  11. Ermakova IV (2007) New data on the impact of GMOs on physiological state and the higher nervous activities mammals. All-Russia Symposium TRANSGENIC PLANTS AND BIOSAFETY Moscow, October 22 – 25, pages 38-39
  12. Irina Ermakova (2007) GM soybeans—revisiting a controversial format NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY VOLUME 25 NUMBER 12 DECEMBER 1351-1354
  13. Ermakova IV, IV Barskov (2008) Study of the physiological and morphological parameters in rats and their offspring using a diet containing soybean transgenic EPSPS CP4 Biological sciences. 6. p.19-20.
  14. Ermakova IV (2009) Influence of soybean gene EPSPS CP4 on the physiological state and reproductive functions of rats in the first two generations Contemporary Problems in Science and Education Number 5, p.15-20.
  15. Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, Monastra G, Ambra R, Turrini A, Mengheri E. (2008) Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem. Dec 10;56(23):11533-9.

Top photo credit: Liam Wilde via Visualhunt.com / CC BY-NC-SA


This article (40 Studies Saying GMOs are Bad for You) is a free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author AnonWatcher and AnonHQ.com.

  • Joan Camara

    “One would think that after recent WHO suggestions that the common worldwide pesticide used on the bulk of agriculture – glyphosate (or Roundup) is a “probable carcinogen,” that mandatory labelling would be immediately initiated.”

    It’s been reported in a few places I’ve read online, that WHO is taken that statement off of their site…

  • BadWolf

    I’m concerned about that the very first article listed here. First, I read through the article, and there is no evidence of harm from Bt corn. The study was very small and did not show any significant findings against GMOs. Also, it was published in a suspect journal, one owned by a publishing company that accepted a computer generated paper that only wasn’t published because the author refused to pay the fee. And that’s only the first article.

  • Andrew Kramer

    You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The ALT levels suggest liver damage and I’m just getting started. They are obviously statistically significant and so your complaints are just nonsensical.

    As for computer generated articles, even highly respected publishers like Springer have been duped on occasion. That is hardly a reason to believe all Springer published studies are dubious.

    Even quacks like Pam Ronald have been retracted from journals like Nature. If even the highest impact journals post fraudulent studies then we can’t hold a journal responsible for a mistake or two.

    Ultimately your claim that, “that’s only the first article” is telling. This list contains the weight of the relevant long-term evidence with regards to the safety of GE foods currently on the market. If you are claiming the weight of the evidence is fraudulent, because of one computer generated article which you admit wasn’t even published by the journal and which that study isn’t even a reference on the list, then you are no better than someone denying the Earth is not flat. It is very hard to listen to you science denying nutjobs.

  • BadWolf

    Why are you immediately going for a personal attack? That is no way to have a discussion and certainly no way to change someone’s mind. You mentioned the ALT levels, said you were only getting started but then didn’t mention anything else from the article. I went back and read through the article again. Admittedly, biology is not my strong science, but I do know how to read a scientific paper, and I have taken enough statistics for a basic grasp.

    Since you mentioned ALT levels I took a closer look at those and I noticed that the ALT levels increased for both the Bt and non-Bt corn in the males at 1.5 months and 3 months. For the females the largest jump in ALT levels occurred between 1.5 months and 3 months in the non-Bt group. If you could explain to me how this proves that the Bt corn is harmful I would listen.

    My other concern with this study had to do with the small sample size. There were 6 males and 6 females in each group at the start of the study. At the 1.5 months there were 3 males and 3 females sacrificed. Because all the data is split between males and females, the data for the 1.5 months came from a sample size of 3! They do not give the level of precision, nor the confidence level of this study but I don’t see how they can significant with such a small sample size.

    Before you go around calling people “science denying nutjobs” perhaps you might want to have a conversation where you don’t immediately insult someone. If you would like to have a real discussion I am willing to change my mind on GMOs if I am shown real evidence that they are harmful. However, I am also going to keep in mind, as anyone should while discussing such a broad and complicated matter, that there are many types of GMOs, and even if there is evidence that Bt corn, for example, is bad doesn’t necessarily mean that golden rice is bad. As anyone who is scientifically literate knows, just because you can die from drinking isopropyl alcohol, doesn’t mean you can’t drink ethyl alcohol even though they are both classified as an alcohol.

  • Andrew Kramer

    Why does this site keep putting my comments on hold?

Thank you for sharing. Follow us for the latest updates.

Send this to a friend