Toxin From Genetically Modified Crops Detected In Canadians’ Blood

bigredbarnUntil now, scientists and multinational corporations promoting GM crops have maintained that Bt toxin poses no danger to human health as the protein breaks down in the human gut. But the presence of this toxin in human blood shows that this does not happen.

Eating GM corn, soy, and potatoes is perfectly safe, provided you don’t mind having a powerful toxin swirling in your bloodstream. Oh, and your unborn baby’s bloodstream as well. So says a debbie-downer peer-reviewed Canadian study, India Today reports:

Fresh doubts have arisen about the safety of genetically modified crops, with a new study reporting presence of Bt toxin, used widely in GM crops, in human blood for the first time.

Scientists from the University of Sherbrooke, Canada, have detected the insecticidal protein, Cry1Ab, circulating in the blood of pregnant as well as non-pregnant women. They have also detected the toxin in fetal blood, implying it could pass on to the next generation. The research paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in the journal Reproductive Toxicology.

They were all consuming typical Canadian diet that included GM foods such as soybeans, corn and potatoes. Blood samples were taken before delivery for pregnant women and at tubal ligation for non-pregnant women. Umbilical cord blood sampling was done after birth.

Cry1Ab toxin was detected in 93 per cent and 80 per cent of maternal and fetal blood samples, respectively and in 69 per cent of tested blood samples from non-pregnant women.

, , , , , , ,

  • Anonymous

    Wow, you mean when you put insecticides in the food, it might get into the blood of the people who eat those foods? And that blood can pass from mothers to unborn children? Wow, who could have foreseen that? But it’s not like that can hurt anyone anyway right? …oh wait…

    I am seriously about thiiiiis close to buying a small farm and putting the whole thing in a regulated greenhouse with decontamination airlocks at the entrances just to grow my own food (and I already would have if I had the money for it…). Considering the way these roundup-ready crops cross-pollinate with the regular crops, pretty soon that’s going to be the only way to get non-modified crops…

  • quartz99

    Wow, you mean when you put insecticides in the food, it might get into the blood of the people who eat those foods? And that blood can pass from mothers to unborn children? Wow, who could have foreseen that? But it’s not like that can hurt anyone anyway right? …oh wait…

    I am seriously about thiiiiis close to buying a small farm and putting the whole thing in a regulated greenhouse with decontamination airlocks at the entrances just to grow my own food (and I already would have if I had the money for it…). Considering the way these roundup-ready crops cross-pollinate with the regular crops, pretty soon that’s going to be the only way to get non-modified crops…

    • Liam_McGonagle

      I only just now noticed what may be the most implication part of your post:

      “Wow, you mean when you put insecticides in the food, it might get into the blood of the people who eat those foods?”

      Is that to say that you believe that producers of the relevant product should be charged with food adulteration?  The Western world (supposedly) dealt with that bullshit in the 19th century, but the laws should still be on the books. 

      Couldn’t those laws reasonably be interpreted to give some remedy here, without the need to launch into some lengthy, wankish and unproductive discussion about the differences between ‘selective breeding’ and ‘genetic modification’–like the one I regrettably started with Simiantongue below?

      • quartz99

        That might be the case (in the US anyway, don’t know the laws in Canada) but I doubt it, mainly because the levels of pesticide that’s considered “legally acceptable” in food are usually higher than the concentrations in the food that carries it. The problem is that these chemicals build up in your body so where one exposure may cause minimal damage to a healthy adult, multiple exposures can lead to a number of severe problems and even the legally acceptable limits in a single exposure can be devastating to young children or unborn children. Our laws specifically don’t protect citizens in such cases, as I learned to my detriment a few years ago when I inadvertently received a massive dose of a mix of pesticides. Most of the laws that do exist are skewed to protect the pesticide manufacturers (or were four years ago anyway. I doubt they’ve changed for the better since then). Shocking, I know. And you get more sensitive to the effects of them the more you’re exposed. For instance, I have to be careful when I buy apples because there’s enough pesticide in the skin of the average factory-farm apple to affect my nervous system now, where that wasn’t the case before my massive, direct exposure.

        • Liam_McGonagle

          Sorry about your personal experience.

          But it sounds that anti-adulteration is to become relevant, it could ‘theoretically’ come from within the FDA (i.e., regulatory framework), and not have to go through Congress (i.e., political circus or ‘legislative’ framework).  That’s heartening.

          Of course, I think the FDA’s bench is stacked with former/future ADA drones anyhow, so it could be a case of 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.

          From a conceptual perspective, anyhow, I personally feel better about a rhetorical framework that gets us out of the quag-mirey circle jerk of the ridiculous ‘genetically modified’ / ‘NO–selectively bred’ debate.  That’s more or less a circular firing squad that only a cynical ass from ADA could have designed.

    • Independz

      pretty SOON!!! hahahhaah how about 10 years ago
      Tony
      organic is a joke and hasbeen for 20 years
      so the green house is about the only way
      to beat this or an indoor garden
      T

      • quartz99

        Depends on where you live. There’s actually still some places you can get food that’s not laced with pesticides. Not many, but I’m lucky enough to live in one of those places.

  • http://profiles.google.com/saintzedofourlostyouth R Z

    wtf…………………

    no not surprising, but extremely upsetting.

    another corporate takeover of our land, bodies, and minds……………

  • Jin The Ninja

    wtf…………………

    no not surprising, but extremely upsetting.

    another corporate takeover of our land, bodies, and minds……………

  • Anonymous

    I’m from the Upper Great Lakes region, so might this apply to me, too?  I live a fuckload nearer to Toronto than I do to Dallas.  Physically, at least.

    “Toxin” means “good stuff”, right?  Like I could get Marvel comic superhero-type powers?  Like the baldness of Yul Brynner or spastic colon of Jerry Stiller?

  • Liam_McGonagle

    I’m from the Upper Great Lakes region, so might this apply to me, too?  I live a fuckload nearer to Toronto than I do to Dallas.  Physically, at least.

    “Toxin” means “good stuff”, right?  Like I could get Marvel comic superhero-type powers?  Like the baldness of Yul Brynner or spastic colon of Jerry Stiller?

  • Simiantongue

    What I find most interesting about genetically modified (GM) foods is the labeling. As in, there is none. In the US they don’t have to label foods that have been genetically modified. The successful struggle to keep it that way by corporate agribusiness’ is very interesting. What person would possibly disagree with the notion that people should be informed and able to choose for themselves if they want to consume genetically modified foods or not? Well these corporations would disagree for one, but should they have the right to decide these things for us?

    So what does this tell us? That our government is not working for “the people” in this case, it’s working for a more wealthy and influential constituency. Our republic is for rent, or perhaps we should call it a long term lease. We all know the revolving door policy between government and corporate America but the doors between government and these corporate agribusiness’ never stops, it is really astounding. Conflict of interest is a gross understatement.

    • Liam_McGonagle

      I’m gonna make one naive comment and take the reply off the air.  I admit that this is an issue I don’t have a deep knowledge of.

      But one thing I am confident about:  My lack of confidence.  What precisely does “Genetically Modified” mean?  Is there some politico/technical organization that has promoted some reasonable standard definition?  I really feel like I need one before I engage with this issue.

      You know where I’m coming from.  I’m sure you’ve heard this a million times before:  The entire 10,000 year history of agriculture and animal husbandry is a history of genetic modification through selective breeding.  Intuitively I think that’s a little bit different from what you may mean–probably something to do with splicing DNA in a laboratory.  But I’m not sure.

      And even if that’s the case, as Disinfo’s recent article about Kenny, the Inbred Tiger, demonstrates, I’m not necessarily sure that one method of genetic modification is inherently superior to another.  Unless you know some technical stuff I don’t, I’m currently inclined to think it’s the ends and not the means that are the problem.

      I’m not an Archer Daniels Midland stooge, here.  I get that single-use seeds are a goddamned affront to Humanity.  I just think that working our way around responsible agriculture may be a bit tricky.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YUDC2PVEVYFT3HHELWONAZE7HM RandyR

        Hello, Liam. As a student of molecular biology, I thought I could help you get some idea on the difference between selective breeding and genetic modification. There are very, very big differences.

        Selective breeding is exactly that. I breed organisms to get the traits I want, such as a smaller dog or a larger orange. This is done “naturally,” i.e. I take one dog and breed it with another to produce the smaller dog. This has been done for millenia by humans and is nothing new. It’s only controversial when we discuss excessive inbreeding.

        Genetic modification, on the other hand, does not use breeding at all. I can take part of that large orange’s DNA and splice it into a dog’s, perhaps making a dog with orange peel over its body instead of fur. To do this, I have to do a bunch of molecular biology tricks wherein I isolate the DNA from one species, cut out the piece of DNA I want for my trait, then I use  some other chemicals, enzymes, and proteins to integrate the DNA from one species into the DNA of another.

        Do you see the difference now? Selective breeding uses “natural” methods within a species. Genetic modification uses biochemistry to “unnaturally” join two species’ genes. For instance, the Bt cotton discussed in this article took the Bt toxin gene from bacteria and spliced it into the DNA of a cotton plant. The problem is that Bt, as a toxin, doesn’t just kill pests. It’s known to cause lesions and tumors in grazing animals, and likely can do the same to humans, too.

        Monsanto infiltrated the FDA so that GM foods are considered just as “natural” as selectively bred foods, but we know this isn’t true. GMOs are producing some strange and hazardous results that no one initially anticipated, which is why so many agricultural and food activists have been wary about the widespread use of GMO crops.

        • Liam_McGonagle

          This is pretty much what I anticipated (read bottom of my original post). 
           
          It’s a matter of process that only doesn’t really specify any unique unavoidable harm invariably attendant. 
           
          I have to admit that I don’t see this distinction to be terribly useful.  It implies, in a vague sort of way that Natural=Good, Laboratory=Bad.  Which formulation certainly isn’t true–remember my reference to Kenny the Inbred Tiger?
           
          I get it that the rush to market this shit leeds to a stupid, callous indifference to clearly foreseeable consequences.  And I might be able to accept that laboratory-driven processes may in some way be particularly suceptible to those types of errors, since they accelerate the rate of change exponentially.  But I can still imagine testing/appropval protocols that could mitigate them.
           
          I fear that the Natural=Good/Laboratory=Bad thing is a losing rhetorical formula.  It’s not articulated clearly enough to be operable, which is exactly what some cynical bastard over at ADA wants.  Big Money don’t need to prove they’re right, or even that anti-GM people are wrong–only that anti-GM people don’t have an actionable plan.
           
          I’m much keener on persuing enforcement/enhancement of our legacy regulatory structure from the 19th century to prevent food adulteration.

      • quartz99

        RandyR gave you a great description already so I won’t do that. I just wanted to add that GM, by itself, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It can be used to great effect, such as taking a gene from a near relative plant that has qualities you want but that can’t be directly bred with the recipient plant. Say, modifying for a larger plant or a sweeter variety of corn or to create a variety of wheat that requires less water so it can be grown in areas prone to drought where starvation is common. The problem is that Monsanto (and probably others but I’ve only ever come up against them) is adding toxins to the plants to make them able to withstand greater doses of herbicide (to kill the weeds around them) and insecticides, and now is even putting those pesticides directly in the plants. In some cases this makes the plant sterile so you have to buy new seed every year instead of harvesting seed from the grown plant. And then they’re planted in the open, where the pollen from the modified plants carries those modifications into the crops of farmers, including organic farmers, who pretty much have no defense against it happening. So these toxins are creeping into even otherwise organically grown food (not to mention the general food supply), and making the seeds produced by the infected crops sterile or less productive… and at the same time, the big companies are driving regulations making it illegal on one hand, and very difficult on the other, for anyone to sell seeds that can’t afford the new regulations and certifications, moving us toward a near monopoly on seed production.

  • Simiantongue

    What I find most interesting about genetically modified (GM) foods is the labeling. As in, there is none. In the US they don’t have to label foods that have been genetically modified. The successful struggle to keep it that way by corporate agribusiness’ is very interesting. What person would possibly disagree with the notion that people should be informed and able to choose for themselves if they want to consume genetically modified foods or not? Well these corporations would disagree for one, but should they have the right to decide these things for us?

    So what does this tell us? That our government is not working for “the people” in this case, it’s working for a more wealthy and influential constituency. Our republic is for rent, or perhaps we should call it a long term lease. We all know the revolving door policy between government and corporate America but the doors between government and these corporate agribusiness’ never stops, it is really astounding. Conflict of interest is a gross understatement.

  • Anonymous

    I’m gonna make one naive comment and take the reply off the air.  I admit that this is an issue I don’t have a deep knowledge of.

    But one thing I am confident about:  My lack of confidence.  What precisely does “Genetically Modified” mean?  Is there some politico/technical organization that has promoted some reasonable standard definition?  I really feel like I need one before I engage with this issue.

    You know where I’m coming from.  I’m sure you’ve heard this a million times before:  The entire 10,000 year history of agriculture and animal husbandry is a history of genetic modification through selective breeding.  Intuitively I think that’s a little bit different from what you may mean–probably something to do with splicing DNA in a laboratory.  But I’m not sure.

    And even if that’s the case, as Disinfo’s recent article about Kenny, the Inbred Tiger, demonstrates, I’m not necessarily sure that one method of genetic modification is inherently superior to another.  Unless you know some technical stuff I don’t, I’m currently inclined to think it’s the ends and not the means that are the problem.

    I’m not an Archer Daniels Midland stooge, here.  I get that single-use seeds are a goddamned affront to Humanity.  I just think that working our way around responsible agriculture may be a bit tricky.

  • Anonymous

    I’m gonna make one naive comment and take the reply off the air.  I admit that this is an issue I don’t have a deep knowledge of.

    But one thing I am confident about:  My lack of confidence.  What precisely does “Genetically Modified” mean?  Is there some politico/technical organization that has promoted some reasonable standard definition?  I really feel like I need one before I engage with this issue.

    You know where I’m coming from.  I’m sure you’ve heard this a million times before:  The entire 10,000 year history of agriculture and animal husbandry is a history of genetic modification through selective breeding.  Intuitively I think that’s a little bit different from what you may mean–probably something to do with splicing DNA in a laboratory.  But I’m not sure.

    And even if that’s the case, as Disinfo’s recent article about Kenny, the Inbred Tiger, demonstrates, I’m not necessarily sure that one method of genetic modification is inherently superior to another.  Unless you know some technical stuff I don’t, I’m currently inclined to think it’s the ends and not the means that are the problem.

    I’m not an Archer Daniels Midland stooge, here.  I get that single-use seeds are a goddamned affront to Humanity.  I just think that working our way around responsible agriculture may be a bit tricky.

  • Anonymous

    I’m gonna make one naive comment and take the reply off the air.  I admit that this is an issue I don’t have a deep knowledge of.

    But one thing I am confident about:  My lack of confidence.  What precisely does “Genetically Modified” mean?  Is there some politico/technical organization that has promoted some reasonable standard definition?  I really feel like I need one before I engage with this issue.

    You know where I’m coming from.  I’m sure you’ve heard this a million times before:  The entire 10,000 year history of agriculture and animal husbandry is a history of genetic modification through selective breeding.  Intuitively I think that’s a little bit different from what you may mean–probably something to do with splicing DNA in a laboratory.  But I’m not sure.

    And even if that’s the case, as Disinfo’s recent article about Kenny, the Inbred Tiger, demonstrates, I’m not necessarily sure that one method of genetic modification is inherently superior to another.  Unless you know some technical stuff I don’t, I’m currently inclined to think it’s the ends and not the means that are the problem.

    I’m not an Archer Daniels Midland stooge, here.  I get that single-use seeds are a goddamned affront to Humanity.  I just think that working our way around responsible agriculture may be a bit tricky.

  • Anonymous

    I only just now noticed what may be the most implication part of your post:

    “Wow, you mean when you put insecticides in the food, it might get into the blood of the people who eat those foods?”

    Is that to say that you believe that producers of the relevant product should be charged with food adulteration?  The Western world (supposedly) dealt with that bullshit in the 19th century, but the laws should still be on the books. 

    Couldn’t those laws reasonably be interpreted to give some remedy here, without the need to launch into some lengthy, wankish and unproductive discussion about the differences between ‘selective breeding’ and ‘genetic modification’–like the one I regrettably started with Simiantongue below?

  • Independz

    pretty SOON!!! hahahhaah how about 10 years ago
    Tony
    organic is a joke and hasbeen for 20 years
    so the green house is about the only way
    to beat this or an indoor garden
    T

  • Independz

    pretty SOON!!! hahahhaah how about 10 years ago
    Tony
    organic is a joke and hasbeen for 20 years
    so the green house is about the only way
    to beat this or an indoor garden
    T

  • Anonymous

    That might be the case (in the US anyway, don’t know the laws in Canada) but I doubt it, mainly because the levels of pesticide that’s considered “legally acceptable” in food are usually higher than the concentrations in the food that carries it. The problem is that these chemicals build up in your body so where one exposure may cause minimal damage to a healthy adult, multiple exposures can lead to a number of severe problems and even the legally acceptable limits in a single exposure can be devastating to young children or unborn children. Our laws specifically don’t protect citizens in such cases, as I learned to my detriment a few years ago when I inadvertently received a massive dose of a mix of pesticides. Most of the laws that do exist are skewed to protect the pesticide manufacturers (or were four years ago anyway. I doubt they’ve changed for the better since then). Shocking, I know. And you get more sensitive to the effects of them the more you’re exposed. For instance, I have to be careful when I buy apples because there’s enough pesticide in the skin of the average factory-farm apple to affect my nervous system now, where that wasn’t the case before my massive, direct exposure.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YUDC2PVEVYFT3HHELWONAZE7HM RandyR

    Hello, Liam. As a student of molecular biology, I thought I could help you get some idea on the difference between selective breeding and genetic modification. There are very, very big differences.

    Selective breeding is exactly that. I breed organisms to get the traits I want, such as a smaller dog or a larger orange. This is done “naturally,” i.e. I take one dog and breed it with another to produce the smaller dog. This has been done for millenia by humans and is nothing new. It’s only controversial when we discuss excessive inbreeding.

    Genetic modification, on the other hand, does not use breeding at all. I can take part of that large orange’s DNA and splice it into a dog’s, perhaps making a dog with orange peel over its body instead of fur. To do this, I have to do a bunch of molecular biology tricks wherein I isolate the DNA from one species, cut out the piece of DNA I want for my trait, then I use  some other chemicals, enzymes, and proteins to integrate the DNA from one species into the DNA of another.

    Do you see the difference now? Selective breeding uses “natural” methods within a species. Genetic modification uses biochemistry to “unnaturally” join two species’ genes. For instance, the Bt cotton discussed in this article took the Bt toxin gene from bacteria and spliced it into the DNA of a cotton plant. The problem is that Bt, as a toxin, doesn’t just kill pests. It’s known to cause lesions and tumors in grazing animals, and likely can do the same to humans, too.

    Monsanto infiltrated the FDA so that GM foods are considered just as “natural” as selectively bred foods, but we know this isn’t true. GMOs are producing some strange and hazardous results that no one initially anticipated, which is why so many agricultural and food activists have been wary about the widespread use of GMO crops.

  • Anonymous

    Depends on where you live. There’s actually still some places you can get food that’s not laced with pesticides. Not many, but I’m lucky enough to live in one of those places.

  • Anonymous

    Depends on where you live. There’s actually still some places you can get food that’s not laced with pesticides. Not many, but I’m lucky enough to live in one of those places.

  • Anonymous

    RandyR gave you a great description already so I won’t do that. I just wanted to add that GM, by itself, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It can be used to great effect, such as taking a gene from a near relative plant that has qualities you want but that can’t be directly bred with the recipient plant. Say, modifying for a larger plant or a sweeter variety of corn or to create a variety of wheat that requires less water so it can be grown in areas prone to drought where starvation is common. The problem is that Monsanto (and probably others but I’ve only ever come up against them) is adding toxins to the plants to make them able to withstand greater doses of herbicide (to kill the weeds around them) and insecticides, and now is even putting those pesticides directly in the plants. In some cases this makes the plant sterile so you have to buy new seed every year instead of harvesting seed from the grown plant. And then they’re planted in the open, where the pollen from the modified plants carries those modifications into the crops of farmers, including organic farmers, who pretty much have no defense against it happening. So these toxins are creeping into even otherwise organically grown food (not to mention the general food supply), and making the seeds produced by the infected crops sterile or less productive… and at the same time, the big companies are driving regulations making it illegal on one hand, and very difficult on the other, for anyone to sell seeds that can’t afford the new regulations and certifications, moving us toward a near monopoly on seed production.

  • Justin Mitchell

    There are not very many better ways to control a mass population than by controlling the effects of the food supply.  Should Agenda 21 ever be seriously instated it would not be very hard to wipe out ninety percent of the world population.  I think it is obvious to everyone that this is not an accidental effect of GM modification.  I’m sure they can do a hell of  a lot more than pesticides in our food.  It could always be hoped that they just plan to sterilize everyone on Earth and give the poor girl a break.

  • http://shalilayo.net/ Justin Mitchell

    There are not very many better ways to control a mass population than by controlling the effects of the food supply.  Should Agenda 21 ever be seriously instated it would not be very hard to wipe out ninety percent of the world population.  I think it is obvious to everyone that this is not an accidental effect of GM modification.  I’m sure they can do a hell of  a lot more than pesticides in our food.  It could always be hoped that they just plan to sterilize everyone on Earth and give the poor girl a break.

  • Liam_McGonagle

    Sorry about your personal experience.

    But it sounds that anti-adulteration is to become relevant, it could ‘theoretically’ come from within the FDA (i.e., regulatory framework), and not have to go through Congress (i.e., political circus or ‘legislative’ framework).  That’s heartening.

    Of course, I think the FDA’s bench is stacked with former/future ADA drones anyhow, so it could be a case of 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.

    From a conceptual perspective, anyhow, I personally feel better about a rhetorical framework that gets us out of the quag-mirey circle jerk of the ridiculous ‘genetically modified’ / ‘NO–selectively bred’ debate.  That’s more or less a circular firing squad that only a cynical ass from ADA could have designed.

  • Liam_McGonagle

    Sorry about your personal experience.

    But it sounds that anti-adulteration is to become relevant, it could ‘theoretically’ come from within the FDA (i.e., regulatory framework), and not have to go through Congress (i.e., political circus or ‘legislative’ framework).  That’s heartening.

    Of course, I think the FDA’s bench is stacked with former/future ADA drones anyhow, so it could be a case of 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.

    From a conceptual perspective, anyhow, I personally feel better about a rhetorical framework that gets us out of the quag-mirey circle jerk of the ridiculous ‘genetically modified’ / ‘NO–selectively bred’ debate.  That’s more or less a circular firing squad that only a cynical ass from ADA could have designed.

  • Anonymous

    This is pretty much what I anticipated (read bottom of my original post). 
     
    It’s a matter of process that only doesn’t really specify any unique unavoidable harm invariably attendant. 
     
    I have to admit that I don’t see this distinction to be terribly useful.  It implies, in a vague sort of way that Natural=Good, Laboratory=Bad.  Which formulation certainly isn’t true–remember my reference to Kenny the Inbred Tiger?
     
    I get it that the rush to market this shit leeds to a stupid, callous indifference to clearly foreseeable consequences.  And I might be able to accept that laboratory-driven processes may in some way be particularly suceptible to those types of errors, since they accelerate the rate of change exponentially.  But I can still imagine testing/appropval protocols that could mitigate them.
     
    I fear that the Natural=Good/Laboratory=Bad thing is a losing rhetorical formula.  It’s not articulated clearly enough to be operable, which is exactly what some cynical bastard over at ADA wants.  Big Money don’t need to prove they’re right, or even that anti-GM people are wrong–only that anti-GM people don’t have an actionable plan.
     
    I’m much keener on persuing enforcement/enhancement of our legacy regulatory structure from the 19th century to prevent food adulteration.

  • Eman
  • Eman
  • Eman
  • Eman
  • Guest

    Cry1Ab attaches to a sugar in an insect’s digestive tract.  That particular sugar is not present in mammalian bodies.

  • Guest

    Cry1Ab attaches to a sugar in an insect’s digestive tract.  That particular sugar is not present in mammalian bodies.

  • http://geneticallyengineeredfoodnews.com James Fisher

    A
    recent study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences found
    that Monsanto’s GM Corn causes liver and kidney damage in lab rats. Monsanto
    only released the raw data after a legal challenge from Greenpeace, the Swedish
    Board of Agriculture, and French anti- GM campaigners. I’m sure the corn is
    fine to feed to our cattle or eat ourselves though. Right? You can take action
    by staying informed and spreading the word at http://geneticallyengineeredfoodnews.com

     

  • http://geneticallyengineeredfoodnews.com James Fisher

    A
    recent study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences found
    that Monsanto’s GM Corn causes liver and kidney damage in lab rats. Monsanto
    only released the raw data after a legal challenge from Greenpeace, the Swedish
    Board of Agriculture, and French anti- GM campaigners. I’m sure the corn is
    fine to feed to our cattle or eat ourselves though. Right? You can take action
    by staying informed and spreading the word at http://geneticallyengineeredfoodnews.com