It Causes Tumors in Rats and Is in Your Food

One of the hottest debates today among nutrition experts is about the increasing introduction of genetically modified crop foods to modern agricultural practices.

There are some who believe that these modified foods are just as safe as natural foods. On the other side of the debate are those who believe that genetically modified (GM) foods are harmful to human health and dangerous to the environment.

It may take a while before scientists and nutritionists reach a conclusion because long-term studies on the effects of these modified food crops are few. However, the first results of such long-term studies are coming in and the case against GM foods is getting stronger.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine strongly believes that GM foods pose serious health risks. This professional health organization support their argument against modified foods with the results of animal studies that show the dangers of GM foods.


Animal studies have demonstrated that GM foods can:

  • Accelerate aging
  • Cause infertility
  • Disrupt the immune system
  • Affect the regulation of insulin
  • Cause organ failure
  • Increase the risks of malignant tumors

In 2012, one French study into the long-term toxicity of GM maize highlighted the dangers of these designer foods and has renewed concern about them among scientists and in the public.

Before discussing this study, we need to understand what a genetically modified food is.

Brad Chase

I am a husband and a father constantly searching for ways to improve my own health and the health of those around me. My exercise is crossfit and my diet is paleo (well...mostly!). I own and operate

2 thoughts on “It Causes Tumors in Rats and Is in Your Food

  • January 4, 2013 at 11:41 pm

    drinkn the koolaide dannyboy? or just a Monstersanto shill lol
    The September 2012 Seralini study was peer-reviewed, and it was published in a highly respected international scientific journal.

    GMO plants have been modified to contain pesticides, either through herbicide tolerance or by producing insecticides, or both, and could therefore be considered as ‘pesticide plants

    have any peer reviewed GMO feed rat studies over 90 days? NO?? hmmm, but its been ok to use since 2009 in EU?!! hmmm…

    over half of the scientists involved in the GMO panel which positively reviewed the Monsanto’s study for GMO maize in 2009, leading to its EU-wide authorization, had conflicts of interests with the biotech industry.[16]

    A report by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) found that more than half of the GMO panel experts who signed the approval had conflicts of interest.

    The conflicts ranged from receiving research funding from the biotech industry, being a member or collaborator in a pro-biotech industry association, to writing or reviewing industry-sponsored publications. Some conflicts revealed a conflict of scientific interests, with some panel members involved in working on the creation of transgenic plants – including potatoes – with antibiotic-resistant marker genes – including nptII.[17]

    Secondly, although none of EFSA’s GMO panel members were medical experts in the use of antibiotics in human medicine, they decided that neomycin and kanamycin were antibiotics with “no or only minor therapeutic relevance”. The World Health Organisation (WHO) classified these antibiotics as “critically important” in 2005.

  • December 31, 2012 at 5:39 pm

    I would caution putting so much weight on the studies by Seralini. Health organization and scientists around the globe have widely criticized his research:

    “Serious defects in the design and methodology of a paper by Séralini et al. mean it does not meet acceptable scientific standards and there is no need to re-examine previous safety evaluations of genetically modified maize NK603. These are the conclusions of separate and independent assessments carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and six EU Member States following publication of the paper in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology on 19 September 2012.”

    It’s also misleading to assert that little health research has been conducted, this simply is not true. Health regulators in the US, Australia, Canada, the EU and others have all concluded that those GM products released for sale have been deemed safe for human and animal consumption and in fact GM products are the most regulated food products on our shelves.

    I would also question the comment that the science is “crude”, in fact the opposite can be argued. Compared to conventional plant breeding where crosses are random, GM technology takes one single known gene and insert it into a known place in the genome – highly precise.

    To also assert that soy allergies are caused by GM crops is also misleading with absolutely no proof. I understand that your goal is to spread messages about good health but making up claims doesn’t help anyone.

    If we distill this debate we see the bulk of scientists agreeing with the safety and usefulness of GM technology but a minority of consumers who simply don’t like the concept and that’s OK. If you don’t like the concept you probably don’t like the use of chemicals on farms either and if that’s the case eat organic – your choice.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *