25 thoughts on “List of peer-reviewed science studies about the dangers of gmo foods.”

  1. Here’s a few ya missed:

    Here is an article about a study. A link to the actual study can be found within this article:
    www(DOT)examiner(DOT)com/article/gmo-foods-produce-tumors-and-organ-damage-animals-per-new-long-term-study

    Article with link to study:
    (No “www.“)esciencecentral(DOT)org/journals/JHTD/JHTD-1-104.php?aid=11822?aid=11822

    Article with link:
    www(DOT)centerforfoodsafety(DOT)org/press-releases/2291/new-peer-reviewed-study-on-gmo-pig-feed-reveals-adverse-effects

    Abstract only:
    www(DOT)greenmedinfo(DOT)com/article/cry1ab-protein-insecticidal-toxin-found-within-gmo-corn-and-soy-found-within-pregnant-women

  2. Except for the minor detail that “None of these so called studies are peer reviewed.”
    Nor are any of them valid, all are easily debunked. Nor are any of these so called links reference the original journals where the studies were published.

    Nice, try, but still a FAIL.

  3. Here is a link from within the first link I posted. It is the ORIGINAL PEER REVIEWED study:
    (NO “www.”) Research(DOT)sustainablefoodtrust(DOT)org/mooney-content/uploads/2012/09/Final-Paper(DOT)pdf

    From the second link I posted, here is a link to the ORIGINAL PEER REVIEWED study:
    www(DOT)esciencecentral.org/journals/hematotoxicity-of-bacillus-thuringiensis-as-spore-crystal-strains-cry1aa-cry1ab-cry1ac-or-cry2aa-in-swiss-albino-mice-2329-8790.1000104(DOT)pdf

    From the third link I posted, here is a link to the ORIGINAL PEER REVIEWED study:
    www(DOT)organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106(DOT)pdf

    As for the fourth link, I could not find the study from within the link I provided; only the abstract, so I web-searched the title of the PEER REVIEWED study. Here is the study:
    (No “www.”) ac.els-cdn(DOT)com/S0890623811000566/1-s2.0-S0890623811000566-main(DOT)pdf?_tid=e271f750-3602-11e3-863f-00000aab0f26&acdnat=1381887356_7344f8c97c0b3e9a04072b5eea9e4c66

    First link in my previous post: The first sentence of the second paragraph states, “The study was published in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology.

    In the second link in my previous post, if you look very closely at the huge pink, red and white banner at the top of the page, it says, “Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases.”

    From the last paragraph of the third link in my previous post:
    “The paper:  “A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM corn maize diet” by Dr Judy Carman, Howard Vl…has been published by the Journal of Organic Systems, Vol 8. No 1 (2013) and is available for free download from…”

    Invalid? How so?
    Easily debunked? Let’s hear it, “doctor”…
    I have to wonder who you work for.

    YOU fail…MISERABLY!!

  4. Correction:
    The huge pink, red and white banner that I referred to is NOT from my original link. It is from a link within said link.

  5. One other point came to mind:
    In order to debunk the studies, you’d have to read them. How can you read them if you can’t even read (and follow links in) the simple articles I posted?

  6. Gene: I don’t have time to look at all four papers, so I looked at one: “Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada” This paper does not prove the dangers of GMOs. It reported traces of chemicals associated with several commercial pesticides were found in some of a sample of 69 women. It did not find that these levels were dangerous, nor did it find that the chemicals came from GMO foods. Roundup may be used with GMO crops, but it may also be used to kill weeds in other circumstances where no GMO crops are planted. Since it naturally breaks down, it can for example be used to kill weeds in the fall if you are planting in the spring. GMO plants grown on an organic farm will not have been exposed to Roundup, while non GMO plants not certified as organic could have been grown in fields on which Roundup was used.

    Perhaps others can look at the other three papers to see if they prove any dangers of GMOs.

  7. I suggest y’all read this:

    (No “www.”)independentsciencenews(DOT)org/science-media/the-goodman-affair-monsanto-targets-the-heart-of-science/

    I also suggest y’all stand FIRMLY behind required food lebeling re GMOs.

  8. I still see no point or benefit to be gained from labeling, even after reading the article you posted.

    My favorite part of the article was where they called the criticism of the Seralini study “organized”. It wasn’t, and even if it was it doesn’t exempt Seralini from valid criticism of his sample size and methodology.

  9. Carin Z:
    There are many reasons that a study may be withdrawn. That a study has been withdrawn does not necessarily mean that it’s bunk.

    I refer you to “Note to users” from:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000251

    Hep:
    Your first link does not say the study has been debunked. It says there are SOME who disagree with it. Don’t you find it suspicious that a confidentiality agreement with severe penalties was required for journalists to read it?

    Re your second link:

    Journals would not publish the studies had they “failed spectacularly.” One of the reasons for peer review is to protect the credibility of the journal.

    Lynas (A journalist; not a scientist) states that, because the study did not appear in PubMed, it lacks credibility. The study cannot be published in all journals. Duplication is one of the reasons that a study would be withdrawn from a journal. He also states that there is no scientific case for GMO food labeling, obviously ignoring the cases that have been made. He also says this:
    “And let there be no mistake: banning biotech is the explicit agenda of many pro-labelling activists. They talk about consumer choice, but what they actually want is to remove all choice. They want what I call prohibition based on superstition.” Lynas is intellectually dishonest. (It has been suspected, though he denies, that he has been asked to be the “ambassador for GMOs.)

    He also states,
    “If GMOs are banned worldwide, as many activists are seeking, we will be asking the scientific community to face the next few decades – perhaps the most critical in humanity’s existence – with their hands tied behind their backs. We will have denied our plant breeders the use of a powerful technology for sustainability and food security, and we will have foreclosed an important and growing area of human knowledge. This cannot and must not be allowed to happen”
    Is he suggesting we will starve without GMOs? I refer you to this:
    http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/5-gm-crops-impacts-on-the-farm-and-environment/5-1-myth-gm-crops-increase-yield-potential
    Take his bias into consideration as you read the rest of this journalist’s commentary.

    The third link is a debate by two seemingly qualified individuals. As such, the link bolsters neither your side nor mine. The readers here should read it, though.

    I could cite MANY articles that detail how Monsanto is driving farmers out of business. Add to that the effect GMOs are having on bees. Do you realize how important bees are to us?

    Scroll down here ( http://globalresearch.ca/monsanto-controls-both-the-white-house-and-the-us-congress/5336422 ) to see how much in bed together Monsanto and Washington are. (I won’t continue with this facit of the discussion, as it leads to much more than for what this topic was intended.)

    John:
    From the study:
    “5. ConclusionsToourknowledge,thisisthefirststudytohighlightthepresenceof pesticides-associated genetically modified foods in maternal,fetal and nonpregnant women’s blood. 3-MPPA and Cry1Ab toxinare clearly detectable and appear to cross the placenta to thefetus. Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pol-lutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed,particularly those using the placental transfer approach[41]. Thus,our present results will provide baseline data for future studiesexploring a new area of research relating to nutrition, toxicologyand reproduction in women. Today, obstetric-gynecological dis-orders that are associated with environmental chemicals are notknown.Thismayinvolveperinatalcomplications(i.e.abortion,pre-maturity, intrauterine growth restriction and preeclampsia) andreproductive disorders (i.e. infertility, endometriosis and gyneco-logical cancer). Thus, knowing the actual PAGMF concentrations inhumans constitutes a cornerstone in the advancement of research in this area.”
    So, no, it did not PROVE the dangers of GMOs, but neither are the dangers disproven. As stated in the conclusion, more studies are needed. In the meantime, would you like to have pesticides injected into YOUR child’s fetus for testing?

    Whether those chemicals came from GMOs is irrelevant, as they very well could have, because those chemicals are used with GMOs. Some GMOs produce their own pesticides. These cannot be washed off. We eat them. You said, “GMO plants grown on an organic farm will not have been exposed to Roundup, while non GMO plants not certified as organic could have been grown in fields on which Roundup was used.”
    So, how much concern does Monsanto, etc.have for our well-being?

    Erik:
    You said, “I still see no point or benefit to be gained from labeling, even after reading the article you posted.”

    Well, ya see…If products were labeled, I could choose for myself whether I want to risk… Oh, never mind.

    1. “Journals would not publish the studies had they “failed spectacularly.””
      Let me point you to the research that shows you how wrong you are:

      “In the present study, 75 journal reviewers were asked to referee manuscripts which described identical experimental procedures but which reported positive, negative, mixed, or no results. In addition to showing poor interrater agreement, reviewers were strongly biased against manuscripts which reported results contrary to their theoretical perspective.” (Mahoney 1977)
      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01173636
      “We have confirmed the presence of publication bias in a cohort of clinical research studies. These findings suggest that conclusions based only on a review of published data should be interpreted cautiously, especially for observational studies.” (Easterbrook, et al. 1991)
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014067369190201Y
      “Positive-outcome bias was present during peer review. A fabricated manuscript with a positive outcome was more likely to be recommended for publication than was an otherwise identical no-difference manuscript.” (Emerson, et al. 2010)
      http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=226270
      “When something is peer reviewed it is in some sense blessed. Even journalists recognize this…But does peer review `work’ at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts’…So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.” (Smith 2006)
      http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.short

      Plenty more like this at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22bias+in+peer+review%22

  10. Perhaps you should know that the Monsanto corporation owns the largest mercenary army known as Blackwater reminiscent of their dark agenda for the American population. They intend to take us down through the combined efforts of chem trails (have developed a GMO seed to withstand the extra AL in the soil from their chem trails), vaccines (a medical hoax) and fluoridated water all designed to make us sick and dumb us down. This is a slow kill process that makes you sick with anywhere from asthma to cancer developing as a result of a continuous on going onslaught of toxic chemicals until system failure sets in. Biological amplification and accumulation of toxins degrades our biological ability to fight back. Stop these Psychopaths! They have NO INTENTION OF FEEDING STARVING PEOPLE. They are LIARS to the bone!!

    1. Since aluminum is the third most common element in the earth’s crust, at 8.1% of the crust by weight, and the mass of the earth’s crust is estimated to be 1.913 x 10^22kg, there would be approximately 1.55 x 10 ^18 metric tons of aluminum in the earth’s crust. Can you imagine how much aluminum it would take to make any kind of noticeable change in the soil content of the earth? And since the only way you could get that aluminum in the first place would be to mine it from the earth’s crust, all you could do is make a slight change in the distribution of aluminum on the surface. I think they need to get some more planes in the air if they want to make any real change any time soon. I believe I could make a bigger impact by applying lime to the ground, making the aluminum that is already there more available.

Comments are closed.