FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Renter writes: "Genetically modified foods have been shown to cause harm to humans, animals, and the environmental, and despite growing opposition, more and more foods continue to be genetically altered."

Corn is Number 1 on the list of GMO foods to avoid. (photo: Natural Society)
Corn is Number 1 on the list of GMO foods to avoid. (photo: Natural Society)



Top 10 GMO Foods to Avoid

By Elizabeth Renter, Natural Society

29 July 12

 

enetically modified foods have been shown to cause harm to humans, animals, and the environmental, and despite growing opposition, more and more foods continue to be genetically altered. It's important to note that steering clear from these foods completely may be difficult, and you should merely try finding other sources than your big chain grocer. If produce is certified USDA-organic, it's non-GMO (or supposed to be!) Also, seek out local farmers and booths at farmer's markets where you can be ensured the crops aren't GMO. Even better, if you are so inclined: Start organic gardening and grow them yourself. Until then, here are the top 10 worst GMO foods for your "do not eat" GMO foods list.

Top 10 Worst GMO Foods for Your GMO Foods List

1. Corn: This is a no-brainer. If you've watched any food documentary, you know corn is highly modified. "As many as half of all U.S. farms growing corn for Monsanto are using genetically modified corn," and much of it is intended for human consumption. Monsanto's GMO corn has been tied to numerous health issues, including weight gain and organ disruption.

2. Soy: Found in tofu, vegetarian products, soybean oil, soy flour, and numerous other products, soy is also modified to resist herbicides. As of now, biotech giant Monsanto still has a tight grasp on the soybean market, with approximately 90 percent of soy being genetically engineered to resist Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. In one single year, 2006, 96.7 million pounds of glyphosate was sprayed on soybeans alone

3. Sugar: According to NaturalNews, genetically-modified sugar beets were introduced to the U.S. market in 2009. Like others, they've been modified by Monsanto to resist herbicides. Monsanto has even had USDA and court-related issues with the planting of it's sugarbeets, being ordered to remove seeds from the soil due to illegal approval.

4. Aspartame: Aspartame is a toxic additive used in numerous food products, and should be avoided for numerous reasons, including the fact that it is created with genetically modified bacteria.

5. Papayas: This one may come as a surprise to all of you tropical-fruit lovers. GMO papayas have been grown in Hawaii for consumption since 1999. Though they can't be sold to countries in the European Union, they are welcome with open arms in the U.S. and Canada.

6. Canola: One of the most chemically altered foods in the U.S. diet, canola oil is obtained from rapeseed through a series of chemical actions.

7. Cotton: Found in cotton oil, cotton originating in India and China in particular has serious risks.

8. Dairy: Your dairy products contain growth hormones, with as many as one-fifth of all dairy cows in America are pumped with these hormones. In fact, Monasnto's health-hazardous rBGH has been banned in 27 countries, but is still in most US cows. If you must drink milk, buy organic.

9. and 10. Zucchini and Yellow Squash: Closely related, these two squash varieties are modified to resist viruses.

The dangers of some of these foods are well-known. The Bt toxin being used in GMO corn, for example, was recently detected in the blood of pregnant women and their babies. But perhaps more frightening are the risks that are still unknown.

With little regulation and safety tests performed by the companies doing the genetic modifications themselves, we have no way of knowing for certain what risks these lab-created foods pose to us outside of what we already know.

The best advice: steer clear of them altogether.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+218 # Richard Raznikov 2012-07-29 14:23
I use dairy and yellow squash and feel quite safe because their origins are local, organic, and produced without any taint of growth hormones (for cattle) and GMO connections for vegetables. Know where your food comes from and reject anything which is of obscure or tainted origin. Monsanto is a criminal corporation which does not care if it poisons you.
 
 
+89 # Barbara K 2012-07-30 04:20
Richard Raznikov: You have great advice. I noticed that the author did not list Wheat. I have been ill for over 2 years with stomach and digestive problems. The doctors finally figured out that it is the Wheat. Not the wheat itself, per say, but the poisons put on the wheat and in the wheat seed itself. I agree fully that Monsanto is a criminal corporation, and I know there are many people in my position that don't realize it is the poisons in their food making them ill. We need to get the word out. You'd think the government would do more to stop them. It costs Medicare, Medicaid, and Insurance companies lots of money.
 
 
+45 # Old Man 2012-07-30 07:01
It's one viscus circle, they get the money on both ends from the consumer, then you die.
 
 
+46 # ixonia 2012-07-30 14:36
California Voters will be taking the first step to limit GMOs on this November's ballot. Proposition 37 would require GMOs to be disclosed on packaging. The proposition gives food companies 18 months to make the change. There is no added fluff or fancy language in this proposition.

If you live in California, or know anyone who lives in California, please urge them to VOTE YES on Prop 37. Tell your friends and family!

Unfortunately, so many people are still not aware of GMOs, and the fact that we do not have any idea of the long-term effects of GMOs yet.

Watch: The Future of Food
 
 
-1 # ericsongs 2012-08-02 03:34
All corporations of every size and type should be classified as criminal enterprises.
They are merely legal constructs erected for the sole purpose of harbouring the worst of motives.
 
 
+149 # pernsey 2012-07-29 17:39
Its not about protecting people, its about money...period!
 
 
+115 # newsmom 2012-07-29 20:33
we can all modify our budgets to accommodate patronizing local farmers or establishing little gardens of our own. with a little bit of effort we can modify our behavior to eat only fruits and vegetables that are in season. at the rate we're going, home-grown foods will be all we can afford. i figure we're one election away from the return of bread lines -- thanks to a constipated congress and an increasing socio-political community indifferent to human suffering.
 
 
+67 # dyannne 2012-07-29 20:55
Milk is not healthy in any form past babyhood and it should be mother's milk for humans. Human beings are the only species in normal circumstances that drinks another specie's milk. Ever think about that? We don't drink tiger milk, dog milk, giraffe milk, or chimpanzee milk. Cows are herd animals and they're docile, so that's why we drink cow's milk. Cow's milk is for calves. It's so fatty for a reason, to build a 1000 pound animal. Casein in milk has also been linked to cancer and It will definitely make you fat. Use almond milk instead.
 
 
+7 # brux 2012-07-29 21:38
milk has been drunk for centuries, there is nothing wrong with milk, or just about anything else in moderation.

there may be additives or hormones that cause problems, but milk itself is a nutritious food.

there are lots of things humans eat that other species do not eat, that's no argument.

about all you can say is that if you drink whole milk you run the risk of gaining weight and getting fat.

carry that logic and we should not eat yogurt, cheese, cottage cheese, sour cream - all things that have been eaten for hundreds of years without a problem.

if you do not like milk, don't drink it. If you think there may be problems, explain what you think they are - but you cannot make the statement that milk is any form in unhealthy for humans past babyhood, any more than Monsanto can say GMOs are great, it just ain't true, or at least it has not been proven.

there is a point where people go beyond being cauting and into being silly and fearful.
 
 
+39 # Majikman 2012-07-30 07:53
Brux, yes, milk has been drunk by humans for centuries...RAW milk which is a different product from the modern pasturized, homogenized, drug laden substance now consumed; and yes, extending to dairy products. Further, the breed of cow producing the milk has different properties that effect humans.
Raw milk is available from only a tiny few dairies. (Fortunately, in my community I can purchase raw milk from our local dairy since I'm not willing to give up the cream in my coffee).
As we become further removed from our sources of food, the more likely we are to be seduced by huge agri-biz into consuming food-like substances never intended by nature to be eaten.
Michael Pallen (spelling?) has written several excellent books on the issue.
 
 
+19 # soularddave 2012-07-30 17:17
Yes, for centuries milk has come from cows. Only in the last few years have cows been injected with growth hormones and antibiotics. Only in the last few years have cows been fed feed that includes chicken parts, pig parts, and yes, parts of dead cows. That' how mad cow disease is spread. Pasteurization doesn't neutralize the antibiotics, hormones, and microbes of sick animals.

More people than ever cannot drink milk or use dairy products without adverse reactions. Much milk is just not the same as it used to be, but that fact is not generally known by the average consumer.

I'm happy that you have no problem with milk or other dairy products, but please don't suggest that milk is a benign product for everyone - it isn't anymore. That's sad because, as you say, Milk should be good, wholesome food for everyone.
 
 
+13 # brux 2012-07-30 19:58
I agree that cows should not be fed parts of other dead animals, but that has nothing to do with milk, per se.

Don't out words in my mouth either, I did not say milk is great for everyone, The original poster made the argument that milk is bad for all people because no other animal drinks the milk of another species - which I was complaining about being silly.

I used to drink a lot of milk, don't drink much anymore, aside from 1% on cereal when I eat it, and cream in my coffee, or course cheese, yogurt, ice cream when I eat them as well.

I try to buy organic, no GMO, and locally as well as to eat as much vegetables and fruits. When people turn politics in to referendums on their own weird beliefs and diets is when I think the discussion turns useless.
 
 
+5 # dyannne 2012-07-30 21:55
Brux, I am not being political when I say that milk is not fit food for people beyond toddlerhood. Your belief that milk, yogurt, ice cream, etc. are nutritious foods is understandable but it is ignorant. You have not been educated in nutrition. I did not know this either until recently. There are many other foods that we eat daily that are unhealthy foods, cause heart disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, obesity, etc. The pesticides in our food are horrible, and all the other ways our food is grown and treated as well. But the truth is that a lot of the foods we eat cause disease and illness. Get a book titled, China Study by T. Colin Campbell. Look up Dr. Joel Fuhrman. He has a book called Eat to Live.
 
 
+1 # brux 2013-06-11 09:16
> is ignorant. You have not been educated in nutrition.

For someone so insulting how do you expect to ever get people to listen to you when you antagonize them. All you are saying is you disagree with me because you believe because of your limited "research" that you know the truth.

The studies you are looking at are not conclusive in proving what you say. This happens all they time. It may be right, or it may be wrong, but it is just one statistical way or looking at things. Then sometime in the future they find a new way to interpret data and the original conclusions are modified, or often discarded.

The Internet is so full of loud-mouths like you willing to insult people and pretend you are doctor when in fact you just say a video or a study ... and you never think that the people making those videos have something to sell you on as well.

Who is ignorant? Better to keep the name-calling out of it and just present what you know is a way that is not so irritating and arrogant, because you are probably wrong.

I've heard about Fuhrman and Campbell, and both of them have little nutritional industries, books, videos they are trying to sell. You are clearly not trained to look at things scientifically, which is fine, just do not pop off like a know it all when you don't.
 
 
-2 # dyannne 2013-06-11 12:47
I did not call you or anyone any names. Believe what you want to believe, brux, and I will follow what I believe that has proven to be true as I am my own test tube. Since I've been following Dr. Fuhrman's and Dr. Campbell's advice, I've lost 65 pounds and am now a normal weight, size 8-10 and 5'6" tall. Now that I don't eat meat or dairy products of any kind and buy mostly organic, non-GMO, non processed foods, my health has vastly improved. I'm no longer bed bound. I've got my life back. I'm going on a cruise soon and I'm making plans to live to 100 now - and healthily! Good luck to you!
 
 
-2 # brux 2013-06-11 15:13
> Believe what you want to believe, brux, and I will follow what I believe that has proven to be true

that is sheer arrogance of a mindless zealot. normally, I would say I was glad that your ignorance happened to be in a way helped you out but you're so rude and snarky I'll jsut skip it. I don't have your problems so maybe you should have been listening to me all my life.
 
 
+1 # dyannne 2013-06-11 20:22
"that is sheer arrogance of a mindless zealot"

Who's calling who names? I don't know why you are so upset by my comments. Do you own a dairy? Maybe that's why. I have not tried to be rude, only passing along information I've learned and benefitted by. You're the rude one here. But whatever. Have a nice day, brux.
 
 
+26 # Mrcead 2012-07-30 01:59
The funny thing is that the "thin" countries have large populations of people who are lactose intolerant.

Much like everything else, food we were not designed to eat is marketed and thrown in our faces (since childhood) in order to support an industry that technically should not exist.
 
 
-8 # mdhome 2012-07-30 07:18
3% fat in whole milk, does not seem to be bad, when compared with other foods. and you can get 2%,1% or fat free.
 
 
+8 # dkonstruction 2012-07-30 09:46
Quoting mdhome:
3% fat in whole milk, does not seem to be bad, when compared with other foods. and you can get 2%,1% or fat free.


kind of like saying it's only 1/5 radioactive.... does not seem so bad....the point is not the percent of fat but the percent of the calories coming from fat...so even with 2% milk (which sounds good right) you are actually getting 35% of the calories from fat. So, the 2% number is very misleading...th ey are, essentially, cooking the numbers. The 2% is based on weight....milk is mostly water, which weighs a lot but has no fat or calories. To obscure the true fat, milk companies use the convention of calculating fat as a percentage of weight. To verify the figure, you can divide the grams of fat by the grams of the serving size in the nutrition facts. Tricky, isn’t it? The 2% is milk-fat by weight.
 
 
+22 # newsmom 2012-07-30 18:29
jeez louise, folks: the issue isn't whether or not there's 2% or 1& or 10% fat milk. it's about having access to healthy food and getting out and up off our behinds to protest. if we all aren't contributing to the occupy movement in some way, shape or form, we're not serious effecting change is about inundating monsanto with angry letters, not talking to one another. it's about not buying food crap with chemicals and dyes. it's about making the sacrifice to live with the inconvenience of learning about how best to confront these corporate monsters who specialize in selling us crap for food can be retaliated against within the law..
 
 
+12 # reiverpacific 2012-07-30 20:29
Quoting mdhome:
3% fat in whole milk, does not seem to be bad, when compared with other foods. and you can get 2%,1% or fat free.

Except for all the processing shit that goes on to get it "marketable", like "lite" beer or anything else altered to maximize sales.
Look what it's done to Yoghurt; full fat is actually healthier than all the "slimming" alternatives yet it's getting harder to find because of marketing cause and effect.
A we bit of advice; avoid anything called "lite", "Slimming" "Healthier" or any of the other bastardizations of basic food.
Your body will thank you for it.
 
 
0 # Vardoz 2012-07-29 21:04
Should we assume that if it says organic squash it has GMO's in it?
 
 
+44 # brux 2012-07-29 21:40
I don't know why we limit this to 10 GMO foods to avoid.

AVOID ALL GMOs!

Until these companies can prove their claims and until they can to satisfy the world that their genes will not escape into the natural world and contaminate life on this planet I refuse to buy any GMO product or knowingly give money to these companies by buying anything they manufacture as best I can to force them either out of business or to act responsibly to this planet.
 
 
+13 # soularddave 2012-07-30 17:25
exactly right! However, they refuse to label GMO food. We have to seek out food and products that are labelled ORGANIC. Organic food often costs more, and sometimes it is a LOT more.

Its a real battle, especially for some large segments of the population. It's not a fair fight, either.
 
 
+27 # Servelan 2012-07-29 22:16
While eating a lot of sugar obviously isn't good for you, if you bake or use sugar, get C & H. It's made from cane, not beets. Also, here in the Pac NW, Darigold dairy products are free from rGBH.

As for zucchini, grow your own if you can. Or at least volunteer to take your neighbor's extra home-grown zukes that they don't want.
 
 
+9 # badbenski 2012-07-29 23:09
One only hopes that the greedy instincts of the super rich morph into gluttony so that they make themselves into test subjects for the downstream effects of lots and lots of GM foods, Growing strange and bizarre extra appendages is too much to hope for, but at least we can count on them blowing up like the cows they give GM feed.

Btw, dyanne is 100% correct about ingesting milk, "Got Milk?" "Got Ca-Ca For Brains"

Somehow I fear that the powers-that-be know full well they're poisoning us so they likely avoid GM foods at all costs.

Where is Madame LaFarge when we need her?
 
 
0 # brux 2013-06-11 09:18
Really rich people don't usually eat much of the junk they try to sell everyone else on.
 
 
-31 # VMWH 2012-07-30 02:20
There is NO domestic vegetable that is NOT genetically modified. Domestication of plants IS genetic modification. Gregor Mendel demonstrated that.
 
 
+39 # Majikman 2012-07-30 07:29
We're talking frankenfoods, VMWH, not natural mutations in the same species. Ever hear of corn cross breeding with pigs or fish naturally?
 
 
+17 # Oysterdoctor 2012-07-30 03:10
In general I oppose Monsanto's control of food supplies and genetically modified products, especially seeds producing plants that don't produce viable seeds, But this article is poorly written, poorly documentedhas , unsupported claims and unfairly stirs fear of the unknown.
One example: In item #8 the statement is made that "as many as one-fifth of all cows in America are "pumped" with these (growth) hormones." this is followed by the statement that it "is still in MOST us cows.

When is "as many as one fifth" equal to "most?"
 
 
-38 # mdhome 2012-07-30 07:22
Scare tactics are what republicans are best at, but this article is a bit far out there toward woo woo land.
 
 
0 # VMWH 2012-07-30 20:24
We call that milking the factoids, oyster.
 
 
+23 # oldleftie 2012-07-30 04:27
I'd be a lot more convinced about the accuracy of this article's claims if it were better written, proofread and more complete, like the majority of RSN articles. I mean, what is "7. Cotton: Found in cotton oil, cotton originating in India and China in particular has serious risks" supposed to tell me?
 
 
+3 # VMWH 2012-07-30 20:25
Buy California grown cotton?
 
 
+18 # thorn262 2012-07-30 04:30
Does anyone know if Monsatan has snagged almonds? What they do is like the shiny poison apple in Snow White, lulling one into a sleeping death (ie, unconscious, soothing acceptance)! I'd hate to lose almond milk after already losing soy milk. But, if they haven't yet, I can only imagine that we'll get 'Bhopalled,' soon (apologies to those affected directly by this Giant Agra-Witch Corp., but that's my vote for a word to summarize the effects of MonsantDow and their dread-ilk).
 
 
+21 # Susan1989 2012-07-30 04:47
Its hard to grow your own food when you live in a large city...and for some women (such as those who adopt or work full time..or whose breast milk lacks nutrients) nursing is not an option. I have come to the conclusion that our general environment (air, water, etc) has become so toxic that efforts to protect ourselves are almost fruitless. I do what I can, but refuse to add stressing out over the poisons in our food to the list. Most families just cannot afford to purchase organic foods and other products...they can only d their best.
 
 
+20 # Bob P 2012-07-30 04:56
We hava a long history of genetic modification through selective breeding. What's new is that what took many generations to accomplish before is accomplished in a single generation and can be targeted more precisely. Very powerful advance. Problem is that potential for both good and harm is increased greatly. Industry seems to be showing that profits encourage them to make changes that may be very harmful to the public. As history repeatedly shows we need government regulation to encourage helpful products and deny harmful products in the market place.
 
 
+2 # T4D 2012-07-30 05:00
So thus the green slime begins.
 
 
+28 # librarian1984 2012-07-30 06:16
I appreciate this article, and the information, but telling us to grow our own -- corn, sugar, papaya, soy, canola, dairy?! How on earth do we do that? Add a dairy barn to the condo?

How about something more helpful. The comment about using C&H sugar is useful. What else? If I buy organic corn, is that okay? Are there safe versions of canola oil and tofu out there?

This article was alarmist, but not very helpful.
 
 
-2 # dyannne 2013-06-11 12:54
Sugar has no nutrition in it and it is very addicting. Use dates instead for your major baking. Use pure maple syrup. These have some nutrients unlike processed cane sugar.
 
 
-18 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-30 06:19
From the article it is obvious that not letting facts get in the way of dogma is not restricted to the creationists.
 
 
-18 # mdhome 2012-07-30 07:25
That's so true Texas Aggie
 
 
+14 # Majikman 2012-07-30 08:12
This article is fabulous (although my inner English major would blue pencil the hell out of it) for one reason...it's one of the few that has made it out of the realm of organic websites into a somewhat more pedestrian venue.
An informed public is the first step toward change. Once frankenfoods begin to sit on store shelves, grocers will stop offering them.
Alert: "Arctic Apples" for the latest GMO
 
 
+29 # reiverpacific 2012-07-30 08:14
All the more reason to support local farmer, farmer's markets (all over the country now), and local growers . All F.M.'s I know here in Oregon mandate organically grown LOCAL food. Grow some of your own if possible.
It doesn't mean that you can entirely avoid GMO, so heavily are they pushed by the advertising in the owner-media and the armies of lobbyists and lawyers. GMO spores are a form of pollution, being wind-blown into other crops. Still, trading locally is good for community and there is a nice awareness that we can be working against Monsteranto's evil-empire.
I know that where I live (I'm passionate about cooking, culling and sourcing, making our stocks and bases, recycling and then feeding the crows and carrion critters with what's left) I have calculated that my wife and I get between 60-70% our food from local sources. It just takes a little work,
Learn to cook beyond frying and microwaving; that alone can remove many of the toxins that are dumped on us.
Don't let the constant media-commercia ls tell you what's "healthy". Cook and eat for flavor and use common-sense. -And yes, I have a full and busy life too, which is arguably the main excuse for reverting to fast and convenient food that is most likely to be imbued with all kinds of toxic shit.
Sadly the poor and welfare recipients are again most likely to suffer from GMO and other toxins, in their dependence on low-quality commodities!
No lecture intended; just sharing.
 
 
+16 # bobby t. 2012-07-30 09:14
I recommend reading "the enforement" about the adm scandal. we feed the world my butt.they fixed prices on fertilizer that put poor farmers out of business and were caught by a whistle blower. the fine was a joke. usa means steal big, pay little. monsanto and adm are so big, they own the feds.
 
 
+14 # patmonk 2012-07-30 10:05
MONSANTO. LABEL GMOS. PROPOSITION 37.
Check this out on Senator Russ Feingold's site at:-
www.progressivesunited.org
Patrick Monk.RN. SF. Ca.
 
 
+10 # artic fox 2012-07-30 10:26
According to the CAL - center for Agricultural Law at the University of Iowa, one of Monsanto RP patents will expire in 2014. I recommend to RSN readers to read the whole 5-page article at:
http://www.calt.iastate.edu/briefs/CALT%20Legal%20Brief%20-%20Expiration%20of%20Biotech%20Crop%20Patents%20-%20Issues%20for%20Growers.pdf
 
 
+23 # Gailhen 2012-07-30 10:59
What puzzles me is how intransigent our government is about putting an end to the Monsanto Corporation, period. Anyone who has been paying attention to the news for at least the last 10 years and/or more knows that this is a criminal corporation with the full support of our government. WHAT ON EARTH CAN BE DONE TO MAKE THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSIVE TO THIS PROBLEM? I have signed many petitions, protested, etc. HELP!
 
 
+18 # jamjr40 2012-07-30 17:20
Gailhen -
The answer to your question as to what can be done is to follow the example of European counties that have required labeling of GMO foods. The result was that the public stopped buying these poisons and eventually GMO products were totally banned.

The problem is we are faced with a large amount of ignorance and non-caring about the foods we eat. Media companies have been threatened with law suits by Monsanto (that includes the New York Times) and will not report the truth about GMO's. The medical profession has rolled over taking a position not to push for labeling.

Short of armed rebellion, all we can do is to let nature take its course. The US corn belt is suffering the worst drought in recent times destroying GMO corn crops that were falsely advertised by Monsanto as being drought resistant. This will definitely have an adverse effect on the commodities market regarding Monsanto. As more money is lost by Monsanto and as their share price diminishes, then we may begin to see the end of this evil monster. We can only hope.
 
 
+10 # dyannne 2012-07-30 22:08
Gailhen, well, that's one good piece of news to come out of the drought, that Monsanto is caught red handed lying about their drought resistant product.
 
 
+14 # jamjr40 2012-07-30 17:20
Gailhen - This problem extends back to when Bush the first allowed his Vice President to sign an order permitting the patenting of non natural seeds. That was the age of fascist deregulation continued from Reagan. So we are faced with 40 some years of uncontrolled development of poisonous food while, at the same time, allowing ex-Monsanto executives to occupy high positions of authority in the USDA, FDA, and EPA, allowing bio-chemical companies to produce, unchecked, the poisons we are consuming today.
 
 
+4 # brux 2012-07-30 20:06
Our government and our system is based on what we erroneously called "capitalist" principles, what it really is a con game of markets and controlling the means of production, and a heck of a lot of military might.

To all of that Monsanto's militant brand of agriculture contributes much, just like an invasion. This has been the story in India where Monsanto made promised and claims to farmers with all kinds of advertising that appealed in their cultural icons, and now the farms are falling apart and failing - farmers are committting suicide and Monsanto does nothing.

Our government is addicted to this behavior mode, and it will not stop until we have a loud enough voice to demand it.

I am fine with GMO research and in the lab, but like the nuclear industry these companies have proven that there are some technologies that humans just do not have the wisdom to handle right now.
 
 
+18 # kellyannvarbel 2012-07-30 14:59
No wonder we are having a drought! The Universe's way of wiping out the corn fields! Funny how that works....
 
 
+4 # Daner 2012-07-31 08:04
I grow most of my own vegetables, but am wondering if the seeds I buy at the local nursery are GMO. Anyone have any info on that?
 
 
+3 # coachb 2012-07-31 15:19
From a small family farm's perspective, the comment about "universe's way of wiping out corn" is not funny at all.
 
 
+6 # jamjr40 2012-07-31 21:28
If you are growing GMO corn then you must go. You farmers must get the stones to stand up to Monsanto and resist using their poisonous products. Go organic and help save the planet. The Universe will reward you.
 
 
-5 # billeeboy 2012-08-01 12:46
Mitt Romney probably owns lots of Monsanto stock!
 
 
-4 # colinstoneman 2012-08-02 02:24
I came to this article having just read the article about the distinction between skeptics and contrarians on the climate change issue.
This GM foods article is clearly by a contrarian and not someone open to scientific evidence, as can be seen by the technique employed. e.g. "Monsanto's GMO corn has been tied to numerous health issues, including weight gain and organ disruption." Well, I hate Monsanto, but what is "tied to" supposed to mean? And 'weight gain' could (of course) also be caused by non-GM corn, and what is the evidence that GM corn is any different? The same sort of thing applies to all her other points. There MAY be evidence, and some GM foods MAY be harmful (as may non-GM foods) but skeptics (as opposed to contrarians) need actual evidence.
 
 
+4 # jamjr40 2012-08-02 10:05
colinstone - I appreciate your concern for accuracy regarding how GMO's impact human health. I suggest however, that you review the papers that have been written by well known scientists and physicians that have warned about the adverse effects of ingesting GMO poisonous food and have strongly advocated not eating them.

Jeffrey Smith is well known for his opposition to GMO foods. Do a search on "GMO Poisoning" to see what others are saying. Using the term "tied to" is the layman's term for the scientific term "linked to". Criticizing semantics does not help solve the problem. After you have spent the hours of researching that many have done, you may become more literate regarding the adverse health effects associated with directly and indirectly consuming GMO food products.
 
 
+4 # Dana Fisher 2012-10-25 14:59
Bottom line...we can't know what the long-term effects of GMO foods are because they haven't been around for long enough and in sufficient quantities, to have any meaningful data. They may be harmless, or they may kill us all. Only time will tell.

What is known is that the genetic material can not be confined to the field where it was planted. Adjacent fields get contaminated whether the farmers like it or not. Weeds have become resistant, and that resistance also spreads to adjacent fields, creating a problem for those farmers, too.

Seriously, how can this be anything EXCEPT a conspiracy by Monsanto, DuPont, and others to create a market in which theirs are the only products that can stave off disaster? It is completely self-serving for the chemical giants, and provides no long-term benefit for farmers or consumers.

GMO products should be regulated up to their corporate eyeballs, and labelled to identify what they are. Vote with your fork and buy non-GMO. The notion that labelling will create confusion across different states, or cost more, is complete hogwash. The same argument was made about nutrition labels, saturated and trans-fat content, and a host of other issues WHICH ARE NOW standard items, have not increased costs or confusion (and are in fact ignored by millions of people), and are even used as marketing points.
 
 
0 # CaptSpastic 2013-06-11 08:02
I just have one issue with this article.

There are no referencing links to any research of studies, validating anything being stated.

This does not make for good information, it does make for great DIS-information .
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN