11 Scientific Reasons Why You Must Avoid GMOs Now

by Sarah Activism, Green LivingComments: 50

GMOs cause stomach holesIt is estimated that over 80% of processed foods now contain genetically modified organisms, also called GMOs (source). The rapidity with which these frankenfoods have invaded and continue to expand within our food supply is nothing short of terrifying. For example, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready GMO sugar beets were first introduced to the market in 2008.  Now, a few short years later, at least 95% of the sugar beets grown in the United States are GMO with over 50% of the white sugar coming from GMO beets – NOT sugar cane which is what the majority of consumers assume!

While most world countries opt for full disclosure on product labels, the US still does not require any information to warn consumers of lurking GMOs. For parents, it is imperative to source and buy foods free of GMOs as much as possible as the long term effects on humans, especially growing children, is completely unknown.

Buying from trusted local producers and seeking products that are organic or have the Non-GMO Project Verified label is the best way to achieve this goal until manufacturers are finally required to disclose the truth on ingredient labels.

If you are still unconvinced that the effort and expense required to avoid GMOs for your family is worth it, below is a list of 11 scientific reasons why you should reconsider.

Processed food containing GMOs is not really food – it is a chemistry experiment. Be sure your family opts out.  Your children deserve better than to be hapless guinea pigs for the industrial food system.

Scientific Reasons to Avoid GMOs

1)  A study of GMOs reported in the June 2013 issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Organic Systems involved research conducted over 22.7 weeks using 168 newly weaned pigs in a commercial U.S. piggery. One group of 84 pigs ate a diet that incorporated genetically modified (GM) soy and corn, and the other group of 84 pigs ate an equivalent non-GM diet.  The pigs that ate the GM diet had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation – 32 percent of GM-fed pigs compared to 12 percent of non-GM-fed pigs (see photo above). The inflammation was worse in GM-fed males compared to non-GM fed males by a factor of 4.0, and GM-fed females compared to non-GM-fed females by a factor of 2.2. (Source)

2)  In 2012, researchers found that female rats fed GMOs in the form of Roundup Ready-tolerant corn developed large tumors and dysfunction of the pituitary gland; males also developed tumors and exhibited pathologies of the liver and kidney (Food and Chemical Toxicology 2012).

3)  Scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences reported between 2005 and 2006 that female rats fed Roundup Ready-tolerant GM soy produced excessive numbers of severely stunted pups with more than half of the litter dying within three weeks, and the surviving pups completely sterile.  (Source)

4)  In 2005, scientists studying GMOs at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Canberra, Australia reported that a harmless protein in beans (alpha-amylase inhibitor 1) transferred to peas via genetic engineering caused inflammation in the lungs of mice and provoked sensitivities to other proteins in the diet (Ho MW. Transgenic pea that made mice ill. Science in Society 29, 28-29, 2006).

5)  From 2002 to 2005, scientists at the Universities of Urbino, Perugia and Pavia in Italy published reports indicating that GM soy affected cells in the pancreas, liver and testes of young mice (Science in Society 29, 26-27, 2006).

6)  In 2004, Monsanto’s secret research dossier on GMOs showed that rats fed MON863 GM corn developed serious kidney and blood abnormalities (GMWatch, 23 April 2004.)

7)  In 1998, Dr. Arpad Pusztai and colleagues formerly of the Rowett Institute in Scotland reported damage in every organ system of young rats fed GM potatoes containing snowdrop lectin, including a stomach lining twice as thick as controls (Contaminants and Toxins, (J P F D’Mello ed.), Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, CAB International, 2003).

8)  Also in 1998, scientists in Egypt found similar effects in the guts of mice fed Bt potato (Fares NH and El-Sayed AK. Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on dendotoxin-treated potatotes and transgenic potatoes. Natural Toxins, 1998, 6, 219-33; also “Bt is toxic” by Joe Cummins and Mae-Wan Ho, ISIS News 7/8, February 2001, ISSN: 1474-1547 (print), ISSN: 1474-1814 (online) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php Agricultural Biotechnology 2006, www.ISAAA.org).

9)  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration had data on the adverse effects of GMOs dating back to early 1990s showing that rats fed GM tomatoes with antisense gene to delay ripening had developed small holes in their stomachs (Pusztai A, Bardocz S and Ewen SWB. Genetically modified foods: Potential human health effects. In Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins, (J P F D’Mello ed.), Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, CAB International, 2003).

10)  In 2002, Aventis company (later Bayer Cropscience) submitted data to UK regulators showing that chickens fed glufosinate-tolerant GM corn Chardon LL were twice as likely to die compared with controls (Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (CABI Publishing 2003 also Novotny E. Animals avoid GM food, for good reasons. Science in Society 21, 9-11, 2004).

11)  Testing by Monsanto itself has found that rats eating GM maize (MON863) develop smaller kidneys and show startling changes in blood chemistry.  One blood change included an increase in white blood cell count which demonstrates that the GM food elicited an immune reaction by the body.

Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist


The Weston A. Price Foundation

The Non-GMO Verified Project

Comments (50)

  • Dianna Brittain via Facebook


    September 7th, 2014 8:10 am Reply
  • Sharmyn Smith via Facebook

    A great reminder why we should buy from trusted farmers and cook from scratch. Most recipes do not take longer than preparing a boxed meal.

    September 6th, 2014 8:34 pm Reply
  • Pamela AdriKat Burke via Facebook

    Thank you for referencing actual studies done. Anyone who reads this should agree that more testing is needed and we should be cautious in the interim. I should point out that #6 and #11 on the list are basically the same, telling about kidney and blood problems from the same strain of Monsanto corn. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    September 6th, 2014 3:40 pm Reply
  • Mandy Cruz via Facebook

    How is it that we have knowledge of these things but others remain so ignorant? It’s so frustrating! I’ve actually had conversations with people that don’t know what GMO’s are and I’m like “where have you been, and what do you eat?”

    September 6th, 2014 2:49 pm Reply
  • Jessica Whisker via Facebook

    Oh I know it is. But there ARE real people out there working in the sciences and in govt and I am surprised they are not completely outraged. Guess the fluoride has done its job.

    September 6th, 2014 8:25 am Reply
  • Jessica Whisker via Facebook

    Is there no one looking out for the American public? No one in the Universities or sciences? Or in the halls of government that it has come to this?? Thanks for writing, Sarah.

    September 6th, 2014 7:55 am Reply
  • Anonymous

    This argument all depends on one’s definition of “genetically-modified.” That being said, what exactly is being considered GM?

    April 14th, 2014 1:14 am Reply
  • Pingback: The Dirty Little Secret about Gluten Free | What's Up With Wheat?

  • health benefits of beets for men

    The size of your plate and bowls determine the amount of food you
    eat. This good tasting item can be used as a shredded topping for sandwiches.
    People who engage in a daily regimen of drinking three to six ounces
    of Nopalea Juice say they have more energy and generally feel better

    January 6th, 2014 2:56 pm Reply
  • Pingback: The GMO Autism/Allergy Connection | Healthy Concepts with a Nutrition Bias

  • Pingback: Going deep to study long-term climate evolution | wellsopz719

  • Pingback: WOD – 09-21-2013

  • Paige

    Great article! As you might already know, citizens of Washington state will have the opportunity to vote for the labeling of GMO foods in November. We need to spread the word as much as possible as this could be a crucial turning point in food labeling history! Let’s show Monsanto who’s bosss


    September 17th, 2013 6:36 am Reply
  • Chrystal Clark

    I shared this article on my Facebook and was asked this question can anyone help me answer it…..Do you have any links to information that demonstrates the mechanism by which these foods cause cellular disruption…?

    September 16th, 2013 2:58 pm Reply
    • Rochelle

      Here is an article that I have shared extensively regarding cellular disruption:

      Abstract: Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate’s inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins.

      September 17th, 2013 1:06 am Reply
  • Mary Ellen Greenemad

    Government, Big AG Companies and the Health Industry are all in collusion. I do not believe Anything they tell us. Why do you think there are so many diseases, so much obesity and diabetics? Why they building so many “health” clinics? The “health” Industry is the largest growing industry today which means big business and big money. The American people have been duped and misinformed. I keep telling everyone to read and stay informed. To maintain good health, eat only organic natu

    September 15th, 2013 9:14 pm Reply


    September 15th, 2013 1:06 pm Reply
  • Eliza

    For the scientists here, a question: what is your explanation of the reasons why a growing number of countries in the world (presumably countries full of scientists) are banning GMOs?

    September 15th, 2013 9:39 am Reply
  • Sarah [NurseLovesFarmer.com]

    This article makes me sad that you have “scientific reasons why you must avoid GMOs” in the title. This is not science-based info you have cited, it’s almost all organic/anti-GMO propaganda sources. The Seralini rat study has been debunked time and time again. You should take Amber’s comment to heart, learn from it, and reach out to public scientists (read: NOT paid by Monsanto, like so many anti-GMO people think) like Kevin Folta (@kevinfolta) who LOVES to teach.

    September 14th, 2013 11:12 am Reply
    • Helen T

      Well, who is doing the debunking of the Seralini study? Corporate agriculture? Look around you – nobody is healthier eating their sprayed and processed food. I believe you’re paid to debunk – shame for being on the side of killers.

      September 15th, 2013 12:40 pm Reply
      • Anonymous

        Question: Was the Roundup Ready Corn fed straight from the bag it was sold from or was the original seed actually used to grow and produce corn from which the rats were fed from? There’s a difference between what’s used for consumption and what is grown from the ground.

        April 14th, 2014 1:09 am Reply
  • Linda Hill

    You said it! My concern is that we have been trusting for so long that it becomes a huge challenge to take time to research, spread awareness and monitor our food sources. We are up against massive corporations like Monsanto and it becomes increasingly difficult to keep up with the latest studies and statistics when we are just trying to do a day’s work and put food on the table….food that was meant for the nourishment of humans. I may be naive but I look forward to a time when consciousness will be raised to a degree that the manipulation of statistics will lessen hugely and most of our nutrition needs will be sourced locally – there will be greater transparency. For now , I do the best I can do to be discerning about my family’s nutrition and I am grateful for “small” mercies like my son not drinking or smoking…even if he does indulge in processed foods that HE buys. HUGE thanks for this article and all the comments. The more energy we invest in caring for each other’s welfare the more we contribute to raising the vibration of energy and it’s COMING ….one article, one post, one kind deed, one minute, one second, one positive intention at a time……………..

    September 13th, 2013 9:44 pm Reply
  • Melliebean

    It is indeed a frightening reality. It is ignorance to not believe that years of chemicals, preservatives, and GMO pumped into our daily diets is not creating health concerns. I try so hard to eat as naturally as possible, as there is no doubt there is a link to some of my health issues and these man made chemicals.

    September 13th, 2013 6:14 pm Reply
  • Amber Bilak

    I’m sorry, but I just have to say something. As an actual scientist (PhD in molecular biology, 2012) I can say that these “scientific reasons” are not scientific at all. First of all, did you notice that reason 6 and reason 11 are actually the exact same finding? So make that 10 reasons. These data were taken from a biased source, so many of these studies, if you examine the original data, are not done with proper controls. Its one thing to say that “rats fed Roundup Ready-tolerant GM corn developed large tumors and dysfunction of the pituitary gland,” but when you use a tumor prone line of rats (as is often done when looking for teratogens), so do the controls! While not everything is known about the effects of GMOs, lets put it in perspective. Not everything is known about the effects of MANY foods we eat. There are far more pressing concerns that DO have scientific backing — for example- global warming.

    September 13th, 2013 10:12 am Reply
    • Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist

      It doesn’t really matter what happens to the planet’s temperature if we destroy ourselves by decimating native plant populations with GMOs and superweeds, does it? Bees are being destroyed by the pesticides required to grow GMOs too which would delight Monsanto as this would favor the production of GMOs since crops requiring bees would be at a huge disadvantage. Global warming is far from a scientific “truth”. Many scientists dispute it although the scientific elite like to pretend those people don’t exist.

      September 13th, 2013 10:48 am Reply
    • ANGELA


      September 15th, 2013 1:11 pm Reply
      • Greg

        You must be ignorant to world statistics if you disbelieve climat change. Wheather or not it has anything to do with human intervention or natural cycles. It is changing.

        July 28th, 2015 8:21 am Reply
  • PB

    The suspicion for me is not the gene splicing – its the virus used to carry the gene from host into recipient. Ultimately, I believe that is where the deadly effects will be found. Remember, there was a time when labs around the world believed that UV light killed viruses. So scientists and technicians alike would be in labs, with many viruses. Some known to be so deadly, that they were kept inside those super-secure labs. After many years of the best practice, scientist discovered that the UV light didn’t kill the viruses. It broke them. The broken viruses recombined.

    September 12th, 2013 10:06 pm Reply
    • Flausch

      They use bacteria for that not viruses.

      September 13th, 2013 12:51 am Reply
  • DRK

    How many decades did doctors tell parents to give their children aspirin before they decided it caused Reye’s syndrome, Then there’s VIOXX, and countless other products that only became deadly after it was no longer possible to deny the facts. What this means is, if there’s money to be made they can’t be trusted not to kill you.

    September 12th, 2013 8:37 pm Reply
    • DD

      I agree, and the examples of dangerous things touted as safe that you site are just a few of the many that exist. Drug companies are notorious for getting drug approvals, after so-called safety studies, only to have the FDA remove them from the market when enough people are disabled or die from their “safe” drug. Why have many countries banned GMO’s? Are they all just buying into the hype? They haven’t found a way of preventing cross pollination with non-GMO crops, so if in the future, if we believe that GMO crops adversely affect our health, there may be no turning back! At the very least, we should have labeling that honestly tells us what is in our food, so we can decide whether we want to ingest GMO’s…that’s if there are any natural crops left to choose!

      September 13th, 2013 9:15 am Reply
  • DRK

    Every critter on this planet has natural diet that they thrive on. This natural diet has a long history of safe consumption. GMOs have a short history of human consumption, and I’m pretty sure they are not included in the natural diet for people. Heck, asbestos, and DDT were safe until they were deadly.

    September 12th, 2013 8:10 pm Reply
  • Pamela Beck


    September 12th, 2013 2:48 pm Reply
  • Eliza

    Sugar beets are different from the organic beets you eat. Like popcorn and sweet corn are two different things.

    However, just because a fruit or vegetable you buy today is not GMO, does not mean there won’t be a GMO version of it at some point.

    September 12th, 2013 2:47 pm Reply
  • Laura

    If at least 95% of the sugar beets grown in the United States are GMO, then how in the world are there so many organic beets available at the stores and farmers market, this worries me, I have been juicing with one ever day, i hope they truly are organic as the label says.

    September 12th, 2013 2:35 pm Reply
  • Kelli

    As I wrote recently in an article called “GM Golden Rice: Not The Solution”, GMOs are probably based on pseudoscience. Simply removing one gene can have unintended consequences as it leaves out the fact that theres far more to biological functioning than genetics. Theres the proteins, enzymes, and bacteria that work along with a gene, which has a whole field devoted to it called epigenetics.

    The intense growing conditions of industrial agriculture are the real problem not the genetic ability of the plants being grown. Vast monocultures leave out diversity and neglect the surrounding environment. In other words, GMOs are a false solution to a human-caused problem.

    September 12th, 2013 2:16 pm Reply
  • Andrew

    Let this be a lesson on how to lie with statistics, or just plain make things up.

    1. The stomach inflammation article is a good read. It seems there could be a genetic predisposition of some animals against the GM foods that causes severe stomach inflammation. However, it should also be noted that the group that was fed GM corn and soy had a HIGHER Nil stomach inflammation percentage and lower Mild and Medium stomach inflammation. In other words, 80% of the pigs had _reduced_ stomach inflammation while 15% of the pigs went to the severe category. This seems to indicate a genetic reaction to those foods in only specific cases.

    Most of the inflammation in the pigs was significantly reduced in the GM group. I’m not advocating that GM food some how helps inflammation, just pointing out that inflammation didn’t increase across the board when the pigs were given GM corn and soy.

    3. The paper itself says it’s too small of a study to be worth anything. Not only that they didn’t even perform autopsies on the rats to determine cause of death or even investigate other potentials causes. The sample size is way too small to be of any value. In fact, it causes harm by publishing the paper because silly sites can take it and pretend to use it as some kind of “evidence”

    12. I’d like to see on which page and line number the rats had increased white blood cell count when compared to the reference and other types of meals fed to them. If you read Monsanto’s paper they clearly state no trial related problems were found.

    September 12th, 2013 11:32 am Reply
  • S. Luk

    I love your quick, informed response, Sarah! Thanks for posting.

    September 12th, 2013 9:45 am Reply
  • Flausch

    I can understand your scepticism towards genetically modified foods but you forget to mention a lot of other things:
    GMOs are everywhere and have been used for decades, just a few examples: Vitamins and Citric acid are produced by gmo-bacteria.
    GMOs are used to produce medication for example insulin. Strangely, nobody critizises that. Before that they had to use either real organs or dead bodies. No longer necessary.

    For decades breeding has been done by exposing a plant´s DNA to radiation. This is called mutation breeding. They either use x-rays, UV-rays, laser- rays or radiation similiar to the one from atomic plants. This is used everywhere, in fruits, vegetables, grains, ornamental plants etc. Nobody has ever complained about that either. Plants like that can be labelled as gmo-free.

    September 12th, 2013 9:04 am Reply
    • Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist

      A stimulated genetic mutation within a single species is far different than moving genes BETWEEN species (sometimes plants to animals and vice versa) which is what is happening today. In addition, GE derived medicines are for people already sick … the problem today is feeding foods, the majority of which have GMO ingredients, to young, developing children who are NOT sick and have the promise of an entire lifetime ahead of them.

      September 12th, 2013 9:31 am Reply
    • Eliza

      Sometimes it is good to cut to the simple explanations and I’m not saying to leave out the science, but as another commenter posted, statistics can be misleading and used to mislead.

      I think it is undeniable that what is going on recently in terms of GMOs is vastly different from plant breeding done for many, many years. What is new now is genetic tinkering, for example inserting insect genes into plants, or breeding the pesticides right into the plants themselves. This is what is new, this is why these are “frankenfoods” and really need to be studied extensively for safety before being released on the human population, promoted as being healthful or harmless with no conclusive evidence, not to mention unlabeled so we don’t even know what we are eating anymore.

      For me, it is simply far easier to just eat only real food from sources I trust and avoid all processed food. This is not at all easy, it makes me angry that our food supply is being messed with for reasons not wholly known, but on the other hand it is preferable for me to work harder to ensure safe food in my home, to taking these unknown risks for myself and my family. I don’t want anyone to be the guinea pig in this, but it’s surely not going to be me or my children. If we find out in 30 years my caution and concern was for nothing, I will still say it was worth it to organically grow and make my own foods, from scratch, or buy my food from places I trust, with ingredients I can be confident of.

      I am not alone in feeling this way. The ego blindness of the overly scientific-minded is going to be our downfall. Put me down all you like, I am not easily convinced by short-term studies funded by the companies that stand to gain by selling GMOs to the public as safe.

      September 12th, 2013 12:43 pm Reply
      • Flausch

        I can see your point. Don´t misunderstand me here please I am not a proponent of GMO-foods. I think they should be the last solution to a problem. But my impression is that the discussion is very onesided.
        A few things about the dangers of GMOs:
        – Union of German Academics and Humanities estimates that the risk for allergies is lower in GMOs than in conventional foods
        – 2001: European Commission publishes a summary of 81 studies from 15 years of research: no danger to health or the environment found
        – 2010 another summary of the work of 400 working groups (from 2001-2010): no danger to health or the environment found
        In the scientific world there is agreement that there is no evidence that GMOs cause any damage to health or the environment (higher than in conventional foods); organizations that agree: FAO, WHO, OECD, FDA, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Medical Association, National Institute of Medicine, National Research Council, National Academy of Scienes and numerous german, british and french science academies

        The above mentioned studies conducted by Pusztai and Seralini were both critizied as not reliable. Other scientists were not able to come to the same conclusion.

        GMOs can have advantages:
        – reduction of pesticides and other toxic substances and the positive consequences for the environment
        – better harvests
        – plants with more nutrients
        – resistence against diseases e.g. corn with less mycotoxin

        September 12th, 2013 1:52 pm Reply
        • Rob Turner

          Where are you getting this from? What farmers are seeing is that weeds are developing resistance which means they have to use more pesticides and other toxic substances:
          – reduction of pesticides and other toxic substances and the positive consequences for the environment

          As for the nutrients comment, I can’t find it now but there’s every indication that golden rice isn’t the panacea Monsanto want you to believe.

          September 12th, 2013 8:10 pm Reply
          • Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist

            “GMOs will save the world” is just marketing. It’s isn’t the reality by a long shot. Feeding people poison and filling their bellies isn’t nourishing them but it sure does make the corporate elite a lot of money.

            September 13th, 2013 9:05 am
        • DD

          Can you provide links to the studies you’ve sited and the “facts” you’ve mentioned? Thanks.

          September 13th, 2013 8:52 am Reply
          • Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist

            Every single study listed is sourced if you look in the list above.

            September 13th, 2013 9:03 am
          • B

            (I think DD’s request for links was in response to Flausch.)

            September 15th, 2013 2:35 pm
        • EveryoneisGay

          Hello Flausch:

          These days I have to be highly skeptical of many, if not most, of our government agencies in Washington. The infamous “Revolving Door” in Washington is very corrupting of everything. And I have little doubt that the same is true of Europe.

          Our regulatory bureaus are utterly failing us. Moreover, our St ate De partment has been pressuring sovereign nations to accept this largely untested technology. We must ourselves why.

          September 15th, 2013 9:45 pm Reply
    • Vic

      @Flausch These comments have been brought to you by Monsanto. Savers of the worlds starving people and a company you can trust. Next time you eat corn say it with pride…..GMO corn yummy.

      April 22nd, 2015 4:05 am Reply

Leave a Comment