10 GMO Myths and Realities
So I don't have time for a post today - I'm fighting off the flu still, but was able to get back to work at last. Still leaves me absolutely wrung out, though. So you get this excellent article refuting some of the commonly used arguments against GMO and glyphosate. The science, time and again, shows both to be safe. Sometimes you'll come across 'science' that isn't, really, and most of these myths purport to be science without meeting the high bar required of hard study data. I highly recommend you read the full article, but I've snipped the highlights for quick reference.
1) Multiple toxins from GMOs detected in maternal and fetal blood
The authors identified the Bt protein Cry1Ab in maternal and fetal blood, a protein found in some GMOs, but also commonly used as a pesticide in organic farming. The paper is flawed. The researchers’ measurements were based on an experiment/assay designed to detect Bt’s Cry1Ab in plants, not in humans. As this post in Biofortified.org explains, the pregnant women in the study would have had to eat several kilos of corn [daily] in order to get the Bt measurements that were detected in their blood.
2) DNA from genetically modified crops can be transferred into humans who eat them
The authors found that whole genes from our food can be detected in our plasma. That does not mean that they’ve integrated into our DNA; it means that they’ve been found floating in the space between cells. And that’s any food, not just GMOs. DNA from GMOs behave no differently than DNA from organic or conventional foods. If you aren’t concerned about the DNA from blueberries “transferring” into you, then you should not be concerned about DNA from GMOs either.
3) New study links GMOs to gluten disorders that affect 18 million Americans
The article quotes for an alleged “study” by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT). But there is no study on the link of GMOs to gluten allergies. There’s a link to a post on a webpage, but there isn’t a peer-reviewed article. The Celiac Disease foundation has spoken out against the IRT’s report.
4) Study links genetically modified corn to rat tumors
The paper did not perform statistical analyses and used too few rats, so it was not possible to determine if the tumors were due to the food, the chemical or to the fact that the strain of rats would get tumors regardless of what they were fed.
5) Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors
This experiment was done with cells in a petri dish—what’s called an in vitro tissue-culture experiment. Such research is of limited real-world value. The cells are often finicky and need plenty of TLC in order to grow well; different cell lines can also behave very differently. The authors of the paper note some of these issues, along with the fact that their data doesn’t mesh with previous studies that have examined the impact of glyphosate on cellular proliferation (this previous paper suggests that glyphosate actually protects against cell proliferation in vitro in eight different cancer cell lines and that glyphosate might be developed into an anti-cancer drug!).
6) Glyphosate linked to birth defects
No peer-reviewed, published scientific study makes such claims.
7) Study links glyphosate to autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
The paper that led to this health claim does not constitute research. It’s a hypothesis and no research was done to support the hypothesis.
8) Chronically ill humans have higher glyphosate levels than healthy humans
The authors examined glyphosate levels in humans and different animals. There’s no indication of what the animals were fed, how much, how they were kept or myriad other variables. Any of these could invalidate the study. The researchers do not say anything about the age, sex, weight, height, or genetic background of the humans, or how much they ate, if they washed their food, how long they had been eating organic/conventional diets and, most mind-blowing of all, there’s absolutely no definition for what constitutes being “chronically ill”.
9) Studies link GMO animal feed to severe stomach inflammation and enlarged uteri in pigs
... there are several parameters where GM-feed could be argued as having a protective effect (there are 50 percent fewer heart-abnormalities in pigs fed GM-grain), but this isn’t discussed. In conclusion, even if the paper’s findings are real, there’s no knowing whether that’s due to something associated with transgenes or not, because the researchers do not account for natural variation in the feed.
10) GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety.
In conclusion, despite the title of the article, none of these studies proves or even persuasively suggests that GMOs can be harmful to human health. The majority are either obviously flawed or are not scientific studies.
The current scientific consensus regarding GMOs remains unchanged: they are safe and do not pose a health risk to humans. However, a scientific consensus is subject to change if there is sufficient reproducible evidence that may impact it, but none of the studies reviewed here constitute such evidence.