Monsanto Front Group Connected To Longterm Study Claiming GMO Corn is Good for You

By On February 27, 2018

Recently, headlines were made about how scientists claim to have proven that GMO corn is good for you. The evidence cited in the Italian study published in the journal Nature is flimsy.

Pet Cancer

The strongest part of the study, which may take a lot of effort to debunk is that GMO corn can yield 5.6 to 24.5 percent more than regular corn. That doesn’t align with firsthand experience, or common sense. You simply don’t see big, giant corn stalks these days: if there is a difference in volume that one can harvest from GMO corn as opposed to natural, it is insignificant.

The weakest part of the study, and the premise of these headlines being made, is the evidence cited for why GM corn is “good for you.” The study claims that because fewer myotoxins were found in GM corn, that is trace amounts of toxins that come from fungi and mold, GM corn is somehow good for consumption.

Do people see myotoxins in regular corn? When is the last time you ate normal corn and had to be concerned about mold or myotoxins? No one has ever heard of this problem because it doesn’t exist, any more than mold has ever been a problem for the thousands of years that agriculture has been practiced.

The authors of the study probably knew headlines would be made about this, that just say “study shows GMO’s are good for you,” and most people are unwilling to look at the evidence they cited.

It’s extremely flimsy: myotoxins are simply not a problem with organic corn more than any other plant must be protected from fungi and pests. An absence of toxins does not constitute “good for you.” These two points are just about the only thing being mentioned by articles about the study. There isn’t much else to it: negligible, obviously exaggerated supposed increases in GM crop yields, and a supposed absence of myotoxins: that’s the study.


Nothing about secret Monsanto funding can be found about the Italian researchers behind the study, Elisa Pellegrino, Stefano Bedini, Marco Nuti & Laura Ercole. However, the Genetic Literacy Project, an organization funded by Monsanto and spear-headed by known industry shills is referenced as a source in the original article that ran on Given the pro-biotech influence on a study with such little merit, one can only wonder how much Monsanto spent to deceive the public yet again into believing their carcinogenic-laden “food” is safe for consumption.

Now, let’s take a look at some better, more controversial studies.

While many studies critical of GMO’s are ridiculed in the media despite their inability to slow down the veracity of their claims, this one is hardly mentioned by the mainstream at all.

The Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety sponsored a quite long-term, multi-generational government study feeding Monsanto GM corn to mice. Their findings were that the mice ended up with damaged fertility and lower body weight. The lab mice were divided into two groups. The first group was fed a diet that included 33% GM corn (the variety NK 603 x MON 810), and the second group was fed a non-GM variety of very similiar corn. According to Holistic Health Living:

“There were significant decreases in both litter size and pup weight, in the third and fourth generation litters, when comparing the mice fed GM corn and those fed non-GM corn. Professor Zentek, the lead author of the study, believes that there is a direct link between the decrease in the mice subjects’ fertility and the GM diet. The mice who were fed non-GM corn continued to reproduce normally.”

This is of course not the only multi-generational, long-term study that reached the same conclusion.

Another study was conducted by both the Institute of Ecological and Evolutionary Problems in Russia, and the National Association for Gene Security.

It found that within three generations, hamsters fed GM soy became completely sterile. 95% of the world’s soy is genetically modified. An author of the study, Dr. Alexei Surov said:

“We selected several groups of hamsters, kept them in pairs in cells and gave them ordinary food as always. We did not add anything for one group but the other was fed with soya that contained no GM components, while the third group with some content of Genetically Modified Organisms and the fourth one with increased amount of GMO. We monitored their behavior and how they gain weight and when they give birth to their cubs. Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly. When we got some of their cubs we formed the new pairs of the third generation. We failed to get cubs from these pairs, which were fed with GM foodstuffs. It was proved that these pairs lost their ability to give birth to their cubs.”

The scientists were even further shocked to discover those third generation sterile hamsters had grown hair in their mouths as well. They are unsure why.

So people are led to ask, why is the US in a fertility crisis for both males and females? Why are places all over the world struck with fertility crisis, or failure to replace an aging population?

Some wonder if Monsanto didn’t add the Epicyte gene known to cause infertility into their corn, because the biotech company Epicyte Pharmaceuticals created it for “contraceptive corn” almost 20 years ago.

The gene activates an unusual class of antibodies that attack sperm. And guess what: if a person is infected by the Epicyte gene by eating “contraceptive corn” the damage is permanent and irreversible: they are sterilized for life.

Monsanto of course firmly denies placing the Epicyte gene into their corn, but wouldn’t it explain a lot? Obviously people believe that Bill Gates invests so much in Monsanto because of his belief in the need for population control. Some people call it eugenics, but today a more fitting term would be “dysgenics”: the breeding of negative traits into the common people rather than positive ones.

So to the people who popularized this study that claims GMO corn is good for you: a lack of mytotoxins does not constitute “good for you,” and if there is a negligibly greater amount more GM corn per harvest than natural corn, good for you. Set the example for everyone and eat an extra amount of GM corn and then see if your grandchildren become infertile or not.


If a lack of myotoxins is such a factor in “good for you,” how much of a factor is glyphosate in the corn? How much of a factor are the depleted soils a lot of this corn is grown in?

One study even tied pesticides in food to reduced fertility in women.


(Image credit: National Geographic)