5 votes

Deadly viral gene found in commercial GMO crops

(NaturalNews) Just a few months after a now-famous Italian study found that Monsanto's NK603 genetically-modified (GM) corn causes serious organ damage and tumors in mammals, a report issued by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has uncovered that most GMOs in commercial use today contain a hidden viral gene that appears to be unsafe for human consumption.

Entitled Possible consequences of the overlap between the CaMV 35S promoter regions in plant transformation vectors used and the viral gene VI in transgenic plants, the landmark report highlights that fact that 54 of the 86 GMO traits currently approved for use, or roughly 63 percent, contain a strange viral gene known as "Gene VI" that researchers have found alters the normal function of crops.

This alteration is present in most

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038998_GMO_crops_viral_gene_organ...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A21 Sustainable

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that I read in Agenda21 that world population would be limited to 500 million worldwide.


"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

NWO target is 500 million

of course, Agenda 21 is a NWO program

Hazardous Virus Gene

Dr. Mae Wan Ho wrote a paper in 1999 that discussed this hazardous virus.
Here is a link to an updated piece for the general public as well as some
Responses to typical Monsanto PR:



But, I guess only Monsanto scientists are to be trusted.

Don't Fool With Mother Nature

and radiation at small doses isn't harmful etc.

Downvote for more fear-mongering, anti-science from NN

This natural news article implied that this research somehow demonstrates that GM crops are somehow deadly for human consumption, but those that actually read and understood the actual journal article would know that this is not the case.

News flash to all of the people who are terrified by genetic modification technology:

THE HUMAN GENOME IS RIDDLE WITH VIRAL DNA. By some estimates, up to 8% percent of human DNA codes for viruses. They are called ENDOGENOUS RETROVIRUSES.

We got the idea for doing genetic modification by studying ourselves.



Hmm - Anti-science - or anti big profits under the guise of science.

I am not a fan of some guy that has been on this earth 50 years screwing with something that has taken thousands/millions of years for nature to do. Modern science, imho, upon retrospect in the future, will be looked upon as dangerous and irresponsible(look no further than the damage the great discovery of nuclear fission)

Seems the more they "know and discover" the worse things get.

Seems most of today's science is spent with one half of scientists trying to find cures to the great advancements made by the other half.

So far we have only shifted the balance just enough to cause long term health problems, but I have no worries that they will soon make a mistake and cause very short term problems. Problems that will cause devastation faster than the other half can keep up.


Yes... see my post here. The gentlemen I discussed these issues with also mentioned viral DNA and how they study it to better understand modifications as they naturally occur.

I agree with your friend you had dinner with.

I'm saying this as a perspective as a scientist, not as a "lover of Monsanto."

In fact I think the entire natural health/medicine movement is a fallacy. We shouldn't be calling things natural or unnatural, as everything is natural. We should be labeling food and medicine as things that are scientifically proven to work versus things that are scientifically proven to not work.

The natural/unnatural fallacy is just creating unnecessary conflicts.

oh, really?

I didn't know a cow or pig chock full of antibiotics was all natural. Sorry, my bad.

It's all relative.

If you want to go in that direction, cooking meat is unnatural. When in nature does that chemical reaction take place unless humans instigate it? How often do cows get struck by lightening? Or caught in a wildfire?

that makes no sense

you said all things are natural

Had dinner here in St. Louis

Had dinner here in St. Louis this evening with a scientist who works for Monsanto. I brought up several oft repeated charges like the one in this post. He scoffed about them and said that genetic modification is actually safer than what is labeled organic. He gave several reasons, if I can recall them...

-the crops farmed as 'organic' are usually from previously modified products that were messed with using the far more primitive and unpredictable radiation to create random mutations. These mutations, when successful, would increase harvest, but were not analyzed for harmful unforeseen consequences to the extent that genetic engineering is today. In what Monsanto does, there are specifics carefully engineered and must be proven safe before patent and product implementation. The process from initial creation to product roll-out takes an average of ten years.
-In organic farming they still use pesticides artificial to the plant, though naturally occurring. One of the most common is a bacteria closely related to anthrax. He called the use of manure as fertilizer possibly harmful in combination with this bacteria, creating a highly unsanitary environment for crop harvest.
- Organic is in now and there is a "lot of money at stake". He called the stuff Natural News reports about them little better than slander and called the anti-GMO movement whacky and knowledge deprived... and also very unscientific.

DON'T kill the messenger. I'm just relating what he said.

Good point

And all the scientists who work for big pharma say vacines are perfectly safe. Not arguing, just saying.

Haven't talked with any of

Haven't talked with any of them, nor know any. This gentleman I have known for sometime now. Also set to quit his work there to take up a teaching position (something he always wanted to do). He spoke genuinely as far as I could tell.

Have you talked to "all the scientists who work for big pharma"?

My point was to relate a discussion with a person I am acquainted with who happens to be directly involved with the subject. Your point was.....ah, what was your point?

Are you serious

Do you really not understand my point? just asking.

If your point was to say that

If your point was that he has ulterior motives for defending GMO's, then I think it will take more than your speculations about what "all the scientist who work for big pharma" would say.

Interesting how you don't answer questions. Here is what a question looks like....
"Have you talked to all the scientist who work for big pharma?"

Your speculations mean nothing. His answers to me were thoughtful, logical and made sense. Your speculations have none of those qualities. Furthermore, he will soon be leaving Monsanto. He wants to teach. All these in combination make your point ring hollow to me.

Thanks for explaining a question.

No, I have not talked to every scientist who works for big pharma. Now, does that mean that talking to one Monsanto employee gives you 100% knowledge of everything concerning GMOs? Because he's your friend is a poor reason to think him totally infallible.

"No, I have not talked to

"No, I have not talked to every scientist who works for big pharma."

But yet you claim knowledge about what everyone of them would say, without a single decenter amongst them. Perhaps they would all say that, but you were speculating and merely assuming - something you do a lot of, apparently.

"Now, does that mean that talking to one Monsanto employee gives you 100% knowledge of everything concerning GMOs?"

More assumptions.... I never claimed that it did. Nor would I describe him as my friend. We have know one another for sometime and becoming more like friends since events have put us in close proximity.

"Because he's your friend is a poor reason to think him totally infallible.

Your speculations and unwarranted assumptions seem endless. I say that his explanations made sense and were logical (granted, I am not a 'scientist', but nevertheless, fairly well informed). Now you come along and inform me that I believe he is 'totally infallible' and implied having 'one' conversation with him gives me 'ALL KNOWLEDGE'.
You are a riot.

and your logic is flawed

"Because he's your friend is a poor reason to think him totally infallible."

This is a statement, not speculation.

"Because he's your friend, you believe him to be totally infallible."

Now, this is speculation. I never said that. Hope this helps.

Not much help, but I do see

Not much help, but I do see the error. So perhaps you are not guilty of speculation, but of merely being disingenuous in your response.

Does that make things better?

Thanks man

I guess this has probably come to an end, but thanks for the back and forth. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Hope we'll have other discussions on other posts. Again, I appreciate it.


Bump for Monsanto toxic foods.


Ah, toxic

the key word for GMOs