Skip to main content

The Truth About GMOs and Why Companies Don't Want The Words "GMO" On Their Labels

Published on February 14, 2014.

The short definition for genetically modified organisms

Definition of GMOs

Definition of GMOs

No one knows the long range effects of eating GMO's

Biotech companies are launching an all out war against your right to know what GMO's will do to you in 10, 20, 30 years. Agent  Orange is a classic example. If war didn't kill our soldiers, the aftereffects of Monsanto's Agent Orange will!

Biotech companies are launching an all out war against your right to know what GMO's will do to you in 10, 20, 30 years. Agent Orange is a classic example. If war didn't kill our soldiers, the aftereffects of Monsanto's Agent Orange will!

Cloning was the forerunner of altering DNA

Aside from the first test tube baby born in 1978, the idea of altering the DNA (cloning) received world wide attention when scientists accomplished the cloning of Dolly, the sheep in 1996. After an amazing 277 clone attempts, she was finally born on July 5, 1996 and she died February 14, 2003 from a progressive lung disease, usually not seen in sheep until they are 11 or 12 years old.

Because she was cloned (genetically modified), it was speculated that a contributing factor to Dolly's death was that she was already at the genetic age of six years old by the time of her birth, the same age as the sheep from which she was cloned. Her life expectancy was only 7 more years instead of 12, which is what ultimately happened when she died almost 7 years after birth. Dolly had given birth 3 times for a total of 6 lambs, each pregnancy resulting in a higher multiple than the previous - a single birth in 1998, a set of twins in 1999, and a set of triplets in 2000. Multiple births was a phenomena not usually seen in non-cloned sheep.

This whole experiment should have been a high sign that messing around with DNA was going to cause problems.

What we know about GMO's

Reports about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in our food are now commonplace on our nightly news programs and in newspapers.

But back in the 1970s, 80's and 90's, all we heard about on the news was the scarce food supplies where we resorted to importing more than half of our products.

And now, in light of the prevalence of GMO's in our foods, it seems that it may all have been a sham back then - a cover for the behind the scenes research and development of genetically modified foods and organisms.

Governments have long entertained introducing GMO's into our foods as a solution to the alarmists who have said for decades now that the world's food supply is running out.

The germ of an idea of modifying existing products dates back to the 1960s during the Vietnam War when Monsanto and Dow Chemical were commissioned by the US Government to develop the strongest herbicide ever produced - the super herbicide "Agent Orange." The results were devastating, and now suggests we may have learned nothing about the dangers of herbicides from that experience.

Back in those days I was an activist, naively urging farmers to start replanting crops on their farms so we could be less dependent on imported food and goods. Little did I know that at the same time, the US government was paying the farmers attractive stipends not to farm their land, which continued to the mid-2000s.

At that time, the American people were told that the US supported buying imports because it helped replenish the food supply and that importing was a boost to the economies of foreign countries.

Now the American people are being told GMO's are safe.

So what do we "know" so far about GMO's and their effects on humans?

What we know today about the effects of GMO's on our health, we have learned:

  1. from scientists and former employees who exposed their biotech employers for falsifying lab results, studies and reports (which said GMO's are safe) in order to keep government funding and to make GMO's publicly acceptable,
  2. from studies being conducted at reputable universities, hospitals and other institutions
  3. from friends and family members who are now sick with diseases and conditions that are not found in their family history. They blame their exposure to GMO's,
  4. from the "leak" of the pictures of lab rats (see photos below) with gross tumors after steadily being fed GMO diets. That was enough to convince me and many others who saw the picture and who watched the video I am including at the end of this article.
  5. from observing the many changes in our world.

But the truth about the effects of GMO's on our land and in our bodies will only come many years from now in the form 20/20 hindsight.

Monsanto makes the herbicide "Roundup." They won't put GMO on food labels. Hmm, "Roundup" signs on fields of crops, but not on the food labels

They will label fields who are growing GMO crops, why not the actual food in the market?

They will label fields who are growing GMO crops, why not the actual food in the market?

Glossary - what all the "cides" mean

herbicide - meant to kill weeds and unwanted plants. It is the mixture of two pesticides and since 1930, heavily used to kill off weeds and plants that were infringing on crops. In 1961, it came into use in war, as Agent Orange, devastating huge land masses of vegetation.

pesticide - meant to kill, destroy or be a repellant for some form of life, and according to the EPA, its job is primarily "preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any pest. It is a category term for herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. Pesticides have active ingredients that kill the pest and inert ingredients that help the active ingredients work better."

insecticide - meant to kill insects. DDT is the most well known insecticide, popularized by Rachel Carson's 1962 book "Silent Spring." The DDT link shows how it was sprayed on our crops and linked to cancers in animals, which led to research how it affected humans.

fungicide - meant to kill fungi or fungal spores. Used in crops and animals to control fungal infections.

Altering DNA to create a GMO crop

Altering DNA to create a GMO crop

Do you know what "Roundup Ready" means?

For several years before we saw GMO crops, behind the scenes Monsanto and several other companies (two of which Monsanto later bought and/or took over) were experimenting with genetically modifying the DNA of seeds (cotton, tomatoes, grains, etc). Before approaching farmers to plant, they needed time to complete the experiments to know if the seeds would produce a crop similar to what the public would recognize as a real food, hence the high prices of food and goods, and continuing to import for so long.

Testing on lab rats confirmed that the food from seeds was edible, but few believed the actual written reports which were either squelched or in some cases altered. The pictures of the test lab rats are below in this article.

When Monsanto was finally ready to start planting their GMO seeds, they needed real farms to do the testing. To attract farmer cooperation, Monsanto touted that the added benefit to the farmer was that the seeds were "RoundUp Ready" - which meant farmers now only had to use one herbicide instead of many pesticides and herbicides to keep the weeds and pests under control.

When you hear "RoundUp Ready," rest assured, this is not a good thing for humans.

It means the GMO seeds were already "injected with a bacterial gene" that would allow the crop to tolerate the repeated dousings of the herbicide RoundUp (just like the stuff you use outside your home to kill garden weeds).

It is incomprehensible to me that humans, who are trusted with the responsibility of developing seeds for mass producing food for human consumption, would think it is okay to develop seeds with a bacteria living inside of it (which stays inside the food when we eat it) and that this is an acceptable and ethical business practice?

And why is it acceptable by some governments to still allow it into the food supply systems?

Money talks.

Natural News quote about marketing Round Up ready crops to farmers first. They needed them to be first to grow them! After that, moving GMO's into our stores wo

What Round Up ready means

What Round Up ready means

Monsanto's statement why they don't want GMO labels - because it would confuse us!

"Knowing the specific details would only confuse consumers." They really don't want us to know.

"Knowing the specific details would only confuse consumers." They really don't want us to know.

The results of experiments on lab rats. These are just the ones we've been told about! (Notice labels of "J, K, L." What happened to A to I and M to Z?)

closer look

closer look

Monsanto's Lab Rats

The lab rats in the above photo are probably some of the most grotesque photos we have seen of experiments done on animals. I'm sure the company doesn't want you to know what else is going on in their labs.

Truth In Advertising

Because the US has a "Truth in Advertising" law, companies would be compelled to list all the GMO ingredients on the labels of each product.

  • Will companies be totally truthful in listing ingredients?
  • Will it surprise us to know exactly how many and which trusted companies have been making their foods with GMO ingredients?
  • Will it surprise us to know how long we've been ingesting GMO products before we were told about their ingredients?
  • Will forced labeling cause us to lose trust in long honored companies?

Monsanto has a lot to lose by labeling. We can't sue them because of the new law specially made that favors them (which no doubt will be renewed every March when it expires).

We can stop buying their products which will likely be just as bad as if they were sued. But will the majority of people actually join in on the boycott?

Probably not. They gotta eat, after all.

The following video in favor of Proposition 37 in California also failed in November 2013. Even though the power of the people supported it, the vote count did not.

Although Prop 37 did not become law in California, this video's message was powerful.

Monsanto's actions speak louder than words

The following photo should speak to you as to how much Monsanto wants to make sure GMO labeling does not come to pass.

This is a public disclosure statement of how much they Monsanto contributed to Washington state's Proposition 522 when it came up for vote on the ballot in November 2013.

It was money well spent in their view - Proposition 522 did not pass muster with the voters. Monsanto won another victory.

Monsanto's record of contribution to 2013 Washington State ballot- total $5.4 million

Just before the November 2013 election, Monsanto was still contributing to fight against Prop 522 - GMO labeling which was put up for vote on the ballot in Washington State.

Just before the November 2013 election, Monsanto was still contributing to fight against Prop 522 - GMO labeling which was put up for vote on the ballot in Washington State.

The following photos are screenshots of a report which was too long to post here. Blue links within photos are disabled, so don't click. Note date.



President Obama made this a law March 2013 - written by a senator whose re-elections receives contributions from Monsanto. He's a "kept man."

The law protecting Monsanto

The law protecting Monsanto


Continued from Paragraph Break "consumer" - notice 3rd paragraph. This bill was written by a senator whose re-elections receive contributions from Monsanto. He


Monsanto's special law is expiring March 2014

The law was good for one year, and expires in March 2014. How much do you want to bet that it will get renewed and with as little fanfare as possible?

In fact, we may not even hear that it was renewed; it just will be done.

Dr. Don Huber, scientist and professor emeritus, Purdue University, alerted US government that GMO's might cause infertility.


How much do you trust Bayer Company (makers of Bayer Aspirin)?

Along with Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Dupont and Sygenta Corporation, The Bayer Company is another smaller player in the engineering and growing of GMO's.

Where Monsanto gets away with suing farmers when GMO seeds blow into their fields, Bayer Company has not been so successful.

Bayer admitted in a lawsuit in Erie County, Ohio that they can't control the "contamination" of the fields of farmers who do not grow GMO crops. A US Federal court in Ohio ruled December 4, 2009 that Bayer CropScience (a subsidiary of Bayer Company) must pay $2 million to two Missouri farmers because their rice crop became "contaminated" with an "experimental GMO rice" that Bayer was testing in 2006.

The court verdict set a US legal precedent that says the company who releases the GMO crop is the one who has the ultimate responsibility for the consequences of GMO "contamination".

While this is HUGE, the exact opposite is true for another US company, Monsanto. They are exempt from these lawsuits and in no way will be held responsible for the consequences of GMO "contamination" - either in a farmer's field or later if and when a person gets cancer or any other disease suspected of being caused by a GMO food.

Here's why. Read this next case by clicking on the photo.

Click to Enlarge: This ruling is the exact opposite of the Bayer Company lawsuit

Court Ruling In Monsanto's favor

Court Ruling In Monsanto's favor


Japan cancelled an order of western wheat after it was determined that a farmer doused "volunteer" wheat with herbicide.

My question is WHY were "volunteer" crops even in the same field with GM wheat esp when we've been told there is no GMO wheat, but also that GMO's are a contaminant?????

My question is WHY were "volunteer" crops even in the same field with GM wheat esp when we've been told there is no GMO wheat, but also that GMO's are a contaminant?????

What effects of eating GMO food will we see in the future?

There is little doubt about it; at some point we are all going to suffer the consequences of GMO's in more ways than one.

The first way is from the use of insecticides, pesticides and herbicides on the crops that become our food.

The second way is connected to the first. The reason the insecticides, pesticides and herbicides are needed at all is because the top biotech companies (Monsanto, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Syngenta, and Bayer), who all contribute genetically engineered materials into our food supply, have altered the DNA of the seeds which ultimately becomes our food and are playing God with your life and mine.

Their mission statement is that they are doing this to prevent world hunger, to keep an ample and steady food supply so no one ever goes hungry and that all of this is in our best interests.

What they are not telling us, the consumer, is the long term effects of eating genetically modified foods especially after they are constantly tweaking the DNA of seeds and literally drenching the crops in herbicides, insecticides and pesticides.

They learned a very valuable lesson 40 years ago during the Vietnam war that still holds true today.

Deny everything.

To this day, veteran soldiers are still seeking approval to receive government disability insurance, financial and medical benefits for the diseases which resulted from their exposure to Agent Orange when they should receive all of the above automatically just because they served their country.

Because DDT wasn't doing the job fast enough or effectively, Dow Chemical and Monsanto were hired to develop a herbicide that could be sprayed on and in the jungles of Vietnam so that the enemy would have less places to seek cover from gunfire, both from air artillery and on the ground. Agent Orange is a classic example of the unknown. If war didn't kill our soldiers, the residual effects of Monsanto's Agent Orange will, because it lives on from generation to generation.

If Agent Orange caused the effects we see in our sick veterans, and it is now 40 years later.

So what effects do you think we will see in the next 40 years from eating Genetically Modified Foods?

Interesting News Stories

Monsanto's message to farmers

The fact that this case took two years to go to trial with no jury and only ONE judge screams FOUL PLAY to me on the part of Monsanto.

In my view, Monsanto could do an awful lot of damage in the two years it took to get to court, and they did.

They filed briefs asking for rulings to prohibit this farmer from planting and harvesting his 1,030 acres of canola until the case went to court. So for two years, he could not sell his own crops because Monsanto said they were "contaminated" with GMO seeds.

In two years the farmer borrowed on his home and land to pay his $400,000 in legal fees and to be able to support his family. With all of Monsanto's legal maneuvers, they played every legal card they could.

Toward the end of the case, Monsanto turned around and sued the farmer for their $2 million in legal fees for their 19 lawyers (which was bogus because they could well afford their own legal fees). In suing him for legal fees, they put a stop to the farmer being able to continue to borrow on his assets to support his family, because Monsanto expected these assets to become Monsanto's when the judge awarded them as a win in this case.

With Monsanto's win of this lawsuit, they set a precedent in Canada (and, by word of mouth, to other countries) that anyone who in any way somehow "ends up" with their land being "contaminated" by GMO crops which they did NOT plant or buy from Monsanto, they are guilty of "patent infringement" and Monsanto has the right to seize their crop.

If a farmer brings a counter-suit against Monsanto (in Canada), it gives Monsanto the right to sue to take their farm, their equipment and even their home (if the home is on that land). The results of this case speaks loud and clear.

The farmer cannot and will not win against biotech companies like Monsanto.

In my view, this case should never have gone to trial or even before a judge, just from the sheer ludicrousness of the accusation.

Now they can and will use this case in the future as leverage and an intimidation factor against anyone else who is thinking of going up against Monsanto in court. I'm sure other biotech companies will also cite this case as an example in the future.

Because Monsanto admitted that Percy Schmeiser's land was "contaminated with GM seed" -- the admission that it was "contaminated" should have made any judge reconsider this lawsuit.

I don't know about you, but the word "contaminated" doesn't have a good meaning for me and when it comes to crops that we will eventually eat, it has a more ominous meaning.

Definition of "Contamination" with my emphasis added - according to Wiktionary

  1. The act or process of contaminating; pollution; defilement; taint; also, that which contaminates.
  2. The process of making a material or surface unclean or unsuited for its intended purpose, usually by the addition or attachment of undesirable foreign substances.

When Monsanto won this case, and when Monsanto sued the farmer for $1 million for their legal fees, it wasn't because they couldn't afford the fees.

It wasn't because they were trying to keep the farmer from going into more debt by borrowing on his assets, as they stated in the above article.

It was a legal maneuver.

Because this farmer didn't play into Monsanto's hands when the original lawsuit for patent infringement was served to the farmer (which would be settled by letting Monsanto seize the entire 1,030 acres of crop), and because the farmer decided to take them to court thinking he was in the right, Monsanto made an example out of him.

Bottom Line:

For every farmer whose land is "contaminated" with GMO seeds they did not obtain from Monsanto, then Monsanto is allowed to seize the crop. If they go to court, Monsanto can (and probably will) win several future harvests.

In the US, because of the new 2013 law in Monsanto's favor, farmers don't stand a chance.

The consumers who want to sue biotech companies for what they think GMO foods did to their health don't stand a chance either.

Published 2/14/2014 by Mary McShane

This is the full 1 hour 20 minute movie every breathing person should watch. It's a little scary, but important to know

Mary McShane

Mary McShane

This content is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and is not meant to substitute for formal and individualized advice from a qualified professional.

© 2014 Mary McShane


Becki Rizzuti from Indiana, USA on February 26, 2014:

I believe in building as many hubs in a niche as possible, each about (very) specific topics, even if that means that the individual hubs are relatively short. This has worked pretty well for me (as long as they reach about 700 words each) and I honestly think you should try it. It's not just about your viewpoints, about what you believe: It's about the facts that support those view points. People need to understand that children in countries that have banned GMO are less hyperactive, hit puberty earlier, and have fewer health problems. This is important! So I say go for it.

What I told my husband regarding GMO being the solution to world hunger is that he's talking specifically about GM corn crops. The problem with this is that maize isn't an appropriate food for /any/ animal. It's not good for our digestive systems, which are largely in control of the way that our immune and endocrine systems operate. We eat too much maize as it is, and producing more of it by genetically modifying the crops isn't the solution to feeding the world. It may, as you said, solve world hunger by shortening life spans, however.

Mary McShane (author) from Fort Lauderdale, Florida on February 26, 2014:

@Everyday Miracles - First, thank you for commenting with your views and experience. Needless to say, my opinions on this topic are well known in my GMO hubs and I do agree with you.

I'm going to address the end of your comment first and then work my way up.

You wrote: "Change will take a long time to come about." I really don't believe we will ever see change, or at least a change back to the way things were in the past, regarding the growing of our crops. Past history shows that very few things ever revert back to the status quo. Everything is viewed as progress, whether it actually is or not.

In the case of GMOs, there is no turning back at this point. Because once land is 'contaminated' by genetically modified seeds, seedlings, adult crop, etc. the land is useless for up to 20 years. I have spent nearly an hour looking for where I read that, to back it up with a link, and still can't find it. But since it stuck in my head, I have to assume that I was convinced of it after I read it, to believe it is true.

Wind blows seeds, leaves, and dirt. Water (rain, irrigation, etc) spreads GMO 'crap' over to land that has no GMO crops growing on it, thus "contaminating it" which is a rather curious choice of words that Monsanto is using in their court cases.

I am probably taking it in a completely opposite way than the way they mean it, but looking at the pix of lab rats makes me take it that way!

As long as there are neighboring farms growing GMO crops, surrounding farms are in danger of their crops being GMO contaminated.

However will they be able to certify their crops are non-GMO? They will be hard put to be able to, I think.

Given what we suspect about the effects of GMO's on our bodies (lab rat pix, scientists reports, etc.), we have to assume the land they grew them on, will continue to hold their ill effects for years to come.

If Monsanto continues in their bullying court efforts (as shown in the above hub) to the lengths they have and continues to use the word "contamination" over and over again regarding the land, this does not bode well for us -- the humans.

@ your husband believing that GMO is the solution to world hunger.... I'm not going to get into that kettle of fish with you or him. But I will give you my interpretation (my take) of the wording of the claims that "GMO's are the solution to world hunger."

Keeping in mind that very few people look at statements the way I do, (lol) I read "GMO's are the solution to world hunger" in exactly the opposite way it was broadcast and probably intended.

They meant that providing GMO crops (foods) would be bountiful to solve the lack of food in areas where food is scarce, so there would be less famines, more food, etc.

Here's the way I interpret their statement:

The only way GMO's will be a solution to world hunger is ... when GMO's finally kill off part of the human population so that there won't be as many humans dependent on the food supply. It is only then, that the food supply will be adequate for the number of people left on earth that need to eat it.

And that (again, my opinion) is the only way that world hunger factors into their claims that GMOs are the solution.

The most vulnerable humans - with illnesses, compromised immune systems, etc. will be the first flight affected and I say that because of the many people newly diagnosed with diseases they never saw in their families before.

GMOs kill, as far as I'm concerned, and so far, I haven't read any documentation to sway my views. I do not say this to start an argument, just stating my opinion. Of which I have many, as you can see! lol

And indeed! What has this world come to?

We need to take back control and I honestly don't know how we can do that.

I believe we have lost control as individuals over what happens to our food before it gets to us. And that is sad.

Even if we grow it, we still don't have 100% control because of that one word you mentioned -- trust.

We have to be able to 'trust' the source of the seeds and in this day and age where the all important dollar is king, people will lie to make a profit. And they will get away with it too, especially when it is almost impossible to detect a GM seed from a regular seed in the 'seed' form. It is only in the growing (and maybe 20, 30, 40 years from now) that GMO's show their true colors.

If you spray your crop with insecticides and/or herbicides and they live and remain hearty, you can suspect they were genetically modified because they were "Roundup Ready" meaning they were made to withstand the dousing of herbicides so the crop would still survive.

Locating non-GMO food is incredibly hard in the US. Every year another crop is added to the GMO pool and without much fanfare so as to not attract attention. In other countries, non-GMO food is labeled (hopefully truthfully) and in this country, labeling is only done voluntarily and sparsely at best.

Labeling is not required and I believe that it should be required - especially for people like me and others who have diseases or illnesses where we are trying to eat healthy and not put chemicals, poisons or processed foods into our bodies, only to turn around to find we are being sabotaged by GM food because it wasn't labeled.

It will get to the point, in the very near future, where people will have to assume all foods are genetically modified because we are darn near there already.

You mentioned peanuts and getting sick, assuming it was an reaction to the 'legume.' From 1994 to 2010, peanuts were 'in trials' in China, Japan, India, South Africa and Australia. Anyplace where the trials are over now, GMO becomes the norm there for any crop that was in trials.

The US began "trials" in 2010 for peanuts, again with very little fanfare. It is not safe to assume peanuts are not GM now. Since we can't trust any one source, we have to assume all are GMO.

Georgia is the state next to mine - Florida. Georgia is not only known for peaches but also for peanuts. We have vendors on many of our Florida roads selling "real Georgia boiled peanuts" and I just don't get it ... people flock to them to buy them.

Don't they care where they came from? In the first place, I am always suspect of anything from a street or mall vendor, but boiled peanuts?? While I don't see the attraction, since I don't eat them, I don't understand the reason for boiling them either. lol The closest I come to peanuts is peanut butter, and that is sparingly because peanut butter is a processed food. I try to eliminate as much processed food from my diet as possible. Everyone has an opinion on what is or is not 'real food.' One only has to put food in its natural stateside by side with food in the state in which they have come to know it to be able to decide if it is real food. I read labels and tell people all the time. If they don't know what half of that stuff is on the label, they shouldn't be eating it. Also, if food remains in a solid state for hours after you leave it on a plate on the counter, this is what it looks like in your arteries after you eat it.

The picture is not pretty. lol

Sorry this is so long, but this is a big bone of contention with me. You mentioned in a forum that I should make my comment back to you into a hub.

I've beaten this dead horse to death with several GMO hubs and very lengthy comments. I have one more GMO hub which I may publish soon, I haven't decided yet.

My hesitation in publishing is at the risk of repeating myself in each hub and becoming more opinionated that I chase away readers.

Thank you so much for your comment. :)

Becki Rizzuti from Indiana, USA on February 26, 2014:

You know what scares me the most? A few years ago I started looking into the possibility of building an urban homestead, since my family lives in the middle of the city but has enough room to grow plants and could legally have chickens on our property. What I found was that GM seeds are incredibly difficult to avoid, and even if you want to grow your own food, you're probably going to be producing GM products, unless you're using heirloom seeds from trusted sources.

What HAS this world come to? The fact that anything synthetic or which has been altered by people is dangerous to our bodies should be obvious, but many people believe that GMO is the solution to world hunger. My husband is one of these people. We disagree -- strongly and with heavy words sometimes -- on what food is "real" food, but you're always going to have that argument.

I contended today that peanuts cannot possibly be food. He of course argues with me, and the only support I have for my argument is that they make me horribly sick. I'm not allergic to them, it's a stomach reaction to the legume itself, but of course peanuts are a huge part of the American economy and there's no getting around them.

Change will take a long time to come about.

Mary McShane (author) from Fort Lauderdale, Florida on February 19, 2014:

@Craftytothecore - GMO's are in almost everything we eat now and we can't do much about it. They say wheat is not GMO yet, but just Googling it will show you that it is being grown. GMO's are bad news, especially for people with pre-existing health problems. 10 or 20 years down the line we will be seeing health problems in families who never had issues or history of them before.

My sister Annette has an 18 y/o Autistic son and my sister Nancy is a nutritionist. Teaching him the good, bad and ugly was interesting at age 14 when junk food was his favorite diet. He's much better now following a gluten free diet and one can always tell when he eats 'bad' food - it shows in his behavior, with a gastric illness or with acting out in general.

We are well aware of GMO's in our family and we are label readers through and through. I'm glad your diet is under control and I hope your son (when he grows up) retains the lessons he's learned in regard to good foods vs. bad foods.

Thank you for your comment and visit. :)

CraftytotheCore on February 19, 2014:

I had no idea what a GMO was until my son's therapist started telling me about all of this. My son has Autism. His therapist wanted me to understand certain foods may affect his behavior at times. But in informing me about my son, together with information I have previously read on HP before your article, I stopped eating gluten and soy also.

Last year, March 2013, after suffering through horrific painful attacks, a doctor finally discovered my gallbladder was rotten. Now mind you I have never had gallbladder issues before. When I went to the surgeon as a post-op follow-up, he said that he had never seen anything so strange. My gallbladder was filled with white stuff that he described like chalk. In addition, I was diagnosed with another condition called gastritis, that I had to take nexium for. After I stopped eating gluten, soy, coffee and now tomatoes, I have had no health problems. I haven't even caught a cold.

I read every label on any food product I purchase now. It is certainly surprising what put soy in as a filler.

Mary McShane (author) from Fort Lauderdale, Florida on February 16, 2014:

Just a little heart trouble. I have a holter monitor on now, I go back to doctor's on Monday and see what other tests he wants to order.

This nonsense with plagarism is rampant and the copying of my hubs, blog posts and other articles of mine has me quite distressed. When CNN and MSNBC do it to you, you should have some recourse!

To get out my frustrations (lol), I wrote a hub and asked for advice from hubbers since I'm so new and don't really know the ropes. If you have a few minutes, I'd appreciate it if you (and any of my readers) could read that hub. I welcome any input you might have. :) Thank you.

Jaye Denman from Deep South, USA on February 16, 2014:

Sorry you're under the weather, Mary. Get well soon! JAYE

Mary McShane (author) from Fort Lauderdale, Florida on February 16, 2014:

Hello everyone. I have to tell you that I always moderate my comments. But for the few days I have to let all comments on all hubs be auto published (unmoderated) due to health concerns.

I thank each of you for your comments on this hub and other hubs. My sister Nancy has my sign on info but she doesn't know how to moderate the comments. She can upload the hubs I have waiting, but if she doesn't do that either, that is ok. I just wanted her to have access to my accounts should I not be able to do that for a while.

Thank you to all. Keep the comments coming lol

I will be glad to read what you all have to say when I check in again soon.

Leslie A. Shields from Georgia on February 14, 2014:

I am glad because I was contemplating starting a farm in my backyard... but I still would not know if the seeds I'd be planting had been genetically altered..... Gotta Pray!

John Hansen from Gondwana Land on February 14, 2014:

Great to hear that Jaye. The court case involving the organic canola farmer Steve Marsh from Western Australia having his crops contaminated by GMOs seed, presently under way could also have a beneficial affect if he is successful.

Raymond Philippe from The Netherlands on February 14, 2014:

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Such an important topic with very serious consequences.

Jaye Denman from Deep South, USA on February 14, 2014:

The Farmer Assurance Provision tucked into the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act by Senator Roy Blount (R-MO) that was signed by the president March, 2013 did not last a year. The provisions of this law remained in effect for six months, until the end of the FISCAL year on September 30, 2013. The criticism of the provision commonly called the "Monsanto Protection Act" was so fierce among Americans who are against GMOs and signed a petition in the tens of thousands against the provision (angered further by the shutdown of the U.S. government during Congressional budget wrangling) that it's highly unlikely either Senator Blount (whose state, Missouri, is the corporate home of Monsanto) or any other politico will try to sneak it in again. The people spoke!

Bill Holland from Olympia, WA on February 14, 2014:

The latest ongoing battle and one that really baffles me quite frankly. Why the American people are not demanding that this be done is beyond me. I know why the government has not required it....they are being paid off by the GMO companies...but the American public needs to stand as one and demand change. Keep raising awareness about this, Mary, as shall I.

Leslie A. Shields from Georgia on February 14, 2014:

Oh My God!!!! This is incredible. We never know what we are being given. Thank God for His protection! I ask God to bless the very air I breathe and certainly everything I plan to put into my mouth!

Thanks for this informative hub!

John Hansen from Gondwana Land on February 14, 2014:

This is a great in depth hub Mary revealing the truth behind GMOs in our food. You have done a great deal of research and I hope everyone reads it. My recent hub :The Truth Behind GMO (Genetically Modified Organism, or Gradually Murdering Ourselves?) gave a brief overview of the evil of Monsanto and the danger of GMOs, but this really expanded on it. Voted up and shared.

Related Articles