Friday, March 5th, 2021

Monsanto Offered $10M to Prove GMO Safety: Monsanto Never Shows…

Published on December 31, 2015 by   ·   1 Comment



On Monday December 21, students from Livingston High School joined Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, an American scientist with a PhD in systems biology from MIT, to debate the ‘safety’ of GMO crops. Monsanto was invited to come and prove that there are indeed GMO safety assessment standards, and was even offered a $10 million enticement to send representatives to argue its side. But the company was entirely absent from the event. [1]

Dr. Ayyadurai had offered Monsanto a healthy prize for proving their GM crops such as soy, corn, or cotton had adequate safety standards.

“If Monsanto can disprove the fact that there are no safety assessment standards for GMOs, the conclusion of our fourth paper, then I will give them my $10 million building,” Ayyadurai had told the press. [2]

Dr. Ayyadurai is the lead author of four papers that used a computational systems biology approach to analyze the effects of the genetic engineering process on key biochemical pathways affecting plant physiology. The results predicted that the carcinogen formaldehyde could accumulate in the GM soybean plants, with concomitant depletion of the antioxidant glutathione, but not in the non-GM plants. [3]

“This is not a pro- or anti-GMO question,” Ayyadurai wrote in his abstract. “But [rather], are we following the scientific method to ensure the safety of our food supply? Right now, the answer is no. But we need to, and we can if we engage in open, transparent and collaborative scientific discourse, based on a systems approach.”

With $10 million on the line, Dr. Ayyadurai said, “prove me wrong.” Does Monsanto’s absence mean it can’t?




The debate had a good turnout, with many hearing Ayyadurai’s points about the need for more safety testing for GMOs. He and his colleagues, including LHS students and Science Supervisor Brian Carey, shared what they have learned through their research on GMOs. 
 Too bad Monsanto didn’t RSVP.

Read More HERE

Share the Truth:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Global Grind
  • MySpace
  • Tumblr
  • email

Readers Comments (1)

  1. Tont says:

    This is nonsense. This guy is a theoretical nobody without the skill and experience to assess safety. each Gm trait has $60M plus spent on actual testing not theory and models that are all dependent on what you put into them. In theory I could win the lottery but I wouldn’t.

    He hasn’t a clue about biology and how plants work. There are many more changes in plants just growing the sample variety of plant in different parts of the same field than the differences between Gm and non-GM. How do we know? There are actually many publications reviewing the variation. There is more variation between different bred varieties without GM than between Gm and non-GM grown in the same fields next to each other. This is why the crops have been approved and why ion 20 years not a single person has been hospitalized due to eating GM food.

    On the other hand people have died from eating organic food. Why doesn’t he study that and look at actual real world data not modeled data.

    This is another example of misinformed politically motivated people getting on the anti-GM bandwagon.

    Ask Chipotle how well the anti-GMO is working or them ! That’s the real danger from the anti-GM the effort districts from real threats that are actually harming people.

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Daily News and Blogs

Listen to the TIS Network on

Check Out Pop Culture Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with TIS Network on BlogTalkRadio

Like us on Facebook

Advertise Here

Advertise Here