Home / Environmental News / GMO / Scientist Offers Monsanto $10M to Prove Him Wrong on Ominous Findings in GMO Soy

Scientist Offers Monsanto $10M to Prove Him Wrong on Ominous Findings in GMO Soy


Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai is so confident about his research on Monsanto’s genetically modified soy, he is offering to sign over his $10 million building in Cambridge, MA if Monsanto can prove him wrong.

“If this is what it takes to bring the truth to the American people, then I am more than willing to do it,” Ayyadurai stated in a press release.

Dr. Ayyadurai released a bombshell in July when his peer-reviewed study found that GMO soy accumulates formaldehyde, a carcinogen, and disrupts plant metabolism. Instead of engaging the MIT graduate and systems biologist, Monsanto and its propaganda arms have launched character attacks.

Ray Seidler, a former EPA senior scientist, said of the study, “Formaldehyde is a known class 1 carcinogen. Its elevated presence in soybeans caused by a common genetic engineering event is alarming and deserves immediate attention and action from the FDA and the Obama administration. Soy is widely grown and consumed in the U.S., including by infants fed baby food products, with 94% of soy grown here being genetically engineered.”

Dr. Ayyadurai’s findings are as much a challenge to the current U.S. regulatory system as they are a reminder of how GMO crops could pose a human health risk.

The current regulatory framework of “substantial equivalence” used for approval is outdated and unscientific, as it was originally developed in the 1970s for assessing the safety of medical devices.

“The current criteria for assessing “equivalence” considers only basic nutritional and superficial characteristics such as taste, sight, smell and touch, for declaring GMOs safe for human consumption, allowing them to be fast-tracked to market without independent scientific testing.  If formaldehyde and glutathione were criteria, then the GMO would likely not be deemed “equivalent” to its non-GMO counterpart. This finding calls into question the FDA’s food safety standards for the entire country.”

Since biotech companies acquire patents on their GM crops, they can legally bar anyone else from conducting research for safety assessments. Their own industry “research,” which is known to be falsified, is usually the only information used by FDA to give the green light to GMO crops.

READ MORE:  If Dr Suess Ran Monsanto

“The results demand immediate testing along with rigorous scientific standards to assure such testing is objective and replicable. It’s unbelievable such standards for testing do not already exist. The safety of our food supply demands that science deliver such modern scientific standards for approval of GMOs,” said Dr. Ayyadurai.

With genetically modified foods, “a ‘small’ and single GM creates ‘large’ and systemic perturbations to molecular systems equilibria,” as Dr. Ayyadurai explains in his paper’s abstract.

For this reason, the safety assessment procedure for GMO crops is woefully inadequate. The biotech industry has maintained that direct modification of a plant’s genetic material is a harmless extension of the natural process of plant breeding, but this claim is more spurious than ever with Dr. Ayyadurai’s research.

“This is not a pro- or anti-GMO question,” Ayyadurai wrote. “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.”

  • Every time you click (Y) + Comment (even a single word) you are helping this story reach more people.

  • Monsanto does not need any more $$$… Monsanto needs to DISAPPEAR from the PLANET!

    • well since there is no way they could win the bet it’s just more of a publicity stunt to draw attention to the issue, but it’s a positive publicity stunt. hopefully people will see the point behind it, unlike Ruth Pfeiffer who seems to think this guy just wants to give monsantos free funding

    • Caleb Thompson WHERE did you get this idea from???? I meant what I said Monsanto needs to be exposed for the evil it created and exterminated….

    • Ruth Pfeiffer He coulda’ just stopped at…”there is no way they could win the bet.”

  • Putting money to good use…any takers, Monsanto?

  • I will also share. More people need to understand what is at stake here. It’s our food supply!

  • “The current criteria for assessing “equivalence” considers only basic nutritional and superficial characteristics such as taste, sight, smell and touch, for declaring GMOs safe for human consumption, allowing them to be fast-tracked to market without independent scientific testing. If formaldehyde and glutathione were criteria, then the GMO would likely not be deemed “equivalent” to its non-GMO counterpart. This finding calls into question the FDA’s food safety standards for the entire country.”

  • Watch your back! Please!

  • Man they dont care about no pissy $10 million. Thats less than pocket change to them.

  • meanwhile Congress rushes to pass it’s Bill to hide GMO’s from us

    • …..and Congress won’t eat GMO. The white house has a organic garden.

    • Hide? Buy Oraganic if you want to avoid GMOs otherwise assume all processed food contains a GMO.

  • Waiting….

  • This is how we have to counter big money big business by using big money big business. Fire with fire. Their silence will say it all.

    • Our maybe they just don’t want to engage with someone who is clearly either a complete con artist or mentally ill. If you actually read the study, which appeared in a no impact factor, pay and play predatory journal, that would be obvious.

  • Some want what God gave us

  • There are like 4 companies that own all of the food produced in this country. The USDA is basically comprised of former CEO’s and VP’s of these companies. Do the math.

    • They do not own the small farmers that sell their wares at our local farmers markets or in our food co-ops.

    • And just where do you think I do the bulk of my produce shopping? ??

  • Justice by ANY means necessary.

  • well, that’s fucking meaningless in this conversation…

  • Dude!!!

  • Farmers are gone with the wind , a part of our history gone forever

  • they cant ,but they can prove how stupid they really are

  • Down with Monsanto poison… ENOUGH!

  • Fucking great! But, what if you have $1,000 saved in some obscure bank. Can you still prove that GMO crops are destructive to other organisms that feed on that crop? I’ll give Mosanto $1000. The scientific method is valuable and cannot cost that much.

  • finder mig snart ikke i det mere så blir jeg sur rigtig sur

  • Wait… read the paper… it wasnt a study it was a computer model. The guys a computer scientist…It was all a simulation. no body actually checked the formaldehyde levels in the soy beans.

    • Why check the formaldehyde levels in real life soybeans when you can just write a program that ensures you get the answer you want?

      I wrote a computer program that tells me that I am God. It must be true…because….

    • No body reads past the headlines

    • No one has disproved the computer analysis or shown that it is insufficient in providing useful information, and that’s why he is challenging Monsanto. Biotech companies get patents on their crops and don’t let anyone else test their plants. Some labs in other countries still manage to perform testing, and this analysis reviewed 6500 experiments from 184 science institutions.

    • Okay firs… No one has disproved it? Disproved what? the simulation itself or it methods and inputs used? I mean… Im not saying it isnt true but its not just analysis.. Its simulation. So…nobodies gotten around to verification true or false. 2) peer reviewed my ass. This was a pay to publish article and everyone knows it. 3) Youor statement “Biotech companies get patents on their crops and don’t let anyone else test their plants. ” is complete bullshit. Anyone can go buy GMO seed and run this test. Nice try. Because Monsatan right? Jeesus. I have a bag in the shed.. Bring your mass spectrum chromographer over and we’re good to go.

    • “You had to have written permission from the companies for any science involving their seed, even if it was commercially available” http://grist.org/food/genetically-modified-seed-research-whats-locked-and-what-isnt/

    • Did you read it all ? “If you are at a major agricultural school that’s negotiated an agreement with the companies, it’s working fine,” he said.

      Any scientist working at those institutions with agreements is now free to experiment. The catch is that the companies require the universities to sign a further legal agreement, showing that they understand they can’t let researchers pirate the seeds or plant them after the experiment is over.

    • AND… Monsanto has a blanket agreement allowing research at all universities in the United States. And actually, when Shields et al. made their complaint, Monsanto claimed it already had many of these agreements in place allowing independent research.

    • So… it basically says research is allowed the universities were just scared because of the wording in the technology agreement. So….research on commercially available seed is not an issue..

    • NEXT?

    • “So….research on commercially available seed is not an issue..” I do not agree with your interpreation

    • Here’s one issue: “Scientists can’t work with seeds before they come on the market.” So no one but the biotech company gets to perform safety assessments before the product is on the market. Then, as you point out, only researchers working under a legal agreement between the biotech co. and the university can perform research. Hardly means that research “is not an issue.” I believe (from reading somewhere else but can’t recall right now) that anything they want to publish has to be approved by the biotech co. as part of that agreement.

  • >> a former EPA senior scientist<< I think that was meant to establish his credibility, but if you know anything about the EPA, it has the exact opposite effect.

  • You know what else produces formaldehyde? Your body when you digest food. Get over it

    • Such a silly retort. Yes, the body produces and contains a number of different toxic chemicals but in certain qualities and confined within certain areas or systems that if they were placed in some other part of the body or system would be devastating.

    • Not as silly as a computer scientist writing a computer model and not backing it up with actual data.

  • That’s an easy one. Pig farmers already proved how bad GMOs are. Feeding pigs GMOs gave them all of the symptoms and medical issues that humans have today. Everything changed for the better when they stopped GMOs. What more does anybody need? YouTube it.

  • Please stick to covering police brutality, obviously science isn’t your strong point.

  • The big Money gets in the way

  • “So how does a study conclude that there are dangerous levels of formaldehyde in a product without actually measuring levels of the chemical? The lay reader might gloss over the term “systems biology” in the paper’s title. Basically, the research didn’t involve testing levels in actual plants, but used data plugged into a computer algorithm to predict the presence of two chemicals found naturally in crops and food: Formaldehyde and glutathione.”

    Confirmation bias, at best.


    • The GLP (a propaganda arm of Monsanto) has not disproved the computer analysis or shown that it is insufficient in providing useful information. GLP is only in the business of character attacks. Biotech companies get patents on their crops and don’t let anyone else test their plants. Some labs in other countries still manage to perform testing, and this analysis reviewed 6500 experiments from 184 science institutions.

    • Where is the evidence that it is a propaganda arm of Monsanto?

  • Hopefully somebody like this might have an effect on ridding the planet of GMO and corrupt Monsanto.

  • Monsanto funded by Rockfellers fund , bill gates , another human hater , holds a huge share of Monsanto . Gmo kills

  • Soy healthy? lol

  • Barry Hanson… Go get you yer $$

    • It looks pretty young, so far. Still looking for the peers. As a budding scientist, the lack of specificity troubles me. How much is in the bean? The plant itself isn’t what we eat. How much of it do you have to eat to get what would be considered a dangerous dose? How many milligrams in a gram of soy bean? He didn’t run any tests himself? Just plugged in a bunch of independent studies into an algorithm? Who are the peer reviewers? Every link I clicked took me to another page of suspect reliability.

      If this amount is so bad for their metabolism, why do they grow? How do they survive? Wouldn’t they die? How does it compare to What my body already produces naturally? He doesn’t answer any questions. He just asks them, leaves them open, and wants them to disprove what? It’s nonsensical. He doesn’t compare the amount to what is known safe.

      Verdict: attention seeking fraud.

      P.s. -claiming to be inventor of e-mail lends no credibility to his biology chops. Why is it mentioned?

    • Hey, all good questions. .. You should challenge him and take his money

    • I am incredibly doubtful he’d pay out, considering what appears to be his lack of ethics.

    • Worth a shot. You could at least call um out and challenge him to those questions. …

  • Like Monstanto needs any more money. That’s chump change to them.

  • Please ‘Like’ (y) + Comment + Share! Thank you friends. 🙂

  • Everyone knows dude nobody cares… lol

  • Monsanto will probably try to give him $20,000,000.00 to burn his research.

  • I wouldn’t worry about that. Every service member over seas that dips imbibes enough formaldehyde in their Copenhagen to kill a Blue Whale! Lol

  • so do tomatoes , especially the very red ones and many other fruits , bananas pears , it is a common chemical used to ripen seed pods http://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/whatsnew/whatsnew_fa/files/formaldehyde.pdf here’s a list

    • These are miniscule amounts that dont grow larger, accumulating means the amount gets higher over a period

    • we must wait for a conformation , in the meantime it applies to soy alone as far as this peer reviewed experiment goes , if you avoid soy you have no worries

    • ^lol troll ‘don’t worry other gmos are still safe’ i bet you were arguing against ANYONE speaking out against gmos before this and other studies got public attention.

    • Alex Fuller thanks for the reply , I avoid them as best I can , do like the information to be accurate too , this shows a corn cob , the tests were on soy , but you knew that because you read the article didn’t you

    • How much are you getting paid to troll your ill informed propaganda

    • I assume from your reply tht you too have not read the article , enjoy the art

    • It’s not even a study. It’s a computer model. Save the chemistry for chemists

  • Courtney Leigh

  • Peyton Alyse Eaton

  • Steven Quinonez

  • Or they will assasinate him!

  • Ommmm

  • “ijs”

  • they won’t prove shit, they’ll just kill him….

  • He better watch his back. Monsanto’s goons could eliminate him.

  • WOW!

  • I mentioned the formaldehyde in the vaccines on a page and people started saying that it is perfectly normal and the body produces it….

    • Because it is true

    • Yeah okay. Go to any natural health specialist and say that. Tell me, what gland produces formaldehyde? We’re does it get it from? It’s not commonly found in the air or in food…

    • You mean a quack? I’d rather ask a biologist

    • 2nd pdf from the top. There you go

    • It’s hydrogen oxygen and carbon. Tell me again how it’s not found in the air or in food

    • Formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable, strong-smelling chemical that is used in building materials and to produce many household products. It is used in pressed-wood products, such as particleboard, plywood, and fiberboard; glues and adhesives; permanent-press fabrics; paper product coatings; and certain insulation materials. In addition, formaldehyde is commonly used as an industrial fungicide, germicide, and disinfectant, and as a preservative in mortuaries and medical laboratories. Formaldehyde also occurs naturally in the environment. It is produced in small amounts by most living organisms as part of normal metabolic processes.

    • It’s the amount of something that is important in determining if it’s a health risk. If it accumulates in the body, it could be dangerous.

    • When formaldehyde is present in the air at levels exceeding 0.1 ppm, some individuals may experience adverse effects such as watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat; coughing; wheezing; nausea; and skin irritation. Some people are very sensitive to formaldehyde, whereas others have no reaction to the same level of exposure.

    • Has no use in your blood stream….

    • Your argument was about whether or not your body produces formaldehyde. Why are you changing the subject?

    • Overview
      What is formaldehyde?
      Frequently Asked Questions
      Formaldehyde is a simple but ubiquitous chemical compound made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon, with the formula CH2O. All organic life forms – bacteria, plants, fish, animals and humans – naturally produce formaldehyde as a consequence of the processes in cell metabolism.1
      Formaldehyde is naturally present in fruits, vegetables, meats, fish, coffee, and alcoholic beverages. Most formaldehyde inhaled by humans is quickly exhaled. The relatively small amounts of formaldehyde that remain in the nose and upper respiratory tract are swiftly metabolized into harmless products.2 Thus, formaldehyde does not accumulate in animals or people because it is quickly broken down in the nose by the body’s natural metabolic processes. In the environment, formaldehyde is quickly broken down by sunlight in the air3 or by bacteria present in soil or water.

  • Gmo hero

  • Well since soy in its non GMO organic form is still unfit for human consumption anyway, it shouldn’t matter


  • Had this argument with friends last night they all have agricultural degree’s and are farmers Ect… i must say they had a perfect rebuttal for everything i knew of Gmo and they seemed to make the case that it wasn’t as dangerous as media makes it out to be… and when i posted this article to them they sent me this apparently Monsanto did prove him wrong and he refused to pay or something http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/07/29/ayyadurais-formaldehyde-in-gmos-claim-challenged-engineer-refuses-verification-offer/

  • Its only toxic to our nervous system…whats the big deal? So we all get sick and need to spend money on doctors and hospital visits then we will all have to pay for pharmaceutical medications and treatment and that will make them way more money. Whats so bad about profit in exchange for our degrading health?

  • Whats the point in taking a bet you know you’d loose?

  • Every plant you eat is GMO. If you don’t like it stop eating or buy those really expensive seeds, that claim to be non-GMO but aren’t, and grow your own food. LOL like thats gonna happen. Now go and get drunk, smoke some dope and complain how food is killing you. My god people are getting dumber by the day.

    • They really are, and you’re the perfect example

    • That’s textbook “I know you are, but what am I?”, Jordi.

    • Have you ever actually looked into the meaning behind that statement? Every food we eat is genetically modified due to the way we bred and engineered plants through guided reproduction. From my understanding not every food we eat is GMO in the sense that you’re implying. More to the point there’s a large difference between gene injection, the methods used currently in the current topic of debate and the methods actually referred to in that statement.

      In all honesty though there are only a few real issues I have with GMOs. The biggest being the remnants of certain modified portions of genetically modified food in the human system and the possible genetic transfer which might occur later on between those remnants and the living tissues in the human body. There’s been research done in this specific area and they final report essentially said that chances of this occurring were highly unlikely. However, there was no discussion on the possible ramifications if it were to occur and that’s something I consider to be worth looking into. When it comes to biology there are a lot of possibilities that have a minute level of becoming reality but do after enough time has passed. What would be the consequences if the genetic transfer did occur? Would they be minor and negligible or would they be catastrophic?

    • Just considering the use of Bt for pest control (since the early 90’s), I would say that everything you eat has been touched by GMO crops. This is of course a direct fault of the enviro nazi’s pushing for the restricted use of pesticides. Most farmers then just turned to Bt because of the onerous restrictions to apply.

    • I am still fascinated by the outcry against monsanto when they don’t even produce the worse chemicals out there??? Did they not support some left wing gay rights movement or something. Peoples lunacy against one company in a sea of ag chemicals is striking especially since roundup is one of the safer products that can be sprayed on your food. But hey to people who know no better “squirrel”.

    • One last point to Robert you claim science has said it was safe but you don’t believe it. My guess is though you would call me a denier because I don’t believe the junk science the globull alarmist are altering daily to meet their political agendas.

  • The fuck they going to do with $10 million wipe their ass with it.this thing isn’t about money it’s about power. This shit is stupid.

  • This “hero” backed out………

  • You guys are all super scientists

  • This guy got guts….

  • 10 million hardly seems like enough if he’s 100% sure of his reseach. I’m not saying he’s wrong…just that Monsanto could wipe their ass with 10 million over this guy’s lunch break is all I’m sayin

  • Isabel Maria Madland Chiara Abell Monique Links-Hermans

  • Sasha Arif

  • They’ll prove him wrong with falsified results. The industry gives 0 shits.

  • Ayyadurai didn’t release a peer reviewed study it was just something he thought might be the case with out actually doing any testing. In said study he didn’t ONCE get GMO food and test the levels of formaldehyde.

    Fear mongering. :/ There’s nothing wrong with most, if not all GMO’s. All your doing is changing the DNA of the plant… Kinda what scientist are trying to do with human DNA to cure cancer.

  • False. And disproved.

  • wao