Study Finds Monsanto’s GM Corn Nutritionally Dead, Highly Toxic

Looks like more nails going in the coffin regarding GM foods... It amazes me that there where never any proper studies done on Genetically Modified Organisms and this information is only coming to light now.

s GMO corn nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO corn? Monsanto will tell you the answer is a big ‘yes’, but the real answer is absolutely not. And the simple reality is that they are continuing to get away with their blatant misinformation. In fact, a 2012 nutritional analysis of genetically modified corn found that not only is GM corn lacking in vitamins and nutrients when compared to non-GM corn, but the genetic creation also poses numerous health risks due to extreme toxicity

www.healthy-holistic-living.com...

And below a little food for thought...

* Non-GMO corn has 6130 ppm of calcium while GMO corn has 14 – non-GMO corn has 437 times more calcium.

* Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of magnesium while GMO corn has 2 – non-GMO corn has about 56 times more magnesium.

* Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of potassium while GMO corn has 7 – non-GMO corn has 16 times more potassium. * Non-GMO corn has 14 ppm of manganese while GMO corn has 2 – non-GMO corn has 7 times more manganese.

purp...

a reply to: purplemer

basic scientific literacy shows that " study " is a fantasy

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Are you saying that there is no nutritional difference between GM foods and non GM foods...

a reply to: purplemer

no - I am saying that your " study " is cleaerly a fantasy

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Got any facts to back that claim up

a reply to: purplemer

I kept looking for a official report called "Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn" and from all places it was natural news that fessed up where the report originates from.

A 2012 study, called the Corn Comparison Report, was recently released by Profit Pro and published on the website for Moms Across America March to Label GMOs - a group dedicated to raising awareness about the dangers of genetically modified organisms.

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...##ixzz366XYuQdL

Profit Pro the business that released the report sells manure and seems to cater to a specific group.

www.profitproag.com...

So maybe you trust the guys pushing manure and that their study was on the up and up but I couldn't even find the link to the actual study so I have no idea how it was performed or if they were comparing off the shelf GMO corn to their super manure grown corn so who is to say the corn was grown under the same conditions.

Anyway point is I don't think that the study is recognized on any official capacity. I am not sure if they conducted the study themselves or if it was even sent to a lab. If you have a link to the actual study I would like to look at it.

a reply to: ignorant_ape


Thank you for sharing your opinion but sorry bud you are not making much sense.. Maybe you would make more sense if you explained why the study is a fantasy. It is really not that hard to do a Nutritional Analysis these days..

Honestly after looking at several other sites that reprinted the claims one thing really stood out. One site claimed that the report said there was only 3% organic matter in the test sample so that is indicative of a soil report.

Considering Profit Pro no longer has mention of the report anywhere on their site (as far as I can tell) I would mark this up to a marketing ploy or simply misinformation that they took down to cover their arses.

This thread is yet another example of how the first few replies are designed to undermine factual premise and logic. These big companies must employ a lot of people to sit in front of computer screens of sites like ATS and closely watch every new thread to see that its not anti whoever is on their list of organisations.

These people are must be poised with keyboard and fingers at the ready to make sure they get their attacks on factual logic and premise into the first 1-2 replies to the OPs post.

a reply to: learnatic

Factual logic? So you've seen the report then?

Can you share it then please, because every site I've visited so far that is carrying this story hasn't bothered to link to it, what are they hiding??

I myself would like to verify this for myself, because when the likes of natural news gets hold of something, it's almost always BS.

So again, if you've seen a copy of the study, please share, and if you don't, how can you call it factual? That's rather disingenuous.

a reply to: Grimpachi


We meet again on yet another wildly inaccurate GM thread!

I've found the "study", it's a table showing comparison between GMO and non-GMO "corn".

Found HERE

So there's quite a few things wrong with it, so I'll just point out the most obvious so that even the most closed minded among us gets it.

Check out where it says % Organic Matter GMO has 1.2% and Non-GMO has 2.1%.

Remember, we're testing corn here, organic matter in corn should be 100%, right?

These tests are on soil.

I wanna see that Girl who is Fighting for the Labeling of GMO food, to go back to the talk show with the Guy from Shark Tank and "Slap" him in the face with This Fact(s)!!!

Label GMO! We Have the Right to KNOW!

I don't like GMOs. I think the best solution to our food problems is small, local, organic farms that use natural means of pest control such as hemp. I think Monsanto is a monster with too much power in various governments. All that said and I hate to criticize fellow anti-gmo advocates but it really needs to be said... it is entirely useless and counterproductive to arm ourselves with bad science. Natural News and other sites like it are trash and don't stand up to scrutiny as is obvious by just the first few posts. The science community scoffs at us, even the environmental science community because much of what is coming from our side is truly nonsense. We need to get smarter if we're going to change anything.

I'd like a direct link to the study. If I can't read their methodology and conclusions straight from the actual paper, then this is just a piece that makes claims with no supporting evidence. I'm neither for nor against GMO's because I have my doubts about many of the claims made from both sides. Both sides have agenda's and I would prefer to make my own conclusions based on the actual studies done.

Without the paper, I don't believe any of the claims made.

Sorry, but this just reeks of fear mongering and agenda pushing.

Well I found a Forbes article on a study when searching that name, and it is a joke, you can tell immediately that they hate anyone publishing studies on GMO:

www.forbes.com...

I remember reading Canadian information on them shorting the nutrition and can't even find that now, no key words bring it up, which is extremely suspicious.

They say something in a flourish of weird immature teenage words about questioning the study in this Forbes article and the very wording is a number one flag for propaganda and slurs on the scientists

Our media promotes false studies and uses a flourish of bubble gum words, I guess to appeal to the bubble gum crowd they think we are to discredit the studies aimed to save lives.

We have a monster running the world and it really hates us

Fear mongling, live on earth as one of the majority, its not nice.

a reply to: GAOTU789

Check my second post, I've linked to it.

a reply to: purplemer

I certainly don't need a scientific nutritional comparison to tell me that eating something that produces it's own pesticide, herbicide is unhealthy.

If you are dumb enough to ingest something that was created by Monsanto, you deserve what you get.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

You have to be more specific than that. Otherwise your post is garbage.

We don't need science to tell us that GMO is bad, it is common sense. When it is too good to be true it isn't, this whole way of growing things is too good to be true.

Lets just kill all the pest and insects that don't jive with our agriculture culture and animals too, we don't need them. Lets modify nature so that it is just for humans. Does that sound reasonable? That is what Monsanto is selling. If they could patent air they would.

GIVE YOUR MONEY TO PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY WANT THE BEST FOR US. It is a bit more costly. but it is our responsibility.

ok - I TRIED to make you think - but its clear that few people actually want to

so a question - what was ACTUALLY assayed to produce the table of " results " in the OP "study "

hint - knowing what the values mean is required

hence my jibe about the lack of scientific literacy in the anti GMO movement

answer the question correctly and it will be obvious why this is pseudo scientific garbage