It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Stop messing around with hints. If you have something to say. Say it.

purp...




posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
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.


UNLESS they know something we don't. Are they preparing for a hot hot or cold cold planet and getting the experimental foods tested out by using on us while they tweak it?


I know one thing...there is a huge difference in TASTE!



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AlphaHawk

I appreciate the link but unless I missed it those are the reported results from the analysis. There is still no link to the methodology, where it was performed, how it was performed. the reported results of the nutritional analysis are still unsubstantiated until such things are verified.


I noticed another thing it claims in the fine print which is supposedly the corn tested is from fields next to each other.

I thought people said you couldn't have regular corn and gmo corn next to each other because of cross contamination.

Oh well too much just doesn't make sense about this. I see we both agree that this is most likely a soil analysis and not an actual analysis of the corn how else could it be anything else when there is less than 3% organic matter.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   
what do they expect when they breed a root excreteing defence system into all of their plants using glysophate.

And when bacteria started forming at these poison facilities they even bred that bacteria with plants to make they produce even more glysphate well at the same time being doused in glysophate.

You can't just chemically alter a plant to produce poison and cultivate bacteria and not expect that to effect humans.

One whould have to study the effects of Glysophate on humans and surrounding wildlife. Every seed monsanto carries that is *round up ready* would contain these genes.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.scientificamerican.com...

This isn't genetic modification to help humans and isn't the kind we want really.
It was a really stupid idea in the first place to merge something so toxic with food sustainance.
Farmers are whiners and weeds is just something your gunna have to deal with. What do you expect when there are 100s of miles of farm land. Just to contain onely one species of plants with the expectation of no weeds and no pests.
Sounds unlikely unless you attempt to kill everything else off en mass.

Your gunna get a couple weeds, its just a fact of life. At least the weeds won't kill you if you eat from from a plant was grew near one. Also there is the problem of this poison being passed on to perrenial plants that can carry their seeds far.

It could cause many plants to become extinct as it reaches places Glyphosate shouldn't be.
Anyways, My point is don't hate on GM foods. Hate on Herbicides and pesticides that are the primary focus of monsanto and always has been. They can't prioritize in such toxic chemical creating well expecting to be a seed distributor. It just dose not work out that way unless you want to hand the keys of death to a company that developed agent orange for the sole purpose of killing mass wildlife.
Well, Protest Monsanto then.
Don't kill the vibe of all the other companies working on boosting nutritonal values in plants rather than poison emitting enzymes from bacteria.



GM with synthetic biology could bring back extinct species. So we shouldn't ban the study of it but we should have strict regulations on what genes family actions (All the genes with catagorized effects) with strict guidelines and penalties for breaking the *Law*
It needs to become a law similar to that of the drug policy with schedual 1 to x type drugs.
It needs to be the exact same with genetic modification such as anything that emitts a genetically modified bio weaponry as a schedual 1 genetic containment and reduced study ( with a product not reaching harvestable lands until fully studied) And regulated by Scientific Police that make sure no companies are working on mad scientists technology with the hazard of negatively effecting our species and our enviroment on a dramatic scale such as GM crops are doing now through monsanto.

That's my 2 cents.
Trying to ban GMO is not the right answer, There needs to be a law society developed for it just as there are regulations and laws on manufacturing weapons of war.

GM-poison producing plants is a form of chemical and biological warfare.
These could be tried for in court by the UN for willingly attempting mass genocide.

All you need is the activist and *legal bregade* to target the companies and all other companies with these weaknesses.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
what do they expect when they breed a root excreteing defence system into all of their plants using glysophate.

And when bacteria started forming at these poison facilities they even bred that bacteria with plants to make they produce even more glysphate well at the same time being doused in glysophate.

You can't just chemically alter a plant to produce poison and cultivate bacteria and not expect that to effect humans.

One whould have to study the effects of Glysophate on humans and surrounding wildlife. Every seed monsanto carries that is *round up ready* would contain these genes.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.scientificamerican.com...

You are really confused.
"Roundup ready" refers to resistance to Glyphosate. These plants do not produce glyphosate.
They are genetically modified to resist glyphosate so that they can be sprayed with Roundup without being killed.

Your second link (SciAm) refers to the inert ingrdients that are added to Roundup.

Are you suggesting that plants have been modified to create Roundup, along with all the added inert ingrdients that come with the liquid pesticide?

Harte



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: learnatic
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.


Yep, and they'll make sure they get the last few posts too. But most people are wising up to them now, as can be seen by the number of stars you received.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Study Finds Monsanto’s GM Corn Nutritionally Dead, Highly Toxic

Then how come I aint dead ?

How come you aren't dead ?

People been eating GMO foods, and products made from them for near 20+ years.

Fear mongering is right.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   
As long as the companies are held accountable and the government is able to police them. I really don't care whether we genetically modify things or not, I just care about whether things are being monitored for safety and to ensure law abiding activity. So... I cross my fingers for our future.

This is one benefit of having different countries. If one country becomes corrupt, the others may act as a defense against it.
edit on 30-6-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Corn is a nutrient dead food normally. In most places throughout europe they don't even eat it because it's got no nutritional value.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

From what I gather, there was no methodology.

The table was part of a sales advert to sell one of profitpro's products, they fudged the figures all over the place to make their product look good.

thephysicspolice.blogspot.com.au...

Someone with no brain saw it and used it as evidence that GM corn is nutritionally dead, the rest is history as can be seen in this thread.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk



Yep, and they'll make sure they get the last few posts too. But most people are wising up to them now, as can be seen by the number of stars you received.


Actually no, if anything they're getting stupider.

You see, the naysayers had every right to jump on this thread, it had an outrageous claim with nothing to back it up.

None of the sources telling us about this study linked to it, don't you think that's a bit odd?

I've noticed this a lot with ATS, big claims, no fact checking...as long as it's going along with ones preconceived biases, who gives a damn if it's the truth.

Very scary.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
All those who love Monsanto can all vote to have their foods labelled with a big GMO sticker on it. Let the market decide if your so confident people will share your love for it. All this secrecy and refusing to label the food is just hypocrisy.

Do you know that they (they is some government I think, anyways someone) also locked up heirloom seeds in huge anti nuclear vaults in different countries like in Sweden, because they feared that once GMO was released, taking it back was practically impossible. In GMO we trust! Lock up all the originals in a anti everything vault...just...in...case!

GMO doesn't kill humans, it kills all the environment around it, humans will die after. GMO is less nutritious because it sucks all the minerals out of the soil because we can bypass the natural system that says: "Wait till the mineral replenishes stupid!". GMO is only good to make bank accounts grow.

Just recently scientists found out why all the bees are dying and guess what was responsible: pesticides that accompany what? GMO!! Really M. Scientists! Thank you for shedding light on the elusive reason why the bees are dying...I mean to think it was pesticides! That is just genius where is the noble prize for genius, it doesn't exist let's make one because really these scientists out did themselves this time! Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GMO will save the planet! What a joke. What a scam. This industry makes so much money they pay people to say crazy stuff on websites like: "Nobody is dead because of GMO corn, eat GMO corn!" PEOPLE ARE STILL STARVING ON EARTH! GMO FOODs DON'T DO SH*T TO HELP........Money is the only thing that is important to Monsanto and control. Jesus please come back soon, I am tired of these lies and illusions. These tricks are getting old.
edit on 30-6-2014 by bitsforbytes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Whether it is or it isn`t One thing is certain, somebody is lieing and they need to be held accountable for their fraudulent misrepresentation.That will never happen though because accountability isn`t political correct anymore so people are free to lie, misrepresent, defraud,etc,etc with impunity.God bless capitalism and america.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AlphaHawk

HAHAHA... That is a good link.


They ARE freakin soil samples.

It is exactly this type of freakshow misinformation that keeps me from becoming anti-GMO. I have yet to see anyone from that side of the fence provide credible evidence against it. Until there is credible evidence I refuse to run with the sheep that insist it is harmful.

Just like on every issue I want to see the studies I want to see the evidence I refuse to follow just because someone "feels" it is harmful.

It really is sad so many people fall for the pile of manure (haha it is funny because they are soil samples) that gets passed of as evidence against GMOs. Honestly I couldn't care less about labeling if legislation passes that forces it that is fine. I am neither for nor against it for me it is a non-issue because I will buy the same stuff I always buy.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Study Finds Monsanto’s GM Corn Nutritionally Dead, Highly Toxic

Then how come I aint dead ?

How come you aren't dead ?

People been eating GMO foods, and products made from them for near 20+ years.

Fear mongering is right.



Oh, how many people do you know who smoke and are not dead, who are alcoholics and are not dead? Doesn't mean their lungs or livers are in great shape, does it?



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

GMO foods from Monsanto have been modified to survive spraying from substances derived from agent orange used in Vietnam war. A documentary called "The World According to Monsanto" - topdocumentaryfilms.com... is just plain scary.

People also wonder why Monsanto is purchasing firms researching world wide bee disappearance...
naturalsociety.com...

An Australian Scientist said Monsanto is one of the greatest threats to survival of humankind.
Enough Said.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: AlphaHawk

HAHAHA... That is a good link.


They ARE freakin soil samples.

It is exactly this type of freakshow misinformation that keeps me from becoming anti-GMO. I have yet to see anyone from that side of the fence provide credible evidence against it. Until there is credible evidence I refuse to run with the sheep that insist it is harmful.

Just like on every issue I want to see the studies I want to see the evidence I refuse to follow just because someone "feels" it is harmful.

It really is sad so many people fall for the pile of manure (haha it is funny because they are soil samples) that gets passed of as evidence against GMOs. Honestly I couldn't care less about labeling if legislation passes that forces it that is fine. I am neither for nor against it for me it is a non-issue because I will buy the same stuff I always buy.


The thing is, I have yet to see anyone from the pro GMO side provide credible evidence that it's safe. So it's a tie there. And unfortunately, I do think there actually ARE a lot of studies that conclusively prove something is going on. But almost all of them get magically termed as a hoax just days later, and often for ridiculous reasons - yet when the "official" word, that is the media, "scientists, farmers", government - read: everyone who GMOs benefit, when they state it, everyone just automatically believes whatever they say. And what blows my mind is that EVERYONE knows all these elements of society lie constantly.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:43 PM
link   
A few years back they used to have organic vegetables listed on Nutrition data. Now organic would probably not include GMO at that time. I studied a few veggies, potatoes being just one of them. All organic veggies I studied were higher in organic. They got rid of the organic a couple of years ago, averaging in organic and commercial data into a generic bunch of crap. It artificially made commercial veggies look better. That place is such a scam now. Deception at it's finest and this would show that organic would not be much higher than the average of the two.

It was nice to find the truth. Potatoes were much higher in everything when they were organic. This change came down from the top, I read a brief report on why they did it from the site. There was some truth to what they were saying about soil conditions, but it is still a sham. I made copies of some of the comparisons, I don't know if I still have the paper copies or not.

I don't believe much of this info coming from government sites anymore, unless I read the evidence.

I think the reason the corn isn't as nutritious is because some of the GMO actually causes faster growth which means juicier corn with less nutrition per ounce. Another words, it is created to make it sweet and bigger with the same amount of nutrition in the yield. More yield, less nutrition per ear.

If you look at the difference in nutrition between an extra large egg and a small egg, you will notice the same situation. Both eggs are capable of creating a chicken, so the extra large egg contains less nutrients for volume than the small egg. Now this also would vary by the nutrition that the chicken eats. But you have to look at the process of an egg being able to start a chicken no matter what the size of the egg.

Same with beef and pork I suppose. Although, the new methods of farming pork make a consistant product. Back when I was young and pigs dug out in their pens, if the soil was contaminated, sometimes by nature itself, the whole pig tasted terrible.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: thebtheb

Well I don't believe what people tell me about the studies because I read the studies myself. I have never seen them termed magically a hoax just like this one. There is no magic behind it. It is a soil report fraudulently exclaimed to be a report on the corn. That isn't hard to figure out who is trying to do a hoaxas pokus on the reader there.

As far as you calling the evidence a tie then you are severely misguided where the burden of proof lay. Aside from that there have been thousands of studies done on the safety of available GMOs.

You would be better informed if you actually read the studies. Just like how the OP didn't link the study only an article on the analysis with no link to the analysis. That should be a huge red flag on anything like that. I will change my mind on GMOs just as soon as there is a good reason to.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

I think the reason the corn isn't as nutritious is because some of the GMO actually causes faster growth which means juicier corn with less nutrition per ounce. Another words, it is created to make it sweet and bigger with the same amount of nutrition in the yield. More yield, less nutrition per ear.

I think this could account for the difference between organic and non-organic in general, but GMO foods don't factor into that, necessarily.

Besides, people can claim whatever they want. Corn is not "dead" as far as nutrition. It's comparable to pretty much any other grain as far as carbs, fiber, vitamins, minerals etc.

Plus, soy is quite nutritious and GMO soy is everywhere.

Harte




top topics



 
63
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join