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

a reply to: Grimpachi

"The world doesn't always fit into a yes, no, left, right paridign."

not always... what's your point?

You honestly believe GMO's are universally bad? I hope no one you care about has diabetes. The insulin they most likely take are produced by genetically modified bacteria. To throw a blanket value over something on a scale this large is to shut off a large part of your understanding of the same. a reply to: bitsforbytes

No wonder I don't buy corn anymore.. last few times I bought it, I didn't enjoy it.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: purplemer

basic scientific literacy shows that " study " is a fantasy

Why is it a fantasy? Please give specifics.

For anyone asking about an actual study on GM corn, here's one:

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

The authors conclude that GMO corn had side effects on the liver and kidneys that weren't present in the control group.

originally posted by: holyTerror
For anyone asking about an actual study on GM corn, here's one:

A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

The authors conclude that GMO corn had side effects on the liver and kidneys that weren't present in the control group.

And the study was retracted by the journal that published it, as was already pointed out in this thread.

Harte

All corn is nutritiously dead.

It's a bad vegetable.

High in sugar, high in calories. Pretty low on nutrients save for iron.

Eat cabbage and broccoli instead.

a reply to: Harte

Are you sure it was this study? No where does it state that tumors developed due to the pesticides. It only concluded that different side effects were present in the rats that ate NK 603, MON 810 and MON 863.

The Business Week article talks about NK103, which is not listed in the study. Either way, I was only trying to provide an actual scientific study as opposed to the OP study.

originally posted by: drunkencoyote
You honestly believe GMO's are universally bad? I hope no one you care about has diabetes. The insulin they most likely take are produced by genetically modified bacteria. To throw a blanket value over something on a scale this large is to shut off a large part of your understanding of the same. a reply to: bitsforbytes

A stupid argument. That's like saying we should all eat GMO and not complain about it, because it would save our lives if we had diabetes?

a reply to: AlphaHawk

So, the tests are on the soil?
If so, that GMO soil is, how we say, not very good... see the parts highlighted red... and the general lack of everything

Since Obama appointed ex-Monsanto chiefs to run FDA and infiltrate EPA, our own government is pushing GMOs on the American people--even though GMOs are banned in most of the world!

Somehow intelligent, progressive individuals who oppose GMOs don't make the connection that these Monsanto people were not running FDA prior to Obama.

We just passed a no-GMO restriction in Jackson County Oregon...Obama and his Monsanto pals are doing everything they can to keep it off the ballot in the rest of Oregon--and I'm sure this is happening in other counties across the U.S.

I agree Cali74, Monsanto is a monster, and they have far too much power under Obama. People should demand that Obama get these Monsanto monsters out of FDA and all government organizations!

originally posted by: purplemer
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...

I'm very skeptical of everything in this OP. You are linking to a random website, run by random people who you do not know, who only ever in the article (I read it all) link to other random websites and dubious news reports to reference their claims ("The Grocery" "The Daily Mail" [lol]), and at no point reference any scientific research that was published in respectable scientific journals that went through the process of peer review; the process that regulates good science from bad science.

However, I really hate Monsanto, and all the money they make at the behest of the average farmer and citizen, so I REALLY hope you can prove me wrong on this. Google scholar might help. I had a breif look on this subject there in journals, could find nothing on these subjects, the only thing that lends credence to it so far are the quotes from scientists in the media articles. However, there are very good scientific reasons why quotes in newspapers, from whatever scientists, are not peer reviewed quotes, and are much more personal opinions outside of the literature.

a reply to: drunkencoyote

You are right, my comments were emotionally charged and not everything about GMOs is bad. Sorry, I have emotions and Monsanto isn't my favorite company.

On another note, I would bet there is another way of managing or curing diabetes without GMO. If only I had a trillion dollars.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Doesn't monsanto have a finger in most of the pro GMO studies?

Can a MOD please put this in the HOAX bin already?

These are soil sample studies re-labeled as GMO/nonGMO.

Deny ignorance.

a reply to: Jimjolnir

The numbers have been fudged too, to make the product they were trying to sell look superior.

originally posted by: fenson76
a reply to: Grimpachi

Doesn't monsanto have a finger in most of the pro GMO studies?

How would I know? If you mean they have to do lots of studies on their products before they can be approved then yeah I think that is pretty standard if you mean something else than that then could be more precise.

originally posted by: Jimjolnir
a reply to: AlphaHawk

So, the tests are on the soil?
If so, that GMO soil is, how we say, not very good... see the parts highlighted red... and the general lack of everything

The general lack of everything is called soil depletion,happens when ya grow crops without replenishing the soil nutrients which is supposedly their manure product ameliorates.

There is no such thing as "GMO" soil.

originally posted by: holyTerror
a reply to: Harte

Are you sure it was this study? No where does it state that tumors developed due to the pesticides. It only concluded that different side effects were present in the rats that ate NK 603, MON 810 and MON 863.

The Business Week article talks about NK103, which is not listed in the study. Either way, I was only trying to provide an actual scientific study as opposed to the OP study.

It was a different study that was "debunked" earlier in the thread, not this one.