Stunning Corn Comparison: GMO versus NON GMO

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by solongandgoodnight

 

It angers me to know that most of the food that is grown and fed to humans isn't nearly as nutritional as it was a couple decades ago. What also angers me is that a lot of people don't know or just don't care.

As you said, if this study is correct, then the differences in comparison are massive.

yes and the "if" is starting to get to me if i'm honest.......i wish i knew more about the company who did the study.

reply to post by Hopechest
but in now it's genitcally altered. nobody's arguing the fact that it's different than it originally was. or at least i don't think they are.

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

The simple fact that corn that we usually buy in the store today wouldn't exist if it wasn't for man creating it. Feel free to disupte that fact if you'd like.

"Fact" you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Got any links, citations, or references to back up that claim?

Even if a majority of food was GMO, there would still be "natural" strains out there, and would most likely still be producing far after the terminator genes expressed themselves.
____
So, yes, Most corn may be GMO, but not all corn is GMO, not yet at least. What I would like would be NO GMO; but it would seem that we are not asked what we want, and even some FDA tool stated in court that we do not have a fundamental freedom to buy what ever food we want. It was in the context of Raw Milk. Source: Natural News

"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

Corn also isn't the most nutrient rich vegetable out there. You don't really eat corn as part of a healthy diet when there are so many other vegetables far better for you.

Heck, corn, as we know it, can't even exist in the wild without human help. Its not a natural food.

I agree they should be labeled though.

edit on 27-3-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)

FYI corn is a grain, not a vegitable.

Common mistake though.

Originally posted by davjan4

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

Corn also isn't the most nutrient rich vegetable out there. You don't really eat corn as part of a healthy diet when there are so many other vegetables far better for you.

Heck, corn, as we know it, can't even exist in the wild without human help. Its not a natural food.

I agree they should be labeled though.

edit on 27-3-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)

FYI corn is a grain, not a vegitable.

Common mistake though.

Wasn't a mistake since I never meant to imply that corn was a vegetable. However, it is mostly consumed in place of a vegetable during your dinner course and as such, there are far more nutrient rich vegetables to use instead of corn. If your really worried about eating the right vegetable you would use broccoli or brussel sprouts instead of corn for that portion.

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


Personally, I believe this study to be true (yes perhaps some bias on my behalf helped me come to this conclusion), I have come across various studies and theories about the lower percentage of nutrients in our foods ever since GMO has been shoved down our throats.

As for the group who did the study, expect them to be discredited just like the group in France who performed a study on rats that concluded GMO corn causes tumors. The study seemed legit from what I can tell but immediately after it came out there was a massive counter-campaign to "debunk" the study.

Monsanto and their affiliates have lots of money and money can make almost anything go away, money also has the power to help sway public opinion.

No matter which group, or whatever methods they use, they will automatically be discredited by the likes of Monsanto and those who share the same motives (mostly financial but I believe there is more to it than that such as the CODEX Alimentarius).

That being said, I cannot claim with 100% certainty that this study is correct, but the results of the study don't surprise me at all.

Originally posted by davjan4

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

Corn also isn't the most nutrient rich vegetable out there. You don't really eat corn as part of a healthy diet when there are so many other vegetables far better for you.

Heck, corn, as we know it, can't even exist in the wild without human help. Its not a natural food.

I agree they should be labeled though.

edit on 27-3-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)

FYI corn is a grain, not a vegetable.

Common mistake though.

Don't confuse them with facts, I tried to set their ways corrected, but it was in vain.

Fruits are grown off the plant with drupes having one seed and other fruits having many; such as berries.
vegetable - we eat the main part of the plant.
grain - grass family usually pollinated by wind
Herbs - spice type plant were we eat/use the leaves (usually has bioflavonoids)
real spices - seeds, bark, or other non-main part of the plant is used.

anyone wanna correct or add to this assertion on our plant kingdom?

So, what I gather is that natural is better because no pest/herb/-cides because the -cides disrupt or prevent the good stuff from being absorbed into the body?

What about GM rice? rice on its own causes malnutrition but researchers have made "Golden Rice" which contains vitamin A and this will save millions of people in the thrid world BUT due to people protesting about GM foods the institute who made this "Golden rice" did not get more funding so millions of people in the third world will still starve.
The institute who made it Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences planned to give the rice strain for free to any country asking for it.
We have to go the GM route with all that's happening with the world and enviroment, we need to be able to grow stronger foods to be able to grow them in places where we could not before.
Like I said test it and label it but we must do this for the sake of humanity.

This study is questionable. What breed of corn was it? What was the mineral content of soil? What fertilizers(if any) where used? At what stage in developement where the samples taking?

The numbers given are so low that they look unbelieveable. A young plant that low would likely never reach maturity without fertilizer.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
What about GM rice? rice on its own causes malnutrition but researchers have made "Golden Rice" which contains vitamin A and this will save millions of people in the thrid world BUT due to people protesting about GM foods the institute who made this "Golden rice" did not get more funding so millions of people in the third world will still starve.
The institute who made it Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences planned to give the rice strain for free to any country asking for it.
We have to go the GM route with all that's happening with the world and enviroment, we need to be able to grow stronger foods to be able to grow them in places where we could not before.
Like I said test it and label it but we must do this for the sake of humanity.

Okay, I can get behind this type of thinking, but when we mess with the DNA there could be unintended consequences. There should be ground rules for foods.

1. Any food GMO, should NOT be producing its own pesticide.
   
2. GMO should not have a self destructing "Terminator Gene".
   

gosh can't think of any more, can you guys add any rules you would like implemented for food gmos or even non-food gmos

reply to post by boymonkey74


You are confusing selective breeding with genetic manipulation. Selective breeding uses two different varieties of corn to produce a hybrid with the desirable traits, such as sweet taste or large yield, or combination of both. This is something that can and does happen in the wild without human intervention (ie Bread wheat). But when humans take control the result is many different varieties of a plant. Think of all the different varieties of apples, grapes, pears, orchids, and it goes on and on.

The genetically modified corn has dna from a different plant, sometimes an animal, inserted into the corn dna. This is something that could never occur naturally. The result is you're effectively creating a FrankenCorn.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Considering all corn has been genetically modified since we started planting it, as long as it is tested I see no problem with it.

What you're talking about is a simple, natural process. I "geneticly modified" azalea flowers for a high school project. Mixing white and red to make pink.

If they were fully transparent with what they change, and kept it simple I wouldn't have an issue with GMOs. But they don't do long term tests, and they are anything but transparent.

The worst part being that they add things like pesticides and who knows what else.

It may do many of us a service to read up on maize.

It is a bit of a mystery as to how it originated.
Part of the mystery is that it will not grow in the wild. It needs to be planted. It is intimately associated with humans.
There have been genetic studies done, but each theory that they have come up with leaves important questions unanswered. There are plants that maize is related to, teosinte is one, but they are very different from maize.
From a NY Times article on the history of maize:

But despite its abundance and importance, the biological origin of maize has been a long-running mystery. The bright yellow, mouth-watering treat we know so well does not grow in the wild anywhere on the planet, so its ancestry was not at all obvious. Recently, however, the combined detective work of botanists, geneticists and archeologists has been able to identify the wild ancestor of maize, to pinpoint where the plant originated, and to determine when early people were cultivating it and using it in their diets.

reply to post by Hopechest

Wasn't a mistake since I never meant to imply that corn was a vegetable. However, it is mostly consumed in place of a vegetable during your dinner course and as such, there are far more nutrient rich vegetables to use instead of corn. If your really worried about eating the right vegetable you would use broccoli or brussel sprouts instead of corn for that portion.

I will back you up in calling corn a vegetable.
After all, it is not an animal or a mineral!

But, the FDA accepts the deceitful evidence of Monsanto. We need to get rid of the FDA and organize a different watchdog that has no ties with these big businesses. The FDA does not test the stuff adequately. I'm surprised that the FDA did not change the way that the evidence is interpreted yet to hide reality. They do that quite a bit.

If a FDA agent is caught taking money or any benefits at all from companies regulating our food, they should be tried and executed by the government. Accepting false evidence as real should be jail time for FDA officials, they should be responsible for validating it. We can't mess around with this kind of stuff, just because some people accept the lies of these people doesn't make it real. A worldwide investigation should be done on this kind of practices.

reply to post by Hopechest


Corn is unnatural and can't grow in the wild huh? Funny, I'm pretty sure corn existed before modern farming. The native Americans grew corn in fields with other plants unlike the mono-crop farming of today, and even before then the Native Americans had to get seeds from native plants at some point. Corn growing in the wild is only un-natural if its genetically modified and even then I bet those Frankenstein crops grow fine out in the wild.

reply to post by Skada


A couple more rules they should have to follow are:

C. Sterilize the pollen, so cross contamination does not happen with organic, non-GMO crops
D. Label everything! They have to include food allergens on labels, there is no reason our current administration should have exempted Monsanto and their poisons genetically inserted into our food.

Ideally the government would step out of the food supply. I see the argument made that mom n pops operations could get people sick, well, the FDA hasn't done a stellar job in keeping us safe from corporate created foods either. I have seen more reports of illnesses from corporate farms than I have ever seen from the farmers markets.

reply to post by boymonkey74

If it helps solve the world food problem, making it last longer better for you etc I see no problem with it.
Of course test it but the positives in GM food to me make it a subject that we need to study more and make food better for everyone.
It could save millions of people.

That is actually a fallacy in logic. What happens is, underdeveloped countries get access to more food, but not more education. So then, the population actually rises after having more food, and then more people go starving. If we let just a few people starve, it actually saves many more from starving.

Those figures for non GMO corn seem rather odd.
Here is a source from 1989 which used an average of five samples of corn from Mexico.

Calcium 480 ppm (48 mg/100g)
Magnesium 1080 ppm (108mg/100g)
Manganese 10 ppm (1mg/100g)
www.fao.org...

All cereal grains and their by-products, as a general rule, are deficient in calcium, primarily maize 0.02-0.06%

www.usab-tm.ro...
The claim that non GMO corn is 0.6% (6130 ppm) calcium doesn't quite seem right.

It seems there may be a problem with the testing of the non GMO corn. I wonder if the same is true of the GMO corn.

Originally posted by Phage
Those figures for non GMO corn seem rather odd.
Here is a source from 1989 which used an average of five samples of corn from Mexico.

Calcium 480 ppm (48 mg/100g)
Magnesium 1080 ppm (108mg/100g)
Manganese 10 ppm (1mg/100g)
www.fao.org...

 

All cereal grains and their by-products, as a general rule, are deficient in calcium, primarily maize 0.02-0.06%

www.usab-tm.ro...
The claim that non GMO corn is 0.6% (6130 ppm) calcium doesn't quite seem right.

 

It seems there may be a problem with the testing of the non GMO corn. I wonder if the same is true of the GMO corn.

edit on 3/27/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I've been trying to look for some kind of different study to show other figures but I'm not having much luck. thanks for the contribution and if you find something please let us know!