Stunning Corn Comparison: GMO versus NON GMO

There is a vast difference between genetic breeding of heritage seeds, ie. macs and red delicious make spartan apples, AND GMO, where the nutrients are disturbed and lessoned on purpose no less, by psychos, and very deadly toxins are genetically bonded, not to mention DNA from other species, such as frog added to tomatoes they keep longer.

The nutrients our bodies need for health, or they cannablize the bones and organs, muscles and tissue, brain and cause severe conditions, are being deliberately taken away.

They all deserve massive prison sentences.

Originally posted by rickymouse
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.

While I support the sentiment, we need a FDA. But one staffed by career public servants not servants of big Agriculture, Big Pharmacueticals, etc.

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by anton74
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.

And just why are you qualified to say "This study is questionable" without any backup?

Most factory farm grown food cannot 'reach maturity' with out 'chemical' fertilizier because the soil has been depleted over decades, abused with 'chemical' fertilizers, not let fallow, watered with chorinated water, the list goes on and on. The abuses of the land (and water) of factory farming and you want to continue in this manner.

Did you not read my questions? There are many different varities of corn. As far as we know the could be comparing Sweet corn and corn raised for silage. If these are two similar breeds grown in the exact same conditions, then you would not see such a huge difference. The nutrient levels in corn are highly dependent on the soil content and weather. The article gives no source osr data to back up the claim.

If I said that a Fuji apple grown in Japan is better for you than a wild Crabapple from Minnesota, does that mean all apples from Japan are better than all apples from the U.S.? Without the data these numbers could mean anything.

I'll back up my claims when they submit their data for review.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by mamabeth
The problem is that the frankenfood has no nutritional value.You can still die from
starvation and have a full stomach.Your body won't be getting enough nutrients
and all of this frankenfood sterilizes the soil.

Now that's just plain wrong. Where do you learn these wild ideas? Most genetically modified food is modified so that it doesn't respond to a genetically targeted weed killer like RoundUp, and it has little or no effect on nutrition that makes a difference to consumption.

Stop parroting false information and do some of your own research. Please.

It's not the quantity but the bio-availablity of the nutrients that is of concern. You can eat all the - the calcium you want but if your body can't make use of it - it's worthless calories.

Genetically altered foods are causing increased inflammation and leaky gut. Genetically altered foods change the etiology of the human digestive tract and inhibit proper enzyme function and nutrient absorption. These genetically engineered products once ingested by both humans and animals are being traced to serious health issues. In humans digestive diseases, allergies, thyroid disorders, heart attacks, kidney disease, cancer, autoimmune diseases, Alzheimer and diabetes are all increasing at alarming rates. Many, including me believe GMO’s are to blame for such a dramatic increase in sickness.
In animals fed bt corn (Round Up Ready) crops such as soy, corn and wheat ther birth rates decreased. Cows are now experiencing gastrointestinal issues. This is because bt is an insecticide in the corn that when ingested by the insect causes the stomach to split open and die. Scientists now suspect this same bt that is in the food humans are consuming is causing disruption in the normal flora and etiology of the human GI tract and causing gut permeability. They believe this is leading to an increase that we are seeing in allergies, autism and premature aging.
Round up ready crops are less nutritious because their genetic structure has been altered. Animals fed these crops are not becoming weak and sick due to nutrient depleting in the GMO foods they are fed. They are experiencing more birth defects and lower birth rates. This has also been documented in human studies now too.

from the popular press:

nourishholisticnutrition.com...

And a bit more scholarly: enhs.umn.edu...

All genetically modified foods that have been approved are considered by the government to be as safe as their traditional counterparts and are generally unregulated (FDA website). However, there are several types of potential health effects that could result from the insertion of a novel gene into an organism. Health effects of primary concern to safety assessors are production of new allergens, increased toxicity, decreased nutrition, and antibiotic resistance (Bernstein et al., 2003).

And now a few scholarly (about health dangers of GMOs):

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AwakeWeAre

 

but here is a study about GMO corn being fed to mice.

A very poorly designed study which resorted to "creative" statistical analysis in order to validate itself.
www.efsa.europa.eu...

You are not qualified to say whether or not the design of the study is flawed or not. I'm not certain I would take an offical body's opinion either.

There are many studies about dangers - some better than others.

But most of the Pro studies are paid for by the industry - please post - independent sudies of the health benefits of GMO crops beyond - filling a belly - a starving one or just a greedy one.

Ugh & were being forced to eat this crap. I'm tired of hearing how there's no difference nutritionally and that GMO's are safe. If they are so safe, why do they give rats horrible tumours?!
What's wrong with what nature provides? just pure, simple, nutritious food. There's no need for GMO's

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

i sure as hell don't want to eat plants that have built in pesticides.

Then stay away from plants.

All plants produce their own natural pesticides to protect them-
selves against fungi, insects, and predators such as man. Tens of
thousands of these natural pesticides have been discovered,and every
species of plant contains its own set of toxins, usually a few dozen.

www.fortfreedom.org...

reply to post by FyreByrd

And just why are you qualified to say "This study is questionable" without any backup?

I posted my backup.

reply to post by sarahlm

If they are so safe, why do they give rats horrible tumours?!

It has not been demonstrated that they do.

reply to post by FyreByrd

But most of the Pro studies are paid for by the industry - please post - independent sudies of the health benefits of GMO crops beyond - filling a belly - a starving one or just a greedy one.

You want a study of the health benefits of food?

reply to post by FyreByrd

And now a few scholarly (about health dangers of GMOs):

And now a few more scholarly articles:

Perturbations in peripheral immune response were thought not to be age-specific and were not indicative of Th 2 type allergenic or Th 1 type inflammatory responses. There was no evidence of cry1Ab gene or Bt toxin translocation to organs or blood following long-term feeding.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The magnitude of change observed in some serum biochemical parameters did not indicate organ dysfunction and the changes were not accompanied by histological lesions. Long-term feeding of GM maize to pigs did not adversely affect growth or the selected health indicators investigated.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Treatment differences observed following feeding of Bt maize to sows did not indicate inflammation or allergy and are unlikely to be of major importance. These results provide additional data for Bt maize safety assessment.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...$=activity

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


Stop the Monsanto Protection Act - Last Chance

TextA rider (Sec. 735) that would prevent courts from halting illegally planted GM crops (sometimes courts find fault with USDA-approved GM fields) was slipped into the Senate Continuing Resolution spending bill HR 933. It blind-sided an angry populace last week, giving little time to voice complaint before it was to go through the Senate.

Last Wednesday morning, HR 933 passed with the new rider dubbed by activists as the Monsanto Protection Act therein. The rider has nothing to do with proposed government spending to keep it running for the next six months. But it is unknown whether this incongruous rider will last six months or permanently.

According to GovTrack.us, the only thing left before the bill becomes law is the President's signature. Food Democracy Now! is asking you to join the more than 200,000 people who used their forms to contact Obama and Congress in an effort to strip the rider. This is not a petition. And those are only the people who used their site - countless other organizations alerted activists in the last two weeks.

If this "must-pass" bill gets signed into law, it would be the point of no return for unhindered Monsanto havoc. They would trump federal court power and courts would not be able to use authority to stop sales or planting of any illegal or hazardous genetically modified crops. Strange for biotech giants to want this rider, as the USDA already gives them unheeded approval without safety testing of their crops. Rider (Sec. 735) clinches Monsanto power - if the USDA or court system wants to halt GM crops or revoke approval, they cannot. It's also an open backdoor to whisk in future approvals.

www.activistpost.com...

reply to post by quedup

The act has nothing to do with Monsanto or GMOs. It offers Monsanto no "protection".
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It seems as though the distinguishing feature of this thread is that it contains two anti-GMO studies, along with the frequently heard complaints about GMO anything. The first study was mentioned by the OP as probably being done by ProfitPro. If you happen to go to their website, by clicking on the OP's link, you will find that they are a company selling prdoucts and services, not a university or research lab.

I went to their section titled "research and education" and entered the search term "GMO." It gave no hits. Using the term "Corn," I got four hits. The first one was a three or four line table comparing a corn with their product and without. There was no explanation, simply the line with higher numbers for the farmer who used their product. That's when I gave up. Feel free to dig deeper if you'd like.

In my opinion, a study labelled "ProfitPro," if it even exists, has no credibility that I can see.

The second study was the French study that the European food agency rejected. After the original study was published it was questioned by other scientists who asked for the data the study was based on. The French researcher admitted he still had the data but refused to turn it over to other researchers. It is hardly surprising that the French study was found to be an inadequate basis for condemning GMO corn.

Do the posters here believe that Monsanto bribed six national research organizations and the European group responsible for food safety? If so, it makes for a fun story but I'd like to see some evidence.

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)

Much of the corn in the US is destined to be fermented to alcohol for fuel additives anyhow The link in the OP ha some very dodgy numbers IMHO (chemist (PhD and industry experience) and Biochemist (MSc)), most of those numbers quoted in the table were meaningless. Also it was not a study of multiple samples (like hundreds at least) which would have made it statistically significant.

lol... and people find this shocking.

Just goes to show how few of us have actually had real organic foods. Anyone who has can instantly tell the difference, organic foods are less bland and more flavorsome. In some cases GMO fruits and vegetables are larger, but that extra size is not worth it imo. I'd pay a little bit more for organic foods because they taste that much better. It's sort of like a microwave meal vs an oven baked meal. One method is unnatural and causes the food to have a bland taste with less nutritional value. The other method is more tedious and takes more time but the results are well worth the effort. I don't know about anyone else, but I know which I prefer.

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

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)

corn actually is one of the most nutritious vegetables out their, from a balanced diet point of view it's excellent. have you done any research involving nutrient values for agricultural products?

Actually corn has one major draw back is it is deficient in various essential nutritional components such as niacin and Lysine. Google Pellagra

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


We all do but in this day and age organic foods are too expensive for me and what about the starving kids? GM foods may help them.
GM foods may help people living in drought conditions grow food to live, they may help people who can only afford rice get more nutritional food.
The world is getting worse with the amount of fresh water available and the amount of decent land to grow crops in, not to mention the environment...we have to go down this route.

You shouldn't eat corn anyway, it's not a natural human food and is a fairly new grain in the history of human eating.

A person with a reasonably good diet doesn't need corn.

A lot of animals get fed on corn.

Don't eat animals.


QV.

reply to post by qvision

Animals would eat me if I gave them a chance to.