Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Comparing Vitamin, Mineral and Energy Content of GMO vs. Non-GMO

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
www.wakingtimes.com...

“The important thing to note in these deficiencies is that these are exactly the deficiencies in a human being that lead to susceptibility to sickness, disorders and cancer. People who have osteoporosis are low in calcium and magnesium, people who have cancer are low in manganese. The list goes on and on.”
QUOTE:
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 END QUOTE:

Many threads about GMO crops but this is first study I have seen that breaks down the vitamins or lack there of when compared to organic or NON-GMO crops. Interesting if the article is correct for those who "want to know".




posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Is it because its genetically modified or is this due to the methods they use to grow?

Big difference lets get the information out right.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
Is it because its genetically modified or is this due to the methods they use to grow?

Big difference lets get the information out right.





For example, tomatoes grown by organic methods contain more phenolic compounds than those grown using commercial standards. That study — published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry — analysed the phenolic profiles of Daniela tomatoes grown either using ‘conventional’ or organic methods, finding that those grown under organic conditions contained significantly higher levels of phenolic compounds than those grown conventionally.


I agree but the article only refered to "Conventional" methods for growth..."whatever that means" as the article from The Journal Of Agricultural and food Chemistry was not well explored as far as growing methods...



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


The fact they need studies for this is sad. Anyone with half a brain should realize that GMO is bad for you. I have tried to cut all GMO foods out including things like HFCS (which is in everything!). I never read labels before but the last 9 mths or so I have been. I wonder when all this GMO took over the food market and when the ingredients were switched for this stuff.

I mean long before GMO people were eating all natural home grown fruits and veggies. GMO is bad and nothing will ever make me believe it isn't.

I saw this study posted on my FB and was amazed at the people who actually think GMO is better for you. Yea people actually believe that.

My own sister tried to tell me that Aspartame was good for you and I should get the facts and then linked me to their website. Yea she is blind as can be. Some people will believe anything they are told without having a single thought of their own.

Sadly thought GMO is taking over so it is becoming harder and harder to get away from it unless you can grown your own and not everyone has that option. I wish I did!!





posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


Thats the most important part of the article why would they leave that out?

Plants are genetically modified every time a male and female essentially have sex. The only difference is its indirect and modifies more genes. The GMO crop is targeted for mass production. They modify less genes then the natural process modifies by the thousands.

So the question is is it because of the methods they use to grow it or because the plants are GMO?

This article is incomplete and propaganda.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 

Indeed.
As discussed in this thread. Those results don't really demonstrate much of anything.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks Phage.

People need to stop assuming and take their position on this issue from a more educated perspective.

Im talking generally to not just about the OP.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I read many things about different subjects but this was the first article I have come across breaking down the difference between GMO and NON-GMO plants.
If the article is B.S. thank you for pointing that out.

If you have an article that says GMO has the same vitamins as Organic I for one would be interested in reading it..especially if the article or study is not funded or done by Monsanto scientist. Vitamins and minerals are present in the soil and during the normal growth period of a plant are fixed during the growth.... that is understood.. and that is what makes the article a mystery, yet interesting to me.

Thanks
edit on 19-4-2013 by 727Sky because: .....



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Thanks Sky, I think GMOs are unnatural and that selective breeding is not GMO. So who do we believe?

Personally I support heirloom seeds and organic farming. IMO, there is many things wrong with this Monsanto type of gene tinkering. I don't feel like researching the supporting evidence of my opinion, which I feel is readily available to an online search.

Some people just like playing the devil's advocate, something I try to avoid these days. Just a wink to those posters who always seem to do that.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck
Thanks Sky, I think GMOs are unnatural and that selective breeding is not GMO. So who do we believe?

Personally I support heirloom seeds and organic farming. IMO, there is many things wrong with this Monsanto type of gene tinkering. I don't feel like researching the supporting evidence of my opinion, which I feel is readily available to an online search.

Some people just like playing the devil's advocate, something I try to avoid these days. Just a wink to those posters who always seem to do that.


Thanks for your reply: I honestly do not know one way or the other...However I do know that splicing a gene that kills bugs into a plant will not work for long because they will adapt; it is already happening. As far as humans eating bug poison I guess it depends on who you want to listen too. In today's market place unless you grow your own stuff there is not much we can do to avoid GMO products without a major effort IMO.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
www.plosone.org...:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052988


The “organic food” market is the fastest growing food sector, yet it is unclear whether organically raised food is nutritionally superior to conventionally grown food and whether consuming organic food bestows health benefits. In order to evaluate potential health benefits of organic foods, we used the well-characterized fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster as a model system. Fruit flies were raised on a diets consisting of extracts of either conventionally or organically raised produce (bananas, potatoes, raisins, soy beans). Flies were then subjected to a variety of tests designed to assess overall fly health. Flies raised on diets made from organically grown produce had greater fertility and longevity. On certain food sources, greater activity and greater stress resistance was additionally observed, suggesting that organic food bestows positive effects on fly health. Our data show that Drosophila can be used as a convenient model system to experimentally test potential health effects of dietary components. Using this system, we provide evidence that organically raised food may provide animals with tangible benefits to overall health.


One problem with the debate exist due to the many voices claiming opposite results. I do think the old rule of follow the money (which never seems to fail) could be applied regardless.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


I find it hard to compare the results for fruit fly studies with humans. I won't discount the findings, just think the comparison is not a really good one. Good find though.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by onequestion
 

Indeed.
As discussed in this thread. Those results don't really demonstrate much of anything.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



seeming how you always defend the GMO lobbie, i mean crops,

could you comment on the fact that most GMO crops in the food chain today were tested for safety during a time where we believed that DNA contained "junk" DNA that had no purpose, and without knowing what "human" genes could be effected how can you claim that GMOs are safe? considering we now know some of that "junk DNA" is to do with brain operation and some autism genes have been found to reside there.

it is well know and openly discussed that the Glycophosphate strips vitamins and compounds out of vegetable and plant matter, why would the GMOs grown to be immune to glycophosphate NOT contain less nutrients?

xploder



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by 727Sky
 


Thats the most important part of the article why would they leave that out?

Plants are genetically modified every time a male and female essentially have sex. The only difference is its indirect and modifies more genes. The GMO crop is targeted for mass production. They modify less genes then the natural process modifies by the thousands.

So the question is is it because of the methods they use to grow it or because the plants are GMO?

This article is incomplete and propaganda.


actually your answer sounds like propaganda,

let me explain, there is a difference between cell division, and artificially entering jellyfish genes into a plant,
you try to obscure the differences within your answer, but please expalin how a jellyfish and a corn flower can naturally propagate?

the changes made to GMOs is dangerous to the extreme, (we dont know what we will learn about the "junk" dna)
or how those un natural gene expressions will effect our health as no long term studies have been conducted.

please try not to confuse cell division with artificially inserting genes from other species into a product used as food.

it is disingenuous and your lack of understanding may harm others in the longer term of GMO food use

xploder



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I would actually like to learn more about what your talking about, can you provide any good resources to learn from? Im going to google it as well but im just curious because this topic is interesting to me.





-Fungutooglebooties



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 727Sky
 


Incredible in the worst sense of the word.

Until these results are duplicated, and the growing methods used detailed, it is my opinion that this study is very flawed and potentially purposefully so.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I would actually like to learn more about what your talking about, can you provide any good resources to learn from? Im going to google it as well but im just curious because this topic is interesting to me.-Fungutooglebooties


i can only give you the same basic saftey warnings i always talk about,
we simply have not looked for gene expressions that are common to humans and food crops, in the area formally called "junk DNA"

recently there was a corn plant that was about to be released into the food chain and it shared a gene expression common with mammals, the gene effected a protein that the liver used to stay healthy,
now if that made it into the food chain many people would suffer from liver failure,

many of these common gene expressions are tested for before commercial use,
now
if there is an area of the DNA that we thought in our scientific wisdom,
"we dont know what it does so it must be JUNK"
problem is now that we know its not junk and are finding what the gene expressions are for,
WE HAVE NOT TESTED FOR COMMON GENE EXPRESSIONS because of our arrogance.

this is not science, its a gamble, one whos odds change as our understanding of DNA changes

we do not know what we are doing with GMOs

or even how adding jellyfish genes to food crops will effect our DNA or organs

xploder



edit on 20/4/13 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


ok, i get whats your saying. But how doesnt the natural process modify more genes in a less selective manner? Wouldnt that make the plant more dangerous when grown naturally? Or are the genes they are modifying genes not typically changed when the plant is cross strained through the natural process?


-Gergerger
edit on 20-4-2013 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by XPLodER
 


ok, i get whats your saying. But how doesnt the natural process modify more genes in a less selective manner? Wouldnt that make the plant more dangerous when grown naturally? Or are the genes they are modifying genes not typically changed when the plant is cross strained through the natural process?


-Gergerger
edit on 20-4-2013 by onequestion because: (no reason given)


to keep it simple,
in natural selection (nature), or selective breading (humans picking traits they like) you are only working within natural variations inherent in the genes of the two parent plants. the best genes are selected from both parents, and are "diverse" ie they can take "either" parents traits or a combination from both "parents"

either way they are derived from generations of gene expression,

compared to GMOs where a gene insertion method "inserts" a gene (trait) from ANOTHER UNRELATED organism into the genetic sequence of the crop,

there is no way in nature for the genes of a worm could be included in the DNA of corn,
ie worms cant mate with corn.

when you transfer genetic material from one organism to another, and is consumed by a third organism (us)
there is a possibility of "horizontal gene transfer" (like some forms of antibiotic resistance) that can influence the expression of our genes,

this happens when we share a common expression with GMO food.

this is not intended as a technical description, and is for ease of understanding


xploder
edit on 20/4/13 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks Phage.

People need to stop assuming and take their position on this issue from a more educated perspective.

Im talking generally to not just about the OP.


Enjoy eating and drinking gmo soy and when hair clusters grow in your mouth you wont have to tell people how good gmo is you can show them.www.huffingtonpost.com...





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join