Stunning Corn Comparison: GMO versus NON GMO

I thought with this would be significant to some people with the recent Monsanto Protection Act passing through congress. There are some differences in GMO corn compared to NON GMO corn that might alarm you.

The claims that "There is no difference between GMO corn and NON Gmo corn" are false. Yesterday while on a playdate at the lake, Vince from De Dell Seed Company, Canada's only NON GMO corn seed company called me to support the march and Americans finding out about GMOs. He emailed me this stunning report, clearly showing the nutritional value difference between GMO corn and NON GMO corn. I was floored. And at the same time, not totally surprised because Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things and GMO corn is covered with it.

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 maganese. The list goes on and on.

Here are some comparisons between the two.

GMO Corn has 14 ppm of Calcium and NON GMO corn has 6130 ppm. 437 X more.

GMO corn has 2 ppm of Magnesium and NON GMO corn has 113ppm. 56 X more.

GMO corn has 2 ppm of Manganese and NON GMO corn has 14ppm. 7X more.

Here is a link to the article where there is an actual chart you can look at.

It looks like the study was done by ProfitPro.

If this information is true, we should be outraged that these products are not labeled so we can at least have the choice of avoiding them. Monsanto (the GMO giant) has gained more power also. See here for a thread from ATS.

Hope this information pisses you off. Have a nice day.

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


Interesting indeed. If there are regular consistencies regarding nutritional deficit in GMO crops vs. NON GMO crops, then that should be the stake in the heart for companies like Monsanto. The only problem is, just like the Oil empire, they have interests and the clout to maintain their strangle hold on humanity's positive progress.

S and F

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

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.

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.

deny ignorance my friend, your statement couldn't be farther from the truth. corn has been bred with other corn to pull out desirable traits, but that's hardly the same as inserting foreign genetics into a plant.

reply to post by boymonkey74


You would have no problem of it, even if you were the test subject?

That's a little bit sheepish of you, don't you think?

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?

reply to post by Hopechest


the argument is not about corn being nutritious, it's about it being genetically modified.

Originally posted by solongandgoodnight
reply to post by Hopechest

 

the argument is not about corn being nutritious, it's about it being genetically modified.

Actually this thread is about the nutritional value of corn compared to GMO corn. I was simply pointing out that its kind of an irrelevant discussion since corn is so low on nutritional value in the first place.

I have absolutely no problem with GMO food since nobody can show me anyone getting sick or dying from it. I do think it should be labeled as such so that people can have the option of purchasing it or not.

reply to post by boymonkey74


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.

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.

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)

I hate to burst everyone's bubbles, but Corn is not a "Vegetable". It is a grain, it is in the grass family. It IS a "natural" food, because the Mayans have been growing it longer then the USA has been the USA.

And as we know it, it is pollinated mostly by the wind.

Take a general botany class before you spout non-sense.

Also, GMO should be labeled.

reply to post by boymonkey74


The world's food problems have already been dealt with by the elite and
the corrupted companies like monsanto.They want total control of all the
food sources on this planet,how it is grown,where and by whom.

Originally posted 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.

sounds like a monsanta rep to me. lol

so you wouldn't mind if i come out with a product, untested, sell it as the next best thing since sliced bread, payoff all the elected officials i need to and just let the people be the test subjects? cool when can i start to make my billions?

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by solongandgoodnight
reply to post by Hopechest

 

the argument is not about corn being nutritious, it's about it being genetically modified.

Actually this thread is about the nutritional value of corn compared to GMO corn. I was simply pointing out that its kind of an irrelevant discussion since corn is so low on nutritional value in the first place.

I have absolutely no problem with GMO food since nobody can show me anyone getting sick or dying from it. I do think it should be labeled as such so that people can have the option of purchasing it or not.

Have you ever heard the expression "corn fed"?

Here in the South, most folks understand the nutritional value of Corn from anectdotal evidence. Pigs that are fed corn all of their lives grow much larger and healthier than pigs that aren't fed Corn.

The issue isn't whether or not you believe that GMO corn is dangerous or not. In the grand scheme of things, nobody cares what you think.

No one should genetically modify foods by artificial means and Monsanto is systematically eliminating natural food sources.

Originally posted by Skada

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)

I hate to burst everyone's bubbles, but Corn is not a "Vegetable". It is a grain, it is in the grass family. It IS a "natural" food, because the Mayans have been growing it longer then the USA has been the USA.

And as we know it, it is pollinated mostly by the wind.

Take a general botany class before you spout non-sense.

Also, GMO should be labeled.

Who cares if its a vegetable or a grain, that wasn't the point. Corn, as we know it today, is not natural I'm afraid.

And I agree with the label issue.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by solongandgoodnight
reply to post by Hopechest

 

the argument is not about corn being nutritious, it's about it being genetically modified.

Actually this thread is about the nutritional value of corn compared to GMO corn. I was simply pointing out that its kind of an irrelevant discussion since corn is so low on nutritional value in the first place.

I have absolutely no problem with GMO food since nobody can show me anyone getting sick or dying from it. I do think it should be labeled as such so that people can have the option of purchasing it or not.

Have you ever heard the expression "corn fed"?

Here in the South, most folks understand the nutritional value of Corn from anectdotal evidence. Pigs that are fed corn all of their lives grow much larger and healthier than pigs that aren't fed Corn.

The issue isn't whether or not you believe that GMO corn is dangerous or not. In the grand scheme of things, nobody cares what you think. The issue is whether or not people should have the right to choose what they eat. People should have the right to know if the veggies they're buying is GM or not.

I believe I already agreed with the issue of knowing whether its a GMO food or not.

Glad to see you support my view.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by solongandgoodnight
reply to post by Hopechest

 

the argument is not about corn being nutritious, it's about it being genetically modified.

Actually this thread is about the nutritional value of corn compared to GMO corn. I was simply pointing out that its kind of an irrelevant discussion since corn is so low on nutritional value in the first place.

I have absolutely no problem with GMO food since nobody can show me anyone getting sick or dying from it. I do think it should be labeled as such so that people can have the option of purchasing it or not.

Have you ever heard the expression "corn fed"?

Here in the South, most folks understand the nutritional value of Corn from anectdotal evidence. Pigs that are fed corn all of their lives grow much larger and healthier than pigs that aren't fed Corn.

The issue isn't whether or not you believe that GMO corn is dangerous or not. In the grand scheme of things, nobody cares what you think. The issue is whether or not people should have the right to choose what they eat. People should have the right to know if the veggies they're buying is GM or not.

I believe I already agreed with the issue of knowing whether its a GMO food or not.

Glad to see you support my view.

Apparently that's the only thing we agree on. Where do you get the idea that Corn isn't natural?

Domestication of a crop does not make it unnatural.

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.

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.