Stunning Corn Comparison: GMO versus NON GMO

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?

I don't get this at all. Other than the trace nutrients that the OP described in "natural corn" -- it's about the most useless form of calories I can imagine. Even the "fiber" is insoluble -- if you don't chew corn, it comes out the stomach without damage. So what does the body digest other than the calories?

The "natural corn" much like the natural wheat, is so modified from it's original plant form, that even without genetic modifications, it's not very useful other than adding calories and filling the tummy.

Corn is also used to fatten up livestock. WE have to assume the food industry has done it's homework on the best way to make a cow, chicken or pig get big fast. And it's even tough for cows to digest; that's why they are given so many antibiotics, because the corn tears up their stomachs and without the medication, they'd likely die before they were slaughtered.

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.

There is no world food problem. There is a sharing problem. The food problem is a lie. Simply research how much food is thrown in the garbage combined from first world nations. GMO is completely unsustainable long term and the yields are total garbage compared to natural sustainable farming. The exact opposite of what they tell you.

People.. i really don't know if enough of us are going to wake up in time to realize what is going on. This is intentional on a level most people are unaware of. Our entire food system has been completely destroyed by design. There are in the final process of making it near impossible to survive within a food system outside of the poisoned one. There is more then enough food, water and resources for everyone on the planet.. many times over. Instead we stand behind bullies and let them dominate us so we have the privilege to be poisoned by them.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

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?

I don't get this at all. Other than the trace nutrients that the OP described in "natural corn" -- it's about the most useless form of calories I can imagine. Even the "fiber" is insoluble -- if you don't chew corn, it comes out the stomach without damage. So what does the body digest other than the calories?

The "natural corn" much like the natural wheat, is so modified from it's original plant form, that even without genetic modifications, it's not very useful other than adding calories and filling the tummy.

Corn is also used to fatten up livestock. WE have to assume the food industry has done it's homework on the best way to make a cow, chicken or pig get big fast. And it's even tough for cows to digest; that's why they are given so many antibiotics, because the corn tears up their stomachs and without the medication, they'd likely die before they were slaughtered.

Our ENTIRE food system is completely dependent on corn.

The simple argument of Corn is fine. When you amplify the argument to every Food we consume does your argument change??

How long has GMO Corn been around before anyone even know about it?? 6 yrs or so?? How many years before anyone cared about it 10-15 yrs or so??

Sure, you have your Corn but what happendes in 5 yrs when we find out our Vegetables were tainted a couple years before?? And, on top of that we have to "deal" with it because it has been going on this whole time no matter what.

The argument is for me is why it took so long for someone to find out Corn/Soy was GMO. And, how long until we find out every other food we consume will be the same.

Originally posted by bitsforbytes
reply to post by SpearMint

 

We have tons of people who need to work, so creating more jobs in the sense that non-GMO need more attention is good for the economy no?. Label the food as GMO and let the free market decide what is good for them.

At first it will be expensive, but in the long run costs will go down as it popularity rises. It's the law of supply and demand.

I say leave both products on the market properly identified. We will see who will come out victorious.

So who's going to pay these people?

I watched this documentary for school while working on my undergrad degree. It disgusted me so much, that I don't eat corn and truly try to limit the amount of HFCS (high fructose corn syrup) I take in. It is hard, especially since 99% of all "processed" foods contain corn or HFCS...




I also just heard (on Coast to Coast) that the GMO crops are causing major problems in our environment and may even cause the extinction of Monarch Butterflies.

So all you Monsanto defenders, after all the reserach that is in this thread, and out there on the internet, are you still defending companies like the aforementioned Monsanto? Sorry to be so blunt, but there is something seriously wrong with you if you are. Keep eatin' on that corn, Sheeple. Keep shovin' it in.

I know my garden will be gigantic this year. If I could till and plant the whole damn yard, I would! We're also in the process of building a chicken coop...What ever I can do to avoid eating any food that is prepared/grown/processed by anyone else, I am going to do it.Giving up meat was the best thing I have ever done (I still eat eggs, protein is important) and growing as much of my own food as I can will be the second!

reply to post by SpearMint


Well, I obviously don't have a business plan ready in my back pocket, but I would estimate that consumers with money would purchase the food which would be financing the food company who distributes the pay to their workers. I think that is the way it works today. Wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by bitsforbytes
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Well, I obviously don't have a business plan ready in my back pocket, but I would estimate that consumers with money would purchase the food which would be financing the food company who distributes the pay to their workers. I think that is the way it works today. Wouldn't you agree?

edit on 29-3-2013 by bitsforbytes because: Only those who do nothing make no mistakes

Resulting is a huge price inflation.

Originally posted by neo96

No assumption this entire thread backs it up as every other thread "years of research gmo is bad" eh

Take a gander here:

From 1860- to 1950 would be non Gmo years notice the yields, then ponder what was the population during that time period.

Then take a look after 1950 and the rise of yield, and the corresponding population growth then figure in profit margins of farmers increased with that yield, and people are living longer seems to me gmo consumption was bad people would be dropping like flies,.

Offtopic eh whatever.as "you" is "offtopic" and "irrelevant"

edit on 28-3-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Nice chart but it doesn't relate to increased yields of GMO as much as it shows the effects of farm subsidies on corn production.

The first genetically modified plant was produced in 1983, using an antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant.

en.wikipedia.org...

The United States currently pays around $20 billion per year to farmers in direct subsidies as "farm income stabilization"[9][10][11] via U.S. farm bills. These bills pre-date the economic turmoil of the Great Depression with the 1922 Grain Futures Act, the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act and the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act creating a tradition of government support.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by SpearMint


Really?

How would that happen?

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.

Someone else probably already answered this before me, but we haven't been genetically modifying corn for long. We were cross-breeding, replicating processes which could exist in nature, but in controlled mass quantity. Genetic modification involves splicing unnatural DNA/rna/whatever, which would not happen in nature on its own. This is done with corn mainly to enable farmers (and Ag corps) to spray extremely toxic chemicals onto the crops which kill everything BUT the GMO crop designed for it, and in most cases, those chemicals are DNA mutagenic, resulting in elevated propensity toward gene mutation, cancer, and other ailments.

reply to post by Skada


Well, the only terminator gene I'm aware of is that which ends transcription, a very necessary part of polypeptide construction in organisms. Can you present some information to elaborate on what you mean by that?

Originally posted by DeadSteve1234

Wich is also bad because the gmo farm next door can taint your corn, then turn around and sue you for copyright infringment. (As I understand it)

This has already happened in Canada.

You've been lied to.
I suggest you read the whole court Decision about the case against Percy Schmeiser, and see how the reality of the case differs hugely from the story you've been told.

Pollen being blown onto his farm by the wind does NOT result in 100 percent contamination of a crop.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by DeadSteve1234

Wich is also bad because the gmo farm next door can taint your corn, then turn around and sue you for copyright infringment. (As I understand it)

This has already happened in Canada.

You've been lied to.
I suggest you read the whole court Decision about the case against Percy Schmeiser, and see how the reality of the case differs hugely from the story you've been told.

Pollen being blown onto his farm by the wind does NOT result in 100 percent contamination of a crop.

Not imediatly but over time he would get a lot of gmo traits in his corn. So there we have it. They can't sue you for it (yet) but they can still takin a big steamy genetically modified dump on your farm

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


I am fully aware of Monsanto and TPTB wanting to control the food supply but one thing I haven't seen is an in depth look at the owners and operators of Monsanto.

Does anyone know if Monsanto people are in anyway connected to any Big Pharm companies so when the cancer spreads from GMO food their associates can sell more drugs to treat it?

Originally posted by bitsforbytes
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Really?

How would that happen?

For the exact reason discussed in the post I replied to.

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.

Hey there,

You are very right that we need to study it more! Here are some of my thoughts...

Don't know if anyone else has responded with this, but there is a 30 year study on organically grown vs. conventionally grown (GMO and pesticide laden) crops to see if there is any truth in the argument that organically grown cannot support the world's food needs equally or better than conventionally grown can. So the result of the study was that YES organic yields are EQUAL to conventionally grown and organically grown crops PERFORM BETTER in times of drought. So the idea that conventionally grown, mass industry crops, including GMO, are needed to "feed the world" is a falsehood.

Organic foods don't have pesticides that can build up in our water supply and soil, don't deplete soil nutrients (that is why they have better nutritional value) and don't kill off the bee and butterfly population which we desperately need to pollinate our foods (no pollinators = starvation for humans), and finally, people don't have to worry about getting a dose of pesticide with their food. (Organic plant foods = a better environment and potentially healthier people.) In addition, genetically modified pigs, for example, come with some weirdnesses, like they can't tolerate sunlight, grow at a much faster rate and become much bigger, and need more antibiotics to survive. Often with GMOs, there are strange issues like these that crop up. Bugs are adapting to the pesticides and becoming monster-bugs - sort of like bacteria are evolving into stronger and harder to kill bugs due to over use of antibiotics.

Lifetime rat studies need to be done as well. The only lifetime study done on rats was in France, which showed massive tumor growth. This is not conclusive and this study has, of course, been disputed, but it does make the point that many more lifetime studies on rats should be done, rather than the shorter, 3 month studies the industry has conducted. It seems the first 3 months are fine, just like the industry data shows, but later in the rat's life, versus a control group of rats that did not receive GMO feed, the tumors (especially mammary in the females) become a big problem. (Squeak!)

I don't know about you, but these are things worth giving one pause. I've only put out a few of the arguments against rushing into a GMO world. I personally refuse to eat GMO products, and try to eat organic foods as much as possible. There is a difference in taste, texture and satisfaction as well - organic totally wins for me! (For fun, take a regular tomato and an organic tomato - try them both and see what you think...)

peace,
AB

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


I'm reminded of the recent (maybe within the last 2 years) incidents of pigs going infertile and having offspring with birth defects from eating GMO corn. There is probably already a thread here on ATS.

GMO is bad we get it

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.

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

I can't believe you typed that.