Study Finds Monsanto’s GM Corn Nutritionally Dead, Highly Toxic

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
ok - I TRIED to make you think - but its clear that few people actually want to

so a question - what was ACTUALLY assayed to produce the table of " results " in the OP "study "

hint - knowing what the values mean is required

hence my jibe about the lack of scientific literacy in the anti GMO movement

answer the question correctly and it will be obvious why this is pseudo scientific garbage

No more 'pseudo scientific' than claims that GMO's are safe

originally posted by: robbo961

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: robbo961

You have no opinion on GMO labelling and avoid the question like a minister on question time. That says it all really, that you won't answer my question.

I am the one who said I couldn't care less about GMO labeling AlphaHawk said it depends on the reason for labeling as to his opinion on labeling.

Good for you! I think AlphaHawk can speak for himself

He did speak for himself, but you ignored it and attributed what I said to him. If you are going to attack someone position the least you can do is attack the position they made.

All corn is food for cattle. To make it Nice and fat. Then the govt turns around and says feed this to your kids. Ha. People corn has never had any nutritional value. It's sugar and fat in one tasty little morsel. Go ahead and give your kids corn and follow that up with bananas. Then wonder why your kids are fat. I reply to: purplemer

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: robbo961

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: robbo961

You have no opinion on GMO labelling and avoid the question like a minister on question time. That says it all really, that you won't answer my question.

I am the one who said I couldn't care less about GMO labeling AlphaHawk said it depends on the reason for labeling as to his opinion on labeling.

Good for you! I think AlphaHawk can speak for himself

He did speak for himself, but you ignored it and attributed what I said to him. If you are going to attack someone position the least you can do is attack the position they made.

I attributed what you said to him?? I don't think so. I was looking for a 'for or against labelling' answer not a 'yes but...' do you see the difference? I often ask for yes/no answers, it helps me to know what side of the fence they're on. I think I know what side of the fence you're on

a reply to: robbo961

You claimed he didn't have an opinion on GMO labeling and he never claimed that.

I repeat he said it depends on the reasons. That my friend is an opinion.

The world doesn't always fit into a yes, no, left, right paridign.

People are not always on one side of the fence many are still sitting on it leaning in one direction or another.

Evidence is what sways me.


Any honest study isn't out to prove one thing or another and can stand up to peer review. If a study can't show GMOs are harmful then that is evidence that they are safe at least within the parameters of that study. There have been many studies on them but to date no one has provided a link that shows they are harmful.

If a study ever does come to light that GMOs are harmful then I will have a reason to get off the fence and be against them. Thing is every time I see a claim that a study does prove they are bad for you or not good for you with a little investigation just like in this thread the claim is found to be fraudulent.

a reply to: robbo961

You admitted yourself that you have no evidence that GMO's are safe

Where did I say this?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: purplemer

basic scientific literacy shows that " study " is a fantasy

100% whats even better in the OP link the following is quoted.

"This research shows an extraordinary number of tumors developing earlier and more aggressively – particularly in female animals. I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts.”
- Dr Michael Antoniou, molecular biologist, King’s College London

You can find links to - Dr Michael Antoniou

BUT you can not find a link to that statement except in the GMO hater websites if that statement is fabricated or a quote from other research he does he could go to court over that and if it is fabricated I hope he does!

a reply to: purplemer
All it takes is your tongue to tell the difference between products out on the market, you can tell the difference between GMO corn and regular corn at the first bite, just like you can taste the difference between eggs you buy at the store produced on mass by chickens in little tiny cages who have no wings and are sick with something or other, and those that you picked up from your back yard chicken coop. But if that does not clue you in, then the fact that even pigs or your dog wont touch the stuff may say something about it after all pigs will eat anything and your dog thinks the taste of his butt is a delicacy.

I would not say its Monsanto products are poison but there not the real thing, and in this day and age its how we feed millions and millions of people, in fact our whole social structure is not really possible without such things. Besides the body does adapt, in fact when starving it can even adapt to eat old leather, and there have been cases of people boiling eating there shoes without dying, you body will sort of adapt to whatever you put in it, it may not be as nutritional as the real thing, but that just means you have to eat a whole lot more of it, and will likely be hungry again in a hour or two, it keeps business going you see.

What Monsanto is and what there products are, well to tell the truth there just second rate, and the advertizements on the TV you have seen since you were a kid and long before that, are there to make you think there anything but second rate, they are in essence selling a product that may not be necessarily be able to sell itself without the multi million backing behind it.

The majority of Monsanto products have started out as a way to cut corners around certain things so you can sell or make more of it with less work and effort involved, so yes they would be inferior in many ways. Besides the war against weeds has been going on for eons, and will continue to do so, as that bottle of roundup has yet to eliminate the weed problems but for temporary, and not only that there adapting to it, and so new stronger products are needed, and the process sort of just cycles itself, in reality your making weed strains more stronger and resistant in the long run just as your making them go away in the short run. Life and nature have ways of getting around such things, which is why if a city or even house or farm is not constantly maintained it will be overrun with weeds even if you were to drop some sort of roundup atomic bomb on it, weeds will always keep creeping up. Lets just say I highly doubt there whole modified weed killer crops sales pitch. I think for the most part, its just that, a sales pitch.

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
People corn has never had any nutritional value. It's sugar and fat in one tasty little morsel. reply to: purplemer

What grain would you suggest people eat? Can you show the nutrinional value of any other grain vs. that of corn, or will you just keep spouting stuff off the top of your head?

Harte

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: purplemer
All it takes is your tongue to tell the difference between products out on the market, you can tell the difference between GMO corn and regular corn at the first bite, just like you can taste the difference between eggs you buy at the store produced on mass by chickens in little tiny cages who have no wings and are sick with something or other, and those that you picked up from your back yard chicken coop.

This I doubt.

I know about fresh vs. grocery store eggs, however. That's true, but completely attributable to age and storing differences.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethirdBut if that does not clue you in, then the fact that even pigs or your dog wont touch the stuff may say something about it after all pigs will eat anything and your dog thinks the taste of his butt is a delicacy.

This is in the same vein as the bogus "study" the thread is about.
That is, the above is completely made-up and utterly false.
For example, if "pigs... won't touch the stuff..." then why are there so many studies about the effect of GMO corn in pig feed?

What is the effect? Skinny, fasting pigs?

Harte

a reply to: Harte

I doubt. I know about fresh vs. grocery store eggs, however. That's true, but completely attributable to age and storing differences.

Doubt away my short term strange internet friend who I will forget about in a minute or two. Its not like I care. Doubting in some cases can be healthy for you. I to doubt that age and storing differences have as much to do with things as you like to allude that it does.

This is in the same vein as the bogus "study" the thread is about. That is, the above is completely made-up and utterly false. For example, if "pigs... won't touch the stuff..." then why are there so many studies about the effect of GMO corn in pig feed? What is the effect? Skinny, fasting pigs? Harte

Well I did test a bit of that on my own pets, And yes the dog would not touch that stuff. But then she and the cats are hooked on that dry cat food stuff, who knows what they put in the stuff, but they prefer that to actual meat. OK im lying here, not entirely telling the truth, you see I do have an inkling on what they put into that dryfood stuff.

As for skinny pigs, it could happen, but they would rather eat there own poop before that happens. How many skinny fasting pigs have you seen? I have seen a total of zero, hey maybe somebody should do a test, put some gmo corn in one side and just garbage on the other and see which they prefer? In a few vids I seen they preferred the garbage/leftovers. But hey the vids were pretty short maybe after 20 minutes and after they ate all the garbage they went to other GMO trowls. After all pigs are pigs, there not choosy, but it seems they might prefer garbage first. I dont know, I suppose when you have your own pigs you can try that experiment out.

But if you put two trowels before them one with GMO material and in the other nothing, they just may chose the GMO over the nothing especially if there hungry. You see there will never be skinny pigs because pigs for the majority are grown to be fattened up, and seeing they will eat anything including there own feces some times, in fact they have been known to chew there own legs sometimes as well when hungry, and you got to keep them a bit separated once in a while so as they dont chew the ears off the other pigs. What I am saying is... well? What exactly is your point? Were are these so called skinny fasting pigs? Have you see one? I have yet to see one unless it was in the wild and has not eaten for months, or in a pen and has not been feed anything for a long time, but generally by then they likely ate a good chunk of there leg and feet/hoofs off.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

Profit Pro the business that released the report sells manure and seems to cater to a specific group.

www.profitproag.com...

So to sum this argument up, on one side you have people who are trying to sell you manure and on the other you have people spewing manure.

GMO does nothing but make plants more resistant to pesticide and herbicide so the chemical companies can sell more pesticide and herbicide. The problem is two fold. First, evolution and adaptation occur and insects and weeds become resistant to pesticides and herbicides and so more resistant GMO plants and more herbicide and more pesticide are needed to fight mother nature. Second, herbicides and pesticides make the soil more and more sterile. Sterile soil means less nutrients for the plants and therefore less nutritious food. The body requires more than just calories to thrive. Its not rocket science, any rational person can put two and two together on this one.

GMO plants are fine for producing raw industrial materials that do not enter the food chain, for example fuel, or clothing.

Plants meant for human consumption need to be nutritious and GMOs simply do not deliver. The fact that GMOs are so pervasive in agriculture is a testament to the ills of the progressive mindset and crony capitalism.

a reply to: Witness2008

I certainly don't need a scientific nutritional comparison to tell me that eating something that produces it's own pesticide, herbicide is unhealthy.

You know that plants do that though, right?

Here's an example Tomatoes are cold blooded killers

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: rickymouse

I think the reason the corn isn't as nutritious is because some of the GMO actually causes faster growth which means juicier corn with less nutrition per ounce. Another words, it is created to make it sweet and bigger with the same amount of nutrition in the yield. More yield, less nutrition per ear.

I think this could account for the difference between organic and non-organic in general, but GMO foods don't factor into that, necessarily.

Besides, people can claim whatever they want. Corn is not "dead" as far as nutrition. It's comparable to pretty much any other grain as far as carbs, fiber, vitamins, minerals etc.

Plus, soy is quite nutritious and GMO soy is everywhere.

Harte

Soy itself is not bad in moderation, occasionally. Soy is in many things nowadays, that is not good. Because they can increase the output by genetically engineering soy, they started to put it in everything, bragging up some of the good in Soy but omitting the problems it causes. If eaten occasionally it is no harm to most people, but not to the extent it is being used. It is a marketing campaign. You have to examine the whole picture, not just look at a few pieces of the puzzle.

Here is one article that addresses just one aspect of the problem. Another problem is that hydrolyzing the soy protein creates a product high in free glutamates and some other chemicals that should not be consumed on a regular basis. In five generations, our bodies could adapt to Soy, but not in one or two generations.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... I study a lot of nih evidence, most of it is open to translation and it can be considered not relevent if studying one of the pieces of the puzzle, not applying to that piece. But it does apply to the overall picture. How many people do you know that have thyroid problems. I must know twenty people, including my daughter. She used to listen to the advise such as eating broccoli, and ate it all the time. This contributed to cysts on her thyroid I feel, goiterogens can do that if over-consumed.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: purplemer

GMO foods from Monsanto have been modified to survive spraying from substances derived from agent orange used in Vietnam war. A documentary called "The World According to Monsanto" - topdocumentaryfilms.com... is just plain scary.

People also wonder why Monsanto is purchasing firms researching world wide bee disappearance...
naturalsociety.com...

An Australian Scientist said Monsanto is one of the greatest threats to survival of humankind.
Enough Said.

They've also been buying medical journals who post true scientific results that are anti-GMO.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: thebtheb

Well I don't believe what people tell me about the studies because I read the studies myself. I have never seen them termed magically a hoax just like this one. There is no magic behind it. It is a soil report fraudulently exclaimed to be a report on the corn. That isn't hard to figure out who is trying to do a hoaxas pokus on the reader there.

As far as you calling the evidence a tie then you are severely misguided where the burden of proof lay. Aside from that there have been thousands of studies done on the safety of available GMOs.

You would be better informed if you actually read the studies. Just like how the OP didn't link the study only an article on the analysis with no link to the analysis. That should be a huge red flag on anything like that. I will change my mind on GMOs just as soon as there is a good reason to.

Oh PLEASE! I agree THIS study in the OP is whatever. But do NOT even try to convince me there have been "many studies confirming the safety of GMO." Give-me-a-break!

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: robbo961

Here's the retraction:

www.businessweek.com...

What so many people fail to see is that the retraction is only an admission of imperfect methods, certainly NOT that GMOs were safe, or did not cause the tumors. In fact, it is quite clear there is a correlation going on, but oh, the entire study is now internationally completely kaput because they only used 10 rats, and those rats were already prone to tumors. Oh okay, no mention that the tumors developed much faster than they normally would. If THIS kind of criticism were hurled at any of the "GMOs are safe" studies, they'd be just as kaput.

I also hasten to remind everyone about the movie the Corporation, and the part with the two journalists - everyone's seen it I'm sure? Who was that that THREATENED the journalists with their jobs - oh right, yeah, MONSANTO. Think they might have done it to this Dutch magazine? Is it at least a possibility? I'd say based on their history, yes!

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: Harte

I doubt. I know about fresh vs. grocery store eggs, however. That's true, but completely attributable to age and storing differences.

Doubt away my short term strange internet friend who I will forget about in a minute or two. Its not like I care. Doubting in some cases can be healthy for you.

Star for that.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird

This is in the same vein as the bogus "study" the thread is about. That is, the above is completely made-up and utterly false. For example, if "pigs... won't touch the stuff..." then why are there so many studies about the effect of GMO corn in pig feed? What is the effect? Skinny, fasting pigs? Harte

As for skinny pigs, it could happen, but they would rather eat there own poop before that happens. How many skinny fasting pigs have you seen? I have seen a total of zero, hey maybe somebody should do a test, put some gmo corn in one side and just garbage on the other and see which they prefer? In a few vids I seen they preferred the garbage/leftovers. But hey the vids were pretty short maybe after 20 minutes and after they ate all the garbage they went to other GMO trowls. After all pigs are pigs, there not choosy, but it seems they might prefer garbage first. I dont know, I suppose when you have your own pigs you can try that experiment out.

But if you put two trowels before them one with GMO material and in the other nothing, they just may chose the GMO over the nothing especially if there hungry. You see there will never be skinny pigs because pigs for the majority are grown to be fattened up, and seeing they will eat anything including there own feces some times, in fact they have been known to chew there own legs sometimes as well when hungry, and you got to keep them a bit separated once in a while so as they dont chew the ears off the other pigs. What I am saying is... well? What exactly is your point? Were are these so called skinny fasting pigs? Have you see one? I have yet to see one unless it was in the wild and has not eaten for months, or in a pen and has not been feed anything for a long time, but generally by then they likely ate a good chunk of there leg and feet/hoofs off.

Assuming that "pigs won't touch" GMO corn, and knowing that pigs are fed GMO corn in very high volumes, then you'd have skinny pigs, wouldn't you.

So now, we go from "pigs won't touch it" to "pigs might decide to eat something else if you put it in front of them."

That's a fail, I hope you realize.

Harte

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: robbo961

You claimed he didn't have an opinion on GMO labeling and he never claimed that.

I repeat he said it depends on the reasons. That my friend is an opinion.

The world doesn't always fit into a yes, no, left, right paridign.

People are not always on one side of the fence many are still sitting on it leaning in one direction or another.

Evidence is what sways me.

Any honest study isn't out to prove one thing or another and can stand up to peer review. If a study can't show GMOs are harmful then that is evidence that they are safe at least within the parameters of that study. There have been many studies on them but to date no one has provided a link that shows they are harmful.

If a study ever does come to light that GMOs are harmful then I will have a reason to get off the fence and be against them. Thing is every time I see a claim that a study does prove they are bad for you or not good for you with a little investigation just like in this thread the claim is found to be fraudulent.

“You claimed he didn't have an opinion on GMO labeling and he never claimed that."

he said … “I have no bias either way” that is sitting on the fence my friend.



"People are not always on one side of the fence many are still sitting on it leaning in one direction or another."

What is that supposed to mean? Is that a riddle?



“If a study can't show GMOs are harmful then that is evidence that they are safe...”

are you kidding me??



“If a study ever does come to light that GMOs are harmful then I will have a reason to get off the fence and be against them. Thing is every time I see a claim that a study does prove they are bad for you or not good for you with a little investigation just like in this thread the claim is found to be fraudulent.”

Just like this thread? Fraudulent? I havent seen any evidence that this thread is fraudulent, just well meaning intentions from someone who is
concerned about frankenfoods

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: robbo961

You admitted yourself that you have no evidence that GMO's are safe

Where did I say this?

I apologise, you didn't answer the question so I assumed you had none. Remember I asked "where are your safe studies?"

Do you have any evidence that GMO's are safe? again I ask, where is the evidence that GMO's are safe?