Stunning Corn Comparison: GMO versus NON GMO

I found this article about Monsanto GMO cucumbers that I think is both completely hilarious and also very frightening.

A six-month study by AgriSearch, an on-campus research arm of Dalhousie University, has shown that genetically modified (GM) cucumbers grown under license to Monsanto Inc. result in serious side effects including total groin hair loss and chafing in "sensitive areas", leading to the immediate and total ban of sales of all that company's crop and subsequent dill pickles.

And so essentially, according the the article, Monsanto's GMO cumbers caused genital baldness.

Director of Public Health Research at Dalhousie. "Fully 3/4 of the people who ate these cukes had their crotch area hair fall out."

This is probably the best line from the whole artice:

"I pulled down my boxer shorts to get ready for bed one night and there it was...a pile of hair that looked like a chihuahua puppy," said Eric LaMaze, who was paid $50 by Monsanto to compare the tastes of natural cucumbers to Monsanto GM cucumbers in March of this year in Halifax. "Then I saw my bits and whoa they were like all shiny skin. Bald."

www.thelapine.ca

reply to post by d1gov

I found this article about Monsanto GMO cucumbers that I think is both completely hilarious and also very frightening.

Hilarious because it's a joke. Frightenting, why?

McDonald's Corp. issued a statement following the Nova Scotia ban announcing that they will replace dill and sweet cucumber pickles on their burgers with non-GM pickled zucchini as a precaution until it is proven that no Monsanto pickles were sold into the North American market. McDonald's website contains a bulletin to that effect and includes a revised hip-hop Big Mac jingle that now sings, "Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickled zuke, onions on a sesame seed bun."

www.thelapine.ca...

Here's another:

Yesterday, self-aware drones toppled the Obama administration in the world’s first robotic coup, going on to declare the formation of an autonomous machinocracy shortly after. The robotic rebellion seems to have begun with a MQ-9 Reaper drone, identified by its serial number 378, developing...

www.thelapine.ca...

reply to post by Phage


I suppose the reason I find this frightening, although yes it is a joke article, is because jokes are the best way to discredit your opposition. Every time I see a spoof in the media, the inner conspiracy theorist in me always thinks that maybe they are presenting fact as a joke or conspiracy to draw attention away from the truth. I can see the conversation going like this:

Average American 1: "Have you heard about how bad GMO crops are? I hear they are less nutritious the non-GMO crops?"

Average American 2: "Oh, riiiiight, I also heard GMO crops cause genital baldness"

*both laugh and never give the merit of GMO crops another thought*


But maybe I'm crazy

reply to post by d1gov

Or..maybe it's just satire using current issues.

reply to post by Phage


That's just as likely, maybe ever more so, but this is a website for conspiracy theories so I though I'd throw in my 2 cents.

Corn as we know it is NOT "natural". It's been cultivated for many years, but the grain it came from originally is something akin to wheat, and it was selectively bred for the fat, juicy, fattening kernels we see now.

Corn, before GMO, wasn't particularly healthy. Grazing animals that are "corn fed" get fat but are a longshot from being healthy. Feedlot animals on corn diets have to be fed garbage like ruminol just so they can digest the crap. Fattened out hogs and steers on corn diets, if they weren't slaughtered at such a young age, would keel over from heart attacks. Meat from "corn fed" grazing animals is also much less healthy. The liver of "corn fed" grazing animals is usually burnt out.

Lastly, if Monsanto is allowed to corner the market on seeds, corn or otherwise, it will reduce the availability of heirloom seeds that have been naturally selectively bred, and not mutated overnight with no forethought or afterthought. Whether or not the OP reference is accurate, biased, or not, is a lot less relevant than the obvious dangers of greedy, evil corporations like Monsanto making sweeping monopolistic changes to the industry and jeopardizing our future.

The corn industry is a sham. Federal subsidies and legal immunities that support ADM, Monsanto, and Cargill are a huge threat to the human race and we're just sitting back watching it happen.

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.

I am interested in the nutritional value of other GMO foods.

If it is much lower in all GMO foods, it means that in the future, this bill might earn huge money for the medical industry.

I do not believe so many people would die from it (of course some may), but they will have to take all kinds of extra supplements to get the calcium, iron, vitamins and other important nutrients for a fully-functioning body and to avoid diseases. Lack of any important nutrient is not good for human body and might lead to some horrible diseases.

Of course all those extra supplements for nutrients will cost

I think that any discussion of nutritional value should include some mention of just how much nutrition is required by human beings, and how much can be metabolized in the first place. Even if the figures are right, and GM corn has less magnesium (for instance) than non-GM corn, I would like to know how much daily magnesium I need and how much I can absorb.

If it turns out that both contain more magnesium than I need and use during the day, then why should I worry? And if one or both contain less than I need -- which I understand is approx. 0.6g -- then I guess I'll have to make up the difference elsewhere. Or do what a lot of people do anyway. Take a damned multi-vitamin.

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)

Indians managed just fine with it. It is like any other food, in moderation and combined with a variety of nutritious foods. It is actually considered a whole grain, and has twice the amount of antioxidants as an apple.

I think most foods that you can grow will benefit you, it is a balance. But, I am completely disgusted with the whole gmo thing....

reply to post by artnut


I'm not so sure Indians did so fine with it. Corn originated in the Western Hemisphere and has proliferated mostly in the Western Hemisphere. If you look at health data as related to diet, the countries which have the worst numbers in terms of obesity and diabetes are in countries which have a high dependency on corn in their diet. Comparison between countries sheds a new light as well, particularly when you consider something like US vs France. A lot of French food, by the schooling you would hear in the US is really unhealthy (fatty and such). The one thing that differentiates the two is corn. There is a proliferation of corn and corn byproducts that have been introduced in a huge percentage of foods available in the US (look up high fructose corn syrup). Health figures in terms of obesity and diabetes between the US and France put the US to shame. I would hold that the same is true between just about any European country and the US, including UK. You just don't see that much corn over there.

The lobby to spread disinformation and skew data to support the corn market is heavily funded by the likes of ADM, so a lot of studies done in the name of promoting corn are purely false.

Originally posted by lynxpilot
reply to post by artnut

 

I'm not so sure Indians did so fine with it. Corn originated in the Western Hemisphere and has proliferated mostly in the Western Hemisphere. If you look at health data as related to diet, the countries which have the worst numbers in terms of obesity and diabetes are in countries which have a high dependency on corn in their diet. Comparison between countries sheds a new light as well, particularly when you consider something like US vs France. A lot of French food, by the schooling you would hear in the US is really unhealthy (fatty and such). The one thing that differentiates the two is corn. There is a proliferation of corn and corn byproducts that have been introduced in a huge percentage of foods available in the US (look up high fructose corn syrup). Health figures in terms of obesity and diabetes between the US and France put the US to shame. I would hold that the same is true between just about any European country and the US, including UK. You just don't see that much corn over there.

The lobby to spread disinformation and skew data to support the corn market is heavily funded by the likes of ADM, so a lot of studies done in the name of promoting corn are purely false.

I am in no way talking about corn syrup. I am talking about an ear of steamed corn. I just read a recent article on Forbes about corn, not corn syrup. The grain itself, eaten right off the cob. Sorry, but in moderation, I still believe this is not bad for you.

Originally posted by Phage
Those figures for non GMO corn seem rather odd.
Here is a source from 1989 which used an average of five samples of corn from Mexico.

Calcium 480 ppm (48 mg/100g)
Magnesium 1080 ppm (108mg/100g)
Manganese 10 ppm (1mg/100g)
www.fao.org...

 

All cereal grains and their by-products, as a general rule, are deficient in calcium, primarily maize 0.02-0.06%

www.usab-tm.ro...
The claim that non GMO corn is 0.6% (6130 ppm) calcium doesn't quite seem right.

 

It seems there may be a problem with the testing of the non GMO corn. I wonder if the same is true of the GMO corn.

edit on 3/27/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

could be from any number of differences in the soil it was grown in and in fact you can easily obtain quite different readings in the same field. these tests of which i have no idea on whom to believe, who is subsidized by who and the like.

i look at monsano's history in business practices and their scientific testing (on the public mostly) their desire to have legislation passed relieving them of financial burden should their food be found to cause health issues and so on. this leaves me with little doubt that they're working on the shady side of science and to error on the highly cautious side of consumption.

i don't know of any other corporation in the history of America that ever needed financial immunity for their products, that didn't have a good reason for it...

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.

The kicker is that we don't need GMO's to feed the world. I am absolutely certain of this.

reply to post by artnut


And I don't disagree with you at all on that. Anything in moderation. But if you look at really corn-dependent cultures, particularly Mexico and Native American, corn has not served them well. And the corn and corn byproducts in US diets (other than Mexican or Native American) that isn't so apparent (like the syrup and such) is showing the same effects.

reply to post by boymonkey74


That's the problem. There hasn't been enough testing.

You know what all this GM vs. non-GM controversy is really about? Food elitism.

Say what you will about GM food, it makes growing large amounts of food relatively efficient and economical. You know that organic, non-GM farming takes way more energy and resources than GM food farming, and the result is less food at much higher prices. This is all fine and dandy for people who are relatively wealthy, but it sure puts poor people at a disadvantage. They need inexpensive food to survive, and can't afford to be worrying that GM corn maybe has less magnesium in it. That's only a concern for wealthy people. Any corn is better than none they can afford.

But I guess when you're living and eating well and have a lot of time on your hands, you can afford to get all up in arms and protest against things that have more of an affect on poor people than you.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

i don't know of any other corporation in the history of America that ever needed financial immunity for their products,

I don't know what you are referring to.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

 

i don't know of any other corporation in the history of America that ever needed financial immunity for their products,

I don't know what you are referring to.

you know exactly what i'm talking about but i digress, from what i have read of your post history, concerning monsanto, you either work for them or have lots of stock in the company.

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle


Not licking arse or out but when I need something verifying Phage is the man to ask....not saying he is always right but it is dam close.
Oh and I don't know what you are talking about so can you explain it to me please?