Stunning Corn Comparison: GMO versus NON GMO

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

you either work for them or have lots of stock in the company.

You are twice wrong.
I like to separate facts from fantasy though, no matter which side presents either

reply to post by Phage


The thing is many here on ATS think instantly GM food bad, but I do think It can do so much for the planet and ourselves.
Yes test and label but please don't just dismiss it when it can do so much good

Finally, dropped the link 2 days ago. Its from Canada. And its absolutely shocking. I suspected they were taking all the nutrients out so like those who warned about codex alimentarious that billions would die.

reply to post by Unity_99


do you mind elaborating a bit more please?

reply to post by solongandgoodnight


Two days ago found the link and couldn't find a thread on it, so linked it up on one of the GMO threads, I think about certain stores that wouldn't carry the salmon. I'm really glad its a thread, for we've talked about mixed species and pesticides on threads, but the actual greatly dimished food value is what is going to kill the most people. They're going to starve and then become ill to a host of conditions unless this turns around.

I remember this video:


Codex Alimentarius plan will result in 3 billion deaths

Those with money will simply buy organic, and not the new bio label organic because thats just GMO organic, but the autentic kind, heritage seeds. But most can't and their bodies are cannabiizing themselves, so liver disease, arthritis, heart disease, chronic fatigue, and probably serious illnesses, while they are starving.

reply to post by boymonkey74


Not sure if anyone has brought this to your attention monkeyboy, but here is a study about GMO corn being fed to mice.

GMO corn study

Ok so it gives mice horrendous tumors with in one year. The reason they do tests on mice is because the effects that are shown in mice are similar to that of humans. What's that mean?

I'll just do organic but its sad that I should fear my food considering GMO corn is in everything.

I am still waiting to find out why Monsanto is afraid to label GMO food if it is perfectly ok? Should they not be proud at the marvel they have manufactured in their labs? Should they not compare the benefits of there mutant corn over organic corn. Well it's garbage and they know it. The only benefit is that you could practically spray it with gasoline and it could survive. Great sales pitch.

AWA

reply to post by Unity_99


interesting. i would like to see this documentation that she speaks of.

Originally posted by AwakeWeAre
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

Not sure if anyone has brought this to your attention monkeyboy, but here is a study about GMO corn being fed to mice.

GMO corn study

Ok so it gives mice horrendous tumors with in one year. The reason they do tests on mice is because the effects that are shown in mice are similar to that of humans. What's that mean?

I'll just do organic but its sad that I should fear my food considering GMO corn is in everything.

I am still waiting to find out why Monsanto is afraid to label GMO food if it is perfectly ok? Should they not be proud at the marvel they have manufactured in their labs? Should they not compare the benefits of there mutant corn over organic corn. Well it's garbage and they know it. The only benefit is that you could practically spray it with gasoline and it could survive. Great sales pitch.

AWA

i just thought i would quote this so people would have to read it again.
thanks for the input! this is a subject that really needs to be discussed.

reply to post by AwakeWeAre

but here is a study about GMO corn being fed to mice.

A very poorly designed study which resorted to "creative" statistical analysis in order to validate itself.
www.efsa.europa.eu...

Here is a thread i put up a while back of a comprehensive list of GMO products if anyone is interested in it. just thought i'd share it again.

reply to post by Phage
is that the equivelant to the FDA? if so there might be a conflict of interest. just sayin'.

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.

There is quite a big difference between hybridization and genetic modification.

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)

Sources please for "can't even exist in the wild...". Yes the corn "we know" is GMO. Corn is a stable food for many cultures particularly in the Americas.

reply to post by solongandgoodnight

EFSA’s final statement considered the independent assessments of the paper by organisations of six EU Member States: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Full copies of these evaluations can be found in the annex of EFSA’s statement.

EFSA noted the emergence of a broad European consensus, with the reviewed Member State assessments finding the conclusions of Séralini et al. were not supported by the data presented in the study. Four of the national evaluations found the paper did not provide scientific information that would indicate the necessity to reopen the risk assessment of NK603 or glyphosate. The exceptions were France’s High Council of Biotechnology and Italy, whose assessments did not examine this issue.

www.efsa.europa.eu...

changing the natural design of the food is wrong
if society cant adjust to the lack of yield,. then so be it,.
Monsanto is just wrong

reply to post by Lil Drummerboy

changing the natural design of the food is wrong

Strictly speaking, there is no natural design of corn. It is a purely artificial hybrid.

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.

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

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

There is quite a difference between the quality of 'corn fed' and 'grass fed meats. In the interests of time I'm only going to quote and site one source. It can be taken either pro or con depending on your priorities in meat products.

I asked him about the higher price of grass-fed beef: Boettcher sells his beef as a quarter, half or a whole cow, at $7.50 a pound.

Simply put, he said, grass-fed beef takes longer to produce. And because his farm is organic, he uses homeopathic remedies instead of antibiotics for animals that get sick.

“It takes a year longer to finish a critter this way than it does conventionally,” he said.

I also called Carol Kolo, a clinical dietician at Bergan Mercy Medical Center in Omaha, to ask my health-related questions.

She said grass-fed beef is lower in calories and has a lower fat content than corn-fed beef. It also has a higher ratio of Omega 3 fatty acids — good fat, Kolo said. Studies have also shown that grass-fed beef has slightly higher levels of Vitamins A and E, though Kolo said most people get those vitamins from other things in their diet, like vegetables.

A California State University study backs up what Kolo said. That study, printed in the September 2010 issue of Nutrition Journal, said grass-fed beef also has lower levels of cholesterol and higher levels of antioxidants. Animals raised on grass had about twice the levels of conjugated linoleic acid, known as CLA, which may have cancer-fighting properties and lower the risk of diabetes.

From www.omaha.com...

This doesn't even mention the ethical and/or spiritual dimentions of raising animals for food (not a vegetarian here - love the grass fed - but support ethical treatment and thanks-giving for the animal's sacrifice..."


Read the article - one calf raised conventional (feed lot - corn fed) and one (grass-fed - not organic however).

reply to post by AwakeWeAre


Then we need to test it more then, but to dismiss it when the possibilities are so great is wrong.
Oh and please it is Boymonkey not Monkeyboy I'm 51% boy 49% monkey so the boy goes first

reply to post by Hopechest

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.

breeding plants selectively to produce better results is quite natural, and the process of selective breeding has been occurring for a very long time.

it is unnatural to genetically engineer a plant in ways that it cannot develop through natural breeding. do you really believe that corn is the odd plant out when it comes to nutritional deficits caused by genetic tampering? that all others are fine and dandy, even when bees refuse to recognize the plant?

did you know they're splicing in genes from bacterium into this "wonder corn"?

The most commonly transplanted segment of transgenic DNA involves genes from a well-known bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has been used for decades by farmers and gardeners to control butterflies that damage cole crops such as cabbage and broccoli. Instead of the bacterial solution being sprayed on the plant, where it is eaten by the target insect, the genes that contain the insecticidal traits are incorporated into the genome of the farm crop. As the transformed plant grows, these Bt genes are replicated along with the plant genes so that each cell contains its own poison pill that kills the target insect.

www.sfgate.com...

i sure as hell don't want to eat plants that have built in pesticides.

Originally posted by anton74
This study is questionable. What breed of corn was it? What was the mineral content of soil? What fertilizers(if any) where used? At what stage in developement where the samples taking?

The numbers given are so low that they look unbelieveable. A young plant that low would likely never reach maturity without fertilizer.

And just why are you qualified to say "This study is questionable" without any backup?

Most factory farm grown food cannot 'reach maturity' with out 'chemical' fertilizier because the soil has been depleted over decades, abused with 'chemical' fertilizers, not let fallow, watered with chorinated water, the list goes on and on. The abuses of the land (and water) of factory farming and you want to continue in this manner.