Non-GMO Corn Superior to GM Corn

[oneoff]

Look at the "literature" ranges of nutrient analysis for all varieties of corn (GMO or not but must be from accredited labs that have a real name and standard test equipment) and come back with some analysis reports.

Till the you are attempting to spread lies and personal beliefs based entirely on your warped reasoning.

[oneoff]

Looks to me like ProfitPro (who is being given credit for the report) will sell you commercial fertilizers and Monsanto related additives. Need orgaic supplies and they are No sense limiting your market; and who said sales had to stick to firmly held beliefs and principle's. They appear to meet all needs.

Now the seed supplier might not be as big a prostitute. At least they only appear to serve the non-GMO market.


But which lab in the world did the analysis tests. Is their reputation so poor that it can not be published? We need to know that detail.

[oneoff]

If I were to guess; I'd say their was no real lab test at all; and it was a case of "the interim feed tests looked really bad"

But no other evidence except firmly held beliefs and opinions one dare not challenge.

[oneoff]

And if the anti GO side ever is forced to go on the defensive side; the arrgument will shift from Round-UP ready varieties supposed in question here.

And just like conventional canola varieties someone will be able to rightly claim that an entire fatty acid has all but disappeared from the old reliable seedstock.

And few ever understood the initial difference was between ****seed and canola. And I doubt if there have been any additional persons (in the general public) who have come to understand that difference since the initial plant breeding breaktrough.

[oneoff]

And if the anti GO side ever is forced to go on the defensive side; the arrgument will shift from Round-UP ready varieties supposed in question here.

And just like conventional canola varieties someone will be able to rightly claim that an entire fatty acid has all but disappeared from the old reliable seedstock.

And few ever understood the initial difference was between ****seed and canola. And I doubt if there have been any additional persons (in the general public) who have come to understand that difference since the initial plant breeding breaktrough.

[rkaiser]

wow---- this oneoff creature is an interesting one.

Stone age thinking? VS what kind one off?

Scientific? Is this your alma mater

Do you even know what science is?

Does your science only defend the various ways that man kind has thought its way into making money?

There is science behind the stone age thinkers who think about the health of soil, plants and animals, and consider money in the equation as well.

Obviously lots of thinking going on in that little head of yours oneoff. Same stuff that goes on in all of our little heads.

A couple simple scientific facts for you oneoff. Thoughts become things. And if you, or any human decides to remove some thought for a moment or two and allow universal thought to enter that little brain of yours, you would understand that universal thought puts the soil, the plants and all of us animals, before money and profit. Just kind of a natural order.

[rkaiser]

A new peer-reviewed scientific review paper has been released in the US stating that glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup are contributing to gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

The review paper states that “glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of …food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.”

For the full study click here .

“The paper gives good arguments why it’s vital to oppose the recent capitulation by UK supermarkets to accepting products from animals raised on GM feed,” GM Watch stated.

Glyphosate (N-phosphonomethylglycine), the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup®, is the main herbicide in use today in the United States, and increasingly throughout the World, in agriculture and in lawn maintenance, especially now that the patent has expired. 80% of genetically modified crops, particularly corn, soy, canola, cotton, sugar beets and most recently alfalfa, are specifically targeted towards the introduction of genes resistant to glyphosate, the so-called “Roundup Ready® feature”. In humans, only small amounts (~2%) of ingested glyphosate are metabolized to aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), and the rest enters the blood stream and is eventually eliminated through the urine.

Studies have shown sharp increases in glyphosate contamination in streams in the Midwestern United States following the mid 1990s, pointing to its increasing role as the herbicide of choice in agriculture. A now common practice of crop desiccation through herbicide administration shortly before the harvest assures an increased glyphosate presence in food sources as well . The industry asserts that glyphosate is nearly nontoxic to mammals, and therefore it is not a problem if glyphosate is ingested in food sources. Acutely, it is claimed to be less toxic than aspirin. As a consequence, measurement of its presence in food is practically nonexistent.

A vocal minority of experts believes that glyphosate may instead be much more toxic than is claimed, although the effects are only apparent after a considerable time lapse. Thus, while short-term studies in rodents have shown no apparent toxicity, studies involving life-long exposure in rodents have demonstrated liver and kidney dysfunction and a greatly increased risk of cancer, with shortened lifespan

[oneoff]

With or without "universal thought" (whatever belief that represents); we would not enjoy the benefits that modern science has provided.

I vote to take away your cell phone and internet; and so deprive society of your drivel and false beliefs.

Nothing will be lost in that process.

[oneoff]

Here's another fellowsargument.....


This current study should underscore the point that a non-industry study is no more or less credible than an industry study. In fact, if you know how the government works, industry studies that are used as part of the GM approval process undergo far more scrutiny than non-industry studies. This French study is proof of the classic adage: garbage in, garbage out. Scientists with no skin in this game–none of the ones I quoted have industry ties–found it literally a piece of cra- . We have literally millions if not billions of data points–the consumption of GM foods over decades in the US and the consumption of GM grains by animals around the world for an equal period of time. There is ZERO evidence of any harm to humans or animals. That’s as controlled a long term experiment as you could hope to have. Drop the hysteria…please. Scientists are not evil people. Empirical data can be manipulated–we see that clearly in this current corrupted study–but scientists are not dumb–scientists can spot these kinds of transparent manipulations.

[oneoff]

We'll see whether this turns out to be a falsiied soil test report of some sort. I predict this nonsense won't stand on its own merits


Here's some more comments to consider before additional people confirm what they think they already know for sure

Quote
The table, cited by bloggers and various anti-GM publications, has a number of problems. Without seeing the full report, neither we nor anyone can make claims about what it says or doesn’t say. But the table by itself suggests that – at a minimum – this is not the kind of study nutritionists and other scientists are familiar with, or the way they would report such a study themselves. Here are a few of the things that just don’t make sense:

The table shows no starch, protein, amino acid, oil or fiber analyses – and they are the main nutritional components of corn.
The values reported for GM corn are not even close to what is in the literature or in laboratory databases for last year’s corn crop.
The percent organic matter listed is an error. There is simply no way corn could have 1.2% or 2% organic matter as reported in the table. The number should be closer to 95%.
The table lists measurements for “Brix,” which is a measurement of sugar content and is used for products like molasses where one expects high amounts of sugar. Corn (GM and non-GM) typically has low amounts of sugar because most of the sugar has been converted to starch.
Nowhere in the world are energy requirements for animals measured in “ergs,” as the table says.
In most standard nutrition analyses, major minerals (like calcium, magnesium, potassium and phosphorus) are reported in units of percentages rather than parts per million, while minor minerals are reported in ppm. It’s not standard to see both reported in ppm.
The table being published by itself raises several questions, which – as a scientist looking at a study – I automatically ask. How many samples were taken? How were the samples collected? What are the genetic backgrounds of the corn samples used? Were the fields from which they were taken the same, adjacent, or different? Were they fertilized the same? The table also doesn’t indicate what the samples actually were – corn grain, the whole plant, corn silage, and so on.

The kind of table one would typically expect to see in a nutrition comparison is this one, published as supplementary information for a paper published by Nature. (In the supplementary information, scroll down to chart 20, page 50, of the pdf document.) Yes, the study was done by Monsanto, but it met the standard requirements for nutritional analyses and the results are reported in units that all nutritionists would recognize.

#4


Fortisimo
Dick In Training




Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 23
Posts: 1,544
Rep Power: 34
04-18-2013 05:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CounterPoint
The data presented is flawed, GMO's are going to solve world food shortages.

http://monsantoblog.com/2013/04/16/n...ike-the-other/

Damn and here I was getting excited for the new GMO corn diet; all the flavor, .03% of the calories.of regular.corn! Also, lmao @ergs... The only place I ever see those units is in really old physics textbooks