You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

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

Mike Barrett
Natural Society / News Report
Published: Tuesday 16 April 2013
The 2012 report, entitled 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, found numerous concerning and notable differences between GMO and non-GMO corn, none of which are particularly surprising.
Article image

Is GMO corn nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO corn? Monsanto will tell you the answer is a big ‘yes’, but the real answer is absolutely not. And the simple reality is that they are continuing to get away with their blatant misinformation. In fact, a 2012 nutritional analysis of genetically modified corn found that not only is GM corn lacking in vitamins and nutrients when compared to non-GM corn, but the genetic creation also poses numerous health risks due to extreme toxicity.

With the recent passing of the Monsanto Protection Act, there is no question that mega corporations like Monsanto are able to wield enough power to even surpass that of the United States government. The new legislation provides Monsanto with a legal safeguard against federal courts striking down any pending review of dangerous GM crops. It is ironic to see the passing of such a bill in the face of continuous releases of GMO dangers.

Non-GMO Corn 20x Richer in Nutrition than GMO Corn

The 2012 report, entitled 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, found numerous concerning and notable differences between GMO and non-GMO corn, none of which are particularly surprising. First, the report found that non-GMO corn has considerably more calcium, magnesium, manganese, potassium, iron, and zinc.

Non-GMO corn has 6130 ppm of calcium while GMO corn has 14 – non-GMO corn has 437 times more calcium.

Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of magnesium while GMO corn has 2 – non-GMO corn has about 56 times more magnesium.

Non-GMO corn has 113 ppm of potassium while GMO corn has 7 – non-GMO corn has 16 times more potassium.

Non-GMO corn has 14 ppm of manganese while GMO corn has 2 – non-GMO corn has 7 times more manganese.

As far as energy content goes, non-GMO corn was found to ‘emit 3,400 times more energy per gram, per second compared to GMO corn’, as reported by NaturalNews. Overall, the paper found that non-GMO corn is 20 times richer in nutrition, energy and protein compared to GMO corn.

Corn Comparison 1 Analysis Finds Monsantos GM Corn Nutritionally Dead, Highly Toxic

Click here to see a full image of the graph!

GMO Corn Also Found to be Highly Toxic

Not surprisingly, the report found what many of us already know – that GMO corn is highly toxic. While non-GMO corn was found to be free of chlorides, formaldehyde, glyphosate (active ingredient in Monsanto’s best selling herbicide Roundup), and other toxic substances, GMO corn is riddled with these toxins.

Based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations, the maximum amount of glyphosate allowed in drinking water is 700 parts per billion, which equates to .7 ppm. The amount is a set “level of protection based on the best available science to prevent potential health problems”.  Europe allows even less glyphosate in water, at .2 ppm. The report found that GMO corn contains 13 ppm – that’s 18.5x the “safe amount” set by the EPA.

Similarly, GMO corn contains concerning levels of toxic formaldehyde, at 200 ppm. According to Dr. Don Huber, a respected expert on GMOs, at least one study found that 0.97 ppm of ingested formaldehyde was toxic to animals. The GMO corn was found to contain 200 times more formaldehyde than this ‘maximum’ safety amount.

Corn Comparison 2 Analysis Finds Monsantos GM Corn Nutritionally Dead, Highly Toxic

Click here to see a full size image of the graph!

Biotech Giants Like Monsanto Caught Lying Again

Monsanto has been making the claim for years that genetically modified foods are equivalent or even of higher quality than non-GMOs, but nothing could be further from the truth. Numerous studies have shown us the dangers of GMO foods such as GMO corn, along with the dangers of the massive amount of pesticides that accompany GMO crops. This 2012 report reminds us once again that corporations like Monsanto simply can not be trusted, and that the company will continue making false claims until the end of days in order to profit and slowly genetically engineer the world.



To those whose comments here

To those whose comments here consist of "hokum" and "complete nonesense" (sic), your responses are no better than the article itself, which others have rightly criticized as containing no backing evidence. If you expect people to take you seriously, pro or con, you need to provide reputable corroborating evidence. Otherwise, it's just some vague personal notion, meaningless and eminently ignorable.

P.S. and if you can't correctly spell a simple word like "nonsense", you lose a whole lot of credibility right off the mark.

Oh, hell, just stop eating

Oh, hell, just stop eating corn and anything that has corn in it. You don't need it, and you'll lose weight.

Harrumph.

This is typical of many

This is typical of many NationofChange articles. There is very little open-minded discussion of any topic. Many of the featured authors are just as irresponsible as some of the right wing extremists like Limbaugh and Beck.

This report was not in a

This report was not in a peer-reviewed journal. It's not even clear that the work was done by credentialed scientists.

Wake up people! do not buy

Wake up people! do not buy any products with GMO and companies will then not supply products with GMO. It's all about the almighty buck. GMO sucks!

daddy o. review of the data

daddy o. review of the data indicates it is soil, not corn. Do you think corn has a organic content of 1.2 % Pretty rasty corn. Who does ion exchange capacity of corn :)

Wowski

you guys been duped.

This is completely wrong

This is completely wrong information

"GMO4ME"?? no bias there...

"GMO4ME"?? no bias there...

This is completely wrong

This is completely wrong information

This is complete nonesense

This is complete nonesense science

It was a leaked study; that's

It was a leaked study; that's why you won't find it yet. Here is a link to who though... http://rt.com/usa/toxic-study-gmo-corn-900/

it is not a leaked

it is not a leaked study...calling it that doesn't make it one. For 400 bucks you could send corn to a lab for the analysis if you really believed it.

if I pick up a piece of dirt and analyze it for those elements (and simple organics)....would you call that a study ? Plus, an organic seed company person is the quoted source of the information given to MomsAgainstMonsanto. No organic seed company would bother with such a trival test, nor stake their credibility on it.

you were punked.

Hokum!

Hokum!

For those who found this

For those who found this article to be poorly documented, as I did, there are at least some linked papers/articles from plausibly authoritative sources in the last paragraph. Still, I would expect much better writing in serious investigative reporting.

You bet it was poorly

You bet it was poorly documented. The photo at its top tells you right away that this isn't an objective analysis.
This is typical of many NationofChange articles. There is very little open-minded discussion of any topic. Many of the featured authors are just as irresponsible as some of the right wing extremists like Limbaugh and Beck.

I'm no supporter of GMOs, and

I'm no supporter of GMOs, and I don't doubt that they're nutritionally inferior to their unmodified counterparts. However, because I prefer to go to the source whenever possible, I would still like a link to the actual paper cited in the article. I've found many references to it online, but no way to access the actual text, and I've seen other people looking for it and coming up empty as well.

Feed Monsanto board and

Feed Monsanto board and officers a diet of their own corn for a couple of years and see if they survive, then it should be safe for all.... Why everyone should be subjugated to corporate profits to eat GMO poison?

good idea, and they have been

good idea, and they have been eating it for 20 years.

did you know the most common insecticide being used in organic farming is Bt toxin ? Isn't that what folks are saying is causing the problems in GMO corn.

wacky...should we suggest organic farmers be fed Bt toxin for a couple years...and we shouldn't be subjugated to their profits to eat toxins ?

I have no doubt the

I have no doubt the nutritional comparison between GMO corn and non-GMO corn is correct. However, it would be good to have a link to the source report. I went to the ProfitPro website and the same chart was there with no information about who did the report.

why do you assume it to be

why do you assume it to be correct. What fundemental aspect of gmo corn would make you think mineral content differs.

The give away is the value of organic content, and of ion exchange capacity...do you think corn has only 1 to 2 % organic content....is it cement ? Ion exchange capacity is also a soil parameter...some submitted some soil analysis and said it was the nutritional content of gmo corn...and the web started an urban legend.

It's not correct

It's not correct

It's not correct

It's not correct

It's not correct

It's not correct

The analyses in the first

The analyses in the first chart is a comparison of two soils not of corn grain. Soils have organic matter in the 1-3% range just as is shown. Grain is all organic material no matter what the source the same holds true for all the nutrients listed. I think there are a few items that are not soil, but it is hard to tell. To claim this is analyses of corn is bogus!

But we do need to

But we do need to know....exactly WHO did the study that resulted in the 2012 "report" ? An independent source or ??????
You give the authoritative Title of the Report, and the really awful results.....but why no naming of the SOURCE of the study and report????

As an agronomist who works

As an agronomist who works with conventional and organic crop production, I can tell that the information in this post is very misleading. Most if not all of the items listed in the first chart are not a nutritional analyses of the corn, but an analysis of soil where corn was grown from two different sites. One in 10-year continuous GMO corn and the other w/0 for 5 years. There is no control of the comparison and the soil analyses has little or nothing to do with what is in the grain. If this presentation can't even be honest about what is being reported, I question any validity of anything reported.

Monsanto is fighting Truth in

Monsanto is fighting Truth in Labelling laws for this very reason -- they know their genetically-engineered, Round Up-ready corn is nutritionally-dead toxic waste.

The peons have to be killed off in massive numbers to make the planet able to sustain the human race, and this is one way to help get it done. The filthy rich don't depend on Monsanto's genetically-engineered crops.

Wait until they start engineering genetically-modified 2,4-D-ready corn which will be processed into high fructose corn syrup found in almost everything, corn chips, cheese puffs, corn flakes cereal, cattle and hog feed, etc.

Thanks, Mike, great

Thanks, Mike, great info.
However, it is unclear who is responsible for the research. If I share this with my skeptical friends, this is the first thing they will ask me.
Which laboratory? Was it Profitpro? I visited their web site, but it is still unclear. Maybe it is the name Profitpro. Sounds Monsanto-y.
Anyway, just for the purposes of getting the information out, for which I thank you very much, in the future it would help to identify the labs and the people who are responsible for the research.

I knew GMO corn was bad ..

I knew GMO corn was bad .. but I had no idea HOW bad.

Thanks for info.

Yes, I hope you will also

Yes, I hope you will also publish the very disturbing rise in Omega 6 fatty acids, that are inflammatory in GMO products. The ratios of Omega 6 to Omega 3 fatty acids are dangerously lopsided in GMO vs. non-GMO produce.

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...