Stunning Corn Comparison: GMO versus NON GMO

DeDell_logo_JPG.jpgThe claims that "There is no difference between GMO corn and NON Gmo corn" are false. Yesterday while on a playdate at the lake, Vince from De Dell Seed Company, Canada's only NON GMO corn seed company called me to support the march and Americans finding out about GMOs. He emailed me this stunning report, clearly showing the nutritional value difference between GMO corn and NON GMO corn. I was floored. And at the same time, not totally surprised because Glyphosate draws out the vital nutrients of living things and GMO corn is covered with it.

The important thing to note in these deficiencies is that these are exactly the deficiencies in a human being that lead to susceptibility to sickness, disorders and cancer.  People who have osteoporosis are low in calcium and magnesium, people who have cancer are low in maganese. The list goes on and on.

GMO Corn has 14 ppm of Calcium and NON GMO corn has 6130 ppm. 437 X more.

GMO corn has 2 ppm of Magnesium and NON GMO corn has 113ppm. 56 X more.

GMO corn has 2 ppm of Manganese and NON GMO corn has 14ppm. 7X more.

Look at the levels of Formaldehyde and Glyphosate IN the corn! The EPA standards for Glyphosate in water in America is .7ppm. European Tests showed organ damage to animals at .1ppb (.0001ppm) of Glyphosate in water. Our water levels allow glyphosate 7,000X higher than what has been shown to be toxic in animals. This corn has 13 ppm! 130,000 times higher than what is toxic in water!*

In a study that Dr. Huber reported, on Elizabeth Dougherty's Talk Radio,  .97 ppm of formeldehyde showed to be toxic in ingestion to animals. This corn has 200X that! That is why the animals , given a choice will not eat it at all, they can smell the formeldehyde!

Please share this report with your legislature, farmers, news editors, school district food services and Moms.

We will no longer be feeding our children food with nutritional deficiencies,  foreign proteins, toxins, sprayed with Glyphosate, or injected with pesticides. Nor will we be fed their lies of safety!

Corn_Comparison_1.jpg

Corn_Comparison_2.jpg

 

THANK YOU De Dell sharing this report and supporting the Americas in GMO labeling and in going GMO Free!

 UPDATE: FOR MORE INFO see video: http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/more_info_on_2012_corn_comparison_report

* This blog has been corrected from it's original post to correct .1ppm to .1ppb ,  which actually reflects a much more alarming fact. We apologize for this important typo and promise more thorough editing in the future.

Zen Honeycutt

 


Showing 63 reactions

  • commented 2013-04-12 11:52:12 -0700
    Many asked for more information and now we have it.
    Please see today’s blog with a video interview of farmer Howard Vlieger discussing the 2012 Corn Comparison Report from Weekly Womens GMO FREE News show. Keep in mind this was a report done by farmers who paid for it out of their own pockets just to find corn without Glyphosate in it and look at the nutritional levels in corn. They had no idea what they would find.

    http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/more_info_on_2012_corn_comparison_report
  • commented 2013-04-11 22:11:37 -0700
    Everyone, as much as I appreciate free speech and self expression I also value empowerment, truth and my own peace of mind.Unfortunately I have not figured out how to set the site to pre approve comments like most other websites do, so I have a concern people will post offensive things, and that is not a concern that I want to make time for. I am disabling the ability to comment because of the offensive language, negativity and repetitious comments that this report is not what it says it is. I get that many scientist say this is a soil report and what has been explained to me is that it is a test that is usually done on soil, but the report says that this time it was done on corn. It is what it is.
    I cannot offer more information on the source other than Profit Pro which is on the report. Feel free to call them.

    Thank you for coming and visiting this site. If you have something to contribute, like a donation for educational materials or organic gardens, or the name of a health group that you can connect us with to raise awareness and partnership, please email me through the “contact” portion. All spam will be deleted. All support will be gratefully received and responded to . Thank you.
  • commented 2013-04-11 20:33:57 -0700
    Ps. Sorry about all of the typos! My message should still be readable!
  • commented 2013-04-11 20:09:26 -0700
    To al, those who have been following this post, I would like to share with you a quote from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MAGAZINE in relation to the INDEPENDENT SCIENTIST’S ability to thoroughly study the MULTIPLE EFFECTS of GMOs on the environment at large.

    “Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.” Scientists must literally ‘ASK’ these corporations for PERMISSION BEFORE publishing independent research on GMO crops.(Scientific Amerian, August 13, 2009.)

    This article written by the Editors goes on to mention how Elson J. Shields an entomologist at Cornell University and spokesperson for a group of 24 CORN INSECT SCIENTISTS who protest against the ‘BLOCKING’ of ‘unfavourable’ GMO research (ie. research that may NOT PROMOTE GMOS), actually wrote to the EPA. These protests were about the “…selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward (seed enhancement) technology.”

    THE ABOVE disturbs me. If TRULY INDEPENDENT Scientists are RESTRICTED in experimenting or even publishing their works on GMOs, how can we EVER be sure that THEY are SAFE??? WE just keep getting a ONE sided story, as in the BIASED META STUDY of GMO ANIMAL FEEDING studies I recently was DIRECTED TO…

    Basically, this META STUDY or research was a SUMMARY of 12 individual studies conducted by several different scientists. The authors CHOSE these studies themselves from a MUCH larger list and attempted to analyse the data and to bring it all together to form some kind of conclusion. NATURALLY, their conclusion was that GMO feed WAS safe for animals. Yet, they also DID also ADMIT that there were STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES found in the animals fed GMO feed!!!

    Interestingly, these differences were DISMISSED as apparently they were NOT ‘biologically relevant’. BIOLOGICALLY RELEVANT? What does this mean? (AGREED upon defintion someone) Isn’t ANY CHANGE to the body RELEVANT to one degree or another They ALSO dismissed research on the grounds that the research was poorly conducted, lacking isogenic feed etc etc (BIOTECH supplies this don’t they?) as a reason for the NEGATIVE RESULTS on animal health indicators.

    ONE EG of ANIMAL CHANGES. In one of their ‘LONGTERM’ (25 months) studies of dairy cows fed GMOs, the original researchers (not the authors of the Meta Study) DID FIND changes to the cows fed GMOs. These were namely, small changes in their MILK COMPOSITION and BODY WEIGHT in the GM fed cows…And this was only covering a 2 YEAR period in a cows life, CONSIDERING that a cow’s natural lifespan is around 20 years!!! I would love to SEE how these cows’ milk and health were in an additional 2 years of being fed these GMOs!!! Would you like to risk drinking ANY GMOs in your milk? Does even this EXAMPLE convince you of GMO SAFETY??

    And this IS just one eg. of animal CHANGES noted in this meta analysis! There are many other questionable EGs and even a questionable LACK of information IN the selected studies themselves… One ‘selected’ study only had 3 animals tested as far as I could see LOL!! That’s gona prove THEIR POINT!!!

    Finally, as stated previously upon further inspection of the above study KINDLY donated to this post via the BIOTECH industry and its angry supporters (HOW dare WE simply NOT believe THEM???), I am left with the same opinion I started with…THERE is simply INADEQUATE research to PROVE the safety of GMOs fed to ANIMALS or US for that matter.

    Their ‘META STUDY’ has only added to the further doubt that I already had…THANKS GMO INDUSTRY!!!
  • commented 2013-04-11 09:36:17 -0700
    I have posted this before and will post again for those who do not care to read a whole list of comments below. I was given this report by a man who has a company and a reputation to keep intact as much as anyone else. I did not create this report and do not believe anyone is trying to trick or fool anyone. I am simply presenting information that was studied for years by people who risked and still risk everything being taken from them by a company who has financially destroyed hundreds of farmers. It is my belief that restricting the public from having the information in this report and calling it lies does more harm than good. If it is true it explains a lot…why animals will NOT eat GMO corn even in the dead of winter. Why human allergies have increased 400% since GMOs were introduced…why health issues have skyrocketed.
    Irregardless of this report, I have scores of Moms who have answered our health survey who repeatedly share that going off GMOs reduced, improved or dissappeared their children’s and their own health issues. Not eating something that has this many toxins in it would for sure be a factor in an improvement in health.

    I have also been told that this report looks like a soil report because, yes, this usually is the kind of test done on soil. The people who took it ran this panel of tests because they wanted to test for mineral and toxins usually on found in soil, NOT on food, so that was the closest test to run. Chris, just because it looks like a soil report, does not mean it is, if it says corn report, at some point, unless you have another agenda, the public needs to take things at face value…juts like I am sure your field would appreciate any study that you do and title it as you see fit, to read it and take it as you say.
    I respectfully ask you Chris to use your intellect to create something useful and please stop posting on this website. We have heard your point, get your stand for honesty, and thank you for please moving on. Thank you.
  • commented 2013-04-11 05:31:16 -0700
    Chris I had as look at the link you sent me but unfortunately I was NOT impressed. It has certainly NOT answered my question regarding SAFETY of GMO foods with animals.

    Firstly, this was a REVIEW of 12 studies, it was not EVEN showing me extracts of the 12 individual studies. So I got NO details whatsoever. Who actually did these 12 studies? And were they EVEN performed by INDEPENDENT scientists? They claim to be from 30 days duration up to 2 years, yet HOW many of these studies EVEN went for 2 years? Feeding studies LESS than 2 years in RATS (their lifetime) will NOT even show up the FULL TOXIC health effects.
    Furthermore, if I read this correctly, these researchers ACTUALLY based their generational studies on the SHORT 90 day feeding studies! How can that make those studies accurate?


    Finally, at the end of this review summary, the researchers DID ADMIT that there were SMALL changes occurred in the animals but then dismissed ANY concerns about TOXICOLOGY as apparently these fell within a normal range. REALLY? The animals had changed but NOT enough to be seriously NOTED? And WHAT EXACTLY were these changes? I would love to assess myself, whether they warrant further investigation. As we all know, damage to the organs starts SMALL and progressively gets worse. Considering I don’t even know if most studies reviewed lasted only that 90 period, this admission by the researchers of CHANGES in the animals HAS got me really concerned.

    I do thank you for trying to help me out Chris, but I certainly remain UNCONVINCED of GMO SAFETY at this stage.

    And AS for Seralini being connected to Organic Food Company, I would rather read it DIRECTLY in a specific page of his book.

    BTW Do you think that the Organic Food Industry would want to help sponsor a study that might prevent the cross contamination and TOTAL destruction of their ORGANIC crops??? I can clearly understand WHY they would considering ‘CO existence’ has been too successful lately!

    Remember Chris, Organic farming was ‘here’ WAY BEFORE those AG chemicals and GMO seeds.
  • commented 2013-04-11 05:31:10 -0700
    Chris I had as look at the link you sent me but unfortunately I was NOT impressed. It has certainly NOT answered my question regarding SAFETY of GMO foods with animals.

    Firstly, this was a REVIEW of 12 studies, it was not EVEN showing me extracts of the 12 individual studies. So I got NO details whatsoever. Who actually did these 12 studies? And were they EVEN performed by INDEPENDENT scientists? They claim to be from 30 days duration up to 2 years, yet HOW many of these studies EVEN went for 2 years? Feeding studies LESS than 2 years in RATS (their lifetime) will NOT even show up the FULL TOXIC health effects.
    Furthermore, if I read this correctly, these researchers ACTUALLY based their generational studies on the SHORT 90 day feeding studies! How can that make those studies accurate?


    Finally, at the end of this review summary, the researchers DID ADMIT that there were SMALL changes occurred in the animals but then dismissed ANY concerns about TOXICOLOGY as apparently these fell within a normal range. REALLY? The animals had changed but NOT enough to be seriously NOTED? And WHAT EXACTLY were these changes? I would love to assess myself, whether they warrant further investigation. As we all know, damage to the organs starts SMALL and progressively gets worse. Considering I don’t even know if most studies reviewed lasted only that 90 period, this admission by the researchers of CHANGES in the animals HAS got me really concerned.

    I do thank you for trying to help me out Chris, but I certainly remain UNCONVINCED of GMO SAFETY at this stage.

    And AS for Seralini being connected to Organic Food Company, I would rather read it DIRECTLY in a specific page of his book.

    BTW Do you think that the Organic Food Industry would want to help sponsor a study that might prevent the cross contamination and TOTAL destruction of their ORGANIC crops??? I can clearly understand WHY they would considering ‘CO existence’ has been too successful lately!

    Remember Chris, Organic farming was ‘here’ WAY BEFORE those AG chemicals and GMO seeds.
  • commented 2013-04-11 03:53:34 -0700
    Thank you, Chris Kelly (Aussie GM CANOLA FARMER/ Convenor of the PRODUCERS FORUM???). I will carefully check out these LONG TERM, LIFE TIME animal research studies and SEE for myself…
  • commented 2013-04-11 02:33:37 -0700
    Thank you Karl for your fresh information on the workings of BIOFORTIFIED.

    I now have several question I would like you to answer…

    If you had NO BIAS and apparently NO INTEREST in PROMOTING GMOs on your BIOFORTIFIED website, why then, did you leave the somewhat snide PRO GMO remarks of Aussie GM man himself ‘DAVID TRIBE’ up on your apparently NEUTRAL research listing? Don’t you think that THOSE comments would be slightly MISLEADING to the general public reading them

    Secondly, the LONG TERM GMO animal feeding studies??? Please give me the link to ONE animal LIFETIME, TOTALLY INDEPENDENT STUDY that PROVES that even 1 particular strain of GMO cropfeed DOES NOT pose ANY HEALTH RISKS to animals, let alone US humans. WE sure haven’t SEEN one so far and I would personally like to take a really CLOSE look!!

    Thirdly, it is NOT surprising to me that you were FORCED to include the dreaded SERALINI STUDY in your list. IT MADE MAJOR NEWS and sparked even MORE ANTI GMO movement! It would have made the entire BIOFORTIFIED’s website look like a TOTAL SCAM and merely the FRONTLINE for GMO promotion, if you HAD refused to inclue THIS ONE.

    PLEASE also give me direct evidence of Seralini’s apparent LINK to INDUSTRY.( THE REAL FOOD INDUSTRY ???) Include a clear reference ie. book title and page number.

    And as for GMO’s SAFETY or even NUTRITION being SO WELL studied, I would think that you would be EASILY able to FIND me DATA on the original topic of THIS POST ie. The NUTRITIONAL DIFFERENCES/SIMILIARITIES between GMO and NON GMO CORN. With this information however, I do also require information on herbicibe/ pesticide content AS WELL. Cos nobody wants to eat a potentially nutritionally similiar food that just happens to be LOADED up with CHEMICALS, DO they???

    Please share THE ABOVE information and DO NOT forget to include a clear reference, so that we can verify it.

    So FAR, NOT ONE CRITIC of this post, has actually managed to give us a second source of DATA on this EXACT topic…And WHY NOT???
  • commented 2013-04-10 19:11:11 -0700
    Well said Zen!

    For everybody’s information, I would like to mention that the 600 studies that Ken mentioned on the PRO GM Biofortified website were definitely NOT ALL about SAFETY of GMOs, nor were they MOSTLY INDEPENDENT.. They were in fact a compilation of ALL of the current research relating to GMOs. In fact, the ‘Seralini’ study was even included, although I must add it wasn’t listed under the INDEPENDENT LISTING as far as I could see! Furthermore, I think we can all agree, THIS study hardly shows the SAFETY of GMOs!

    In looking at the list and MOSTLY at the much smaller SO CALLEDINDEPENDENTLY FUNDED LIST’, I noticed there were some additional comments added beside selected studies THAT ALL POINT TO BIOFORTIFIED’S PRO GMO STANCE!!

    For eg. "WE thank Monsanto for donating the soybean varieties.’’

    There were also comments about another study mentioning Jeffrey Smith’s (Genetic Roulette) concern about the HAZARDS of novel DNA and they stated that it was one of the “…most OVERHYPED safety issues…”

    I also noticed this comment, “..More on the fate of DNA from transgenic food. It seems the studies must be in response to community concerns rather than scientific reality..”!!!

    And similiar such commentary went on throughout the entire list of BIOFORTIFIED’s ‘independent’ studies…

    What MORE can I say about BIOFORTIFIED’s neutral stand on GMOs??? And their science ‘truth seeking’ stand? And with the DENIAL that Kevin et al. have NO LINKS to BIG BIOTECH!!! At least you and your buddy Karl could have been honest about your blatant PRO GMO stance and admit to your ATTEMPTS at PROMOTING the industry!. We have given you plenty of opportunity to do so HERE.

    BTW I still didn’t find a LONG TERM study over 90 DAYS convincing me of GMO foods SAFETY. Sorry, yet once again, I just DON’T buy it!!!
  • commented 2013-04-10 19:06:35 -0700
    Ok Everyone. Time out. We totally get it that some people think this report is a lie. WE HEAR YOU. We got the point. We get that you think it is a soil report and it is meant to trick and fool people and you are mad. Totally get it.
    Here is what’s so. I am not taking it down and I am not going to stop sharing it. The fact is that we don’t believe that you have “safety reports”, and frankly we don’t care, because the source is coming from a company that killed 400K people in Vietnam and deformed 500K children from their Agent Orange, of which some chemicals are now being sprayed on our fields of food. WE DON’T Believe Your Claims of Safety. What we see are reports on Mercola site of miscarriages in Argentina in villages around GMO field sprayed with glyphosate climbing to 100X more than the national average. What we see in Sierra Club Magazine, is our national birth rate is the lowest it has been in recorded history, biggest decline in immigrants, who happen to eat the most GMO cheap foods….What we see are OUR children whose health issues have SKYROCKETED since GMOs have been put into our food without our consent, and we see them get BETTER when we take them off GMOs. This corn report, even if it is exaggerated or even if it were soil…who wants their food growing in soil with 200X the level of formeldehyde in it that is proven to be toxic??? Even if this report is only a little bit true, WE MOMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW. We have the right to protect our kids. So nothing you can say about “no reports of harm” or “safety studies” matters to us, because we choose to be “Better safe than sorry”. Just like putting the seat belt on our kids every time we get in the car even though we know that it’s not “for sure” that we are going to get into an accident, we choose to take action to be safe. Your mother’s did and would still want you to do the same thing. Err on the side of safety, take care of yourselves, be cautious with what you eat because you are important. Moms love their kids. Nothing you can say will stop us from protecting our children.
  • commented 2013-04-10 17:35:44 -0700
    Mr Folta,

    Thanks for your response, but you have (not so) niftily avoided 2 of my questions – it would be helpful if you did.

    In response to your deflecting comments, you may think that your credentials speak for themselves, but your arguments and manner of addressing these issues do not and do not reflect very well on a person of supposedly well developed intellectual faculties…if you are indeed defending a higher moral ground, it is not so far fetched to assume you would be able to articulate your position with that same demeanour….Your use of UFOs/bigfoot (climate change is another you have used in the past) are not as you suggest an analogy, they are intended to be insulting. In addition, your inference that anyone that does not agree with your is basing their position on beliefs rather than evidence – what is this if not arrogant? For all these reasons I would therefore not agree with your self assessment as a humble man.

    Re the suggestion of a label of “red skull and crossbones on the front”, this is hardly a defense against labelling and frankly a ridiculous statement, as I doubt if anyone cared what the label looks like – the manufacturers can use the same ones they already have for other jurisdictions – how is it that you MUST accept labelling in other jurisdictions and yet feel you can INSIST on no labels for your own fellow countrymen? I smell fear and if you were no a coward you might admit that.

    I am afraid that nothing you have said or continue to say encourages me to hold you in any high regard as an expert of any kind, regardless of whatever training you might have….

    Any answers to my original questions still appreciated:

    2. You seem to think that what happens in the sanctity of your lab with your controlled environments etc perfectly replicates what will happen when these manufactured products are put out in the natural world , and if you tell me you can, you will really show yourself for what you are…. heard of the chaos theory? (or is that fake in your world too?)

    3. By suggesting that those who wish to avoid them should do so, you seem to be promoting co-exisitence yet I have not heard a single argument on how this could possibly happen in nature, in fact I am sure you are aware that there is mounting evidence of cross contamination?
  • commented 2013-04-10 16:17:14 -0700
    Kevin we respectfully ask you to use your scientific background to find a way to protect the bees or develope an organic pesticide out of garlic that can be used on a mass level..instead of posting on this site. You have made your point. We all have better things to do. We totally understand why you feel threatened. What we are talking about, if we are successful as we plan to be, will in fact require you to create another job for yourself. We want GMO food labeled, and ideally not used in food at all. You would need to find something else to do…and with your tenacity I am sure you will. Please use your energy towards creating something rather than defending, attacking and insulting people on my website.
  • commented 2013-04-10 16:02:07 -0700
    Jules, I’m really sorry that you take my comments as arrogant and pithy, but you do have to understand that I’ve been personally demeaned on this website, my credentials bashed and accusations about my funding and ideals have been levied. When I defended my positions gently and kindly I was censored from this site. Do I show some frustration as a scientist and educator— you betcha!

    The UFO/bigfoot comment is simply an analogy. There are people everywhere that run websites and share information because they KNOW that these things are true. The evidence if poor, scientists that refute it are just “players in the conspiracy”. Sound familiar?

    You can avoid the food. Organic certification requires the food to be not transgenic. The NoGMO Project (http://www.nongmoproject.org/) clearly labels food so you can make a choice if you want to.

    In science, we make decisions based on evidence, not belief. My hope is that this reflects in public policy. That is why I was not in favor of labeling. I am comfortable with companies truthfully putting words like “transgenic soy” in the ingredients list. However, the red skull and crossbones on the front that activists want is not reasonable.

    Jules, by making statements like “that what you do is more perfect than anything else…the arrogance of that alone make your position questionable…..” is really unfair. I never said that what I do is perfect and never would. I"m a humble person that does my best to answer important questions. We all make mistakes, we learn from them.

    If you find my “position questionable” then ask yourself if maybe you might be wrong. Just think about who you really consider to be an expert and why. My record speaks pretty well. Thanks for your time.
  • commented 2013-04-10 15:44:37 -0700
    Chi, I can get you over 820 scientists name Steve that have no problems with transgenic technology or see any risk above conventional breeding. The list you have is filled with non-scientists, and exceedingly few (I don’t remember the number) ever published a peer-reviewed paper in plants or biotech. Brilliant minds? Maybe, but experts in this area…? Probably not. I’m not going to play into this. My credentials speak for themselves, and you are free to ignore them.

    The scientist petitions are an old activist trick. They have them for “climate change is a hoax” (31,000 signatures http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm ) and “evolution is nonsense” (660+ signatories http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660) too.

    How do you prove anything is safe? How do you know that growing plants in highly-composted soils with high nitrogen amendments is safe? It changes the expression of thousands of genes in ways that are not natural! That’s absurd, but maybe you get my point.

    As scientists we ask if there is a plausible mechanism for harm. We understand the EPSPS gene and the Bt (cry1A) gene very well. There is no plausible way they could be harmful. Then when you look at their performance in animals, there is no evidence of harm. Then when you look at epidemiological trends in animals and humans, again there is no link over 16 years. Moreover, animal cells are in many many ways like plant cells, and the plants don’t mind the transgenes at all.

    There are over 600 studies on safety and efficacy, most of the independent. More every day. http://www.biofortified.org/genera/studies-for-genera/

    Bans on patents… it would ABSOLUTELY kill development of new plant varieties. Breeders need protection from patents. Every plant you eat, every seed you buy these days has intellectual property protection and restrictions, GMO or not. It costs a lot to develop new plant lines and we need to protect breeders’ rights.

    Your point about “PLEASE SHOW YOUR EVIDENCE” reflects your lack of understanding on how science works. What we need to see is evidence of harm. This is 70% of USA’s food and there is not one death or illness linked to it. Compare that to 3000 a year from supplement overdoses.

    I appreciate your time in preparing such a long request. Since I’ve been censored off of this section for posting such things, please send any questions to me also at kevinfolta@gmail.com if you don’t get an answer here. Thanks.
  • commented 2013-04-10 14:32:12 -0700
    Kevin Folta, as an academic scientist, you know even better than most that testing food on humans would be a long drawn out process that has not yet been done properly in the USA, and that is largely due to Monsanto is refusing to do so.

    Even posted on the Monsanto web site it states: “Further, it is impossible to design a long-term safety test in humans, which would require, for example, intake of large amounts of a particular GM product over a very large portion of the human life span. There is simply no practical way to learn anything via human studies of whole foods. This is why no existing food—conventional or GM—or food ingredient/additive has been subjected to this type of testing.” source: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx

    Now, with countries all over the world banning the use of GMOs – many saying UNTIL proper testing can be done, why would anyone want to eat something that could be harmful? Some countries banned certain types of GMOs because they did find them harmful to humans and not fit for consumption.

    Here’s a list of world scientists, over 820: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/list.php
    They signed the page: Open Letter from World Scientists to All Governments Concerning Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

    and stated that:

    “The scientists are extremely concerned about the hazards of GMOs to biodiversity, food safety, human and animal health, and demand a moratorium on environmental releases in accordance with the precautionary principle.
    They are opposed to GM crops that will intensify corporate monopoly, exacerbate inequality and prevent the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can provide food security and health around the world.
    They call for a ban on patents of life-forms and living processes which threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources and violate basic human rights and dignity.
    They want more support on research and development of non-corporate, sustainable agriculture that can benefit family farmers all over the world.”

    All these brilliant minds, these scientists from all over the world think GMOs should be banned… do you know better than they, Kevin Folta? If so, please share what you know. Please share YOUR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE testing results, and all that – that shows the results of GMOs being tested and proven to NOT be harmful to humans and animals.

    Thank you for the discussion. In the end I think we all want what is best for our children and our futures, and our own bodies. To be healthy and have a choice of what we consume, in knowing what is and isn’t healthy for us. To make educated and informed decisions. And to KNOW that food is or isn’t good for us. Can you prove that GMO food isn’t causing all the damage that so many millions of people believe it is?
  • commented 2013-04-10 14:11:09 -0700
    Mr Folta,

    Have been reading your posts on a number of articles and they always seem to be the same: shrill, shouty type comments which insult the intelligence of people who don’t buy into your gospel by using references to UFOs etc etc and below you even claim “rabid” defence" of the validity of claims made, but I never hear you produce anything decent that a one eyed man with the gun in his hands tied behind his back couldn’t shoot a huge hole thru’….can you please bring something new to the dialogue (ie. NOT feeding the world; and the other stuff you claim).

    You call the points raised by another blogger “outstanding” so I took the trouble to read them, and all it said basically was if you don’t want to eat GMO, don’t….this does not give me a lot of confidence in your qualifications of what you deem to be outstanding….In any case, on your support of that particular “outstanding” issue, it seems to me that you are overlooking a number of points:

    1. people CAN’T AVOID GMOs COZ the FOODS ITS IN AREN’T LABELLED….! (and you and others like you do not support labelling….!)

    2. You seem to think that what happens in the sanctity of your lab with your controlled environments etc perfectly replicates what will happen when these manufactured products are put out in the natural world , and if you tell me you can, you will really show yourself for what you are…. heard of the chaos theory? (or is that fake in your world too?)

    3. By suggesting that those who wish to avoid them should do so, you seem to be promoting co-exisitence yet I have not heard a single argument on how this could possibly happen in nature, in fact I am sure you are aware that there is mounting evidence of cross contamination?

    Above all you seem to believe (dangerously) that what you do is more perfect than anything else…the arrogance of that alone make your position questionable…..
  • commented 2013-04-10 13:01:18 -0700
    For those wishing to see proof of the harm of GMO corn, it is sufficient for me that wildlife will leave GMO corn untouched thru the coldest winter. What do they know?
    Humans, however, are not given a choice because it is slipped into processed foods that are heavily laced with artificial flavors, salts, fats and sugars to trick the human palate.
    It is a fundamental human right to choose what we eat.
    Being a biodynamic gardener, I know with every delicious bite that heirloom organic food is delightfully delicious without being doctored up by unlabeled chemicals. It was only in the 1950s that food was labeled. It was a tough fight then to get labels and the price of fat, air and water in mutant commodity crops, has never been higher.
    Day by day, our children eat this food that we never asked for, and never wanted.
    I do not know the source of this report. I do know that 37 people died and thousands were crippled by genetically engineered L Tryptophane.
  • commented 2013-04-10 12:37:59 -0700
    Hi Everyone- This is ALL the information I have! This is it.
  • commented 2013-04-10 12:36:30 -0700
    Please post the full citation or the full report. I would like to read the researcher’s words, but I really appreciate your heads-up.
  • commented 2013-04-10 11:41:18 -0700
    Well, it seems all GMO promoters are the same worldwide. In China if someone says GMO is harmful, they will say: show us some evidence and facts. When evidence and facts are shown to them, they will say these are rumors or lies. For example, a GM corn called Xianyu 335 (disease resistant and pest resistant) developed by Pioneer (China) affilated to Dupont was widely planted in the north, northeast and northwest of China caused mass disappearance of nearly all rats in these areas and also serious animal abnormalities,which were reported by a big newspaper after one year field investigation. Yet China’s No.1 GMO promoter, the Ministry of Agriculture, Monsanto’s close friend, said they were all rumors only 3 days after the article was published. They went so far as to say that the disappearance of rats was due to the increase of concrete buildings and floors in the countryside. Many people questioned: so all farm fields in these areas were concrete-covered? Meanwhile, some netizens in the metropolitan city of Guangzhou in the south said it would be great to have rats killed by GM corn as they climbed up more than 20 stories day and night and damaged the flower roots! Why such a big difference? Obviously the GM corn is the only cause but Monsanto’s close friend in China that have both power and media control simply denied the evidence and facts. So undoubtedly, same almost everywhere, the so-called GMO science denies real evidence and facts of GMO toxicity and harm but hard sell their big lies as evidence and facts, like a thief crying “Stop thief”.

    Previously they lied that GMOs only kill pests and are harmless to animals and humans. Now facts worldwide show GMOs either harm or kill animals, and even humans. So what will the GMO scientists say? Easy: these are rumors. People should not be misled. The anti-GMO folks are hating scientists ……….
  • commented 2013-04-10 10:46:38 -0700 · Flag
    Kevin, from your comments about Big Foot & UFOs, I gather that you think GMOS being unhealthy for consumers is a fantasy. I wish that were the case! I ask you, and anyone that doesn’t want to believe organic food is better for humans to consume, to please research this topic thoroughly. In the end it is all our health at risk.

    There are people that may say GMOs are not yet proven to be completely linked to health issues, but that does not mean they are totally safe. Think about how many years “scientists and studies” swore that smoking cigarettes was completely safe and not linked to cancer! Question who does the studies and what they have to gain from it.

    Countries all over the world have banned the use of GMOs due to either known health risks, or to the fact that GMOs are so unknown that they should first be tested before being randomly fed to millions of people and unleashing potential health issues. I ask you, and everyone else reading this blog…. why would so many countries be against GMOs? Why would fields and fields of GMO crops be burned by people that oppose it? Because they believe in Big Foot? I think not. They are people concerned with the health for all of us. Taking a risk on consuming crops that may or may not be harmful isn’t good enough for the majority of Americans that want GMOs labeled. It is out basic human right to KNOW what is in our food and we can make the choice to consume GMOs or not.

    I think GMOs should be banned completely in the USA, and all over. Foods should not be released consumption where there is ANY question of its healthfulness or danger to our health, without completely informing the public that it is even in our foods. People can choose to drink alcohol, eat sugar, smoke, whatever- but right now about 80% of processed foods in the USA has GMOs in it, and it isn’t even labeled. Kevin, and everyone else- don’t yu feel you have the right to know what is in your food? What is in your children and loved one’s food. Food that you prepare and serve them? Don’t you want the choice to NOT serve your family food that could harm them?

    And really… when you think GMOs are safe – google counties that have banned GMOs and look at the lists. Look up the NY Times and search for GMOs and read those articles, and check out the last month’s Discover Magazine. We are all in this together, Kevin. NO ONE is trying to fear monger here. We all just want to be healthy and what is best for our families. I’m sure your mother would have done the same for you. And making fun of people because they believe something different from you is your choice, Kevin. However, I am sorry no matter what fun you poke at this – it will not change what is happening to our food supply or how dangerous or unhealthy GMOs could be.

    Check out this list: (And please ask yourself why would all these intelligent people, these strong and intelligent government ban GMOs? WHY?… Thank you for reading this.) “The following countries have banned or restricted the import, distribution, sale, utilization, field trials and commercial planting of GMO’s: Africa: Algeria, Egypt Asia: Sri Lanka, Thailand, China, Japan, Phillipines Europe: The European Union, Norway, Austria, Germany United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Portugal Latin America: Brazil, Paraguay Middle East: Saudi Arabia North America: Maryland has banned GE (genetically engineered) fish and North Dakota and Montana have filed bans on GE wheat. The Municipalities of Burlington, Vermont (declared a moratorium on GE food), Boulder, Colorado (bans on GE crops) and the City and County of San Francisco (urged the federal government to ban GE food) are the only towns or states to take some sort of stand against plants, animals, foods, crops and body products that are, or contain Genetically Modified Organisms. NOTE: The U.S. government, and the FDA do not require anything Genetically Modified to be identified on ingredient lists. Genetically Modified foods and products are in widespread use and distribution throughout the U.S. Pacific: American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Australia, New Zealand

    Percentage of crops that are Genetically Modified in the U.S.: Soy (85%) Cotton (Cottonseed) (76%) Canola (75%) Corn (40%) Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%) Zucchini and Yellow Squash (small amount) Quest brand tobacco (100%)"

    Source: http://www.purezing.com/living/toxins/living_toxins_gmofoods.html
  • commented 2013-04-10 10:17:26 -0700
    Sorry here is the direct link to below message about GMO promoter Bill Gates and Microsoft refuse GM food:

    http://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Bill-and-Melinda-Gates-Foundation-Interview-RVW1353860.htm
  • commented 2013-04-10 10:17:25 -0700
    Sorry here is the direct link to below message about GMO promoter Bill Gates and Microsoft refuse GM food:

    http://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Bill-and-Melinda-Gates-Foundation-Interview-RVW1353860.htm
  • commented 2013-04-10 10:17:24 -0700
    Sorry here is the direct link to below message about GMO promoter Bill Gates and Microsoft refuse GM food:

    http://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Bill-and-Melinda-Gates-Foundation-Interview-RVW1353860.htm
  • commented 2013-04-10 10:13:53 -0700
    Stunning or not? Bill Gates as well as Microsoft, a big shareholder of 2 GMO giants Monsanto and Cargill, does not eat GM food.

    Below is the link and part of the article:

    http://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Bill-and-Melinda-Gates-Foundation-Interview-Questions-E9097.htm
    Deputy Director at Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
    Accepted Offer – Interviewed in Seattle, WA Apr 2011 – Reviewed Feb 22, 2012
    Interview Details – * Contacted by a recruiter.
    • 1:1 phone interview with recruiter.
      *1:1 interview with Gates HR recruiter.
      *1:1 phone interview with Director.
    • Series of in person interviews with 6 staff members.


    The campus is absolutely awesome. It is LEED certified gold. The work space is open and only the higher levels have closed office space. However, there are a lot of Focus Rooms where you can go to work. They have a great cafe in a beautiful atrium. There is a coffee bar and a great selection of food. All food is organic. However it’s not particularly cheap.

    The people, hit or miss. Seems like the average age is 28-38. There are a ton of folks who were at Starbucks or Microsoft.
  • commented 2013-04-10 09:37:56 -0700
    … and Zen, I would like to echo Karl’s outstanding point below. As scientists we have no evidence of healthful harm from transgenic foods, so I get concerned when someone says that they (or the family) are sick from them. If your family has health problems please consider seriously other potential causes. I’d hate for you to be sure is was GMO food and it really is something else. Really important. Thanks Karl for a great point.
  • commented 2013-04-10 09:31:56 -0700
    Zen, mothers may do whatever they want with their children, avoid GMOs, whatever. Teach them that GMO food is poison. Teach them that the earth is 6000 years old. Teach them that there is no global warming. Teach them that homosexual marriage will lead to society’s end. Teach them that 9/11 was an inside job, UFOs are real and that Bigfoot kills embryos for stem cells. These are all popular ideas that parents are teaching their kids (maybe not the bigfoot one) that place us as the laughing stock of education in the industrialized world. It is not the individual topics per se, it is what you and those like you teach as the scientific process.

    As a parent you may teach whatever you want. Have at it.

    However, as a teacher, researcher and science communicator I find it disturbing when science is twisted in unfair ways to drive a political agenda or distorted to build fear.

    This is EXACTLY what your chart does. Its intention is to create fear… and it worked.

    … and “goof balls” is a modest term to say the least. When you talk to scientists they usually refer to the anti-GMO folks with words that I could list here but would risk further censorship.

    I cross the line and at least try to be interactive and polite. It works. I do convert quite a few goofballs into reasonable connoisseurs of science. I’m always glad to help with specific questions.

    I’m not going to be the wet blanket here anymore. My job is done. I tried to help you separate fact from fantasy on the table above, you stick with is validity, an I hope you leave it up for a long, long, long time. Take care and best wishes in your ventures. Kevin
  • commented 2013-04-10 09:19:51 -0700
    Jessica, so you are a science teacher that advocates taking a policy position with no evidence to support it? Can you please, as a science teacher, explain how these foods are “mutated” or carry genetic/genomic differences beyond what is found in traditional breeding?

    Most of all, as a science teacher, you are comfortable that there are “inevitable epidemiological effects”. What are they, and please provide the links to transgenic crops.

    I am concerned about children. That’s why I want them to learn the scientific process, to test hypotheses, separate good evidence from false evidence. That’s why I’m here.

    Why do you expect “anyone purporting to be a scientist” to support food labeling? The National Academies, AAAS and many science organizations have reflected the overwhelming scientific consensus that the technology shows no evidence of harm and has been shown to help limit ag inputs.

    I’m very disappointed that a science teacher would not consider a topic scientifically.
  • commented 2013-04-10 08:39:42 -0700
    I want to be clear I deleted Kevin’s comments because they do not contribute to what we are creating on this site, which is empowering Moms and healthy kids. If there is information that shows that something could harm our kids, I am going to share it. Take what you like and leave the rest. There was never any name calling from any comments until Kevin began his name calling. I do not wish to engage in this time consuming conversation further. If I have to disengage comments I will, unfortunately. I have kids to get to school, doctors to go to ( because of the toxins in our food) and a national event to plan. Let me be clear. My concern is for the health of our kids period. Anyone posting anything that is not in alignment with that I have a right as the owner of this website to delete. I don’t want the negativity, and frankly I don’t believe that anyone saying anything negative against something that explains the decline in health of my family, with a website that calls Non Gmo activists " Goof balls" as someone I need to ask for information and learn from.
    Kevin the only answer I am requesting for you is why wouldn’t you want mothers to “err on the side of safety” and have the right to avoid GMOs if they want to?