April 15, 2013
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.
GMO Corn Also Found to be Highly Toxic
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
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.
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.
The 2012 report 2012 Nutritional Analysis: Comparison of GMO Corn versus Non-GMO Corn, was reportedly shared with the owners of MomsAcrossAmerica.com  by De Dell Seed Company, the only non-GMO seed supplies in Canada. De Dell Seed Company received the document from a company called ProfitPro, based in Minnesota.
This post originally appeared at Natural Society