Line 4Line 4 Copyic/close/grey600play_circle_outline - material
Answers

Question

I've see some information online that seems to indicate that the nutritional value of GMO corn is lower. The argument being that although it may not be "bad", it's not as nutritionally robust as corn from a generation ago.

Do you have any studies that compare non-gmo grain to gmo from a nutritional standpoint?

Submitted by: Chris Baggott


Answer

Expert response from Community Manager

Moderator for GMOAnswers.com

Thursday, 19/12/2013 15:55

Claims like these often come from anti-biotech groups with different agendas that completely misinterpret data.  You may have seen, for example, a two-page handout from one such group of numbers and comparisons on different varieties of corn. The handout has been analyzed by independent scientists and shown to be without foundation. See the analysis by Dr. Kevin Folta at http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2013/04/fake-anti-gmo-data-stokes-alarm.html; an excerpt from his analysis is included below.

 

“The website is shown below, and claims ‘Stunning Corn Comparison: GMO Versus Non-GMO’.  True to its word, it did not disappoint.  It was stunning.  Stunningly stupid. Stunningly non-scientific. And worse, stunningly accepted as factual. Facebook pages that link it glow with anger at Monsanto and biotechnology.  This page, and all its insanity, had 683 "likes"... even more this morning.

 

“If you go down the list there are more red flags than in a Beijing tourist trap gift shop.   Before we go forward, keep in mind that the accompanying text warns, ‘The important thing to note in these deficiencies is (sic) 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 (sic). 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.’  Keep reading, blog reader.  It is not just a proofreading abortion, this gets embarrassing for them.  Remember, they are telling you that these are data representing corn nutrition and are linked to disease.

 

Misrepresented statistics stoke the credulous mind.  A page with four-out-of-five stars and "liked" by 600+ Facebook users.  But it's not nutritional data. And they bought it. That little grey box talks about the species of aliens that walk among us, to provide some context for the validity of the anti-GM propaganda. 

 

I'm just going to say "WTF?" right up front, but as we move forward know it is all that is going through my head as some activist has perverted science in an irretrievably stoooopid way. I'm only addressing highlights!-- I'd be here all day otherwise! 

  1. Available Energy. (I'm not sure what this means) in ERGS?  Energy given off per gram per second?  What?  That non-GM corn is giving off a lot of energy!
  2. % Brix is a measure of soluble sugar. The footnote says that "the higher the number, the higher the nutrition, energy and protein" The worst field corn is 10-15% and the good stuff that makes high fructose corn syrup is probably around 25%.  I don't know that a kernel would survive on 1%.  Clearly, this text comes from a non-expert, so the table and its contents were likely manipulated. 
  3. Wait a minute... there's more copper, zinc and iron than carbon in a corn kernel?  What?
  4. % Organic matter?  I'd guess a corn kernel would be more than 1-2% ..... Something’s fishy... Something's wrong here.  These don't seem like numbers from corn...

    THEN IT OCCURS TO ME when I hit pH and "Cation Exchange Capacity", then "Base Saturation"... THESE ARE NOT READINGS FROM CORN... THESE ARE READINGS FROM SOIL!!!

 

Additional responses which address the topics raised in your question are available via the links below: