Once again a GM Corn is being touted all over as the latest and greatest to feed the starving African populace. Once again it is a load of Pure Corn, Syrup added!
The "inventors" state it has 169 times the beta carotene of wild white corn, which, they state, is a mainstay of the African diet. It also is supposed to have 6 times the Vitamin C, and twice the folate.
So if you want to mislead and bias a result, this is a handy place to start.
All white corn, wild or not is lowest in the Beta carotene volume!
The yellow corns are always higher as the Beta Carotene is in the colouring we see. Absence of colour = absence of the ingredient.
- Advertisement -
Nowhere do they consider that the "wild" maizes of Mexico have many deep coloured varieties that would also solve the issue, naturally.
But gee, at face value, some will be fooled.
The Vitamin C content in GMO corn equals the content in standard white or yellow varieties.
I spent hours and cannot find any listings for the nutrient values of "wild white African corn/maize." It appears they alone have found, or created, their own data.
The same story elsewhere, in an almost cloned piece, then says that the African white corn has no nutritional value at all. Hmm.
Well if it exists and Africans have been surviving on it for quite a while, it MUST have some food value, even just as carbohydrates and sugars. No food except processed foods could be said to be valueless. To gain folates, eating the young leaves would have some value even.
NOTE: It is not a wild white traditional variety, in this item; suddenly it is a Lab bred one: M37W. Not a small difference is it? .E-Coli as a carrier. Oh wonderful, so people with compromised immune systems due to starvation, AIDS, etc. really need another possible disease vector in their food?
I consider whoever touted and sold that corn is someone whose ethics are in question if it is as poor a food as this item suggests. I am sure that is logical, to a GM Minded Lab Rat. Not to me though.
Any green plant would have better levels of it, plus other needed vitamins minerals etc., and there are wild food plants around.
Conventional chemical farmers howeverwould call them weeds, and use a herbicide, thereby ruining a natural resource, and poisoning the soil and water at the same time.
Once again their stated goal is repeated and repeated, ad nauseaum: saving the poor starving people of the world who have dietary deficiencies.
And once again it is misleading. In truth GMO food will benefit no one more than themselves, patent and income wise.
And on that subject, they will apply patent rights to it as always. However, it seems at about generation 4, the implanted traits slip away! So once again it is a ploy to keep people on the merry go round of much more expensive seed costs every year!
Please see my diary entry 22/4/09, where I ask Brad Mitchell of Monsanto why the non hybrid seeds cannot be kept and replanted.
His reply, when considered, TELLS US that they LOSE their TRAITS!
So, how can they claim a right to a trait when it is NOT STABLE over generations? Maybe some Lawyers out there want to consider that one. Makes a mockery of PVR legislation I think!
Corn, especially high producing types, needs a lot of water, which most of Africa does not have. It also requires very high nutrient input, which Africa does not have. Putting chemical fertilisers on soil with no organic matter in it, just creates more problems and solves none.
Corn is a shallow rooted plant; it sends out side feeders. If there is no deep topsoil, it struggles and will fall over in winds and heavy rains, should they occur.
I found a marvelous article from some intelligent people who really do have a solution to improve soils and crops and save water, and guess what? It involves normal plants. Yup, standard ones, using natural methods of raising soil nitrogen, including other plants -- native ones even better! And, as a triple bonus, it helps create topsoil and reduces water needs. I would bet, as another bonus, these plants would also feed some animals, and they, in turn, would fertilize the land as they browse.
Sadly, it is as close to free technology as you can get.
So no one will get rich, exploiting the poor. NO highly priced seeds!
No expensive fertilizers!
And NO Chemicals.
It simply is not to be considered, is it? I mean, commercial interest will NOT be served by doing it, so it must be ridiculed and called old fashioned and inefficient.
I hope this informs and alerts some of you to the deceptive verbiage used to tout these stupid products, please feel free to share it round, with my blessing.