|
| I can guarantee you that even if a tenth of this data was true, the anti-GMO people would have jumped on such results, because it would break the whole argument of pro-GMO people that GMOs are substantially equivalent and thus GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe). which is the reason why the federal agencies did not do any research on GMOs for decades, but accepted the studies provided by Monsanto and Co.
As it is, this chart is totally fake, does not match any known data about soybeans, and does not even include a single source or link, or even a unit of measure. It's been circulating by email recently, I would ask those who received it to trace it back to their originators. Formaldehyde is an indirect degradation of glyphosate, it requires 2 stages of degradation before it appears. But both stages occur mostly when in contact with soil bacteria, not in normal corn grain where any glyphosate left (if any to start with) would be rather stable and not degrade into anything or formaldehyde.
The calcium data is also totally off the chart. It is likely that the R/R gene does not counteract wholly the stress put on the plant by Roundup, and that some nutrients are absorbed with greater difficulties than others, or may require greater levels of nutrient fertilizer just to get the normal dose in the plant, but by 440 times the amount? Meaning all previous analyses were flawed, including those made by anti-GMO people?
Even the most anti-GMO alarmists would not fabricate such a chart, my guess is it's just a prank by some ag or medical students, or maybe a fabrication by GMO proponents to be able later to denigrate GMO opponents who relayed the fake chart. | |
|
My agronomist says the Chinese have this information
