| twraska - 4/16/2013 06:14
When you get some information that is scientifically sound, not 'seems sure of his results' let me know.
We can't obviously take this comparison as a scientific fact, they don't even say at what stage the corn grain was taken, if both fields were at the same stage, if the cultivars were similar, so obviously there is no way to tell how much glyphosate and formaldehyde would the grain contain at harvest time, i.e. how much end up in feed or food, and no way to compare these analyses with other analyses, which are usually taken on harvested grain. The composition of green grain changes a lot at this stage.
But if the results are confirmed by other analyses, we can take it as a real life example, if not a scientific one. What concerns me most is the calcium content. The difference is staggering and does not seem remotely possible, which discredits the whole comparison. I mean, if the difference is so large, I am sure the anti-GMO crowd would have jumped on it years ago. The calcium content of GM corn is in the same range as what the nutritional analyses have been showing for years, if a bit on the lower side (30-35 ppm less), although of course there is no knowing if the nutritional analyses were performed on GM or non-GM corn. 6,130 ppm is 613 mg/100 g, which is more than twice the calcium content of ricotta cheese (272 mg/100 g) for raw unprocessed corn. If it were only true, we would not be spreading butter on corn on the cobs, we would be spreading corn cobs on butter...
Edit: Many sites are repeating the story without any verification, just like Moms of America did, and some even just reproduce the original article in texto without any editing. So at least it's good to know what's the source of the article, as you'll probably meet it in many other sites.
Edited by Chimel 4/16/2013 12:32
|
It was not the Chinese, it was the Canadians!
