Skip to main content

View Diary: GMOs: What we can all agree on (230 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What are you talking about? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero

    The link I provided is from the USDA.

    And since your comment is a response to the PKU portion of the thread, are you claiming that PKU isn't affected by phenylalanine in food?

    •  Or are you saying (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero

      That the Journal of Arthritis & Rheumatism is a hoax publication? Or that the Journal of Cancer research is a hoax publication?

      I gave my citations, and copied nothing from any web sites. Where are your citations for the claim that I'm pasting from hoax sites?

    •  Have You Fallen For The Old AGW Denier Trick ? (0+ / 0-)

      Of citing a paper and then claiming it proves the opposite of what it really says.

      From the USDA link.

      The mean level of canavanine, an anti-nutri
      ent, was significantly lower (p<0.05)
      in
      KK179 forage than the conventional control in
      the combined-site analysis (Table VI-1).
      The absolute difference in magnitude was 16.9
      4 ppm, which is a relative difference of -
      29.6%.
      Plus you're claiming that Monsanto increased the level of something that is known as a human toxin for decades.

      There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

      by bernardpliers on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 06:49:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I respect you (0+ / 0-)

        And have enjoyed your posts for several years. I am feeling very uncomfortable with the tone you are using in response to my comments here.

        I snagged the wrong link. If I have time in the next few days, I'll try to dig up the right one. There is a company (apparently not monsanto) that was working on a self-protecting version of alfalfa that changed the ratio of l-canavanine. But even if the stuff never hit the market, the fact that a change in an amino acid can cause serious harm to human health is still true.

        That is the point I am making: We know that changes in amino acids can cause severe, even deadly health effects, therefore claims to the contrary by the FDA are false.

        The fact that it is possible for GMOs to be detrimental to human health, combined with the lack of longitudinal studies to determine if there are unexpected health effects, is the reason I favor allowing the consumer to make their own choices as to which products to buy via labeling.

        You may disagree on labeling, but going the name-calling route isn't the most effective way to change my mind.

        •  Don't Blow Sunshine Up My Ass (0+ / 0-)

          ...or try to make this all about who's "nicer," which is the language of the grifter caught with grandma's checkbook.

          Yes we all know that many non-GMO plants (including some crop plants)  are full of toxic amino acid analogs.

          Anyone who wanted to could increase these toxins by conventional breeding.

          You're just conflating amino acids and GMO to make two unrelated things sound scarey.    

          There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

          by bernardpliers on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 10:26:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (132)
  • Community (63)
  • 2016 (46)
  • Elections (38)
  • Media (35)
  • Environment (35)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (28)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Culture (24)
  • Economy (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Senate (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site