Smacks of conspirology and pseudo-science. Who cares if it's GMO? All food we eat is GMO. Non-GMO animals and plants hate to be eaten (well, most of them, some use being eaten as distribution strategy, but even those aren't targeting humans), and take measures to avoid it. That's why thousands of years ago humans started the project of genetically modifying them to make them more eatable. And we were spectacularly successful.
Not sure what genetic variance of the soy I'd eat would make for me - the genetic material would be destroyed anyway once I eat it.
Also not sure what it has to do with micro-organisms.
Phrases like "incredibly hostile to basic function on the cellular level" again sound like pseudo-science - what it actually means? Which function? How hostile?
The total content of the following amino acids were quantified in the soybean samples using NIRS: Glutamic Acid (Glu), Aspartic Acid (Asp), Alanine (Ala), Arginine (Arg), Phenylalanine (Phe), Glycine (Gly), Histidine (His), Isoleucine (Ile), Leucine (Leu), Lysine (Lys), Methionine (Met), Methionine and Cystine, Proline (Pro), Serine (Ser), Tyrosine (Tyr), Threonine (Thr) and Valine (Val).
Etc, etc. - in short, I'm not sure what you're talking about here except for evil Monsanto capitalists being out to kill us all.
> And if all "food we eat is GMO", why are some labelled non-GMO and other, GMO?
Because enough people believe - without compelling evidence - that foods which have had their genomes modified using modern methodologies are somehow more hazardous than foods which have had their genomes modified through millennia of selective breeding.
But what they're really saying, though, is we don't know enough about the GMO foods to introduce them into our diets. That using us as guinea pigs is not a good idea.
As if you "know enough" about other things you eat or drink. When was the last time a craft beer got FDA approval after 20 years of careful safety testing? When people stopped drinking sugary soda because that is poison fir you? When you had your steak dinner rigorously scientifically tested?
But no, you choose one thing that you can attach scary label to, and declare that because you didn't apply levels of scrutiny to it that you never ever had applied to your food, it is unsafe despite now decades of usage without any evidence of any trouble.
Not sure what genetic variance of the soy I'd eat would make for me - the genetic material would be destroyed anyway once I eat it.
Also not sure what it has to do with micro-organisms.
Phrases like "incredibly hostile to basic function on the cellular level" again sound like pseudo-science - what it actually means? Which function? How hostile?
Soy certainly contains amino-acids - e.g. see here: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516...
The total content of the following amino acids were quantified in the soybean samples using NIRS: Glutamic Acid (Glu), Aspartic Acid (Asp), Alanine (Ala), Arginine (Arg), Phenylalanine (Phe), Glycine (Gly), Histidine (His), Isoleucine (Ile), Leucine (Leu), Lysine (Lys), Methionine (Met), Methionine and Cystine, Proline (Pro), Serine (Ser), Tyrosine (Tyr), Threonine (Thr) and Valine (Val).
Etc, etc. - in short, I'm not sure what you're talking about here except for evil Monsanto capitalists being out to kill us all.