- Член од
- 8 јули 2014
- Мислења
- 144
- Поени од реакции
- 93
Можда брат али не по моја желба .. И никако не било тоа наведено во декларацијата на производот пошо внимавам на тоа. Е сега за кокошки, свињи и остали животињи незнам со шо ги ранат јбг....
ГМО - генетски модифицирана храна
- Креатор на темата Мистичен
- Време на започнување
AlternativeF
госпожата од втори
- Член од
- 1 мај 2006
- Мислења
- 4.830
- Поени од реакции
- 7.575
Темата е само за храна, како што вели и насловот. За трансхуманизам има друга тема со веќе развиена дискусија во таа насока.
bucio
Урбан индијанец.
- Член од
- 8 јули 2008
- Мислења
- 16.330
- Поени од реакции
- 7.799
Scientific fraud? DuPont study deliberately hid toxic effects of GMOs fed to rats
Tuesday, July 29, 2014 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
Tags: GMOs, DuPont study, scientific fraud
Most Viewed Articles
Today | Week | Month | Year
(NaturalNews) A pair of studies recently published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) reveals the double standard used in evaluating the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods, says Claire Robinson, in a July 11 editorial on the website GM Watch.
Editorial double standard
In November 2013, FCT editor A. Wallace Hayes forcibly retracted a study led by researcher Gilles-Eric Seralini. The long-term study had found organ damage, hormone disruption and increased tumor and mortality rates in rats fed NK603 "Roundup Ready" (glyphosate-resistant) GM corn contaminated with glyphosate levels ruled safe by regulators. In retracting the paper, Hayes called the findings "inconclusive," because not enough rats were studied and because the variety of rat used (Sprague-Dawley) was particularly prone to tumors.
Researchers worldwide mocked "inconclusiveness" as a rationale for retracting a paper. Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, noted that this criterion would have forced the retraction of the two famous papers in which James Watson and Francis Crick described the structure and replication mechanism of DNA; it was later research that eventually rendered their findings conclusive.
Yet, in April 2014, FCT published a study by DuPont researchers that supposedly proved the safety of GM "Roundup Ready" canola. The study used approximately the same number of Sprague-Dawley rats as the Seralini study and was conducted over a much shorter time period -- insufficient to find any long-term health effects. In addition, the DuPont researchers used a shady practice common to GM industry studies: including a variety of "reference" diets to obscure any findings in a sea of useless data.
"There is... irony in the fact that we are not allowed to suspect that DuPont's reassuring findings on its own GMO might be a false negative, where a toxic effect exists but is missed because of poor experimental design," Robinson wrote. "But conversely we are expected to believe that Seralini's findings, dramatic as they are, are all false positives and an artefact of the small number of rats used and the rat strain chosen -- two factors which miraculously become acceptable in the DuPont study and many other industry studies."
DuPont data fraud
Perhaps even more troubling is a fact pointed out by Seralini and colleagues in a letter to the editor of FCT: The DuPont study actually fed GM food contaminated with herbicides to both groups of rats in the study. Therefore, the finding of "no health differences" provides no useful information.
Seralini's team conducted an independent analysis of the Purina brand rat chow used as the standard diet in the DuPont study. The researchers found that the feed was actually composed of 18 percent NK603 GM corn -- the same variety tested in the Seralini study, and engineered for the same trait as the Roundup Ready canola that the DuPont researchers were testing. In addition, the rat chow contained 14.9 percent GM "Bt" corn, which is engineered to produce a pesticide in its tissues. The chow was also contaminated with the herbicide Roundup (glyphosate), as well as the glyphosate metabolite AMPA.
In contrast, the Seralini study used a control feed that was tested free of GM or herbicide contamination.
"The uncontrolled presence of pesticide residues and other GMOs make the study inconclusive," Seralini and colleagues write. This warrants the study's retraction, they said.
"To round off this GMO farce," Robinson writes, "the DuPont authors declare in their paper that 'there are no conflicts of interest' -- despite the fact that they are employees of the company that stands to profit from the market authorisation of the GMO in question. And Bryan Delaney, the first author of the DuPont study, is also managing editor of FCT. That interest too goes undisclosed."
Sources for this article include:
http://www.gmwatch.org
http://science.naturalnews.com
http://www.naturalnews.com/046224_GMOs_DuPont_study_scientific_fraud.html
Tuesday, July 29, 2014 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
Tags: GMOs, DuPont study, scientific fraud
Most Viewed Articles
Today | Week | Month | Year
(NaturalNews) A pair of studies recently published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) reveals the double standard used in evaluating the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods, says Claire Robinson, in a July 11 editorial on the website GM Watch.
Editorial double standard
In November 2013, FCT editor A. Wallace Hayes forcibly retracted a study led by researcher Gilles-Eric Seralini. The long-term study had found organ damage, hormone disruption and increased tumor and mortality rates in rats fed NK603 "Roundup Ready" (glyphosate-resistant) GM corn contaminated with glyphosate levels ruled safe by regulators. In retracting the paper, Hayes called the findings "inconclusive," because not enough rats were studied and because the variety of rat used (Sprague-Dawley) was particularly prone to tumors.
Researchers worldwide mocked "inconclusiveness" as a rationale for retracting a paper. Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, noted that this criterion would have forced the retraction of the two famous papers in which James Watson and Francis Crick described the structure and replication mechanism of DNA; it was later research that eventually rendered their findings conclusive.
Yet, in April 2014, FCT published a study by DuPont researchers that supposedly proved the safety of GM "Roundup Ready" canola. The study used approximately the same number of Sprague-Dawley rats as the Seralini study and was conducted over a much shorter time period -- insufficient to find any long-term health effects. In addition, the DuPont researchers used a shady practice common to GM industry studies: including a variety of "reference" diets to obscure any findings in a sea of useless data.
"There is... irony in the fact that we are not allowed to suspect that DuPont's reassuring findings on its own GMO might be a false negative, where a toxic effect exists but is missed because of poor experimental design," Robinson wrote. "But conversely we are expected to believe that Seralini's findings, dramatic as they are, are all false positives and an artefact of the small number of rats used and the rat strain chosen -- two factors which miraculously become acceptable in the DuPont study and many other industry studies."
DuPont data fraud
Perhaps even more troubling is a fact pointed out by Seralini and colleagues in a letter to the editor of FCT: The DuPont study actually fed GM food contaminated with herbicides to both groups of rats in the study. Therefore, the finding of "no health differences" provides no useful information.
Seralini's team conducted an independent analysis of the Purina brand rat chow used as the standard diet in the DuPont study. The researchers found that the feed was actually composed of 18 percent NK603 GM corn -- the same variety tested in the Seralini study, and engineered for the same trait as the Roundup Ready canola that the DuPont researchers were testing. In addition, the rat chow contained 14.9 percent GM "Bt" corn, which is engineered to produce a pesticide in its tissues. The chow was also contaminated with the herbicide Roundup (glyphosate), as well as the glyphosate metabolite AMPA.
In contrast, the Seralini study used a control feed that was tested free of GM or herbicide contamination.
"The uncontrolled presence of pesticide residues and other GMOs make the study inconclusive," Seralini and colleagues write. This warrants the study's retraction, they said.
"To round off this GMO farce," Robinson writes, "the DuPont authors declare in their paper that 'there are no conflicts of interest' -- despite the fact that they are employees of the company that stands to profit from the market authorisation of the GMO in question. And Bryan Delaney, the first author of the DuPont study, is also managing editor of FCT. That interest too goes undisclosed."
Sources for this article include:
http://www.gmwatch.org
http://science.naturalnews.com
http://www.naturalnews.com/046224_GMOs_DuPont_study_scientific_fraud.html
S
Stef Bachatero
Гостин
Naturalnews не е добар извор на информации.
Vanlok
deus ex machina
- Член од
- 30 мај 2009
- Мислења
- 27.634
- Поени од реакции
- 36.956
S
Stef Bachatero
Гостин
NaturalNews.com (formerly Newstarget) is an anti-science conspiracy website founded by Mike Adams (self-labeled "The Health Ranger") which promotes assorted woo.[1]
The site particularly specializes in vaccine denialism,[2] AIDS/HIV denial,[3] quack cancer medicine[4] and conspiracy theories about modern medicine.[5] It also promotes quantum woo, specifically to do with many worlds andquantum consciousness.[6] The site advances a hard green position and promotes conspiracy theories about Obama and gun control. Even other quacks think it's a quack site.[7]
If you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews
The site particularly specializes in vaccine denialism,[2] AIDS/HIV denial,[3] quack cancer medicine[4] and conspiracy theories about modern medicine.[5] It also promotes quantum woo, specifically to do with many worlds andquantum consciousness.[6] The site advances a hard green position and promotes conspiracy theories about Obama and gun control. Even other quacks think it's a quack site.[7]
If you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews
.
S
Stef Bachatero
Гостин
И ти си смешен што цитираш од човек кој воопшто нема поима што е наука и во интерес му е да креира страв и да промовира не ефективни лекови и да продава хомеопатски лекови.
Vanlok
deus ex machina
- Член од
- 30 мај 2009
- Мислења
- 27.634
- Поени од реакции
- 36.956
Уште еден rationalwiki цитатор на кој вики му е едиствен начин некако да учествува во научна дискусија. Ако папагалско повторување и цитирање може воопшто да се квалификува како дискусија (дап, реторичко беше прашањето).
Патетично.
Патетично.
S
Stef Bachatero
Гостин
Ок едно искрено прашање?
Ако си толку против ГМО, зашто јадеш хибридна пченица, домат, компир, јагоди, банани и секое овошје, зеленчук и од кога има земјоделие ние сме ги модифицирале генетски за да добиеме најдоброто од нив.
Би ти препорачал сам да садиш и да ораш да видиме како ќе биде
Ако си толку против ГМО, зашто јадеш хибридна пченица, домат, компир, јагоди, банани и секое овошје, зеленчук и од кога има земјоделие ние сме ги модифицирале генетски за да добиеме најдоброто од нив.
Би ти препорачал сам да садиш и да ораш да видиме како ќе биде
S
Stef Bachatero
Гостин
Како не е генетска модификација кога нов род се добива и се променува ДНК на организмот?
Само да ве информирам дека колачите "Oreo", што ги нема во Македонија содржат ГМО.
Кечапот "Heinz" кој го има во маркетите во Македонија исто така содржи ГМО.
Смрзнатите пилиња со америчко потекло исто така содржат ГМО.
Кратко кажано, се што доаѓа од америка има ГМО, бидејки 99% од шеќерот во Америка е генетски модифициран, и 90% од сојата.
Кечапот "Heinz" кој го има во маркетите во Македонија исто така содржи ГМО.
Смрзнатите пилиња со америчко потекло исто така содржат ГМО.
Кратко кажано, се што доаѓа од америка има ГМО, бидејки 99% од шеќерот во Америка е генетски модифициран, и 90% од сојата.
Vanlok
deus ex machina
- Член од
- 30 мај 2009
- Мислења
- 27.634
- Поени од реакции
- 36.956
Стефчо, не може да рипаш лекции и да инсистираш да учествуваш во вакви дискусии. Врати се назад, овојпат прочитај, и можеби ќе научиш доволно за да го поставиш прашањето како што треба.
Се, буквално СЕ, ти е веќе напишано таму.
Се, буквално СЕ, ти е веќе напишано таму.
Ај јас од пред 30 години да заборавам што сум учел ама и ти млад па некако слабо со генетиката.
Има огромна разлика
Hybrid Corn
Hybrid corn is a strain produced by fertilizing one variety of corn plant with the pollen from another. The result, if the technique is carried on properly, is a strain that combines desirable features of both parents and is far superior to either.
Hybrid grapes are grape varieties that are the product of a [Hybrid (biology)|crossing]] of two or more Vitis species.
Hybrid Vegetables
Plant breeders cross breed compatible types of plants in an effort to create a plant with the best features of both parents. These are called hybrids and many of our modern plants are the results of these crosses. While plants can cross-pollinate in nature and hybrids repeatedly selected and grown may eventually stabilize, many hybrid seeds are relatively new crosses and seed from these hybrids will not produce plants with identical qualities.
Genetically Modified Plants
Hybrids should not be confused with genetically modified organisms or (GMOs) which, according to About.com's Biotech Guide, can be any plant, animal or microorganism which have been genetically altered using molecular genetics techniques such as gene cloning and protein engineering. Plants like corn that has the pesticide Bt engineered into its genetic makeup to make it resistant to certain pests are GMO crops. Bt is a natural pesticide, but it would never naturally find its way into corn seed.
Hybrid Seeds vs. GMOs
What’s the difference between hybrids and genetically modified (GM) vegetable varieties
The term “hybrid,” which you’ll often see in seed catalogs, refers to a plant variety developed through a specific, controlled cross of two parent plants. Usually, the parents are naturally compatible varieties within the same species. This hybridization, or the crossing of compatible varieties, happens naturally in the wild; plant breeders basically just steer the process to control the outcome. In contrast, GM varieties (sometimes called “genetically modified organisms,” or “GMOs”) are a whole different animal, as we’ll explain in a bit. First, some background on plant hybridization.
...............
In a nutshell: Hybrids are the product of guided natural reproduction, while GMOs are the result of unnatural, high-tech methods used to create untested organisms that would never emerge in nature.