|
|
转基因食品。加了华语纪录片。更新05032014
[复制链接]
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 5-3-2014 01:53 PM
|
显示全部楼层
思念里的流浪猫 发表于 5-3-2014 01:12 PM 
猫猫只是以事论事：
1)即使没转基因作物，人类依旧有： 1)即使没转基因作物，人类依旧有：
a.免疫系统失调→比如日常作息颠倒、生活压力、交感神经紊乱、营养不均衡等等，这些都足以造「免疫」系统失调。并且也可以「长期性」的。
b.发炎性问题→和过敏体质、内分泌等等有关系。即使不食用转基因作物，人类依旧有发炎性问题，比如早上醒来流鼻水、生痘痘等等等。
2)这样说吧，如果只计算人类的粮食，当然足够(未来不知道，人数在增加)。问题我们人类吃的牛羊猪鸡等等等，它们吃得也是粮食。
牛→全球>13亿
羊→>18亿
猪→>10亿
鸡最多→>150亿
所以才需要转基因饲料以应付稳定供给。你所谓的稻米只供应给人类，但人类不能只吃「米」。
b) 对。同样的问句请参考1(a)。
2. 这个我没有考察过。我也不能明白为什么为了要给家畜够吃所以一定需要转基因饲料。非转基因不行吗？你有看到我写的两个产量的对比吗？我提出的是要管理好粮食的分配，然后给予一个例子，为何你会只联想到我认为人类只吃米这种粮食呢？
1)因为美国和加拿大是转基因作物大国。欧洲则对转基因「严格」。
2)好吧，这点算猫猫误解了，或许说转基因对坑的并非「害虫」，而是「农药」。可这点吃力不讨好，比如说「有害物」产生抗体后，对转基因作物还是有伤害的，表示说转基因需要再一次转基因，而农药也同时需要升级。
以细菌来说，抗性会随着繁殖将抗药基因遗传下去的。
2）也有对害虫的，因为害虫知道有毒，不会吃，或者吃了会死。需要关注的是那些农药（不只是除草剂）本身就是破坏害虫的食道接着其他器官来达到杀虫的目的。当同样农药的因子注入植物称为转基因植物时，毒性与否就成了需要注意的问题。
你有这方面恶性循环的资料吗？你似乎好像很确定。
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 5-3-2014 02:09 PM
|
显示全部楼层
skydog 发表于 5-3-2014 01:36 PM
她有说是起因吗？她那个统计方法最主要的是提出关联性，然后要大家去认真的看待，这应该不是所谓低级的错 ... 他们有隐瞒背景吗？你不是一type就有那么多资料出来了吗？还有，我都还没去查证那个方舟子所讲的资料。他最主要就一直在那里煽动大家对那些收访问的人的可信性，而不是针对每个提出的疑问或看法或证据来解析。
要不是被“人肉”的话， 单看纪录片， 谁想得到里面一些看起来很“科学”的人竟然是神学家。
你也说了，为主，不是一定就对。为何不能听取一个神学家的意见呢？也许他们自己有贴身的经验可供参考呢？很多专家都是知道以及了解了很多信息才被称为专家的，不是吗？那么和其他同样知道了解的人有什么分别吗？这也是为何我们现在在讨论这些的起始。
还有这里讨论的都是那些还没有确定性的东西，不像讨论我们熟悉的物理定律，是一定的。就算是一些物理的定律，当有一个实验证据与它相逆的话，那么它也要被推翻或重新诠释。这不就是科学的精神吗？
你我都没有验证转基因的能力， 因为我们不可能有机会， 有能力来做相关的实验。我们能做的只是分享最新的科学研究报告。
我不觉得在转基因的课题上， 一个神学家能有什么科学性的贴身经验。
主流科学家对转基因也有一些顾虑， 但不是纪录片所说的那些。http://www.nature.com/scitable/t ... genic-crops-and-732
Risks and Controversies Surrounding the Use of GMOs
Despite the fact that the genes being transferred occur naturally in other species, there are unknown consequences to altering the natural state of an organism through foreign gene expression. After all, such alterations can change the organism's metabolism, growth rate, and/or response to external environmental factors. These consequences influence not only the GMO itself, but also the natural environment in which that organism is allowed to proliferate. Potential health risks to humans include the possibility of exposure to new allergens in genetically modified foods, as well as the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to gut flora.
Horizontal gene transfer of pesticide, herbicide, or antibiotic resistance to other organisms would not only put humans at risk, but it would also cause ecological imbalances, allowing previously innocuous plants to grow uncontrolled, thus promoting the spread of disease among both plants and animals. Although the possibility of horizontal gene transfer between GMOs and other organisms cannot be denied, in reality, this risk is considered to be quite low. Horizontal gene transfer occurs naturally at a very low rate and, in most cases, cannot be simulated in an optimized laboratory environment without active modification of the target genome to increase susceptibility (Ma et al., 2003).
In contrast, the alarming consequences of vertical gene transfer between GMOs and their wild-type counterparts have been highlighted by studying transgenic fish released into wild populations of the same species (Muir & Howard, 1999). The enhanced mating advantages of the genetically modified fish led to a reduction in the viability of their offspring. Thus, when a new transgene is introduced into a wild fish population, it propagates and may eventually threaten the viability of both the wild-type and the genetically modified organisms.
Nature 有一个GMO的special issue http://www.nature.com/news/specials/gmcrops/index.html， 有时间可以慢慢看。
本帖最后由 momoyang 于 5-3-2014 02:17 PM 编辑
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 5-3-2014 02:19 PM
来自手机
|
显示全部楼层
skydog 发表于 5-3-2014 01:37 PM
同意。也需要知道这些实验的局限性，还要对比这些重复实验组的差别。
猫猫其实蛮讨厌转基因的，但猫猫看到市面上的蔬果肉类，其栽植/畜养过程乃至上市售卖，猫猫突然觉得转基因不可恶了，因为猫猫可以杜绝「未知伤害」而选择不吃转基因食品，可是大家看看「非转基因」食品同样的不安全，化肥、农药、杀虫剂、抗生素等等等。
猫猫不是在企图为转基因脱罪，猫猫想吃得健康，但环境格局不容许猫猫做选择。其实市集上的蔬果肉类「便宜」是有其道理的，猫猫看到有人讲「两菜一肉只需2块钱」好便宜，并感谢工业的进步，猫猫会在想「便宜货」就是拿「未知的伤害」做赌注，天然的作物从来就不便宜。 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 5-3-2014 02:21 PM
来自手机
|
显示全部楼层
skydog 发表于 5-3-2014 01:53 PM
1. a) 你说的对。可是这就可以转基因植物在还没确定其危害性之前就给动物或植物吃吗？
b) 对。同样的问句 ...
1)a，猫猫也是很迷惑，但以人类的习惯都是实行后才计较后果的。不说转基因，普通作物，施化肥、农药、打种(比如橙、番茄都是打种得来的，未广泛食用的新品种你能确定它们无害么？)等等，当初人类也没了解就实施了。
猫猫想说的是，这是种例行程序，人类一直在纵容，算不算「社会认同」原理在作崇呢？因为大家吃了都没问题。
2)问题吃多少「不能管理」。经济也不容纳。
=============================
1)猫猫想表达的：除非是失败作，否则转基因理应比普通作物产量更多。欧洲对转基因的约束较严格，所以不太适合作参考。
2)。。。
这样说吧，比如A植物是害虫的食物，A原本对害虫没毒性的，转基因后，出于本能，害虫还是会吃的。
猫猫之前有参考过资料，多数已忘记了，所以猫猫才会说有错请指正。
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 5-3-2014 02:43 PM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 5-3-2014 02:48 PM
|
显示全部楼层
思念里的流浪猫 发表于 5-3-2014 02:19 PM
猫猫其实蛮讨厌转基因的，但猫猫看到市面上的蔬果肉类，其栽植/畜养过程乃至上市售卖，猫猫突然觉得转基因 ...
转基因也许的确可能轻易解决粮食的问题，可是其安全性在还没有被确定前，不应该拿人的生命来做赌注或者是实验。这在前面如果你有爬帖的话，你会看到我们讨论的一些结果。
这个贴是让大家能对转基因有一些认识以及对这类食品做一些探讨。
许多转基因专家都反对在没有鉴定其安全性前，仓促地种植或养殖转基因食物。容许我那么说，是那些即得利益公司在搞鬼。
对于便宜不便宜，重复地说，是管理，分配和使用现有资源的问题。
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 5-3-2014 03:27 PM
|
显示全部楼层
思念里的流浪猫 发表于 5-3-2014 02:21 PM
1)a，猫猫也是很迷惑，但以人类的习惯都是实行后才计较后果的。不说转基因，普通作物，施化肥、农药、打种 ... 1)a，猫猫也是很迷惑，但以人类的习惯都是实行后才计较后果的。不说转基因，普通作物，施化肥、农药、打种(比如橙、番茄都是打种得来的，未广泛食用的新品种你能确定它们无害么？)等等，当初人类也没了解就实施了。
猫猫想说的是，这是种例行程序，人类一直在纵容，算不算「社会认同」原理在作崇呢？因为大家吃了都没问题。
2)问题吃多少「不能管理」。经济也不容纳。
2) 粗人我认为是难管理。经济不容纳？不丹酱的经济体呢？
1)猫猫想表达的：除非是失败作，否则转基因理应比普通作物产量更多。欧洲对转基因的约束较严格，所以不太适合作参考。
2)。。。
这样说吧，比如A植物是害虫的食物，A原本对害虫没毒性的，转基因后，出于本能，害虫还是会吃的。
猫猫之前有参考过资料，多数已忘记了，所以猫猫才会说有错请指正。
1. 有那些转基因农作物是成功的？有那些数据对比说欧洲的种植的非转基因植物的参量会比美国或加拿大种植的转基因植物的产量低呢？
2. 的确。可是也可能出于本能害虫不会再吃。
酱的话，猫猫可以去第一楼的links看一些资料。还有momoyang给的nature link不错的....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 5-3-2014 03:43 PM
|
显示全部楼层
Five New Reasons Monsanto’s ‘Science’ Doesn’t Add Up
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_29419.cfm- By Katherine Paul and Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association, February 27, 2014
For Related Articles and More Information, Please Visit OCA's Genetic Engineering Page, and our Millions Against Monsanto Page.
To hear the pesticide and junk food marketers of the world tell it, anyone who questions the value, legitimacy or safety of GMO crops is naïve, anti-science and irrational to the point of hysteria.
But how long can Monsanto ignore the mounting actual scientific evidence that their technology is not only failing to live up to its promises, it’s putting public health at risk?
Jim Goodman, farmer, activist and member of the Organic Consumers Association policy advisory board, recently wrote about Monsanto’s deceptive use of the expression “sound science.”
But, ‘sound science’ has no scientific definition. It does not mean peer reviewed, or well documented research. ‘Sound science’ is only a term, an ideological term, used to support a particular point of view, policy statement or a technology. ‘Sound science’ is little more than the opinions of so-called “experts” representing corporate interests.
Simply put, ‘sound science’ always supports the position of industry over people, corporate profit over food safety, the environment and public health.
Here are five new reports and studies, published in the last two months, that blow huge holes in Monsanto’s “sound science” story. Reports of everything from Monsanto’s Roundup causing fatal, chronic kidney disease to how, contrary to industry claims, Roundup persists for years, contaminating soil, air and water. And oh-by-the-way, no, GMO crops will not feed the world, nor have they reduced the use of herbicides and pesticides.
1. Monsanto’s Roundup linked to fatal, chronic kidney disease. Article in Environmental Research and Public Health, February 2014
What happens when you mix glyphosate, the key active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, with “hard” water? That is, water that contains metals, such as calcium, magnesium, strontium and iron, either found naturally in the soil, or resulting from the use of chemical fertilizers?
The glyphosate becomes “extremely toxic” to the kidneys.
That’s the theory put forth by researchers trying to uncover the mystery of thousands of deaths from chronic kidney disease among people in farming areas of Sri Lanka, El Salvador and Nicaragua.
2. Monsanto’s Roundup persists in soil and water. U.S. Geological Survey report in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, February 2014
Monsanto has always insisted (despite evidence to the contrary) that its Roundup herbicide is benign, that its toxicity doesn’t persist.
But that’s only half the story, according to a study published this month in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Researchers now say that if you study only the key active ingredient, glyphosate, you might, as Monsanto claims, determine that Roundup is benign.
But there are other ingredients in Roundup, including one called Aminomethylphosphonic acid, or AMPA. The study, called "Pesticides in Mississippi air and rain: A comparison between 1995 and 2007," found that glyphosate and its still-toxic byproduct, AMPA, were found in over 75 percent of the air and rain samples tested from Mississippi in 2007.
What does that mean for you? According to one analysis, “if you were breathing in the sampled air you would be inhaling approximately 2.5 nanograms of glyphosate per cubic meter of air. It has been estimated the average adult inhales approximately 388 cubic feet or 11 cubic meters of air per day, which would equal to 27.5 nanograms (billionths of a gram) of glyphosate a day.” Gasp.
3. GMO crops have led to an increase in use of pesticides and herbicides. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report, February 2014.
The USDA, which gauging from its track record has never met a GMO crop it didn’t like, published a report substantiating what responsible, independent scientists have been saying along. Genetic engineering does not result in increased yields (as industry would have us believe)—but it has led to the increased (not decreased, as industry claims) use of pesticides and herbicides.
To be fair, the report gives overall favorable reviews to GMO crops. Not surprising, given the agency’s cozy relationship with Monsanto. But that makes it all the more telling that the once staunch-defender of GMO crops is now raising questions about industry’s long-term, decidedly unproven and unscientific, claims that biotechnology is the best thing since sliced (GMO wheat) bread.
Sustainable Pulse does a good job of sifting through the USDA’s report to reveal the agency’s criticisms of GMO crops.
4. Pesticides are more dangerous than we thought. Article in BioMed Research International, February 2014
More bad news on pesticides. A study published in BioMed Research International this month says that it’s not just the toxic chemicals we need to worry about in pesticides. It’s the inert ingredients, and how they interact with the active, toxic ingredients.
Typically, studies conducted to determine the safety of pesticides focus exclusively on the active ingredients. But scientists at the University of Caen tested nine commercial products, including Roundup, and found that eight of them were hundreds of times more toxic than their active ingredient alone.
Which product won the “Most Toxic” award? Monsanto’s Roundup, which was found to be “by far the most toxic of the herbicides and insecticides tested,” according to the study.
5. Small-Scale, organic farming needed to feed the world. U.N. Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Wake Up Before It Is Too Late, December 2013
In December 2013, the U.N. Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) released the results of a lengthy, in-depth study that blows a huge hole in one of Monsanto’s favorite claims, that we need GMOs to feed the world. The study, entitled Wake Up Before it is Too Late, concluded with this warning: Small-scale organic farming is the only way to feed the world.
According to an analysis by one of the report’s contributors, the report contains in-depth sections on the shift toward more sustainable, resilient agriculture; livestock production and climate change; the importance of research and extension; the role of land use; and the role of reforming global trade rules.
More than 60 experts from around the world contributed to the report.
Clearly the evidence—real, scientific evidence—against GMO crops is mounting, when five new anti-GMO studies and reports surface in a matter of a couple of months.
How much more will it take before the USDA, U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stop supporting an industry under attack from the scientific community? And start putting public health before corporate profits?
In December, more than 200 scientists, physicians, and experts from relevant fields, signed a statement declaring that the biotech industry is deceiving the public when it claims that GMOs are safe. There is, the group said, no “scientific consensus” to support industry’s claims that GMOs are safe.
But as new studies surface every day, it’s become increasingly clear that among credible physicians and scientists, the consensus is that we’d better wake up, soon, to the risks and threats posed by a reckless technology that has been allowed to dominate our food and farming systems, unchecked, for far too long.
Katherine Paul is Associate Director of the Organic Consumers Association.
Ronnie Cummins is National Director of the Organic Consumers Association. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 5-3-2014 03:46 PM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 5-3-2014 03:50 PM
来自手机
|
显示全部楼层
skydog 发表于 5-3-2014 02:48 PM
转基因也许的确可能轻易解决粮食的问题，可是其安全性在还没有被确定前，不应该拿人的生命来做赌注或者是 ...
猫猫觉得无论是转基因还是非转基因，食物没100%的安全性。你吃下的食物都会产生化学作用，某些营养素摄取适量有其好处，相对过量对身体有坏处。
验证食物的安全性需要「长期」验证，请问需要多少年？生物的成长速度远比验证来得快速。人类是在错误中学习的，即使A国家不实施转基因，B国C国也会实行以牟取利益，虽然如神般更改基因创造新亚种使人觉得无耻，也并非合理化转基因的理由，但猫猫讲的属于现实的操作原理，这好比全球的公地悲剧，必然会发生的悲剧，看谁先抢占先机。正如你所言，关乎商业利益。
猫猫想问：没有化学品，一切纯天然，你确定能提供足量的「有机」食品以应付便宜/能负担的价位？ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 5-3-2014 03:56 PM
来自手机
|
显示全部楼层
skydog 发表于 5-3-2014 03:46 PM
这里有你所谓迷惑粮食解决的问题，UN做的报告。是关于有机种植来养活人类，而不是所谓的转基因农作物来养 ...
人类不是素食动物，素食是后天的选择。 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 5-3-2014 04:09 PM
|
显示全部楼层
思念里的流浪猫 发表于 5-3-2014 03:50 PM
猫猫觉得无论是转基因还是非转基因，食物没100%的安全性。你吃下的食物都会产生化学作用，某些营养素摄取 ... 猫猫觉得无论是转基因还是非转基因，食物没100%的安全性。你吃下的食物都会产生化学作用，某些营养素摄取适量有其好处，相对过量对身体有坏处。
验证食物的安全性需要「长期」验证，请问需要多少年？生物的成长速度远比验证来得快速。人类是在错误中学习的，即使A国家不实施转基因，B国C国也会实行以牟取利益，虽然如神般更改基因创造新亚种使人觉得无耻，也并非合理化转基因的理由，但猫猫讲的属于现实的操作原理，这好比全球的公地悲剧，必然会发生的悲剧，看谁先抢占先机。正如你所言，关乎商业利益。
我可以帮你联络他们的，好不好就胆敢来一次，人生就这一回，加油喔！
哦，不知道你是否也是看完了纪录片。很喜欢那个中学毕业的园丁先生说的一个事例。那个什么什么副总统和那些转基因公司的人开会，开完会后提出了一个新词，叫做本质上相同，说转基因和非转基因食物是本质上相同的。可过后，那些基因公司的人到专利局那里，对专利局的人员说，看，这个东西很不一样，我们要申请专利.......
猫猫想问：没有化学品，一切纯天然，你确定能提供足量的「有机」食品以应付便宜/能负担的价位？
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 5-3-2014 04:10 PM
|
显示全部楼层
思念里的流浪猫 发表于 5-3-2014 03:56 PM
人类不是素食动物，素食是后天的选择。
如何鉴定你写的这句话呢？
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 5-3-2014 04:15 PM
来自手机
|
显示全部楼层
skydog 发表于 21-9-2012 02:48 PM
你讲什么屁话？
喂养的GMO的老鼠是没有患肿瘤的，是吃了两年的GMO玉米，才患上肿瘤的。你找那些已经患 ...
猫猫还在想老鼠们有没有先致癌再畏养GMO玉米呢(不是屁话，你不要生气，有些实验是先让老鼠致癌的)。
猫猫想问是否只喂养「玉米」而已呢？倘若是，不单只是GMO，玉米本身就有致癌的可能性了，请看看对照组的30%。
(有错请插，但小力点唷。 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 5-3-2014 04:18 PM
来自手机
|
显示全部楼层
skydog 发表于 5-3-2014 04:10 PM
如何鉴定你写的这句话呢？
Vitamin B12
Omega 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 5-3-2014 04:21 PM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 5-3-2014 04:23 PM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 5-3-2014 04:31 PM
来自手机
|
显示全部楼层
skydog 发表于 21-9-2012 04:06 PM
从中国的网站拿来的资料：
从网上搜到有关转基因的资讯，罗列于下。
---------------------------------- ...
猫猫喜欢吃番茄，马来西亚的也是转基因的？
鸡蛋也是有问题，尤其标榜低胆固醇丶有omega3的。 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 5-3-2014 04:36 PM
来自手机
|
显示全部楼层
skydog 发表于 5-3-2014 04:21 PM
有看到一些东西，我喜欢有备而来的。 那些老鼠是容易患上癌症的老鼠，就如有些人一样容易患上癌症。有些 ...
我不知道你这句话要表达的是什么，恕我无能，可以解释简单一点吗？
→因为老鼠们「只吃」玉米(GMO/非GMO)呀，所以玉米本身有致癌的嫌疑。 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
楼主 |
发表于 5-3-2014 04:36 PM
|
显示全部楼层
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 本周最热论坛帖子
|
那些老鼠是容易患上癌症的老鼠，就如有些人一样容易患上癌症。有些人一世人抽烟都没事，而且还很长寿。那部华语纪录片里面的妈妈团们有讲到。
2079 
40
