为什么转基因食品有害健康?

confiture

熊猫出没注意
最大赞力
0.00
当前赞力
100.00%
你自己对一本民间传说奉为至宝,就这样还好意思说别人是盲流?

没脑子的胆怯之辈才会盲目地随大流,简称盲流。你要是做了双方的调查,听了双方的意见和证据再做判断的,不算你盲流。
 
最后编辑: 2014-04-14
最大赞力
0.00
当前赞力
100.00%
Biography
David Suzuki, Co-Founder of the David Suzuki Foundation, is an award-winning scientist, environmentalist and broadcaster. He is renowned for his radio and television programs that explain the complexities of the natural sciences in a compelling, easily understood way.
.....
His 1976 textbook An Introduction to Genetic Analysis (with A.J.F. Griffiths), remains the most widely used genetics text book in the U.S. and has been translated into Italian, Spanish, Greek, Indonesian, Arabic, French and German.
.......
Dr. Suzuki is also recognized as a world leader in sustainable ecology. He is the recipient of UNESCO's Kalinga Prize for Science, the United Nations Environment Program Medal, UNEPs Global 500 and in 2009 won the Right Livelihood Award that is considered the Alternative Nobel Prize.
......

全部都是废话空话,我自己好多年不怎么看电视了,好多作科研的博士家里都没有电视机。从“科研”角度讲,电视只能是面向大众的一般宣传,Suzuki也好,崔永元也罢,他们只是个电视节目人,他们根本连教科书都不看(也就是“三次文献”都不看,他们的话是不能作为科研依据的,几乎没有任何可信度)。假如有医学新发现、调查最新科研进展,医学工作者会用专门的搜索引擎,不是百度、不是google, 常用搜索引擎之一是pubmed, 这是我们做科研和查阅科技进展常用的搜索引擎之一。

在pubmed, 搜到Suzuki文献11篇,全部都是大众科普类文章。而他的An Introduction to Genetic Analysis,是1976年的,老天爷!1976到今天,基因技术发生了多大的变化,你知道吗?早已天壤之别了!

转基因食品安全方面,没有搜到什么革命性的文章,尽管这个话题和老百姓生活息息相关,但是眼下的科研都会谨慎地下结论:尚未发现毒副作用,或者“与相应非转基因植物比,未见不同”(这个用辞,也是FDA对于GMO的一贯谨慎用辞)。严谨的医学科研,讲究的是大样本、对照、随机,要言之有据,有大量的引文(这些引文也都可以Pubmed检索到)不是“我感觉,我认为”,而是讲究循证。贴两篇有代表性的review,第一篇有PDF格式原文;第二篇是英国学者的综述摘要:

Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials.
EFSA GMO Panel Working Group on Animal Feeding Trials.
Collaborators (37)
Alink G, Barlow S, Cockburn A, Flachowsky G, Knudsen I, Kuiper H, Massin DP, Pascal G, Peijnenburg A, Phipps R, Pöting A, Poulsen M, Seinen W, Spielmann H, van Loveren H, Wal JM, Williams A, Andersson HC, Arpaia S, Bartsch D, Casacuberta J, Davies H, De Loose M, Hendriksen N, Herman L, Kärenlampi S, Kiss J, Kryspin-Sørensen I, Kuiper H, Nes I, Panopoulos N, Perry J, Pöting A, Schiemann J, Seinen W, Sweet J, Wal JM.
Abstract
In this report the various elements of the safety and nutritional assessment procedure for genetically modified (GM) plant derived food and feed are discussed, in particular the potential and limitations of animal feeding trials for the safety and nutritional testing of whole GM food and feed. The general principles for the risk assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed are followed, as described in the EFSA guidance document of the EFSA Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms. In Section 1 the mandate, scope and general principles for risk assessment of GM plant derived food and feed are discussed. Products under consideration are food and feed derived from GM plants, such as maize, soybeans, oilseed rape and cotton, modified through the introduction of one or more genes coding for agronomic input traits like herbicide tolerance and/or insect resistance. Furthermore GM plant derived food and feed, which have been obtained through extensive genetic modifications targeted at specific alterations of metabolic pathways leading to improved nutritional and/or health characteristics, such as rice containing beta-carotene, soybeans with enhanced oleic acid content, or tomato with increased concentration of flavonoids, are considered. The safety assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed follows a comparative approach, i.e. the food and feed are compared with their non-GM counterparts in order to identify intended and unintended (unexpected) differences which subsequently are assessed with respect to their potential impact on the environment, safety for humans and animals, and nutritional quality. Key elements of the assessment procedure are the molecular, compositional, phenotypic and agronomic analysis in order to identify similarities and differences between the GM plant and its near isogenic counterpart. The safety assessment is focussed on (i) the presence and characteristics of newly expressed proteins and other new constituents and possible changes in the level of natural constituents beyond normal variation, and on the characteristics of the GM food and feed, and (ii) the possible occurrence of unintended (unexpected) effects in GM plants due to genetic modification. In order to identify these effects a comparative phenotypic and molecular analysis of the GM plant and its near isogenic counterpart is carried out, in parallel with a targeted analysis of single specific compounds, which represent important metabolic pathways in the plant like macro and micro nutrients, known anti-nutrients and toxins. Significant differences may be indicative of the occurrence of unintended effects, which require further investigation. Section 2 provides an overview of studies performed for the safety and nutritional assessment of whole food and feed. Extensive experience has been built up in recent decades from the safety and nutritional testing in animals of irradiated foods, novel foods and fruit and vegetables. These approaches are also relevant for the safety and nutritional testing of whole GM food and feed. Many feeding trials have been reported in which GM foods like maize, potatoes, rice, soybeans and tomatoes have been fed to rats or mice for prolonged periods, and parameters such as body weight, feed consumption, blood chemistry, organ weights, histopathology etc have been measured. The food and feed under investigation were derived from GM plants with improved agronomic characteristics like herbicide tolerance and/or insect resistance. The majority of these experiments did not indicate clinical effects or histopathological abnormalities in organs or tissues of exposed animals. In some cases adverse effects were noted, which were difficult to interpret due to shortcomings in the studies. Many studies have also been carried out with feed derived from GM plants with agronomic input traits in target animal species to assess the nutritive value of the feed and their performance potential. Studies in sheep, pigs, broilers, lactating dairy cows, and fish, comparing the in vivo bioavailability of nutrients from a range of GM plants with their near isogenic counterpart and commercial varieties, showed that they were comparable with those for near isogenic non-GM lines and commercial varieties. In Section 3 toxicological in vivo, in silico, and in vitro test methods are discussed which may be applied for the safety and nutritional assessment of specific compounds present in food and feed or of whole food and feed derived from GM plants. Moreover the purpose, potential and limitations of the 90-day rodent feeding trial for the safety and nutritional testing of whole food and feed have been examined. Methods for single and repeated dose toxicity testing, reproductive and developmental toxicity testing and immunotoxicity testing, as described in OECD guideline tests for single well-defined chemicals are discussed and considered to be adequate for the safety testing of single substances including new products in GM food and feed. Various in silico and in vitro methods may contribute to the safety assessment of GM plant derived food and feed and components thereof, like (i) in silico searches for sequence homology and/or structural similarity of novel proteins or their degradation products to known toxic or allergenic proteins, (ii) simulated gastric and intestinal fluids in order to study the digestive stability of newly expressed proteins and in vitro systems for analysis of the stability of the novel protein under heat or other processing conditions, and (iii) in vitro genotoxicity test methods that screen for point mutations, chromosomal aberrations and DNA damage/repair. The current performance of the safety assessment of whole foods is mainly based on the protocols for low-molecular-weight chemicals such as pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, pesticides, food additives and contaminants. However without adaptation, these protocols have limitations for testing of whole food and feed. This primarily results from the fact that defined single substances can be dosed to laboratory animals at very large multiples of the expected human exposure, thus giving a large margin of safety. In contrast foodstuffs are bulky, lead to satiation and can only be included in the diet at much lower multiples of expected human intakes. When testing whole foods, the possible highest concentration of the GM food and feed in the laboratory animal diet may be limited because of nutritional imbalance of the diet, or by the presence of compounds with a known toxicological profile. The aim of the 90-days rodent feeding study with the whole GM food and feed is to assess potential unintended effects of toxicological and/or nutritional relevance and to establish whether the GM food and feed is as safe and nutritious as its traditional comparator rather than determining qualitative and quantitative intrinsic toxicity of defined food constituents. The design of the study should be adapted from the OECD 90-day rodent toxicity study. The precise study design has to take into account the nature of the food and feed and the characteristics of the new trait(s) and their intended role in the GM food and feed. A 90-day animal feeding trial has a large capacity (sensitivity and specificity) to detect potential toxicological effects of single well defined compounds. This can be concluded from data reported on the toxicology of a wide range of industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, food substances, environmental, and agricultural chemicals. It is possible to model the sensitivity of the rat subchronic feeding study for the detection of hypothetically increased amount of compounds such as anti-nutrients, toxicants or secondary metabolites. With respect to the detection of potential unintended effects in whole GM food and feed, it is unlikely that substances present in small amounts and with a low toxic potential will result in any observable (unintended) effects in a 90-day rodent feeding study, as they would be below the no-observed-effect-level and thus of unlikely impact to human health at normal intake levels. Laboratory animal feeding studies of 90-days duration appear to be sufficient to pick up adverse effects of diverse compounds that would also give adverse effects after chronic exposure. This conclusion is based on literature data from studies investigating whether toxicological effects are adequately identified in 3-month subchronic studies in rodents, by comparing findings at 3 and 24 months for a range of different chemicals. The 90-day rodent feeding study is not designed to detect effects on reproduction or development other than effects on adult reproductive organ weights and histopathology. Analyses of available data indicate that, for a wide range of substances, reproductive and developmental effects are not potentially more sensitive endpoints than those examined in subchronic toxicity tests. Should there be structural alerts for reproductive/developmental effects or other indications from data available on a GM food and feed, then these tests should be considered. By relating the estimated daily intake, or theoretical maximum daily intake per capita for a given whole food (or the sum of its individual commercial constituents) to that consumed on average per rat per day in the subchronic 90-day feeding study, it is possible to establish the margin of exposure (safety margin) for consumers. Results obtained from testing GM food and feed in rodents indicate that large (at least 100-fold) 'safety' margins exist between animal exposure levels without observed adverse effects and estimated human daily intake. Results of feeding studies with feed derived from GM plants with improved agronomic properties, carried out in a wide range of livestock species, are discussed. The studies did not show any biologically relevant differences in the parameters tested between control and test animals. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

原文链接:http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1057.pdf

Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review.
Snell C1, Bernheim A, Bergé JB, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Ricroch AE.
Author information
  • 1University of Nottingham, School of Biosciences, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE12 5RD, United Kingdom.
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.
 
最大赞力
0.00
当前赞力
100.00%
呵呵,我只是个普通医学工作者,只是告诉大家哪里有可信的信息,基因方面我几乎也是门外汉,虽然我当年的研究生课题和基因挂边儿。

和楼主争下去,医学同行该笑话我欺凌弱小了。小葡萄和信佛,游走与神学和科学之间,迷茫且逻辑混乱,其原因是读书太少,受教育太少。但这没有影响你俩的善良和正直。:wdb19:
你俩,念经去吧!:wdb13:
 
最大赞力
0.00
当前赞力
100.00%
呵呵,我只是个普通医学工作者,只是告诉大家哪里有可信的信息,基因方面我几乎也是门外汉,虽然我当年的研究生课题和基因挂边儿。

和楼主争下去,医学同行该笑话我欺凌弱小了。小葡萄和信佛,游走与神学和科学之间,迷茫且逻辑混乱,其原因是读书太少,受教育太少。但这没有影响你俩的善良和正直。:wdb19:
你俩,念经去吧!:wdb13:
我很好奇不知道小葡萄还有什么话说。因为每次我们认为她服输了,结果再出来还是让人大吃一惊,还教训你被CCTV洗脑了
 
最大赞力
0.00
当前赞力
100.00%
果然还是阴谋论,还是那种最低级的毫无根据的阴谋论。只要你能拿出哪怕一点点可靠的证据,我马上加入反转人士行列。

仍然是将自己的判断基础建构在等待别人证明自己的错误之上, 熊猫的眼影貌似已经成了眼罩了, 浑然天成的有眼无珠,视而不见。
 
最大赞力
0.00
当前赞力
100.00%
转基因食品安全方面,没有搜到什么革命性的文章,尽管这个话题和老百姓生活息息相关,但是眼下的科研都会谨慎地下结论:尚未发现毒副作用,或者“与相应非转基因植物比,未见不同”(这个用辞,也是FDA对于GMO的一贯谨慎用辞)。严谨的医学科研,讲究的是大样本、对照、随机,要言之有据,有大量的引文(这些引文也都可以Pubmed检索到)不是“我感觉,我认为”,而是讲究循证。贴两篇有代表性的review,第一篇有PDF格式原文;第二篇是英国学者的综述摘要:


Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review.
Snell C1, Bernheim A, Bergé JB, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Ricroch AE.
Author information


  • 1University of Nottingham, School of Biosciences, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE12 5RD, United Kingdom.
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.


这帖看到这里还是挺有意思的。愿意好好为这个与自身息息相关的议题而下点功夫看书的人还是不少。


我们所受的教育, 是让我们简单的从两篇英文报告里,就认定GMO的商品是无毒无害的吗? 让我们认定此结论的原因, 是因为GMO尚且无法被足够的”直接证据“证明是有毒有害的, 可是却有许多的直接的证据证明他们是 无毒无害的。

那么,让我们来看看这些直接证据, 到底是用的什么证明方法。。。。
1。2012 年 7名英国诺丁汉大学, 据悉应为生科学院学生的报告, 实验时间介于90天到部分可长达2年。
2。2008年欧洲食品安全局的GMO食品動物飼養試驗小組的一则报告中, 以90天为主要实验进程(部分可长达2年), 做出的一份针对预估人类每日对GMO商品的摄取量是否会毒害人类为主的报告。 主要是以老鼠为实验对象, 结论之一则是 - 虽然在大量使用GMO商品的老鼠身上有发现异常,但是没有直接证据证明这些异常与GMO食品相关(跟吃的没关?那时跟啥有关呢?)。 而以其推算每日的成人预测摄取量,GMO商品应不至于称之为有毒或有害。

看完这两篇, 我不知道支持转基因的人士, 还需要什么实验,什么报告才能自我觉醒GMO是不太可以无忧无虑的被使用?至少在孕妇及孩童的身上, 令人揣揣不安。
而反对转基因的人士,又期望在转基因议题上, 获得什么科学证据?如果一项影响至巨的生物工程,都可以在FDA, EFSA里被廉价的以90天到2年的实验报告给发表, 那么控管只是虚设,科学实验沦为买卖。
 
最大赞力
0.00
当前赞力
100.00%
好吧,请你说明转基因的发明和推广如何“邪恶”,希望你以事实说话,而不是你自己站在道德高地上的臆想。如果你一定要完全顺服自然,请你从自己做起,得了病不要去看医生,顺其自然

还是那句话,拿出证据来,空口说白话唱高调没有用。

病了找解药本来就是物竞天择的一环, 谁说自然法则里生病了不给治的?没听过一物克一物吗? 熊猫照这种概念自然死亡法难怪会给灭了种。
 
最大赞力
0.00
当前赞力
100.00%
这种发言属于人身攻击。
confiture的发言不是针对转基因, 还是不转基因, 他的观点是不论支持什么都应该用道理说话, 不管道德, 不管政治, 不管派别和动机, 因为这个原因, 我支持confiture.

貌似 - 不是针对转基因, 还是不转基因, 他的观点是不管道德, 不管政治, 不管派别和动机,只要是某些特定人士的发言, 就一定千里追杀外加人身攻击。

你的支持,所为何来,则令人玩味。。。。。
 

confiture

熊猫出没注意
最大赞力
0.00
当前赞力
100.00%
趴粪妹又来了?如果你只会拿头像做文章,你是多绝望啊。

仍然是将自己的判断基础建构在等待别人证明自己的错误之上, 熊猫的眼影貌似已经成了眼罩了, 浑然天成的有眼无珠,视而不见。
 

confiture

熊猫出没注意
最大赞力
0.00
当前赞力
100.00%
你拿出的所谓证据,跟你的结论风马牛不相及,我现在基本可以肯定你在科学方面一无所知。你还是到学校去回回炉,别跟台湾人丢脸了。

这帖看到这里还是挺有意思的。愿意好好为这个与自身息息相关的议题而下点功夫看书的人还是不少。


我们所受的教育, 是让我们简单的从两篇英文报告里,就认定GMO的商品是无毒无害的吗? 让我们认定此结论的原因, 是因为GMO尚且无法被足够的”直接证据“证明是有毒有害的, 可是却有许多的直接的证据证明他们是 无毒无害的。

那么,让我们来看看这些直接证据, 到底是用的什么证明方法。。。。
1。2012 年 7名英国诺丁汉大学, 据悉应为生科学院学生的报告, 实验时间介于90天到部分可长达2年。
2。2008年欧洲食品安全局的GMO食品動物飼養試驗小組的一则报告中, 以90天为主要实验进程(部分可长达2年), 做出的一份针对预估人类每日对GMO商品的摄取量是否会毒害人类为主的报告。 主要是以老鼠为实验对象, 结论之一则是 - 虽然在大量使用GMO商品的老鼠身上有发现异常,但是没有直接证据证明这些异常与GMO食品相关(跟吃的没关?那时跟啥有关呢?)。 而以其推算每日的成人预测摄取量,GMO商品应不至于称之为有毒或有害。

看完这两篇, 我不知道支持转基因的人士, 还需要什么实验,什么报告才能自我觉醒GMO是不太可以无忧无虑的被使用?至少在孕妇及孩童的身上, 令人揣揣不安。
而反对转基因的人士,又期望在转基因议题上, 获得什么科学证据?如果一项影响至巨的生物工程,都可以在FDA, EFSA里被廉价的以90天到2年的实验报告给发表, 那么控管只是虚设,科学实验沦为买卖。
 

confiture

熊猫出没注意
最大赞力
0.00
当前赞力
100.00%
来,说说看我追杀了那些“特定人士”?你能找出共同点来吗?

貌似 - 不是针对转基因, 还是不转基因, 他的观点是不管道德, 不管政治, 不管派别和动机,只要是某些特定人士的发言, 就一定千里追杀外加人身攻击。

你的支持,所为何来,则令人玩味。。。。。
 
最大赞力
0.00
当前赞力
100.00%
首先,请注意我说的是“FDA的规范和药物上市前的三期试验目的是一致的”,没有说方法是一致的,食品和药物的安全要求肯定不在一个层级,所以何来“FDA以规范药物的制度来规范GMO食物的试验”?你对这两种规范的不同显然一无所知,在此前提下得出可笑的结论就不足为奇了。

其次,
你说的那种只存在于grain-fed肉牛胃里的杆菌是什么杆菌?这篇论文出处在哪里?从你的描述来看,你对生物科技毫无常识,因为这种描述非常模糊,而你居然就相信了。比如,这是什么杆菌?是不是只存在于转基因饲料饲喂的牛只胃里?这种细菌对人类是否致病?和污染食物的细菌是否相同?要知道对细菌的DNA进行测序对现有科技来说非常简单,要证明它和转基因作物的关系易如反掌。如果真的存在这种被转基因环境诱导出来的独特细菌,发现者肯定是名声大噪,所以请你给出这篇论文的出处,让我们瞻仰一下,希望不是你吹出来的。

哦,你还没有回答我,除了细菌,还有什么转基因诱导的病毒污染了生肉?这也是大新闻,希望也不是你吹出来的

E. coli O157:H7.
把你的眼罩掀开看个清楚点,这可不是乱码, 也不是密码, 是一种大肠杆菌的通名。
Grain-fed 的牛群,其胃内的环境和人类一样是强酸性的。 因此在牛身上的大肠杆菌, 可以轻而易举的经由销售进入我们人类的消化系统中。市面上几次大规模的牛肉商品回收事件也都跟这个小菌有关。 这个菌,最初在大约1982年时被发现的时候, 被认为应该是与农场饲料喂养的畜牧方式有关。 这不是转基因的原罪, 而是人类无知却自大自私的证明。
 

confiture

熊猫出没注意
最大赞力
0.00
当前赞力
100.00%
趴粪妹,我早就说过是大肠杆菌,你罗嗦了半天才吭出来。大肠杆菌在所有动物的结肠里都存在,也会通过粪便排出,但是在正常组织里是不可能存在的。所以如果牛肉被大肠杆菌污染,只有一种可能,就是被动物的肠内容物或者粪便污染,然后这些细菌被吃下去导致发病,这叫病原的粪-口传播。哪怕是吃草的牛,如果屠宰场卫生管控不佳一样会出现这种情况。

另外,请你拿出原文,你的转述相当不专业。

E. coli O157:H7.
把你的眼罩掀开看个清楚点,这可不是乱码, 也不是密码, 是一种大肠杆菌的通名。
Grain-fed 的牛群,其胃内的环境和人类一样是强酸性的。 因此在牛身上的大肠杆菌, 可以轻而易举的经由销售进入我们人类的消化系统中。市面上几次大规模的牛肉商品回收事件也都跟这个小菌有关。 这个菌,最初在大约1982年时被发现的时候, 被认为应该是与农场饲料喂养的畜牧方式有关。 这不是转基因的原罪, 而是人类无知却自大自私的证明。
 

Similar threads

家园推荐黄页

家园币系统数据

家园币池子报价
家园币最新成交价
家园币总发行量
加元现金总量
家园币总成交量
家园币总成交价值

池子家园币总量
池子加元现金总量
池子币总量
1池子币现价
池子家园币总手续费
池子加元总手续费
入池家园币年化收益率
入池加元年化收益率

微比特币最新报价
毫以太币最新报价
微比特币总量
毫以太币总量
家园币储备总净值
家园币比特币储备
家园币以太币储备
比特币的加元报价
以太币的加元报价
USDT的加元报价

交易币种/月度交易量
家园币
加元交易对(比特币等)
USDT交易对(比特币等)
顶部