Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,076 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 55,787
Pageviews Today: 133,350Threads Today: 81Posts Today: 1,690
02:39 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Biotechnology Makes Food Safer and Better for the Environment

 
Pops77
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 3699530
United States
10/24/2011 04:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Biotechnology Makes Food Safer and Better for the Environment
[link to academicsreview.org]
Indeed, the use of more precise technology and greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods; and if there are unforeseen environmental effects – none have appeared as yet – these should be rapidly detected by our monitoring requirements. On the other hand, the benefits of these plants and products for human health and the environment become increasingly clear.

The safety of food components obtained from genetically modified crops is part of a much bigger issue of food safety. Food safety is a complex but fascinating topic to discuss, because food is itself is both chemically very complicated and absolutely essential for human survival. Food’s wonderful flavors, colors and aromas all come from an extraordinarily large chemical palette that we all delight in savoring when taking a delicious mouthful.
Pops77  (OP)

User ID: 3699530
United States
10/24/2011 04:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Biotechnology Makes Food Safer and Better for the Environment
Jeffry Smith is a fraud!!! Scam Artist.
[link to academicsreview.org]
Pops77  (OP)

User ID: 3699530
United States
10/24/2011 04:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Biotechnology Makes Food Safer and Better for the Environment
A panel of experts, the Royal Society and food-safety scientists in regulatory agencies around the world, all have concluded that the study does not demonstrate that the GM potatoes were unsafe in any way. Although Pusztai travels around the globe fear-mongering about the dangers of GM crops, it is ironic that even if his study were correct, it would only prove that those specific potatoes were unsafe, and not that all GM crops are unsafe as he seems to be claiming. For the record, the potatoes in question were a research project; they were never submitted to regulators and they were never commercialized.

1.Experts say no scientific conclusion can be made from the work. Two separate expert panels reviewed this research and concluded that both the experimental design and conduct of the experiments were fatally flawed, and that no scientific conclusion should be drawn from the work (Royal Society 1999; Fedoroff and Brown 2004). Smith fails to tell us this. When The Lancet published the work, editors there published a critical analysis in the same issue (Kuiper 1999). The media has devoted little time and space to these critical analyses of Pusztai’s claims.
2.No differences were seen between the groups of animals. Experts who reviewed the data stated that there were no meaningful differences between control and experimental groups, that the same cellular differences could be seen in all groups—GM-fed or not—and that too few animals were used to allow statistical significance to be achieved (Royal Society 1999)
3.Flawed study design and improper diets doomed the study to failure. The diets were protein-deficient and different groups of rats received different diets. Some rats were fed raw potatoes – raw potatoes are toxic to rats and might cause disturbances to gastrointestinal cells. Three different varieties of potatoes were fed to the three different groups of rats (Royal Society 1999).
4.Science should be published in peer-reviewed literature and not on TV. Scientists are expected to submit their findings to peer-review and publication in scientific journals. In their review of the Pusztai claims, the Royal Society concluded that scientists should submit their work to journals (Royal Society 1999). Peer-review is not always a guarantee that researchers’ conclusions are sound either. Lancet published the paper by Ewen and Pusztai over the objections of reviewers: ( [link to news.bbc.co.uk] Perhaps in some misguided sense of fairness or balance, some journals have published unsound papers that make claims about the safety of GM crops (Shantharum and others 2008).