Genetski modifikovana hrana

[Meho Krljic]

Nemamo topik sa ovom temom? Sad imamo. Možda smo imali i ranije ali sam ja bio lenj da ga potražim? Sve je moguće!

Elem, priča o GM hrani je priča o još jednom frontu sukoba najmanje dva sveta. Iako se naravno genetska modifikacija biljaka & životinja koje čovek jede sprovodi već stolećima kroz ukrštanja, selektivno uzgajanje i hibride, poslednjih par decenija su prodori na ovom polju postali istovremeno i veoma duboki i kontroverzni. Od 1994. godine u slobodnoj prodaji se nalazi hrana (i seme) čije su genetske karakteristike promenjene direktnim intervencijama na DNK lancima i, vrlo gruo i pojednostavljeno rečeno, većina intervencija se bavi ili time da biljke učini otpornijim na određene hemijske agense (kako bi se uništile druge kulture a željena kultura prosperirala) ili da im se na neki način poboljšaju nutritivne karakteristike. Životinje dobijene sličnim tehnikama još se uglavnom ne prodaju ali se GM hrana daje životinjama koje se dalje jedu.

Kontroverze vezane za GM hranu su, kao što je za današnji svet gde svi mogu sve da kažu al niko nikog ne sluša karakteristično dosta zbunjujuće. Primarni su strahovi da se ne zna kako bi ta hrana mogla da utiče na konzumente - da li na njih lično ili na potomostvo - jer čoveku ipak, kao, nije dato da se igra boga i da li mi dovoljno znamo o genetici da bismo se ovako igrali. U ovom domenu stvari zapravo dosta dobro stoje jer za sada nema dokaza da GM hrana ima štetne posledice na ikoga ko je jede.

Drugi domen je političko-ekonomski i tiče se vlasništva nad DNK sekvencama koje se patentiraju i čiji vlasnici kasnije istiskuju "normalno" seme sa tržišta sve dok ne postignu monopol i onda pretvore zemljoradnike u svoje dužničke robove.

Pretpostavljam da će se o ovome pisati u budućnosti a za kikof post evo jedne studije koja veli da GM hrana nije štetna za zdravlje, nego da je, naprotiv, dobra za zdravlje i okolinu:

Genetically Modified Crops Are Safe, Report Says

Genetically modified crops on the market are not only safe, but appear to be good for people and the environment, experts determined in a report released Tuesday.
But the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are not just asking people to take their word for it. They're putting the evidence up on a website so skeptics — and they know there are plenty of them — can check for themselves.



"You can't just continue to have an opinion without backing it up with data," said Fred Gould, distinguished professor of entomology and co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University.
"Part of our approach here was to make this not just a report," added Gould, who chaired the expert committee that released the report. "This is all on a website. We hope that this report will open a conversation, not make some kind of a proclamation."
It's aimed not only at regulators, industry and other experts, but at the general public, as well.



"They really want somebody to say this is good or this is bad, we came to the conclusion that making any sweeping generalizations about genetically engineered crops is not appropriate," Gould told NBC News.
Perhaps surprisingly, given the huge debate over GMOs, only two types of genetically engineered crops are in wide use - one engineered to carry genes from a common bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt for short) that kills insects that eat it, and one that makes crops resistant to weedkillers.
But more than 90 percent of corn, soybeans and cotton grown in the U.S. is genetically modified.



"The committee delved into the relevant literature, heard from 80 diverse speakers, and read more than 700 comments from members of the public to broaden its understanding of issues surrounding GE crops," the report reads. Panel members read more than 900 reports.
"It was tiring but worthwhile, because it really brought to our attention a lot of studies we would not have looked at," said Dominique Brossard, chair of the department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin.
"Our process was really, really inclusive and attempted to address as much as possible the concerns that were raised by public comments."



A lot of concern centered on health effects. "The committee received a number of comments from people concerned that GE food consumption may lead to higher incidence of specific health problems including cancer, obesity, gastrointestinal tract illnesses, kidney disease, and such disorders as autism spectrum and allergies," the report reads.
"The committee also examined epidemiological data on incidence of cancers and other human-health problems over time and found no substantiated evidence that foods from GE crops were less safe than foods from non-GE crops."
Their conclusions:

   
• There is no evidence of large-scale health effects on people from genetically modified foods
• There is some evidence that crops genetically engineered to resist bugs have benefited people by reducing cases of insecticide poisoning
• Genetically engineered crops to benefit human health, such as those altered to produce more vitamin A, can reduce blindness and deaths die to vitamin A deficiency
• Using insect-resistant or herbicide-resistant crops did not damage plant or insect diversity and in some cases increased the diversity of insects.
• Sometimes the added genes do leak out to nearby plants - a process called gene flow - but there is no evidence it has caused harm.
• In general, farmers who use GM soybean, cotton, and corn make more money but it does depend on how bad pests are and farming practices.
• GM crops do reduce losses to pests
• If farmers use insect-resistant crops but don't take enough care, sometimes pest insects develop resistance

Outside experts said the report was thorough.
"I would certainly hope the report will reduce public concern about the safety of GE foods," said Ruth MacDonald Chair of the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at Iowa State University.
"This is yet another document that adds to the long list of those that have reached the same conclusion that there is no evidence that GE foods are a risk to human health."  "They can look to see if something we reference is funded by industry."  David Stern, president of the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research at Cornell, said the report will not end the debate.
"The report will provide fodder for friends and foes of GE, because each conclusion is accompanied by caveats," he said.



Gould said now people can look up the facts to answer their concerns. "Up until now we have been arguing in a content-free environment," he said.
And the report likely will not end arguments that all the experts are tainted because they work with companies that stand to profit from selling GM foods.
"Unfortunately, we can expect charges of industry bias in the Academy, even though this panel specifically sought input from well-known anti-GE activists," said Alan McHughen, a geneticist at the University of California, Riverside.
"The academy came under criticism (by academics including me) for engaging such non-experts with little or no scientific expertise, but that criticism now seems misplaced," McHughen added. He said it was important to listen to and to then rebut arguments.
And Gould said all the vested interests are revealed on the website. "They can look to see if something we reference is funded by industry," he said

[Krsta Klatić Klaja]

Нађеш младунче кита у шаргарепи.... одакле ови знају јел гмо штетан или није, како то може уопште да се истражи, нису то испитаници попут пушача

Мислим, генерално сам неутралан, ал како су ови извели доказ о користи

[Meho Krljic]

Pa vidiš šta navode:

   
• There is some evidence that crops genetically engineered to resist bugs have benefited people by reducing cases of insecticide poisoning
• Using insect-resistant or herbicide-resistant crops did not damage plant or insect diversity and in some cases increased the diversity of insects.
• Genetically engineered crops to benefit human health, such as those altered to produce more vitamin A, can reduce blindness and deaths die to vitamin A deficiency

I tako to...

[Krsta Klatić Klaja]

да, а прва тачка из комплетног текста је сасвим произвољна

Мислим да би прије сто година могли наћи тврдње да нема доказа о ларџскејл здравственим ефектима цигарета, просто то није реченица која ме у било шта увјерава

Рецимо, карцином, нешто за шта би се доказивање или побијање везе с гмо морало водити вишедеценијско истраживање

Евентуално да имају среће па налете на читаву нацију која не једе гмо и направе неку просту компарацију

[Biki]

кита у шаргарепи

[klem]

zeka jede šargarepu

[Biki]

Od kada je vreme da se edituje post skraceno sa sat vremena ?

[lilit]

Pretpostavljam da će se o ovome pisati u budućnosti a za kikof post evo jedne studije koja veli da GM hrana nije štetna za zdravlje, nego da je, naprotiv, dobra za zdravlje i okolinu:

Genetically Modified Crops Are Safe, Report Says

juče demonstracije protiv monsanta u celom svetu, austrija included. 4000 ljudi u bregenzu, što je prilično visoka cifra.

a kažu i da je monsanto uticao na report, mislim, nije da to nismo očekivali
GMOs Safe to Eat, Says Research Group That Takes Millions From Monsanto
http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/gmos-safe-to-eat-says-research-group-that-takes-millions-from-monsanto/

[Meho Krljic]

Stop Bashing G.M.O. Foods, More Than 100 Nobel Laureates Say

More than 100 Nobel laureates have a message for Greenpeace: Quit the G.M.O.-bashing.
Genetically modified organisms and foods are a safe way to meet the demands of a ballooning global population, the 109 laureates wrote in a letter posted online and officially unveiled at a news conference on Thursday in Washington, D.C.
Opponents, they say, are standing in the way of getting nutritious food to those who need it.
"Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia," the laureates wrote in the letter.
Proponents of genetically modified foods such as Golden Rice, which contains genes from corn and a bacterium, argue that they are efficient vehicles for needed nutrients. Opponents fear that foods whose genes are manipulated in ways that do not naturally occur might contaminate existing crops. And, they say, the debate distracts from the only guaranteed solution to malnutrition: promoting diverse, healthy diets.
"Corporations are overhyping 'Golden' rice to pave the way for global approval of other more profitable genetically engineered crops," Wilhelmina Pelegrina, a campaigner with Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said in a statement. "This costly experiment has failed to produce results for the last 20 years and diverted attention from methods that already work."
Richard J. Roberts, one of two winners of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, spearheaded the letter-writing effort to set the record straight.
"There's been a tremendous amount of misinformation being put out by Greenpeace," he said. Some plant scientists have been "attacked so fiercely" over their views that they've gone silent, Dr. Roberts said.
In the letter, the laureates — all but 10 of whom earned their prizes in the fields of physics, chemistry or medicine — contend that G.M.O.s have consistently been found to be safe. The Washington Post covered the group's efforts on Wednesday.
"Scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production," the group of laureates wrote. "There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity."
In a report released in May, the influential National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that genetically engineered crops appear to be generally safe to eat and safe for the environment. It resisted broad proclamations, however, calling such sweeping statements "problematic" because of a variety of factors that affect such an analysis.
Consumers Union, a policy division of the nonprofit Consumer Reports, has approached the issue with caution, calling for labeling and federal scrutiny to better understand foods that contain genetically modified components.
In 2014, the Pew Research Center found an enormous gap between the public and scientists on the issue. Just 37 percent of adults in the United States said genetically modified foods were safe to eat, while 88 percent of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science said the same.

[mac]

GMO hrana je možda bezbedna za jelo, ali nije bezbedna za naciju. Kada bi oslobodili patente na GMO hranu ja ne bih imao problema sa uzgajanjem i te hrane. Dokle god postoje patenti postoji i mogućnost da te kontrolišu. Nadam se da su nacije naučile lekcije iz MMF-a, koji je takođe vid kontrole, i da neće popustiti pred GMO.

A tu je i drugi problem. Ako se problem povećanog stanovništva rešava tako što ćemo praviti više hrane onda će rezultat biti još više stanovništva. Problem dakle neće biti rešen. Višak hrane ne treba da bude rešenje tog problema nego prosto efekat novih tehnologija. Problem povećanog stanovništva treba da se reši na druge načine.

[lilit]

Stop Bashing G.M.O. Foods, More Than 100 Nobel Laureates Say

pismo je u stvari podrška ne toliko GMO hrani već zlatnom pirinču (Golden Rice), vrsti koja je genetski izmenjena tako da sadrži beta-karoten, prekursor vitamina A, a sa idejom da se tretira hipovitaminoza vitamina A.
e sad, u životu ništa ne bi trebalo posmatrati van konteksta, pa tako i ovde ne bi bilo loše krenuti od činjenice da je zlatna riža nastavak takozvane zelene revolucije, perioda između recimo 1930-1970, kad smo krenuli da koristimo sintetička đubriva, pesticide, kompleksnije navodnjavanje, izdašne sojeve, etc.
naravno, treba se opsetiti i vremena u kom su vladali markos i lindon, stremljenja ka idealanom životu u kom nam sreću kvare samo vijetnam, kambodža, etc.

zlatni pirinač je onda došao kao ideja nemačkih naučnika, a problem sa idejama je što su one u teoriji uvek savršene: em imaš šta da jedeš, em je ta ishrana obogaćena onim što ti nedostaje.

ali.
golden rice ne postoji van filipina a ni tamo se nije jeo van kliničkih studija gde se nije najbolje pokazao: da bi organizam uspeo da koristi beta-karoten kao prekursor vitamina A, telo mora da ima bar neku količinu masti (vitamin A je nerastvorljiv u vodi). pošto to nije slučaj u ciljnoj populaciji, mnogo je efikasnije obogatiti hranu vitaminom A, što se i pokazalo kao efikasno na filipinima.
sve te priče kako je golden rice spasio tolike živote su trenutno pjur PR pošto distribucije nema.

tako da su i ovo pismo nobelovaca kao i green peace propaganda podjednako neefikasne u targetovanju problema gladi u svetu al to nije ni prvi ni poslednji put.

[mac]

Bajer kupio Monsanto za 50 milijardi evra!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bayer-and-monsanto-expected-to-announce-takeover-1473839357

Berni Sanders zapenio!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/14/bayer-takeover-monsanto-66-billion-deal

[Meho Krljic]

Moj brat radi u Bajeru i veli da su dugo na sastancima borda diskutovali o tome da će im reputacija biti malo ukaljana kupovinom Monsanta ali da je projektovani profit toliki da nije bilo baš mnogo protivljenja tom potezu... Bajer, naravno, najveće profite pravi na farmakološkim proizvodima, ali ne žele da sva jaja drže u jednoj korpi...

[scallop]

Kad stignemo do profita, onda smo na tragu. Ne rešavaju oni nijedan problem osim tog problema.


Umoran sam od objašnjavanja da GMO prisvaja poljoprivredu, a to je kao kad bi nam malo doterali sastav vazduha da nam ga posle naplaćuju. Monsanto nije registrovao svoje GMO kao nove sorte, nego kao sredstvo za zaštitu bilja, sa tendencijom da prisvoje, recimo, proizvodnju krompira. Tako, Mc Donalds, radi pouzdanog ugovaranja količina krompira za pomfrit, već isključuje sve vrste osim Monsantove. Pa, vi vidite šta će biti ako sorta GMO Russet pukne evolutivno pa ostanemo bez krompira. Sve ostalo šta im se pripisuje je koješta. Možda, čak, finansiraju tu opoziciju, jer mogu da je demantuju.


Onima koji i dalje nemaju jasnu sliku preporučujem da ponovo pročitaju "Smrt trave".