「GMOコーンと非Gmoコーンの間に違いはない」という主張は誤りです。昨日、湖でのプレイデート中に、カナダで唯一の非GMOトウモロコシ種子会社であるDe Dell Seed CompanyのVinceが、行進とGMOについて知るアメリカ人を支援するために私に電話をかけました。彼は私にこの素晴らしいレポートを電子メールで送り、GMOコーンと非GMOコーンの栄養価の違いを明確に示しました。私は床に座りました。同時に、グリホサートは生物の重要な栄養素を引き出し、GMOトウモロコシはそれで覆われているので、まったく驚くことではありません。
これらの欠陥で注意すべき重要なことは、これらがまさに人間の欠陥であり、病気、障害、および癌への感受性につながるということです。骨粗鬆症の人はカルシウムとマグネシウムが少なく、癌の人はマンガンが少ないです。リストはどんどん増えていきます。
GMOコーンには14ppmのカルシウムが含まれており、非GMOコーンには6130ppmが含まれています。 437X以上。
GMOコーンには2ppmのマグネシウムが含まれており、非GMOコーンには113ppmが含まれています。 56X以上。
GMOコーンには2ppmのマンガンが含まれており、非GMOコーンには14ppmが含まれています。 7X以上。
Look at the levels of Formaldehyde and Glyphosate IN the corn! The EPA standard for Glyphosate in water in America is .7ppm. European Tests showed organ damage to animals at .1ppb (.0001ppm) of Glyphosate in water. Our water levels allow glyphosate 7,000X higher than what has been shown to be toxic in animals. This corn has 13 ppm! 130,000 times higher than what is toxic in the water!*
フーバー博士が報告した研究では、エリザベス・ドハティのトークラジオで、.97ppmのホルムアルデヒドが動物への摂取に有毒であることが示されました。このとうもろこしは200Xです!そのため、動物は選択を与えられてもそれをまったく食べず、ホルムアルデヒドの匂いを嗅ぐことができます!
このレポートをあなたの議会、農民、ニュース編集者、学区の食品サービス、そしてお母さんと共有してください。
栄養不足、外来タンパク質、毒素、グリホサートの散布、または農薬の注射を子供たちに与えるとはもうありません。私たちは彼らの安全の嘘を食べられることもありません!
このレポートを共有し、GMOラベル付けとGMOフリー化で南北アメリカをサポートしてくれたDeDellに感謝します。
UPDATE: FOR MORE INFO see video: http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/more_info_on_2012_corn_comparison_report
*このブログは、元の投稿から.1ppmを.1ppbに修正するように修正されました。これは、実際にははるかに憂慮すべき事実を反映しています。この重要なタイプミスをお詫び申し上げます。今後、より徹底的な編集をお約束します。
禅ハニーカット
52反応を表示しています
It is critical in these times of obvious escalating health problems to know exactly what is being changed in these massive experiments on our children [autism], adults [obesity, diabetes, cancer] and the resulting health epidemics that we are observing.
Are you not concerned about the children?
We have a right to know what we are eating.
In the mean time, Moms don’t care if anyone has 1000 years of being a scientist….we have our kids right in front of us, kids with life threatening allergies, autism, tics, stammering, rashes and digestive problems, all get better when they get off GMOs. Please, do take a screen shot and tell your class that! That will really help the skyrocketing numbers of kids and young adults who suffer needlessly from the toxins on our food. Thanks for your passion. Please share it.
If you truly believe that GMOs are safe and necessary in our world, that is your perrogative -ACCEPT that at this point in time WE DON’T! Give us some truly independent research on the subject INSTEAD of focusing on all of the anti-gmo movement’s apparent flaws. Picking apart a small piece of data shared on an ANTI GMO site is probably NOT going to be evidence enough for us! Where is this NON INDUSTRY FUNDED long term research that proves to a large extent that GMOs are SAFE??? So far, we haven’t seen it! INSTEAD, last year, we see the FIRST long term study on rats from Professor Seralini which clearly shows that rats eating the GMO maize DID get massive tumours and die prematurely!!!
Furthermore, as a truly independent scientist you sign the petition against the labeling of GMOs. Why would you bother to even sign this if you were not heavily LINKED to BIOTECH companies themselves??? HOW would getting GMOs labelled actually impact on your lecture duties at Universities and beyond? Obviously, it IS in your BEST interests to PROMOTE BIOTECH and REALLY HARD!…SO that’s what you DO on other blogs and that’s what you attempted to DO here…
You have certainly NOT given us the PROS and CONS of GMOs.
We DON’T trust scientists with a clear industry connections and AGENDA cos they are NEVER genuinely interested in the SCIENCE.
Further information on the scientist on this post who started raving on about HOW unscientific/ misleaded etc. we all are thinking GMOs are different and dangerous, REVEALS that Kevin Folta was one of the signatures on the ‘PETITION in SUPPORT of BIOTECHNOLOGY and OPPOSED to MANDATORY LABELLING of GE FOODS!!’ This petition is mostly sponsored by the Council for Biotechnology and Information and Grocery Manufacturers Association. (See – www.scientistsopposebadlabellaw.com.)
A neutral academic scientist ONLY trying to educate US on the boons of GMOs??? AS we say in Australia, " I don’t bloody well think so!" LOL!
It could be extremely difficult to know that nearly all GMO giants eat or ban GM foods but the leakage of just below 3 giants that have banned GM foods is more than shocking and moral! So it is obvious for whom the toxic/poisonous GM food is prepared.
1. Monsanto’s caterers ban GM foods
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/574245.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/dec/22/gm.food
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-food-banned-in-monsanto-canteen-737948.html
2. Cargill (USA), Monsanto’s big partner, have been buying non-GM soybeans from China under strict supervision
This is from China’s government source in 2011. The article says:
Even Cargill USA, the world giant in trading and processing of soybeans, also import non-GM soybeans from China.
Almost all foreign buyers require that the raw material of protein powder for food be non-GM soybeans. Importers from Japan and USA not only stipulate strict requirements in contracts but also dispatch personnel to inspect the growing environment of the raw materials and the growing technologies, and also conduct testing by themselves on the soybean raw materials. Some of them even station reps in processing workshops for supervision to prevent raw materials from being mixed with GM soybeans.
Five years ago, just more than 10 countries imported soybean protein powder from China, but that number has increased to more than 50 now.
3. Monsanto’s close friend in China, Ministry of Agriculture, bans GM foods themselves and in their kindergartens as well.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/675011/Anti-GM-food-protesters-claim-crops-are-unsafe.aspx
[They carried banners accusing the ministry of being traitors who approve of the industrialization of GM staple foods in China, and of caring little about residents’ health.
According to protesters, the officials avoided important questions in the subsequent discussion, which were directly related to their own interests.
“Do you eat GM food? I asked, and they said, ‘yes.’ But when we requested that we send inspectors to their cafeteria, they refused,” said one of the protesters, who insisted on anonymity.
“The ministry is advocating the commercialization of GM food in China, while banning it from their tables at the same time,” he told the Global Times. GM food can affect human fertility and the functions of internal organs, he said.
According to protesters, the kindergarten of the Ministry of Agriculture had at one time published a notice on their website for newly recruited children, to guarantee the cooking oil they used was not genetically modified.
“Why would they popularize it while keeping themselves and their children from it?” said the anonymous protester.]
My remarks: My over-3-year study shows that, in order to make the whole China genetically modified, China’s Ministry of Agriculture and its affiliated GMO promoters or so-called scientists have invented about 25 big lies to cheat all the governments and all the people in China. Ironically, what kind of science has to survive purely on big lies? The funniest big lie is that when farmers in USA have been fighting a hard-to-win battle against superweeds for about 5 years which have been in existence for more than 10 years, the Ministry declared on its official website “Till now there is no evidence showing the existence of such a thing as superweeds.”!
The above are just a few reps of worldwide GMO promoters and developers that ban GM foods themselves. Anyone with the right head can see why thye ban GM foods.
What about the new GMO giant Bill Gates? Who can find out if he and his family eat GM food or not?
J Environ Sci (China). 2006;18(4):734-40.
Abstract
Soil properties, microbial communities and enzyme activities were studied in soil amended with replicase (RP)-transgenic or non-transgenic papaya under field conditions. Compared with non-transgenic papaya, significant differences (P
In China we often say “One says what he thinks. One does what he says.” Or simply, if someone says something bad to good people, will he do good things to good people? Just the contrary. Obviously, pro-GMO folks often use rough or bad words to attack opponents. So are the GMOs they have been pushing onto our table good or bad? Who says what does what.
A key deception is that GMO technists always try to put themselves in the sky and all others on the ground by saying “you have not learned modern molecular biology and you have no right to comment on or critisize or refuse GMOs” or “GMO is science. If you object to GMOs, you are against science.”, etc. My thinking is that people all over the world are not eating molecular biology or science, they are eating simple food. Safety or non-toxicity is the basic standard or requirement for any food. Concern for food safety is a basic human right. Unfortunately all independent studies, researches done by scientists and worldwide facts have proven that GMOs are harmful to environment, animals and humans. So why cannot people follow the good independent scientists and facts and question the safety of GMOs? Will a good scientist who does good things to people and the world think the opposite? Definitely NO.
As the above-mentioned GMO advocate has said the data in the chart might not be based on corn, and solid source is not available yet, I will not recommend it to others. However, as all GMOs based on resistance have many properties in common, I can safely say that GM corn and non-GM corn will definitely have shocking differences and are not substantially equivalent even if this chart were misused. Their impact on environment, such as soil, also vary significantly. These are speculations based on facts and reasonable analogy. Science allows this kind of speculation, doesn’t it? Will biotech science allow this too? If they do not allow, the only way out is to publicize the testing results from an independent lab. Let’s keep our fingers crossed for this?
Below are 5 authoritative examples of substantial/significant differences instead of substantial equivalence between GMOs and non-GMOs by independent sources mostly in different countries.
1. GM rice vs. non-GM rice
Unintended Compositional Changes in Transgenic Rice Seeds (Oryza sativa L.) Studied by Spectral and Chromatographic Analysis Coupled with Chemometrics Methods
J. Agric. Food Chem., 2010, 58 (3), pp 1746–1754 DOI: 10.1021/jf902676y
Abstract
Unintended compositional changes in transgenic rice seeds were studied by near-infrared reflectance, GC-MS, HPLC, and ICP-AES coupled with chemometrics strategies. Three kinds of transgenic rice with resistance to fungal diseases or insect pests were comparatively studied with the nontransgenic counterparts in terms of key nutrients such as protein, amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins, elements, and antinutrient phytic acid recommended by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The compositional profiles were discriminated by chemometrics methods, and the discriminatory compounds were protein, three amino acids, two fatty acids, two vitamins, and several elements. Significance of differences for these compounds was proved by analysis of variance, and the variation extent ranged from 20 to 74% for amino acids, from 19 to 38% for fatty acids, from 25 to 57% for vitamins, from 20 to 50% for elements, and 25% for protein, whereas phytic acid content did not change significantly. The unintended compositional alterations as well as unintended change of physical characteristic in transgenic rice compared with nontransgenic rice might be related to the genetic transformation, the effect of which needs to be elucidated by additional studies.
2. Proteomics as a Complementary Tool for Identifying Unintended Side Effects Occurring in Transgenic Maize Seeds As a Result of Genetic Modifications
Journal of Proteome Research 2008, 7, 1850–1861 Received 8月 6, 2007
ABSTRACT
To improve the probability of detecting unintended side effects during maize gene manipulations by bombardment, proteomics was used as an analytical tool complementary to the existing safety assessment techniques. Since seed proteome is highly dynamic, depending on the species variability and environmental influence, we analyzed the proteomic profiles of one transgenic maize variety (event MON 810) in two subsequent generations (T05 and T06) with their respective isogenic controls (WT05 and WT06). Thus, by comparing the proteomic profiles of WT05 with WT06 we could determine the environmental effects, while the comparison between WT06 and T06 seeds from plants grown under controlled conditions enabled us to investigate the effects of DNA manipulation. Finally, by comparison of T05 with T06 seed proteomes, it was possible to get some indications about similarities and differences between the adaptations of transgenic and isogenic plants to the same strictly controlled growth environment. Approximately 100 total proteins resulted differentially modulated in the expression level as a consequence of the environmental influence (WT06 vs WT05), whereas 43 proteins resulted up- or down-regulated in transgenic seeds with respect to their controls (T06 vs WT06), which could be specifically related to the insertion of a single gene into a maize genome by particle bombardment. Transgenic seeds responded differentially to the same environment as compared to their respective isogenic controls, as a result of the genome rearrangement derived from gene insertion. To conclude, an exhaustive differential proteomic analysis allows to determine similarities and differences between traditional food and new products (substantial equivalence), and a case-by-case assessment of the new food should be carried out in order to have a wide knowledge of its features.
(My remarks: This study was obviously done against the non-GM corn which has been in existence for tens of year as hybrids or thousand of years as natural species.)
3. Comparative Studies Involving Transgenic and Non-Transgenic Soybean: What is Going On?
Submission date: 25. 6月, 2012
DOI: 10.5772/52212
Conclusion
The initial hypothesis formulated that the genetic modification itself is stressing the soybean, is apparently right, once the plant is searching a new equilibrium as living organism. The results presented in this chapter demonstrate that not only is the proteomic map changed with some proteins increasing and others decreasing, but also chromatographic separations are altered when transgenic and non-transgenic soybeans are compared. Examples are activities of some enzymes (as CAT, SOD, GPx, among others) involved in neutralization of ROS, as well as the possible capacity in taking metals from the soil (mainly for Fe and Cu). Because of these modifications that occur when both transgenic and non-transgenic organisms are compared, the theme of genetic modification could be even better explained with some alternative strategies, such as quantitative proteomics, image analysis, tracer experiments with stable isotopes, and other possibilities.
Finally, in our point of view, one of the key points for the success of studies involving transgenic organisms is not only to involve good technology, but also a transdisciplinary view, involving different areas of expertise. With this strategy, it will be easier to understand this area of investigation, making possible the demystification of the genetic modification that have occurred, and allowing answers for some questions that still remain unknown.
4. Field released transgenic papaya effect on soil microbial communities and enzyme activities
J Environ Sci (China). 2006;18(4):734-40.
Abstract
Soil properties, microbial communities and enzyme activities were studied in soil amended with replicase (RP)-transgenic or non-transgenic papaya under field conditions. Compared with non-transgenic papaya, significant differences (P
Don’t you wonder why Monsanto had the EPA raise the level of acceptable glyphosate to 13ppm the year before this report came out? They knew. They also had reasons for pushing to get the Monsanto Protection Act passed so they could not be sued from harm due to GMO seeds…just when this report came out.
To anyone else tempted to discredit this report..I am going by my Momma’s sayings, " If you can’t say anything nice don’t say anything at all" . I don’t want the negativity on my site. Take what you like and leave the rest. Your opinion about the report is not more important than Moms finding out that studies have been done and the results are not in favor of our kids health. Besides the report, many moms have told us that their kids have IMPROVED by going GMO Free. My own kids incuded. THAT is all the proof we need.
As Moms, all we have on the line is our families’ health. You cannot take our jobs away from us, and you cannot stop us from sharing. If we see anything that is a red flag to our families’s health, we will let others know about it. “Better to be safe than sorry.”
Furthermore, you have attempted to tell me you have taken the academic route rather than the BIG AG direction in your science career and yet you were interviewed on the www.biofortified.org blog which is run by GM PROMOTERS themselves! ‘Have a Beer with Kevin Folta,’ was one such interview I noticed. Interestingly, this biotech blog www.biofortified.org appears to be Monsanto’s websites TOP biotech Blog!! And you tell me you have no affiliations with BIG AG???? Really?
That’s why the general public (myself included) NO LONGER respect SOME scientists and get tired of THEM discrediting information that doesn’t fit in with their ulterior motives ie. to convince people who are ANTI GMO that they are all stupid, their independent scientists are as well and that we all should happily embrace GMOs without question!
Unfortunately, this IS NOT HAPPENING. Evidence is mounting against against GMO…Even your friends at Monsanto are a little scared, threatening to sue EFSA for publishing their GM NK603 maize study online! Obviously, not the best science happened here…They should be feeling proud of their work BUT instead they want to hide it and certainly don’t want any of the ANTI GMO crowd to review it! But I guess that’s a bit late now…
For now I urgently need the orignal source of the 2 charts comparing the GMO corn and Non-GMO corn on this page. Can someone kindly provide this information to me if available? E-mail abcgoldfit#126.com (please change into e-mail format when e-mailing).
FYI, GM rice has been illegally widely grown in China the past few years. Two universities has tested samples and findings are shocking.The difference in one nutrient between natural rice and GM rice is 74% and other differences are also big. So GMO and Non-GMO are actually almost 2 different things. Instead of saying they are substantially equivalent, we can safely say they are substantially different.
The Queensland University of Technology (QUT) signed an agreement with India’s department of biotechnology to invest in a four-year project to develop the iron-rich bananas.
Check this out:
http://preventdisease.com/news/13/032713_Scientists-Engineer-Genetically-Modified-Bananas-Despite-Hundreds-of-Studies-on-Their-Adverse-Impacts.shtml?utm_source=032713&utm_campaign=032713&utm_medium=email
There is another court case proceeding at the Provincial high court, a public interest litigation between some citizens and the Govt of India – where evidence is produced at the court that Monsanto and its partners have violated the Biodiversity preservation act of 2002, by sequencing the genome of Indian Eggplant without prior permission and then tinkering with it to patent a GM plant called Bt. Brinjal. This violation amounts to Biopiracy. The court case aims to again force the Govt of India for suing Monsanto for Biopiracy, deny its licence on Bt. Egg Plant (locally called Bt.Brinjal) and perhaps revoke or restrict its future activity in India with regard to stealing India’s collective intellectual property – its biomass.
I hope your post helps to expand the awareness of the public and those that are so opposed to labeling gmos, and those that believe we need to continue using gmos. Seriously people, what would you rather eat? Food chock full of nutrients, or food that is basically cardboard? What do you want your kids eating every day? Lesser quality corn with formaldehyde in it?
Check out this quote: “Currently, up to 85 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as are 91 percent of soybeans and 88 percent of cotton (cottonseed oil is often used in food products). According to industry, up to 95% of sugar beets are now GE. It has been estimated that upwards of 70 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves–from soda to soup, crackers to condiments–contain genetically engineered ingredients.”
(SOURCE: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/campaign/genetically-engineered-food/crops/)
Thanks for that post, Moms Across America- let’s do this together. Awareness is the key. Thank you!!
Ellen in Eugene