Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On another C-D sub-forum, this poster is arguing that vegetables add little to no nutrition to your diet. This goes against pretty much every practical thing I ever thought I knew about vegetables. Now, since I'm too tired (and lazy) at the moment to do any significant digging, I figured I'd come to the veggie crowd for their insights. Have you ever heard or read about substantial cases where raw vegetables were not considered nutritional? I'm not talking about veggies with pesticides here. I'm simply talking about raw, unadulterated vegetables. Is this guy just spouting off ignorant non-sense, or am I off base here?
you are certainly not off base and I am anything but a vegetarian. Of course veggies, raw are a great source of almost any vitamen and nutrients, some more than others. There are a few veggies that will give you more vits by steaming, broccoli is one. BTW, even those with pesticide spray give you needed vits, it is just a matter of how much poison you inhale when eating them and that is a matter of opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Every food group offers things that we need for our bodies, be it calcium, vit A, B, protien, whatever. I wonder where the poster is getting her/his information..??
The science community is only gradually coming to understand that vegetables have things in them that you need to survive. Only a few years ago I was sitting in a lecture by the home ec trainer for the Cooperative Extension Service and she told us with a straight face that corn has no nutritional value. None. That information is straight out of the 1950s, for pete's sake, and they're still spreading it around as if it were fact.
The science community is only gradually coming to understand that vegetables have things in them that you need to survive. Only a few years ago I was sitting in a lecture by the home ec trainer for the Cooperative Extension Service and she told us with a straight face that corn has no nutritional value. None. That information is straight out of the 1950s, for pete's sake, and they're still spreading it around as if it were fact.
Most of the corn sold in the U.S. is genetically modified. Seven European countries have stopped importing our GM corn....the latest is France whose government tests showed that all rats fed a diet of GM corn died prematurely with tumors and/or cancer.
GM corn is not good for us and it is hidden in many, many foods that most of us eat on a daily basis - especially those who eat a lot of processed foods.
Most of the corn sold in the U.S. is genetically modified. Seven European countries have stopped importing our GM corn....
But those bans are fear-based, rather than evidence-based. And as the years roll by and the scientific evidence mounts that fear of GM foods is groundless, there are signs that resistance to GM foods has peaked and bans are starting to be rolled back in some places. The USFDA places no restriction on the growth and sale of approved GM foods because there is no scientific reason to.
Just last month, leading environmentalist and one of the original founders of the anti-GM movement, Mark Lynas, delivered a major speech to the Oxford Farm Conference, in which he announced that after years of study, he has concluded that his opposition to GM foods was an error, and that in fact GM foods are a major hope for the environment. Mark Lynas, environmentalist who opposed GMOs, admits he was wrong.
Quote:
the latest is France whose government tests showed that all rats fed a diet of GM corn died prematurely with tumors and/or cancer.
This comment is inaccurate on several counts... first, it was not the French government who did the research, but a French researcher who has a long history as a highly biased activist against GM foods. Within two days of publication this study was completely demolished by independent researchers as being so flawed as to be worthless. He chose a special breed of rats for the study that develop tumors spontaneously, no matter what you feed them. He kept them for two years, when they are only considered reliable to be used for 90 days. It was a small test... he used only 10 rats, when 50 is considered the minimum size group for statistically significant results in this kind of study, and only one rat died, not all of them. The data collection was flawed. Etc. Many peers in the scientific community now regard the research as a deliberate fraud.
There is no reliable scientific evidence to support that statement. GM foods have been on the market in the US since 1994. In all that time there is no significant scientific research showing that GM foods are less nutritious, nor that they are harmful to eat. As a matter of fact, the opposite is true. GM foods are not only more productive, and typically use less fertilizer and pesticide and water and land, in many cases they have enhanced nutritional qualities. One such bioengineered super-food is Golden Rice, which contains biosynthesized beta-carotene, and is intended to prevent some of the 670,000 annual deaths and cases of blindness that occur among children under 5 due to dietary related Vitamin A insufficiency. It's been ready to begin saving lives for years, but sadly irrational anti-GM fears, not scientific evidence, have thus far kept it from being grown commercially.
If you personally wish to avoid buying GM foods, in spite of the scientific evidence that they are just as nutritious if not more so than non-GMO foods, then simply buy Certified Organic.
Most of the corn sold in the U.S. is genetically modified. Seven European countries have stopped importing our GM corn....the latest is France whose government tests showed that all rats fed a diet of GM corn died prematurely with tumors and/or cancer.
GM corn is not good for us and it is hidden in many, many foods that most of us eat on a daily basis - especially those who eat a lot of processed foods.
I agree with OpenD on this one. The link between GMO products and health implications is still in theory. It's worth the research, but nonetheless still a theory.
The rat study had many flaws. In fact there were so many flaws, that many scientists believe it should not have been published. It was not funded by the French government but a French research science team. As OpenD said, the sample size was too small to be valid. Nutrition animal studies are difficult, and it's very hard to extrapolate from animal to human regarding food (e.g. avocados, grapes, and dark chocolate are healthy for humans in moderation, but poisonous to dogs in low doses). Also lab rats and mice are genetically engineered so they they over-express cancer genes and are often immune deficient.
To make any sufficient link between an exposure and cancer, you need dozens of studies showing almost identical or similar results - both toxicological and epidemiological. You also need a risk assessment analysis after you've conducted the toxicological and epidemiological studies. One study means nothing.
Hmmm...yet 7 countries have banned U.S. corn importation - I'm sure they have no idea what they are doing. The statements that OpenD has made are his opinion or the opinion of Monsanto or other like companies who are doing all that they can to counteract the studies being done on genetically engineered foods like soybeans and corn - after all they are a billion dollar coporation - they couldn't possibly have any motive for disparaging the findings of studies that find their products dangerous or suspect or the decisions of 7 countries to ban importation of certain gm products.
It makes sense to me that when you change the genetics of a plant that is consumed by human beings that there will be adverse consequences....but you go ahead and eat genetically engineered food and I will choose not to do so if I can help it.
Hmmm...yet 7 countries have banned U.S. corn importation - I'm sure they have no idea what they are doing. The statements that OpenD has made are his opinion or the opinion of Monsanto or other like companies who are doing all that they can to counteract the studies being done on genetically engineered foods like soybeans and corn - after all they are a billion dollar coporation - they couldn't possibly have any motive for disparaging the findings of studies that find their products dangerous or suspect or the decisions of 7 countries to ban importation of certain gm products.
It is not an opinion the link between GMO corn and cancer. For any health study, it is a rule by the IRB that you need multiple studies in order for something to be considered a carcinogen or cause cancer. Right now this is only a theory based on one weak study. Yes, the study was considered weak for many reasons.
Europe never used GMO corn as much as we did in the US, simply because European countries are much smaller in population. A ban on something doesn't always mean there is sufficient scientific evidence that it causes health implications but rather the publics opinion and feelings. The European Food Safety Authority, rejected the GMO corn study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cattknap
It makes sense to me that when you change the genetics of a plant that is consumed by human beings that there will be adverse consequences....but you go ahead and eat genetically engineered food and I will choose not to do so if I can help it.
Possibly, but you need to conduct a molecular biology in vivo study in order to prove and feel completely confident about that.
I do think the idea that GMOs can induce health implications is interesting, worthy of more research, and something to keep in mind. However, as a scientists I cannot go around saying there is valid evidence that GMOs lead to health implications. I have no problem with people avoiding GMO food either way if they are skeptical.
Fact is, cancer is a very complex disease, still after years of research is not even well understood by some of the best cancer biologists or research oncologists. Our bodies can repair damaged DNA, much of cancer is genetic predisposition where people over-express proto-onco genes or under-express tumor suppressor genes. It is rare that one carcinogen (few examples is asbestos, DES) alone can induce cancer without acting additively/synergistically with other chemicals and/or genetic influences. Reason why cigarettes cause lung cancer is because they contain 50+ carcinogens.
]Hmmm...yet 7 countries have banned U.S. corn importation - I'm sure they have no idea what they are doing[/b]. The statements that OpenD has made are his opinion or the opinion of Monsanto or other like companies who are doing all that they can to counteract the studies being done on genetically engineered foods like soybeans and corn - after all they are a billion dollar coporation - they couldn't possibly have any motive for disparaging the findings of studies that find their products dangerous or suspect or the decisions of 7 countries to ban importation of certain gm products.
It makes sense to me that when you change the genetics of a plant that is consumed by human beings that there will be adverse consequences....but you go ahead and eat genetically engineered food and I will choose not to do so if I can help it.
Yes, thats what happen when fear-mongering and political agenda replace facts. The same reasons x countries refuse to do anything about human contribution to global climate change - facts are irrleavant when it comes to dogmas.
Every plant you eat has had its genetics changed. Look at wild potatoes verus the type you eat, or the original corn. You're hung up on the DNA being changed by man rather than the DNA being changed by cross-breeding. You think the latter is better than the former. The latter is somehow ok, and the fomer is somehow dangerous. Its a gut feeling you have, fair enough. But there's no "sense" basis for it though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
.
