keskiviikko 19. marraskuuta 2014

Ravintolisien terveysväittämät

Ravintolisät ovat elintarvikkeita, joten myös markkinoinnissa ravintolisiä koskevat samat säädökset kuin muitakin elintarvikkeita.
  

Elintarvikkeiden pakkausmerkinnöissä, esillepanossa tai mainonnassa käytettäviä ravitsemus- ja terveysväitteitä säätelee 1.7.2007 voimaan tullut Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetus (EY) N:o 1924/2006 elintarvikkeita koskevista ravitsemus- ja terveysväitteistä.



Terveysväiteasetuksen piiriin kuuluviksi väitteiksi katsotaan:
  • kaikki kaupallisessa viestinnässä esitetyt väitteet, jotka koskevat elintarvikkeiden hyödyllisiä ominaisuuksia, ja joita käytetään lopulliselle kuluttajalle tarkoitettujen elintarvikkeiden pakkausmerkintöihin, esillepanoon tai mainontaan.
    Väiteasetusta sovelletaan vain kaupalliseen viestintään.

 Terveysväiteasetuksen piiriin EI kuulu:
  • esimerkiksi julkisten terveysviranomaisten ja elinten antama ravitsemusohjaus tai –neuvonta
  • lehdistön ei-kaupallinen viestintä ja tiedotus
  • tieteellisien julkaisuiden viestintä ja tiedotus
  • vain ammattilaisille annettava informaatio


 MISTÄ TIETOA HYVÄKSYTYISTÄ JA HYLÄTYISTÄ TERVEYSVÄITTÄMISTÄ?

EU:n sisällä sallittujen elintarvikkeisiin liittyvien terveysväittämien osalta päätöksen tekee EU-komissio. Komission sivut ovat ajantasainen keino seurata elintarvikkeisiin liittyviä terveysväittämiä.

Tietoa terveysväittämien hakuprosessista ja arviointikriteereistä löydät osoitteesta:
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/ndatopics/topic/nutrition.htm

Ajantasainen terveysväiterekisteri (EU Register on nutrition and health claims) löytyy Euroopan komission sivuilta. Rekisteristä löytyvät terveysväitteet, jotka on hyväksytty (Authorised) ja hylätty (Non-authorised). Rekisteristä voi tehdä hakuja tai tietokannan voi ladata Excel- tai pdf-tiedostona.
EFSA:n tuoreet kuulumiset löytyy EFSA Journalista
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/latest.htm
_________________________


supermarket by graviola.fi at amazon



 HUOM! - SIVUSTO ON  TARKOITETTU VAIN AMMATTILAISILLE!
TÄLLÄ SIVUSTOLLA JULKAISTUT TIETEELLISET TUTKIMUKSET OVAT SALASANASUOJATUT.
- Tilaa käyttäjätunnukset ja salasanat sivun alaosan lomakkeella.
JOS OLET KULUTTAJA JA ASUT SUOMESSA, ÄLÄ JATKA LUKEMISTA. 

Graviola, suomeksi Oka-annoona (Annona muricata) on annoonien (Annona) sukuun ja annoonakasvien heimoon kuuluva ainavihanta koppisiemeninen puulaji. Oka-annoonaa viljellään trooppisilla alueilla suurten, makeiden hedelmiensä vuoksi. Hedelmää kutsutaan suomeksi paitsi suvun yleisnimityksellä annoona, myös nimillä guanabana ja graviola, jotka ovat alunperin kasvin espanjan- ja portugalinkieliset nimet
 Hedelmä on noin 30–40 cm pitkä, sen kuori on vihreä, paksu ja piikikäs. Hedelmä on muodoltaan usein epäsymmetrinen. Hedelmäliha on valkoista, 1–2 cm pitkät siemenet kiiltäviä ja mustia.

Oka-annoonan kypsää hedelmää voidaan syödä sellaisenaan, mutta useammin hedelmäliha puristetaan siivilän läpi, jolloin sitä voi käyttää pirtelöiden, jäätelön, hillojen, siirapin tai mehujen valmistuksessa.
Siitä tehdään myös makeisia.

 Oka-annoonassa on tavallisesti hedelmän painosta noin kaksi kolmasosaa syötävää hedelmälihaa, hedelmän kuorta noin 20%, siemeniä 8–9% ja loput noin 4% sitkeää hedelmäydintä.

Hedelmä on parhaiten tunnettu trooppisessa Etelä-Amerikassa ja eteläisessä Aasiassa, jossa se on yleinen jälkiruokien ainesosa. Filippiineillä raakoja hedelmiä, joiden siemenet eivät ole vielä kovettuneet, käytetään myös vihanneksena.
Oka-annoona on pienehkö, 5–10m korkeaksi kasvava ainavihanta puu. Se on yleensä suorarunkoinen, ja oksat ovat ylöspäin suuntautuneet nuorilla yksilöillä. Juuristo on matala ja sivusuuntaisesti leviävä. Kaarna on nuorena sileä ja harmahtavan ruskea, vanhemmiten uurteinen. Soikeat, yleensä 7–15 cm pitkät lehdet ovat kiiltäväpintaiset yläpinnalta, harmahtavan mattapintaiset alapuolelta. Lehdet ovat vastakkaisesti oksissa.
Suuret kukat ovat paksuilla varsilla kiinni oksissa. Kehälehtiä on kuusi kahdessa kerroksessa, kolme ulompaa ovat suurempia kuin sisemmät. Emejä on useita. Kukat ovat avoinna vain öisin, pölyttäjinä toimivat kovakuoriaiset. Syötävä hedelmä on yleensä 20–30 cm pitkä, joskus jopa 40 cm pitkä, lähes 20 cm leveä ja painaa yleensä noin 1,5–2 kg, mutta voi painaa jopa 7 kg. Hedelmä on rakenteeltaan kerranaishedelmä, joka koostuu kukan useiden emien sisältämistä useista erillisistä siemenaiheista varren ympärillä.


Alkuperä ja jakelu
Vuonna 1526 espanjalainen tutkimusmatkailija Oviedo (Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo), kuvasi soursop: ia esiintyvän runsaasti Antilleilla ja Pohjois-Etelä-Amerikassa.
Nykyisin se kasvaa myös Bermudalla ja Bahamalla, sekä luonnonvaraisena että viljeltynä, sekä merenpinnan korkeudesta 3500 jalkaa (1150 m) koko Länsi-Intiassa ja Etelä-Meksikosta Peruun ja Argentiinaan.
Se oli yksi ensimmäisistä hedelmäpuista jota vietiin Amerikasta ”vanhan maailman tropiikiin”, jossa siitä ​​on tullut laajalti levinnyt aina Kaakkois Kiinasta Australiaan ja lämpimille Itä- ja Länsi-Afrikan alangoille.
Se on yleisesti markkinoilla Malesiassa ja Kaakkois-Aasiassa. Erittäin suuria, symmetrisiä hedelmiä on myynnissä Etelä-Vietnamissa. Jo varhaisessa vaiheessa siitä tuli vakiintunut Tyynenmeren saarilla.
Puu on kasvatettu onnistuneesti, mutta ei ole koskaan tehnyt hedelmää Israelissa.

Floridassa, soursop on kasvanut rajoitetusti mahdollisesti 110 vuotta.

Sturtevant totesi, että sitä ei ole sisällytetty Atwoodin Floridan hedelmien luettelossa vuonna 1867, (Washington, D.C., U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry) mutta se on mainittu American Pomologisen Yhteisön luettelossa vuonna 1879.  Puu teki hedelmää esim. John Fogartyn kotona Manateessa ennen jäätymistään 1886.
Kaakkois osavaltioisssa ja erityisesti Florida Keysissä, sitä kasvatetaan usein kotipuutarhassa.
Alueilla, joilla makea hedelmät ovat suosittuja, kuten Etelä-Intiassa ja Guamissa, soursop ei nauttinut suurta suosiota.
Se on kasvanut vain rajoitetusti Madrasissa. Kuitenkin Itä-Intiassa se ​​on saanut maineet yhtenä parhaista paikallisista hedelmistä. Honolulussa hedelmä on myyty satunaisesti, mutta kysyntä ylittää tarjonnan. Soursop on yksi yleisimmistä Dominikaanisessa tasavallassa ja yksi suosituimmista Kuubassa, Puerto Ricossa, Bahamalla, Kolumbiassa ja Koillis-Brasiliassa.
Vuonna 1887 Kuubalaisia soursop -hedelmiä myytiin Key Westissä, Floridassa, noin 10-50 senttiä kappaleelta.
Vuonna 1920 Wilson Popenoe kirjoitti, että: "trooppisen Amerikan suurkaupungeissa on hyvä kysyntä hedelmistä kaikkina vuodenaikoina, kysyntä jota ei ole riittävästi katettu tällä hetkellä."

Grenada tuottaa erityisen suuria ja täydellisiä soursop -hedelmiä ja toimittaa niitä säännöllisesti veneellä Port-of-Spain – markkinoille, Trinidadissa olevan pula takia.
Kolumbiassa, jossa soursop kasvaa yleensä suureksi, hyvin muodostuneksia ja korkealaatuisiksi, soursop on yksi Instituto Latinoamericano de Mercadeo Agricolan, laajamittaiseen istututukseen ja markkinointiin suosittelemasta 14 trooppisesta hedelmästä.


Soursop -hedelmät tuotetaan pienillä maatiloilla, ei yleensä yli 5 acres (2,27 ha), koko Venezuelassa, toimitetaan käsittelylaitoksille, jossa jäädytetty hedelmäliha pakataan 6 oz (170 g) tölkkeihin.
Vuonna 1968 Venezuelassa käsiteltiin 2266 tonnia mehua.

KUVA - Soursop -puu kasvaa Kirlewien takapihalla Discovery Bayssa.

Käsiteltyä hedelmälihaa säilötään kaupallisesti myös Costa Ricassa.
On olemassa muutamia kaupallisia soursop -istutuksia ja useita käsittely tehtaissa  lähellä Puerto Ricon etelärannikkoa.

Vuonna 1977, Puerto Rican sato oli 219538 paunaa (99790 kg).
Trooppisten ja subtrooppisten alueiden First International Congress of Agricultural and Food Industries, joka järjestettiin vuonna 1964, Nestlé Headquarters Vevey, Sveitsi tutkimuslaitoksen tutkijat esittelivät arvioinnin vähemmän tunnetuista trooppisista hedelmistä.

Nestlen tutkijat mainitsivat soursopin, guavan ja passionfruitin esimerkkinä 3: sta lupaavimmista hedelmistä Euroopan markkinoille, koska ne erottuivat aromaattisilta ominaisuuksiltaan, sekä niiden soveltuvuutta pidettiin sopivana säilötyn hedelmälihan, nektarin ja hyytelön jalostukseen.

Graviolan kypsiä hedelmiä syödään nykyään joko sellaisenaan, siivilöitynä mehuksi tai osana jälkiruokia, esim. jäätelön valmistukseen. Joissakin maissa kuten Filippiineillä sen raakoja hedelmiä käytetään myös vihanneksina.

Graviolan hedelmiä, siemeniä, kuorta, lehtiä ja juurta on Keski- ja Etelä-Amerikan sekä Karibian kansojen keskuudessa jo vuosisatojen ajan käytetty myös perinteisinä luonnonrohtoina saatujen kokemusten ja monipuolisiksi havaittujen vaikutustensa vuoksi. Paitsi hedelmiä, myös sen siemeniä, varsia ja lehtiä on perinteisesti käytetty kansanlääkinnässä mitä erilaisemmissa ja erilaisempiin tarkoituksiin.

Parhaiten Graviolan käyttö tunnetaankin Etelä-Amerikassa, jossa sen kuoresta, juurista ja lehdistä on valmistettu teetä. 
Perun Andien alkuperäiskansojen tiedetään käyttävän graviolan lehtiteetä.
Joissakin Perun osissa diabeetikot käyttävät sekä kuorta että lehtiä.
Guyanassa lehtiteetä käytetään lähinnä virkistävänä juomana,

Nykyisin myös tutkijat ovat kiinnostuneet graviolan perinteisestä käytössä (WORLDWIDE ETHNOMEDICAL USES) ja sen mahdollisista vaikutuksista jopa joidenkin vakavien sairauksen hoidossa.

Graviolan sisältämien aineosien vaikutuksille on saatu jo 59 USA patenttia, mutta itse aineosia tai kasveja ei USA: n lakien mukaan voida patentoida. Vain synteettisesti valmistetuille tuotteille voidaan myöntää patentti, joka patenttisuoja on voimassa enintään 10 vuotta.
- Monet isot lääketehtaat jo 1980 luvulta lähtien salaisesti yrittäneet valmistaa Graviola: n monimutkaisia kemiallisia ainesosia, siinä onnistumatta!

Miksi tästä ihmehedelmästä ei ole aiemmin kuultu?
Soursop -puu
  • Nämä tutkimustiedot tulevat yhdeltä Yhdysvaltojen suurimmalta lääkeyhtiöltä, joka testasi hedelmää yli 20 laboratoriotestissä jo 1970-luvulta alkaen. 
He olivat uuden syöpälääkkeen etsinnässään päätyneet Amazonin sademetsiin ja löytäneet graviola –hedelmän mahtavat ominaisuudet.

Heidän tarkoituksenaan oli eristää hedelmän lääkekomponentti ja tuottaa sitä synteettisesti maailman kasvaville syöpälääkemarkkinoille, mutta seitsemän vuotta jatkuneiden tutkimusten aikana he eivät kyenneet keinotekoisesti kopioimaan hedelmän lääkeominaisuuksia. 

Suurten tuottojen hitaasti haihtuessa saavuttamattomiin lääkeyhtiö päätti haudata koko projektin, eikä julkaissut mitään koko tutkimuksestaan.

Viimein nuo tutkimustiedot on saatu kaivettua esille ja tulos on ällistyttävä!Healt Sciences Institute (HSI) - lehtiartikkelit.


Now Foods Factory, Il. USA
- NOW Goes Beyond FDA current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs)


 factatory



herb_profs

  

RECOMMENDATION 8
DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
Aim to meet nutritional needs through diet alone Justification

The evidence shows that high-dose nutrient supplements can be protective or can cause cancer. The studies that demonstrate such effects do not relate to widespread use among the general population, in whom the balance of risks and benefits cannot confidently be predicted.
A general recommendation to consume supplements for cancer pr evention might have unexpected adverse effects. Increasing the consumption of the relevant nutrients through the usual diet is preferred

FOOD, NUTRITION, PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, AND THE PREVENTION OF CANCER: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
 This matrix displays the Panel’s judgements of the strength of the evidence causally relating food, nutrition and physical activity with the risk of cancer of the sites reviewed, and with weight gain, overweight and obesity.
It is a synthesis of all the matrices introducing the chapters in Parts 1 and 2 of the Report, and shows judgements of “convincing”, “probable”, “limited - suggestive”, and “substantial effect on risk unlikely”, but not “limited no conclusion”.

Usually judgements of convincing and probable generate public health goals and personal recommendation. These are shown on the following pages. 

_
http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/downloads/summary/english.pdf

// KURKISTA KAUPPAAN
Google+

TILAA TÄLLÄ LOMAKKEELLA SALASANAT TIETEELLISIIN TUTKIMUKSIIN

Lähettänyt klo Ei kommentteja:

torstai 13. marraskuuta 2014

10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health



 by 

Over the past few years, a number of countries have completely banned GMOs and the pesticides that go along with them, and they are doing so for a reason.
The latest country to consider a complete ban is Russia after top government scientists recommended at least a 10 year ban. 

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev recently announced that Russia will no longer import GMO products, stating that the nation has enough space, and enough resources to produce organic food.

If the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them eat it then.    We don’t need to do that; we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food.” –Medvedev
Russia has been considering joining the long list (and continually growing) of anti-GMO countries  for quite some time now. It does so after a group of Russian scientists urged the government to consider at least a 10-year moratorium on GMOs to thoroughly study their influence on human health.
“It is necessary to ban GMOs, to impose moratorium (on) it for 10 years. While GMOs will be prohibited, we can plan experiments, tests, or maybe even new methods of research could be developed. It has been proven that not only in Russia, but also in many other countries in the world, GMOs are dangerous.
Methods of obtaining the GMOs are not perfect, therefore, at this stage, all GMOs are dangerous. Consumption and use of GMOs obtained in such way can lead to tumors, cancers and obesity among animals. Bio-technologies certainly should be developed, but GMOs should be stopped. We should stop it from spreading. ” – Irina Ermakova, VP of Russia’s National Association for Genetic Safety.



The truth is, we don’t know enough about GMOs to deem them safe for human consumption.

Believe it or not the very first commercial sale of them was only twenty years ago. 

There is no possible way that our health authorities can test all possible combinations on a large enough population, over a long enough period of time to be able to say with absolute certainty that they are harmless.
There are a multitude of credible scientific studies that clearly demonstrate why GMOs should not be consumed, and more are emerging every year.  There are also a number of scientists all around the world that oppose them.
By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment.The FDA has said that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food, so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this, geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it horizontally into a totally unrelated species. Now David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot and exchange genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without regard to the biological constraints. It’s very very bad science, we assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically, applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion – Geneticist David Suzuki
If anybody ever tells you that we know with one hundred percent certainty that GMOs are totally safe to eat, they haven’t done their research. There is no reason GM foods should be approved safe for consumption, we just don’t know enough about them. We could easily feed the planet through organic, GMO free methods, there is absolutely no reason we need GM foods around.
Below I’ve presented just a bit of information to get you started on your research if you’re interested.

1. Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood
Research from Canada (the first of its kind) has successfully identified the presence of pesticides -associated with genetically modified foods in maternal, fetal and non-pregnant women’s blood. They also found the presence of Monsanto’s Bt toxin. The study was published in the Journal Reproductive Toxicology in 2011.(1) You can read the FULL study here.
“Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed, particularly those using the placental transfer approach. Thus, our present results will provide baseline data for future studies exploring a new area of research relating to nutrition, toxicology and reproduction in women. Today, obstetric-gynecological disorders that are associated with environmental chemicals are not known.  Thus, knowing the actual concentration of genetically modified foods in humans constitutes a cornerstone in the advancement of research in this area.” (1)
The study used blood samples from thirty pregnant women and thirty non-pregnant women. The study also pointed out that the fetus is considered to be highly susceptible to the adverse affects of xenobiotics (foreign chemical substance found within an organism that is not naturally produced.)  This is why the study emphasizes that knowing more about GMOs is crucial, because environmental agents could disrupt the biological events that are required to ensure normal growth and development.

2. DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them
In a new study published in the peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS), researchersemphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism.(2)
In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA.  The study was based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies. PLOS is an open access, well respected peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers primary research from disciplines within science and medicine. It’s great to see this study published in it, confirming what many have been suspected for years.
“Our bloodstream is considered to be an environment well separated from the outside world and the digestive tract. According to the standard paradigm large macromolecules consumed with food cannot pass directly to the circulatory system. During digestion proteins and DNA are thought to be degraded into small constituents, amino acids and nucleic acids, respectively, and then absorbed by a complex active process and distributed to various parts of the body through the circulation system. Here, based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies, we report evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and through an unknown mechanism enter the human circulation system. In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The plant DNA concentration shows a surprisingly precise log-normal distribution in the plasma samples while non-plasma (cord blood) control sample was found to be free of plant DNA.” (2)
This still doesn’t mean that GMOs can enter into our cells, but given the fact GMOs have been linked to cancer (later in this article) it is safe to assume it is indeed a possibility. The bottom line is that we don’t know, and this study demonstrates another cause for concern.

3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans
This study was recently released by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and uses data from the US department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency, medical journal reviews as well as other independent research. (3)(4) The authors relate GM foods to five conditions that may either trigger or exacerbate gluten-related disorders, including the autoimmune disorder, Celiac Disease:
  • Intestinal permeability
  • Imbalanced gut bacteria
  • Immune activation and allergic response
  • Impaired digestion
  • Damage to the intestinal wall
The Institute for Responsible technology is a world leader in educating policy makers and the public about GMO foods and crops. The institute reports and investigates on the impact GM foods can have on health, environment, agriculture and more.

4. Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors
In November 2012, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. (5)
It was a very significant study, which obviously looks bad for the big bio tech companies like Monsanto, being the first and only long term study under controlled conditions examining the possible effects of a diet of GMO maize treated with Monsanto roundup herbicide.
This study has since been retracted, which is odd, because the journal it was published in is a very well known, reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. In order for a study to be published here it has to go through a rigorous review process.
It’s also important to note that hundreds of scientists from around the world have condemned the retraction of the study. This study was done by experts, and a correlation between GMOs and these tumors can’t be denied, something happened.
The multiple criticisms of the study have also been answered by the team of researchers that conducted the study. You can read them and find out more about the study here.
GM Crop Production is Lowering US Yields and Increasing Pesticide Use

5. Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors
A study is published in the US National Library of Medicine (4) and will soon be published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. Several recent studies showed glyphosate’s potential to be an endocrine disruptor. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the hormone system in mammals. These disruptors can cause developmental disorders, birth defects and cancer tumors. (6)
Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer. We found that glyphosate exhibited a weaker estrogenic activity than estradiol. Furthermore, this study demonstrated the additive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genisein which implied that the use of contaminated soybean products as dietary supplements may pose a risk of breast cancer because of their potential additive estrogenicity. (6)
Researchers also determined that Monsanto’s roundup is considered an “xenoestrogen,” which is a foreign estrogen that mimics real estrogen in our bodies. This can cause a number of problems that include an increased risk of various cancers, early onset of puberty, thyroid issues, infertility and more.

6. Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects

A group of scientists put together a comprehensive review of existing data that shows how European regulators have known that Monsanto’s glyphosate causes a number of birth malformations since at least 2002. 
Regulators misled the public about glyphosate’s safety, and in Germany the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety told the European Commission that there was no evidence to suggest that glyphosate causes birth defects.(7)  - Eight-Limbed Boy -
Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable. In this report, we examine the industry studies and regulatory documents that led to the approval of glyphosate. We show that industry and regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s and 1990s that glyphosate causes malformation – but that this information was not made public. We demonstrate how EU regulators reasoned their way from clear evidence of glyphosate’s teratogenicity in industry’s own studies to a conclusion that minimized these findings in the EU Commission’s final review report (7)
Here is a summary of the report:
  • Multiple peer-reviewed scientific literature documenting serious health hazards posed by glyphosate
  • Industry (including Monsanto) has known since the 1980′s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses
  • Industry has known since 1993 that these effects could also occur at lower and mid doses
  • The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations
  • The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations
  • The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year DG SANCO division published its final review report, laying out the basis for the current approval of glyphosate
Another study published by the American Chemical Society, from the university of Buenos Aires, Argentina also showed that Glyphosate can cause abnormalities.(8)
The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to glyphosate in agricultural fields (8)
7. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
When you ingest Glyphosate, you are in essence altering the chemistry of your body. It’s completely unnatural and the body doesn’t resonate with it. P450 (CYP) is the gene pathway disrupted when the body takes in Glyphosate. P450 creates enzymes that assist with the formation of molecules in cells, as well as breaking them down. CYP enzymes are abundant and have many important functions. They are responsible for detoxifying xenobiotics from the body, things like the various chemicals found in pesticides, drugs and carcinogens. Glyphosate inhibits the CYP enzymes. The CYP pathway is critical for normal, natural functioning of multiple biological systems within our bodies. Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease. (9)
8. Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans
A new study out of Germany concludes that Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and can be excreted in urine. It outlines how presence of glyphosate in urine and its accumulation in animal tissues is alarming even at low concentrations. (10)
To this day, Monsanto continues to advertise its Roundup products as environmentally friendly and claims that neither animals nor humans are affected by this toxin. Environmentalists, veterinarians, medical doctors and scientists however, have raised increasing alarms about the danger of glyphosate in the animal and human food chain as well as the environment. The fact that glyphosate has been found in animals and humans is of great concern. In search for the causes of serious diseases amongst entire herds of animals in northern Germany, especially cattle, glyphosate has repeatedly been detected in the urine, feces, milk and feed of the animals. Even more alarming, glyphosate was detected in the urine of the farmers.  (10)
9. Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs
A study by scientist Judy Carman, PhD that was recently published in the peer reviewed journal Organic Systems outlines the effects of a diet mixed with GMO feed for pigs, and how it is a cause for concern when it comes to health. (11) Scientists randomized and fed isowean pigs either a mixed GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet for approximately 23 weeks (nothing out of the ordinary for most pigs in the United States), which is unfortunately the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter. Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each group. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs. GM-fed pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% compared to 125 of non-GM fed pigs.
The study concluded that pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited a heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs who weren’t fed a GMO diet. Because the use of GMO feed for livestock and humans is so widespread, this is definitely another cause for concern when it comes to GMO consumption. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are consumed widely by people, especially in the United States.

 
10. GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety. (12)(13)(14)
Deficiencies have been revealed numerous times with regards to testing GM foods.
The first guidelines were originally designed to regulate the introduction of GM microbes and plants into the environment with no attention being paid to food safety concerns. However, they have been widely cited as adding authoritative scientific support to food safety assessment. Additionally, the Statement of Policy released by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States, presumptively recognizing the GM foods as GRAS (generally recognized as safe), was prepared while there were critical guidelines prepared by the International Life Sciences Institute Europe and FAO/WHO recommend that safety evaluation should be based on the concept of substantial equivalence, considering parameters such as molecular characterization, phenotypic characteristics, key nutrients, toxicants and allergens. Since 2003, official standards for food safety assessment have been published by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO. Published reviews with around 25 peer-reviewed studies have found that despite the guidelines, the risk assessment of GM foods has not followed a defined prototype.(12) (15)
“The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic. Evaluations for each GM crop or trait have been conducted using different feeding periods, animal models and parameters. The most common results is that GM and conventional sources include similar nutritional performance and growth in animals. However, adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues have been reported. While there are currently no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods, attempts towards harmonization are on the way. More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods.” (12) (15)
So, if anybody ever tells you that GMOs are completely safe for consumption, it’s not true. We just don’t know enough about them to make such a definitive statement. A lot of evidence actually points to the contrary.
Sources:
(13) Reese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2004;21:299–324
(14) Schubert D. A different perspective on GM food. Nat Biotechnol. 2002;20:969–969.
Lisätietoja »
Lähettänyt klo Ei kommentteja:
Tunnisteet: , , ,
Tilaa: Kommentit (Atom)