周四小坑:难怪方教主丧心病狂科唬转基因,原来有转基因科普专项资金这快肥肉

咪咪哥在转基因方面的说法,从“中科院反对转基因”,到“欧洲人不准转基因上市”,越来越离谱了。网络时代,查对一下并不难。

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/gmo/db/
这个网页提供查询已经获得欧盟批准或正在审批过程中的130种转基因作物的具体资料。下面是截图
浏览附件345116
老闹,俺还真看了一眼网站,就不机器翻译了,链接里有几个主要国家的情况,大家各自选自己喜欢的看吧? ;)
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/country_reports/
The European Union has passed regulations covering all aspects of genetically modified organisms from research to commercialisation – with the notable exception of coexistence. The EU Members States, however, exercise a certain degree of freedom when interpreting the EU’s regulatory framework. They may accept EU regulations upon certain conditions and stipulations, and each Member State assigns its own national authorities to deal with GMOs.
The EU first authorised the cultivation of GM crops almost ten years ago, but the extent of adoption can vary significantly from country to country. The same heterogeneity holds true for the public acceptance of GMOs: Although the majority of EU citizens have a negative stance on GMOs, some countries are sceptical but open, while others remain fundamentally opposed agricultural biotechnology.
 
几年前,《华盛顿邮报》曾刊发一篇报道,说根据政府统计数据进行研究,发现同文同种,生活习惯也基本一样的美国白人比英国白人健康状况差很多。尽管美国人在健康保健方面的花销比英国人高一倍,但美国人-不管是富人,中产和穷人,糖尿病,心脏病,脑中风,肺病和癌症发病率都比英国高。报告说,糖尿病发病率美国人是英国人的2倍;高血压症率是英国的1.24倍;癌症发病率是英国的1.73倍!

专家们从体育锻炼,工作压力,精神负担,吸烟喝酒不良嗜好等等诸多方面企图解释其原因,但都不能提供合理解释。这个问题成为一个难解之谜。

我想,是不是转基因食物这个幽灵做的怪呢? 因为除了美国人吃转基因,英国人不吃或很少吃转基因这个差异之外,其它真没什么可以引起美国人健康比英国人差这么多的原因了。


Study Shows Americans Sicker Than English

By CARLA K. JOHNSON and MIKE STOBBE
The Associated Press
Tuesday, May 2, 2006; 10:47 PM

CHICAGO -- White, middle-aged Americans _ even those who are rich _ are far less healthy than their peers in England, according to stunning new research that erases misconceptions and has experts scratching their heads.

Americans had higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, strokes, lung disease and cancer _ findings that held true no matter what income or education level.

Those dismal results are despite the fact that U.S. health care spending is double what England spends on each of its citizens.

"Everybody should be discussing it: Why isn't the richest country in the world the healthiest country in the world?" asks study co-author Dr. Michael Marmot, an epidemiologist at University College London in England.

The study, based on government statistics in both countries, adds context to the already-known fact that the United States spends more on health care than any other industrialized nation, yet trails in rankings of life expectancy.

The United States spends about $5,200 per person on health care while England spends about half that in adjusted dollars.

Even experts familiar with the weaknesses in the U.S. health system seemed stunned by the study's conclusions.

"I knew we were less healthy, but I didn't know the magnitude of the disparities," said Gerard Anderson, an expert in chronic disease and international health at Johns Hopkins University who had no role in the research.

Just why the United States fared so miserably wasn't clear. Answers ranging from too little exercise to too little money and too much stress were offered.

Even the U.S. obesity epidemic couldn't solve the mystery. The researchers crunched numbers to create a hypothetical statistical world in which the English had American lifestyle risk factors, including being as fat as Americans. In that model, Americans were still sicker.

Smoking rates are about the same on both sides of the pond. The English have a higher rate of heavy drinking.

Only non-Hispanic whites were included in the study to eliminate the influence of racial disparities. The researchers looked only at people ages 55 through 64, and the average age of the samples was the same.

Americans reported twice the rate of diabetes compared to the English, 12.5 percent versus 6 percent. For high blood pressure, it was 42 percent for Americans versus 34 percent for the English; cancer showed up in 9.5 percent of Americans compared to 5.5 percent of the English.

The upper crust in both countries was healthier than middle-class and low-income people in the same country. But richer Americans' health status resembled the health of the low-income English.

"It's something of a mystery," said Richard Suzman of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which helped fund the study.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...02/AR2006050200631.html?referrer=emailarticle
 
越来越多的食品店和餐馆加入杜绝转基因行列:全球连锁快餐巨孽麦当劳从明年开始 用没喂过转基因饲料的鸡和牛肉做炸鸡和汉堡,成为彻彻底底的GM-FREE店。

Big Macs to be GM-free

McDonald's has announced its hamburgers will soon be GM free. The fast food giant, the latest High Street chain to bow to consumer pressure over Frankenstein foods, has ordered its beef suppliers to find non-GM sources of animal feed.

Once the changes are in place, the chain, which banned GM products from its buns, sauces and other ingredients last year, will be totally GM free.

Many British fast food chains have banned certain GM products such as bread from their menus. But most can not claim they are GM free because of concern that their meat products are derived from animals fed on GM corn or maize.

McDonald's now appears to be leading the way on the issue. So how do the other fast food chains on the High Street compare?

Is your fast-food GM free?

McDonald's - Buns, sauces and chicken GM free. Hamburgers to be GM free next year.

Wimpy - Buns and sauces GM free. Investigating GM free hamburgers.

Pizza Hut - Bread and sauces GM free. Working with suppliers 'to reduce GM derivatives in beef.'

Dominos - Checking if their meat is GM free. All other foods 'tested for GM products regularly'.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6646/Big-Macs-GM-free.html#ixzz2c6u2fJ6w
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
米忽悠 喜欢 胡说, 据他所说 地沟油 很好吃. :D

是的,我吃橄榄油,你吃地沟油,忽悠的就是你这样的傻子,不过你现在可以吃转基因豆油了,可以每个月省2元加币,不错,蛮好。
 
咪咪哥在转基因方面的说法,从“中科院反对转基因”,到“欧洲人不准转基因上市”,越来越离谱了。网络时代,查对一下并不难。

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/gmo/db/
这个网页提供查询已经获得欧盟批准或正在审批过程中的130种转基因作物的具体资料。下面是截图
浏览附件345116

老闹子,我提醒你一下,转基因的支持与反对,都是科学家内部的事情,老百姓都是筹码。
你要跟我辩论,我上次已经领教过了,自己的链接自己只看一部分,另外一部分视而不见,我倒专心花了几天去看文章,提出的问题后来也是不了了之。所以我是不会再去研究了,就看戏而已。你也不要找我辩论,你我都不是科学家。
我个人除了不吃玉米,豆油的,超市里想买啥就买啥。你认为转基因好的,可以买豆油玉米油,每个月可以便宜2元加币,蛮好。
 
几年前,《华盛顿邮报》曾刊发一篇报道,说根据政府统计数据进行研究,发现同文同种,生活习惯也基本一样的美国白人比英国白人健康状况差很多。尽管美国人在健康保健方面的花销比英国人高一倍,但美国人-不管是富人,中产和穷人,糖尿病,心脏病,脑中风,肺病和癌症发病率都比英国高。报告说,糖尿病发病率美国人是英国人的2倍;高血压症率是英国的1.24倍;癌症发病率是英国的1.73倍!

专家们从体育锻炼,工作压力,精神负担,吸烟喝酒不良嗜好等等诸多方面企图解释其原因,但都不能提供合理解释。这个问题成为一个难解之谜。

我想,是不是转基因食物这个幽灵做的怪呢? 因为除了美国人吃转基因,英国人不吃或很少吃转基因这个差异之外,其它真没什么可以引起美国人健康比英国人差这么多的原因了。


老美的确身体不如英国佬,大街上胖子一堆一堆的。英国佬瘦不少。[/quote]
 
科学家怎么有时候讲科学,有时候不讲科学?
 
老闹子,我提醒你一下,转基因的支持与反对,都是科学家内部的事情,老百姓都是筹码。
你要跟我辩论,我上次已经领教过了,自己的链接自己只看一部分,另外一部分视而不见,我倒专心花了几天去看文章,提出的问题后来也是不了了之。所以我是不会再去研究了,就看戏而已。你也不要找我辩论,你我都不是科学家。
我个人除了不吃玉米,豆油的,超市里想买啥就买啥。你认为转基因好的,可以买豆油玉米油,每个月可以便宜2元加币,蛮好。

向秘密哥学习,我也到WHO的网站上看了一下关于转基因食品的20个问题。这是我新学到的:

转基因主要目的是帮助植物防虫害,防病毒感染和提高除草剂耐受力三大目的。三个主要方法是把细菌产生的毒素,病毒基因,以及耐受除草剂的细菌的基因植入到这些植物基因里。这跟我以前的想象不一样,我以前以为只是把植物本身的基因改变一下呢。

从WHO的信息看,转基因食品完全就是一个权宜之计,安全不安全根本没有定论。不同国家,不同地区标准不同,安全测试方法本身是否可靠也还存在争议。

简而言之,谁愿意去吃谁去吃,但是不要再拿科学来唬人。
 
老闹子,我提醒你一下,转基因的支持与反对,都是科学家内部的事情,老百姓都是筹码。
你要跟我辩论,我上次已经领教过了,自己的链接自己只看一部分,另外一部分视而不见,我倒专心花了几天去看文章,提出的问题后来也是不了了之。所以我是不会再去研究了,就看戏而已。你也不要找我辩论,你我都不是科学家。
我个人除了不吃玉米,豆油的,超市里想买啥就买啥。你认为转基因好的,可以买豆油玉米油,每个月可以便宜2元加币,蛮好。
咪哥,真的么,我家好吃煮玉米这一口。以后咋办?有没有不是转基因的?
还有豆腐不是大豆产品么?也不能吃?
 
我相信人们对转基因食品的恐惧比转基因食品本身对人体健康的伤害(如果有的话)要大得多。
 
咪哥,真的么,我家好吃煮玉米这一口。以后咋办?有没有不是转基因的?
还有豆腐不是大豆产品么?也不能吃?

米忽悠 一边吃着 转基因 大豆 做的 臭豆付, 一边 高喊 转基因 不能吃. :D
难以理解.
 
咪哥,真的么,我家好吃煮玉米这一口。以后咋办?有没有不是转基因的?
还有豆腐不是大豆产品么?也不能吃?
超市卖的玉米都是转基因,实在喜欢吃,买当地farmer种的,就是贵点。
tofu有非转基因的,炸药店有卖,标签上有说明,tofu干,也有非转基因的,costco有卖,不贵。
 
超市卖的玉米都是转基因,实在喜欢吃,买当地farmer种的,就是贵点。
tofu有非转基因的,炸药店有卖,标签上有说明,tofu干,也有非转基因的,costco有卖,不贵。
谢了。
 
袁隆平说过他不认为转基因有什么问题,如果你不记得,上网查一下就知道了。方舟子是生化博士,在基因问题上,我觉得生化博士比经济博士靠谱。

我没查到袁隆平说过这种话,在我看来这种话也不象是一个严谨的科学家说得出来的,你记得的话,你给找一下?

方舟子是生化博士就靠谱?你肯定没听说过猪油博士的故事吧?:p
http://blog.boxun.com/hero/201011/xys/14_1.shtml
西山:方舟子“猪油博士”的典故
方舟子在其大作《进化中的进化论》第六章:生命起源,二、化学进化假说中写道:脂肪酸和甘油也能被用类似的方法合成,而如果把二者混在一起加热到干燥,就能生成组成细胞膜的重要物质--磷脂。
羽箭对此批驳道:
方大嘴显然不知道什麽是磷脂。磷脂是含磷酸基的,而“二者”都不含磷元素,反应的结果是生成脂肪,譬如猪油。连磷脂的基本结构都不知道,真好意思整天卖弄自己那点生化。
其次,脂肪酸与甘油加热到“干燥”生成不了任何新东西。“干燥”在化学上指的是除去游离的或吸附的水。去结晶水的过程已不是干燥过程,而是应当说是“脱水”过程,它包括了化学键的断裂。方在这里明明说的是酯化反应,生成物是脂肪与水,是典型的分子间脱水反应,根本不是“干燥”过程。这是高中化学的知识。当然,跟方大嘴扯化学是有点欺负他。一个连自己的专业领域都不了解的人,还指望他懂化学?
一个理论得到实验的支持,并不就必然意味著它是最後的东西。就进化论而言,科学只能说到这里:“现有的事实与这个理论是基本吻合的”。多迈一步就是进化教了。
科学上的证明是一件非常严格的事情,只有进化教徒才会信誓旦旦地声称自己的生命起源理论已被“证明”。科学要求有一说一,有二说二。写科普最忌的就是把相对当绝对。自欺就罢了,以欺人则流臭百世。相比之下,磷脂与猪油的区别,倒是末节。学过高中生化的人,多半已经知道两者的不同,未必就会上这当。
一个人在蛋白质、核酸、磷脂三方面都犯常识错误,还是可以夸耀他的生物化学博士头衔。也并不一定就可笑了。可笑的是编逻辑胡搅蛮缠。或者如这回,装死不吭声。不知这死不认错的功夫是天生的,还是从博士课程里学来的。没经过世面的中学生们,怕是找不著南北了。博士与中学生的区别,就在於此。
(2010/11/13 发表)
 
后退
顶部