Treating estimate made 60 years ago based upon the testing techniques of the time as fact vs. an estimate made today based upon more sensitive and accurate testing techniques.
The epitome of junk science.
BTW since most of the micronutrients are found in the brown external area (the bran aka aleurone & pericarp) smaller kernels have higher nutrition concentration than larger ones. Since kernal size can fluctuate by as much as 50% or more for the same variety, so can the nutritional value.
The concentration of micronutrients is also dependent upon the relative availability for the plant. So it can vary wildly in samples from different areas of the field.
The first is an analysis in the change of wild goldenrod today vs a saved sample from the Smithsonian sample from 1842.
The other experiments pumped extra carbon dioxide into rice crops to simulate rising global CO2 levels and it also noticed a percentage decrease in nutrient levels in the rice.
Got around to watching the video. I have read most of the papers they are referencing. A major issue with all of them is they do not understand how plant breeding and varietal selection functions with market forces. They are making a false projections from the data. To be fair, this information is not in the published research as private breeding efforts are doing most of the effort globally.
The key information they are missing is the concept of market slots or “slotting”. This is the breeding efforts to create varieties that can match market requirements under different growing conditions. Farmers don’t get paid on the total yield but marketable yield. So farmers plant many different varieties through the season that all end up looking similar in the market. Even the third world countries have these market requirements and change their varieties through the season.
Breeding for a slot is usually breeding to regulate growth rates.
A good example is cantaloupes. A variety planted the first of January in southern California or Texas will be ready to harvest around 120-130 days later. Put the same variety in Honduras, and it will be ready in 55 days, be twice the size and have less sugar, flavor and nutritional value. For Honduras they use very slow developing varieties that take 65 days to develop there.
What about third world countries? Take a wild guess where the genetics that professional breeders use mostly come from: Local landraces developed by the farmers to meet their market needs. All it takes is the farmer keeping the plants that best fits their market and they are selecting for different growth rates by default.
I mean, there’s also climate change destroying harvests. Chances are we’ll all live to see most luxury foods priced over a days wages. This is just the start, soon it’ll be coffee, chocolate, fruits and veggies, cane sugar, meat, then staples like beans and grains. Make no mistake we’re cooking ourselves out of a planet to survive on.
anytime I see anything about GMO, and anything about Monsanto, that doesn’t explicitly mention the health impacts of glyphosate and or other chemical herb and pesticides, I die a little inside.
and yeah there’s a passing mention, but it’s linked directly to the GM crops, as if they’re hand in hand. I dunno i’ve spent too long around hippies who have no idea what they’re talking about.
Yeah most gmo crops in use are designed to harden the crops against pesticides so that they can use more of them without killing the crop, if you actually look into the numbers its very distressing and more people need to be talking about this.
Gmo isn’t automatically bad but it’s bad when its implementation is by companies looking to create monopolies and who don’t care at all if it causes problems like increased chemical additions running off into water ways and cause immense ecological damage
Do… do they not know that corn was selectively bred from what amounts to a wheat like grass? Modern corn is NOTHING like its wild ancestor (which still grows there) granted thats a different method of altering what genes are or are not there but its still a form of modification by humans. What we used to do is just a very crude and haphazard way of doing it in a way that we have no idea what actually happened whereas with modern GMO, you are making very specific changes.
On the point of transgenic varieties having a negative impact on local strain diversity, I think the concerns are valid. The introduction of high-yielding GMOs can lead to displacement of local varieties and ultimately decrease diversity.
I skimmed through the document to see if they make some good points about the health impact of GMOs. From what I can gather, the arguments are:
Glyphosate herbicides are commonly used when farming GMO corn. There is no global consensus on the potential long-term health effects associated with exposure to glyphosates and formulations that contain it.
Techniques to modify the genome are not perfect. Often, viruses are used, and some viral proteins could be inserted into the genome. Other things could go wrong. Ultimately, you may have an unexpected phenotype that turns out to make the plant toxic.
They argue that the GMO corn has a worse nutritional profile than native varieties. This worse nutritional profile ultimately has a negative health impact.
Personally… Maybe the glyphosate claim I can get somewhat behind but the other two health claims I don’t find compelling. The risks over-stated, and their use of citations is not great.
I have an example of their use of citations that made me chuckle… They write:
Mexican corn, mainly native corn, has a better quality in nutritional terms, including compounds that prevent diseases and promote human health.^75^
And the citation reads:
^75^ In Mexico there are scientific compilations and files that bring together the aforementioned literature.
Yeah. Claims about potential health effects can be very persuasive.
It is a factual claim that something could go wrong, or that we have a gap in our understanding, and the outcome of that may be detrimental to our health. We can’t disprove this because it is true, and so what we need to do is to assess risks in a balanced manner. It is also a factual claim that a de-novo mutation could occur and produce a toxic strain, or maybe we do not understand something about a plant that we commonly eat and we later find out that it is carcinogenic. Our understanding evolves over time, and risks are everywhere.
But most politicians are not so concerned with painting a balanced picture. The claim “a risk exists” is always factual and that is good enough to push an agenda.
In my opinion this does not in itself mean that one political position is better than the other. Maybe the health claims are not a good argument, but there are many other valid reasons to want to stop GMO corn.
In a written submission to a panel of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, Mexico, the top buyer of U.S. corn, argued that science proves GM corn and the herbicide glyphosate are harmful to human health and its native varieties, and that its decree to ban GM corn for human consumption is within its right.
TBF, we’re not picking on Mexico, we give it to our own people too. I like that they’re making them prove it’s safe as opposed to proving it’s harmful. That’s the way to go about it.
There’s a reason why Europe has tons of banned foods that the US doesn’t, we care about profits and the share holders above the health of our people (especially the poor).
The GM hysteria is stupid though. By this logic you would have to prove this for every single non GM plant too. Whether you use completely random mutations over controlled mutations is somewhat irrelevant, although arguably the random ones could potentially be even more dangerous than the planned ones, since you don't have control over them.
Is it though? We don’t know about things we haven’t tested for because humans are different than livestock and rats. Time will tell, but most of us will be dead before we know for sure. We’re messing with nature with no idea of the repercussions that we may already be experiencing.
By blasting them with chemicals or radiation in order to create a bunch of random mutations, in the hopes that one of those mutations are beneficial. So instead of injecting very specific target genes into a plant, which is a very controlled process, you end up with a bunch of random mutations of which you apparently aren't worried about the side effects. Those breeds are not labeled in any way and simply mixed in with everything else in your local supermarket. This whole "we're messing with nature with no idea of the repercussions" in regards to gene editing is just uneducated esoteric nonsense.
This whole “we’re messing with nature with no idea of the repercussions” in regards to gene editing is just uneducated esoteric nonsense.
How close are we to monkeys, apes, etc.? Can you see the future and how is the climate going? We don’t know if taking away one thing will affect another down the road. Will every gene edit cause harm? Probably not, but we don’t know which ones or how many. Have a great life selling cigarettes.
I don't think science deniers with a complete lack of understanding of genetics should try to berate anyone on climate change, thank you. Like, you're literally arguing like a covid denier too as to why people shouldn't wear masks. If you're so worried about the repercussions of "taking away one thing", then why does that same logic not apply to "taking away many random things"? And no, cigarettes are harmful, you're the one who'd argue that we don't know this for sure. lol
I’m not a science denier, nice buzzword though. Science isn’t a thing btw, it’s a process. The process of science hasn’t worked out how us fucking with nature will turn out.
Where’s this science that genetically modified food causes harm? All I can find looking for anything that says something other than that GM food affects you the same as non-GM food is linking back to this article. And I mean, if you want to get technical, pretty much all plants we consume in the modern age were genetically modified through selective breeding.
Companies told the FDA that it could take up to 18 months to completely exhaust the market supply of these products following their final date of sale. However, most of the affected manufacturers phased out the products faster than they initially predicted, the agency noted.
Or, instead of poisoning people for the next 18 months, we throw it all out now? No? Because companies are more concerned about profits than the health of people?
Heck, I don’t even care if the FDA used my tax dollars to compensate companies for throwing out their remaining stock; just stop poisoning people.
Pawpaws are awesome. Go try to find them around April. The flowers are easy to identify. Once you know what a tree looks like, they are super easy to find year round.
If you live somewhere on the eastern half of the US, and you have an overabundance of deer, you probably have pawpaws around. Deer don’t eat pawpaw seedlings, so pawpaws have a competitive advantage in eastern US forests devoid of predators.
Maybe my local brand is the margin of error, but this comes as a surprise to me, because my area's Walmarts have started carrying a new suppliers' serranos, and those suckers are even hotter than the jalapenos, which have seemed to cool down over the years as reported elsewhere.
cooking
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.