超级军网加拿大专家:实验已证明转基因食品对人体有害
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 01:07:05
www.sinonet.org 2014-06-09 星岛日报
http://www.sinonet.org/news/tech/2014-06-09/341456.html
加国非转基因食品(Non-GMO)业者及专家，周日在一项展览会上表示，实验已经证明转基因食品对人体有害，联邦政府应立法监管，要求所有商品必须标明是否含转基因成分。部份消费者表示，考虑到转基因食品的安全问题后，他们愿多花点钱购买市场上的有机(organic)蔬果。
加拿大前农业部官员、基因学家弗兰(Thierry Vrain)在演讲中指出，通过在动物身上的实验已经证明，转基因食品与肝脏疾病、神经疾病、免疫力失调等有密切关系。他除了批评加国政府监管不力，同时建议消费者避免转基因食品，并在能力范围内尽量挑选有机食品：「转基因食物其实并非食品，而是化学物。研究表明，转基因玉米与大豆含有毒素或者致过敏性的蛋白质。」
创立非牟利组织「儿童有权知道」(Kids Right To Know Organization)的15岁多伦多中学生帕伦特(Rachel Parent)，接受《星岛日报》记者采访时说：「全球已有包括俄罗斯、中国在内64个国家及地区立法管制转基因食品，但在美国和加拿大，食品制造商并不被强制要求标明他们的食品是否包含转基因。作为消费者，我们有权要求政府立法监管。
www.sinonet.org 2014-06-09 星岛日报
http://www.sinonet.org/news/tech/2014-06-09/341456.html
加国非转基因食品(Non-GMO)业者及专家，周日在一项展览会上表示，实验已经证明转基因食品对人体有害，联邦政府应立法监管，要求所有商品必须标明是否含转基因成分。部份消费者表示，考虑到转基因食品的安全问题后，他们愿多花点钱购买市场上的有机(organic)蔬果。
加拿大前农业部官员、基因学家弗兰(Thierry Vrain)在演讲中指出，通过在动物身上的实验已经证明，转基因食品与肝脏疾病、神经疾病、免疫力失调等有密切关系。他除了批评加国政府监管不力，同时建议消费者避免转基因食品，并在能力范围内尽量挑选有机食品：「转基因食物其实并非食品，而是化学物。研究表明，转基因玉米与大豆含有毒素或者致过敏性的蛋白质。」
创立非牟利组织「儿童有权知道」(Kids Right To Know Organization)的15岁多伦多中学生帕伦特(Rachel Parent)，接受《星岛日报》记者采访时说：「全球已有包括俄罗斯、中国在内64个国家及地区立法管制转基因食品，但在美国和加拿大，食品制造商并不被强制要求标明他们的食品是否包含转基因。作为消费者，我们有权要求政府立法监管。
根据一贯的经验 还是以讹传讹 说不清到底是什么试验
Thierry Vrain promotes GMO fear, not facts
GE-Free B.C. has a speaking tour coming to Squamish. The main speaker, Dr. Vrain, speaks about how "science" proved GE crops and food were causing all manners of ills.
Each of the publications he cites has been examined by experts in toxicology, food safety and health as well as national and international scientific bodies. All the publications he uses in his presentation have been rejected for a variety of reasons related to multiple breaches of the scientific method. One such example that Vrain claims to be evidence is the Rowett paper in The Lancet.
However, after reviewing the paper the UK Royal Society said: "the reported work from the Rowett is flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis and that no conclusions should be drawn from it. We found no convincing evidence of adverse effects from GM potatoes."
Another amusing bit of pseudoscience that Vrain presents as "evidence" is actually the most discredited paper in the history of GE research, Seralini 2012. Every food safety authority in the world has unanimously rejected this preposterous publication. The 2012 paper cited by Vrain is the third publication from this author that has been severely rebuked by world authorities.
Health Canada examined and rejected the conclusions of the Seralini paper.
They said: "The overwhelming body of scientific evidence continues to support the safety of NK603, genetically modified food and feed products in general, and glyphosate containing herbicides. However, whenever new information concerning the safety of an authorized product arises, this new data is carefully reviewed."
Vrain rejects virtually all North American research claiming it is inaccurate and biased.
Here is the European Academies Science Advisory Council opinion: "There is no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding. There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science said it best: "Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." (2012)
Every example Vrain puts forward has been examined and dismissed by world food, health and science experts. This fact seems to be irrelevant to him. Simply put, he is promoting fear not facts.
http://www.oceansidestar.com/opi ... -not-facts-1.756549
Thierry Vrain promotes GMO fear, not facts
GE-Free B.C. has a speaking tour coming to Squamish. The main speaker, Dr. Vrain, speaks about how "science" proved GE crops and food were causing all manners of ills.
Each of the publications he cites has been examined by experts in toxicology, food safety and health as well as national and international scientific bodies. All the publications he uses in his presentation have been rejected for a variety of reasons related to multiple breaches of the scientific method. One such example that Vrain claims to be evidence is the Rowett paper in The Lancet.
However, after reviewing the paper the UK Royal Society said: "the reported work from the Rowett is flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis and that no conclusions should be drawn from it. We found no convincing evidence of adverse effects from GM potatoes."
Another amusing bit of pseudoscience that Vrain presents as "evidence" is actually the most discredited paper in the history of GE research, Seralini 2012. Every food safety authority in the world has unanimously rejected this preposterous publication. The 2012 paper cited by Vrain is the third publication from this author that has been severely rebuked by world authorities.
Health Canada examined and rejected the conclusions of the Seralini paper.
They said: "The overwhelming body of scientific evidence continues to support the safety of NK603, genetically modified food and feed products in general, and glyphosate containing herbicides. However, whenever new information concerning the safety of an authorized product arises, this new data is carefully reviewed."
Vrain rejects virtually all North American research claiming it is inaccurate and biased.
Here is the European Academies Science Advisory Council opinion: "There is no validated evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding. There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science said it best: "Moreover, the AAAS Board said, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques." (2012)
Every example Vrain puts forward has been examined and dismissed by world food, health and science experts. This fact seems to be irrelevant to him. Simply put, he is promoting fear not facts.
http://www.oceansidestar.com/opi ... -not-facts-1.756549
转基因没法笼统的说有害还是无害。就好比笼统的说锤子有害吗？这没法下结论，只有看具体拿锤子干啥用了？怎么用的？谁来用的？这些问题具体化了，才能够回答这样干不安全。
英文我不大看得懂，但是看中文笼统说转基因有害，这是根本性的误导。他们做实验也最多只能证明某种具体的转基因的东西是有害的。不能够证明所有转基因有问题。
英文我不大看得懂，但是看中文笼统说转基因有害，这是根本性的误导。他们做实验也最多只能证明某种具体的转基因的东西是有害的。不能够证明所有转基因有问题。
实验和实例均证明非转基因食物对人体有害。
wujingping 发表于 2014-6-10 16:55
转基因没法笼统的说有害还是无害。就好比笼统的说锤子有害吗？这没法下结论，只有看具体拿锤子干啥用了？怎 ...
可是，推销转基因食品的某些人从来都是笼统的说转基因食品好，转基因食品是未来农业发展的方向。
转基因没法笼统的说有害还是无害。就好比笼统的说锤子有害吗？这没法下结论，只有看具体拿锤子干啥用了？怎 ...
可是，推销转基因食品的某些人从来都是笼统的说转基因食品好，转基因食品是未来农业发展的方向。
nevermore123 发表于 2014-6-10 19:41
可是，推销转基因食品的某些人从来都是笼统的说转基因食品好，转基因食品是未来农业发展的方向。
多一种工具总是有用的。挺转的说没问题是因为两个原因：
1.有检疫系统来把关。
2.科学家不会没事主动造有害的东西。
这两关没问题，那么转基因就可以放心，不是对生物放心而是对检验机构放心。
因此，对转基因的不放心，其实是对检测机构的不放心。
可是，推销转基因食品的某些人从来都是笼统的说转基因食品好，转基因食品是未来农业发展的方向。
多一种工具总是有用的。挺转的说没问题是因为两个原因：
1.有检疫系统来把关。
2.科学家不会没事主动造有害的东西。
这两关没问题，那么转基因就可以放心，不是对生物放心而是对检验机构放心。
因此，对转基因的不放心，其实是对检测机构的不放心。
wujingping 发表于 2014-6-10 20:06
多一种工具总是有用的。挺转的说没问题是因为两个原因：
1.有检疫系统来把关。
2.科学家不会没事主动造有害的东西。
=====================
这是真的吗？
多一种工具总是有用的。挺转的说没问题是因为两个原因：
1.有检疫系统来把关。
2.科学家不会没事主动造有害的东西。
=====================
这是真的吗？
第一 科学发现请投稿科学杂志，别投稿新闻报纸。第二，请证明转基因食品和非转食品对人体危害是不同的，而不是单单说转基因食品的影响。
反转控们越来越无下限了，连野鸡组织搞的新闻秀这种鸡毛都拿来当令箭。{:soso_e120:}
nevermore123 发表于 2014-6-10 20:08
2.科学家不会没事主动造有害的东西。
=====================
目前看来是这样的。
2.科学家不会没事主动造有害的东西。
=====================
目前看来是这样的。
伊卡洛斯027 发表于 2014-6-10 21:34
反转控们越来越无下限了，连野鸡组织搞的新闻秀这种鸡毛都拿来当令箭。
不是某铁杆反转的发的东西，我都会感到奇怪。
而且后面一般会跟两三个常见反转ID进来捧场。
反转控们越来越无下限了，连野鸡组织搞的新闻秀这种鸡毛都拿来当令箭。
不是某铁杆反转的发的东西，我都会感到奇怪。
而且后面一般会跟两三个常见反转ID进来捧场。
http://www.non-gmoreport.com/art ... ainst-gmo-risks.php
The “conversion” of former anti-GMO activist Mark Lynas to GMO promoter has garnered huge media attention, but Thierry Vrain, Ph.D., a former genetic engineer who speaks out against the risks of genetically engineered foods, has far more credibility—and a far more important story to tell the public.
Thierry Vrain’s career has spanned the full range of agriculture—from being a proponent of “chemical” agriculture and genetic engineering to being an advocate for organic farming and an opponent of GMOs.
A native of France, Vrain earned an undergraduate degree in plant physiology from the Université de Caen and a doctoral degree from North Carolina State University. After moving to Canada he taught plant physiology at Université du Québec in Montréal. Then he worked for 30 years as a research scientist for the Canadian government in Québec and British Columbia where he conducted research on genetically modified potatoes, among other projects. He was director of the biotechnology department at the Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre in Summerland, BC.
After 35 years of research and teaching of soil and molecular biology, Vrain retired to a small farm in Courtenay, BC called Innisfree. Today, Thierry Vrain is a gardener, a teacher, and a passionate speaker about organic gardening—from soil health to GMOs.
Tell me a little more about your background.
Thierry Vrain: I worked in three research institutes in Montreal, Vancouver, and Summerland. I was the head of a research group using molecular biology tools. We worked on food crops. I was genetically engineering small fruit and potatoes for nematode resistance using the snowdrop lectin gene.
The genetically engineered apple (now under regulatory review in the US and Canada) originated in our group though I wasn’t involved with the research.
Did you speak publically in favor of genetic engineering when you were at Agriculture Canada?
Vrain: Yes, I just took it on as my job. I explained the safety of the technology to the public and did a good amount of lecturing, educating small groups.
What led you to change from a supporter of genetically modified foods to an opponent?
Vrain: I have some difficulties with how the controversy is handled. If you aren’t a scientist you don’t understand the science. If you are a scientist and discover things that are of concern, then you are accused of doing “pseudoscience” and often viciously attacked by the industry and academics on the payroll. This has happened many times, for example to Arpad Pusztai in England and then Ignacio Chapela, who discovered GMO contamination in native corn in Mexico. He was attacked and almost fired from his post at the University of California. A year later his findings were confirmed.
There are now quite a number of research publications, in peer reviewed journals, showing concerns from feeding GM corn and soy to rats. Those studies are ignored and shouldn’t be. Federal agencies should repeat the studies and must test these crops for safety.
Research scientists from the US Food & Drug Administration made it clear in the early 1990s that there could be indirect effects from eating GM crops, such as toxins, allergens, and nutritional deficiencies. Those warnings were ignored. Now a good number of publications are confirming the predictions of the FDA scientists.
It troubles me that money and the bottom line are at the root of the use of the technology.
You say that the science behind genetic engineering is based on a misunderstanding. Please elaborate on this.
Vrain: When we started with genetic engineering in the 1980s, the science was based on the theory that one gene produces one protein. But we now know, since the human genome project, that a gene can create more than one protein. The insertion of genes in the genome through genetic engineering interrupts the coding sequence of the DNA, creating truncated, rogue proteins, which can cause unintended effects. It’s an invasive technology.
Biotech companies ignore these rogue proteins; they say they are background noise. But we should pay attention to them. It must be verified that they produce no negative effects.
A key point is that the concern about genetic engineering should be about the proteins. Many plants and animals are not edible because their proteins are toxic or poisonous. To test for the safety of Bt crops, scientists have mostly fed the pure protein to rats, and there may be no problem. But it’s different if you feed rats the whole GM plant because they are getting these rogue proteins that could cause harm.
How do you explain published papers describing how rats and mice suffer organ damage from eating GM corn or soy? It’s too easy to dismiss those as pseudoscience. Rats and mice are the canary in the mine, and we should be paying attention to what happens to them.
Why don’t more people recognize the misunderstanding behind genetic engineering?
Vrain: The human genome project is only 10 years old. How long did it take for people to recognize that the earth is not flat?
And there are many scientists that promote genetic engineering of foods.
Vrain: There are a lot of people on the payroll and a lot of grant money flowing from biotech companies to academia. I used to be employed by Agriculture Canada. I did my job, and didn’t question things too much.
What are some of the other risks you see with GMOs?
Vrain: When I hear we need genetic engineering to feed the world, I cringe. It turns out that there is no increase in yield, no decrease use of pesticides, and the process is of highly questioned safety.
Even if genetic engineering was perfectly safe, I still question it because of genetic pollution. Organic crops and foods are becoming contaminated.
I’m also concerned about contamination of the environment with antibiotic resistant genes. Every GM crop has these genes. The preliminary evidence we have is that bacteria in the soil and in the human gut are capable of picking those genes up. Considering the alarm I hear from medical people about losing antibiotics, I think this should be a serious concern.
What about the GMO apple that may be commercialized?
Vrain: There’s no research or toxicity tests to show that it’s not toxic.
I question whether it’s useful. It’s not different from what other biotech companies do, which is to put out a product and make money.
Apple growers, conventional and organic, are very concerned that people will reject their products if a GM apple is introduced.
The apple is a symbol of health. An engineered apple does not have the same health appeal, and the industry knows that.
What led you to favor organic agriculture?
Vrain: I used to be a soil biologist and focused on fertilizers and pesticides. When I retired I started to look around and, quite frankly, the organic side of soil biology made more sense than what I had taught.
Industrial agriculture relies on inputs that are good for the chemical industry. Unfortunately, we have evidence that inputs are degrading soil biodiversity. Industrial agriculture completely ignores the ecology of the soil.
When I was a soil biologist I would look at the biodiversity of the soil. I would see a big difference between industrial farms and organic farms, which had far more species of soil microfauna, microscopic “animals” and nematodes, what I call biodiversity.
Tell me about the work you’re doing now with Innisfree Farm.
Vrain: It’s a small farm, a demonstration garden. My wife is an herbalist, and we grow medicinal plants. Young students come and learn about medicinal plants and organic growing.
It’s my retirement project. I say I’m atoning for my sins.
- See more at: http://www.non-gmoreport.com/art ... thash.kEV61Awd.dpuf
此人在退休前支持并研究转基因技术的，他领导的基因工程小组研究小水果和土豆抗线虫使用雪花莲凝集素基因，并且转基因苹果(现在在美国和加拿大的监管审批)起源于他的小组。退休以后自己开了一个小农场，专门生产销售有机食品。从专访中可以看出，没有任何新的研究证据，还是拿那个被质疑的老鼠实验忽悠。这种经营小农场销售有机食品的人说的话，有几分可信度，大家自行判断吧。
The “conversion” of former anti-GMO activist Mark Lynas to GMO promoter has garnered huge media attention, but Thierry Vrain, Ph.D., a former genetic engineer who speaks out against the risks of genetically engineered foods, has far more credibility—and a far more important story to tell the public.
Thierry Vrain’s career has spanned the full range of agriculture—from being a proponent of “chemical” agriculture and genetic engineering to being an advocate for organic farming and an opponent of GMOs.
A native of France, Vrain earned an undergraduate degree in plant physiology from the Université de Caen and a doctoral degree from North Carolina State University. After moving to Canada he taught plant physiology at Université du Québec in Montréal. Then he worked for 30 years as a research scientist for the Canadian government in Québec and British Columbia where he conducted research on genetically modified potatoes, among other projects. He was director of the biotechnology department at the Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre in Summerland, BC.
After 35 years of research and teaching of soil and molecular biology, Vrain retired to a small farm in Courtenay, BC called Innisfree. Today, Thierry Vrain is a gardener, a teacher, and a passionate speaker about organic gardening—from soil health to GMOs.
Tell me a little more about your background.
Thierry Vrain: I worked in three research institutes in Montreal, Vancouver, and Summerland. I was the head of a research group using molecular biology tools. We worked on food crops. I was genetically engineering small fruit and potatoes for nematode resistance using the snowdrop lectin gene.
The genetically engineered apple (now under regulatory review in the US and Canada) originated in our group though I wasn’t involved with the research.
Did you speak publically in favor of genetic engineering when you were at Agriculture Canada?
Vrain: Yes, I just took it on as my job. I explained the safety of the technology to the public and did a good amount of lecturing, educating small groups.
What led you to change from a supporter of genetically modified foods to an opponent?
Vrain: I have some difficulties with how the controversy is handled. If you aren’t a scientist you don’t understand the science. If you are a scientist and discover things that are of concern, then you are accused of doing “pseudoscience” and often viciously attacked by the industry and academics on the payroll. This has happened many times, for example to Arpad Pusztai in England and then Ignacio Chapela, who discovered GMO contamination in native corn in Mexico. He was attacked and almost fired from his post at the University of California. A year later his findings were confirmed.
There are now quite a number of research publications, in peer reviewed journals, showing concerns from feeding GM corn and soy to rats. Those studies are ignored and shouldn’t be. Federal agencies should repeat the studies and must test these crops for safety.
Research scientists from the US Food & Drug Administration made it clear in the early 1990s that there could be indirect effects from eating GM crops, such as toxins, allergens, and nutritional deficiencies. Those warnings were ignored. Now a good number of publications are confirming the predictions of the FDA scientists.
It troubles me that money and the bottom line are at the root of the use of the technology.
You say that the science behind genetic engineering is based on a misunderstanding. Please elaborate on this.
Vrain: When we started with genetic engineering in the 1980s, the science was based on the theory that one gene produces one protein. But we now know, since the human genome project, that a gene can create more than one protein. The insertion of genes in the genome through genetic engineering interrupts the coding sequence of the DNA, creating truncated, rogue proteins, which can cause unintended effects. It’s an invasive technology.
Biotech companies ignore these rogue proteins; they say they are background noise. But we should pay attention to them. It must be verified that they produce no negative effects.
A key point is that the concern about genetic engineering should be about the proteins. Many plants and animals are not edible because their proteins are toxic or poisonous. To test for the safety of Bt crops, scientists have mostly fed the pure protein to rats, and there may be no problem. But it’s different if you feed rats the whole GM plant because they are getting these rogue proteins that could cause harm.
How do you explain published papers describing how rats and mice suffer organ damage from eating GM corn or soy? It’s too easy to dismiss those as pseudoscience. Rats and mice are the canary in the mine, and we should be paying attention to what happens to them.
Why don’t more people recognize the misunderstanding behind genetic engineering?
Vrain: The human genome project is only 10 years old. How long did it take for people to recognize that the earth is not flat?
And there are many scientists that promote genetic engineering of foods.
Vrain: There are a lot of people on the payroll and a lot of grant money flowing from biotech companies to academia. I used to be employed by Agriculture Canada. I did my job, and didn’t question things too much.
What are some of the other risks you see with GMOs?
Vrain: When I hear we need genetic engineering to feed the world, I cringe. It turns out that there is no increase in yield, no decrease use of pesticides, and the process is of highly questioned safety.
Even if genetic engineering was perfectly safe, I still question it because of genetic pollution. Organic crops and foods are becoming contaminated.
I’m also concerned about contamination of the environment with antibiotic resistant genes. Every GM crop has these genes. The preliminary evidence we have is that bacteria in the soil and in the human gut are capable of picking those genes up. Considering the alarm I hear from medical people about losing antibiotics, I think this should be a serious concern.
What about the GMO apple that may be commercialized?
Vrain: There’s no research or toxicity tests to show that it’s not toxic.
I question whether it’s useful. It’s not different from what other biotech companies do, which is to put out a product and make money.
Apple growers, conventional and organic, are very concerned that people will reject their products if a GM apple is introduced.
The apple is a symbol of health. An engineered apple does not have the same health appeal, and the industry knows that.
What led you to favor organic agriculture?
Vrain: I used to be a soil biologist and focused on fertilizers and pesticides. When I retired I started to look around and, quite frankly, the organic side of soil biology made more sense than what I had taught.
Industrial agriculture relies on inputs that are good for the chemical industry. Unfortunately, we have evidence that inputs are degrading soil biodiversity. Industrial agriculture completely ignores the ecology of the soil.
When I was a soil biologist I would look at the biodiversity of the soil. I would see a big difference between industrial farms and organic farms, which had far more species of soil microfauna, microscopic “animals” and nematodes, what I call biodiversity.
Tell me about the work you’re doing now with Innisfree Farm.
Vrain: It’s a small farm, a demonstration garden. My wife is an herbalist, and we grow medicinal plants. Young students come and learn about medicinal plants and organic growing.
It’s my retirement project. I say I’m atoning for my sins.
- See more at: http://www.non-gmoreport.com/art ... thash.kEV61Awd.dpuf
此人在退休前支持并研究转基因技术的，他领导的基因工程小组研究小水果和土豆抗线虫使用雪花莲凝集素基因，并且转基因苹果(现在在美国和加拿大的监管审批)起源于他的小组。退休以后自己开了一个小农场，专门生产销售有机食品。从专访中可以看出，没有任何新的研究证据，还是拿那个被质疑的老鼠实验忽悠。这种经营小农场销售有机食品的人说的话，有几分可信度，大家自行判断吧。
wujingping 发表于 2014-6-10 20:06
多一种工具总是有用的。挺转的说没问题是因为两个原因：
1.有检疫系统来把关。
挺转的一直这么说
可是
在过去年代里N多东西拍着胸脯说没问题的 也是是科学家
中国政府搞的 增对转基因的检疫系统在那？这问题我问了好多次。可是挺转的就没科普过。
我说了 。我不反对转基因。可是既然论坛里那么铁杆转派。一般人要求个制度上的心理安慰你们都不支持。
要别人信上帝一样相信你们的转基因。转基因科学就是上帝？科学可是不断进步的。很多理论会过时难道不是？
wujingping 发表于 2014-6-10 20:06
多一种工具总是有用的。挺转的说没问题是因为两个原因：
1.有检疫系统来把关。
挺转的一直这么说
可是
在过去年代里N多东西拍着胸脯说没问题的 也是是科学家
中国政府搞的 增对转基因的检疫系统在那？这问题我问了好多次。可是挺转的就没科普过。
我说了 。我不反对转基因。可是既然论坛里那么铁杆转派。一般人要求个制度上的心理安慰你们都不支持。
要别人信上帝一样相信你们的转基因。转基因科学就是上帝？科学可是不断进步的。很多理论会过时难道不是？
双方都没有证据，所以只能争吵。
我在乎的不是证据。而是制度。要是以后在出现转基因类似的新科技。政府和国家层面应该怎么去评估风险和怎么监管这个新技术。
在转基因上农业部的做为是很被动。对公众的质疑也没什么拿得出手的东西。
难道以后有前沿新技术也还是用国外的数据来说服国内的老百姓？
国内一直也在研究转基因为什么没能拿出让公众信服的数据？
可惜。本来应该推进这个的挺转派言必谈科学精神。却一直说标注转基因就是歧视。这就是他们的科学精神真的理解不了。
我在乎的不是证据。而是制度。要是以后在出现转基因类似的新科技。政府和国家层面应该怎么去评估风险和怎么监管这个新技术。
在转基因上农业部的做为是很被动。对公众的质疑也没什么拿得出手的东西。
难道以后有前沿新技术也还是用国外的数据来说服国内的老百姓？
国内一直也在研究转基因为什么没能拿出让公众信服的数据？
可惜。本来应该推进这个的挺转派言必谈科学精神。却一直说标注转基因就是歧视。这就是他们的科学精神真的理解不了。
暂时来说我们根本没必要冒风险去接触转基因食品，作为一种技术储备研究留种就行了
证明转基因有害论文，很多在发表时遭到有组织的压制而发表不出来。转基因背后有一双无形的手。
北往王师 发表于 2014-6-10 22:16
挺转的一直这么说
可是
在过去年代里N多东西拍着胸脯说没问题的 也是是科学家
凭什么要搞一个“针对转基因的检疫系统“？
挺转的一直这么说
可是
在过去年代里N多东西拍着胸脯说没问题的 也是是科学家
凭什么要搞一个“针对转基因的检疫系统“？
明月照大江 发表于 2014-6-10 22:24
双方都没有证据，所以只能争吵。
http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-1845053-1-1.html，证据早列了，反转控装作没看见。
双方都没有证据，所以只能争吵。
http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-1845053-1-1.html，证据早列了，反转控装作没看见。
从业者发布的，有利于自身行业的结果，谁信？
伊卡洛斯027 发表于 2014-6-10 23:04
http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-1845053-1-1.html，证据早列了，反转控装作没看见。
转基因无害论，根本不可能拿出证据。谁能证明未来出现的转基因食品无害？
证据怎么可能是一个帖子，这就不是科学，连科普都算不上。
http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-1845053-1-1.html，证据早列了，反转控装作没看见。
转基因无害论，根本不可能拿出证据。谁能证明未来出现的转基因食品无害？
证据怎么可能是一个帖子，这就不是科学，连科普都算不上。
北往王师 发表于 2014-6-10 22:42
我在乎的不是证据。而是制度。要是以后在出现转基因类似的新科技。政府和国家层面应该怎么去评估风险和怎么 ...
转基因不是什么新科技，而是和杂交一样，在自然界普遍存在的自然现象，你见过杂交标注了吗?别的不标，就单这一种要求标注，本身就是一种不安全的暗示，和元首给犹太人贴的大卫六角星没什么区别。
我在乎的不是证据。而是制度。要是以后在出现转基因类似的新科技。政府和国家层面应该怎么去评估风险和怎么 ...
转基因不是什么新科技，而是和杂交一样，在自然界普遍存在的自然现象，你见过杂交标注了吗?别的不标，就单这一种要求标注，本身就是一种不安全的暗示，和元首给犹太人贴的大卫六角星没什么区别。
除了20楼的链接，再补充点”自然转基因“的资料。
http://www.kib.ac.cn/xwzx/kyjz/201211/t20121108_3679532.html
http://www.ebiotrade.com/newsf/2002-11/L200211793335.htm
http://www.cas.cn/ky/kyjz/201401/t20140117_4024318.shtml
http://www.kib.ac.cn/xwzx/kyjz/201211/t20121108_3679532.html
http://www.ebiotrade.com/newsf/2002-11/L200211793335.htm
http://www.cas.cn/ky/kyjz/201401/t20140117_4024318.shtml
鍖楀線鐜嬪笀 鍙戣〃浜来自: Android客户端
明月照大江 发表于 2014-6-10 23:11
转基因无害论，根本不可能拿出证据。谁能证明未来出现的转基因食品无害？
证据怎么可能是一个帖子，这就 ...
没有人说”转基因食品无害“，而是说”转基因食品的安全性和传统食品相同“，这世界上本来就没有绝对安全无害的食品，”万物皆有毒，只要剂量足“，只要剂量合适，连水和氧气都能毒死你。
那个贴子里有大量的资料，足够证明”转基因食品的安全性和传统食品相同“，你都看了？
明月照大江 发表于 2014-6-10 23:11
转基因无害论，根本不可能拿出证据。谁能证明未来出现的转基因食品无害？
证据怎么可能是一个帖子，这就 ...
没有人说”转基因食品无害“，而是说”转基因食品的安全性和传统食品相同“，这世界上本来就没有绝对安全无害的食品，”万物皆有毒，只要剂量足“，只要剂量合适，连水和氧气都能毒死你。
那个贴子里有大量的资料，足够证明”转基因食品的安全性和传统食品相同“，你都看了？
加拿大人和美国人一样(3.5亿人)天天在吃转基因食品，吃了十几年了。对人体有害，应该很明顕了，在那里?
这个人应该算顶尖的转基因专家了吧，退休后为什么“倒退”去搞有机食品呢？应该能够说明其对转基因的真实态度。从事转基因研究应该进行很多实验吧，所有的实验都公开了吗？有经过长期跟踪的实验吗？最终被端上来的只是不容易发现危害的东西而已。
北往王师 发表于 2014-6-10 22:16
挺转的一直这么说
可是
在过去年代里N多东西拍着胸脯说没问题的 也是是科学家
不需要对转基因另眼相待，只要在现有检疫体系里面审核就可以了。因此也就没啥“新增”这个概念。
说白了，要检疫机构给力，在现有体系下面普通食品和转基因食品也是一样安全的，要是不给力，那么全都不安全，没有啥分别。如果对转基因另眼相待，那么绝对会被刁难与扼杀。另起炉灶是要花成本的，而且法律法规另起炉灶等于是又给了腐败与权利寻租一个机会。
反转的根本上是对检疫机构的不信任，要不就是阴谋论作祟，还有传统上根深蒂固的“道法自然”思维。
挺转的说实话把话说的太满了，也有误导公众之嫌，这也是不对的。不过我体谅他们是被反转的给挤兑的口不择言，因此就不在道德上给予评判了。人吵起架来那就不是在辩论真理，而是在捍卫自己的江湖地位，那是东风压倒西风还是西风压倒东风的严重问题了。离远了看看双方都挺可笑的，但是他们自己不知道。
再说一下普通的公众，人总是喜欢听顺耳的，现在是互联网时代，那是眼球经济时代，谁能够迎合公众的心思谁就有钱赚。一帮子意见领袖其实也就是在干这个，他们的职业就是在揣摩迎合公众的心思，专拣顺溜的说。这对于明辨问题的是非，那是根本不利的。科学的结论不会跟着民意转，跟着民意转的那都要充分警惕。因此最好大家能冷静下来，有空不妨听听自己不喜欢的言论，回过头去想想，说不定有所收获。
北往王师 发表于 2014-6-10 22:16
挺转的一直这么说
可是
在过去年代里N多东西拍着胸脯说没问题的 也是是科学家
不需要对转基因另眼相待，只要在现有检疫体系里面审核就可以了。因此也就没啥“新增”这个概念。
说白了，要检疫机构给力，在现有体系下面普通食品和转基因食品也是一样安全的，要是不给力，那么全都不安全，没有啥分别。如果对转基因另眼相待，那么绝对会被刁难与扼杀。另起炉灶是要花成本的，而且法律法规另起炉灶等于是又给了腐败与权利寻租一个机会。
反转的根本上是对检疫机构的不信任，要不就是阴谋论作祟，还有传统上根深蒂固的“道法自然”思维。
挺转的说实话把话说的太满了，也有误导公众之嫌，这也是不对的。不过我体谅他们是被反转的给挤兑的口不择言，因此就不在道德上给予评判了。人吵起架来那就不是在辩论真理，而是在捍卫自己的江湖地位，那是东风压倒西风还是西风压倒东风的严重问题了。离远了看看双方都挺可笑的，但是他们自己不知道。
再说一下普通的公众，人总是喜欢听顺耳的，现在是互联网时代，那是眼球经济时代，谁能够迎合公众的心思谁就有钱赚。一帮子意见领袖其实也就是在干这个，他们的职业就是在揣摩迎合公众的心思，专拣顺溜的说。这对于明辨问题的是非，那是根本不利的。科学的结论不会跟着民意转，跟着民意转的那都要充分警惕。因此最好大家能冷静下来，有空不妨听听自己不喜欢的言论，回过头去想想，说不定有所收获。
spr10 发表于 2014-6-11 00:24
这个人应该算顶尖的转基因专家了吧，退休后为什么“倒退”去搞有机食品呢？应该能够说明其对转基因的真实态 ...
那说不准了，不可以以一个人出尔反尔的行为来作为证据。说不定他退休后脑袋被驴踢了呢。
退一步说，有机食品只是在种植的时候符合一定的环境标准，比如不用农药啦，用农家肥啦……，种子是不是转基因，仿佛没要求吧。
spr10 发表于 2014-6-11 00:24
这个人应该算顶尖的转基因专家了吧，退休后为什么“倒退”去搞有机食品呢？应该能够说明其对转基因的真实态 ...
那说不准了，不可以以一个人出尔反尔的行为来作为证据。说不定他退休后脑袋被驴踢了呢。
退一步说，有机食品只是在种植的时候符合一定的环境标准，比如不用农药啦，用农家肥啦……，种子是不是转基因，仿佛没要求吧。
spr10 发表于 2014-6-11 00:24
这个人应该算顶尖的转基因专家了吧，退休后为什么“倒退”去搞有机食品呢？应该能够说明其对转基因的真实态 ...
天下熙熙皆为利来，天下攘攘皆为利往，搞有机食品容易忽悠到钱啊。
很多实验？20楼链接里的关于塞拉利尼实验和日本同类实验的讨论把反转控们的皮都扒了，最后反转控都不敢露头了。
spr10 发表于 2014-6-11 00:24
这个人应该算顶尖的转基因专家了吧，退休后为什么“倒退”去搞有机食品呢？应该能够说明其对转基因的真实态 ...
天下熙熙皆为利来，天下攘攘皆为利往，搞有机食品容易忽悠到钱啊。
很多实验？20楼链接里的关于塞拉利尼实验和日本同类实验的讨论把反转控们的皮都扒了，最后反转控都不敢露头了。
「转基因食物其实并非食品，而是化学物。研究表明，转基因玉米与大豆含有毒素或者致过敏性的蛋白质。」
如果这话是一个学者说的，那很有理由质疑他的学术水平。当然更可能的是他的人品有问题。
如果这话是一个学者说的，那很有理由质疑他的学术水平。当然更可能的是他的人品有问题。
加拿大人和美国人一样(3.5亿人)天天在吃转基因食品，吃了十几年了。对人体有害，应该很明顕了，在那里?
不能说美国人加拿大人天天吃转基因吃了十几年，就能证明转基因是无害的，转基因对人体的有害试验恐怕几十年是查不出来，没有人去查自己体内的转基因有害物质是多少，转基因的危害肯定会有的，美国人加拿大人是不是天天吃转基因食品，有待调查，美国的转基因大豆大部分是出口的，中国进口美国很多
不能说美国人加拿大人天天吃转基因吃了十几年，就能证明转基因是无害的，转基因对人体的有害试验恐怕几十年是查不出来，没有人去查自己体内的转基因有害物质是多少，转基因的危害肯定会有的，美国人加拿大人是不是天天吃转基因食品，有待调查，美国的转基因大豆大部分是出口的，中国进口美国很多
加拿大人和美国人一样(3.5亿人)天天在吃转基因食品，吃了十几年了。对人体有害，应该很明顕了，在那里?
不能说美国人加拿大人天天吃转基因吃了十几年，就能证明转基因是无害的，转基因对人体的有害试验恐怕几十年是查不出来，没有人去查自己体内的转基因有害物质是多少，转基因的危害肯定会有的，美国人加拿大人是不是天天吃转基因食品，有待调查，美国的转基因大豆大部分是出口的，中国进口美国很多
不能说美国人加拿大人天天吃转基因吃了十几年，就能证明转基因是无害的，转基因对人体的有害试验恐怕几十年是查不出来，没有人去查自己体内的转基因有害物质是多少，转基因的危害肯定会有的，美国人加拿大人是不是天天吃转基因食品，有待调查，美国的转基因大豆大部分是出口的，中国进口美国很多
胡杨杨 发表于 2014-6-11 06:15
不能说美国人加拿大人天天吃转基因吃了十几年，就能证明转基因是无害的，转基因对人体的有害试验恐怕几十 ...
自己把20楼里的链接好好看看。
不能说美国人加拿大人天天吃转基因吃了十几年，就能证明转基因是无害的，转基因对人体的有害试验恐怕几十 ...
自己把20楼里的链接好好看看。
http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-1857222-1-1.html
农业部:严防转基因品种冒充非转基因品种审定
农业部表示，农业转基因生物安全监管工作事关粮食安全、食品安全和生态安全。农业部高度重视，不断健全制度，强化监管。目前，农业转基因生物安全管理规范有序，总体可控，但在一些地方偶有发生违规扩散现象，引起社会关注。各级农业部门要充分认识加强农业转基因生物安全监管工作的重要性，认真按照党中央、国务院明确提出的积极研究、慎重推广的要求，以高度负责的态度，进一步加强农业转基因生物安全监管工作。
农业部:严防转基因品种冒充非转基因品种审定
农业部表示，农业转基因生物安全监管工作事关粮食安全、食品安全和生态安全。农业部高度重视，不断健全制度，强化监管。目前，农业转基因生物安全管理规范有序，总体可控，但在一些地方偶有发生违规扩散现象，引起社会关注。各级农业部门要充分认识加强农业转基因生物安全监管工作的重要性，认真按照党中央、国务院明确提出的积极研究、慎重推广的要求，以高度负责的态度，进一步加强农业转基因生物安全监管工作。
这个人应该算顶尖的转基因专家了吧，退休后为什么“倒退”去搞有机食品呢？应该能够说明其对转基因的真实态 ...
真相是这家伙退休以后跑去卖有机食品去了。利润高嘛。自然要时不时出来吼一吼打压竞争者。
真相是这家伙退休以后跑去卖有机食品去了。利润高嘛。自然要时不时出来吼一吼打压竞争者。
伊卡洛斯027 发表于 2014-6-10 23:20
没有人说”转基因食品无害“，而是说”转基因食品的安全性和传统食品相同“，这世界上本来就没有绝对安 ...
没有逻辑性，什么也证明不了。
没有人说”转基因食品无害“，而是说”转基因食品的安全性和传统食品相同“，这世界上本来就没有绝对安 ...
没有逻辑性，什么也证明不了。
明月照大江 发表于 2014-6-11 12:06
没有逻辑性，什么也证明不了。
那你就绝食吧，因为你现在在吃的食物基本都是近几十年才出现的品种，哪个都没经过理论和N代人试吃的检验，按你的”逻辑“，都”没有逻辑性，什么也证明不了“。
没有逻辑性，什么也证明不了。
那你就绝食吧，因为你现在在吃的食物基本都是近几十年才出现的品种，哪个都没经过理论和N代人试吃的检验，按你的”逻辑“，都”没有逻辑性，什么也证明不了“。
伊卡洛斯027 发表于 2014-6-11 20:32
那你就绝食吧，因为你现在在吃的食物基本都是近几十年才出现的品种，哪个都没经过理论和N代人试吃的检验 ...
你跟这号人谈逻辑，太高估他的理解能力了。
那你就绝食吧，因为你现在在吃的食物基本都是近几十年才出现的品种，哪个都没经过理论和N代人试吃的检验 ...
你跟这号人谈逻辑，太高估他的理解能力了。