Meat and milk from clones

perlu digaris bawahi bahwa hal yang memang memicu hal-hal yang bisa menjadi perbandingan bagi sebagian besar pengunjung ke website ini adalah rincian yang jelas serta hubungan yang komprehensif maka dari itu silahkan lihat ulasannya

mkk

for nearly four years, dairy farmer greg wiles has poured milk from his cloned cows down the drain in compliance with a voluntary ban on food from cloned livestock.

now in financial straits, wiles says he may be forced to sell his cloned cows for hamburger.

the food and drug administration says that’s probably safe, but pressure from the food industry has kept the agency from actually approving it. milk and meat marketers worry that consumers won’t accept food from cloned animals.

wiles says he can’t wait any longer. facing eviction in a bitter family business dispute, he says he may be forced to violate the ban and sell his two clones for hamburger meat.

“if i don’t find a new home for these animals for them to live out their lifetime, i could be forced by a court of law to introduce them into the food chain,” wiles says.

the failure, so far, to approve cloned animals for the food supply raises a quandary for consumers. the federal government has no way to stop a farmer such as wiles from selling meat or milk from cloned animals. that means no one can be sure the food supply is free of them.

the dairy industry says there are at least 150 livestock clones living in the united states. a single dairy cow makes about 128 glasses of milk every day. cows that stop producing milk are often sold to ground beef plants, where a single dairy cow can be turned into more than 3,000 hamburger patties.

consumer advocates say the government should never have let cloned animals live on commercial farms in the first place.

“who knows whether people adhere to the voluntary moratorium or not?” says joseph mendelson of the center for food safety, an environmental and public health group. “that’s the problem with a system that relies on the good graces of everyone.”

resistance in the industry is a big reason why the government has taken so long to decide. fda officials have repeatedly said that food from cloned animals appears to be as safe as conventional food. they say they are close to making a decision and could act by the end of the year.

but they have been under pressure from big food companies, which worry that consumers’ concerns about animal cloning will prompt them to reject meat and milk.

surveys have shown that people are wary of food from cloned animals; 64 percent said they were uncomfortable with animal cloning in a september poll by the pew initiative on food and biotechnology, says michael fernandez, executive director of the nonpartisan research group.

when he got into the business of breeding dairy cows, wiles never imagined that cloning would be so controversial or that government approval would take so long.

his father was running a commercial dairy farm when wiles returned home in 1996 from the university of maryland, full of ideas for breeding champion dairy cows.

in just a few years, wiles hit the big time with zita, a holstein that won top ratings for her high level of milk production and the superior butterfat content of her milk. zita and her offspring drew visitors and customers from all over the world.

but eventually, zita grew too old to have more calves. that’s when a cloning company approached wiles about making genetic copies of zita. wiles was enthusiastic, and in 2001, genesis and another clone, cyagra, were born.

around the same time, fda asked farmers and cloning companies to hold off on using clones or their offspring for food while officials finished a “risk assessment” to determine whether they were safe.

since then, wiles has been able to sell milk from other cows on his farm, but not from genesis and cyagra. one customer told him it was unwise to invest in animals from the herd, because they mingled with the clones on the farm. genesis has had six offspring, all sired by a cloned bull in canada.

“business basically completely dried up, and we have not sold an embryo or bull in the last three years,” wiles says.

wiles took over the farm operation three years ago from his father, who still owns the 20-acre property in northwest maryland. but wiles hasn’t paid rent in several months, and his father is seeking to evict him. the men don’t speak, not even when the father drives onto the farm to check on his crops.

father charles wiles says the cows should be euthanized and buried, not sold for meat, because the fda has not ruled meat and milk from livestock clones to be safe for people to eat.

“if you can’t milk them, and you can’t eat them, and you can’t sell them, what are you supposed to do with them? keep them until they die of old age?” charles wiles asks. “this is the dairy industry, not a hobby. it’s got to be a moneymaking, profitable enterprise.”

wiles says he doesn’t want the animals killed – he says one of the clones, cyagra, has had health problems and should be studied. cyagra has never grown to full size, aborted her first calf and had another that died a month after it was born. wiles has offered her to the government for research. the government has declined.

an industry group, the international dairy foods association, hopes that wiles will abide by the voluntary moratorium and keep his clones out of the food supply. the association, which represents brands such as kraft, dannon and borden, says it believes all farmers have complied with the ban.

the fda urges wiles to comply as well, spokesman doug arbesfeld said. “fda has asked farmers voluntarily to refrain from putting meat or milk from cloned animals into the food supply until the agency’s risk assessment is complete,” arbesfeld said.

wiles has a few weeks more to try to find a solution; a judge delayed the eviction proceeding on dec. 13.

“i have figured up hundreds of thousands of dollars of losses at a minimum because of these clones,” wiles said. “if i can’t recoup my investment, and they’re no longer productive at all, their only choice is that they go into the food supply.”

kami ingin menginformasikan kepada anda bahwa harga bondek pabrik di tempat kami sangat murah untuk membangun pabrik pertanian anda dan juga kami merupakan distributor stainless steel untuk alat dapur dan harga atap spandek untuk green house lengkap silahkan dicoba

Biofortification

dalam kasus ini kita akan sedikit menyimpulkan bahwa hal yang perlu diperhatikan dari setiap item yang bisa dipakai untuk berbagai kepentingan yang nyata silahkan anda analisa sendiri bagaimana langkah yang seharusnya diambil

Biofortification

the united nations and its special rapporteur on food olivier de schutter, assert the universal human right to nourishing foods so everyone can be healthy and achieve our full potential. but micronutrient malnutrition – hidden hunger – and starvation afflict at least a billion members of the human family, through a lack of micronutrients and access to affordable food.
bfg
in 1992, 159 countries at a un food and agricultural organization/world health oganization international conference on nutrition pledged to help combat micronutrient deficiencies, especially of iodine, vitamin a, and iron, which then afflicted up to one in three people worldwide. though food fortification alone would not end nutrient deficiencies and hunger, it claimed to be a step in the right direction. so a lot of scarce research and development resources have been poured into developing the new technology of biofortification. there are no biofortified foods yet.

gene manipulation

biofortification uses genetic manipulation techniques to cut and paste a gene into a staple crop, seeking to make a new or lost micronutrient. it is claimed they will be a solution to nutrient deficiencies, starvation, malnutrition, and resultant ill health, especially in less industrialized countries and regions.

for  instance, so-called golden rice, yellow because it contains the vitamin a precursor beta-carotene, claims to be biofortified.  but this would merely restore the vitamin a lost when brown rice is polished and its husk, bran, and germ are removed. white rice stores better than brown so is more acceptable in global trade and in communities which do not understand brown rice’s health benefits. bananas, cassava, and sweet potato are also the targets of much biofortification research.

but leading global food biofortification research and development organization, harvestplus, also acknowledges: “fruits, vegetables, and animal products are rich in micronutrients, but these foods are often not available to the poor. their daily diet consists mostly of a few inexpensive staple foods, such as rice or cassava, which have few micronutrients. the consequences, in terms of malnutrition and health, are devastating and can result in blindness, stunting, disease, and even death.”

so, most malnutrition and starvation are really the food access disasters of poverty, inequity and social injustice. thus, the challenge to feed everyone well is much more than adding one or two key nutrients to an impoverished diet dominated by a staple food or two. yet harvestplus and other biofortification enthusiasts such as the bill and melinda gates foundation do not intend to redress the lack of access to diverse healthy foods for all. they merely propose to add one or two micronutrients to fortify the same few staple foods that most poor people now have to rely on. biofortification is not a solution to the core problem of access to a nutritious, diverse, balanced diet, a human right which would satisfy the health entitlements of all people, everywhere.

biofortification distraction

instead of fixing the hidden hunger problem, biofortification defuses and delays the quest for food justice, to meet everyone’s right to food. it would further marginalize the world’s poor, malnourished and starving people, mostly landless women and children in rural areas or those displaced into urban slums by destruction of their communities. biofortification would consign poor people permanently to low value, nutrient deficient, staple food ghettos from which they could not escape, permanently denying them the diverse nutritious meals to which they have a right.

biofortification is therefore a misallocation of scarce research and development resources that would entrench poor people’s lack of access to the balanced nutritious food of which there is an abundance, if only it were fairly distributed to all. but in food systems dominated by global trade in bulk commodities and food waste, food goes where it is most profitable rather than where it is most needed. we must work to dispel the inequities which allow nutrient deficiency to remain a chronic problem even though, as de schutter and others confirm, there is sufficient good food to adquately feed everyone in the world right now.

biofortified food staples will not ensure people’s health is improved, nor that their human rights to food are met. public resources should be directed to helping empower malnourished and starving people to gain access to the land, water and seeds they need to locally produce the fresh fruits and vegetables that everyone agrees will resolve hidden hunger, starvation, illness and death.

it’s our responsibility is to ensure that every child, woman and man has acces to the fresh fruits and vegetables needed for childhood growth and development, and adult health.

kami informasikan berbagai macam harga besi pipa baja sch 80 dalam membangun penyaluran gas untuk greenhouse semua bisa didapatkan dengan memasang dan membeli dari distributor rangka atap baja ringan yang sesuai dengan kebutuhan anda silahkan dicoba

organic food is better than conventionally raised food

kemampuan tiap negara untuk memproduksi makanan organik berbeda-beda jadi tergantung pabrik dan tempat yang akan dibangun untuk pertanian organik mereka memadai atau tidak jadi silahkan dibaca

organic food

fo

in the debate over whether organic food is better than conventionally raised food, advocates for organic produce say it contains fewer harmful chemicals and is better for the earth, and some claim that it is more nutritious.

and recent preliminary evidence suggests that the levels of certain nutrients, especially vitamin c, some minerals and some polyphenols – naturally occurring antioxidants that may help bolster the immune system – are higher in organically grown crops.

as a result of this preliminary evidence and the agriculture department’s adoption in 2000 of standards for organic foods, the organic trade association has created the nonprofit center for organic education and promotion to finance research that could verify what small-scale research may suggest: organic food may provide greater health benefits than conventional food.

“we want to take the knowledge to the next level until there is a solid body of research that we can stand behind,” said katherine dimatteo, executive director of the association. “there needs to be more rigor.”

a study in the january 2003 journal of agricultural and food chemistry found 52 percent more ascorbic acid, or vitamin c, in frozen organic corn than in conventional corn, and 67 percent more in corn raised by sustainable methods – a combination of organic and conventional farming. polyphenols were significantly higher in organic and sustainable marionberries compared to conventionally farmed ones.

a three-year study in italy, reported in the august 2002 issue of the same journal, found higher levels of polyphenols in organic peaches and pears, and about 8 percent more ascorbic acid in organic peaches.

and a study in the february 2002 european journal of nutrition found more salicylic acid in organic vegetable soup than in nonorganic soup. salicylic acid is responsible for the anti-inflammatory properties of aspirin, and bolsters the immune system.

critics say these studies were poorly done, are biased and dealt with tiny differences in nutrients.

alex avery, director of research and education at the center for global food issues at the hudson institute, who frequently disputes claims for the positive health benefits of organic farming, said the marionberry and corn study did not involve proper statistical analysis and that the data came from a single year and a single farm.

“this is a very, very shaky basis, given the differences that can occur,” mr. avery said.

dr. diane barrett of the university of california at davis, a researcher on the study, said: “we acknowledge it’s very preliminary data.” she added: “it was a real-life look at what happens in a grower’s field. we did not expect such differences among organic, sustainable and conventional farming. we see it as an open door to doing more controlled studies at the university.”

charles benbrook, former executive director of the board on agriculture at the national academy of sciences, who is a consultant on the impact of agricultural systems and technology on food safety and the environment, said the study’s conclusions were not surprising.

“this study extends and reinforces findings in earlier research,” he said, referring to reports indicating that when plants are not treated with pesticides and are attacked by insects their levels of antioxidants rise to limit damage.

“but it is new because it uses different crops under different circumstances. the study may have flaws, but it is a legitimate study.”

mr. avery said the italian study showed very little difference in nutrient levels. “i don’t think you are going to find any health differences,” he said.

and while scientists emphasize the importance of polyphenols and other antioxidants, particularly because they might help fight cancer, mr. avery said: “no one has a clue how much phenolics anyone needs to consume. anyone who claims nutritional benefits from higher or lower phenolics doesn’t understand.”

dr. john reganold, a professor of soil science at washington state university, who has conducted research with organic farming systems systems, described the italian study as good, and said the results were valid. the higher levels of vitamin c, mr. reganold said, are “biologically significant.”

in 2001, the soil association of england, which sets organic standards, asked shane heaton, a nutritionist, to analyze available studies on nutrient differences between organically and conventionally grown food.

he looked at 99 studies and discarded 70 because, he said, they examined growers who did not use certified organic practices, did not make relevant comparisons or were of insufficient duration.cek material harga besi pipa baja hitam material bangunan

he found that in 14 studies of minerals, 7 showed a “trend toward mineral contents” in organic foods, while 6 showed inconclusive or inconsistent results and 1 showed a higher mineral content for nonorganics. for vitamin c, 7 of 13 studies showed significantly higher levels in organics; they ranged from 6 percent to 100 percent. six of the studies showed inconsistent or insignificant differences.

mr. avery said mr. heaton’s study was tainted because of the soil association’s interests.

“a number of research trials time and time again have not found any significant differences,” he said. “you need very large, carefully designed and carefully controlled studies to prove that there is a difference because of large natural variability.”

pressed to be more specific, mr. avery whose organization has received financing from monsanto, dowelanco and the ag-chem equipment company, which are involved in conventional agriculture and biotechnology, did not offer further criticism.

mr. heaton said other researchers had reviewed his work and said it demonstrated “important differences between organic and nonorganic produce.”

dr. joseph rosen, a professor of food science at rutgers, said the conclusions of the studies mr. heaton had focused on were less consistent than mr. heaton had claimed.mari buktikan distributor besi pipa baja sch 4o yang bagus

dr. rosen said there were only two studies on phytonutrients – naturally occurring antioxidants – and only one showed higher levels in organic food.

actually, there are five studies in mr. heaton’s report; four of them showed significant difference in phytonutrients.

dr. marion nestle, chairwoman of the department of nutrition, food studies and public health at new york university, said that because there is so much variation in the soil, the amount of sun and rainfall, “it is difficult to compare findings of different studies.”

but she said of mr. heaton’s study: “the investigators have gone to a lot of trouble, and there is no reason to disbelieve it.” his findings, she said, “are consistent with studies coming out now on nutrients, phytochemicals and pesticides.”

the debate is far from resolved.

organic foods, mr. avery said, “are clearly no safer, no more nutritious, no more healthful – there are zero advantages for consumers.”

dr. nestle said, “i don’t think there is any question that as more research is done, it is going to become increasingly apparent that organic food is healthier.”

organics for your health

Pembelajaran tentang cara membangun greenhouse untuk pabrik pertanian organik yang bisa dipakai di negara kita untuk kemakmuran bersama silahkan pelajari mengenai artikel selengkapnya anda akan tercengang

organics for health
ms
here’s some of the evidence that sir john krebs, head of uk’s food standards agency refuses to acknowledge in his persistent denigration of organic agriculture.

less chemical residues

a comprehensive soil association review of scientific research has shown that, on average, organic food is better for us than non-organic food (1). first, it is safer, as organic farming prohibits routine pesticide and herbicide use, so chemical residues are rarely found. in contrast, non-organic food is likely to be contaminated with residues that often occur in potentially dangerous combinations. the british society for allergy, environmental and nutritional medicine states on the back cover of the report: “we have long believed the micronutrient deficiencies common in our patients have their roots in the mineral-depletion of soils by intensive agriculture, and suspect that pesticide exposures are contributing to the alarming rise in allergies and other illnesses” (italics added).

the negative effects of pesticides on health include neurotoxicity, disruption of the endocrine system, carcinogenicity and immune system suppression. the impacts of dietary exposure to pesticide residues at levels typically found in and on food are less easy to establish, but a precautionary approach is necessary. while there are recommended safety levels for pesticides, the uk government’s own tests have shown that average residue levels on foods may be under-reported.

research has also suggested that pesticide exposure affects male reproductive function, resulting in decreased fertilising ability of the sperm and reduced fertilisation rates (2). correspondingly, members of a danish organic farmers’ association, whose intake of organic dairy products was at least 50% of total intake of dairy products, had high sperm density (3).  in another study, sperm concentration was 43.1% higher among men eating organically produced food (4).

children, in particular, may stand to benefit from organic food.

scientists monitored preschool children in seattle, washington to assess their exposure to organophosphorus (op) pesticide from diet (5). the total dimethyl metabolite concentration was approximately six times higher for children with conventional diets than those with organic diets. the calculated dose estimates suggest that consumption of organic fruits, vegetables and juice can reduce children’s exposure levels from above to below the us environmental protection agency’s guidelines, thereby shifting exposures from a range of uncertain risk to a range of negligible risk. the study concluded that consumption of organic produce could be a relatively simple way for parents to reduce children’s exposure to op pesticides.

healthier and more nutritious

additionally, organic food production bans the use of artificial food additives such as hydrogenated fats, phosphoric acid, aspartame and monosodium glutamate, which have been linked to health problems as diverse as heart disease, osteoporosis, migraines and hyperactivity (1). furthermore, while plants extract a wide range of minerals from the soil, artificial fertilisers replace only a few principal minerals. there is a clear long-term decline in the trace mineral content of fruit and vegetables, and the influence of farming practices needs to be investigated more thoroughly. the soil association review (1) found that on average, organic food has higher vitamin c, higher mineral levels and higher phytonutrients – plant compounds that can fight cancer (see later) – than conventional food.

conventional produce also tends to contain more water than organic produce, which contains more dry matter (on average, 20% more) for a given total weight (1). thus, the higher cost of fresh organic produce is partly offset by purchasers of conventional produce paying for the extra weight of water and getting only 83% of the nutrients, on average, available in organic produce. the higher water content also tends to dilute nutrient content.

tests with people and animals eating organic food show it makes a real difference to health, and alternative cancer therapies have achieved good results relying on the exclusive consumption of organic food. the review (1) cites recent clinical evidence from doctors and nutritionists administering “alternative” cancer treatments, who have observed that a completely organic diet is essential for a successful outcome.

nutritional cancer therapies avoid pollutants and toxins as much as possible, and promote exclusive consumption of organically grown foods and increases in nutrient intakes. animal feeding trials have also demonstrated better reproductive health, better growth, and better recovery from illness.

a literature review of 41 studies and 1 240 comparisons (6) found statistically significant differences in the nutrient content of organic and conventional crops. this was attributed primarily to differences in soil fertility management and its effects on soil ecology and plant metabolism. organic crops contained significantly more nutrients -vitamin c, iron, magnesium and phosphorus – and significantly less nitrates (a toxic compound) than conventional crops. there were non-significant trends showing less protein in organic crops. however, organic crops were of a better quality and had higher content of nutritionally significant minerals, with lower amounts of some heavy metals compared to conventional ones.

helping fight cancer

plant phenolics (flavonoids) are plant secondary metabolites thought to protect plants against insect predation, bacterial and fungal infection and photo-oxidation. these plant chemicals have been found to be effective in preventing cancer and heart disease, and to combat age-related neurological dysfunctions. a recent scientific paper (7, 8) compared the total phenolic (tp) content of marionberries, strawberries and corn grown by organic and other sustainable methods with conventional agricultural practices. statistically higher levels of tps were consistently found in organically and sustainably grown foods as compared to those produced by conventional agriculture.

an earlier study comparing antioxidant compounds in organic and conventional peaches and pears established that an improvement in the antioxidant defence system of the plants occurred as a consequence of organic cultivation practices (9). this is likely to exert protection against fruit damage when grown in the absence of pesticides. hence organic agriculture, which eliminates the routine use of synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilisers, could create conditions favourable to the production of health-enhancing plant phenolics.

these and many other health benefits of organic foods have been brought to the attention of the uk government (10, 11). among the issues raised are the hidden costs of conventional agriculture, which are not factored into the price. if hidden costs were taken into account, conventionally produced food would prove more expensive than organic food. for example, avoidance of the bse epidemic through organic farming would have saved $4.5 billion. no animal born and raised on an organic farm developed bse in the uk.

Silahkan kunjungi wensite harga besi wiremesh yang dipadukan dengan berbagai macam jenis besi baja yang tertaut di sini sebagai distributor pipa kotak hollow dan anda akan mendapatkan kesempatan terbatas dalam penawaran

technology to enter food supply with Simplot potato

dibawah ini merupakan informasi penting yang bisa anda dapatkan dari berbagai sumber terpercaya dan hal ini tentu akan membuat anda lebih teliti dan waspada terhadap apa yang anda putuskan.

poorly tested gene silencing technology to enter food supply with simplot potato

oiuy

a new form of genetic engineering will soon be sold to unsuspecting consumers

center for food safety [cfs] warning consumers about a new genetically engineered [ge] potato that may soon enter the food supply. because ge foods are not required to be labeled, the new ge potato will be sold to consumers without their knowledge. the ge potato was one of two new crops approved today by the u.s. department of agriculture [usda] that uses a new, little understood form of genetic engineering called rna interference [rnai]. the other is a new low-lignin alfalfa from monsanto. despite the unprecedented nature of these approvals, usda has inexplicably failed to undertake the legally required rigorous and overarching analysis of the ge crops’ impacts or reasonably foreseeable consequences.

“we simply don’t know enough about rna interference technology to determine whether ge crops developed with it are safe for people and the environment. if this is an attempt to give crop biotechnology a more benign face, all it has really done is expose the inadequacies of the u.s. regulation of ge crops. these approvals are riddled with holes and are extremely worrisome,” said doug gurian-sherman, ph.d., cfs director of sustainable agriculture and senior scientist.

analysis of rnai by a panel of independent scientists requested by the environmental protection agency concluded that there were many significant uncertainties about potential risks from this technology, and that current risk assessment procedures were not adequate. despite such cautions usda is rushing the technology forward.

unlike earlier genetic engineering techniques that splice in segments of dna, the new technique used in the simplot potato and monsanto’s low-lignin alfalfa is based on the manipulation of the plant’s rna-based control mechanisms. rna interference [rnai] induces the plant to silence or dial back expression of the plant’s own genes, such as those responsible for natural processes like browning or lignin production.. however, rna manipulations may end up turning down, or off, genes other than those that were targeted because many genes contain similar, or even identical, stretches of dna. current testing requirements do not reliably detect such effects on other important crop genes.

concerns with simplot potato:

developed by the j.r. simplot company, the potato would be the only ge potato variety on the u.s. commercial market. the simplot potato has been genetically engineered with rnai technology to reduce browning by silencing the expression of one of five polyphenol oxidase genes, which is normally highly expressed in potato tubers. this is attractive to the potato processing industry because bruised potatoes are culled for cosmetic reasons. however, bruised potatoes have not been associated with health risks.

these potatoes are also silenced for genes affecting sugar production and the amino acid asparagine, which during frying and baking lead to the production of acrylamide, a probable carcinogen. however, it is unclear whether the observed reductions will lead to positive health outcomes, given that acrylamide is found in many other foods. in addition, fried potato products have other serious negative health effects.

“in light of the obesity crisis, there has been an important national push to discourage children and adults from eating large quantities of fried foods like french fries or chips. in creating the false illusion that fried potatoes are now healthy, the simplot potato sends the absolute opposite message,” said elizabeth kucinich, policy director at cfs. “claims of health benefits by usda and simplot are short sighted, misleading, and in the light of the science, could actually be potentially dangerous.”

the asparagine gene has also been shown in recent research to be important in plant defenses against pathogens. the simplot potato was not adequately tested for a possible weakening of its ability to defend itself against disease. if this occurs in the field, it could lead to increased fungicide use, greater farmer expense, and possibly reduced productivity. the latter effect was seen in several tests of these potatoes.

“we need answers to these questions before these potatoes are commercialized,” said gurian-sherman.

concerns with monsanto’s low-lignin alfalfa:

monsanto and forage genetics international [fgi] have genetically engineered alfalfa for reduced levels of lignin through the suppression of a key enzyme in the lignin biosynthetic pathway. it represents the first non-regulated ge crop with reduced lignin levels. lignin and its building blocks perform many functions in plants, including structural stability and plant defense. lowering lignin levels could make the alfalfa more prone to attack by insects or diseases, and potentially increase pesticide use. moreover, there are still many unknowns about how plants make lignin, making it premature to manipulate this important pathway. additionally, alfalfa is a perennial crop and can cross-pollinate at great distances, allowing it to interbreed with other types of alfalfa. any adverse impacts of the new variety will therefore be spread rapidly through much or all of the alfalfa seed supply

regulatory failures:

usda assessed the risk from these crops under the inadequate plant pest provisions of the plant protection act [ppa] of 2000. usda has ignored the noxious weed provision of the ppa, which would allow a more thorough risk assessment. by failing to develop reasonable regulations under the ppa 14 years after its passage, usda continues to fail in its mandate to protect the public and the environment.

berbagai macam harga besi plat eser hitam baja dan rincian yang lengkap dari berbagai sumber untuk bangunan dari distributor besi plat kapal baja yang sudah berpengalaman untuk dicoba dalam membangun pabrik makanan anda

support for food biotechnology in The united State

Teknologi tepat guna dalam berbagai sektor terutama konstruksi pabrik makanan dalam hal bioteknologi bisa menjadi acuan dasar pengembangan dan kemandirian dalam infrastruktur pangan yang berkelanjutan dibawah kutipannya

bio

american consumer support for food biotechnology is holding steady, while specific benefits are resonating even more in the latest survey conducted for the international food information council

we noted that ific’s annually conducted pr media fest on this issue is based on surveys including such unbiased questions as whether consumers would be more or less likely to buy foods modified by biotechnology to taste better or fresher or enhanced through biotechnology to be protected from insect damage and require fewer pesticide applications.

we also noted that in a footnote to their press release this u.s. communications organization noted that, ific is supported primarily by the broadbased food, beverage and agricultural industries.

precisely who these supporters are was not specified and a visit to the ific website also failed to reveal its funders. but an ngineer has now forwarded us a pdf of a power point presentation in which the head of the ific spells out, for the likes of the food and consumer products manufacturers of canada, just who its funders are.

the full list is reproduced below and hey, wouldn’t you know it, in addition to the usual food/beverage suspects nestle, unilever et al, the list includes monsanto, not to mention aventis, basf, cargill, dow, dupont, and syngenta.

our industrious ngineer comments, ‘looks like we have big biotech doing a big tobacco hiding their own soapbox at the back of everyone else’s.’

2002 ific supporters
a. e. staley manufacturing company
ajinomoto u. s. a., inc.
archer daniels midland company
aventis cropscience
basf
burger king corporation
cargill, incorporated
the coca cola company
danisco cultor
the dannon company, inc.
dow agrosciences, llc
dupont agricultural products
jack in the box, inc.
frito lay, inc.
general mills, inc.
gerber products company
hershey foods corporation
h. j. heinz company
keebler company
a. e. staley manufacturing company
ajinomoto u. s. a., inc.
archer daniels midland company
aventis cropscience
basf
burger king corporation
cargill, incorporated
the coca cola company
danisco cultor
the dannon company, inc.
dow agrosciences, llc
dupont agricultural products
jack in the box, inc.
fritolay, inc.
general mills, inc.
gerber products company
hershey foods corporation
h. j. heinz company
keebler company
kellogg usa, inc.
kraft foods
m& m/ mars
mcdonald’s corporation
mcneil nutritionals
mead johnson nutritionals
merisant
monsanto company
the pepsi cola company
nestle usa, inc.
nutrinova, inc.
ocean spray cranberries, inc.
taco bell corporation
the procter & gamble company
ross products division/ abbott laboratories
sara lee corporation
syngenta
unilever kellogg usa, inc.
kraft foods
m& m/ mars
mcdonald”šs corporation
mcneil nutritionals
mead johnson nutritionals
merisant
monsanto company
the pepsi cola company
nestle usa, inc.
nutrinova, inc.
ocean spray cranberries, inc.
taco bell corporation
the procter & gamble company
ross products division/ abbott laboratories
sara lee corporation
syngenta
unilever bestfoods

the ific presentation this list comes from can be found at:

for a pdf/3.7 mb download select:
cficfcpmc obesity seminar, june 25, 2002
sylvia rowe
ific
the american obesity experience: ific strategies

norfolk genetic information networking,

the press release below which tells us that, ‘support for food biotechnology holds in the u.s.’ reports the results from the latest annual survey of the international food information council. but you’ll have to read down to a footnote to discover that, ific is supported primarily by the broadbased food, beverage and agricultural industries. precisely who those supporters are is not specified.

the ific press release also fails to mention just how loaded hoban’s survey questions are. questions like:

all things being equal, how likely would you be to buy a variety of produce, like tomatoes or potatoes, if it had been modified by biotechnology to taste better or fresher?

according to karen charman in a pr watch article on hoban and his slanted ific surveys:

‘james beniger, a communications professor at the university of southern california and past president of the american association for public opinion research, reviewed the ific survey and said it is so biased with leading questions favoring positive responses that any results are meaningless. ucla communications professor michael suman agreed, adding that the questions only talk about the food tasting better, being fresher, protecting food from insect damage, reducing saturated fat and providing benefits. it’s like saying ‘here’s biotechnology, it does these great things for you, do you like it?’ the results might be different, suman offers, if it contained questions biased in the other direction such as: some people contend that some foods produced from biotechnology cause higher rates of cancer. if that is so, what effect would that have on your buying decision? ‘ [the professor who can read your mind by karen charman in pr watch vol. 6, no. 4 / fourth quarter 1999

american consumer support for food biotechnology is holding steady, while specific benefits are resonating even more in the latest survey conducted for the international food information council by cogent research in august 2002.

nearly three quarters 71% vs. 65% in 2001 of the us population said they would be likely to buy produce that had been enhanced through biotechnology to be protected from insect damage and require fewer pesticide applications.

in addition, more than half of american consumers 54% would be likely to purchase the same produce if it had been enhanced to taste better or fresher, a number that has remained stable since october 1999. most 61% of consumers still expect to benefit from biotechnology over the next five years. of those expecting benefits, 41% look to improved quality, taste, and variety, 39% cite the area of health and nutrition, and 20% expect biotech to reduce levels of chemicals and pesticides in food production.

overall awareness of biotechnology remains high, with 72% of americans stating they have read or heard information about the issue, and nearly half of consumers 48% have heard about a new area of biotechnology called plantmade pharmaceuticals.

a majority 59% of americans support the fda’s labeling policywhich requires disclosure on a food label only if biotechnology introduces an allergen or substantially changes the food’s nutritional content. also, when asked what information they would like to see added to food labels, 78% of consumers said nothing and just 1% cited information related to biotech ingredients.

the survey was conducted in august 2002 by cogent research of cambridge, massachusetts. telephone surveys of 1001 us adults age 18 and over were completed, and the attached results are representative of the us population.

the press release below which tells us that, ‘support for food biotechnology holds in the u.s.’ reports the results from the latest annual survey of the international food information council. but you’ll have to read down to a footnote to discover that, ific is supported primarily by the broadbased food, beverage and agricultural industries. precisely who those supporters are is not specified.

the press release also fails to tell you that the surveys were devised for the ific by dr thomas hoban, professor of sociology and food science at north carolina state university and a rabid supporter of genetic engineering. hoban is listed by cs prakash as an agbioworld expert.
the ific press release also fails to mention just how loaded hoban’s survey questions are. questions like:

all things being equal, how likely would you be to buy a variety of produce, like tomatoes or potatoes, if it had been modified by biotechnology to taste better or fresher?
according to karen charman in a pr watch article on hoban and his slanted ific surveys:

‘james beniger, a communications professor at the university of southern california and past president of the american association for public opinion research, reviewed the ific survey and said it is so biased with leading questions favoring positive responses that any results are meaningless. ucla communications professor michael suman agreed, adding that the questions only talk about the food tasting better, being fresher, protecting food from insect damage, reducing saturated fat and providing benefits. it’s like saying ‘here’s biotechnology, it does these great things for you, do you like it?’ the results might be different, suman offers, if it contained questions biased in the other direction such as: some people contend that some foods produced from biotechnology cause higher rates of cancer. if that is so, what effect would that have on your buying decision? ‘ [the professor who can read your mind by karen charman in pr watch vol. 6, no. 4 / fourth quarter 1999

support for food biotechnology holds in the u.s.
september 23, 2002
ific

american consumer support for food biotechnology is holding steady, while specific benefits are resonating even more in the latest survey conducted for the international food information council by cogent research in august 2002.

nearly three quarters 71% vs. 65% in 2001 of the us population said they would be likely to buy produce that had been enhanced through biotechnology to be protected from insect damage and require fewer pesticide applications.

in addition, more than half of american consumers 54% would be likely to purchase the same produce if it had been enhanced to taste better or fresher, a number that has remained stable since october 1999. most 61% of consumers still expect to benefit from biotechnology over the next five years. of those expecting benefits, 41% look to improved quality, taste, and variety, 39% cite the area of health and nutrition, and 20% expect biotech to reduce levels of chemicals and pesticides in food production.

overall awareness of biotechnology remains high, with 72% of americans stating they have read or heard information about the issue, and nearly half of consumers 48% have heard about a new area of biotechnology called plantmade pharmaceuticals.

a majority 59% of americans support the fda’s labeling policywhich requires disclosure on a food label only if biotechnology introduces an allergen or substantially changes the food’s nutritional content. also, when asked what information they would like to see added to food labels, 78% of consumers said nothing and just 1% cited information related to biotech ingredients.

the survey was conducted in august 2002 by cogent research of cambridge, massachusetts. telephone surveys of 1001 us adults age 18 and over were completed, and the attached results are representative of the us population.

pada dasarnya harga besi cnp baja akan lebih bagus bila digunakan untuk konstruksi bangunan yang berkwalitas semua tergantung dari perbandingan nya untuk pabrik makanan dan juga distributor besi unp baja yang sudah ternama

organic food has more of the antioxidant

Membuat Pabrik makanan organik dan membangun nya dengan kwalitas yang bagus adalah salah satu poin penting dan memilih kontraktor greenhouse untuk sayuran juga harus disesuaikan dengan standart berkwalitas

ms

note that the expert who provides quotes downplaying the importance of the research is tom sanders, professor of nutrition at king’s college london. sanders has been described in the press as a former consultant to nutrasweet.

organic food has more of the antioxidant compounds linked to better health than regular food, and lower levels of toxic metals and pesticides, according to the most comprehensive scientific analysis to date.

sanders has made a name for himself defending the artificial sweetener aspartame in the press and attacking the research studies of dr arpad pusztai and prof ge seralini, which both found toxic effects from feeding gm foods to rats.

excerpt item 1 the crucially important thing about this research is that it shatters the myth that how we farm does not affect the quality of the food we eat, said helen browning, chief executive of soil association, which campaigns for organic farming.

1. clear differences between organic and nonorganic food, study finds
2. new study finds significant differences between organic and nonorganic food
1. clear differences between organic and nonorganic food, study finds
damian carrington and george arnett

research is first to find wideranging differences between organic and conventional fruits, vegetables, and cereals

organic food has more of the antioxidant compounds linked to better health than regular food, and lower levels of toxic metals and pesticides, according to the most comprehensive scientific analysis to date.

the international team behind the work suggests that switching to organic fruit and vegetables could give the same benefits as adding one or two portions of the recommended five a day.

the team, led by prof carlo leifert at newcastle university, concludes that there are statistically significant, meaningful differences, with a range of antioxidants being substantially higher between 19% and 69% in organic food. it is the first study to demonstrate clear and wideranging differences between organic and conventional fruits, vegetables, and cereals.

the researchers say the increased levels of antioxidants are equivalent to one to two of the five portions of fruits and vegetables recommended to be consumed daily and would therefore be significant and meaningful in terms of human nutrition, if information linking these [compounds] to the health benefits associated with increased fruit, vegetable, and whole grain consumption is confirmed.

the findings will bring to the boil a longsimmering row over whether those differences mean organic food is better for people, with one expert calling the work sexed up.

tom sanders, a professor of nutrition at king’s college london, said the research did show some differences. but the question is are they within natural variation? and are they nutritionally relevant? i am not convinced.

he said leifert’s work had caused controversy in the past. leifert has had a lot of aggro with a lot of people. he is oversexing [this report] a bit. sanders added the research showed organic cereals have less protein than conventional crops.

the research was peerreviewed and is published in a respected scientific journal, the british journal of nutrition. it was due to be released next week, but has appeared on several academic websites.

the results are based on an analysis of 343 peerreviewed studies from around the world more than ever before which examine differences between organic and conventional fruit, vegetables, and cereals.

the crucially important thing about this research is that it shatters the myth that how we farm does not affect the quality of the food we eat, said helen browning, chief executive of soil association, which campaigns for organic farming.

uk sales of organic food, which is often considerably more expensive than nonorganic, are recovering after a slump during the economic crisis.

plants produce many of their antioxidant compounds to fight back against pest attacks, so the higher levels in organic crops may result from their lack of protection by chemical sprays. but the scientists say other reasons may be important, such as organic varieties being bred for toughness and not being overfed with artificial fertilisers.

leifert and his colleagues conclude that many antioxidants have previously been linked to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers. but they also note that no longterm studies showing health benefits from a broad organic diet have yet been conducted.

the researchers found much higher levels of cadmium, a toxic metal, in conventional crops. pesticide residues were found on conventional crops four times more often than on organic food. the research was funded by the eu and an organic farming charity.

the research is certain to be criticized; the inclusion of so many studies in the analysis could mean poor quality work skews the results, although the team did sensitivity analyses and found that excluding weaker work did not significantly change the outcome.

also, the higher levels of cadmium and pesticides in conventional produce were still well below regulatory limits. but the researchers say cadmium accumulates over time in the body and that some people may wish to avoid this, and that pesticide limits are set individually, not for the cocktail of chemicals used on crops.

a further criticism is that the differences seen may result from different climate, soil types, and crop varieties, and not from organic farming, though the researchers argue that combining many studies should average out these other differences.

the greatest criticism, however, will be over the suggestions of potential health benefits. the most recent major analysis, which took in 223 studies in 2012, found little evidence. the published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods, it found.

this was also the conclusion of earlier, smaller studies published in 2009 in a scientific journal and by the uk food standards agency pdf, though the latter considered just 11 studies. the 2012 study did note that eating organic food might help people avoid pesticide residues.

sanders said he was not persuaded by the new work. you are not going to be better nourished if you eat organic food, he said. what is most important is what you eat, not whether it’s organic or conventional. it’s whether you eat fruit and vegetables at all. people are buying into a lifestyle system. they get an assurance it is not being grown with chemicals and is not grown by big business.

he added that organic farming did help to address the significant problem in the uk of soil degradation and excess fertiliser polluting rivers.

soil association polling pdf shows healthy eating 55% and avoiding chemical residues 53% are key reasons cited by shoppers for buying organic produce.

but many also say care for the environment 44% and animal welfare 31% are important, as is taste 35%.

browning said this research backs up what people think about organic food. in other countries there has long been much higher levels of support and acceptance of the benefits of organic food and farming. we hope these findings will bring the uk in line with the rest of europe.
2. new study finds significant differences between organic and nonorganic food
in the largest study of its kind, an international team of experts led by newcastle university, uk, has proved that organic crops and cropbased foods are up to 60% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionallygrown crops.

analysing 343 studies into the compositional differences between organic and conventional crops, the team found that a switch to eating organic fruit, vegetable and cereals and food made from them would provide additional antioxidants equivalent to eating between 12 extra portions of fruit and vegetables a day.

the study, published today in the prestigious british journal of nutrition, also shows significantly lower levels of toxic heavy metals in organic crops. cadmium, which is one of only three metal contaminants along with lead and mercury for which the european commission has set maximum permitted contamination levels in food, was found to be almost 50% lower in organic crops than conventionallygrown ones.

newcastle university’s professor carlo leifert, who led the study, says this study demonstrates that choosing food produced according to organic standards can lead to increased intake of nutritionally desirable antioxidants and reduced exposure to toxic heavy metals.

this constitutes an important addition to the information currently available to consumers which until now has been confusing and in many cases is conflicting.

new methods used to analyse the data

this is the most extensive analysis of the nutrient content in organic vs conventionallyproduced foods ever undertaken and is the result of a groundbreaking new systematic literature review and metaanalysis by the international team.

the findings contradict those of a 2009 uk food standards agency fsa commissioned study which found there were no substantial differences or significant nutritional benefits from organic food.

the fsa commissioned study based its conclusions on only 46 publications covering crops, meat and dairy, while newcastle led metaanalysis is based on data from 343 peerreviewed publications on composition difference between organic and conventional crops now available.

the main difference between the two studies is time, explains professor leifert, who is professor of ecological agriculture at newcastle university.

research in this area has been slow to take off the ground and we have far more data available to us now than five years ago.bangunan pabrik harga besi wf baja yang dapat digunakan untuk membangun pabrik makanan

dr gavin stewart, a lecturer in evidence synthesis and the metaanalysis expert in the newcastle team, added the much larger evidence base available in this synthesis allowed us to use more appropriate statistical methods to draw more definitive conclusions regarding the differences between organic and conventional crops

what the findings mean

the study, started under the european sixth framework programme project qualitylowinputfood and completed with funding from the sheepdrove trust, found that concentrations of antioxidants such as polyphenolics were between 1869% higher in organicallygrown crops.

numerous studies have linked antioxidants to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers.

substantially lower concentrations of the toxic heavy metal cadmium were also detected in organic crops on average 48% lower.contoh dalam material bangunan seperti ini bisa didapatkan dari berbagai jenis besi yang bisa dilihat di distributor besi siku baja untuk membangun pabrik makanan yang sehat dan higienis juga berkwalitas

nitrogen concentrations were found to be significantly lower in organic crops. concentrations of total nitrogen were 10%, nitrate 30% and nitrite 87% lower in organic compared to conventional crops. the study also found that pesticide residues were four times more likely to be found in conventional crops than organic ones.

professor leifert added the organic vs nonorganic debate has rumbled on for decades now but the evidence from this study is overwhelming that organic food is high in antioxidants and lower in toxic metals and pesticides.

but this study should just be a starting point. we have shown without doubt there are composition differences between organic and conventional crops, now there is an urgent need to carry out wellcontrolled human dietary intervention and cohort studies specifically designed to identify and quantify the health impacts of switching to organic food.