Genetically modified food controversies - Wikipedia. Genetically modified food controversies are disputes over the use of foods and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. Gm Diet Non Veg Pdf DownloadRelated Articles: GM Diet Soup Recipe GM Diet Soup Soup and GM Diet go hand in hand. Soup is a great way to keep . GM Diet Power Soup GM Diet Power Soup Recipe. The General Motors diet has been around since 1985. It was originally developed by General Motors, along with the Food and Drug Administration and the United States. A list of vegetarian protein foods, complete with protein contents and amino acid profile information. The dispute involves consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non- governmental organizations, and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to genetically modified food (GM food or GMO food) are whether such food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the objectivity of scientific research and publication, the effect of genetically modified crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of such crops for farmers, and the role of the crops in feeding the world population. In addition, products derived from GMO organisms play a role in the production of ethanol fuels and pharmaceuticals. Specific concerns include mixing of genetically modified and non- genetically modified products in the food supply. Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle led to the 1. Pure Food and Drug Act, the first major US legislation on the subject. The public came to see the latter as . Oz, Oprah, and Bill Maher. In 2. 00. 1 no such foods had been designated as unacceptable by Orthodox rabbis or Muslim leaders. Other groups such as GMWatch and The Institute of Science in Society concentrate mostly or solely on opposing genetically modified crops. The idea has since been adopted to varying degrees by companies like Syngenta. Gm Diet Non Veg Pdf To WordInstead, PABE found that public had ? Who benefits from their use? Who decided that they should be developed and how? Why were we not better informed about their use in our food, before their arrival on the market? Why are we not given an effective choice about whether or not to buy these products? Have potential long- term and irreversible consequences been seriously evaluated, and by whom? Do regulatory authorities have sufficient powers to effectively regulate large companies? Who wishes to develop these products? Can controls imposed by regulatory authorities be applied effectively? Who will be accountable in cases of unforeseen harm? Rather than zero risk, what they demanded was a more realistic assessment of risks by regulatory authorities and GMO producers. During this period protests against Calgene's Flavr Savr GM tomato mistakenly described it as containing fish genes, confusing it with DNA Plant Technology's fish tomato experimental transgenic organism, which was never commercialized. Advocates support mandatory labeling laws for food made from GMOs . The number of protesters who took part is uncertain; figures of . Events took place in between 3. The protests were reported by news outlets including ABC News. This was followed by the spraying of a crop of potato seedlings. The sentencing judge accused Greenpeace of cynically using junior members to avoid risking their own freedom. The offenders were given 9- month suspended sentences. Heckler. In 1. 98. P. Shalala. In this case, the plaintiff argued both for mandatory labeling on the basis of consumer demand, and that GMO foods should undergo the same testing requirements as food additives because they are . The plaintiff also alleged that the FDA did not follow the Administrative Procedures Act in formulating and disseminating its policy on GMO's. The federal district court rejected all of those arguments and found that the FDA's determination that GMO's are Generally Recognized as Safe was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court gave deference to the FDA's process on all issues, leaving future plaintiffs little legal recourse to challenge the FDA's policy on GMO's. The paper produced a public uproar and demonstrations, however by 2. Cornell University's Elson Shields was the spokesperson for one group of scientists who opposed such restrictions. The group submitted a statement to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2. While favoring protection of intellectual property rights, the editors called for the restrictions to be lifted and for the EPA to require, as a condition of approval, that independent researchers have unfettered access to genetically modified products for research. This agreement left many scientists optimistic about the future. They found that financial conflict of interest was not associated with study outcome (p = 0. Of the 4. 3 studies with financial or professional conflicts of interest, 2. According to Marc Brazeau, an association between professional conflict of interest and positive study outcomes can be skewed because companies typically contract with independent researchers to perform follow- up studies only after in- house research uncovers favorable results. In- house research that uncovers negative or unfavorable results for a novel GMO is generally not further pursued. Most studies were performed years after the approval of the crop for human consumption. Papers were often imprecise in their descriptions of the histological results and the selection of study endpoints, and lacked necessary details about methods and results. The authors called for the development of better study guidelines for determining the long- term safety of eating GM foods. They concluded that GM crops had given farmers economic advantages but found no evidence that GM crops had increased yields. They also noted that weed resistance to GM crops could cause major agricultural problems but this could be addressed by better farming procedures. The leader of the research group, Federico Infascelli, rejected the claim. The research concluded that mother goats fed GM soybean meal secreted fragments of the foreign gene in their milk. In December 2. 01. However, in 2. 01. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) GMO Panel said that . Countries differ in their risk assessments and regulations. Marked differences distinguish the US from Europe. Crops not intended as foods are generally not reviewed for food safety. 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. They suggested that GM foods have extensive biological, toxicological and immunological tests and that substantial equivalence should be abandoned. He claimed that characterizing differences is properly a starting point for a safety assessment. Kuiper noted practical difficulties in applying this standard, including the fact that traditional foods contain many toxic or carcinogenic chemicals and that existing diets were never proven to be safe. This lack of knowledge re conventional food means that modified foods may differ in anti- nutrients and natural toxins that have never been identified in the original plant, possibly allowing harmful changes to be missed. For example, corn damaged by insects often contains high levels of fumonisins, carcinogenic toxins made by fungi that travel on insects' backs and that grow in the wounds of damaged corn. Studies show that most Bt corn has lower levels of fumonisins than conventional insect- damaged corn. The FDA found that all of the 1. Japanese regulators for 1. This equivalence was confirmed by more than 8. Hence, the authors argue, compositional equivalence studies uniquely required for GM food crops may no longer be justified on the basis of scientific uncertainty. Allergen testing is routine for products intended for food, and passing those tests is part of the regulatory requirements. Organizations such as the European Green Party and Greenpeace emphasize this risk. Genetic engineering can have less impact on the expression of genomes or on protein and metabolite levels than conventional breeding or (non- directed) plant mutagenesis. For example, the kiwi fruit was introduced into the U. S. In the early 1. Pioneer Hi- Bred attempted to improve the nutrition content of soybeans intended for animal feed by adding a gene from the Brazil nut. Because they knew that people have allergies to nuts, Pioneer ran in vitro and skin prick allergy tests. The tests showed that the transgenic soy was allergenic. These cases have been used as evidence that genetic modification can produce unexpected and dangerous changes in foods, and as evidence that safety tests effectively protect the food supply. It was also found in Japan and South Korea. As of 2. 01. 2 it was the only human feeding study to have been conducted with GM food. The transgene was detected in three volunteers from a group of seven who had previously had their large intestines removed for medical reasons. As this gene transfer did not increase after the consumption of the modified soy, the researchers concluded that gene transfer did not occur. In volunteers with intact digestive tracts, the transgene did not survive. A 2. 01. 4 review found that the performance of animals fed GM feed was similar to that of animals fed . The review concluded that . The review also stated that its conclusions were in agreement with three earlier reviews. Domingo and Bordonaba reviewed the literature again in 2. The General Accounting Office (in a review of FDA procedures requested by Congress) and a working group of the Food and Agricultural and World Health organizations both said that long- term human studies of the effect of GM food are not feasible. The reasons included lack of a plausible hypothesis to test, lack of knowledge about the potential long- term effects of conventional foods, variability in the ways humans react to foods and that epidemiological studies were unlikely to differentiate modified from conventional foods, which come with their own suite of unhealthy characteristics. Healthy dietary practices start early in life – breastfeeding fosters healthy growth and improves cognitive development, and may have longer- term health benefits, like reducing the risk of becoming overweight or obese and developing NCDs later in life. Energy intake (calories) should be in balance with energy expenditure. Evidence indicates that total fat should not exceed 3. Limiting intake of free sugars to less than 1. A further reduction to less than 5% of total energy intake is suggested for additional health benefits (5). Keeping salt intake to less than 5 g per day helps prevent hypertension and reduces the risk of heart disease and stroke in the adult population (6). WHO Member States have agreed to reduce the global population’s intake of salt by 3. Overview. Consuming a healthy diet throughout the lifecourse helps prevent malnutrition in all its forms as well as a range of noncommunicable diseases and conditions. But the increased production of processed food, rapid urbanization and changing lifestyles have led to a shift in dietary patterns. People are now consuming more foods high in energy, fats, free sugars or salt/sodium, and many do not eat enough fruit, vegetables and dietary fibre such as whole grains. The exact make- up of a diversified, balanced and healthy diet will vary depending on individual needs (e. But basic principles of what constitute a healthy diet remain the same. For adults A healthy diet contains: Fruits, vegetables, legumes (e. Potatoes, sweet potatoes, cassava and other starchy roots are not classified as fruits or vegetables. Less than 1. 0% of total energy intake from free sugars (2, 5) which is equivalent to 5. Most free sugars are added to foods or drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and can also be found in sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates. Less than 3. 0% of total energy intake from fats (1, 2, 3). Unsaturated fats (e. Industrial trans fats (found in processed food, fast food, snack food, fried food, frozen pizza, pies, cookies, margarines and spreads) are not part of a healthy diet. Less than 5 g of salt (equivalent to approximately 1 teaspoon) per day (6) and use iodized salt. For infants and young children. In the first 2 years of a child’s life, optimal nutrition fosters healthy growth and improves cognitive development. It also reduces the risk of becoming overweight or obese and developing NCDs later in life. Advice on a healthy diet for infants and children is similar to that for adults, but the following elements are also important. Infants should be breastfed exclusively during the first 6 months of life. Infants should be breastfed continuously until 2 years of age and beyond. From 6 months of age, breast milk should be complemented with a variety of adequate, safe and nutrient dense complementary foods. Salt and sugars should not be added to complementary foods. Practical advice on maintaining a healthy diet. Fruits and vegetables. Eating at least 4. NCDs (2), and helps ensure an adequate daily intake of dietary fibre. In order to improve fruit and vegetable consumption you can: always include vegetables in your mealseat fresh fruits and raw vegetables as snackseat fresh fruits and vegetables in seasoneat a variety of choices of fruits and vegetables. Fats. Reducing the amount of total fat intake to less than 3. High salt consumption and insufficient potassium intake (less than 3. People are often unaware of the amount of salt they consume. In many countries, most salt comes from processed foods (e. Salt is also added to food during cooking (e. Sugars. The intake of free sugars should be reduced throughout the lifecourse (5). Evidence indicates that in both adults and children, the intake of free sugars should be reduced to less than 1. Free sugars are all sugars added to foods or drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, as well as sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates. Consuming free sugars increases the risk of dental caries (tooth decay). Excess calories from foods and drinks high in free sugars also contribute to unhealthy weight gain, which can lead to overweight and obesity. Income, food prices (which will affect the availability and affordability of healthy foods), individual preferences and beliefs, cultural traditions, as well as geographical, environmental, social and economic factors all interact in a complex manner to shape individual dietary patterns. Therefore, promoting a healthy food environment, including food systems which promote a diversified, balanced and healthy diet, requires involvement across multiple sectors and stakeholders, including government, and the public and private sector. Governments have a central role in creating a healthy food environment that enables people to adopt and maintain healthy dietary practices. Effective actions by policy- makers to create a healthy food environment include: Creating coherence in national policies and investment plans, including trade, food and agricultural policies, to promote a healthy diet and protect public health: increase incentives for producers and retailers to grow, use and sell fresh fruits and vegetables; reduce incentives for the food industry to continue or increase production of processed foods with saturated fats and free sugars. It called on governments, WHO, international partners, the private sector and civil society to take action at global, regional and local levels to support healthy diets and physical activity. In 2. 01. 0, the WHA endorsed a set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non- alcoholic beverages to children (1. These recommendations guide countries in designing new policies and improving existing ones to reduce the impact on children of the marketing of unhealthy food. WHO is also helping to develop a nutrient profile model that countries can use as a tool to implement the marketing recommendations. The “Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases 2. Member States, WHO and other UN agencies to achieve the targets. The Commission is developing a report specifying which approaches and actions are likely to be most effective in different contexts around the world. In November 2. 01. WHO organized, jointly with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2). ICN2 adopted the Rome Declaration on Nutrition (1. Framework for Action (1. WHO is helping countries to implement the commitments made at ICN2. References. Hooper L, Abdelhamid A, Moore HJ, Douthwaite W, Skeaff CM, Summerbell CD. Effect of reducing total fat intake on body weight: systematic review and meta- analysis of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases: report of a Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation. WHO Technical Report Series, No. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2. Fats and fatty acids in human nutrition: report of an expert consultation. FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 9. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2. WHO scientific update on health consequences of trans fatty acids: introduction. Suppl 2: S1–4. Guideline: Sugars intake for adults and children. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2. Guideline: Sodium intake for adults and children. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2. Comprehensive implementation plan on maternal, infant and young child nutrition. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2. Global action plan for the prevention and control of NCDs 2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2. Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2. Guideline: Potassium intake for adults and children. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2. Mozaffarian D, Fahimi S, Singh GM, Micha R, Khatibzadeh S, Engell RE et al. Global sodium consumption and death from cardiovascular causes. Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2. Set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non- alcoholic beverages to children. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2. Rome Declaration on Nutrition. Second International Conference on Nutrition. Rome: FAO/WHO; 2. Framework for Action. Second International Conference on Nutrition.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2017
Categories |