Nutrimuscle Forum : Mobile & Tablette

OGM, les dangers

Actualités sport, fitness & musculation, vidéos des pros, études scientifiques. Discutez avec la communauté Nutrimuscle et partagez votre expérience...

Modérateurs: Nutrimuscle-Conseils, Nutrimuscle-Diététique

Messagepar yinato » 23 Sep 2012 15:12

Alban a écrit:Au sujet de la race de rats utilisée et des statistiques (il suffit de savoir effectuer 1+1 pour comprendre, c'est très facile à comprendre) : http://www.weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/0 ... -is-bogus/

Ce sont des rats qui naturellement, au bout de 2 ans, avec une nourriture normale, développent des cancers, 86% des mâles et 72 % de femelles.



Donc de part ce fait on se donne le droit de leur faire subir toutes sortes de testes complètements honteux ? Pourquoi ne pas directement tester tout cela sur des humains ? Après tout ces recherches nous servent à nous humains, pas aux rats, pourquoi ne pas choisir des patients humains atteints de cancer en phase terminale ? L'homme se considère t-il supérieur à toutes autres formes de vie sur terre ?

Si il y a bien une espèce sur terre qui a foutu la mouise, c'est bien l'homme.

Pauvres animaux, vous nous apportez tant de choses, j'espère qu'un jour tout ça changera avec pourquoi pas une espèce supérieur à l'humain qui se servira de nous comme cobaye pour leurs tests, peut être qu'on comprendra plus de chose à ce moment là.

Pardonnez moi mais ces images me font sortir de moi... :evil:
Avatar de l’utilisateur
yinato
 
Messages: 91
Inscription: 21 Déc 2009 20:03

Messagepar Administrateur » 23 Sep 2012 16:14

Bonjour yinato.

Il nous semble bien qu’une majeure partie de la population humaine mondiale consomme des OGM :

- Les américains, en connaissance de cause
- Les européens, à l’insu de leur plein gré grâce à l’incorporation autorisée mais non obligatoire d’étiquettage des OGM en deçà de 0,9%
- Les consommateurs de protéines en poudre contenant de la lécithine de soja :(

Pour votre santé, nous avons le plaisir de vous confirmer que nous n'utilisons aucune source de protéine "instant" ou "instantanéisée". :wink:

Vous ne trouverez donc pas de lécithine de soja transgénique (OGM) dans la liste des ingrédients des protéines en poudre de Nutrimuscle. 8)

Dans quelques décennies nous saurons si nous avons eu raison ou tord d'être rigoureux.

Bien à vous.
Avatar de l’utilisateur
Administrateur
Site Admin
 
Messages: 8405
Inscription: 11 Sep 2008 15:55
Localisation: Aubange

Messagepar yinato » 23 Sep 2012 22:39

Bonsoir Admin,

Sachez que j'ai 100% confiance en vos produits et que j'apprécie votre sérieux qui pour moi n'a aucun égal sur d'autres sites de compléments ! ;)

La seule pratique elle même de telles expériences sur les animaux me font mal au cœur, étant un grand amoureux de ces derniers.

Mais pour rester dans le sujet, Nutrimuscle est au top, comme très souvent ! :)

Merci à vous Admin.
Avatar de l’utilisateur
yinato
 
Messages: 91
Inscription: 21 Déc 2009 20:03

Messagepar Kazuya » 24 Sep 2012 10:24

Merci pour tous ces liens et il faut souligner le sérieux de Nutrimuscle à ne pas proposer de "mauvaise" protéine
Avatar de l’utilisateur
Kazuya
 
Messages: 483
Inscription: 28 Nov 2011 11:54
Localisation: Paris

Messagepar Joeosn » 24 Sep 2012 11:12

Alban a écrit:Le "seul" problème, c'est que les auteurs de l'étude, G-E Séralini en tête, sont connus pour avoir par le passé bidonné leurs résultats. Et la présente publication n'est pas exempte de reproches.

Pour une discussion entre gens compétents, lire http://forums.futura-sciences.com/comme ... onnes.html (pas seulement la première page). C'est surement bête, mais j'ai plus tendance à faire confiance à des chercheurs biologistes professionnels qu'à des journalistes ou autres.


+1 :)
Avatar de l’utilisateur
Joeosn
 
Messages: 67
Inscription: 7 Sep 2009 18:44

Messagepar Fred » 1 Nov 2012 10:58

ils en parlent sur la 13 en ce moment même !!
Fred
 
Messages: 384
Inscription: 14 Avr 2010 10:25
Localisation: Angouleme

Re: OGM, les dangers

Messagepar audiomaniac » 10 Juil 2016 22:11



Les scientifiques aussi : https://psmag.com/how-scientists-contri ... .sf9kxblyr ( L'étude : http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7015 )

Ils ont un rôle à jouer : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3752168/

Le cycle de la désinformation : PD Comics : http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive ... micid=1174

Jon Oliver sur la perception des études scientifiques par les médias : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

Les petits soldats du journalisme, un bouquin qui parle du problème évoqué dans l’épisode :
http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article228


L’ado et les cités mayas perdues : . http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2016/0 ... -cite-maya

Et les retours critiques :
http://gizmodo.com/experts-doubt-that-a ... 1775985640

L’excellent blogueur Tom Roud, sur le cas du petit génie qui remet en question Einstein :
http://tomroud.cafe-sciences.org/2013/0 ... -poucette/

La perception par les journaux : http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/ ... 50684.html

http://www.lepoint.fr/science/un-ado-fr ... 756_25.php

Ou d’autres trucs funky comme… http://time.com/2976464/rotten-eggs-hyd ... ochondria/


L’affaire Séralini :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

http://www.acrimed.org/OGM-retour-sur-l ... ientifique

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/hom ... ublic.html

Les rapports accablant l’étude :

EFSA : http://www.efsa.europa.eu/fr/efsajournal/doc/2910.pdf

ANSES : http://www.anses.fr/sites/default/files ... sa0227.pdf

HCB : http://www.hautconseildesbiotechnologie ... 121019.pdf


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x17xjt ... -2012_news


OGM et la santé, méta analyses :

10 ans de recherche à la loupe : http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3 ... 013.823595

Long terme : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1511006399

Le gros rapport : http://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/geneti ... -prospects


Point de vue cool de chercheur-bloggueur :
http://toutsepassecommesi.cafe-sciences ... aient-pas/
audiomaniac
 
Messages: 3541
Inscription: 3 Oct 2008 18:04

Re: OGM, les dangers

Messagepar audiomaniac » 12 Juil 2016 22:47

Es tu en accord avec les affirmation de ce monsieur MDG ? (concernant les OGM)
audiomaniac
 
Messages: 3541
Inscription: 3 Oct 2008 18:04

Re: OGM, les dangers

Messagepar Alban » 12 Juil 2016 23:03

Tu ne pourrais pas faire un petit résumé de tous ces textes ?
Alban
 
Messages: 2651
Inscription: 14 Sep 2008 16:48
Localisation: 92

Re: OGM, les dangers

Messagepar audiomaniac » 13 Juil 2016 00:00

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... 013.823595
Conclusions
Declaration of interest
The technology to produce GE plants is celebrating its 30th anniversary. It has brought about a dramatic increase in scientific production over the years leading to high impact findings either in basic research (such as RNAi-mediated gene silencing) and applied research (GE crops), but the adoption of GE plants in the agricultural system has raised issues about environmental and food/feed safety.
We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops. The analysis of the record list shows that the Biodiversity topic dominated, followed by Traceability and GE food/feed consumption, which contributed equally in terms of the number of records (Table 1; Figure 3).




Le problème est qu'en général les ogm sont conçus pour être rondup "rondup ready" et le glyphosate est considéré comme cancérigène probable.

L'agriculteur est dépendant du vendeur de céréales car ces semences ne peuvent etre ressemées une année sur l'autre (donc on achete la semence + le produit qui va avec , c'est jackpot)

J'ai trouvé ca sur pubmed :

A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing.
Malatesta M1, Boraldi F, Annovi G, Baldelli B, Battistelli S, Biggiogera M, Quaglino D.
Author information
Abstract
Liver represents a suitable model for monitoring the effects of a diet, due to its key role in controlling the whole metabolism. Although no direct evidence has been reported so far that genetically modified (GM) food may affect health, previous studies on hepatocytes from young female mice fed on GM soybean demonstrated nuclear modifications involving transcription and splicing pathways. In this study, the effects of this diet were studied on liver of old female mice in order to elucidate possible interference with ageing. The morpho-functional characteristics of the liver of 24-month-old mice, fed from weaning on control or GM soybean, were investigated by combining a proteomic approach with ultrastructural, morphometrical and immunoelectron microscopical analyses. Several proteins belonging to hepatocyte metabolism, stress response, calcium signalling and mitochondria were differentially expressed in GM-fed mice, indicating a more marked expression of senescence markers in comparison to controls. Moreover, hepatocytes of GM-fed mice showed mitochondrial and nuclear modifications indicative of reduced metabolic rate. This study demonstrates that GM soybean intake can influence some liver features during ageing and, although the mechanisms remain unknown, underlines the importance to investigate the long-term consequences of GM-diets and the potential synergistic effects with ageing, xenobiotics and/or stress conditions.

pas si inoffensif ... à mon avis le marché doit s'élever à des millions les études ont donc tout intérêt à aller dans le sens des OGM



ou encore


Health risks of genetically modified foods.
Dona A1, Arvanitoyannis IS.
Author information
Abstract
As genetically modified (GM) foods are starting to intrude in our diet concerns have been expressed regarding GM food safety. These concerns as well as the limitations of the procedures followed in the evaluation of their safety are presented. Animal toxicity studies with certain GM foods have shown that they may toxically affect several organs and systems. The review of these studies should not be conducted separately for each GM food, but according to the effects exerted on certain organs it may help us create a better picture of the possible health effects on human beings. The results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. However, many years of research with animals and clinical trials are required for this assessment. The use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which may promote cancer.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2952409/
In the present case, we wish to underline that the commercial GMOs in question contain pesticide residues, some of which have been demonstrated as human cellular endocrine disruptors at levels around 1000 times below their presence in some GM feed 27. Such Roundup residues are present in more than 80% of edible cultivated GMOs. This does not exclude other possible effects.


Article tres interessant qui pointe du doit l'augmentation des risque d'allergies à cause des OGM et l'inpact environnement des OGM transfert sur d'autres especes végétal par pollinisation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/
audiomaniac
 
Messages: 3541
Inscription: 3 Oct 2008 18:04

Re: OGM, les dangers

Messagepar audiomaniac » 13 Juil 2016 00:09

Consequence de la pollinisation avec des adventices (mauvaises herbes) les mauvaises herbes devviennent elles aussi resistantes au rondup

La culture d’OGM augmente la consommation de pesticides
21 novembre 2009 / MDRGF">MDRGF





Aux Etats-Unis, la généralisation des cultures transgéniques s’est accompagnée d’une forte augmentation de la consommation d’herbicides.
Une nouvelle étude montre une augmentation importante de l’usage des pesticides aux USA depuis l’introduction des OGM il y a 13 ans !
L’introduction de cultures résistantes aux herbicides comme le fameux Round Up a conduit à une augmentation de consommation de 382 millions de livres de la consommation d’herbicides de 1996 à 2008 aux USA !
Le nouveau Rapport du scientifique Charles Benbrook (un ancien de l’Academie des sciences des USA) dénonce l’explosion de l’usage des pesticides aux USA liée à l’introduction massive de cultures OGM, principalement, maïs, coton, soja.
Quelques chiffres sur l’évolution de la consommation de pesticides aux USA (comparaison de la situation par rapport à la consommation avant l’introduction des OGM en 1996) :
- + 382 millions de livres d’herbicides consommés depuis 1996
- - 64 millions de livres d’insecticides consommés depuis 1996
soit un bilan de + 318 millions de livres de pesticides utilisés pendant cette période.
- L’augmentation de l’usage des herbicides est due à plus de 90% à l’usage de variétés de soja résistantes à un herbicide
- Rien qu’en 2008 l’utilisation de pesticides sur les cultures OGM a augmenté de 26%
- L’augmentation des quantités de pesticides utilisées sur les cultures OGM est presque entièrement expliquée par l’apparition d’herbes concurrentes devenues résistantes aux herbicides à base de glyphosate, comme le RoundUp.
- Cette augmentation devrait se poursuivre à l’avenir...
Un rapport à lire absolument (en anglais, désolé...) pour comprendre pourquoi l’idée selon laquelle les cultures OGM seraient une solution pour se passer de pesticides est une idée totalement fausse !







Puta** avant on avait TF1 pour raconter de la m*rde maintenant on a Youtube
audiomaniac
 
Messages: 3541
Inscription: 3 Oct 2008 18:04

Re: OGM, les dangers

Messagepar audiomaniac » 14 Juil 2016 10:18

GMO Propaganda and the Sociology of Science
by KRISTINE MATTIS


Email

In August of 2014, the website Gawker revealed documents that demonstrated the lengths to which the global chemical giant Monsanto would go in order to control the narrative about their products – in particular, their genetically modified crops. At a minimum, Monsanto enlisted Condé Nast publications, and appealed to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in need of donations, to help produce a celebrity-driven video series in support of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). While we all like to believe that our scientific/rational brains see through the transparent marketing, public relations rhetoric exists because it greatly sedates critical thought.

Although the proposed campaign by Monsanto never materialized, a quick perusing of GMO articles over the past year elicits suspicion that Monsanto’s and Condé Nast’s relationship did not end. In addition, Monsanto almost certainly had its hand in a number of other propaganda ventures. Since last year, the pro-GMO rhetoric has increased tremendously in news media articles on genetically modified organisms. Recent disclosed documents have also exposed numerous scientific experts enlisted in Monsanto’s messaging. But what is most pernicious is that a whole new rhetorical talking point has come to the forefront, which threatens anyone – particularly scientists – who speak out against their “tent pole” technology: If you are anti-GMOs you are anti-science.

The new talking point represents a brilliant strategy to promote genetic engineering. Most people do not want to be characterized as anti-science, not journalists, not public officials, not celebrities, and least of all, not trained and educated scientists. Furthermore, the propaganda plays to pro-science liberals who have accused conservatives of being anti-science due to their denial of climate change.

Unlike anthropogenic climate change, though, there is absolutely no scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. In fact, each and every new GMO needs to be fully tested individually for its safety, because each genetic modification confers a not only a novel gene into the genome, but also a possible genetic interaction within the genome. The notion that one gene always only controls one trait is known to be far too simplistic. Often, many genes function in concert to produce traits, and sections of DNA can also turn traits on or off. Therefore, inserting novel genes into DNA sequences may affect untargeted traits in unpredictable ways.

Additionally, most GMOs are not tested for safety. Not only does federal policy unscientifically delegate GMO crops as “substantially equivalent” to conventional crops, independent research on environmental effects and health effects (via animal feeding studies) is hampered by industry in a large part due to patents preventing the study and use of GM seeds and crops. Feeding studies that have occurred, most of which have been funded by industry, have been mired with problems such as contaminated feed and methodological corruption that render their results invalid.

To be sure, we need only go back to 2000 to recognize that every GMO is different and that not all are safe to be eaten. That year the genetically engineered “StarLink” corn – not approved for human consumption – was recalled after it was found in corn products and may have resulted in scores of adverse human health effects.

So why have we fallen for the distortion that concern about GMOs is indicative of one’s lack of scientific knowledge? Because a select group of scientists and media have told us so. Even Jon Stewart fell for the simplistic propaganda in a segment that aired April 22, 2015 on the Daily Show. In it, he had a pro-GMO agricultural scientist pitted against an anti-GMO activist. Who do you suppose came off as more trustworthy and reliable? Despite presenting a seemingly balanced report, Stewart’s show favored the view of those who produce these products over those who study the effects of these products. What needs to be elucidated when talking about controversial technological risks is what kind of scientist has a voice and what kind does not.

Research has shown that upstream scientists – such as biotechnologists, agricultural technicians, or any scientists who create technologies – carry far less concern for potential risks than do downstream scientists – such as public health practitioners, epidemiologists, and environmental toxicologists. Where was the voice of the downstream scientist on the Daily Show? I’ve worked with biotechnologists personally who have expressed to me that they do not even consider risk or unintended consequences of GM technology. I also sat in a toxicology class where an upstream scientist said that he and his colleagues could never have imagined the rapid and prolific emergence of superweeds in response to Monsanto’s glyphosate-resistant GM crops (and the copious use of glyphosate). Meanwhile, environmentalists immediately and fully predicted the resultant herbicide-resistant superweeds that these agricultural experts did not.

Jon Stewart’s report on GMOs also noted the recent Pew poll that showed 88% of scientists – represented by members of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) – believe that GMOs are safe. What neither Stewart nor Pew mentioned is how many of those scientists are well-versed on the issue of GM technology. Though they were launched into the American food supply in the early 1990s, most of the public and scientists alike, specifically scientists with expertise in entirely different fields, knew little to nothing about GMOs prior to 2008. It was that year that the documentary “Food Inc.” introduced Americans to what Europeans and others around the world already knew about GM technology. Indeed, the E.U and other nations had already banned GMOs under the precautionary principle policy, and most European nations now faced with Monsanto’s global market propagation are still choosing to ban the technology.

Perhaps 20% of the scientists in the Pew poll work directly or indirectly on GM technology – either upstream of downstream. But science, like every other industry, is a social structure. For career purposes and in order to maintain ties to the larger community, scientists tend to support other scientists – especially the scientists who have the money and prestige. The scientists with money and prestige are largely upstream scientists. Upstream scientists are not threatened, discredited, defamed, and scrutinized the way downstream scientists are. Downstream scientists have to produce immaculate, indisputably rigorous research – and even when they do they are questioned by the ubiquitous industrial PR machine. Downstream scientists are not a large part of the community.

Consequently, let’s examine that aforementioned Pew poll more closely: The 11% of scientists who do not agree that GMOs are safe are likely the downstream scientists who have studied or attempted to study their effects. It may be that ~ 10% of scientists who think GMOs are safe actually cultivate the technology. It may be that the other 78% who agree about GMO safety may or may not have a great deal of knowledge about GMOs, but rather take the word of their esteemed colleagues. In fact, as Ralph Nader recently mentioned, three former presidents of AAAS have ties to Monsanto and/or the biotech industry. Upstream scientists who produce biotechnology and the AAAS are not unbiased sources of information, regardless of whether or not we wish they were.

At the heart of this new rhetoric by Monsanto is the popularity of technology and the status of science in our society. However, science and technology are not equivalent. Science is the systematized study of knowledge, while technology merely applies that knowledge – for good or for ill. Science and technology are all too often conflated both by the public and by scientists themselves. It cannot be overstated that upstream technological scientists are prioritized and favored while downstream toxicologists and the like are continuously monitored and intimidated because they threaten industry. (See Drs. Tyrone Hayes, Ignatio Chapela, and Gilles-Éric Séralini for just a few well-know examples of attacks on downstream scientists.) While downstream science, which may point out frightening truths about risks, can be unpleasant, upstream science is often full of the wonder and excitement of technology. The conflation of science and technology has been exploited by the GMO industry to support the acceptance of their products under the guise of scientific authority.

There is a great history of scientific acceptance of and agreement about controversial technologies, with tremendous detrimental effects. Alleged scientific consensus touted the safety of hormone replacement therapy, DDT, DES, indiscriminate use of x-ray radiation, benzene, asbestos, BPA, and cigarette smoking. The work of the late Theo Colborn, one of the first downstream scientists to discover the risk of synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (which are now overwhelmingly acknowledged to be a tremendous public health problem), was as recently as a decade ago derided as junk or pseudo science.

This week, the U.S. Senate is poised to vote on legislation impeding the public from ever knowing about the GMOs in their food. Already passed in the House of Representatives as H.R. 1599, the so-called (by food advocacy groups) “DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act” would ban the labeling of GMOs in our food supply. As per custom with industry and the government who serves it, this act has the official Orwellian misnomer of the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act,” even though the bill is neither.

Learning from these historical scientific errors in judgment, we should not be bullied into blindly accepting a controversial technology. As of now, GMOs do nothing for society but enlarge the coffers of the billion-dollar agrichemical giants who produce them. They have not alleviated hunger, they have not increased environmental sustainability; their much-hyped public benefits have not yet materialized. To question their scientific and societal value – and risk – is decidedly scientific at its core. At the very least, the public has a right to know what is in the food they eat. Anything else would be an infringement on the rights of all U.S. citizens and most of all, would be in itself anti-science.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/05/ ... f-science/
audiomaniac
 
Messages: 3541
Inscription: 3 Oct 2008 18:04

Re: OGM, les dangers

Messagepar audiomaniac » 10 Aoû 2016 11:27

Sans les abeilles tu décides qui peut manger finalement puisque tu détiens les semences OGM qui sont stériles :




Au centre de cette dispute entre la Russie et les USA, annonce ce rapport du MRNE, sont les "preuves incontestées" qu’une gamme d’insecticides neuro-actifs liés à la nicotine, connue sous le nom de néo-nicotinoïdes, détruisent la population d’abeilles de notre planète, ce qui, laissé en l’état, pourrait anéantir la capacité de notre monde à faire pousser assez de nourriture pour nourrir ses populations.



Cette situation est devenue si sérieuse, rapporte le MRNE, que la Commission Européenne dans son ensemble a institué la semaine dernière une interdiction de précaution de deux ans (devant commencer le 1 décembre 2013) sur l’usage de ces pesticides "tueurs d’abeilles" à la suite de la Suisse, de la France, de l’Italie, de la Russie, de la Slovénie et de l’Ukraine, qui avaient déjà tous interdit l’usage d’organismes génétiquement modifiés des plus dangereux sur le continent.

https://blogs.mediapart.fr/will-summer/ ... les-menace
audiomaniac
 
Messages: 3541
Inscription: 3 Oct 2008 18:04

Précédente

Retourner vers Actualités, vidéos, études scientifiques

Qui est en ligne

Utilisateurs parcourant ce forum: Aucun utilisateur enregistré et 16 invités