HuckleB
HuckleB's JournalThe problem with taking too many vitamins
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24563590?utm_content=buffer9bef8&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=BufferVitamin Supplements Dangerous But Government Can’t Tell You
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/vitamin-supplements-dangerous-but-government-cant-tell-you/20 points of broad scientific consensus on GE crops
http://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/20-points-of-broad-scientific-consensus-on-ge-crops/Good stuff by Pamela Ronald.
Buddhist Economics and A GMO rethink by Pamela Ronald
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/food-matters/2013/09/06/buddhist-economics-and-a-gmo-rethink/AN ORGANIC FARMER AND A GENETICIST WALK INTO A FIELD
For Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak, genetic engineering and organic farming are both legitimate tools for pursuing sustainable agriculture.http://ensia.com/articles/an-organic-farmer-and-a-geneticist-walk-into-a-field/
"The debate around genetically engineered crops and organic farming usually begins well beyond a point of no return. Heels dug in, opposing sides accuse one another of being anti-environment or anti-science, evil or ignorant. From there, what takes place is something closer to a schoolyard shouting match than adult discourse.
This is not usually a good — or very successful — place to start honest discussions looking to move conversations forward.
And it’s not the starting point for Pamela Ronald, a University of California, Davis, plant geneticist, and Raoul Adamchak, a farmer who runs the student organic farm on campus. The two are co-authors of Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food. They are also married — a truly odd couple in a world divided by preconceived notions and decisions before discussions.
Debates pitting genetic engineering against organic agriculture, focus on, among other things, what each camp feels is necessary to feed a growing population. Both claim to have science on their side when it comes to producing the amount of food needed in a way that will do the least harm to the environment. But, where others see opposition, Ronald and Adamchak contend the two practices should be used in tandem toward the goal of sustainable agriculture.
..."
A great introduction, and I can't recommend their book enough.
Wheat Belly, Busted
http://noglutennoproblem.blogspot.com/2012/03/wheat-belly-busted.htmlWheatophobia: Will avoiding wheat really improve your health?
http://health.universityofcalifornia.edu/2012/07/24/wheatophobia-will-avoiding-wheat-really-improve-your-health/"Wheat has long been a dietary pariah for the millions of people who have jumped on the low-carb-diet bandwagon or who think they’re allergic (or at least sensitive) to the grain. Now even more people are hesitating about eating wheat after reading the claims made by Dr. William Davis, a cardiologist and author of the bestseller Wheat Belly, which is subtitled “Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health.” Not only does wheat make us fat, he says, it is addictive and causes everything from heart disease, diabetes and obesity to arthritis, osteoporosis, cognitive problems and cataracts. In fact, it has caused “more harm than any foreign terrorist can inflict on us.”
Wouldn’t it be great if there was a single villain behind the chronic health problems plaguing us, and if all it took to reverse them was to stop eating wheat? Don’t bet on it.
..."
FYI...
Please don't push discredited pseudo-science as being equivalent. It's not.
First, let's point out the fallacy of false equivalency.
No, you’re not entitled to your opinion
http://theconversation.edu.au/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978
Then, let's clarify that the consensus on the study in the OP is that it is crap.
EU rejects French scientist report linking GM corn to cancer
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/eu-rejects-french-scientist-report-linking-gm-corn-cancer-article-1.1175725?localLinksEnabled=false
Damning Report Questions Monsanto Genetically Modified Corn Study
http://www.citywatchla.com/component/content/article/317-8box-right/3879-damning-report-questions-monsanto-genetically-modified-corn-study
Then, let's start to acknowledge that DU should be a place science is first and foremost, and where pseudo-science attacks should be few and far between.
GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html
Rachel Carson’s dream of a science-based agriculture may come as a surprise to those who believe that sustainability and technology are incompatible.
http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/2012/09/24/rachel-carsons-dream-of-a-science-based-agriculture-may-come-as-a-surprise-to-those-who-believe-that-sustainability-and-technology-are-incompatible/
It not ethical to spread fear via pseudo-science.
Yeah, not so much ... "Autism, immunity, inflammation, and the New York Times"
http://www.emilywillinghamphd.com/2012/08/autism-immunity-inflammation-and-new.htmlAnd a later follow up on this:
Autism: Getting the Science Right in Op-Eds
http://www.reportingonhealth.org/2012/09/18/autism-getting-science-right-op-eds
A much more lengthy article on this from Nature.
http://www.nature.com/news/plant-science-the-chestnut-resurrection-1.11504Very cool stuff.
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 35,773
