Newsgroup: it.cultura.religioni.bahai
Titolo: Per Alessio

Non ricordo bene, ma mi sembra che  tu sia il biologo.
Mi  chiedo, ma questa storia del mais (e dei cibi in genrale) transgenici
é una  bufala o sono veramente pericolosi per l'umanitá?
Mi piacerebbe sentire il parere di Alessio. Io intanto ho leggiucchiato le
notizie divulgate sul sito del corriere della sera: 
http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Cronache/2003/07_Luglio/13/domande-Ogm.shtml
Naturalmente uno che vive nella ricerca puó darmi opinioni piú precise.
Salvatore
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 Salvatore
Grazie per la stima. Il nostro laboratorio ha un approccio che
predilige l'uso di pratiche agronomiche integrate o biologiche.
Per quanto il sito che hai postato, mi sembra che le domande e le
risposte riportate siano sostanzialmente equilibrate e corrette.
Ovviamente si tratta di un approccio divulgativo.
Se hai voglia di andare a spulciare un sito scientifico e te
la cavi bene con l'inglese ti consiglio Medline:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
Digita, per esempio, in Search PubMed for: "GMO".
La ricerca ti restituirà 147 risultati; tra cui potresti dare
un'occhiata a:
1) GMO opposition not based on a mistake
[J Cayford, Nature Biotechnology 21, 493 (2003)]
2) Europe sees sharp decline in GMO research
[P Mitchell, Nature Biotechnology 21, 468 - 469 (2003)]
3) Italy employs further GMO delay tactics
[A Meldolesi, Nature Biotechnology 21, 346 (2003)]
Questi brevi articoletti danno un'idea di quanto sia ancora
controversa la questione OGM.
Naturalmente, possiamo anche approfondire la questione dal punto
di vista scientifico o etico, se lo desideri.
Un caro saluto, Alessio

 chi è sano vive, chi è debole crepa......(esempio d'imbecillità
che ti ho appena raccontato.)
Cara Nuccia,
ti ringrazio per la tua condivisione, riesco a rivederti come ti
ho conosciuta a Portici.
Anch'io, appartengo alla categoria di quelli che dicono che Freud
aveva il chiodo fisso del sesso; e forse non aveva tutti i torti
...
Come vedi ci cadiamo tutti ... ^__^
Quanto a me, sono ben felice di dichiarare la mia professione,
anche se dovrei fare una serie notevole di precisazioni.
L'unica controindicazione sono le inevitabili domande che mi
vengono poste sulla salubrità dei cibi.
Io mi occupo di analisi molto specifiche in alimenti molto
specifici, quindi sono uno specializzato.
Eppure quando dico che mi occupo di tossine negli alimenti,
comincia il panico:
... ma allora posso mangiare questo ? E quest'altro, se si forma
un po' di muffa, che faccio ? E così via.
Se si tratta di un viaggio in treno, no problem, abbiamo trovato
come occupare il tempo che non sia leggere un libro o dormire o
rimanere in stato comatoso guardando fuori dal finestrino.
Se ti beccano in autobus e devi scendere alla prossima fermata,
le cose possono diventare un po' più complicate ^__^
In genere, me la cavo con rapido: non consumate i cibi che
presentano muffa, ma mi rendo conto che lascia insoddisfatti.
Come si fa a buttare nella spazzatura un bel pezzo di parmigiano
reggiano che presenta chiazze verdognole con alone bianco ?
Comunque, a parte questo, sono molto soddisfatto del lavoro che
faccio e, se mi capita l'occasione, mi piace parlarne:
... cosa ne dice dottore, è grave ??? ^____^
Ti bacio, Alessio

 Ti bacio, Alessio

Caro Alessio,
La   mia opinione in merito agli OGM é che, come in ogni modificazione
delle regole della natura, occorre andare piano. Purtroppo sono scettico
sull'atteggiamento dei verdi che politicizzano tutto e impediscono,
discutendo in maniera molto approssimativa, il normale progresso che dalla
scienza dovrebbe scaturire.
Ricordo ancora la polemica sulle centrali nucleari e il referendum
relativo. Pura follia, adesso compriamo elettricitá dalla Francia prodotta
da centrali nucleari.
Giá da tempo i prodotti dell'agricoltura sono stati selezionati con  una
scelta delle piante e con la creazione di ibridi piú resistenti e piú
produttivi.
Adesso questi OGM, trattati ed introdotti  con cura negli ambienti
naturali, costituiscono un progresso o un regresso?
Rischiano di trascinare la nostra alimentazione a prodotti di laboratorio
oppure riusciranno a diminuire i problemi di alimentazione nei paesi
poveri?
Insomma un pomodoro della bisnonna non assomiglia giá piú a quei frutti
rossi sempre duri come appena raccolti che  troviamo al mercato. Abbiamo
forse fatto un passo avanti nella produzione e nella commercializzazione
ma conserviamo il  valore nutritivo e il sapore dei cibi che consumiamo?
Io sono perplesso e non so come rispondere a queste domande.
Salvatore
PS ho letto gli articoli che mia hai suggerito, interessanti.


 At salùt  (senza bacio) Claudio  (il Contadino)
Ah no! Il bacio lo voglio ^__^
Un caro saluto a te, Alessio

 Ah no! Il bacio lo voglio ^__^
Guarda che perdi il tram... puoi attaccartici se arrivi in ritardo;-)))))))
At salùt   Claudio  (il Contadino)


 Salvatore
Caro Salvatore,
il documento del WHO risponde alle domande che ti sei posto in
modo ufficiale.
Adesso provo ad aggiungere qualche considerazione personale.
Premetto che per quanto riguarda l'aspetto spirituale del
problema, come molto probabilmente avrai già capito, i baha'i
sono favorevoli alla scienza, in generale, e all'uso delle
applicazioni tecnologiche.
Quindi, la posizione dei baha'i verso gli OGM, anche se manca al
momento una posizione ufficiale della Casa Universale di
Giustizia, non può essere preconcetta.
Quindi cerchiamo di guardare a questo argomento con animo sereno.
Io, che lavoro nell'università, mi devo scontrare, come tutti,
quotidianamente con il problema benefici/costi in rapporto al
dare vita a un qualsiasi progetto di ricerca.
Purtroppo, è così. Sono praticamente finiti i tempi della ricerca
pura e asttratta finanziata sine die.
Per realizzare un organismo transgenico occorrono molti soldi,
molto tempo e molta gente competente dedicata al progetto.
Se dovessimo mettere sui piatti della bilancia i successi e i
tentativi falliti, ci ritroveremmo con un rapporto di uno a mille
o diecimila (e non ho esagerato affatto, ho pensato ai più grandi
centri di ricerca).
Sul perché di questo potremmo farne oggetto di convegni e
seminari, per il momento, prendila per buona.
Ma allora chi ce lo fa fare ?
La seconda domanda del documento (Q2. Why are GM foods produced?
Q=question) si pone proprio questo interrogativo.
La risposta viene immediata: prodotti a basso costo, a maggiori
benefici di durata e valore nutrizionale.
In effetti, i primi organismi prodotti miravano soprattuto alla
protezione: difesa dai parassiti, dagli insetti, ecc.
Come potrai notare dal tenore delle risposte alle varie domande,
il WHO sembra difendere gli OGM come organismi sicuri per la
salute umana e anche per quanto riguarda gli aspetti etici e
sociali.
Riporto le considerazioni finali che trovarai al termine del
documento:
This more holistic evaluation of GM organisms and GM products
will consider not only safety but also food security, social and
ethical aspects, access and capacity building.
Quindi, queste conclusioni darebbero il via ad un uso libero di
tali organismi nelle pratiche agricole in tutto il mondo.
Eppure, nonostante i toni fiduciosi, quasi entusiastici del WHO
non possiamo fare a meno di notare il collasso economico della
Monsanto nel settore transgenico.
Eppure, dalla mia personale esperienza, ho verificato che il mais
OGM non presentava una minore presenza di micotossine del mais
non transgenico; quindi, facendo venire meno i presupposti che
fosse capace di ostacolare lo sviluppo della muffa a differenza
del mais non transgenico.
Quindi, non sono disposto ad accettare i toni entusiasti del WHO,
c'è molto da studiare ancora e in modo imparziale.
Ti saluto con affetto, Alessio
20 QUESTIONS ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) FOODS
These questions and answers have been prepared by WHO in response
to questions and concerns by a number of WHO Member State
Governments with regard to the nature and safety of genetically
modified food.
Q1. What are genetically modified (GM) organisms and GM foods?
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms
in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way
that does not occur naturally.
The technology is often called "modern biotechnology" or "gene
technology", sometimes also "recombinant DNA technology" or
"genetic engineering".
It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one
organism into another, also between non-related species.
Such methods are used to create GM plants - which are then used
to grow GM food crops.
Q2. Why are GM foods produced?
GM foods are developed - and marketed - because there is some
perceived advantage either to the producer or consumer of these
foods.
This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price,
greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or
both.
Initially GM seed developers wanted their products to be accepted
by producers so have concentrated on innovations that farmers
(and the food industry more generally) would appreciate.
The initial objective for developing plants based on GM organisms
was to improve crop protection.
The GM crops currently on the market are mainly aimed at an
increased level of crop protection through the introduction of
resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or
through increased tolerance towards herbicides.
Insect resistance is achieved by incorporating into the food
plant the gene for toxin production from the bacterium Bacillus
thuringiensis (BT).
This toxin is currently used as a conventional insecticide in
agriculture and is safe for human consumption.
GM crops that permanently produce this toxin have been shown to
require lower quantities of insecticides in specific situations,
e.g. where pest pressure is high.
Virus resistance is achieved through the introduction of a gene
from certain viruses which cause disease in plants.
Virus resistance makes plants less susceptible to diseases caused
by such viruses, resulting in higher crop yields.
Herbicide tolerance is achieved through the introduction of a
gene from a bacterium conveying resistance to some herbicides.
In situations where weed pressure is high, the use of such crops
has resulted in a reduction in the quantity of the herbicides
used.
Q3. Are GM foods assessed differently from traditional foods?
Generally consumers consider that traditional foods (that have
often been eaten for thousands of years) are safe.
When new foods are developed by natural methods, some of the
existing characteristics of foods can be altered, either in a
positive or a negative way National food authorities may be
called upon to examine traditional foods, but this is not always
the case.
Indeed, new plants  developed through traditional breeding
techniques may not be evaluated rigorously using risk assessment
techniques.
With GM foods most national authorities consider that specific
assessments are necessary.
Specific systems have been set up for the rigorous evaluation of
GM organisms and GM foods relative to both human health and the
environment.
Similar evaluations are generally not performed for traditional
foods.
Hence there is a significant difference in the evaluation process
prior to marketing for these two groups of food.
One of the objectives of the WHO Food Safety Programme is to
assist national authorities in the identification of foods that
should be subject to risk assessment, including GM foods, and to
recommend the correct assessments.
Q4. How are the potential risks to human health determined?
The safety assessment of GM foods generally investigates:
(a) direct health effects (toxicity),
(b) tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity);
(c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic
properties;
(d) the stability of the inserted gene;
(e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and
(f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene
insertion.
Q5. What are the main issues of concern for human health?
While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of
aspects, the three main issues debated are tendencies to provoke
allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.
Allergenicity.
As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly
allergenic foods is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated
that the protein product of the transferred gene is not
allergenic.
While traditionally developed foods are not generally tested for
allergenicity, protocols for tests for GM foods have
been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO) and WHO.
No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods
currently on the market.
Gene transfer.
Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria
in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the
transferred genetic material adversely affects human health.
This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance
genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred.
Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of
technology without antibiotic resistance genes has been
encouraged by a recent FAO/WHO expert panel.
Outcrossing.
The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or
related species in the wild (referred to as "outcrossing"), as
well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with
those grown using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food
safety and food security.
This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which
was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products for
human consumption in the United States of America.
Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing,
including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops
and conventional crops are grown.
Feasibility and methods for post-marketing monitoring of GM food
products, for the continued surveillance of the safety of GM food
products, are under discussion.
Q6. How is a risk assessment for the environment performed?
Environmental risk assessments cover both the GMO concerned and
the potential receiving environment.
The assessment process includes evaluation of the characteristics
of the GMO and its effect and stability in the environment,
combined with ecological characteristics of the environment in
which the introduction will take place.
The assessment also includes unintended effects which could
result from the insertion of the new gene.
Q7. What are the issues of concern for the environment?
Issues of concern include: the capability of the GMO to escape
and potentially introduce the engineered genes into wild
populations; the persistence of the gene after the GMO has been
harvested; the susceptibility of non-target organisms (e.g.
insects which are not pests) to the gene product; the stability
of the gene; the reduction in the spectrum of other plants
including loss of biodiversity; and increased use of chemicals in
agriculture.
The environmental safety aspects of GM crops vary considerably
according to local conditions.
Current investigations focus on: the potentially detrimental
effect on beneficial insects or a faster induction of resistant
insects; the potential generation of new plant pathogens; the
potential detrimental consequences for plant biodiversity and
wildlife, and a decreased use of the important practice of crop
rotation in certain local situations; and the movement of
herbicide resistance genes to other plants.
Q8. Are GM foods safe?
Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in
different ways.
This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be
assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to
make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.
GM foods currently available on the international market have
passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for
human health.
In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a
result of the consumption of such foods by the general population
in the countries where they have been approved.
Continuous use of risk assessments based on the Codex principles
and, where appropriate, including post market monitoring, should
form the basis for evaluating the safety of GM foods.
Q9. How are GM foods regulated nationally?
The way governments have regulated GM foods varies. In some
countries GM foods are not yet regulated.
Countries which have legislation in place focus primarily on
assessment of risks for consumer health. Countries which have
provisions for GM foods usually also regulate GMOs in general,
taking into account health and environmental risks, as well as
control- and trade-related issues (such as potential testing and
labelling regimes).
In view of the dynamics of the debate on GM foods, legislation is
likely to continue to evolve.
Q10. What kind of GM foods are on the market internationally?
All GM crops available on the international market today have
been designed using one of three basic traits: resistance to
insect damage; resistance to viral infections; and tolerance
towards certain herbicides.
All the genes used to modify crops are derived from
microorganisms.
ATTENZIONE: rimuovo una tabella di difficile formattazione.
Q11. What happens when GM foods are traded internationally?
No specific international regulatory systems are currently
inplace.
However, several international organizations are involved in
developing protocols for GMOs.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is the joint FAO/WHO
body responsible for compiling the standards, codes of practice,
guidelines and recommendations that constitute the Codex
Alimentarius: the international food code.
Codex is developing principles for the human health risk analysis
of GM foods.
The premise of these principles dictates a premarket assessment,
performed on a case-by-case basis and including an evaluation of
both direct effects (from the inserted gene) and unintended
effects (that may arise as a consequence of insertion of the new
gene).
The principles are at an advanced stage of development and are
expected to be adopted in July 2003.
Codex principles do not have a binding effect on national
legislation, but are referred to specifically in the Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Agreement of the World Trade Organization (SPS
Agreement), and can be used as a reference in case of trade
disputes.
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB), an environmental
treaty legally binding for its Parties, regulates transboundary
movements of living modified organisms (LMOs).
GM foods are within the scope of the Protocol only if they
contain LMOs that are capable of transferring or replicating
genetic material.
The cornerstone of the CPB is a requirement that exporters seek
consent from importers before the first shipment of  LMOs
intended for release into the environment.
The Protocol will enter into force 90 days after the 50th country
has ratified it, which may be in early 2003 in view of the
accelerated depositions registered since June 2002.
Q12. Have GM products on the international market passed a risk
assessment?
The GM products that are currently on the international market
have all passed risk assessments conducted by national
authorities.
These different assessments in general follow the same basic
principles, including an assessment of environmental and human
health risk.
These assessments are thorough, they have not indicated any risk
to human health.
Q13. Why has there been concern about GM foods among some
politicians, public interest groups and consumers, especially in
Europe?
Since the first introduction on the market in the mid-1990s of a
major GM food (herbicide-resistant soybeans), there has been
increasing concern about such food among politicians, activists
and consumers, especially in Europe.
Several factors are involved.
In the late 1980s - early 1990s, the results of decades of
molecular research reached the public domain.
Until that time, consumers were generally not very aware of the
potential of this research.
In the case of food, consumers started to wonder about safety
because they perceive that modern biotechnology is leading to the
creation of new species.
Consumers frequently ask, "what is in it for me?".
Where medicines are concerned, many consumers more readily accept
biotechnology as beneficial for their health (e.g. medicines with
improved treatment potential).
In the case of the first GM foods introduced onto the European
market, the products were of no apparent direct benefit to
consumers (not cheaper, no increased shelf-life, no better
taste).
The potential for GM seeds to result in bigger yields per
cultivated area should lead to lower prices.
However, public attention has focused on the risk side of the
risk-benefit equation.
Consumer confidence in the safety of food supplies in Europe has
decreased significantly as a result of a number of food scares
that took place in the second half of the 1990s that are
unrelated to GM foods.
This has also had an impact on discussions about the
acceptability of GM foods.
Consumers have questioned the validity of risk assessments, both
with regard to consumer health and environmental risks, focusing
in particular on long-term effects.
Other topics for debate by consumer organizations have included
allergenicity and antimicrobial resistance.
Consumer concerns have triggered a discussion on the desirability
of labelling GM foods, allowing an informed choice.
At the same time, it has proved difficult to detect traces of
GMOs in foods: this means that very low concentrations often
cannot be detected.
Q14. How has this concern affected the marketing of GM foods in
the European Union?
The public concerns about GM food and GMOs in general have had a
significant impact on the marketing of GM products in the
European Union (EU).
In fact, they have resulted in the so-called moratorium on
approval of GM products to be placed on the market. Marketing of
GM food and GMOs in general are the subject of extensive
legislation.
Community legislation has been in place since the early 1990s.
The procedure for approval of the release of GMOs into the
environment is rather complex and basically requires agreement
between the Member States and the European Commission. Between
1991 and 1998, the marketing of 18 GMOs was authorized in the EU
by a Commission decision.
As of October 1998, no further authorizations have been granted
and there are currently 12 applications pending.
Some Member States have invoked a safeguard clause to temporarily
ban the placing on the market in their country of GM maize and
oilseed rape products.
There are currently nine ongoing cases.
Eight of these have been examined by the Scientific Committee on
Plants, which in all cases deemed that the information submitted
by Member States did not justify their bans.
During the 1990s, the regulatory framework was further extended
and refined in response to the legitimate concerns of citizens,
consumer organizations and economic operators (described under
Question 13).
A revised directive will come into force in October 2002.
It will update and strengthen the existing rules concerning the
process of risk assessment, risk management and decision-making
with regard to the release of GMOs into the environment.
The new directive also foresees mandatory monitoring of long-term
effects associated with the interaction between GMOs
and the environment.
Labelling in the EU is mandatory for products derived from modern
biotechnology or products containing GM organisms.
Legislation also addresses the problem of accidental
contamination of conventional food by GM material.
It introduces a 1% minimum threshold for DNA or protein resulting
from genetic modification, below which labelling is not required.
In 2001, the European Commission adopted two new legislative
proposals on GMOs concerning traceability, reinforcing current
labelling rules and streamlining the authorization procedure for
GMOs in food and feed and for their deliberate release into the
environment.
The European Commission is of the opinion that these new
proposals, building on existing legislation, aim to address the
concerns of Member States and to build consumer confidence in the
authorization of GM products.
The Commission expects that adoption of these proposals will pave
the way for resuming the authorization of new GM products in the
EU.
Q15. What is the state of public debate on GM foods in other
regions of the world?
The release of GMOs into the environment and the marketing of GM
foods have resulted in a public debate in many parts of the
world.
This debate is likely to continue, probably in the broader
context of other uses of biotechnology (e.g. in human medicine)
and their consequences for human societies.
Even though the issues under debate are usually very similar
(costs and benefits, safety issues), the outcome of the debate
differs from country to country.
On issues such as labelling and traceability of GM foods as a way
to address consumer concerns, there is no consensus to date.
This has become apparent during discussions within the Codex
Alimentarius Commission over the past few years.
Despite the lack of consensus on these topics, significant
progress has been made on the harmonization of views concerning
risk assessment.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission is about to adopt principles on
premarket risk assessment, and the provisions of the Cartegena
Protocol on Biosafety also reveal a growing understanding at the
international level.
Most recently, the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa has
drawn attention to the use of GM food as food aid in emergency
situations.
A number of governments in the region raised concerns relating to
environmental and food safety fears.
Although workable solutions have been found for distribution of
milled grain in some countries, others have restricted the use of
GM food aid and obtained commodities which do not contain GMOs.
Q16. Are people's reactions related to the different attitudes to
food in various regions of the world?
Depending on the region of the world, people often have different
attitudes to food.
In addition to nutritional value, food often has societal and
historical connotations, and in some instances may have religious
importance.
Technological modification of food and food production can evoke
a negative response among consumers, especially in the absence of
good communication on risk assessment efforts and cost/benefit
evaluations.
Q17. Are there implications for the rights of farmers to own
their crops?
Yes, intellectual property rights are likely to be an element in
the debate on GM foods, with an impact on the rights of farmers.
Intellectual property rights (IPRs), especially patenting
obligations of the TRIPS Agreement (an agreement under the World
Trade
Organization concerning trade-related aspects of intellectual
property rights) have been discussed in the light of their
consequences on the further availability of a diversity of crops.
In the context of the related subject of the use of gene
technology in medicine, WHO has reviewed the conflict between
IPRs and an equal access to genetic resources and the sharing of
benefits.
The review has considered potential problems of monopolization
and doubts about new patent regulations in the field of genetic
sequences in human medicine.
Such considerations are likely to also affect the debate on GM
foods.
Q18. Why are certain groups concerned about the growing influence
of the chemical industry on agriculture?
Certain groups are concerned about what they consider to be an
undesirable level of control of seed markets by a few chemical
companies.
Sustainable agriculture and biodiversity benefit most from the
use of a rich variety of crops, both in terms of good crop
protection practices as well as from the perspective of society
at large and the values attached to food.
These groups fear that as a result of the interest of the
chemical industry in seed markets, the range of varieties used by
farmers may be reduced mainly to GM crops.
This would impact on the food basket of a society as well as in
the long run on crop protection (for example, with the
development of resistance against insect pests and tolerance of
certain herbicides).
The exclusive use of herbicide-tolerant GM crops would also make
the farmer dependenton these chemicals.
These groups fear a dominant position of the chemical industry in
agricultural development, a trend which they do not consider to
be sustainable.
Q19. What further developments can be expected in the area of
GMOs?
Future GM organisms are likely to include plants with improved
disease or drought resistance, crops with increased nutrient
levels, fish species with enhanced growth characteristics and
plants or animals producing pharmaceutically important proteins
such as vaccines.
At the international level, the response to new developments can
be found in the expert consultations organized by FAO and WHO in
2000 and 2001, and the subsequent work of the Codex ad hoc Task
Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology.
This work has resulted in an improved and harmonized framework
for the risk assessment of GM foods in general. Specific
questions, such as the evaluation of allergenicity of GM foods or
the safety of foods derived from GM microorganisms, have been
covered and an expert consultation organized by FAO and WHO will
focus on foods derived from GM animals in 2003.
Q20. What is WHO doing to improve the evaluation of GM foods?
WHO will take an active role in relation to GM foods, primarily
for two reasons:
(1) on the grounds that public health could benefit enormously
from the potential of biotechnology, for example, from an
increase in the nutrient content of foods, decreased
allergenicity and more efficient food production; and
(2) based on the need to examine the potential negative effects
on human health of the consumption of food produced through
genetic modification, also at the global level.
It is clear that modern technologies must be thoroughly evaluated
if they are to constitute a true improvement in the way food is
produced.
Such evaluations must be holistic and all-inclusive, and cannot
stop at the previously separated, non-coherent systems of
evaluation focusing solely on human health or environmental
effects in isolation.
Work is therefore under way in WHO to present a broader view of
the evaluation of GM foods in order to enable the  consideration
of other important factors.
This more holistic evaluation of GM organisms and GM products
will consider not only safety but also food security, social and
ethical aspects, access and capacity building.
International work in this new direction presupposes the
involvement of other key international organizations in this
area.
As a first step, the WHO Executive Board will discuss the content
of a WHO report covering this subject in January 2003.
The report is being developed in collaboration with other key
organizations, notably FAO and the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP).
It is hoped that this report could form the basis for a future
initiative towards a more systematic, coordinated,
multi-organizational and international evaluation of certain GM
foods.

 Guarda che perdi il tram... puoi attaccartici se arrivi in
ritardo;-)))))))
Acc ! Con tutti i tram che perdo ... ^__-
Un caro saluto, Alessio

 tuo parere in materia, sarebbe molto gradito.
Caro Claudio,
rileggendo la questione che hai posto, mi sono reso conto che mi
hai chiesto di un *tuo* rigonfiamento e non del prodotto in
questione.
Scusa la svista.
A questo punto, la spiegazione può essere molto semplice: li
mangi velocemente ^__^
Mangia i sofficini, pian pianino e vedrai che dovrebbe scomparire
il problema.
Un caro saluto, Alessio

 Un caro saluto, Alessio

 una buona pubblicità. A buon intenditor...
Caro Claudio,
allora devi eliminare anche i formaggini e sottilette di tutti i
tipi (normale, light, speziati, ecc.), tutti i formaggi a pasta
filante (tipo "pizzottella" et similia), i formaggi a crema
spalmabile (praticamente, nessun tipo escluso).
Si salverebbero praticamente solo: derivati freschi del latte
(tipo mozzarella, scamorza fresca, fiordilatte, ricotta, burro,
burrini), stagionati (caciocavallo, formaggi a pasta dura) e
affumicati (scamorza affumicata).
A proposito, visto che sei un amante dei salumi (mantovani) e
(suppongo) insaccati, devi eliminare anche: mortadella (di tutti
i tipi), wurstel e wurstelloni.
Caro Claudio,
se vogliamo scendere nei dettagli di cosa mangiamo, credo che ci
passerebbe la voglia di mangiare.
La cosa ideale sarebbe tornare ad un alimentazione non
industriale; concetto insostenibile con una popolazione così
numerosa.
Però, se mi permetti di spezzare una piccola lancia in favore
dell'industria vorrei elencare alcuni aspetti positivi della
produzione alimentare industriale.
Fatte salve le eccezioni, la produzione alimentare industriale
presenta, nella generalità dei casi, un buon livello di igiene e
un controllo dello sviluppo microbiologico di organismi
indesiderati.
Anche se la materia prima può lasciare a desiderare, c'è anche da
dire che le condizioni di manipolazione dell'alimento in tutte le
sue fasi di preparazione non presentano significativi rischi per
la salute del consumatore.
Quello che deve ancora migliorare è l'uso degli additivi, dei
conservanti e dei coloranti.
Da migliorare anche l'etichettatura, in generale, che non sempre
fornisce indicazioni utili al consumatore.
Miglioramenti significativi potrebbero essere compiuti anche
nell'ambito della scelta della materia prima.
Ma in questo caso, la legge del mercato è stringente e il
produttore è più attratto dall'idea di produrre un prodotto a
basso costo che un prodotto di alta qualità (fate poche, molto
poche, debite eccezioni).
Insomma, caro Claudio, dovremmo tutti riappropriarci di un
pezzettino di terra e coltivarci l'indispensabile.
Dovremmo abbandonare, specie le mamme, l'abitudine di acquistare
alimenti spazzatura (patatine, snack vari, ecc) e merendine per i
bambini.
Dovremmo abbandonare l'acquisto di prodotti eccessivamente
elaborati, in particolare i vari prodotti light et similia.
Dovremmo cercare di abbandonare gli alimenti frutto di una
manipolazione chimica (zucchero da cucina in prima linea).
Quindi, come vedi, caro Claudio, se pensiamo a tutte le cose che
ci fanno male, in potenza o in atto, il nostro frigorifero e la
nostra dispensa si svuotano.
Lo convinci tu un bambino d'oggi a sgranocchiare una mela o una
carota in sostituzione di una di quelle meravigliose e buonissime
schifezze che sono in commercio ?
A proposito, se proprio la mela non la vuole, provaci con il
pezzo di pane con la marmellata; ma dubito che ce la farai ^__^
Ti abbraccio con affetto, Alessio

 pezzo di pane con la marmellata; ma dubito che ce la farai ^__^
Un mio cognato, ha visto come producevano la marmellata: ha smesso di
mangiarla!
Personalmente guardo sempre le date di scadenza di ciò che c'è in frigo:
mangio sempre la roba che sta per scadere. Vivo la mia vita molto
serenamente come vedi. Quando toccherà a me, sarà un giorno felice perchè
non sarò più solo. Di che dovrei avere paura?
At salùt (con parmigiano e salame... ahimè.... finito) Claudio  (il
Contadino)


 non sarò più solo. Di che dovrei avere paura?
Of course, my darling.
Questo vale per tutti, ma noi non siamo responsabili solo per noi
stessi, adulti e vaccinati.
Un caro saluto a te, mio caro. Alessio

Caro Alessio, non pensi che bisogna abituare il nostro corpo ad
autoproteggersi?
Io soffro gravemente di allergie, infatti ovunque mi muovo devo portarmi
dietro la puntura di cortisone per evitare lo shoch anafilattico. Ora ho
letto che spesso le allergie sono dovute al fatto che il nostro corpo,
avendo ormai relativamente pochi microbi da combattere, si attiva contro
cose innocue, ma in modo esagerato, per cui può recare morte a se stesso.
Tu cosa ne pensi?
Ciao. Maria

 l'alimentazione carnea.
Caro Alessio,
                    č chiaro ed evidente che tu *non ti stai riferendo* ai
miei ex (AHIOOOO!!!!) salami, fatti interamente in casa con animali allevati
dallo stesso "masěn" (quello che fa i salami).
At salůt   Claudio  (il Contadino)


 ha scritto nel
messaggio news:bfe4iq$dob96$1...@ID-100923.news.uni-berlin.de...

Cara Maria,
sulle allergie ho informazioni solo di carattere generale.
Mi risulta, per esempio, che le micotossine possono contribuire,
ma non so come nello specifico, ad un aumento dello stato
allergenico di un individuo.
Le allergie non sono reazioni dell'organismo verso l'invasione di
batteri, ma sono la reazione verso la penetrazione nel sistema
circolatorio di sostanze dette allergeni.
Tali sostanze scatenano le difese immunitarie come se si
trattasse di un attacco da parte di un organismo vivente
(batteri, protozoi, spore di vario tipo).
Purtroppo, sembra che tali reazioni immunitarie possano
svilupparsi anche a causa di un erroneo riconoscimento di
sostanze allergeniche, sia che facciano parte del nostro stesso
organismo (self) sia che non ne facciano parte (no-self).
E' stato visto che sostanze di origine alimentare o allergeni
naturali (p.e.: polline, polvere, escrementi di acaro, ecc.)
verso i quali il nostro sistema immunitario non è intervenuto in
passato, può improvvisamente intervenire causato una vera e
propria reazione allergica.
Questo fenomeno è in continua crescita nella popolazione.
Le spiegazioni possono essere diverse.
Dalle più semplici, pare che l'esposizione continua a determinati
allergeni induca nel tempo la risposta immunitaria.
Alle più complesse, una serie di fattori genetici e stimoli
ambientali determinano una vera e propria "bomba a orologeria"
immunitaria, che tende a manifestarsi anche molto avanti negli
anni.
In ogni caso, le spiegazioni non sono ancora complete e
soddisfacenti.
Sta di fatto che il fenomeno è in costante aumento negli ultimi
trent'anni e si teme un continuo progresso; tanto che, la
questione delle allergie sta progressivamente occupando sempre
più l'attenzione delle autorità sanitarie nazionali e
internazionali.
Quanto all'uso del cortisone, cara Maria, non sono un medico e
non mi permetto di intervenire su una prescrizione medica, però
rilevo che il cortisone viene prescritto con troppa leggerezza.
Ti invito a fare un'analisi allergologica e verificare se la tua
allergia è respiratoria o alimentare (tale esame è totalmente
indolore e viene effettuato da qualsiasi ASL).
Poi, valutare con estrema cautela l'uso di sostanze cortisoniche
come rimedio.
Un abbraccio, Alessio