smallpoxgirl wrote:Vogelzang wrote:Without new methods of producing food As long as human populations exceed sustainable levels, more people will starve.
Fixed it for you.
BS. The single greatest cause of famines throughout history has been climactic instability. You still dodged me about that, what do you do when you don't get enough rain (or too much rain)?
Ok, here are some excerpts from the article.
Neuroscientist Irina Ermakova of the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow made news headlines two years ago when she reported that rats fed diets containing glyphosate-tolerant genetically modified (GM) soybeans gave birth to pups with low survival rates or stunted growth1. Though these findings have yet to appear in a peer-reviewed journal and contradict publications in the literature, they have been widely disseminated and discussed over the media and internet
I.E. Rats, weighing from 180 g to 200 g, were kept in a vivarium with a reversed light-dark cycle (12 a.m. to 12 p.m.). Each day, females and males in every cage received dry pellets from a special container placed on the top of their cage. Animals were also provided with 200 ml of drinking water per rat per day. After 2 weeks on the different diets, three females from each group were mated with two healthy males of the same age, who had not been exposed to the soy flour supplements. First one male was placed with a female in the cage for 3 days, and then another for 3 days. To minimize infection risk to females, invasive tests to determine sperm count and quality were not determined. Upon delivery, all females were transferred to individual cages, and the amount of soy supplement was increased by an additional 1 g for every pup born. Laboratory chow and water were available ad libitum during the experimental period, for all animals. When rat pups could feed themselves, the daily dose of soy supplement was increased to 2–3g for each pup. All rats ate their soy portions well.
B.M.C., L.V.G., A.M. and V.M. Ermakova notes that the ration of soy supplement "was increased to 2–3 g" per day when rat pups could feed themselves and adds that "all rats ate their soy portions well." Setting aside the fact that the statement may indicate that the normal ration was inadequate to meet the animals' needs, quantitative intake is again not reported. What's more, it is not clear whether pups were weaned and removed from the dams. It is also not stated whether the litters were balanced with regard to number of pups and gender. It is normal practice to compare results from litters adjusted to equal size (usually eight pups, four females and four males) to avoid differences in nursing.
I.E. is the authors name from the original article, the other initials are the people from the journal reviewing her methodology.
And this one was the responce to the results:
B.M.C., L.V.G., A.M. and V.M. Pup mortality is usually reported at day = 0 or day = 1 and day = 21. The timing and causes of death are not reported. The data in Tables 1 and 2 show that 8.1% of pups died in the control group. The typical mean pup survival observed for Wistar rats is greater than 99% plusminus 2 at day = 1 and 99.5% plusminus 1 at day = 21 (ref. 14). The abnormally high incidence of pup mortality in the controls indicates poor animal stewardship possibly arising from poor animal husbandry and/or dietary deficiency.
Basically her methodology doesn't hold up.
Also that the article has not been forthcoming. Not to mention for the article to be of value we would need to be able to read the responses and counter-responses to it.
I've been busy lately with real life.