Proteína de soja, porque tão pouco mencionada?

[Verdura 689]

18 minutos atrás, Henrique L disse:

É mais na questão de honestidade com o cliente. Será que as gramas de proteínas que constam nos rótulos realmente estão no conteúdo do produto?

 

Se não me engano, há alguns anos atrás, um dono de loja de suplementos levou seus produtos para análise em um laboratório pra confirmar se o produto oferecia o que indicava, e várias marcas(Algumas famosas) estavam totalmente irregulares com aquilo que estava no rótulo.

Exemplo: whey que dizia ter 25 gramas de proteina por dose, na verdade, tinha 12, 15 e etc.

Picaretagem!

Não estou afirmando que as empresas fazem hj em dia, mas não boto a mão no fogo e sei que uma ou outra aí são picaretas!

 

Por isso sempre dou preferência para alimentos do que suplementos. Se for pra tomar, em último caso e com marca mais confiáveis. 

Mas é apenas minha maneira de pensar e fazer as coisas.

 

Whey era para ser confiável porque você tem um processo industrial controlado para ter qualidade no produto que chega ao cliente.

Agora uma carne de um animal, uma fruta ou uma preparação complexa é muito aproximado.

[krebz 3730]

7 horas atrás, Torf disse:

Pois é... Por ser algo relativamente recente, näo há muito consenso no meio científico sobre os efeitos no nosso corpo causados por alimentos modificados geneticamente. Alguns estudos apontam que é seguro. .

Consenso existe, mas como tudo que acontece no meio científico é possível achar algum paper assinado por X pessoas (pesquisadores, etc) falando o contrário:(https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2016/05/gmo-safety-debate-is-over/)

 

Mesma coisa daqueles 3% de cientistas que não reconhecem mudança climática causada por humanos, médicos brasileiros recomendando cloroquina para COVID mesmo um monte de meta-análise falando que não há evidências boas de que ajuda, etc

 

Sem contar o pessoal do contra que sempre existem: influencer, nutricionistas/médico aleatórios, politico(isso tem muito...) ou pessoal adepto de conspiração/anti-ciencia (principalmente nos EUA)

 

GMO (até então) é aceito como muito seguro, ainda mais que pararam de usar umas tecnicas meio "tiro no escuro" (expondo comida a radiação e outros quimicos para "ver no que da", também chamado de mutagenese) 

 

Fonte da imagem: https://www.facebook.com/foodsciencebabe/

(que por sinal costuma postar muita coisa interessante sobre GMO, pesticidas, etc)

 

Fora isso:

 

 

Citar

 

This is a partial list of well-respected organizations that have commented on genetically modified crops including a link to where they made the statement:

• American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”
• American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”
• The United States National Academy of Sciences: “Environmental effects at the farm level have occurred as a result of the adoption of GE crops and the agricultural practices that accompany their cultivation. The introduction of GE crops has reduced pesticide use or the toxicity of pesticides used on fields where soybean, corn, and cotton are grown.”
• World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”
• The United States National Academy of Sciences: “To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.”
• American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.”
• American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.”
• American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.”
• American Society of Plant Biologists: ”The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.”
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration: “FDA is confident that the bioengineered foods on the United States market today are as safe as their conventional counterparts.”
• Health Canada: “Health Canada is not aware of any published scientific evidence demonstrating that novel foods are any less safe than traditional foods.”
• Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.”
• International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.”
• Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: ”Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.”
• Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.”
• American Dietetic Association: ”It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE) Update: The American Dietetic Association (ADA) has become The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND). While the above statement reflected the ADA’s position the president of AND has stated that AND is currently neutral and has no position on GMOs.
• Federation of Animal Science Societies: ”Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.”
• Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” [Google translate]
• “Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” – Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences: “Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.”
• French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” [Google translate]
• International Society of African Scientists: ”Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.”
• Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.”
• International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.”

 

 

E também

 

https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/07/30/most-anti-gmo-papers-contain-serious-flaws/

 

 

https://www.agdaily.com/crops/top-gmo-myths-truth-information-youre-fed/

 

https://biofortified.org/2018/02/scary-truth-gmo-fear/

 

 

Editado Novembro 26, 2020 às 23:59 por krebz
adicionei imagem

[Pereira_33 31]

2 horas atrás, krebz disse:

Consenso existe, mas como tudo que acontece no meio científico é possível achar algum paper assinado por X pessoas (pesquisadores, etc) falando o contrário, mesma coisa daqueles 3% de cientistas que não reconhecem mudança climática causada por humanos. Sem contar o pessoal do contra que sempre existem: influencer, nutricionistas/médico sem noção, politico(isso tem muito...) ou pessoal adepto de conspiração/anti-ciencia (principalmente nos EUA)

 

GMO até então se mostra seguro e ainda assim com bastante regulamentos em tudo que é pais.

 

Fora isso:

[Quote]

This is a partial list of well-respected organizations that have commented on genetically modified crops including a link to where they made the statement:

• American Association for the Advancement of Science: ”The science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe.”
• American Medical Association: ”There is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.”
• The United States National Academy of Sciences: “Environmental effects at the farm level have occurred as a result of the adoption of GE crops and the agricultural practices that accompany their cultivation. The introduction of GE crops has reduced pesticide use or the toxicity of pesticides used on fields where soybean, corn, and cotton are grown.”
• World Health Organization: ”No effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of GM foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.”
• The United States National Academy of Sciences: “To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.”
• American Phytopathological Society: ”The American Phytopathological Society (APS), which represents approximately 5,000 scientists who work with plant pathogens, the diseases they cause, and ways of controlling them, supports biotechnology as a means for improving plant health, food safety, and sustainable growth in plant productivity.”
• American Society for Cell Biology: ”Far from presenting a threat to the public health, GM crops in many cases improve it. The ASCB vigorously supports research and development in the area of genetically engineered organisms, including the development of genetically modified (GM) crop plants.”
• American Society for Microbiology: ”The ASM is not aware of any acceptable evidence that food produced with biotechnology and subject to FDA oversight constitutes high risk or is unsafe. We are sufficiently convinced to assure the public that plant varieties and products created with biotechnology have the potential of improved nutrition, better taste and longer shelf-life.”
• American Society of Plant Biologists: ”The risks of unintended consequences of this type of gene transfer are comparable to the random mixing of genes that occurs during classical breeding… The ASPB believes strongly that, with continued responsible regulation and oversight, GE will bring many significant health and environmental benefits to the world and its people.”
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration: “FDA is confident that the bioengineered foods on the United States market today are as safe as their conventional counterparts.”
• Health Canada: “Health Canada is not aware of any published scientific evidence demonstrating that novel foods are any less safe than traditional foods.”
• Society of Toxicology: ”Scientific analysis indicates that the process of GM food production is unlikely to lead to hazards of a different nature than those already familiar to toxicologists. The level of safety of current GM foods to consumers appears to be equivalent to that of traditional foods.”
• International Seed Federation: ”The development of GM crops has benefited farmers, consumers and the environment… Today, data shows that GM crops and foods are as safe as their conventional counterparts: millions of hectares worldwide have been cultivated with GM crops and billions of people have eaten GM foods without any documented harmful effect on human health or the environment.”
• Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: ”Over the last decade, 8.5 million farmers have grown transgenic varieties of crops on more than 1 billion acres of farmland in 17 countries. These crops have been consumed by humans and animals in most countries. Transgenic crops on the market today are as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts, and likely more so given the greater regulatory scrutiny to which they are exposed.”
• Society for In Vitro Biology: ”The SIVB supports the current science-based approach for the evaluation and regulation of genetically engineered crops. The SIVB supports the need for easy public access to available information on the safety of genetically modified crop products. In addition, the SIVB feels that foods from genetically modified crops, which are determined to be substantially equivalent to those made from crops, do not require mandatory labeling.”
• American Dietetic Association: ”It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that agricultural and food biotechnology techniques can enhance the quality, safety, nutritional value, and variety of food available for human consumption and increase the efficiency of food production, food processing, food distribution, and environmental and waste management.” (http://1.usa.gov/12hvWnE) Update: The American Dietetic Association (ADA) has become The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND). While the above statement reflected the ADA’s position the president of AND has stated that AND is currently neutral and has no position on GMOs.
• Federation of Animal Science Societies: ”Meat, milk and eggs from livestock and poultry consuming biotech feeds are safe for human consumption.”
• Consensus document on GMOs Safety (14 Italian scientific societies): ”GMOs on the market today, having successfully passed all the tests and procedures necessary to authorization, are to be considered, on the basis of current knowledge, safe to use for human and animal consumption.” [Google translate]
• “Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture” – Prepared by the Royal Society of London, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Science Academy, the Mexican Academy of Sciences, and the Third World Academy of Sciences: “Foods can be produced through the use of GM technology that are more nutritious, stable in storage, and in principle health promoting – bringing benefits to consumers in both industrialized and developing nations.”
• French Academy of Science: ”All criticisms against GMOs can be largely rejected on strictly scientific criteria.” [Google translate]
• International Society of African Scientists: ”Africa and the Caribbean cannot afford to be left further behind in acquiring the uses and benefits of this new agricultural revolution.”
• Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities: ”Food derived from GM plants approved in the EU and the US poses no risks greater than those from the corresponding conventional food. On the contrary, in some cases food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health.”
• International Council for Science: ”Currently available genetically modified crops – and foods derived from them – have been judged safe to eat, and the methods used to test them have been deemed appropriate.”

[/Quote]

 

E também

 

https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/07/30/most-anti-gmo-papers-contain-serious-flaws/

 

https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2016/05/gmo-safety-debate-is-over/

 

https://www.agdaily.com/crops/top-gmo-myths-truth-information-youre-fed/

 

https://biofortified.org/2018/02/scary-truth-gmo-fear/

 

 

Alto nível, muito bom os estudos.

[Pimpolhoman 2092]

3 horas atrás, krebz disse:

médicos brasileiros recomendando cloroquina

 

Eu ia falar isso mesmo. Eu não to aguentando mais cloroquiners esse ano.

[krebz 3730]

8 horas atrás, Pimpolhoman disse:

 

Eu ia falar isso mesmo. Eu não to aguentando mais cloroquiners esse ano.

E pior que tem bastante meta-analise já disso e a grande maioria não achando evidência suficiente para recomendar....

mas pra que considerar meta-analises para vida profissonal se acreditar muito cria boas vibes quânticas e faz funcionar melhor do que as pesquisas mostram

[lorenzo_EP 10492]

Hoje em dia acredita-se mais no que o seu político favorito fala, do que em cientistas.

Editado Novembro 27, 2020 às 10:08 por Alex Ruiz

[Torf 11506]

28 minutos atrás, Alex Ruiz disse:

Hoje em dia acredita-se mais no que o seu político favorito fala, do que em cientistas.

Se lembra quando os cientistas falavam que a gordura do ovo fazia mal e o certo era usar gorduras como o óleo canola?

[lorenzo_EP 10492]

30 minutos atrás, Torf disse:

Se lembra quando os cientistas falavam que a gordura do ovo fazia mal e o certo era usar gorduras como o óleo canola?

 

Claro, não se deveria comer as gemas.. e por anos ficaram naquela conversa de "no máximo X ovos por semana".

[Verdura 689]

1 hora atrás, Torf disse:

Se lembra quando os cientistas falavam que a gordura do ovo fazia mal e o certo era usar gorduras como o óleo canola?

 

Industria de alimento é foda porque tem lobby né, pesquisa financiada, etc.

Não há nada de errado em errar (ts), a ciência erra bastante, vive revisando estudos em uma verdadeiro ciclo de aprimoramento. Agora, o conhecimento gerado neste processo (com todas as etapas do método) ainda é o mais confiável para aplicação prática.

Quando você erra com as evidências que tem no momento você seguiu o caminho mais provável. O ruim é quando se tomam decisões baseadas em empirismo (universo de análise limitado e ambiente não controlado) ou mesmo em métodos conspiracionistas de pensamento. Para estes últimos tem sempre um arquiteto planejando os rumos de tudo e, sabe-se lá como, só eles sabem o trama.

 

[Torf 11506]

46 minutos atrás, Alex Ruiz disse:

 

Claro, não se deveria comer as gemas.. e por anos ficaram naquela conversa de "no máximo X ovos por semana".

É a tal coisa, a ciência, ou melhor, o método científico, é livre de política, mas os cientistas, jornais e revistas científicas näo.

 

Por isso vemos publicacöes que apontam que o principal viläo da obesidade é o sedentarismo e näo a alimentacäo, como em alguns estudos financiados pela Coca-Cola.

 

E, no mais, ciência é questionamento. É duvidar. Se você näo puder desconfiar ou duvidar do que alguns (ou até muitos) cientistas estejam dizendo, a ciência morre.

Agora, Verdura disse:

 

Industria de alimento é foda porque tem lobby né, pesquisa financiada, etc.

Não há nada de errado em errar (ts), a ciência erra bastante, vive revisando estudos em uma verdadeiro ciclo de aprimoramento. Agora, o conhecimento gerado neste processo (com todas as etapas do método) ainda é o mais confiável para aplicação prática.

Quando você erra com as evidências que tem no momento você seguiu o caminho mais provável. O ruim é quando se tomam decisões baseadas em empirismo (universo de análise limitado e ambiente não controlado) ou mesmo em métodos conspiracionistas de pensamento. Para estes últimos tem sempre um arquiteto planejando os rumos de tudo e, sabe-se lá como, só eles sabem o trama.

 

Aí está a diferenca entre o método científico e o que os ativistas chamam de ciência, na qual somos obrigados a acreditar e impossibilitados de questionar.