Journal Of Food, Agriculture &Amp: Fill & Download for Free

Actually, curiously enough, no.GA Cross et al (Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition", 1982), CJ Hoffman et al ("Journal of the American Dietetic Association", 1985) and BP Klein ("Bulletin of the Puerto Rico Medical Association", 1989) all determined that the nutrient content and retention in microwave foods is higher or equal to conventionally cooked foods.L. R. Howard et al ("Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry", 2000) found that carrots cooked in a microwave had a 34 percent higher antioxidant level than conventionally cooked carrots.Cornell, 2001 established that spinach which had been cooked in a microwave retained all its folate (Vitamin B) whereas spinach cooked conventionally lost up to 77 percent.Koji Ioku ("Journal of Nutritional Science and Vitaminology", 2001) reported that onions cooked in the microwave retained flavonoid and vitamin C content, whereas boiling reduced flavonoids by 30 percent.In general it's not unwise to assume that many vegetables either benefit from or are not affected negatively by microwave cooking.

This was an extremely interesting case so please read to the end before you take away any message from this answer.In 2012, a French research group published a paper "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize" in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology with the horrific pictures above and a damning conclusion[1][1][1][1], summarized by CBSNews:Mice who were fed either a diet of Monsanto's genetically modified maize sprayed with Roundup - the company's brand of weed killer - or drank water with levels of Roundup similar to what is found in U.S. tap water were much more likely to die and at an earlier age, in addition to other health problems.The study involved 200 albino Sprague-Dawley rats - 100 hundred females, 100 males. The rats where then divided into groups of 10.Six of the groups were fed varied diets with genetically modified products. Six groups - three male and three female - were fed Monsanto GM maize with Roundup weed killer consisting of 11 percent of their diet, 22 percent or 33 percent. Six other groups were given Monsanto GM maize in the same percentage amounts, but had no Roundup sprayed on them. Another six groups were given Roundup weed killer in their water similar to the levels found in U.S. tap water.The remaining two groups acted as control groups and were fed non-genetically modified maize and water without Roundup weed killer.The results showed that female rats were two to three times more likely to die than the control group. Fifty percent of the males and 70 percent of the females eating Monsanto GM maize died earlier compared to 30 percent of males and 20 percent of females not eating genetically modified products. Female rats seemed to be more negatively affected by genetically modified corn diets whether it was sprayed with Roundup or not.The paper contradicted many previous studies on the negative food safety impacts of GMO food and was such a bombshell that French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said that, if the results are confirmed, the government would press for a Europe-wide ban on the maize and The European Commission led an investigation to assess the study. In late September 2012, Russia temporarily suspended importing GM corn as a result of the study and in November 2012, Kenya banned all GM crops. Austria’s minister for agriculture and the environment called on the European Commission to review its approval process for GM foods.But there were a couple of note-worthy and strange things about the study. The chief author of the paper was Gilles-Éric Séralini, who was also the president of the scientific advisory board of the Committee of Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering , which opposes GM food. When he held a press conference to announce the findings, he required journalists to sign a confidentiality agreement which forbade them from consulting with other scientists.Years before, he had already published controversial papers pointing out the health risks of GMO that were criticized for poor statistical methods or unsubstantiated conclusions.In the study, the rats that ate more GM corn did not get as sick as those that ate less. The choice of rats was also extremely problematic because Sprague Dawley rats are known for their propensity to develop tumors unless they receive a controlled diet. With 10 rats in each group, the sample size was also too small to establish statistical power. The pictures of the tumors were accused of being misleading because the absence of tumors in the control group was never explicitly shown.The paper triggered a storm of criticisms and was eventually retracted after Seralini refused to withdraw it. Scientists and regulatory agencies that looked closely at the paper concluded that its design was flawed and the findings too weak statistically[2][2][2][2]. Despite the widespread condemnation, the paper didn’t die without a lot of kicking and screaming. Seralini released a book and a documentary about the study. The paper was republished in 2014 in another journal but not all of the raw data was released.It is important to remember that as a scientific matter, the safety of GMO is no longer controversial. The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all declared that there’s no good evidence GMOs are unsafe. Hundreds of studies back up that conclusion.Yet, just like the notorious paper linking vaccines and autism, this paper has caused long term damage even after it was retracted. It was part of a fear-mongering campaign full of errors and fraud. This excellent Slate article traces the long history of anti-GMO campaigns. The Misleading War on GMOs: The Food Is Safe. The Rhetoric Is Dangerous.This is an area where expert opinion diverges sharply with the general public. Pew surveys found that “Other factors – including people’s education and general level of science knowledge –are only modestly linked with beliefs about the health effects of GM foods. Democrats and Republicans hold similar views on the effects of eating GM foods.”GMO is an area where science has become extremely politicized and polarized. The skepticism comes from people’s concerns about the motives of research scientists, who are often perceived to be associated with Monsanto and the food industry. I suspect there’s also the fear and unease with ‘playing God’ and ‘unnatural’ products.In 2016, 109 Nobel laureates signed onto a scathing letter to Greenpeace urging them to rethink their longstanding opposition to GMOs, which is scientifically baseless and potentially harmful to poor people in the developing world.The United Nations Food & Agriculture Program has noted that global production of food, feed and fiber will need approximately to double by 2050 to meet the demands of a growing global population. Organizations opposed to modern plant breeding, with Greenpeace at their lead, have repeatedly denied these facts and opposed biotechnological innovations in agriculture. They have misrepresented their risks, benefits, and impacts, and supported the criminal destruction of approved field trials and research projects.…Greenpeace has spearheaded opposition to Golden Rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency (VAD), which has the greatest impact on the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia.The World Health Organization estimates that 250 million people, suffer from VAD, including 40 percent of the children under five in the developing world. Based on UNICEF statistics, a total of one to two million preventable deaths occur annually as a result of VAD, because it compromises the immune system, putting babies and children at great risk. VAD itself is the leading cause of childhood blindness globally affecting 250,000 - 500,000 children each year. Half die within 12 months of losing their eyesight.WE CALL UPON GREENPEACE to cease and desist in its campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general;WE CALL UPON GOVERNMENTS OF THE WORLD to reject Greenpeace's campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general; and to do everything in their power to oppose Greenpeace's actions and accelerate the access of farmers to all the tools of modern biology, especially seeds improved through biotechnology. Opposition based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped.How many poor people in the world must die before we consider this a "crime against humanity"?So no, the mutations in the GMO corn did not create the monstrous rats. A willingness to mislead and bend facts to pursue a political agenda did.Footnotes[1] Study says genetically modified corn causes tumors, but other scientists skeptical about research[1] Study says genetically modified corn causes tumors, but other scientists skeptical about research[1] Study says genetically modified corn causes tumors, but other scientists skeptical about research[1] Study says genetically modified corn causes tumors, but other scientists skeptical about research[2] Séralini affair - Wikipedia[2] Séralini affair - Wikipedia[2] Séralini affair - Wikipedia[2] Séralini affair - Wikipedia

A 'non-nutritive' sweetener, technically stevia is a natural sweetener, being an extract from the leaves of Stevia rebaudiana (Bertoni), a perennial shrub native to Paraguay and Brazil. Its sweetness owing to Steviol glycoside - Wikipedia in its leaves (1), Paraguayan Guarani Indians and Mestizos have used stevia as a sweetener for centuries (2). Stevioside, the most abundant of such glycosides is ~250X sweeter than sucrose weight-by-weight (3). Thus stevia is an intense sweetener to say the least.According to the FAO (4),'The product is obtained from the leaves of Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni. The leaves are extracted with hot water and the aqueous extract is passed through an adsorption resin to trap and concentrate the component steviol glycosides. The resin is washed with a solvent alcohol to release the glycosides and the product is recrystallized from methanol or aqueous ethanol. Ion exchange resins may be used in the purification process. The final product may be spray-dried.'Nothing out of the ordinary about the process since chemicals are used to extract and purify sugar from sugarcane or sugar beet as well. After an initial burst of enthusiastic embrace by the food industry, stevia hit serious roadblocks in widespread adoption given its considerable drawbacks as a sugar substitute, which include (5)Bitter aftertaste. As with other so-called 'non-nutritive' sweeteners, stevia too is plagued by the problem of unpleasant aftertastes such as bitterness, bitter aftertaste and metallic flavor (6, 7). Polymorphisms in bitter taste receptors mean this problem's not only variable but also unpredictable. Someone who finds a non-nutritive sweetener like AceK (Acesulfame potassium - Wikipedia) bitter may not necessarily find steviols to be likewise and vice-versa (8).Difficult to formulate. For example, apparently doesn't work well in colas.Incomplete sugar substitute. Approved steviol glycosides replace only 70 to 80% of a soda's sweetness. Adding more stevia causes its handicaps to outweigh its benefits.To make stevia palatable in drinks and foodstuffs, food scientists engage in formulation tinkering (5) such as blending it withMuch lower amounts of sucrose.Mushroom root extracts (9).The extremely expensive monk fruit extract (Siraitia grosvenorii - Wikipedia) (10).Erythritol - Wikipedia as in Cargill's Truvia - Wikipedia. Problem with erythritol, a sugar alcohol, is propensity for GI (gastrointestinal) distress including bloating, cramping and gas.Its drawbacks making this kind of tinkering necessary, stevia-containing products are ‘low’ not ‘no’ calorie. Thus, currently, it may be more accurate to call stevia a high intensity low calorie sweetener.Bibliography1. Brandle, J. E., A. N. Starratt, and M. Gijzen. "Stevia rebaudiana: its agricultural, biological, and chemical properties." Canadian journal of plant science 78.4 (1998): 527-536. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.4141/p97-1142. Lewis, Walter H. "Early uses of Stevia rebaudiana (Asteraceae) leaves as a sweetener in Paraguay." Econ. Bot 46 (1992): 336-337.3. Crammer, B., and R. Ikan. "Progress in the chemistry and properties of the rebaudiosides." Developments in sweeteners 3 (1987): 45-64.4. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i1782e.pdf5. Fortune, Beth Kowitt, Feb 22, 2017. The Hunt for the Perfect Sugar6. Hellfritsch, Caroline, et al. "Human psychometric and taste receptor responses to steviol glycosides." Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 60.27 (2012): 6782-6793.7. Rocha, Izabela Furtado de Oliveira, and Helena Maria André Bolini. "Passion fruit juice with different sweeteners: sensory profile by descriptive analysis and acceptance." Food science & nutrition 3.2 (2015): 129-139. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fsn3.195/epdf8. Allen, Alissa L., et al. "Bitterness of the non-nutritive sweetener acesulfame potassium varies with polymorphisms in TAS2R9 and TAS2R31." Chemical senses 38.5 (2013): 379-389. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Hayes7/publication/236228319_Bitterness_of_the_Non-nutritive_Sweetener_Acesulfame_Potassium_Varies_With_Polymorphisms_in_TAS2R9_and_TAS2R31/links/0a85e532b09e7b41d2000000/Bitterness-of-the-Non-nutritive-Sweetener-Acesulfame-Potassium-Varies-With-Polymorphisms-in-TAS2R9-and-TAS2R31.pdf9. Taking the bitterness out of stevia10. Li, X. E., K. Lopetcharat, and M. A. Drake. "Parents’ and children's acceptance of skim chocolate milks sweetened by monk fruit and stevia leaf extracts." Journal of food science 80.5 (2015).Thanks for the R2A, Jeff Nelson.