Diabetes can often be controlled by diet alone. I reached out to former Venmo employee and co-founder Iqram Magdon-Ismail, who then enlisted the help of Nuseir Yassin, another former Venmo employee, to help me become the first person to pay for a meal with his hand. Fried chicken is the best and the easiest to pocket, or should we say bag. Bring an empty school bag and load up after you've cased the joint. If you are in a city without a place to stay, ask the first group of hip-looking folks where you can crash. Take Back Your Power Trailer: One of the best-publicized approaches to boosting reproducibility is pre-registration, where scientists submit hypotheses and plans for data analysis to a third party before performing experiments, to prevent cherry-picking statistically significant results later.
Lucigen in the News
I work for a seed company that develops and sells GM maize and have been to several field days in southern Iowa attended by Amish gentlemen.
They definitely purchase GM maize. I have heard this now from several sources. My apologies to the Amish, who are clearly less afraid of new technologies than their colleagues in the organic movement. I seem to have done them a disservice with this analogy. For example, they are allowed to have telephones outside the house, but not at home.
The telephone is essential for business, but they must still go to the local store and interact with the rest of the community in order to use it. Why are the Amish always cited? I have lived near the amish, mennonite, etc. Yes, in my youth they were usually trim very quiet people. I have the added bonus of understanding quite a bit of Plattdeutsch low German and could not help overhearing and understanding their conversations on the train.
Wow, what an education. The final blow comes when you see what junk food they eat on the train or the groups eating supersized meals at fast food places riding through small towns in the iStates iowa, indiana, illinois. Sometimes i felt guilty like I had eavesdropped, but then they used to be silent. It is very hard not tuning in and delighting in the sing song of the platt that one has not heard in ten years.
Needless to say, or maybe very much needed to say, I was surprised by my outsider view of the amish from the years of my youth. I am now re-educated. I would not use some of them as nutritional experts any longer. First of all, they are no longer lean and stern looking. Many are flat out obese. Life was more beautiful down on the farm that way. Now you may all go back to romanticizing GMOs and feeding the world. I remember visiting a vegan cafe in Cologne a little while after the organic beansprout incident.
Putting aside stories of organ failure in rats fed GM products I have no idea if the stories are true and the way Monsanto treated Percy Schmeitser sp? This is certainly true there is another side to the story. Your linked editorial has no sources for your assertions. Would you mind providing the sources for these claims? Start with my last book, The God Species — much of the same stuff, but with legions of references at the back, almost entirely to peer-reviewed science.
I already have a hold placed on your book at my local library after reading your lecture transcript above. Bit of background here: You may not know much about Percy: Schmeiser is a Canadian canola farmer who Monsanto successfully sued for patent violation after unlicensed Roundup Ready canola was found growing on his farm.
Starting from when we began our efforts to settle the matter out-of-court, Schmeiser claimed the biotech plants in his fields got there by accident and were not planted by him. The truth is Percy Schmeiser is not a hero. Schmeiser knowingly planted this seed in his field without permission or license.
In fact, the courts determined this in three separate decisions. In the first trial, Schmeiser claimed in he sprayed Roundup on three acres of his canola field because he was suspicious it might be Roundup tolerant.
If his story were true, this would kill any canola plants other than those tolerant to Roundup. After killing more than half his crop, he then harvested the remaining plants that did not die and segregated this seed. The next year he had this seed treated and used this seed to plant 1, acres on his farm. Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention.
His fields had mostly Roundup Ready plants in them—far more than could have ever grown there by accident. Again, in the words of the Canadian court judgment:. You can read the original Canadian court decision at http: He lost again upon appeal in , when the three-member Canadian Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed all 17 grounds of appeal submitted for Mr. Read the entire decision at http: He lost again, in , in an appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court—exhausting all his legal options.
See the court judgment document at http: Read their actual policy here. The actions of Monsanto are a great example of patent law run amok, but they have nothing to do with the safety of GMO. Well said, it is those who make the most noise that get heard the most, and unfortunately no one takes the time to find the facts. I have heard Percy speak and it is all a load of crap not backed by anything. I could take pictures of planes and say the same thing he is saying with nothing to back it up.
A local ND farmer was sued and finally settled because the cost of of litigation would have bankrupted him, not because he did anything wrong. I am pro-biotechnology, but the way some of it has been used by corporations is abominable. I have, and continue, to lobby for increased public funding of biotech research and application. So… which is it, useless, or proof of the horrors of GM? In any case, one recent example was the guy that fed something or other to a few hundred genetically engineered mice engineered to produce cancer , then cherry picked the data in the study, to imply that his one single study was evidence, not coincidental, that eating the stuff caused more cancers, and higher death rates.
People examining his protocols found them sloppy, the study size nearly meaningless, his controls questionable, etc. Most or nearly all discoveries are incremental. The more studies showing an effect, the less likely that its either a a fluke, b conducted exactly the same, so other factors skewed the result, or c someone adjusted the numbers, to make it seem more likely that their conclusion is the right one.
They use say mice, instead of several thousand, and over a really short time frame. And, finally, they often claim some huge difference, especially in things like CAM, based on what usually turns out to be questionable analysis of their own data. So much for science, or skepticism. Very well said, there is plenty of this kind of data manipulation carried out by many organisations. As is evident on this wall, the results of much of this ends up as buzz points. Inclusion of proper controls and standards is mandatory.
Data not used for license submission i. As long as enough is provided to the regulators to be confident in the claims made, other missing data is seen as irrelevant. It the conditions for when it worked were known it would only be marketed for use in that area or with conditions of use. Again, commercial risk rules. Agricultural solutions are specifically marketed for technical efficacy so any false claims would quickly be discovered and reputations destroyed. And, small scale farmers do sometimes save seeds.
While I would welcome a crop that was already designed that way, few people are developing crops specifically for my farm. For me, seed saving is an essential way to continue to improve my business. If corporations would drop the right to sue when it is clearly an accident, they would win over many more people. Second, while some modifications to genes have promise, I have concerns about specific changes.
There is evidence in labs that some pests will and have eventually become resistant to these modifications. It is the equivalent of giving every child in America antibiotics to reduce ear infections.
I realize that there is monitoring in the United States looking closely at this problem, but what about in other countries.
And what can I, as a non-GMO farmer not organic do to protect myself from becoming surrounded by resistant pests? Rebecca has made a couple extremely valid points in particular regarding adaptation to modified crops. But you are correct, there is some evidence of resistance appearing here in Australia , but the incidence is quite low so far, and is to the oldest GM types which were much less effective than the newer ones. Non-compliance with this advice may contribute to development of resistance.
The supply network for food is one of the least fragile things on the planet. Relying on local sources of food exposes you to shortage in cases of drought or flood, but the world as a whole is big enough and diversified enough that fluctuations in production are small and easily absorbed. I do agree with you about the merits of developing seed strains better suited to your local conditions and the worries about resistance, however.
Never heard of that. The Corn Laws where repealed in and the Great Irish famine occurred in For some reason, I thought the Corn Laws were repealed in , not That said, while the Laws were formally repealed in , they were seemingly phased out over 3 years, and thus were partially in force for the bulk of the Irish famine.
For most of the famine years, Ireland was a net food exporter, which I recall hearing was largely caused by protectionist laws. I admit, I may have stated my case a bit too confidently, however.
If you purchased them from someone that does have rights to them—and that can be conventional or GMO plants, then you may have issues. And this pollen-blowing fear is also overblown get it? When US organic farmers went to court over this fear, they were pretty much laughed out of court because not a single farmer so threatened could be produced out of this huge group that supposedly had been.
You and your neighbors will have to be careful anyway—because their heirloom tomato plants could pollenate yours. On Bt resistance, the first evidence of this was in , before any GMO use. There are no regulations to overuse of organic Bt. All tools need to be used wisely.
But the issues people raise about the use of the GMO tools are not different than the same tools for conventional use.
I am confused by the presentation that GMOs are the same as their non gmo counterparts, yet get to be patented as unique. GMOs might not be unsafe but moving from open source generally developed for common good to corporate, with maximizing profit as the primary goal concerns me. Greed is just as bad as ignorance; maybe worse.
I would refer you to the portion of the transcript above where Mark explains the financial investment required to bring a trait to a commercial crop. These companies are entitled to re-coup that investment AND, dare I say, make a profit.
The issue regarding illegal seed harvest and sowing finds parallels with the music and entertainment industry. DVD ripping and Napster essentially allowed the work of the artist and gave it away for free without compensation and there is constant pushback over DRMs. It will be interesting to see how successful companies will be in protecting their IP without having to significantly change their business model. This happens for the same reason that some the US patent office allows people to patent, as unique, basic, trivial, first year computer science concepts, as long as you put your button, or protocol, or hand waving, or finger slide, etc.
Actually… organic food can also if not definetely have the Bt bacteria toxin. Is organic food helping to develop that resistance too? I hope this speech goes viral on the internet and especially reaches more of your fellow activists from your old days. Also had my doubts first and saw Monsanto as the big evil poisoner of world population.
Until I also began checking facts and reading science papers. And more frightning is the fact that many of those people sit in political and administrative offices. Damn, I hate those hypocritical greens and Greenpeace. At the end of the day I always look at motive behind what people do. There is no question that the environmental movement as a whole has produced some terrific results since the late s and early s.
Cleaner air, water and probably most importantly an indelible public awareness that the quality and quantity of our natural environment is something that has value. But I think you owe it to yourself to follow the wisdom contained in your own remark and consider just why it is that Greenpeace and FoE are opposed to this technology. These organizations are, as Mark points out, billion dollar multi-national enterprises. The hysteria they generate over agricultural biotechnology is a huge source of revenue and publicity for them.
As for what that motivation is, you can draw your own conclusions. Just remember that corporations are not the only entities that can have less than altruistic motives. Yeah ask Africans about the motives of rich western environmentalist like Greenpeace who were key in preventing Africans from using DDT to control malaria. And what was their response after decades of suffering and mass death, mosquito nets. Trying to follow the many diverse threads here, but this claim about DDT just makes me mad… Has the huge environmental damage that DDT did in Europe and America been forgotten suddenly?
Oh yeah widespread damage from DDT, what a pathetic lie. Farmers in the US back then carpet bombed their crops with tons of DDT for a long time and it was found that trace elements of DDT could be found throughout the environment. To have been able to provide effective relief from Malaria only a fraction of DDT would have been needed to have been sprayed around population centers and villages.
This story is a fairly recent right-wing lie, spread by many of the aame people who deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change: DDT was never banned for appropriate use against malaria, only for wholly inappropriate agricultural use, which undermined its effectiveness against malaria.
Read chapter 7 of Naomi Oreskes and Eric M. Yeah, it is so ridiculous that Greenpeace stopped Africa from poisoning their whole food chain to kill some mosquitoes that can easily be controlled by other methods! You greenies need to get your lies…. I mean story straight, did you prevent the use of DDT or not????
LOL…other methods to control mosquitos….. Both, btw, I found linked to, not from conspiracy laden enviro-blogs, but sites hosted on freethoughtblogs. Widespread DDT spraying only worked for a few years before resistant mosquitoes took over. Resistance is a serious problem.
I gather that DDT being used to treat anti-mosquito nets for protecting sleepers, and they work pretty well. If killing the profit motive and capitalism made any sense, North Korea would be a technological giant. Rather its a tolitarian hell hole which routine has mass famines which kill millions of people. You really hit the mark. I salute you for this excellent speech and your courageous about-face. The foundation of my objection to GM has always been the patent system and trade secrets that both prevent it from being best used and prevent third-party safety and efficiency testing.
We need to get the 18th century mercantilism and 12th century superstition out of our 21st century science before we end up living 15th century lifestyles in the 22nd century, dig? This was addressed in the article. Even public funded research which will be published and hence cannot be patented is being sabotaged. Proprietary crops have good and bad sides. Connecting these two unnecessarily is just silly. Certainly everyone has a right to their own philosophy about property ownership and intellectual property.
Without the possibility of recouping development costs by selling seed no one will invest the money required to develop the technology. The idea that we are somehow protecting farmers from exploitation by intellectual property owning corporations by denying them access to quality seed is another fallacy. All data from trials work used for agricultural technology development, though carried out in-house, is always subject to 3rd party review from regulators, independant commitees and goverments.
Because of this level of scruteny, its not really actually possible to somehow blindside everyone. Do you really think corperations have total free reign? Intelectual property rights are essential. Without them no company would bother developing anything. They need to be sure to balance the vast cost of development with commercial success for the duration of the patent. You are underestimating complexity of the field trials and safety trials, not to mention the practicality.
Assuming you would address the same fair trial issues, you think exist in the current system, for a open source model? Max — you say: Regulators do NOT insist on sight of full data sets, and even the full experiments are not properly monitored. There is a great deal of scientific fraud going on. It has to be stopped. Allow me to clarify, as i was wrong to say that all data sets are made available and i speak only about agrochemicals, so I apologise for that.
Any data submitted for approvals however, is subject to this scrutiny. In the UK to the Chemical Regulations Directorate, then onto the ACP Advisory Commitee for Pesticides made up of independant scientists whos backrounds are screened to ensure fairness, and finally goverment ministers who get the final say and sign any approvals.
In my opinion which nobody needs to agree with it would be ridiculous. Commercially sensitive information remain secret, as its name implies, to ensure healthy competition and encourage development, again for the reasons already stressed. Max — sorry to say so, but you appear to be very naive. The regulatory committees are made up of people who are vetted and chosen by the Government and who can be counted on to do as a particular department wishes — in line with the policies of the day.
Trust me — I know an ex-Government minister who told me he was shocked by the process when he arrived in post. It was manipulative from top to bottom. Sir Humphrey is in charge. And the info presented to the regulatory committees is at the discretion of the applicants — especially in the USA, where regulation for all intents and purposes does not exist.
Sorry — the system is corrupt, and against the public interest. Companies are auditted for their compliance. Your comments sound a mirror of those of Mark Lynas and finally you respond — are you joking.
I would ask if you in fact are the joker. Today the European regulators are in my view not only got at but also run by people who appear to have absolutely no qualifications for the job. I speak here of John Dalli whose CV I have looked at and see nothing in it that would make him suitable for even a job as an office clerk in the organisation.
I would love to be shown that he is fit to be at the head of this community that protects plus million people. Also today the range of GMO foods actually approved is coming towards the hundreds and includes those where top research scientists have proved significant harm. Europe despite its ban on GMO food growing for some countries does import huge amounts and for more than ten years the types belatedly found harmful.
Yes it is always possible that like development of the car and plane that eventually GMO foods will be safe and even better than everything before. At present this is not so and the idea of independent thinking and science to date in all continents just means loss of job, career and nationality if you publish science without fear of what happens after. Just run through that history and imagine the same for GMO which is also the same type of running over common sense and science.
He was forced to resign after a scandal emerged, relating to dodgy dealings with lobbyists for the tobacco industry. CRD in the UK are so specific in what info they want often projects have to be mothballed for another year while more trials can be carried out. Unsubmitted data is actually not that glamorous or revealing, normally a failed trial for practical or weather reasons. Companies actually need to convince themselves before anyone else that a project is worth taking further.
They must make the choice at different stages of development weather or not its worth the continued investment. This is what leftover data is, generally pretty useless. Why do they protect it then i hear you ask? A Stop competitors who want to know what their rivals are looking at. B Previously unviable projects might suddenly become useful again when used in combination with new dicoveries.
A patent tends to last around 20 years, depending on country etc. Typically new agro tech will spend the first half of this in development, not being sold. During the second half of this time, when the technology is on sale, the company who developed it will obviously want to redeem its investment of development costs and will also want profit to reinvest into new projects. After the patent has expired, other organisations are free to develop thier own projects based on that technology.
However they are subject to review every few years. To get a product registered at member state level note i defrenciate between active and product will require extra trials work by the generic company. Refer to a box of neurofen for evidence of this. Colaborations are also possible for multiple firms.
The final result of such colaborations can have varying degrees of harmony…. You mention one bad apple , who was ill qualified for the job. I simply think you should have more faith in the way these things are dealt with, not everyone is out to get us or rape the earth. My company focuses on the development of biotechnology traits for plants and I wanted to tell you what a fantastic article this is.
Your concise summary of not only the science but the important economic and social impacts of banning genetically modified foods will hopefully lead to a more rational discussion. I can tell you that from a start-up companies perspective, the feasibility increasing productivity to meet the demand for more calories is not going to be due to a lack of good science but the cost of regulation.
It is always a risk reward calculation for the investment community and although the science is becoming better and faster, it is pointless if ultimately it will be shelved. I hope your advocacy will increase the diversity and pipeline of products that can come to market and address these daunting challenges. Excellent analysis and characterization of this issue and the ideological nature of opponents to biotechnology in agriculture. It was amazing to recently see U. If the activist groups and special interest marketers hello Soil Association who oppose the use of science to move food production forward were faced with the challenge of feeding themselves on marginal and pest-ridden lands I suspect their tune would change rather quickly when it comes to adopting advances that help address such challenges.
Props to you Mr. Lynas and good luck with the backlash you will sorely sic receive from your former friend and allies. You have an awfully odd definition of bandwagon if you think a call to not instantly reject GMOs and instead look at responsibly integrating their use into environmental policy is jumping onto a bandwagon.
Yes Joanne I also noticed that. In addition I find the speech condescending and patronizing.. The writer is quite obnoxious in his reference to Greenies and organic food advocates etc.
His total lack of scientific reference to some of the disturbing evidence around GM foods shows very bad investigative journalism. It is easy to suspect the authour was well pain by Monsanto et al for this imbalanced piece of bad journalism. If you can;t make an argument without resorting to paranoia and ad hom attacks, maybe you need to re-think your position.
Due to some shenanigans Séralini prohibited journalists from discussing results with anyone before publication, including other scientists , all the normal journalistic checks and balances got bypassed and the study became big news despite its serious, obvious flaws. The main flaws were: Joanne, your reading comprehension skills must be quite poor then. Because this is a speech, not a scientific article. Those references can be found, for sure, but they are not meaningful when the text is for reading out loud to an audience.
Wonder if Lynas would be willing to put together a version of this speech with footnotes. For example, the premise of increased yields. Is there evidence for this?
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, there is very little evidence for this at present: Similarly there has been little progress in addressing the important issues such as; flood or drought tolerance, nitrogen fixation etc.
What has been achieved is making products that have primarily commercial application. Neither has Mark addressed unintended consequences or risks. Where is the evidence for safety human health and environmental? Have any long term trials been done to assess this.
No doubt he knows the answer but remains silent. Why is he not advocating controlled trials to establish health and environmental effects? Claiming that E Coli is a problem of organic agriculture is spurious. E Coli can and has contaminated many food processes, most notably the industrial meat industry. It has nothing per se to do with organics it is just bad practice.
If you are going to make a case for a scientific stance, then surely it must be based around the evidence and scientific principle. I am staunchly against biological patenting and the paradigm of monsanto type product line integration.
But this is a completely separate issue to outright banning of GM crops. The outright anti-GM movement has resulted in a wave of public opinion that has prevented discussion and research towards environmentally, socially and ethically prudent outcomes that GM could offer; simply because governments and societies, as opposed to corporations, are afraid to touch it.
Do you really think that drought tolerance can feasably be bred into local plant varieties using traditional techniques, while maintaining healthy genetic diversity?
Do you think it can be done in time, and without a huge waste of resources? Drought tolerance, natural pest resistance, decreased environmental footprint, maintained diversity, soil maintenance. These are things which can be tackled by GM crops, but they will only be done with governmental and societal support.
Open discourse and cooperation between farmers, environmentalists, microbiologists, and bio-engineers needs to be fostered. The EU legislature needs to be rewritten; it will eventually due to desperation, but hopefully something will happen sooner.
Legislation CAN be written that allows good, rational and safe progress without enslaving farmers to patent law and corporate agenda. GM crops and organisms need to be part of our survival plan for this and the next century. We denounce them at our peril. The wheat genome was recently published, after a leviathan effort, and is open to everyone to view.
Firstly, I am not fundamentally opposed to GM technology. But, as a medical graduate who has followed and written on this subject, I do have a reasonable understanding of genetics. That is exactly why I am concerned about this technology. We may have mapped the Wheat genome, and I think that is an incredible and worthwhile achievement, but it does in no way confer an understanding of the effects of changing that genome.
At this point in time, we are blind to these unintended consequences. Surely it would pay to do adequate, long term research on the health and environmental effects of a technology before committing our future agriculture on it? This has not occurred and it is the antithesis of scientific practice. Imagine if we did new pharmacological agents like this? Secondly, we do not know if GM technology can address any of the major challenges regarding drought or salinity tolerance etc.
It is a maladaptive response. Like the woman who swallowed a spider to catch a fly….. We can never succeed by chasing the technological problems of the past with new untested technologies of today. GE technology does not equal GM foods. The products you mention have indeed been studied thoroughly, with well conducted clinical trials and post marketing surveillance.
This is the polar opposite of GM organisms for food production, where trials are minimal and unpublished. Then humans, since pigs can be virus vectors.
Nor do we have any idea of what long term effects these organisms will have on our ecosystem in twenty generations, or two hundred, or two hundred thousand.
The BT gene was found in bacteria and weeds around the original test site propagated in unknown ways at the time. We were told ahead of time, of course, that this would be impossible. Strict oversight is needed to ensure that companies are not creating organisms that could have long term problems. If that means expensive testing, then that is the price we must pay to be safe. We are infants playing with fire. Little work has been done on nutrition or flavour.
I have no problem with eating GM crops, but by no means do I want to see these companies operating in an environment where they have captured the regulators. They need strong oversight. My thoughts entirely, no sign of any rationality in this argument just a susceptibility to brainwashing. Re beansprouts and E. In Germany, an individual outbreak was from fresh salad. Back on topic, I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
I wish all of you health, happiness, and unconditional love for the year to come. With those ingredients, it should not prove too difficult to find the truth…. But those who most need to hear will not listen. Humans are always looking for something external to blame, something to demonize and something to fear rather than listening to the scientists that make no moral judgments and attempt to serve the needs of humanity.
GMO fearing people are like certain religions. Birth control is okay using math and calendars but not by using chemistry. Farming food is okay when using physics to plow the ground, a calendar to decide when to plant or harvest, but not okay with chemistry, genetics, or biology. Bleh, I am gonna go out and buy a big unnaturally-sized chicken breast, some Monsanto Soy milk, and prepare it with some inorganic Brocolli, follow up with some naval oranges, Honeycrisp apples, and seedless red grapes.
I wish we could all have this kind of courage and integrity in the face of our mistakes. Wheat is one of the GM foods and now everyone is having reactions to it. It is not the wholesome grain we once knew.
Furthermore, I cannot for a moment think that ingesting Round Up is good for ones health. So they are not spraying, and according to you that saves the environment, but what about us? Do you really think that adding Round up to crops that we eat is good for us? Loaning money to the poorest of the poor in India so they can buy seeds from them and if they have a crop failure, no problem, Monsanto just takes over the land as payment.
Not only in India but in the USA, they regularly strip farmers of their lively hood and all their property by bankrupting them. If what they are doing is good for the environment why do they employ such sneaking underhanded methods of spying on farmers? They pay people to go around the farms to make sure farmers are not saving seeds. My conclusion is that they must pay a lot of money to various congress members to continue doing their dirty deeds. Turning farmers into spys for them, who turn against their neighbours and used to be friends.
No, I do not agree with you. Personally I will not eat soy products, corn, wheat and anything else that has pestisides injected into the genes of the plant. I read the first few lines of your comment and had enough. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Its high time people got over themselves and learned a thing or two about our food system.
As Brendan says, there is no commercially planted GM wheat anywhere, partly because it takes so long to develop. The lines in development are mainly augmented rather than disease resistant, for example, lines that have high gluten but that lack the one sugar residue on the protein that coeliacs respond to.
How is the Roundup removed from the wheat during processing? Ridiculing someone instead of producing facts is not going to help you promote science. Actually, Roundup breaks down rapidly, and is one of the least toxic herbicides. Roundup, as with other agrochemicals, has a Harvest Interval. That is to say the shortest period of use before harvest of the crop. Breaching these cut off dates is illigel and breaking the statutory conditions of use UK.
Notice each country will have its own version of these depending of the information required by state legislation, I comment throughout on the UK situation. Modern short stalk wheat may or may not be causing problems, but it was developed using traditional breeding methods. And who paid for and did this research?
It would be daunting indeed to list, much less discuss, all the studies in a simple short speech. To demand that would be unreasonable.
Now all that is needed is Michael Moore to do the same thing, and my whole undergrad studies will be a waste of time. So why should we listen to you now? You are now a proven back-peddler. Too bad you feel you have to make a public apology for your legitimate concern over an emerging technology with more questions than answers related to its long term dangers. If GMO frankenfood is the only way for humanity to continue to grow at the disturbing levels of today perhaps we should consider changing our plans.
Even my tank full of simple minded Tilapia have it figured out. Humanity could take a lesson from the animal kingdom. Gasoline powered cars and diesel powered big rigs kill people every day. Their benefit is considered to outweigh their risks, so we keep on driving. I admit they may be a necessary evil.
But ultimately they are indeed evil. When cars first came about they were thought of as a tool. It seemed ridiculous to consider that a machine built on the human scale could change the climate.
It took nearly years to see the truth. Transportation is good, internal combustion engines are bad. Scientifically modified DNA is…? Science is all about back-pedalling if you are faced with convincing evidence.
Congratulations on your new found intellectual honesty. I am really interested to know,in the light of your admission,how you intend to act in future with regard to your belief in the science of global warming. What is your position on the Gleik matter,do you approve of what he did and if not will we hear you say so.? What I am trying to get at Mark is,are you going to be one of the very few people who I can believe on this subject or are we in for more of the same?
Wonder who is paying Mr. Lynas to bash organic. He trots out the same tired arguments: His vision of engineered crops feeding the world is actually a vision of a sterile world reduced to a very few, corporate-controlled crops. I am not impressed with his conversion. It only shows how shallow his analysis was in the first place. That is being destroyed too. It was a fairly long article; did you actually read it all? He just pointed out that if we all had to rely on organic food, most of us would be dead from starvation.
I live in a sparsely populated agricultural area in the US and support our local farmers, many of whom are organic. My main reasons for supporting organic foods are:. Of course, we can get away with this kind of thing in the US since we have so much land. Even the intensively cropped farms of the wheat and corn belts are seriously inefficient given the sheer acreage no hectares here available. Maybe they keep falling on stubborn ears?
Clearly he is not against the methods adopted by organic producers, simply the dogmatic refusal for organic certification bodies to be flexible. Question is, for what??? It is an incredible waste of resources land, water, food. Tons and tons of food used to produce… a couple pounds of food. I came here following a link posted on http: From your arguments, I suspect you have read a couple of my favourite books: Mendel in the Kitchen: I have made a journey similar to your own, if shorter: I used to teach Organic Gardening, but the lack of Skepticism in that community has gradually led me to other outlets for my interests.
Yes, I am definitely an Environmentalist, but the surfeit of credulity and dogma among my fellow-travelers is painful to me. But I still see a selfish? But opposition to GM has no benefits to anyone. I applaud that, especially when done as you describe, selecting for a locally-adapted strain.
However, there are limits: Hybrids, which are the bulk of many crops, are often very much more productive, but it is usually not worth saving and planting seed of them, since the resulting crop will in most cases be much less productive and much less uniform, both traits important in commercial production.
But this does not apply to all crops: You are more of a scientist yourself now than whole battalions of green activist tenure track academic ones. In fact, Order 81 was written to promote the patenting of seeds and the sale of GMOs. To me the most interesting point is the one you make about population growth being strongly dependent on infant mortality.
Can you tell me where you got this information from. It is possible, I believe it possible , that you were not wrong before, but are wrong now, as three-eyed great-grandchildren, or greatn-children will show. Having the humility to change sides in such a heated debate is admirable.
Thanks for an inspiring and insightful speech about GM. And young wheat is like grass, so if you cut it off it just re-grows — some wheat is partly used as pasture and is grazed by cattle before it starts heading. The experiment was wrecked as a useable experiment, of course, setting everything back a year. They are due to:. In short, it is false to suggest GM is our only hope of survival. This is a marketing tool. In orher words, fix the priblems at source — cut waste, distribute food better, move back to a vegetable-based diet, cur restrictions on heritage crops.
Thank you Paul, this is a sound and not trollish response to an article resounding with the fundamentalism of the converted. To add to your argument: The genetically introduced resistances will always be a minor subset of all threats, bacteria, viruses, fungi, insects and larger animals, and because of the genetic uniformity these crops remain vulnerable.
While the old mixed-gene pool of locally propagated landrace crops are much less so. I remember the unbelief of local cereal farmers when showed my traditional landrace fields: I had no problems with fungi, while their harvest in some years was severely threatened.
The same with weather conditions in different years: This is what sustainable farming is about, empowering local farmers, less dependency on multinationals, and a stable but lower in the good years harvest.
I think that is very good for you. The data you can produce from your farm is extremely valuable, as is similar studies being conducted both in the public and private sector. One of the things modern biotechnology is aiming at is harnessing the potential from old landrace crops and use this in crop varieties with much greater yields.
No one is denying that modern crops have a problem regarding susceptibility to certain pests. On the contrary, this is what is trying to be addressed. If the big businessess and their seed are so bad, why do farmers continue to use them. No one is forcing anyone to choose a particular supplier of seeds. If you prefer to use old landrace crops and collect the seeds yourself for next year, then you are free to do so — which is what Rob is doing. I would also hazard a guess that he is willing to share his collected seeds with anyone interested, so there is no good reason to say anyone is being forced by specific seed companies to use their seed.
However, like with any other business, if you make a decision you later regret, this can be costly to get out of. Why should farming be any different? Monsanto and DuPont send out lawyers to harass, threaten and enforce this bullshit system, and the courts in the US support it.
If you read through it Schmeisser actively pursued the genetic crops while saying it was unintentional. However, this was refuted at three levels of justice. That was what he was sued and convicted for. Also, he did not have to pay any damages, so Monsanto also ended up out of pocket in this instance.
What the judges did say was that there currently or at least at that time was no difference between a mechanical and a biological invention, but if such a distinction should be made it needed to be set out in parliament, not the courts. It is quite an interesting read, so I recommend it. If you look at the way agriculture has changed over the past few hundred years, there has been a huge focus on reducing the labor-intensive processes.
Ecology Action is an organization the researches open-pollinated seeds planted intensively and rotated with complanion plants. GMOs might be part of the answer, but I refute the idea that they are necessary. Why would you fight malnutrition simply by changing the genes in rice? I nominate this for the most asinine comment on this thread. Who actually farms like this?
Farmers are not the idiots you portray them as being. Yes, I have a problem with Roundup. However, Roundup destroys the ecosystem for a much larger area than just your farm. Perhaps my analogy about ways of fighting obesity was unclear, but I think others have made similar arguments better below. GMOs, while interesting technology, are not the only technology. Lynas is trying to convince everyone that the only way to fight hunger and get higher yields is through GMOs, which is absolutely untrue.
There are several articles from the Journal of Sustainable Agriculture http: The world food situation is likely to get worse and undoubtedly has multiple causes. In my view we need to use all the tools available — from campaigning for less meat consumption through labour-intensive organic to GMOs — to address it. It has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Opposing GM is as stupid as opposing chemicals in agricultural or industrial use.
But supporting GM categorically is also as stupid as supposing all chemicals categorically. The regulation for GM foods has to be performed on a scientific basis with various risks compared and tested.
The sad thing is that even medical and pharmaceutical industry is also not up to the mark with respect to the kind of tests needed before releasing a drug into the market. In this scenario, excessive regulation or even categorical ban on GM foods has to be put in perspective.
However, it is not limited to just that, and goes further to argue why GM is indeed necessary to produce enough food for the global hungry. However, that part of the argument is disingenuous. Incomplete truth is as harmful as a lie.
The fundamental reasons for global hunger are sociological and economic, not related to plant science and biology. So, the sciences we need to turn to for finding solutions to global hunger are economics, politics and organizational behavior.
I would expect somebody like Mark Lynas to at least cite what evidence is on the offer here: Unless we address these root causes of inequity, no amount of technological change can stop starvation and hunger. Computer modeling is more of an art than a science, and in the most creative hands, can be more convincing and misleading than a slick-tongued lawyer. Computer models have helped make very accurate predictions, but we know the average temperature of the earth is increasing because we measure it every year.
The energy imparted by these absorptions heats the GH gasses, which collide with the oxygen, nitrogen and everything else in the atmosphere, heating them up. The more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the greater the chance thermal radiation photons have of hitting a GH gas molecule, and the longer it takes for this radiation to escape into space, slowing the rate at which the earth cools.
It is the forcing of CO2 in the air that slows this cooling. We know its our CO2 because the isotopes we burn are different than natural sources. For more information, see here: But once a group of us started up our own farm, I began to look seriously at the issue and was appalled at what I was finding—everything Mark discusses here. Not covered here is the viscousness of corps like Monstanto in their pursuit of alleged copyright infringement.
Luckily this farmer stood up to them and the courts sided with him:. Also part of the agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if further contamination occurred. Schmeiser believes this precedent setting agreement ensures that farmers will be entitled to reimbursement when their fields become contaminated with unwanted Roundup Ready canola or any other unwanted GMO plants.
Do we really want a world food-supply that is even more patented and policed? If this technology is so vital to the world, why is most of it owned by a few private companies and not globally operated for the betterment of mankind by an NGO or the UN? The fact is that in many of the places where there is a deficiency, there are plenty of better sources of Vitamin A.
Here are some that can be grown in India:. Table 1 gives sources rich in vitamin A used commonly in Indian foods. However, there are many geographical locations where people and especially children face starvation scenarios — because of local crop failure, depletion of nutrients in the soil, or lack of food storage and distribution networks.
There are many regions in Africa and India where this is the case. Why should this be the case? The problem is, consensus is a tool of politics. It has no role in science, none whatsoever. Scientific truth is not, ever, under any circumstances, decided by consensus. To argue on the basis of consensus is to argue on the basis of politics, and politics has no role in determining scientific truth either.
What we get when politics is given a role is Lysenkoism, and a field of study stuffed sideways for decades. The only basis for argument in science is the data. To argue on the basis of consensus is to argue from authority, and that is about as contra science as it gets. Scientific consensus is just aggregated data. Peer review is about pointing out flaws in the methods used to produce data and the interpretation of said data. In political consensus, people argue, and then vote, and consensus about what policy to enact is achieved.
In science, you put forth your idea, backed by experimental evidence. So, nobody votes on truth in science. Consensus is what happens when every other plausibility has been ruled out and scientists stop arguing. There is some profound irony in this volte-face by one who is known for his flip-flopping.
In order to seek absolution at the alter of commercial science he has instead shown profound naivete in accepting the gospel of scientific misinformation. He illustrates his nouveaux bias by claiming that organic farming somehow remains locked in the s!
Lynas draws so many incorrect conclusions regarding both the preciseness and the very nature of genetic engineering that his conclusions are readily dismissed as being egregious.
For instance his discovery that terminator technology remained a non-issue is indicative of his being poorly informed from the outset. Yet more worrying is his revelation that using GE to insert genetic cassettes into seed is a more precise technology than conventional breeding. This is a groundless conclusion — increasing evidence finds that there are significant non-target disruptions to the recipient genome which are not immediately apparent.
This thinking relies on a false foundation — that of genetic determinism — which has been found to not just be unfounded, but indicative of a reductionist mindset little different to the eugenic movement so beloved of Nazis and other ideologues.
That argument is groundless and rubbish. In fact there is nothing scientific to applying herbicides to vast tracts of land, or exposing pests to endless doses of toxin in order that the weeds and insects build resistance. It is a vain hope that technology will again be able to endlessly rescue us from the abyss of agricultural failure and collapse.
Lynas apparently forgets that industrial agricultural practices, from which the present GM technologies are indivisible, are amongst the most destructive and ecologically dangerous human activities on earth. Numerous previous civilisations have collapsed because of these practices.
Ours is threatened not just by industrial agriculture but by numerous concurrent environmental threats, combining in a perfect storm. What we need is not more rubbish about GMOs being scientific. We need more science. Science involves being present in the fields and not just routinely dosing them with pesticides and chemicals. Human involvement means scientific observation and employment of skill.
There is no skill in putting in GM seed, along with designated spray and fertilsation programmes — that is farming for idiots. McClave is a speaker and an advisor for Nestle, Abbott, Covidien, and Kimberly Clark, a speaker for Nutricia, and has received research support from Nestle.
Martindale is a advisor for Nestle, Covidien, and Fresenius Kabi. DiBaise has received research support from GI Dynamics. Mullin has no potential competing interests. Significance of the four levels of evidence 25 High We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of effect Moderate We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: Indications for nutritional therapy Question: Specialized nutrition therapy in the form of EN should be initiated promptly in the hospitalized patient who is at high nutritional risk and is unable to maintain volitional oral intake conditional recommendation, low level of evidence.
EN should be used preferentially over PN in hospitalized patients who require non-volitional specialized nutrition therapy and do not have a contraindication to the delivery of luminal nutrients conditional recommendation, low level of evidence.
Specialized nutrition therapy EN or PN is not required for hospitalized patients who are at low nutritional risk, appear well nourished, and are expected to resume volitional intake within 5 to 7 days following admission conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. PN should be reserved for the hospitalized patient under specific circumstances, when EN is not feasible or sufficient enough to provide energy and protein goals conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
Prior to initiation of specialized nutrition therapy either EN or PN , a determination of nutritional risk should be performed using a validated scoring system such as the Nutritional Risk Score NRS or the NUTRIC Score on all patients admitted to the hospital for whom volitional intake is anticipated to be insufficient conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. An additional assessment should be performed prior to initiation of nutrition therapy of factors that may impact the design and delivery of the nutrition regimen conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
Surrogate markers of infection or inflammation should not be used for nutritional assessment conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. Caloric requirements should be determined and then be used to set the goal for delivery of nutrition therapy conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
One of the three strategies should be used to determine caloric requirements: Protein requirements should be determined independently of caloric needs, and an ongoing assessment of protein provision should be performed conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. Nutrition assessment scoring systems used to determine nutrition risk NRS A nasogastric or orogastric feeding tube should be used as the initial access device for starting EN in a hospitalized patient conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
Radiologic confirmation of placement in the stomach should be carried out prior to feeding except with the use of electromagnetic transmitter-guided feeding tubes. Conversion to a post-pyloric feeding tube should be carried out only when gastric feeding has been shown to be poorly tolerated or the patient is at high risk for aspiration strong recommendation, moderate-to-high level of evidence. When long-term enteral access is needed in a patient with gastroparesis or chronic pancreatitis, a jejunostomy tube should be placed conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
A percutaneous gastrostomy should be placed preferentially in the gastric antrum in order to facilitate conversion to a GJ tube in the event that the patient is intolerant to gastric feeding conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
For the patient at high risk for tube displacement, steps should be taken proactively to secure the access device at the time of placement conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
Initiating Enteral Nutrition Question: In the patient at high nutritional risk unable to maintain volitional intake, EN should be initiated within 24—48 h of admission to the hospital conditional recommendation, low level of evidence. Although early EN should be initiated within 24—48 h of admission, the timing by which to advance to goal is unclear.
When tolerated, feeding should be advanced to goal within 48—72 h conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. With reduced tolerance, feeding should be advanced with caution to goal by 5 to 7 days conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
A standard polymeric formula or a high-protein standard formula should be used routinely in the hospitalized patient requiring EN conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. An immune-modulating formula containing arginine and omega-3 fish oil should be used for patients who have had major surgery and are in a surgical ICU setting conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
An immune-modulating formula containing arginine and omega-3 fish oil should not be used routinely in patients in a medical ICU conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. Monitoring tolerance and adequacy of EN Question: Hospitalized patients on EN should be monitored daily by physical exam conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
Patients on EN should be monitored for adequacy of provision of EN as a percent of target goal calories, cumulative caloric deficit, and inappropriate cessation of EN conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
In the patient at high risk for refeeding syndrome, feeding should be ramped up slowly to goal over 3 to 4 days, while carefully monitoring electrolytes and volume status conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. Enteral feeding protocols should be used in hospitalized patients in need of nutrition therapy strong recommendation, moderate-to-high level of evidence.
A validated protocol should be used, such as a volume-based feeding protocol or a multi-strategy bundled top-down protocol conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. Gastric residual volume GRV should not be used routinely as a monitor in hospitalized patients on EN conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. Patients on EN should be assessed for risk of aspiration conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
For patients determined to be at high risk, the following steps should be taken to proactively reduce that risk: For the patient receiving EN who develops diarrhea, an evaluation should be initiated to identify an etiology and direct management conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. The patient receiving EN who develops diarrhea should be managed by one of the three strategies: Complications of enteral access Question: The percutaneous enteral access site should be monitored by cleaning daily with mild soap and water and maintaining correct positioning of the external bolster conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
Prevention of tube clogging is important to successful EN and may be achieved by frequent water flushes delivered every shift and each time medications are given conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. When a clogged tube is encountered and the use of water flushes is unsuccessful at clearing, a de-clogging solution comprising a nonenteric-coated pancreatic enzyme tablet dissolved in a sodium bicarbonate solution should be used conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
If still unsuccessful, a mechanical de-clogging device should be considered prior to exchanging the tube for a new one conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. In this latter circumstance, radiologic confirmation should be carried out prior to feeding if there is any question of inappropriate location of the tube conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
Placement of a larger tube should not be used to manage leakage caused by an enlarging stoma around the percutaneous access device conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. A percutaneous enteral access device that shows signs of fungal colonization with material deterioration and compromised structural integrity should be replaced in a non-urgent but timely manner conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
If early EN is not feasible and the patient is at low nutritional risk upon admission, no specialized nutrition therapy should be provided and PN should be withheld for the first week of hospitalization conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
If a patient is at high nutritional risk on admission to the hospital and EN is not feasible, PN should be initiated as soon as possible strong recommendation, moderate level of evidence. Initiating supplemental PN prior to this 7—day period in those patients already receiving EN does not improve outcomes and may be detrimental to the patient strong recommendation, moderate level of evidence. Following this first week if long-term PN is required , energy provision should be increased to meet energy goals conditional recommendation, low level of evidence.
Peripheral PN PPN should not be used, as it leads to inappropriate use of PN, has a high risk of phlebitis and loss of venous access sites, and generally provides inadequate nutrition therapy conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. Careful transition feeding should be used in the patient on PN, for whom EN is now being initiated. As tolerance to EN improves and volume of delivery increases, PN should be tapered to avoid overfeeding conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
Nutritional Therapy at End-of-Life Question: The decision to place a gastrostomy tube in an end-of-life situation should be determined by patient autonomy and the wishes of that patient and their family, even though the nutrition therapy may do little to change traditional clinical outcomes conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. Percutaneous gastrostomy placement should be considered even if the only benefit is to provide improvement in the quality of life for the family, increased ease of providing nutrition, hydration, and medications, or to facilitate transfer out of the hospital setting to a facility closer to home conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
The clinician is not obligated to provide hydration and nutrition therapy in end-of-life situations. The decision to initiate nutrition therapy is no different than the decision to stop therapy once it has started thus, clinicians are not obligated to provide therapy that is unwarranted conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
If requested, nutrition therapy in end-stage malignancy should be provided by the enteral route conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. Use of PN in this setting may cause net harm and should be highly or aggressively discouraged conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. The clinician who has ethical concerns of his own in a difficult end-of-life situation should excuse himself from the case, as long as he can transfer care to an equally qualified and willing health-care provider conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
Summary of Recommendations Indications for nutritional therapy Question: EN should be used preferentially over PN in hospitalized patients who require non-volitional specialized nutrition therapy, and do not have a contraindication to the delivery of luminal nutrients conditional recommendation, low level of evidence. Prior to initiation of specialized nutrition therapy either EN or PN , a determination of nutritional risk should be performed using a validated scoring system such as the NRS or the NUTRIC Score on all patients admitted to the hospital for whom volitional intake is anticipated to be insufficient conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
An additional assessment should be performed prior to initiation of nutrition therapy of factors, which may impact the design and delivery of the nutrition regimen conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. Indirect calorimetry conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. Simple weight-based equations conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. Published predictive equations conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
How should enteral access be achieved, and at what level of the GI tract should enteral nutrition be infused? Radiologic confirmation of placement in the stomach should be carried out prior to feeding except with use of electromagnetic transmitter-guided feeding tubes. A percutaneous enteral access device should be placed, either via the gastric or jejunal route, if enteral feeding is anticipated to be required for greater than 4 weeks duration conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
Initiating enteral nutrition Question: Placement on PN over the first week of nutrition therapy conditional recommendation, low level of evidence.
Monitoring tolerance and adequacy of enteral nutrition Question: How should adequacy and tolerance of enteral nutrition be assessed in the hospitalized patient?
Gastric residual volume should not be used routinely as a monitor in hospitalized patients on EN conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. Use a prokinetic agent conditional recommendation, low level of evidence.
Divert the level of feeding lower in the GI tract strong recommendation, moderate-to-high level of evidence. Switch to continuous infusion conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. Use chlorhexidine mouthwash twice daily conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence.
Use of fermentable soluble fiber as an adjunctive supplement to a standard EN formula conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. Switching to a commercial mixed fiber soluble and insoluble formula conditional recommendation, low level of evidence. When and how should parenteral nutrition be utilized in the hospitalized patient?
Peripheral PN should not be used, as it leads to inappropriate use of PN, has a high risk of phlebitis and loss of venous access sites, and generally provides inadequate nutrition therapy conditional recommendation, very low level of evidence. Nutritional therapy at end-of-life Question: All authors contributed to the manuscript. History of parenteral nutrition.
J Am Coll Nutr ; The skeleton in the hospital closet. Brief history of enteral and parenteral nutrition in the hospital in the USA. In Elia M, Bistrian B, eds. Vol 12 pp —Nestec Ltd. Enteral compared with parenteral nutrition: Am J Clin Nutr ; Total parenteral nutrition in the critically ill patient: Perioperative total parenteral nutrition in surgical patients. N Engl J Med ; Early enteral feeding, compared with parenteral, reduces postoperative septic complications. The results of a meta-analysis.
Early enteral feeding versus "nil by mouth" after gastrointestinal surgery: Calorie Intake of enteral nutrition and clinical outcomes in acutely critically ill patients: J Parenter Enteral Nutr ; Initial trophic vs full enteral feeding in patients with acute lung injury: Hypocaloric compared with eucaloric nutritional support and its effect on infection rates in a surgical intensive care unit: Trial of the route of early nutritional support in critically ill adults.
Canadian clinical practice guidelines for nutrition support in mechanically ventilated, critically ill adult patients. The presence and effect of bias in trials of early enteral nutrition in critical care. Early enteral nutrition, provided within 24 h of injury or intensive care unit admission, significantly reduces mortality in critically ill patients: Intensive Care Med ; Early enteral nutrition within 24 h of intestinal surgery versus later commencement of feeding: J Gastrointest Surg ; Nutrition support in acute pancreatitis: Negative impact of hypocaloric feeding and energy balance on clinical outcome in ICU patients.
Computerized energy balance and complications in critically ill patients: The relationship between nutritional intake and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial to determine the effect of early enhanced enteral nutrition on clinical outcome in mechanically ventilated patients suffering head injury.
Crit Care Med ; The physiologic response and associated clinical benefits from provision of early enteral nutrition. Nutr Clin Pract ; Feeding the critically ill patient. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidem ; Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
Percentage of weight loss, a basic indicator of surgical risk in patients. Recognizing malnutrition in adults: Identifying critically ill patients who benefit the most from nutrition therapy: Incidence of nutritional risk and causes of inadequate nutritional care in hospitals.
Does enteral nutrition compared to parenteral nutrition result in better outcomes in critically ill adult patients? A systematic review of the literature.
A metaanalysis of treatment outcomes of early enteral versus early parenteral nutrition in hospitalized patients. Overview of enteral and parenteral feeding access techniques: Surg Clin North Am ; Early enteral nutrition and outcomes of critically ill patients treated with vasopressors and mechanical ventilation.
Am J Crit Care ; Nutrition screening tools for hospitalized patients. Nutritional-risk scoring systems in the intensive care unit. Identifying critically ill patients who will benefit most from nutritional therapy: J Acad Nutr Diet ; Impact of preoperative nutritional support on clinical outcome in abdominal surgical patients at nutritional risk. Short-term individual nutritional care as part of routine clinical setting improves outcome and quality of life in malnourished medical patients.
The use of prealbumin and C-reactive protein for monitoring nutrition support in adult patients receiving enteral nutrition in an urban medical center. Risk adjustment of the postoperative morbidity rate for the comparative assessment of the quality of surgical care: J Am Coll Surg ; Fleck A, Path FR.
Usefulness of data on albumin and prealbumin concentrations in determining effectiveness of nutritional support. A critical evaluation of body composition modalities used to assess adipose and skeletal muscle tissue in cancer. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab ; Interactions between nutrition and immune function: Proc Nutr Soc ; Monitoring health by values of acute phase proteins.
Evaluation of serum C-reactive protein, procacitonin, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and interleukin levels as diagnostic and prognostic parameters in patients with community-acquired sepsis, sepsis syndrome and septic shock. Clinical outcomes related to muscle mass in humans with cancer and catabolic illnesses. Int J Biochem Cell Biol ; Acute skeletal muscle wasting in critical illness. The use of indirect calorimetry in the intensive care unit.
Best practices for determining resting energy expenditure in the critically ill adults. Nutr Clin Practice ; Feeding critically ill patients: Predictive equations for energy needs for the critically ill.
Prediction of resting metabolic rate in critically ill adult patients: J Am Diet Assoc ; Resting energy expenditure in malnourished older patients at hospital admission and three months after discharge: Longitudinal prediction of metabolic rate in critically ill patients. Resting energy expenditure of morbidly obese patients using indirect calorimetry: Analysis of estimation methods for resting metabolic rate in critically ill adults.
Improved equations for predicting energy expenditure in patients: A new predictive equation for resting energy expenditure in healthy individuals. Accurate determination of energy needs in hospitalized patients. Caloric requirements in total parenteral nutrition. J Am Coll Nutr ;6: Measured versus calculated resting energy expenditure in critically ill adult patients. Do mathematics match the gold standard?
Oral nutritional support in malnourished elderly decreases functional limitations with no extra costs. Provision of protein and energy in relation to measured requirements in intensive care patients. Protein recommendations in the ICU: A reappraisal of nitrogen requirements for patients with critical illness and trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg ; Nutritional strategies to counteract muscle atrophy caused by disuse and to improve recovery.
Nutrit Res Rev ; Evaluation of early enteral feeding through nasogastric and nasojejunal tube in severe acute pancreatitis: Motility disorders of the upper gastrointestinal tract in the intensive care unit: J Clin Gastroent ; Motility disorders in the ICU: Gastrointestinal symptoms in intensive care patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; Impaired gastrointestinal transit and its associated morbidity in the intensive care unit. J Crit Care ; Severity of illness influences the efficacy of enteral feeding route on clinical outcomes in patients with critical illness.
A multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing early nasojejunal with nasogastric nutrition in critical illness. Enteral nutrition practice recommendations. The use of bedside electromagnetically guided nasointestinal tube for jejunal feeding of critically ill surgical patients.
Technol Health Care ; Analysis of an electromagnetic tube placement device vs a self-advancing nasal jejunal device for postpyloric feeding tube placement.
J Hosp Med ;9: Fang J The University of Utah www. North American summit on aspiration in the critically ill patient: J Parenter Enteral Nutr ;26 6 Suppl: The Canadian critical care nutrition guidelines in Nosocomial sinusitis in patients in the medical intensive care unit: Clin Infect Dis ; Complications of enteral access.
Interventions for dysphagia and nutritional support in acute and subacute stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; The effect of nutritional supplementation on survival in seriously ill hospitalized adults: J Am Geriatr Soc ;48 5 Suppl: Techniques in enteral access. Nasal Bridles for securing nasoenteric tubes: Early enteral nutrition in acutely ill patients: Early supplemental parenteral nutrition in critically ill adults increased infections, ICU length of stay and cost.
Evid Based Med ; Port AM, Apovian C. Metabolic support of the obese intensive care unit patients: World Rev Nutr Diet ; Efficacy of hypocaloric parenteral nutrition for surgical patients: Effect of early enteral combined with parenteral nutrition in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy.
World J Gastroenterol ; Consensus recommendations from the US summit on immune-enhancing enteral therapy. J Parenter Enteral Nutr ;25 Supplement: Early enteral supplementation with key pharmaconutrients improves sequential organ failure assessment score in critically ill patients with sepsis: Enteral nutritional supplementation with key nutrients in patients with critical illness and cancer: Should immunonutrition become routine in critically ill patients?
A systematic review of the evidence. J Parenter Enteral Nutr ;37 5 Suppl: Nutrition optimization prior to surgery. Early ICU energy deficit is a risk factor for Staphylococcus aureus ventilator-associated pneumonia. Optimisation of energy provision with supplemental parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: J Gastroenterol Hepatol ;28 Suppl 4: Nutrition support protocols and their influence on the delivery of enteral nutrition: Worldviews Evid Based Nurs ; Postinjury enteral tolerance is reliably achieved by a standardized protocol.
J Surg Res ; Effect of evidence-based feeding guidelines on mortality of critically ill adults: Outcomes in critically ill patients before and after the implementation of an evidence-based nutritional management protocol. Infusion protocol improves delivery of enteral tube feeding in the critical care unit.
Enhanced protein-energy provision via the enteral route feeding protocol in critically ill patients: Volume-based feeding in the critically ill patient. Mechanisms underlying feed intolerance in the critically ill: Methods for the assessment of gastric emptying in critically ill, enterally fed adults. Poor validity of residual volumes as a marker for risk of aspiration in critically ill patients. Gastric residual volumes in critical illness: Crit Care Clin ; Aspirating gastric residuals causes occlusion of small-bore feeding tubes.
Microaspiration in intubated critically ill patients: Infect Disord Drug Targets ; Effect of not monitoring residual gastric volume on risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults receiving mechanical ventilation and early enteral feeding: Impact of not measuring residual gastric volume in mechanically ventilated patients receiving early enteral feeding: J Clin Monit Comput ;