No GMO's Please! Said No African Child Ever

[Deleted]

No, I do understand that all calories are not created the same.  The energy balance is only simple on the surface, and only the "calories consumed" portion of the equation is simple.  The rest can get pretty complex.  But on the topic of this thread, there's no evidence that any of these food issues are related to food being genetically modified.

And the prevalence of corn I believe has more to do with gov't subsidies than genetic engineering.  Monsanto developed GMO corn because farmers wanted it.  GMO corn did not create a demand for corn.

To further my point, it's a fairly common belief that GMO wheat is causing gluten intollerance.  The only problem with that belief is that there is no GMO wheat in the food supply.  That and the fact that most people who avoid gluten do so under the erroneous belief that gluten is unhealthy.  On the other hand, gluten intollerance has increased from like 0.5% to maybe 1%, and I guess all the irrational demand for gluten-free food is excellent news for those who actually need it due to celiacs or other legitimate reasons!

[Deleted]

I think it is much higher than that honestly... We jut tell people, ooh, you have IBS (etc) ... And don't ask them to look at their diet. 

GMO isn't the only issue though, you are right. While hybridization can be beneficial, breeding practices in and of themselves, beyond genetic manipulation, have changed most of the grains we eat. 

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20664999?dopt=Abstract

And while it may not be genetically altered, other practices, like those outlined here, are routine :

Clearfield Wheat, grown on nearly 1 million acres in the Pacific Northwest and sold by BASF Corporation—the world's largest chemical manufacturer—was created in a geneticist's lab by exposing wheat seeds and embryos to the mutation-inducing industrial toxin sodium azide, a substance poisonous to humans and known for exploding when mishandled, says Dr. Davis. This hybridized wheat doesn't survive in the wild, and most farmers rely on toxic chemical fertilizers and pesticides to keep the crops alive. (It's important to note, however, that the intensive breeding efforts that have so dramatically transformed wheat should not to be confused with genetic engineering of food, or GMOs. This type of technology has its own set of problems, though.)

www.rodale.com/wheat-free-diet

Honestly, with GMO corn, and practices as above, the encouraged overuse of pesticides etc is also something I think we need o be seriously considering. 

[Deleted]

By the way, as that ncbi abstract examples... There IS evidence our food manipulation is creating food issues.

[Opti]

Inflamation probably involves water retention. It's all still a mass and energy balance. You cannot gain a pound without first putting several pounds into your body via your mouth.

Inflammation does involve water retention so it is possible to eat a usual caloric intake
but retain two to three pounds of additional water one day just because of where those calories came from. I have that issue too, and if I don't correct it the next day getting rid of those pounds isn't easy or fast. Water retention also comes about in general more with certain food categories like those white carbs people talk about. I also have a feeling things are impacted by how hydrated or dehydrated one is. The closer you are to hydration the more likely the body can flush out things that don't agree with it quickly.

[Deleted]

That NCBI article is has a surprisingly biased tone for a govt study. But in any case, I don't discount the possibility of such problems, and whole-heartedly support scientific research. What I don't support is scientific research or other actions taken on the basis of fear and hype.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 9, 2013 17:25:24 GMT -5 oped said:

Yes, we all benefit from the obesity epidemic largely sponsored by the ready availability of cheap corn....

not.

Actually, we do.  I follow a more protein rich diet- but you have to feed the animals I eat something.  So, in spite of the fact that I eat plenty of red meat, chicken, pork, and eggs, and very little corn, almost no wheat-- I still benefit indirectly from more efficient farming.  

I've read all the GMO fear-mongering and it's ridiculous.  There are stories about GMO corn eating through the stomachs of cows, and other falsehoods.  Most of it is raw, unsupported propaganda in the form of activists themselves wearing biohazard suits in staged photos in farm fields.  It's ridiculous.  I've read the wheat-belly diet, and while compelling if one completely ignores that it can't be supported by one shred of evidence.  I did end up cutting out wheat- I think I must have some sensitivity to it, or to gluten, because I instantly felt better- took about three days, and all my "bloat", low-energy, insatiable appetite- all things that line up with The Wheat Belly Diet- did vanish.  But I think that's primarily do to my own sensitivities- I've read similar tripe about dairy, and I have none of that-- probably because I'm not personally lactose intolerant.  

There's a huge- what I call "starvation lobby" out there, and if you listen to all of them, you would voluntarily starve to death.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 10, 2013 7:57:25 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

No, I do understand that all calories are not created the same.  The energy balance is only simple on the surface, and only the "calories consumed" portion of the equation is simple.  The rest can get pretty complex.  But on the topic of this thread, there's no evidence that any of these food issues are related to food being genetically modified.

And the prevalence of corn I believe has more to do with gov't subsidies than genetic engineering.  Monsanto developed GMO corn because farmers wanted it.  GMO corn did not create a demand for corn.

To further my point, it's a fairly common belief that GMO wheat is causing gluten intollerance.  The only problem with that belief is that there is no GMO wheat in the food supply.  That and the fact that most people who avoid gluten do so under the erroneous belief that gluten is unhealthy.  On the other hand, gluten intollerance has increased from like 0.5% to maybe 1%, and I guess all the irrational demand for gluten-free food is excellent news for those who actually need it due to celiacs or other legitimate reasons!

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 9, 2013 15:33:23 GMT -5 Angel! said:

People do fear technology they don't understand and tend to have a mistrust of scientists.

I do find it interesting that someone who would be so outspoken of scientists in certain areas (climate change for example ) would have such faith in scientists genetically engineering food. 

There are a lot of reasons to be against GMOs if you are a paranoid person that doesn't trust scientists.  The biggest, IMO, is that changing a single gene can do several things.  So changing 3 genes could have unintended consequences that scientists don't find until later.  So it isn't completely unreasonable to worry that the changes could cause the crop to no longer be resistant to some disease causing massive loss in crops and famine or something.  There is a reason some of the genetic modification testing is done in an underground facility - so that actual crops can't be contaminated with what they might produce, because it could be very bad. 

But, mutations also happen on their own all the time.  So we aren't doing anything that mother nature doesn't do.  We are just more selective in how we go about it.  There is nothing inherently bad about GMO food, we are just messing with mother nature.

I don't have "faith" in genetically modified food- there's very little of it, as IB has pointed out.  I actually have a lot of faith in scientists- actual scientists, not the posers pushing geopolitical change via a contrived crisis.  If you had more faith in science, you'd admit there's no evidence for man-made global warming.  Global warming? Yes.  Since about the ice age.  Caused by man? No evidence at all to support that.  As I've said, it does sound reasonable we've had some impact- but you gotta PROVE it.

I do think that altering food could have SOME negative effect down the line- but RIGHT NOW, the positive effects are too big to ignore.  

The fact is that the people who are running around posting weird shit on facebook about GMO food are also the climate crisis types who, if we're honest about it, view humanity as a scourge upon the planet and their biggest fear is probably that all this modern farming will work. 

[Deleted]

I don't eat meat fed corn unless its the occasional eating out either. Animals weren't meant to eat corn like we feed them and in most cases its good that they take less time to mature these dye because most wouldn't live much longer anyway because they are ill by the time they are ready for slaughter. 

Studies also how that corn and other grain fed animals provide meat that is less nutrient rich and of a less healthy construction. 


ETA I should edit this. I don't eat animals that have been primarily corn fed, or at all GMO corn fed if I can help it. As pointed out, chicken and pigs can eat some non GMO corn as part of a balanced diet. I don't eat much pork, and I eat beef that has not been fed corn at all. And look for chicken that has access to pastre and when fed grains, they are non/GMO and sustainably raised.

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2013 14:41:32 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 9, 2013 15:33:23 GMT -5 Angel! said:

People do fear technology they don't understand and tend to have a mistrust of scientists.

I do find it interesting that someone who would be so outspoken of scientists in certain areas (climate change for example ) would have such faith in scientists genetically engineering food. 

There are a lot of reasons to be against GMOs if you are a paranoid person that doesn't trust scientists.  The biggest, IMO, is that changing a single gene can do several things.  So changing 3 genes could have unintended consequences that scientists don't find until later.  So it isn't completely unreasonable to worry that the changes could cause the crop to no longer be resistant to some disease causing massive loss in crops and famine or something.  There is a reason some of the genetic modification testing is done in an underground facility - so that actual crops can't be contaminated with what they might produce, because it could be very bad. 

But, mutations also happen on their own all the time.  So we aren't doing anything that mother nature doesn't do.  We are just more selective in how we go about it.  There is nothing inherently bad about GMO food, we are just messing with mother nature.

I don't have "faith" in genetically modified food- there's very little of it, as IB has pointed out.  I actually have a lot of faith in scientists- actual scientists, not the posers pushing geopolitical change via a contrived crisis.  If you had more faith in science, you'd admit there's no evidence for man-made global warming.  Global warming? Yes.  Since about the ice age.  Caused by man? No evidence at all to support that.  As I've said, it does sound reasonable we've had some impact- but you gotta PROVE it.

I do think that altering food could have SOME negative effect down the line- but RIGHT NOW, the positive effects are too big to ignore.  

The fact is that the people who are running around posting weird shit on facebook about GMO food are also the climate crisis types who, if we're honest about it, view humanity as a scourge upon the planet and their biggest fear is probably that all this modern farming will work. 

It's not so much the scientists I mistrust when it comes to global warming, it's the extremists and others who misinterpret the science, lie about the science, pretend the worst case is the expected case, make phony claims like 97% of scientists agree, etc.  So basically the same issue I have regarding GMOs.  People who have made up their mind first and then try to bend the facts to fit their opinion.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 10, 2013 15:27:45 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

Aug 10, 2013 14:41:32 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I don't have "faith" in genetically modified food- there's very little of it, as IB has pointed out.  I actually have a lot of faith in scientists- actual scientists, not the posers pushing geopolitical change via a contrived crisis.  If you had more faith in science, you'd admit there's no evidence for man-made global warming.  Global warming? Yes.  Since about the ice age.  Caused by man? No evidence at all to support that.  As I've said, it does sound reasonable we've had some impact- but you gotta PROVE it.

I do think that altering food could have SOME negative effect down the line- but RIGHT NOW, the positive effects are too big to ignore.  

The fact is that the people who are running around posting weird shit on facebook about GMO food are also the climate crisis types who, if we're honest about it, view humanity as a scourge upon the planet and their biggest fear is probably that all this modern farming will work. 

It's not so much the scientists I mistrust when it comes to global warming, it's the extremists and others who misinterpret the science, lie about the science, pretend the worst case is the expected case, make phony claims like 97% of scientists agree, etc.  So basically the same issue I have regarding GMOs.  People who have made up their mind first and then try to bend the facts to fit their opinion.

Well, yeah.  That's pretty much what I meant.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 10, 2013 15:21:22 GMT -5 oped said:

I don't eat meat fed corn unless its the occasional eating out either. Animals weren't meant to eat corn like we feed them and in most cases its good that they take less time to mature these dye because most wouldn't live much longer anyway because they are ill by the time they are ready for slaughter. 

Studies also how that corn and other grain fed animals provide meat that is less nutrient rich and of a less healthy construction. 

Um, excuse me- but have you ever owned a pig?  I have relatives that raise them, they are literally nature's own four legged garbage disposal units.  They don't have a "meant to eat".  Nobody is making them, nor has anyone ever bothered making their pig an organic smoothie.  I'm getting ready to raise chickens- corn is pretty well recommended.  

And how bad can corn be, anyway?  We got it from the Native Americans- just like tobacco. 

[Deleted]

Today's corn is nothing like what was grown by our ancestors. 

Yes, a pig will eat you if possible. I wouldn't want to eat him after though ...

Beef aren't made to eat corn at all.

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2013 19:48:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Well, yeah.  That's pretty much what I meant.

Yes, I was responding toAngel.  Just too lazy to go find the original comment....

[Deleted]

Aug 10, 2013 20:04:44 GMT -5 oped said:

Beef aren't made to eat corn at all.

Now I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, because I don't know the right answer but....

This is one of those "eat what is natural" comments.  Nothing we eat is what we ate "naturally", but we can still eat healthy without foraging for natural foods.  It would seem logical the same could hold true for animals.  Not that I think "finishing" cows is healthy for the cows, but it doesn't have to be natural, either.  The meat may be less healthy as you say, but I guess you have to strike a balance to be able to feed everyone at the price they want.

[Deleted]

I wonder how much our medical bills would drop if our food bills went up a bit.

i don't think we have to forage. But I do not think it has been proven that we can eat unnaturally and still eat healthy. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 10, 2013 20:04:44 GMT -5 oped said:

Today's corn is nothing like what was grown by our ancestors. 

Yes, a pig will eat you if possible. I wouldn't want to eat him after though ...

Beef aren't made to eat corn at all.

So you say.  Can you document this?  I mean, don't get me wrong- I prefer grass fed, because it tastes better.  But is there really some scientific reason a cow can't graze on corn vs. grass / straw / etc?

[Deleted]

www.lakeforest.edu/live/files/1135-graberreviewaprintpdf

pubs.ext.vt.edu/400/400-010/400-010.html

cdn.marksdailyapple.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/McAfeeGrassfedbeefbettern3thanconventionalbeefBJN2011-2.pdf

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/06/21/eight_toxic_foods_a_little_chemical_education.php

At the above link, you can read a pretty thorough debunking of a scary message / blog post going around about scary American foods that are banned in other countries because of various chemicals, GMOs, hormones, anti-biotics, and other super scary things that are super scary.

Number One: Artificial Dyes. Here's what the article has to say about 'em:

Artificial dyes are made from chemicals derived from PETROLEUM, which is also used to make gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt, and TAR! Artificial dyes have been linked to brain cancer, nerve-cell deterioration, and hyperactivity, just to name a few.

Emphasis is in the original, of course. How could it not lapse into all-caps? In the pre-internet days, this sort of thing was written in green ink all around the margins of crumpled shutoff notices from the power company, but these days we have to make do with HTML. Let's take this one a sentence at a time.

It is true, in fact, that many artificial dyes are made from chemicals derived from petroleum. That, folks, is because everything (edible or not) is made out of chemicals, and an awful lot of man-made chemicals are derived from petroleum. It's one of the major chemical feedstocks of the world. So why stop at artificial dyes? The ink on the flyer from the natural-foods co-op is made from chemicals derived from petroleum. The wax coating the paper wrapped around that really good croissant at that little bakery you know about is derived from petroleum.

Now, it's true that more things you don't eat can be traced back to petroleum feedstocks than can things you do eat. That's because it's almost always cheaper to grow stuff than to synthesize it. Synthesized compounds, when they're used in food, are often things that are effective in small amounts, because they're so expensive. And so it is with artificial dyes - well, outside of red velvet cake, I guess. People see the bright colors in cake icing and sugary cereals and figure that the stuff must be glopped on like paint, but paint doesn't have very much dye or pigment in it, either (watch them mix it up down at the hardware store sometime).

And as for artificial colors causing "brain cancer, nerve-cell deterioration, and hyperactivity", well, these assertions range from "unproven" all the way down to "bullshit". Hyperactivity sensitivities to food dyes are an active area of research, but after decades of work, the situation is still unclear. And brain cancer? This seems to go back to studies in the 1980s with Blue #2, where rats were fed the dye over a long period in much larger concentrations (up to 2% of their total food intake) than even the most dedicated junk-food eater could encounter. Gliomas were seen in the male rats, but with no dose-response, and at levels consistent with historical controls in the particular rat strain. No one has ever been able to find any real-world connection. Note that glioma rates increased in the 1970s and 1980s as diagnostic imaging improved, but have fallen steadily since then. The age-adjusted incidence rates of almost all forms of cancer are falling, by the way, not that you'd know that from most of the coverage on the subject.

[Deleted]

i don't think we have to forage. But I do not think it has been proven that we can eat unnaturally and still eat healthy.

Nothing we eat these days is "natural".

[Deleted]

Actually, a good bit of what I eat is natural... Maybe we are defining it differently?  

[Deleted]

Don't you find it interesting at all though Paul that other countries manage to do even fast food with about half the synthetics/additives/colors we use in our foods?  Why is that?  Why must we rely so much on chemical engineering for our 'food' supply?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 11, 2013 7:16:03 GMT -5 oped said:

Don't you find it interesting at all though Paul that other countries manage to do even fast food with about half the synthetics/additives/colors we use in our foods?  Why is that?  Why must we rely so much on chemical engineering for our 'food' supply?

I hear this claimed a lot, but I don't see any definitive proof of it.  Nevertheless, a lot of what we do here is government-mandated.  We got transfats because the government decided, with the McGovern-led Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs that animal fat was 'unhealthy' - buying completely into the now defunct-- but still promoted and clung to-- "lipid hypothesis".  Prior to that your french fries and chicken were generally fried in beef tallow.  Granted, you probably should eat NO fries, but if you're going to do it- beef tallow is healthier than the partially hydrogenated vegetable oils.  

So, we basically had for decades a government-led war on animal fat of all kinds- butter, whole milk, full fat cheeses, red meat, and all meat, really.  We have government and activists- like the radical vegetarian group "Center for Science in the Public Interest" or CSPI in collusion trying to tell us what to eat- so of course it went wrong.  

A lot of what you're worried about isn't big, evil agribusiness trying to poison it's customers for profit (still don't quite understand the economics of that theory- if you're dead, you can't eat), is really just government run amok.  Defund it all, get the government OUT of regulating our food, not more deeply involved- and you will have solved a lot of these problems- such that there really may be problems- automatically.

Really, I think the biggest problem we face here is that we don't have full and fair price transparency when it comes to food.  We have the government picking winners and losers- propping up sugar, corn, and dairy, for example.  If milk was $5 bucks a gallon, and skim milk cost more- which it used to, you'd have a lot of self-regulation going on.  If gasoline with Ethanol costs you $12 a gallon at the pump, and there was a "Middle East Stabilization Fee" tacked on on top of that-- you wouldn't have HFCS in everything, you wouldn't have corn 10 cents an ear at the grocery, and you'd damn well have some drilling and a pipeline here.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 11, 2013 7:14:10 GMT -5 oped said:

Actually, a good bit of what I eat is natural... Maybe we are defining it differently?  

Marshmallow fluff is natural, I swear!

[Deleted]

How to Make Marshmallow Fluff Without Corn Syrup

Makes about 8 ounces

Ingredients:
Egg white, from a pastured chicken (1) — where to buy
Honey, raw, or real maple syrup, grade B, or a combination (5 ounces) — where to buy honey; where to buy maple syrup
Sea salt (pinch) — where to buy sea salt
Vanilla extract, homemade or organic (1 tsp) — how to make homemade vanilla extract

Directions:
1. In a large bowl, combine egg whites, honey or maple syrup and sea salt.
2. Mix with mixer or with KitchenAid (whisk attachment) on high speed until it is thick and has the consistency of Marshmallow Fluff (about 7-10 minutes)
3. Add vanilla extract and mix until blended.
4. Use immediately — or can be stored in the fridge, or frozen.

[Deleted]

www.100daysofrealfood.com/2013/02/11/food-companies-exploit-americans-with-ingredients-banned-in-other-countries/

[Deleted]

Aug 11, 2013 7:14:10 GMT -5 oped said:

Actually, a good bit of what I eat is natural... Maybe we are defining it differently?  

Little if anything we eat is the way Mother Nature intended.

[Deleted]

Aug 11, 2013 9:34:35 GMT -5 @investorbob said:

Aug 11, 2013 7:14:10 GMT -5 oped said:

Actually, a good bit of what I eat is natural... Maybe we are defining it differently?  

Little if anything we eat is the way Mother Nature intended.

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean in its natural state? 

What is the opposite of natural? It's artificial, correct. Naturl means occurring in nature. Not that it can't be utilized, ie. a natural ingredient... But that it originates in a natural form. Artificial means made or produced by human beings, not existing naturally... This to me is the chemical, the manufactured ingredients. 

So are you saying most of what you eat is artificial? 

Its certainly possible with he industrialized food chain. But I don't choose to eat that way. I choose to eat things that originate in nature nd or/ whose ingredients originate in nature.

[Deleted]

Very little of the food we eat exists in nature.  I think certain meat would be the closest one could get to "natural".  Have you ever seen a big, juicy tomato growing wild?  Nearly 100% food we eat has been modified in some way or another.  Most natural versions are not even remotely similar to the version we eat.

[Deleted]

Are you saying tomatoes are artificial?
Are you suggesting human manufactured the first tomatoe seed?

Are you perhaps confusing natural with wild?