The stories became far too frequent to ignore. Emails from folks with allergic or digestive issues to wheat in the United States experienced no symptoms whatsoever when they tried eating pasta on vacation in Italy. Confused parents wondering why wheat consumption sometimes triggered autoimmune reactions in their children but not at other times. In my own home, I’ve long pondered why my husband can eat the wheat I prepare at home, but he experiences negative digestive effects eating even a single roll in a restaurant. There is clearly something going on with wheat that is not well known by the general public. It goes far and beyond organic versus nonorganic, gluten or hybridization because even conventional wheat triggers no symptoms for some who eat wheat in other parts of the world. What indeed is going on with wheat? For quite some time, I secretly harbored the notion that wheat in the United States must, in fact, be genetically modified. GMO wheat secretly invading the North American food supply seemed the only thing that made sense and could account for the varied experiences I was hearing about. I reasoned that it couldn’t be the gluten or wheat hybridization. Gluten and wheat hybrids have been consumed for thousands of years. It just didn’t make sense that this could be the reason for so many people suddenly having problems with wheat and gluten in general in the past 5-10 years. Finally, the answer came over dinner a couple of months ago with a friend who was well versed in the wheat production process. I started researching the issue for myself, and was, quite frankly, horrified at what I discovered. The good news is that the reason wheat has become so toxic in the United States is not because it is secretly GMO as I had feared (thank goodness!). The bad news is that the problem lies with the manner in which wheat is harvested by conventional wheat farmers. You’re going to want to sit down for this one. I’ve had some folks burst into tears in horror when I passed along this information before. Standard wheat harvest protocol in the United States is to drench the wheat fields with Roundup several days before the combine harvesters work through the fields as withered, dead wheat plants are less taxing on the farm equipment and allows for an earlier, easier and bigger harvest - See more at: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/ ... L8HAp.dpuf
Tex, have you ever heard this?
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Tex, have you ever heard this?
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/ ... ot-gluten/
I just found Zizzle's post on this.
http://www.perskyfarms.com/phpBB2/viewt ... ght=seneff
http://www.perskyfarms.com/phpBB2/viewt ... ght=seneff
Whoa. Makes me glad that I don't eat wheat! And that I eat organic almost all of the time.
It's astounding to me that people ever think doing stuff like this is a good idea.
It's astounding to me that people ever think doing stuff like this is a good idea.
Courage is the price that life exacts for granting peace; the soul that knows it not, knows no release from little things. - Amelia Earhart
Hi Deb,
There are lot of half-truths and misconceptions in that article. First of all, does anyone among us actually believe that anyone who is truly sensitive to wheat gluten can eat wheat in Italy without adverse consequences? One reason why it's possible for a celiac to eat pasta in Italy without reacting is because wheat gluten is such a well-understood problem that gluten-free pasta is widely available there. That claim in the article is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. If that were true, why on earth would Italy have a national policy in place providing for all children to be tested for celiac disease before the age of 6? That obviously wouldn't be necessary if wheat were not a problem there.
The author pretends that gluten sensitivity wasn't a problem before Roundup became available. Gluten sensitivity wasn't a problem back then because doctors and everyone else pretty much ignored it, so those who had the problem just suffered in silence. How many of us had even heard of celiac disease 50 years ago. I had an aunt who had it, but we just assumed that she had some rare tropical disease that no one else had ever heard of. The cause of celiac disease was traced to wheat immediately after WWII, when a Dutch pediatrician noticed that virtually all of the kids in the Netherlands stopped having digestive problems when bread was rationed during the war, but they all relapsed when bread once again became available after the war was ended. This was long before Roundup was ever invented and approved for use.
This situation is similar to MC. For all practical purposes, MC didn't exist (or rather, it was ignored) until the mid-1970s, when a doctor finally offered a medical description of the disease. The description wasn't very accurate, unfortunately, but at least it gave some credibility to the disease. But still, few patients were diagnosed, because doctors didn't normally take biopsies during colonoscopy exams, and they can't diagnose MC without taking biopsies, so that was a self-fulfilling prophecy guaranteeing that it would be viewed as a "rare" disease. After the year 2,000, doctors began taking biopsies more commonly, and lo and behold, the disease suddenly became much more common. And the more often biopsies are taken during those exams, the faster the incidence of the disease increases. Big surprise!
Likewise, the celiac (or gluten sensitivity) epidemic is due to sudden widespread awareness both in the public, and in medical circles, more than anything else. Sure, more gluten sensitivity is occurring, because the world is eating more wheat these days, but the cause of gluten sensitivity is still due to the inability of the human digestive system to completely digest certain wheat protein molecules, resulting in peptides that cause leaky gut and immune system reactions.
As for the Roundup issue: Yes, roundup is labeled as a harvest aid. If adverse growing season conditions cause a wheat field to be overgrown with weeds (that would interfere with harvest), a farmer can legally use Roundup to kill the weeds before harvest. I have no idea how often this is done. It's probably more likely to happen in certain parts of the country than in others. Personally, I have never used that option, and I don't recall ever seeing any other farmer in this part of the country using Roundup as a harvest aid for wheat. Ever! However, since it's legal, and growing conditions vary, I have no doubt that it is surely done in places, in certain years. I would guess that the actual percentage of wheat for which this treatment is used is very small, overall, because most wheat fields remain clean, due to improved farming methods these days, so there is no need for such a treatment. And I'll guarantee that most farmers will not waste money on a treatment that is not needed. They can't afford to throw money away if they hope to make a profit on a crop. But the article (and similar articles) make it sound as if Roundup is used on every acre of wheat grown in the world. The reality is, I doubt that it is used on more than a small fraction of 1 % of the wheat crop. As most government grading standards go, that would make it a negligible problem. (I don't personally agree that it's negligible, but that's what statistics say).
The argument over the use of Roundup on wheat is based on speculation and assumptions, with nothing having been actually confirmed by solid research at this point. So until solid research is available, those who are in the business of inspiring emotional reactions through the use of speculation on blogs are having a hay day.
But the basic problem here (that all these bloggers lose sight of) is that wheat has always been a train wreck as far as the human digestive system is concerned. And I don't care how much Roundup you might spray on it, you can't screw up a train wreck by spraying Roundup on it.
Personally, I don't believe that Roundup should be used as a harvest aid if that stirs up so much public resentment. But the bottom line is that wheat has never been suitable for human consumption. Never! Why can't people accept that fact and get over it?
At least that's the way that I see it.
Tex
There are lot of half-truths and misconceptions in that article. First of all, does anyone among us actually believe that anyone who is truly sensitive to wheat gluten can eat wheat in Italy without adverse consequences? One reason why it's possible for a celiac to eat pasta in Italy without reacting is because wheat gluten is such a well-understood problem that gluten-free pasta is widely available there. That claim in the article is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. If that were true, why on earth would Italy have a national policy in place providing for all children to be tested for celiac disease before the age of 6? That obviously wouldn't be necessary if wheat were not a problem there.
The author pretends that gluten sensitivity wasn't a problem before Roundup became available. Gluten sensitivity wasn't a problem back then because doctors and everyone else pretty much ignored it, so those who had the problem just suffered in silence. How many of us had even heard of celiac disease 50 years ago. I had an aunt who had it, but we just assumed that she had some rare tropical disease that no one else had ever heard of. The cause of celiac disease was traced to wheat immediately after WWII, when a Dutch pediatrician noticed that virtually all of the kids in the Netherlands stopped having digestive problems when bread was rationed during the war, but they all relapsed when bread once again became available after the war was ended. This was long before Roundup was ever invented and approved for use.
This situation is similar to MC. For all practical purposes, MC didn't exist (or rather, it was ignored) until the mid-1970s, when a doctor finally offered a medical description of the disease. The description wasn't very accurate, unfortunately, but at least it gave some credibility to the disease. But still, few patients were diagnosed, because doctors didn't normally take biopsies during colonoscopy exams, and they can't diagnose MC without taking biopsies, so that was a self-fulfilling prophecy guaranteeing that it would be viewed as a "rare" disease. After the year 2,000, doctors began taking biopsies more commonly, and lo and behold, the disease suddenly became much more common. And the more often biopsies are taken during those exams, the faster the incidence of the disease increases. Big surprise!
Likewise, the celiac (or gluten sensitivity) epidemic is due to sudden widespread awareness both in the public, and in medical circles, more than anything else. Sure, more gluten sensitivity is occurring, because the world is eating more wheat these days, but the cause of gluten sensitivity is still due to the inability of the human digestive system to completely digest certain wheat protein molecules, resulting in peptides that cause leaky gut and immune system reactions.
Really? Why would there be something magical about the wheat that she uses at home? Does she grow her own wheat?I’ve long pondered why my husband can eat the wheat I prepare at home, but he experiences negative digestive effects eating even a single roll in a restaurant.
As for the Roundup issue: Yes, roundup is labeled as a harvest aid. If adverse growing season conditions cause a wheat field to be overgrown with weeds (that would interfere with harvest), a farmer can legally use Roundup to kill the weeds before harvest. I have no idea how often this is done. It's probably more likely to happen in certain parts of the country than in others. Personally, I have never used that option, and I don't recall ever seeing any other farmer in this part of the country using Roundup as a harvest aid for wheat. Ever! However, since it's legal, and growing conditions vary, I have no doubt that it is surely done in places, in certain years. I would guess that the actual percentage of wheat for which this treatment is used is very small, overall, because most wheat fields remain clean, due to improved farming methods these days, so there is no need for such a treatment. And I'll guarantee that most farmers will not waste money on a treatment that is not needed. They can't afford to throw money away if they hope to make a profit on a crop. But the article (and similar articles) make it sound as if Roundup is used on every acre of wheat grown in the world. The reality is, I doubt that it is used on more than a small fraction of 1 % of the wheat crop. As most government grading standards go, that would make it a negligible problem. (I don't personally agree that it's negligible, but that's what statistics say).
The argument over the use of Roundup on wheat is based on speculation and assumptions, with nothing having been actually confirmed by solid research at this point. So until solid research is available, those who are in the business of inspiring emotional reactions through the use of speculation on blogs are having a hay day.
But the basic problem here (that all these bloggers lose sight of) is that wheat has always been a train wreck as far as the human digestive system is concerned. And I don't care how much Roundup you might spray on it, you can't screw up a train wreck by spraying Roundup on it.
Personally, I don't believe that Roundup should be used as a harvest aid if that stirs up so much public resentment. But the bottom line is that wheat has never been suitable for human consumption. Never! Why can't people accept that fact and get over it?
At least that's the way that I see it.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Thanks, Tex. I was interested in this quote too.
My husband has recently started reacting to wheat, especially when we go out. I may experiment with the flour she mentions and see if he reacts the same....my own human guinea pig! :) I pretty much have a gluten free kitchen but I do make some special rolls for everyone else for the holidays. DebI’ve long pondered why my husband can eat the wheat I prepare at home, but he experiences negative digestive effects eating even a single roll in a restaurant
Deb,
She (the "healthy" home economist) uses einkorn wheat, which is the oldest wheat cross known. All wheat has 2 basic types of gluten proteins, gliadin and glutenin. Celiacs react to various peptides from both proteins, but virtually all of them react to the alpha gliadin peptide, so all of the tests designed for detecting gluten, only test for the alpha gliadin protein. Einkorn contains much less gliadin, and more glutenin. As a result, it does not rise as well for making bread, but it has a less potent effect on many celiacs. IOW, it is simply a weaker form of gluten. That implies that people who are not as sensitive to gluten as some of us, may be able eat a significant amount of einkorn wheat without reacting, as long as they don't overdo the dose.
And since einkorn contains only the type of gluten that's known as the A genome, the test most commonly used for detecting gluten will not even detect it accurately, because the test is designed to detect the D genome (modern wheat contains both types). Just because the test doesn't detect it certainly doesn't mean that it is gluten-free however. It definitely contains gluten — it just contains less than modern wheat. That means that it takes more of it to cause a reaction, and it takes longer to cause a significant amount of damage to the gut.
For those who are drawn to wheat like a moth to a flame, einkorn is definitely the way to go, because it will allow them to eat much more of it before it causes extensive damage to their gut. It's kind of like ingesting a little bit of arsenic with meals. Nothing happens until you finally get too much of it.
I'm beginning to wonder if wheat might be just as addictive as narcotics, because way too many people insist that they can't do without it, and they prove it by going to ridiculous extremes to rationalize their habit, as they continue to search for creative ways to justify continuing to eat it.
They are obviously willing to risk the physical integrity of their gut in order to continue their habit. Is that sad, or what?
That said, I'm guessing that your husband will be able to handle the einkorn flour without any noticeable symptoms since his sensitivity level is probably still relatively low.
Tex
She (the "healthy" home economist) uses einkorn wheat, which is the oldest wheat cross known. All wheat has 2 basic types of gluten proteins, gliadin and glutenin. Celiacs react to various peptides from both proteins, but virtually all of them react to the alpha gliadin peptide, so all of the tests designed for detecting gluten, only test for the alpha gliadin protein. Einkorn contains much less gliadin, and more glutenin. As a result, it does not rise as well for making bread, but it has a less potent effect on many celiacs. IOW, it is simply a weaker form of gluten. That implies that people who are not as sensitive to gluten as some of us, may be able eat a significant amount of einkorn wheat without reacting, as long as they don't overdo the dose.
And since einkorn contains only the type of gluten that's known as the A genome, the test most commonly used for detecting gluten will not even detect it accurately, because the test is designed to detect the D genome (modern wheat contains both types). Just because the test doesn't detect it certainly doesn't mean that it is gluten-free however. It definitely contains gluten — it just contains less than modern wheat. That means that it takes more of it to cause a reaction, and it takes longer to cause a significant amount of damage to the gut.
For those who are drawn to wheat like a moth to a flame, einkorn is definitely the way to go, because it will allow them to eat much more of it before it causes extensive damage to their gut. It's kind of like ingesting a little bit of arsenic with meals. Nothing happens until you finally get too much of it.
I'm beginning to wonder if wheat might be just as addictive as narcotics, because way too many people insist that they can't do without it, and they prove it by going to ridiculous extremes to rationalize their habit, as they continue to search for creative ways to justify continuing to eat it.
They are obviously willing to risk the physical integrity of their gut in order to continue their habit. Is that sad, or what?That said, I'm guessing that your husband will be able to handle the einkorn flour without any noticeable symptoms since his sensitivity level is probably still relatively low.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.