Hi All,
Considering the fact that genetically-modified organisms, (GMOs) seem to be quite unpopular with the consuming public in general, (and most of us here, in particular), what are your thoughts on this possibility:
Many/most of us here are gluten sensitive, which means that not only does it trigger reactions for us, if we ingest it, but it also seems to predispose us to other food sensitivities, especially if we are ingesting even very tiny amounts of gluten, and/or our gut still has residual damage caused by gluten, that has not had sufficient time to heal. The mechanism by which gluten causes these issues is continually being researched, and is now much better understood than it was even just a few years ago. We are rapidly approaching the point in that understanding, to where it may soon be possible to genetically modify a common strain of wheat, so that the expression of the problematic gliadins are effectively suppressed in the offspring of this wheat cultivar, (variety), thus preempting the risk of T-cell response upon ingesting any products made from this wheat.
Soooooooooo, my question is: If a genetically modified wheat could be successfully developed, and used to replace all existing "natural" varieties of wheat and it's problematic relatives, (problematic from a celiac viewpoint), such as rye, barley, etc., so that for all practical purposes, everyone could eat as much GMO wheat as they wanted, and never again have to worry about "gluten-related" reactions, would you be in favor of this type of GMO development?
Tex
What are your thoughts on this idea?
Moderators: Rosie, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
What are your thoughts on this idea?
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.
Hi Gloria,
You look at it the same way that I do - namely that it doesn't matter how the genes are altered, if they are substantially changed in some way, then I consider that organism to be genetically modified. Plant and animal breeders have been doing it since the earliest days of the dawning of primitive agriculture, (roughly 30,000 years ago).
Most folks seem to have a much more narrow view of the term, though - they apparently only link the term with organisms that have been genetically modified by means of a "gene-splicing" procedure carried out in a laboratory setting.
Tex
You look at it the same way that I do - namely that it doesn't matter how the genes are altered, if they are substantially changed in some way, then I consider that organism to be genetically modified. Plant and animal breeders have been doing it since the earliest days of the dawning of primitive agriculture, (roughly 30,000 years ago).
Most folks seem to have a much more narrow view of the term, though - they apparently only link the term with organisms that have been genetically modified by means of a "gene-splicing" procedure carried out in a laboratory setting.
Tex
An interesting question but in MHO a bit of a mute point for several reasons.
GMO foods may or may not create many other genetic reactions even in those that have no genetic reactions now. Do we dare open “Pandora’s Box”. I have barely sealed the lid on my own box with today’s food without having to add more to the mix.
Why put such an emphasis on the grains when their is so much evidence that they lead to all kinds of autoimmune problems when their are so many other far more healthy foods
http://www.perskyfarms.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3827
Thanks Joanna!
How far down the road are these changes 5, 10 ,15, 20 years? Living in the present moment has found me discovering answers now, when it is most important for me to heal.
Conjecture is interesting but a more important topic for me is what to do about what I eat right now.
Haha
Or for breakfast.
Love
Matthew
GMO foods may or may not create many other genetic reactions even in those that have no genetic reactions now. Do we dare open “Pandora’s Box”. I have barely sealed the lid on my own box with today’s food without having to add more to the mix.
Why put such an emphasis on the grains when their is so much evidence that they lead to all kinds of autoimmune problems when their are so many other far more healthy foods
http://www.perskyfarms.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3827
Thanks Joanna!
How far down the road are these changes 5, 10 ,15, 20 years? Living in the present moment has found me discovering answers now, when it is most important for me to heal.
Conjecture is interesting but a more important topic for me is what to do about what I eat right now.
Haha
Or for breakfast.
Love
Matthew
Right, but here's how I see it being the same no matter how you look at it. It's similar to what was done for grains to make them better for making bread, the plants were "modified" not by gene slicing but by selecting varities that contained more gluten. And thus grains are much more problematic for folks with a certain genetic markup. We've taken grains, that perhaps might not have brought us as much disease, and modified them such that they are more problematic.tex wrote:Hi Gloria,
You look at it the same way that I do - namely that it doesn't matter how the genes are altered, if they are substantially changed in some way, then I consider that organism to be genetically modified. Plant and animal breeders have been doing it since the earliest days of the dawning of primitive agriculture, (roughly 30,000 years ago).
Most folks seem to have a much more narrow view of the term, though - they apparently only link the term with organisms that have been genetically modified by means of a "gene-splicing" procedure carried out in a laboratory setting.
Tex
Just started reading "In Defense of Food : An Eaters Manifesto" (I think that's the title) book, and it puts a lot of the things that we're doing to foods into a perspective that leads me to believe that modifying foods may lead to more disease. I find it so suprising that most food producers want to mess with something that appears they have little understanding of.
Mike
Matthew,
Based on all the truly impressive cereal grain modifications that have come out of labs such as Monsanto's, in the past few years, and which were quickly adopted by commercial agriculture as mainstream technology, I would venture a guess that work is already being done on this project, and that we will most likely see planting seed available in less than five years, if the market for such a product exists, to justify the development costs.
Certainly, less than two percent of the population has any significant health issues with grains, provided that they use prudent guidelines in balancing their diets. Of the remaining 98% +, very few would be willing to give up their grains without a fight. If you want proof of that, consider that we have close to 200 members of this board, and roughly a third of us post at least occasionally. Of those members, the vast majority are gluten intolerant, and yet how many are actually totally cutting grains out of their diets, 100%? Bear in mind that unlike the general population, all of us on this board are well aware of the health risks of eating grains, because of all the discussions here.
I can think of one. LOL. Admittedly, there are two or three others who severely limit their grain intake, but I think you get my point - grains are not likely to disappear from the food chain on this planet, any time soon, so for the sake of all the "gluten" sensitive people out there, and others who do not want to give up all the grains in their diet, (or can't afford to give them up), a few laboratory tricks could seemingly work miracles for their food options. Believe it or not, not everyone enjoys dieting, and most of us will go to all sorts of extremes to avoid it, whenever possible.
Actually, this is not conjecture - it's a prediction. I have very little doubt that it will happen, and I think it will happen relatively soon. I was merely curious how other members felt about it.
The "ethical" considerations of this issue pretty much parallel the issues surrounding the development of a pill to suppress the release of zonulin, so that celiacs, and others who are gluten sensitive, can ingest gluten, without triggering symptoms. That pill would have the same effect in the GI tract of a gluten sensitive individual, as a modification to their genes, (or a reversal of a modification of their genes), and yet, I would venture a guess that most of us would probably be more than willing to try those pills, not necessarily so that we could eat gluten, but so that we could insure that we wouldn't accidentally chow down on some gluten, and end up in the bathroom for half a day or so. My point is: "perception" is what counts, and right or wrong, most of us see a "zonulin-suppression" pill as safe, but GMO foods as unsafe.
In the real world, it will be impossible to keep Pandora's Box closed - in fact, it has already been opened, years ago. Not to worry, though, as long as you don't eat any grains, and you're eating only grass-fed beef, GMO wheat shouldn't affect your menu decisions in any way, so it won't take any longer to decide what to eat for breakfast tomorrow. LOL.
Tex
Based on all the truly impressive cereal grain modifications that have come out of labs such as Monsanto's, in the past few years, and which were quickly adopted by commercial agriculture as mainstream technology, I would venture a guess that work is already being done on this project, and that we will most likely see planting seed available in less than five years, if the market for such a product exists, to justify the development costs.
I can understand your viewpoint, since you have decided to cut grains out of your diet, across the board, but unfortunately, everyone in the world does not have that option. The bulk of the human population of this planet has to rely on grain, in order to prevent starvation. There is no way that we could produce enough paleo food items to feed even half of the population for very long, let alone do it on a sustainable level. Not only that, but the rest of us should be just as free as you, to choose whether or not we want to consume grains, (or any other food item, for that matter), especially if we can't always afford to eat more expensive items, such as those that comprise the paleo food list.Matthew wrote:Why put such an emphasis on the grains when their is so much evidence that they lead to all kinds of autoimmune problems when their are so many other far more healthy foods
Certainly, less than two percent of the population has any significant health issues with grains, provided that they use prudent guidelines in balancing their diets. Of the remaining 98% +, very few would be willing to give up their grains without a fight. If you want proof of that, consider that we have close to 200 members of this board, and roughly a third of us post at least occasionally. Of those members, the vast majority are gluten intolerant, and yet how many are actually totally cutting grains out of their diets, 100%? Bear in mind that unlike the general population, all of us on this board are well aware of the health risks of eating grains, because of all the discussions here.
I can think of one. LOL. Admittedly, there are two or three others who severely limit their grain intake, but I think you get my point - grains are not likely to disappear from the food chain on this planet, any time soon, so for the sake of all the "gluten" sensitive people out there, and others who do not want to give up all the grains in their diet, (or can't afford to give them up), a few laboratory tricks could seemingly work miracles for their food options. Believe it or not, not everyone enjoys dieting, and most of us will go to all sorts of extremes to avoid it, whenever possible.
Actually, this is not conjecture - it's a prediction. I have very little doubt that it will happen, and I think it will happen relatively soon. I was merely curious how other members felt about it.
The "ethical" considerations of this issue pretty much parallel the issues surrounding the development of a pill to suppress the release of zonulin, so that celiacs, and others who are gluten sensitive, can ingest gluten, without triggering symptoms. That pill would have the same effect in the GI tract of a gluten sensitive individual, as a modification to their genes, (or a reversal of a modification of their genes), and yet, I would venture a guess that most of us would probably be more than willing to try those pills, not necessarily so that we could eat gluten, but so that we could insure that we wouldn't accidentally chow down on some gluten, and end up in the bathroom for half a day or so. My point is: "perception" is what counts, and right or wrong, most of us see a "zonulin-suppression" pill as safe, but GMO foods as unsafe.
In the real world, it will be impossible to keep Pandora's Box closed - in fact, it has already been opened, years ago. Not to worry, though, as long as you don't eat any grains, and you're eating only grass-fed beef, GMO wheat shouldn't affect your menu decisions in any way, so it won't take any longer to decide what to eat for breakfast tomorrow. LOL.
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.
Mike,
Maintaining the status quo sounds like good advice as far as food development is concerned, but consider this. The native plants that our current cereal grain crops were developed from had/have virtually negligible yield potential. They wouldn't support even a very small fraction of the world's population, even if we planted every available acre to them. It takes production, to feed the world - huge production.
Additionally, the native grass plants that modern wheat was developed from may well have been "healthier", (though that is not necessarily a given, because they were lower in protein), but they wouldn't make bread, or pasta, worth beans, because of a low quality gluten composition.
Also, they grew erratically, with varying heights, poor stalk strength, etc., so that they could only be harvested by hand.
There are many other characteristics that had to be modified, in order to turn wheat into a "practical" and reliable cereal grain crop, so the question is: at what point do you decide that wheat, (or any other food crop), is as good as it needs to be, and it shouldn't be modified any further? If our neolithic ancestors had decided to do that 20,000 years ago, we wouldn't be sitting here casually discussing it now - we would be worrying about where we were going to go tomorrow, to try to find something to eat, because the average wheat yield would be only about a tenth to a twentieth of what it is today, and we would all be hungry as hell. Pre-neolithic corn, (maize), yields were probably only about one or two percent of the yields that we routinely harvest from modern hybrid varieties. In fact, corn yields have more than tripled, in just the last 50 years, and yet today we face a corn shortage, simply because about a fifth of the crop is going to ethanol production. That fifth didn't even exist, just a few years ago.
Granted, many of the decisions that were made along the way, were probably made in order to try to prevent starvation, as populations continued to increase, (rather than to try to make the crop "healthier"), but when you're up to your ass in alligators, you tend to forget how beautiful the water lilies are. LOL.
The world population continues to grow. Do we stop improving crops now, knowing that someday our descendants will probably face starvation, because of our decision to leave well enough alone? See the problem?
Tex
Maintaining the status quo sounds like good advice as far as food development is concerned, but consider this. The native plants that our current cereal grain crops were developed from had/have virtually negligible yield potential. They wouldn't support even a very small fraction of the world's population, even if we planted every available acre to them. It takes production, to feed the world - huge production.
Additionally, the native grass plants that modern wheat was developed from may well have been "healthier", (though that is not necessarily a given, because they were lower in protein), but they wouldn't make bread, or pasta, worth beans, because of a low quality gluten composition.
Also, they grew erratically, with varying heights, poor stalk strength, etc., so that they could only be harvested by hand.
There are many other characteristics that had to be modified, in order to turn wheat into a "practical" and reliable cereal grain crop, so the question is: at what point do you decide that wheat, (or any other food crop), is as good as it needs to be, and it shouldn't be modified any further? If our neolithic ancestors had decided to do that 20,000 years ago, we wouldn't be sitting here casually discussing it now - we would be worrying about where we were going to go tomorrow, to try to find something to eat, because the average wheat yield would be only about a tenth to a twentieth of what it is today, and we would all be hungry as hell. Pre-neolithic corn, (maize), yields were probably only about one or two percent of the yields that we routinely harvest from modern hybrid varieties. In fact, corn yields have more than tripled, in just the last 50 years, and yet today we face a corn shortage, simply because about a fifth of the crop is going to ethanol production. That fifth didn't even exist, just a few years ago.
Granted, many of the decisions that were made along the way, were probably made in order to try to prevent starvation, as populations continued to increase, (rather than to try to make the crop "healthier"), but when you're up to your ass in alligators, you tend to forget how beautiful the water lilies are. LOL.
The world population continues to grow. Do we stop improving crops now, knowing that someday our descendants will probably face starvation, because of our decision to leave well enough alone? See the problem?
Tex
Just my 2 cents worth here...with what they have done to so many people by genetically modifiying soy with the peanut plant, so now there are people who have severe peanut allergies who have no idea why they react to soy. And that is just the one example I can think of off hand before coffee 
I agree that the cat is out of the bag, and we have already done severe damage by allowing untested GM grains to be put into the US food supply with no real quality control testing. Back in the 90's when GM soy was introduced, they had FDA scientist who stated in their reports that the soy was untested as far as longterm safety, yet the lobby for the soy growers got it pushed right on through. If you have ever read the amount of processing that soy has to go through just to make it safe to eat, that should tell you something. If one step is a chemical bath, I don't think I will be eating it, or giving it to any of our many animals here on the ranch. We are all organic here, and found a mill down in Amish country where we can buy safe hopefully non GM grains for the cattle,hogs,chickens and horses. ( I agree with Tex, the chances of any grain being 100 % GM free is slim, but we try to lessen the chance of buying them )
Carrie
I agree that the cat is out of the bag, and we have already done severe damage by allowing untested GM grains to be put into the US food supply with no real quality control testing. Back in the 90's when GM soy was introduced, they had FDA scientist who stated in their reports that the soy was untested as far as longterm safety, yet the lobby for the soy growers got it pushed right on through. If you have ever read the amount of processing that soy has to go through just to make it safe to eat, that should tell you something. If one step is a chemical bath, I don't think I will be eating it, or giving it to any of our many animals here on the ranch. We are all organic here, and found a mill down in Amish country where we can buy safe hopefully non GM grains for the cattle,hogs,chickens and horses. ( I agree with Tex, the chances of any grain being 100 % GM free is slim, but we try to lessen the chance of buying them )Carrie
LOL Don't get me started on the zonulin pill and world population issues. :) Given the rate at which we are populating the earth and using (or abusing) it's resources I don't think we will sustain this growth for much longer and there will need to be some sort of limitation on population in order for us to survive. The amount of toxins, chemicals, etc we're dumping into the environment is making it more and more difficult to eat foods without getting sicker as a population. Take mercury and fish as a prime example, right now it's just starting to be a problem, but have we stopped the mercury being dumped into the environment? No, we haven't.
Regardless of my thoughts on this, I do agree that this is going to happen. Whether it's a good thing for us or not, we'll have to wait to find out.
Keep forgetting to live in the now. Thanks Matthew. :)
Mike
Regardless of my thoughts on this, I do agree that this is going to happen. Whether it's a good thing for us or not, we'll have to wait to find out.
Keep forgetting to live in the now. Thanks Matthew. :)
Mike
I guess this whole discussion makes me glad that I'm a certified carnivore 
....just say no to scary grains and veggies and only eat meat and raw milk that you raise yourself. I never developed the taste for grain and veggies that Rick or our families have, so I have never eaten much of them...., guess that's a good thing now.
Carrie
I hear you about what we are doing to this rock we all reside on. There are rivers here in Oklahoma that you would never want to eat fish out of because of the strip mining run off.....very scary indeed.
....just say no to scary grains and veggies and only eat meat and raw milk that you raise yourself. I never developed the taste for grain and veggies that Rick or our families have, so I have never eaten much of them...., guess that's a good thing now.Carrie
I hear you about what we are doing to this rock we all reside on. There are rivers here in Oklahoma that you would never want to eat fish out of because of the strip mining run off.....very scary indeed.
I'm not sure I can say that grains have caused my MC. I'd bet money that it's due to something else: antibiotics, NSAIDS, bacterial problem, etc. It's probably true that grains are exacerbating it now that I have it. (I don't know yet, because I haven't achieved remission.) But as Tex wrote, most of the population lives on grains and they're doing fine. We are the exceptions, not the norm.
Heck, I'd go back to eating wheat in a minute if it wouldn't affect me. I keep hoping I can someday.
Heck, I'd go back to eating wheat in a minute if it wouldn't affect me. I keep hoping I can someday.
You never know what you can do until you have to do it.
-
harvest_table
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 6:29 pm
- Location: Fergus Falls, Minnesota
Well, I've been thinking this over and feel it may be a very good thing not only for Celiacs or those of us with gluten sensitivity so would be in favor of this development. When we finally (and I agree, we will) have the options of eating gluten products and taking a zonulin pill to counteract it's damaging effects on our bodies or, ingesting a "safe" GMO wheat product I'd likely be more persuaded to choose the GMO, however, I personally have serious reservations and doubts about ever eating gluten again. I won't, period.The "ethical" considerations of this issue pretty much parallel the issues surrounding the development of a pill to suppress the release of zonulin, so that celiacs, and others who are gluten sensitive, can ingest gluten, without triggering symptoms. That pill would have the same effect in the GI tract of a gluten sensitive individual, as a modification to their genes, (or a reversal of a modification of their genes), and yet, I would venture a guess that most of us would probably be more than willing to try those pills, not necessarily so that we could eat gluten, but so that we could insure that we wouldn't accidentally chow down on some gluten, and end up in the bathroom for half a day or so. My point is: "perception" is what counts, and right or wrong, most of us see a "zonulin-suppression" pill as safe, but GMO foods as unsafe.
Your welcome Matthew! That is an inspiring list of wonderful grain free foods isn't it?Why put such an emphasis on the grains when their is so much evidence that they lead to all kinds of autoimmune problems when their are so many other far more healthy foods
http://www.perskyfarms.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3827
Thanks Joanna!
Love,
Joanna
THE GLUTEN FILES
http://jccglutenfree.googlepages.com/
http://jccglutenfree.googlepages.com/