PDA

View Full Version : Environment Doctor Says Genetically Modified Wheat a Perfect, Chronic Poison


KILLER_CLOWN
12-06-2012, 07:05 AM
Doctor Says Genetically Modified Wheat a Perfect, Chronic Poison

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 11:35

By Lisa Garber
theintelhub.com
December 5, 2012

Many of us are shunning wheat for lots of reasons, but we usually cite gluten as the culprit. Cardiologist and author Dr. William Davis, however, says it’s not gluten that makes modern wheat a “perfect, chronic poison.” It’s the fact that genetically modified wheat has become the wheat we know today.

Davis spoke on “CBS This Morning” earlier this year about one of agribusiness’s biggest creations—the word “creation” not used lightly.
Genetically Modified Wheat – Increased Appetite, Altered Genome

“[Modern wheat is] an 18-inch tall plant created by genetic research in the ‘60s and ‘70s This thing has many new features nobody told you about, such as there’s a new protein in this thing called gliadin. It’s not gluten. I’m not addressing people with gluten sensitivities and celiac disease. I’m talking about everybody else because everybody else is susceptible to the gliadin protein that is an opiate. This thing binds into the opiate receptors in your brain and in most people stimulates appetite, such that we consume 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year.”

Increasing hankerings and padding on pounds aren’t all genetically modified wheat is capable of doing. A new GM wheat in development by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CIRO), an Australian governmental research agency, may permanently alter the genes of the humans and animals that consume it.

“Through ingestion,” says Professor Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, “these olecules can enter human beings and potentially silence our genes.” The double stranded RNAs present in this genetically modified wheat would also survive cooking, digestion, and generations of life.

But what about all the hype over whole grains? Several health resources like the Mayo Clinic advocate ditching white wheat for less processed varieties, but Davis claims that is like replacing unfiltered with filtered cigarettes.GM Whole Grains Like Filtered Cigarettes

“That’s the logic of nutrition; it’s a deeply flawed logic.”

Instead of genetically modified wheat, Davis advocates eating “real foods” like avocados, olives, olive oil, eats, and vegetables. While Davis does tell consumers to favor food least likely to be changed by agribusiness, the CBS source, unfortunately, does not directly address variables like organic and small-scale farming versus conventionally raised and pesticide-drenched vegetables or pasture-raised versus factory-farmed meats.
GM Not the Answer to Feeding the Nation

Genetically modified foods pose a threat to people (not just consumers), animals, and the planet Pesticides for GM corn pollute our water and often contaminate organic products. Although the issue of feeding the world is a complex and emotional one, GM food—and the poisoning of entire populations of people—is not the answer.

http://naturalsociety.com/gm-wheat-permanently-alter-human-genome/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57505149/modern-wheat-a-perfect-chronic-poison-doctor-says/

http://naturalsociety.com/genetically-modified-foods/

http://naturalsociety.com/insecticides-gm-corn-polluting-water/

http://naturalsociety.com/organic-foods-may-contain-gmos-pesticides/

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/doctor-says-genetically-modified-wheat-a-perfect-chronic-poison-2508446.html

HonestChieffan
12-06-2012, 07:23 AM
If I am not mistaken, this is terribly misleading. I do not believe there are any GMO Wheat varieties available anywhere.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-06-2012, 07:24 AM
If I am not mistaken, this is terribly misleading. I do not believe there are any GMO Wheat varieties available anywhere.

huh?

durtyrute
12-06-2012, 07:26 AM
It's all GMO, unless you get it straight from the farmer.

HonestChieffan
12-06-2012, 07:29 AM
It's all GMO, unless you get it straight from the farmer.

So now you include hybrid plants and crossbred hogs and cattle as GMO? The neighbors mongrel dog and 99% of all the housecats in the world would then be GMO pets.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-06-2012, 07:32 AM
It was approved in Australia, and it will be here soon.

HonestChieffan
12-06-2012, 07:41 AM
It was approved in Australia, and it will be here soon.

I believe you are terribly mistaken

Fish
12-06-2012, 09:27 AM
More BS GMO scare tactics huh?

This is of course a bunch of horseshit... They didn't even bother with any type of peer review process, which is required for any types of claims such as these. Especially regarding something as important as food safety. But that's not the intent of sadly incorrect articles such as this. The intent here is to throw out a "report", which has not been reviewed by anyone for truth, and have it spread like fire because people fear what they don't understand and forward it to the inbox of all their other equally ignorant friends.

There's nothing wrong with GMO food. We've been eating it for decades. GMO crops are among the most extensively tested and regulated food products ever developed. We've been through nearly 3 decades of GMO production and consumption, all the while being strictly tested and regulated by multiple government, academic, and industry organizations. And we've yet to have one single instance of any harm to health due to GMO food.

Here's a response to this silly article:


GM wheat claims unsubstantiated (http://www.theland.com.au/news/nationalrural/cropping/grains/gm-wheat-claims-unsubstantiated/2623828.aspx)

GENE technology experts have shot down allegations Genetically Modified (GM) wheat may cause a strain of liver damage that especially endangers the lives of young children.

The Safe Food Foundation (SFF) claimed GM wheat could cause Glycogen Storage Disease IV, resulting in an enlarged liver, cirrhosis of the liver and failure to thrive, but the CSIRO said none of those claims had been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

However, the CSIRO said the claims would be considered “in the context of all other relevant research in this area”.

Dean of Melbourne University’s School of Land and Environment Professor Rick Roush said the claims were made by three anti-GM campaigners who have “deliberately bypassed independent scientific assessment of their claims”.

“Instead, this has been launched such that it will become another scientific-sounding scare story in cyberspace, a well worn path of anti-GM so-called ‘science’ by press release,” he said.

Agricultural gene technology expert Paula Fitzgerald said the SFF media statement was a “disgrace”.

“To suggest that CSIRO's research, or any other GM research is deadly, is completely irresponsible, particularly when after 15 years of GM crops, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in the world to suggest they have caused any harm,” she said.

“In addition such claims, designed only to grab hysterical headlines, demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the regulatory system underpinning scientific research and specifically GM crops.”

SFF director Scott Kinnear welcomed the CSIRO’s statement as a balanced response to the concerns raised by the SFF.

He called on CSIRO to immediately release all details of its safety testing on GM wheat for urgent independent scientific review and immediately release the precise DNA sequences involved so that independent scientists could conduct further urgent checking.

If CSIRO was serious about these claims, they would release the details of its testing, right? If this were really a "Perfect Chronic Poison" being introduced to our food supply, they'd share all their info as soon as possible so action could be taken to prevent death, right? But they haven't, and they won't, because it's nothing but a BS scare tactic.

mnchiefsguy
12-06-2012, 12:19 PM
There was a whole book written on a similiar concept called Wheat Belly. Here is a link to the blog:

http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/


It is in an interesting theory...however I love bread and pizza too much to ever seriously apply it.

Brock
12-06-2012, 12:50 PM
Yep, wheat is bad for you (at least as a daily part of diet), whether it's GM or not.

durtyrute
12-06-2012, 12:54 PM
Yep, wheat is bad for you (at least as a daily part of diet), whether it's GM or not.

This

BucEyedPea
12-06-2012, 12:58 PM
More BS GMO scare tactics huh?

This is of course a bunch of horseshit... They didn't even bother with any type of peer review process, which is required for any types of claims such as these. Especially regarding something as important as food safety. But that's not the intent of sadly incorrect articles such as this. The intent here is to throw out a "report", which has not been reviewed by anyone for truth, and have it spread like fire because people fear what they don't understand and forward it to the inbox of all their other equally ignorant friends.

There's nothing wrong with GMO food. We've been eating it for decades. GMO crops are among the most extensively tested and regulated food products ever developed. We've been through nearly 3 decades of GMO production and consumption, all the while being strictly tested and regulated by multiple government, academic, and industry organizations. And we've yet to have one single instance of any harm to health due to GMO food.

Here's a response to this silly article:



If CSIRO was serious about these claims, they would release the details of its testing, right? If this were really a "Perfect Chronic Poison" being introduced to our food supply, they'd share all their info as soon as possible so action could be taken to prevent death, right? But they haven't, and they won't, because it's nothing but a BS scare tactic.
Please attach the source.

BucEyedPea
12-06-2012, 12:59 PM
Yep, wheat is bad for you (at least as a daily part of diet), whether it's GM or not.

Yes....but I suspect the reason for the rise in gluten intolerance or wheat allergies has to do with how it's been altered.

Brock
12-06-2012, 01:07 PM
Yes....but I suspect the reason for the rise in gluten intolerance or wheat allergies has to do with how it's been altered.

I don't know about that, but I do know that wheat is and always has been a crappy food source.

J Diddy
12-06-2012, 01:14 PM
Yep, wheat is bad for you (at least as a daily part of diet), whether it's GM or not.

Hmm. I've always considered it a health food, but avoided it because it tasted like shit.

Brock
12-06-2012, 01:17 PM
Hmm. I've always considered it a health food, but avoided it because it tasted like shit.

Tastes great in a chocolate cake though.

HonestChieffan
12-06-2012, 01:22 PM
Yes....but I suspect the reason for the rise in gluten intolerance or wheat allergies has to do with how it's been altered.

It has not been altered. Wheat comes in many varieties. Hard red spring, soft spring, winter, high gluten, durum, white wheat, etc. They are varieties not genetic alterations. Each has a use. Some for pasta, others for milling into flour, some are specific to a geographic area and food in those areas. Very few acres are a true hybrid because oh the difficulty in growing a hybrid seed and low value seed makes it not worth developing. Variety selection has gone on for hundreds of years

Fish
12-06-2012, 01:49 PM
Please attach the source.

I did attach the source. You just didn't bother clicking on it. Take another look.

It's the part with the underlining, indicating that it's a link...

Fish
12-06-2012, 01:57 PM
Yes....but I suspect the reason for the rise in gluten intolerance or wheat allergies has to do with how it's been altered.

Are you sure you understand how it's been "Altered"? Because that statement sounds ignorant.

Calcountry
12-06-2012, 02:42 PM
As if you won't die someday if you don't eat it.

jiveturkey
12-06-2012, 02:52 PM
I don't know about that, but I do know that wheat is and always has been a crappy food source.
It's what I have found as well. I don't care if it's GMO or organic farmers market, I'm not eating it.

I dropped grains 8 months ago (along with other things) and the difference is pretty damn dramatic. Major weight loss, total reversal in lipid profile, drop in blood pressure, skin cleared up and sleep improved.

Prior to this I was doing the doctor recommended hearth health grain diet mixed with low fat bull shit. His approached lead to all kinds of problems and exacerbated the one's he was originally trying to fix. He has since been fired.

I used to be addicted to bread but after a month or so I stopped craving it.

CoMoChief
12-06-2012, 03:44 PM
Some of you need to listen to Dr. Wallach interview and lectures.

His methods would solve about 85-90% of the mainstream health issues we all have in today's world.

He does say that we as humans should not be eating any kind of whole wheat. It's a complete myth that's it's healthy for you. It's actually not.

Dave Lane
12-06-2012, 05:37 PM
Are you sure you understand how it's been "Altered"? Because that statement sounds ignorant.

BEP??!?!? You're kidding, no way!!!1!

Brock
12-06-2012, 05:39 PM
Some of you need to listen to Dr. Wallach interview and lectures.

His methods would solve about 85-90% of the mainstream health issues we all have in today's world.

He does say that we as humans should not be eating any kind of whole wheat. It's a complete myth that's it's healthy for you. It's actually not.

Wow, that's some really groundbreaking news.

BWillie
12-06-2012, 05:55 PM
Somebody, somewhere, will say some healthy food is bad for you.

Pants
12-06-2012, 10:10 PM
JFC. Humans have been genetically modifying their food from day one. This is a huge pet peeve for me. I don't understand how that's somehow a difficult concept to grasp for people. We have been selectively breeding plants and livestock for centuries upon centuries. Now that we're getting more efficient at it, it's somehow bad and dangerous.

Hormones and anti-biotics are another matter.

Mrs. Loopner
12-06-2012, 10:44 PM
Food Inc., 2008. Documentary. OR search Love Canal.
Either of those will scare the hell out of you. Everything's bad for you including the water you drink and meat we eat if you want to get real about it.

The herbicides, pesticides, airplane fuel that's intentionally dumped midair, and various other industrial chemicals that have leached into the soil get into all our food sources and the shelf life of that crap is a lot longer than any of our lives.

But none of this really matters anyway. We're all gonna die December 21st.

Pants
12-06-2012, 11:04 PM
Everything is the worst ever, yet we are enjoying the longest life-spans in the history of humanity.

Mrs. Loopner
12-06-2012, 11:15 PM
Everything is the worst ever, yet we are enjoying the longest life-spans in the history of humanity.

True that

La literatura
12-06-2012, 11:34 PM
I use GM wheat as a key ingredient for my meth.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-07-2012, 06:31 AM
JFC. Humans have been genetically modifying their food from day one. This is a huge pet peeve for me. I don't understand how that's somehow a difficult concept to grasp for people. We have been selectively breeding plants and livestock for centuries upon centuries. Now that we're getting more efficient at it, it's somehow bad and dangerous.

Hormones and anti-biotics are another matter.

There is a difference between breeding and injecting with a gene gun.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-07-2012, 06:35 AM
Everything is the worst ever, yet we are enjoying the longest life-spans in the history of humanity.

Only when taking into account infant mortality, which we are certainly progressing in. Otherwise I would say we are not living longer with all the new designer diseases.

Fish
12-07-2012, 07:48 AM
There is a difference between breeding and injecting with a gene gun.

Is there? Could you explain that difference for us?

KILLER_CLOWN
12-07-2012, 07:54 AM
Is there? Could you explain that difference for us?

One is natural and the other causes random unknown mutations, I'll let you guess which is which.

Fish
12-07-2012, 09:02 AM
One is natural and the other causes random unknown mutations, I'll let you guess which is which.

No, that is not correct. Both processes happen the same way. And saying that one causes random unknown mutations is completely false.

The DNA in a genome is made up of little chemical building blocks, abbreviated as A, C, T, and G. When scientists successfully decode or "Sequence" an organism's genome, they essentially have a complete blueprint of how each of the little A, C, T, and G building blocks are aligned in the genome. We can then introduce different DNA into the genome, because we know where to put it. We do it in the same chemical manner as what happens in nature. Just with more precision because we only introduce the individual genes we select. Being able to select only the genes we want actually allows for much more control over what traits are passed, compared to normal cross breeding in the field. Normal cross breeding in the field can actually pass traits that are unwanted. Not so with GMOs, we only introduce what we want.

So the processes happen the same way. There's nothing unknown or random about it. Quite the opposite. We wouldn't be doing so if there was a chance of something random or unknown occurring which would have potential negative effects. That's just not the way agro biology works. And this process is tested and regulated to the fullest extent possible.

There are two techniques for creating GMOs. One technique uses an agrobacterium that can insert the new trait into the plant genome using its normal cellular machinery. Or, we use what we call a “Gene gun” to shoot gold or platinum beads, which are coated with the DNA particles you want to insert, directly into the plant cell genome.

Breeders can cross their crop with a wild relative or crop relative to bring in a new trait—like disease resistance. After a series of genetic selections, we know we’ve moved that trait when we see the crop become disease resistant. But, we don’t know what other parts of that relative have also become integrated into the crop.

With the GMO approach, we can be more precise by putting in just that one defined piece of DNA we want without changing other genetic material. It also provides greater versatility, allowing you to capture and insert a gene from a plant, animal or bacterium that would be incapable of naturally crossing with the crop.

Both methods happen the same way, with foreign DNA being introduced, and chemically absorbed into the existing genome. There's nothing magical that separates the process that happens in nature with the process carried out by biologists. Biologists simply do the same thing with more control over the process.

This isn't Toxic Avenger or TMNT green goo type of Hollywood science....

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 09:48 AM
If I am not mistaken, this is terribly misleading. I do not believe there are any GMO Wheat varieties available anywhere.

This. At least I can't get any. As far as the Kansas Wheat Commission says, they haven't mapped the genome yet to do any gene splicing.

It's all GMO, unless you get it straight from the farmer.

It all comes from the farmer. I'm growing certified wheat for a dealer that is going to be sold as seed wheat that is going to be taken to the market. It's just seed from the breeder that hasn't been tainted by other varieties (I assume there is some sort of tolerance)

Hmm. I've always considered it a health food, but avoided it because it tasted like shit.

Fuck your mother. My wheat tastes awesome. I eat it like its going out of style.

Some of you need to listen to Dr. Wallach interview and lectures.

His methods would solve about 85-90% of the mainstream health issues we all have in today's world.

He does say that we as humans should not be eating any kind of whole wheat. It's a complete myth that's it's healthy for you. It's actually not.

Gotta get fiber somewhere. Plus the processing takes out a lot of the vitamins and minerals. Beyond that, I don't know much about the semantics of the latest greatest nutrition trend.

There is a difference between breeding and injecting with a gene gun.

As far as I know, there is no wheat that is GM. Even if they do get it, the EPA and FDA will take forever to get it to market like they did with corn and beans.

The way it is explained to me by the geneticists at the Kansas Wheat Commission is that the genome of wheat is markedly more complex than that of corn and beans. They've been trying to get GM wheat since they STARTED GM corn (70's I think), and still haven't gotten it done. I'm pretty sure it would be all over the farm rags I read if there were any of it getting in the market. At the very least, Kansas Wheat Commission would be able to access the genome and acknowledge that it had been mapped.

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 10:00 AM
Yes....but I suspect the reason for the rise in gluten intolerance or wheat allergies has to do with how it's been altered.

Bullshit. The original variety of Turkey Red that the Russians brought over isn't even around anymore. And who knows if that was "pure". It's been "modified" to come up with different varieties since the first harvest in the United States. And the "modifications" are the same as they have been since the 1800s.

Sorry. I gotta run up the bullshit flag on this one.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 10:05 AM
Bullshit. The original variety of Turkey Red that the Russians brought over isn't even around anymore. And who knows if that was "pure". It's been "modified" to come up with different varieties since the first harvest in the United States. And the "modifications" are the same as they have been since the 1800s.

Sorry. I gotta run up the bullshit flag on this one.

Well, I was not referring to different varieties. I am very allergic to wheat but I can eat the older forerunner to wheat called spelt—and get no reaction. The genome structure of modern wheat is much different than its wild ancestors.

Fish
12-07-2012, 10:13 AM
Well, I was not referring to different varieties. I am very allergic to wheat but I can eat the older forerunner to wheat called spelt—and get no reaction. The genome structure of modern wheat is much different than its wild ancestors.

Why would you think that?

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 10:14 AM
Some of you need to listen to Dr. Wallach interview and lectures.

His methods would solve about 85-90% of the mainstream health issues we all have in today's world.

He does say that we as humans should not be eating any kind of whole wheat. It's a complete myth that's it's healthy for you. It's actually not.

I will sell you a quarter (160 acres) for next to nothing out here and you can do all that shit. Just so long as I get first rights to the land after your bankruptcy and subsequent liquidation.

I don't know what this jackass is saying everyone should do, but I'm going to assume that it is something to do with sustainability and grow some livestock, and feed the livestock some grain and forage from the grain stalks and manure for fertilizer and blah blah blah keep everything organic. If that's wrong, let me know.

Look, the bottom line is this. There is a huge premium for organic products. The amount of yuppies that buy into it is truly mind boggling. The fact is there is a real and substantial market for organic goods. These jackasses (again, I'm not reading anything that dude says, just assuming) say that you can be just as productive being all organic. Accordingly, that insinuates that organic producers are just as productive as conventional producers and getting a huge premium. Therefore, they're making huge profits and filthy fucking rich. Almost all farmers are doing what they do for profit. Do you know why organic is not widely accepted? Because in most cases the profit isn't there. It doesn't fucking work. Some places can make something work if the premium is high enough. Some farmers do it on principle. Others do it so they can continue to farm like their dads and grandads did in the 30s and not have to go through the trouble of keeping up with the industry.

If it were genuinely feasible, with the organic premiums out there today, everybody would be doing it.

But go ahead. I'll sell you a quarter for next to nothing out here and you can show us how to do it. Just make damn sure I get the land back when you're bankrupt.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 10:15 AM
Why would you think that?

That's the science on it. It's a fact.

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 10:17 AM
Well, I was not referring to different varieties. I am very allergic to wheat but I can eat the older forerunner to wheat called spelt—and get no reaction. The genome structure of modern wheat is much different than its wild ancestors.

"Modern" wheat came to the US in the early 1800s IIRC, and that's after the Russians had been growing it forever. Most likely the reason you're not allergic to "spelt" is because it is a different plant. Not because it is GM.

Fish
12-07-2012, 10:17 AM
Also.... the wheat genome is already mapped. I thought that was the reason this fearmonger article was released...

USDA Scientists and Cooperators Sequence the Wheat Genome in Breakthrough for Global Food Security (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2012/11/0346.xml)

WASHINGTON, November 28, 2012—U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) scientists working as part of an international team have completed a shotgun sequencing of the wheat genome, a paper published in the journal Nature reported today. The achievement is expected to increase wheat yields, help feed the world and speed up development of wheat varieties with enhanced nutritional value.

"By unlocking the genetic secrets of wheat, this study and others like it give us the molecular tools necessary to improve wheat traits and allow our farmers to produce yields sufficient to feed growing populations in the United States and overseas," said Catherine Woteki, USDA's Chief Scientist and Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics. "Genetics provides us with important methods that not only increase yields, but also address the ever-changing threats agriculture faces from natural pests, crop diseases and changing climates."

Olin Anderson and Yong Gu, scientists with USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) based at the agency's Western Regional Research Center in Albany, Calif., played instrumental roles in the sequencing effort, along with Naxin Huo, a post-doctoral researcher working in Gu's laboratory. All three are co-authors of the Nature paper.

ARS is USDA's principal intramural scientific research agency, and the work supports the USDA goal of ensuring global food security.

As the world's largest agricultural research institute, USDA is focused on reducing global hunger by increasing global cooperation and collaboration on research strategies and their implementation. For example, through the U.S. government's Feed the Future initiative, USDA and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are coordinating their research portfolio with ongoing work of other donors, multilateral institutions, and government and non-government entities at the country level to effectively improve agricultural productivity, reduce food insecurity and generate economic opportunity.

Grown on more land area than any other commercial crop, wheat is the world's most important staple food, and its improvement has vast implications for global food security. The work to complete the shotgun sequencing of the wheat genome will help to improve programs on breeding and adaptation in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa for wheat crops that could be drought tolerant and resistant to weeds, pests and diseases.

ARS is one of nine institutions with researchers who contributed to the study. The lead authors are based in the United Kingdom and were funded by the British-based Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. Funding also was provided by USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture, or NIFA. NIFA focuses on investing in research, education and extension programs to help solve critical issues impacting people's daily lives.

The study represents the most detailed examination to date of the DNA that makes up the wheat genome, a crop domesticated thousands of years ago. The wheat genome is five times the size of the human genome, giving it a complexity that makes it difficult to study. The researchers used the whole genome shotgun sequencing approach, which essentially breaks up the genome into smaller, more workable segments for analysis and then pieces them together.

Another international team of scientists is working on a long-term project expected to result in more detailed sequencing results of the wheat genome in the years ahead. But the results published today shed light on wheat's DNA in a way that will help breeders develop hardier varieties by linking genes to key traits, such as disease resistance and drought tolerance.

Wheat evolved from three ancient grasses, and the ARS team, working closely with partners at University of California, Davis, sequenced the genome of one of those three parents, Aegilops tauschii. That sequencing, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, was instrumental in the study. It allowed researchers to identify the origins of many of the genes found in modern-day wheat, a key step in linking genes to traits and developing markers for use in breeding new varieties.

Wheat growers face numerous challenges each year. Acidity in the soil can make wheat difficult to grow in some areas. Stem rust, a fungal disease, can wipe out entire crops, and a particularly aggressive form of stem rust has developed the ability to knock out genetic resistance in many popular wheat varieties and is causing major losses overseas.

USDA scientists have conducted similar genomic studies that have helped to increase the productivity of dairy operations, enhance cattle breeding and improve on varieties of a number of other crops, including tomatoes, corn and soybean. In 2010, another ARS team published a paper in Nature detailing the sequencing of Brachypodium distachyon, a model plant used to study wheat, barley and biofuel crops.

Recent international research collaborations have been critical to meet challenges such as combating wheat rust and increasing wheat productivity, fighting aflatoxin contamination in food, and sequencing genomes of important crops.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 10:19 AM
USDA are the last people I'd trust for information on this. Even the govt food pyramid is bogus.

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 10:21 AM
LOL Spelt is a hybrid too....

It's from the wiki, but I'm not doing the research.

Wiki
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelt)
Spelt has a complex history. It is a wheat species known from genetic evidence to have originated as a hybrid of a domesticated tetraploid wheat such as emmer wheat and the wild goat-grass Aegilops tauschii. This hybridisation must have taken place in the Near East because this is where Ae. tauschii grows, and it must have taken place prior to the appearance of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum, a hexaploid free-threshing derivative of spelt) in the archaeological record c. 8,000 years ago.
Genetic evidence shows that spelt wheat can also arise as the result of hybridisation of bread wheat and emmer wheat, although only at some date following the initial Aegilops-tetraploid wheat hybridisation. The much later appearance of spelt in Europe might thus be the result of a later, second, hybridisation between emmer and bread wheat. Recent DNA evidence supports an independent origin for European spelt through this hybridisation.[3] Whether spelt has two separate origins in Asia and Europe, or single origin in the Near East, is currently unresolved.[4][5]

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 10:25 AM
"Modern" wheat came to the US in the early 1800s IIRC, and that's after the Russians had been growing it forever. Most likely the reason you're not allergic to "spelt" is because it is a different plant. Not because it is GM.

Um, I said it had been altered. To my knowledge not all wheat is GMO yet. And no, spelt is not just a different plant. It's the forerunner to modern wheat, a sub-species and an ancient grain. I believe it once grew wild.


Spelt (Triticum aestivum var. spelta) is a sub-species of common wheat
http://www.heirloom-organics.com/guide/va/guidetogrowingspelt.html

Spelt is an ancient grain that traces its heritage back long before many wheat hybrids. Many of its benefits come from this fact: it offers a broader spectrum of nutrients compared to many of its more inbred cousins in the Triticum (wheat) family. Spelt features a host of different nutrients. It is an excellent source of manganese, and a good source of protein, copper, and zinc.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=143

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 10:26 AM
Also.... the wheat genome is already mapped. I thought that was the reason this fearmonger article was released...



Fuck yeah :rockon: I didn't know they finally made some headway on this. When the Kansas Wheat Commission told us they were close, I thought, "yeah right. And I'm close to banging Olivia Wilde, I just need some more funding."

Maybe I should call Olivia Wilde.

Fish
12-07-2012, 10:31 AM
USDA are the last people I'd trust for information on this. Even the govt food pyramid is bogus.

It's not just the USDA announcing this dummy. Do a search on it.

http://www.wheatgenome.org/

I have a friend at K-State that's been working on this(http://www.k-state.edu/wgrc/). The sequencing project has been undertaken by a huge consortium of agro biologists from all over the world. There's an infinite amount of data available on this.

Brock
12-07-2012, 10:31 AM
Even the govt food pyramid is bogus.

That much is certainly true.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 10:33 AM
It's not just the USDA announcing this dummy. Do a search on it.

http://www.wheatgenome.org/

I have a friend at K-State that's been working on this. The sequencing project has been undertaken by a huge consortium of agro biologists from all over the world. There's an infinite amount of data available on this.

I'll go by my allergy-specialist and nutrition trained doctor, instead of some "state" school or global consortium that into genetic modifications. I think nature does a better job. Thank you.

Although, I don't see what that has to do with originally saying wheat has been altered. This site is advocating more human intervention.

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 10:33 AM
Um, I said it had been altered. To my knowledge not all wheat is GMO yet. And no, spelt is not just a different plant. It's the forerunner to modern wheat, a sub-species and an ancient grain. I believe it once grew wild.



http://www.heirloom-organics.com/guide/va/guidetogrowingspelt.html



http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=143

It's a different plant. Hell it looks more like joint grass than wheat. And if you look at the wiki entry, it was hybridized from other grasses. It is no different than the wheat we have now. You just happen to not be allergic to it.

And how do you know you're allergic to all modern wheat? Is it hard red winter? Hard white winter? Spring hard wheat? Spring soft wheat? All of these things are actual wheats. And you're sure you're allergic to all of them?

Look. You found a plant that you're allergic to the seeds from. You found a different plant that you're not allergic to the seeds from. That's all that's going on here.

Fish
12-07-2012, 10:35 AM
I'll go by my allergy-specialist and nutrition trained doctor. Thank you.

Of course.... You know one doctor that said something that goes against accepted scientific knowledge, and you base your truth on that. Shocker...

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 10:39 AM
I'll go by my allergy-specialist and nutrition trained doctor, instead of some "state" school. Thank you.

ROFL

KSU, Texas A&M, and to a lesser extent Oklahoma State have most of the talent involving wheat gentics in the US. In fact, before Monsanto and Syngenta got in the game a decade or so ago, ALL OF THE WHEAT IN THE NATION came from "state" schools. Wheat genetics for a long time were considered public information and couldn't be privatized.

JFC.

And for fucks fucking sake, he's an ALLERGY doctor trained in NUTRION. And you're thinking he knows more about wheat than "state" schools who are responsible for about 85% of the wheat genetics in the country?

My god. Why the fuck do I post in the DC?

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 10:39 AM
Of course.... You know one doctor that said something that goes against accepted scientific knowledge, and you base your truth on that. Shocker...

No, I go by "accepted" scientific knowledge of those in the field of natural health. Just because something is "accepted" by the "accepted" doesn't mean it's correct. I am happy there are places that reject them, and sell, what I consider,are better, safer and healthier alternatives. We each can do our own valuing so long as there are free-markets that provide choices.

Feel free to rely on those who pushed low-fat high-carb diets resulting in obesity and an increase of diabetes. I go by results.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 10:42 AM
ROFL

KSU, Texas A&M, and to a lesser extent Oklahoma State have most of the talent involving wheat gentics in the US. In fact, before Monsanto and Syngenta got in the game a decade or so ago, ALL OF THE WHEAT IN THE NATION came from "state" schools. Wheat genetics for a long time were considered public information and couldn't be privatized.

Well there you go. You've proved my point. Now gluten free foods are the rage. ( Yes I know spelt has gluten in it but it is safe from some.)
There's gotta be a reason for the nervous laugh.



And for ****s ****ing sake, he's an ALLERGY doctor trained in NUTRION. And you're thinking he knows more about wheat than "state" schools who are responsible for about 85% of the wheat genetics in the country?

My god. Why the **** do I post in the DC?
It's a "she" and she got results where mainstream doctors failed to. I will go by results. You can go by state-funded think or group-think. I'll make my own choices.

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 10:44 AM
No, I go by "accepted" scientific knowledge of those in the field of natural health. Just because something is "accepted" by the "accepted" doesn't mean it's correct. I am happy there are places that reject them, and sell, what I consider,are better, safer and healthier alternatives. We each can do our own valuing so long as there are free-markets that provide choices.

Feel free to rely on those who pushed low-fat high-carb diets resulting in obesity and an increase of diabetes. I go by results.

I'm not going to argue that a grain free diet can have some health benefits.

But don't come in here and say that "new" wheat is bad because you found some "old" wheat at some overpriced health food store that you're not allergic to when the fact of the matter is that it is a hybrid and hasn't been developed or grown any fucking different than the "new" wheat.

All you've done is found a species of plant that produces a seed that you're not allergic to.

But go ahead. Say all wheat is bad. Farmers are evil. Everything is a conspiracy. We're all going to fucking die. All because you found a plant that produces a seed you're not allergic to.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 10:44 AM
It's a different plant. Hell it looks more like joint grass than wheat. And if you look at the wiki entry, it was hybridized from other grasses. It is no different than the wheat we have now. You just happen to not be allergic to it.

It is different. Wiki is only good for a starting point. It isn't always good enough since anyone can edit it. But it also mentions coming from wild goat-grass too.

And how do you know you're allergic to all modern wheat? Is it hard red winter? Hard white winter? Spring hard wheat? Spring soft wheat? All of these things are actual wheats. And you're sure you're allergic to all of them?

Blood tests. Only spelt I don't react to.

Look. You found a plant that you're allergic to the seeds from. You found a different plant that you're not allergic to the seeds from. That's all that's going on here.

That's why it has the word Triticum in them.

Look. We disagree.

Fish
12-07-2012, 10:46 AM
No, I go by "accepted" scientific knowledge of those in the field of natural health. Just because something is "accepted" by the "accepted" doesn't mean it's correct. I am happy there are places that reject them, and sell, what I consider,are better, safer and healthier alternatives. We each can do our own valuing so long as there are free-markets that provide choices.

Feel free to rely on those who pushed low-fat high-carb diets resulting in obesity and an increase of diabetes. I go by results.

You are simply hilarious....

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 10:47 AM
Well there you go. You've proved my point. Now gluten free foods are the rage. ( Yes I know spelt has gluten in it but it is safe from some.)
There's gotta be a reason for the nervous laugh.


It's a "she" and she got results where mainstream doctors failed to. I will go by results. You can go by state-funded think or group-think. I'll make my own choices.

Nervous? I'm laughing because you said your ALLERGY doctors know more about wheat than the wheat breeders. That level of stupid is legitmately funny.

The bottom line is you found a plant that produces a seed you're not allergic to and then extrapolated that to "the entire food industry is evil" and call anything else group think or lemmings, or whatever else is the hippie thing to say.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 10:49 AM
Okay, you guys are into university research.

This is what The University of Vermont says about spelt:


Spelt is a grain that has come up in recent discussions about whole grains. Spelt is an ancient grain that dates back to the Neolithic era (The New Stone Age), 10,000 B.C. Spelt is one of the three ancient wheat varieties; the other two ancient varieties are emmer and einkorn. What a history! These grains grew wild and once people figured out that they could plant the seeds, communities were formed and ended some of the nomadic wandering in search of food.

http://www.uvm.edu/extension/?Page=news&storyID=10314&category=extension

Wilder versions of plant foods are considered healthier by natural health folks, as they are less man-made and more natural.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 10:49 AM
You are simply hilarious....

Thank you for conceding.

Bump
12-07-2012, 10:49 AM
If CSIRO was serious about these claims, they would release the details of its testing, right? If this were really a "Perfect Chronic Poison" being introduced to our food supply, they'd share all their info as soon as possible so action could be taken to prevent death, right? But they haven't, and they won't, because it's nothing but a BS scare tactic.

you are probably right about the article being BS. But they sure as hell wouldn't alert people if it really would kill. In fact, they would do everything that they could to cover it up and would do it again for profits.

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 10:49 AM
It is different. Wiki is only good for a starting point. It isn't always good enough since anyone can edit it. But it also mentions coming from wild goat-grass too.



Blood tests. Only spelt I don't react to.



That's why it has the word Triticum in them.

Look. We disagree.

I said I didn't care enough to do the research. It's a different plant. It puts on a different seed.

We can disagree, that's fine. But you're assertion that modern wheat is bad because it isn't like an entirely different plant and that somehow the food industry is bad as a result of it is just asinine.

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 10:53 AM
Okay, you guys are into university research.

This is what The University of Vermont says about spelt:




http://www.uvm.edu/extension/?Page=news&storyID=10314&category=extension

Extension is what you come up with? And you think Wiki is a bad source?

Look. It is a different plant. Just based on a google image search, there are enough phynological differences in the plants to wheat to know it is not wheat.

Hell, Winter wheat and Spring wheat are different enough to be different species.

This is a different plant. That you're not allergic to. Goody.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 10:55 AM
Nervous? I'm laughing because you said your ALLERGY doctors know more about wheat than the wheat breeders. That level of stupid is legitmately funny.

She knows food and allergies and knows it's an ancient grain. Natural health practitioners lean toward original wild version of food being better for you. This includes cows or cattle once ate wild grasses that had wild herbs among them to handle disease. It means wild salmon not farm raised having more nutrients in it for you.

The bottom line is you found a plant that produces a seed you're not allergic to and then extrapolated that to "the entire food industry is evil" and call anything else group think or lemmings, or whatever else is the hippie thing to say.

No I didn't find anything. I was sick and no pathology showed with mainstream blood work. I had blood work re-done looking for other things. Spelt was suggested as a safer alternative after extensive blood work ( dipping my blood into 40 different foods). I tried it and it worked. No reaction. I was originally told it was a wild grain.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 10:57 AM
Look. It is a different plant. Just based on a google image search, there are enough phynological differences in the plants to wheat to know it is not wheat.

Hell, Winter wheat and Spring wheat are different enough to be different species.

This is a different plant. That you're not allergic to. Goody.

Different plant but still a type of wheat.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 11:00 AM
Also the same is true for milk. Raw milk contains enzymes that help one digest it. It's good for you. Pasteurization kills these enzymes. Now we have so many allergies or intolerance to dairy. Yet it's illegal in the states. That's govt for you. It's not that milk per se is bad—it's what's been done to it.

Yeah, yeah, I know spare me all the dire warnings about safety. It should still be allowed as it is in other countries with some safeguards. So longer as people want to take their own chances. It's another over-processed food that's been made "safer." LOL!

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 11:00 AM
She knows food and allergies and knows it's an ancient grain. Natural health practitioners lean toward original wild version of food being better for you. This includes cows or cattle once ate wild grasses that had wild herbs among them to handle disease. It means wild salmon not farm raised having more nutrients in it for you.



No I didn't find anything. I was sick and no pathology showed with mainstream blood work. I had blood work re-done looking for other things. Spelt was suggested as a safer alternative after extensive blood work ( dipping my blood into 40 different foods). I tried it and it worked. No reaction. I was originally told it was a wild grain.

It's all BS. Eat spelt if it works for you. But don't tell me that my wheat is bad because it is not like a different plant that you're not allergic to.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 11:01 AM
Extension is what you come up with? And you think Wiki is a bad source?

Look. It is a different plant. Just based on a google image search, there are enough phynological differences in the plants to wheat to know it is not wheat.

Hell, Winter wheat and Spring wheat are different enough to be different species.

This is a different plant. That you're not allergic to. Goody.

No, it was a university, which is what you guys were citing as reliable. Just using one of your own.
This, however, matches what my doc told me about it once growing wild.

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 11:02 AM
Different plant but still a type of wheat.

I bet you could make some good bread from Downy Brome

http://www.colostate.edu/Dept/CoopExt/Adams/weed/img/cheatgrass.jpg

Joint grass

http://map.co.door.wi.us/swcd/Grass%20-%20Blue%20Joint%20Grass2.jpg

Or some feral rye grass

http://extension.usu.edu/weedweb/photo/f-rye_b.jpg

Then you'd be good and organic. And you could even harvest your own from the ditches.

All types of wheat by your definition. That's why they are so hard to kill in a wheat field. But they are still different plants that put off a different seed that any one person may or may not be allergic to.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 11:05 AM
It's all BS. Eat spelt if it works for you. But don't tell me that my wheat is bad because it is not like a different plant that you're not allergic to.

This is the second post where you've put words into my posts I did not use, such as "wheat is bad". I did not make a blanket generality but a specific statement about the rise in allergies.

This is what I posted:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea View Post
Yes....but I suspect the reason for the rise in gluten intolerance or wheat allergies has to do with how it's been altered.

Let me know when you can read instead creating a bunch of straw man arguments.

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 11:06 AM
No, it was a university, which is what you guys were citing as reliable. Just using one of your own.
This, however, matches what my doc told me about it once growing wild.

I'm just stacking shit on you. But be it known that there is a MAJOR difference between a university study and extension publications.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 11:08 AM
I'm just stacking shit on you. But be it known that there is a MAJOR difference between a university study and extension publications.

Yet, it was published on a university site. They must have thought something of it to post that it once grew wild.<---- the latter being the reason I used it. It matched what my doctor told me.

Fish
12-07-2012, 11:11 AM
Thank you for conceding.

Yeah, that's how a crazy person justifies their crazy thinking. You win.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 11:12 AM
Yeah, that's how a crazy person justifies their crazy thinking. You win.

Whoosh! The point went over your head.

Fish
12-07-2012, 11:12 AM
Yet, it was published on a university site. They must have thought something of it to post that it once grew wild.<---- the latter being the reason I used it. It matched what my doctor told me.

Everything grew wild at some point in the past. That's not a shocking revelation...

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 11:14 AM
This is the second post where you've put words into my posts I did not use, such as "wheat is bad". I did not make a blanket generality but a specific statement about the rise in allergies.

This is what I posted:



Let me know when you can read instead creating a bunch of straw man arguments.

I'm growing "new" wheat. Even though it has come about just like you're "old" wheat that is a different plant.

You stated there is a rise in gluten intollerance or wheat allergies. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you are asserting that sickness and disorders are bad.

You then stated that the gluten intollerance and wheat allergies are due to how the "new" wheat has been "altered". I'm assuming you mean bred. Which mind you is the same way that you "old" wheat is/was bred. Because there really isn't any way to alter it during growth. If you are referring to how it is processed into foods and flours, then it isn't the problem with the wheat, it is a problem with the processing.

So if you're asserting that my "new" wheat is different than you're "old" wheat because of the way it has bred and has led to intollerance and disorders that are assumed to be bad, then yeah, you're saying my wheat is bad.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 11:19 AM
I'm growing "new" wheat. Even though it has come about just like you're "old" wheat that is a different plant.

You stated there is a rise in gluten intollerance or wheat allergies. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you are asserting that sickness and disorders are bad.

You then stated that the gluten intollerance and wheat allergies are due to how the "new" wheat has been "altered". I'm assuming you mean bred. Which mind you is the same way that you "old" wheat is/was bred. Because there really isn't any way to alter it during growth. If you are referring to how it is processed into foods and flours, then it isn't the problem with the wheat, it is a problem with the processing.

So if you're asserting that my "new" wheat is different than you're "old" wheat because of the way it has bred and has led to intollerance and disorders that are assumed to be bad, then yeah, you're saying my wheat is bad.

No that's your extrapolation.

Alteration changes the food is what I am saying. That alteration can affect reaction to the food. Even fermenting a food can change a person's reaction.
Also, to those in natural health, nature is preferred as it has things in it man has yet to isolate.

Plus, academia is a profession that has been monopolized by the state. This was one of your and some other's sources. I am not very pro-state because it's ham-fisted way of doing things generally. This is not to say all they do is bad.

Fish
12-07-2012, 11:30 AM
No that's your extrapolation.

Alteration changes the food is what I am saying. That alteration can affect reaction to the food. Even fermenting a food can change a person's reaction.
Also, to those in natural health, nature is preferred as it has things in it man has yet to isolate.

Plus, academia is a profession that has been monopolized by the state. This was one of your and some other's sources. I am not very pro-state because it's ham-fisted way of doing things generally. This is not to say all they do is bad.

:facepalm:

JFC you're a dumb gypsy.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 11:32 AM
:facepalm:

JFC you're a dumb gypsy.

Thank you for conceding.

That happens to be the standard point of view of natural health industry...certainly the ones that are organic, insist on whole food vitamins due to the co-factors than have not been isolated by man yet, or eat grass-fed beef?

Explain to me why I cannot eat safflower oil, but when I use it on my skin with an organic product I don't get the same hives then?

Could it be a different kind?

theelusiveeightrop
12-07-2012, 11:36 AM
Opiates make you eat? Wildly misinformed. Doctor of what? Quack.

BucEyedPea
12-07-2012, 11:39 AM
Opiates make you eat? Wildly misinformed. Doctor of what? Quack.

Who said opiates make "you eat?" Typical msm viewpoint on the "quack" point.

You do know that medical doctors called chiros quacks for years?
Their AMA was found quilty of slandering a whole profession in order to eliminate it. Some people hate competition and free markets.
Meanwhile, how many die from properly prescribed pharmaceuticals? It's no wonder that these same folks have tried to get vitamin supplements regulated or buy them out, then replace the amounts in them to weaker amounts.

Fish
12-07-2012, 11:52 AM
Thank you for conceding.

That happens to be the standard point of view of natural health industry...certainly the ones that are organic, insist on whole food vitamins due to the co-factors than have not been isolated by man yet, or eat grass-fed beef?

Explain to me why I cannot eat safflower oil, but when I use it on my skin with an organic product I don't get the same hives then?

Could it be a different kind?

There is nothing to be isolated. The entire genome has been sequenced. And you have no comprehension of what that means. So we're left at an impasse here with you arguing that your homeopathic acquaintance knows more about the genetic structure of wheat than the agriculture industry worldwide who have been working on it for decades. And your only justification for your position, is that you ingested some form of wheat and got allergies, then ingested another form and didn't. It's clear that you don't understand the topic, and are only relying on your personal experience, and extrapolating that to the entire history of wheat production.

Your little personal anecdote about reaction to safflower oil is irrelevant. Whatever reactions you may have to ingesting or topically applying that to your own skin isn't applicable to anyone but you. That is proof of nothing but your own fucked up immunological makeup.

Huffmeister
12-07-2012, 11:58 AM
One is natural and the other causes random unknown mutations, I'll let you guess which is which.

"Random unknown mutations" is exactly what nature has been doing for the last few billion years. So they sound like exactly the same thing.

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 12:06 PM
No that's your extrapolation.

What the goddamned fuck? What did I extrapolate? The only fucking thing I extrapolated was that your term "alteration" means something other than breeding. At which point, you're a fucking idiot because there is no other way to alter the plant until the grain is processed.

I guess you could say that I extrapolated that you think gluten intollerance and allergies are bad. If they aren't bad, then why the fuck are you arguing so passionately about it?

What the fuck did I extrapolate?

Alteration changes the food is what I am saying. That alteration can affect reaction to the food. Even fermenting a food can change a person's reaction.
Also, to those in natural health, nature is preferred as it has things in it man has yet to isolate.

What the fuck are you talking about? Alterations to something changes it? My fucking GOD! How did we miss that? Again, I assume you are talking about breeding. If you breed different characteristics into a plant it is going to be different. That's the point.

Fermenting changes how someone reacts to it? So if someone eats fermented corn they'll respond differently than if they eat cornmeal? I don't get what the hell you are saying.

Nature is preferred? You think I'm growing wheat in a lab? Or are you suggesting that your spelt is better than wheat? Because spelt has been hybridized too. And in the exact same manner that wheat has. If it is better it is because it is a different fucking plant.

Plus, academia is a profession that has been monopolized by the state. This was one of your and some other's sources. I am not very pro-state because it's ham-fisted way of doing things generally. This is not to say all they do is bad.

LOL WUT? So it is all a conspiracy? It is all the states fault because they have done research on a product that the industry chose to grow a plant that makes a seed that you're allergic to?

Radar Chief
12-07-2012, 12:12 PM
There is nothing to be isolated.

What did I extrapolate?

You guys realize you’re arguing with a crazy person, right?
I mean, go right ahead, just so you know.

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 12:15 PM
You guys realize you’re arguing with a crazy person, right?
I mean, go right ahead, just so you know.

Ohhhhhh. She's crazy?

I thought maybe I was getting trolled.

This thread reminds me why I stay the fuck out of the DC. JFC.

Buehler445
12-07-2012, 12:25 PM
http://www.kew.org/science/ecbot/papers/nesbitt2001wheat.pdf

Oh, and Buc, read pages 39 and 40 of this scanned paper. It is from the Institute of Archaeology, from the University College London, so it isn't some "ham handed" "state" school that just fucks everything up.

It marks your precious spelt as a domesticated hulled wheat. It marks "bread wheat" as domesticated freethreshing wheat. It then goes on to say, "Domestication is the process by which humans take reproductive control of plants or animals, modifying them for their own purposes. Selection pressures applied - consciously or unconsciously - in cultivation and harvesting have resulted in significant adaptations of crops to human needs." This means that the ancients have "altered" your precious spelt.

Also read this.
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/spelt.html

Spelt (Triticum aestivum var. spelta) is a sub-species of common wheat. It has been grown in Europe for about 300 years. Spelt was introduced to the United States in the 1890s.

Most of the nation's spelt acreage is in Ohio. That state grows between 100,000 and 200,000 acres of spelt annually, about 10 times more than any other state. A few varieties of spelt were developed in the early part of this century. They are no longer identifiable, and spelt has been considered an undeveloped crop. In 1986, The Ohio State University released an improved winter variety, named 'Champ'.

Spelt is often erroneously called "speltz." Sometimes emmer, another subspecies of wheat that includes dururn wheat, is incorrectly called spelt.

Spelt you buy is treated and has been treated throughout human history the same as wheat. In fact, OSU came out with a new variety, just like KSU, OSU, and aTm do with wheat.

And that took me 5 mintues to research.

Dave Lane
12-07-2012, 12:46 PM
ROFL

KSU, Texas A&M, and to a lesser extent Oklahoma State have most of the talent involving wheat gentics in the US. In fact, before Monsanto and Syngenta got in the game a decade or so ago, ALL OF THE WHEAT IN THE NATION came from "state" schools. Wheat genetics for a long time were considered public information and couldn't be privatized.

JFC.

And for ****s ****ing sake, he's an ALLERGY doctor trained in NUTRION. And you're thinking he knows more about wheat than "state" schools who are responsible for about 85% of the wheat genetics in the country?

My god. Why the **** do I post in the DC?

Oh crap now you will probably get 2 neg reps from BEP. You are probably a sick puppy. I am.

Dave Lane
12-07-2012, 12:48 PM
you are probably right about the article being BS. But they sure as hell wouldn't alert people if it really would kill. In fact, they would do everything that they could to cover it up and would do it again for profits.

You do realize that the "scientists" and whatever bogey men you imagine eat the same food the rest of us do.

So if it was poison and they and their families are going to be poisoned by it you don't think they would object?

HonestChieffan
12-07-2012, 05:22 PM
It's a different plant. Hell it looks more like joint grass than wheat. And if you look at the wiki entry, it was hybridized from other grasses. It is no different than the wheat we have now. You just happen to not be allergic to it.

And how do you know you're allergic to all modern wheat? Is it hard red winter? Hard white winter? Spring hard wheat? Spring soft wheat? All of these things are actual wheats. And you're sure you're allergic to all of them?

Look. You found a plant that you're allergic to the seeds from. You found a different plant that you're not allergic to the seeds from. That's all that's going on here.

Buehler. From one aggie to another do not sttempt to explain things of this nature to BEP. Its fruitless. Corn is closely related to gamma grass and has as much in common as spelt to wheat or plantains to a banana or a hedge tree to an oak

Save yourself and get out while you can

Ebolapox
12-07-2012, 05:39 PM
holy shit, BEP is one crazy loon.

HonestChieffan
12-07-2012, 06:13 PM
We casterated bull calves today. Gmo on the move in MO. We are all gonna die.

Pants
12-07-2012, 08:59 PM
Fish's patience never ceases to amaze me.

ghak99
12-07-2012, 09:24 PM
:facepalm:

Our species is in desperate need of some culling.

Dave Lane
12-07-2012, 09:48 PM
Fish's patience never ceases to amaze me.

He has the patience of Ghandi.

My brother once told me, "you don't tolerate fools well", and he was right.

Mrs. Loopner
12-07-2012, 09:50 PM
Okay, you guys are into university research.

This is what The University of Vermont says about spelt:

http://www.uvm.edu/extension/?Page=news&storyID=10314&category=extension

Wilder versions of plant foods are considered healthier by natural health folks, as they are less man-made and more natural.

And, do you realized The Unversity of Vermont Extension office which you are using to support your position is largerly funded by governemnt State and Federal funds??
You say about the govenment funded USDA in an earlier post...

USDA are the last people I'd trust for information on this. Even the govt food pyramid is bogus.

I don't get the difference then... parts is parts

http://www.uvm.edu/extension/?Page=about.php

UVM Extension ...
• received funding on February 15, 1913 with an appropriation from the Vermont Legislature.
• continues to serve the residents of Vermont after close to 100 years.
• has offices and personnel in 11 of 14 Vermont counties.
• has faculty and staff with specialties in community development, human nutrition, youth, natural resources, and agriculture.
• currently has over 200 faculty and staff employees.
• has an annual budget over $11.5 million (federal, state, grant, and fee) dollars, and is focused on solving problems in the state.

Mrs. Loopner
12-07-2012, 09:53 PM
We casterated bull calves today. Gmo on the move in MO. We are all gonna die.

Yep, December 21st is upon us...

KILLER_CLOWN
12-07-2012, 10:06 PM
No, that is not correct. Both processes happen the same way. And saying that one causes random unknown mutations is completely false.

The DNA in a genome is made up of little chemical building blocks, abbreviated as A, C, T, and G. When scientists successfully decode or "Sequence" an organism's genome, they essentially have a complete blueprint of how each of the little A, C, T, and G building blocks are aligned in the genome. We can then introduce different DNA into the genome, because we know where to put it. We do it in the same chemical manner as what happens in nature. Just with more precision because we only introduce the individual genes we select. Being able to select only the genes we want actually allows for much more control over what traits are passed, compared to normal cross breeding in the field. Normal cross breeding in the field can actually pass traits that are unwanted. Not so with GMOs, we only introduce what we want.

So the processes happen the same way. There's nothing unknown or random about it. Quite the opposite. We wouldn't be doing so if there was a chance of something random or unknown occurring which would have potential negative effects. That's just not the way agro biology works. And this process is tested and regulated to the fullest extent possible.

There are two techniques for creating GMOs. One technique uses an agrobacterium that can insert the new trait into the plant genome using its normal cellular machinery. Or, we use what we call a “Gene gun” to shoot gold or platinum beads, which are coated with the DNA particles you want to insert, directly into the plant cell genome.

Breeders can cross their crop with a wild relative or crop relative to bring in a new trait—like disease resistance. After a series of genetic selections, we know we’ve moved that trait when we see the crop become disease resistant. But, we don’t know what other parts of that relative have also become integrated into the crop.

With the GMO approach, we can be more precise by putting in just that one defined piece of DNA we want without changing other genetic material. It also provides greater versatility, allowing you to capture and insert a gene from a plant, animal or bacterium that would be incapable of naturally crossing with the crop.

Both methods happen the same way, with foreign DNA being introduced, and chemically absorbed into the existing genome. There's nothing magical that separates the process that happens in nature with the process carried out by biologists. Biologists simply do the same thing with more control over the process.

This isn't Toxic Avenger or TMNT green goo type of Hollywood science....

Ok are you familiar with the GM FlavrSavr tomato? What about the studies on this page? not reputable?

http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/1notes


Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on google More Sharing Services
65 Health Risks of GM Foods

Section 1: Evidence of reactions in animals and humans

1.1 GM potatoes damaged rats
1. Rats were fed potatoes engineered to produce their own insecticide.
2. They developed potentially precancerous cell growth in the digestive tract, inhibited development of their brains, livers and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, enlarged pancreases and intestines and immune system damage.
3. The cause was not the insecticide, but in all likelihood was the process of genetic engineering.
4. GM foods on the market—which were created with the same process—have not been subject to such an extensive testing protocol.

1.2 Rats fed GM tomatoes got bleeding stomachs, several died
1. Rats were fed the GM FlavrSavr tomato for 28 days.
2. Seven of 20 rats developed stomach lesions (bleeding stomachs); another 7 of 40 died within two weeks and were replaced in the study.
3. The tomato was approved despite unresolved safety questions by FDA scientists.

1.3 Rats fed Bt corn had multiple health problems
1. Rats were fed Monsanto's Mon 863 Bt corn for 90 days.
2. They showed significant changes in their blood cells, livers and kidneys, which might indicate disease.
3. Although experts demanded follow-up, Monsanto used unscientific, contradictory arguments to dismiss concerns.

1.4 Mice fed GM Bt potatoes had intestinal damage
1. Mice were fed either GM potatoes engineered to produce the Bt-toxin or natural potatoes spiked with Bt-toxin.
2. Both diets created abnormal and excessive cell growth in the lower part of their small intestine (ileum).
3. Similar damage to the human small intestine might result in incontinence or flu-like symptoms, and may be precancerous.
4. This study overturns the assumptions that Bt-toxin is destroyed during digestion and is not biologically active in mammals.

1.5 Workers exposed to Bt cotton developed allergies
1. Agricultural laborers in six villages who picked or loaded Bt cotton reported reactions of the skin, eyes and upper respiratory tract.
2. Some laborers required hospitalization.
3. Employees at a cotton gin factory take antihistamines everyday.
4. One doctor treated about 250 cotton laborers

1.6 Sheep died after grazing in Bt cotton fields
1. After the cotton harvest in parts of India, sheep herds grazed continuously on Bt cotton plants.
2. Reports from four villages revealed that about 25% of the sheep died within a week.
3. Post mortem studies suggest a toxic reaction.

1.7 Inhaled Bt corn pollen may have triggered disease in humans
1. In 2003, approximately 100 people living next to a Bt cornfield in the Philippines developed skin, respiratory, intestinal reactions and other symptoms while the corn was shedding pollen.
2. Blood tests of 39 people showed an antibody response to Bt-toxin, which supports—but does not prove—a link.
3. The symptoms reappeared in 2004 in at least four other villages that planted the same corn variety.
4. Villagers also attribute several animal deaths to the corn.

1.8 Farmers report pigs and cows became sterile from GM corn
1. More than 20 farmers in North America report that pigs fed GM corn varieties had low conception rates, false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water.
2. Both male and female pigs became sterile.
3. Some farmers also report sterility among cows.

1.9 Twelve cows in Germany died mysteriously when fed Bt corn
1. Twelve dairy cows died on a farm in Hesse Germany, after being fed a diet with significant amounts of a single GM corn variety, Bt 176.
2. Other cows in the herd had to be killed due to some mysterious illness.
3. Syngenta, the producers of Bt 176, compensated the farmer for part of his losses, but did not admit responsibility for the cow deaths.
4. In spite of demands by the farmer and even public protests, no detailed autopsy reports were made available.

1.10 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had liver cell problems
1. The liver cells of mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans showed significant changes.
2. Irregularly shaped nuclei and nucleoli, an increased number of nuclear pores and other changes, all suggest higher metabolism and altered patterns of gene expression.
3. The changes may be in response to a toxin.
4. Most of the effects disappeared when GM soy was removed from the diet.

1.11 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had problems with the pancreas
1. Mice fed GM soy showed changes in the synthesis and processing of digestive enzymes.
2. The production of alpha-amylase, a major digestive enzyme, dropped by as much as 77%.
3. This, combined with other pancreatic changes, suggests that GM soy may interfere with digestion and assimilation, as well as alter gene expression.

1.12 Mice fed Roundup Ready soy had unexplained changes in testicular cells
1. The structure and gene expression pattern of testicle cells of mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans changed significantly.
2. The cause for the changes is unknown, but the testicles are sensitive indicators of toxins.
3. Some of the changes might possibly influence adult fertility as well as the health of the offspring.
4. Mouse embryos from GM-fed mothers did show a temporary decrease in gene expression.

1.13 Roundup Ready Soy Changed Cell Metabolism in Rabbit Organs
1. Rabbits fed GM soy for about 40 days showed significant differences in the amounts of certain enzymes in their kidneys, hearts and livers.
2. A rise in LDH1 levels in all three organs suggests an increase in cellular metabolism.
3. Changes in other enzymes point to other alterations in the organs.

1.14 Most offspring of rats fed Roundup Ready soy died within three weeks
1. Female rats were fed Roundup Ready soy starting before conception and continuing through pregnancy and weaning.
2. Of the offspring, 55.6% died within three weeks compared to 9% from non-GM soy controls.
3. Some pups from GM-fed mothers were significantly smaller and both mothers and pups were more aggressive.
4. In a separate study, after a lab began feeding rats a commercial diet containing GM soy, offspring mortality reached 55.3%.
5. When offspring from GM-fed rats were mated together, they were unable to conceive.

1.15 Soy allergies skyrocketed in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced
1. In a single year, 1999, soy allergies in the UK jumped from 10% to 15% of the sampled population.
2. GM soy was imported into the country shortly before 1999.
3. Antibody tests verify that some individuals react differently to GM and non-GM soy varieties.
4. GM soy also has an increased concentration of a known allergen

1.16 Rats fed Roundup Ready canola had heavier livers
1. The livers of rats fed GM canola were 12-16% heavier than those fed non-GM varieties.
2. The liver is a chemical factory and primary detoxifier for the body.
3. Heavier livers may indicate liver disease or inflammation.
4. If this were caused by oil-soluble toxins, they may be present in canola oil.

1.17 Twice the number of chickens died when fed Liberty Link corn
1. The death rate for chickens fed Chardon LL GM corn for 42 days was 7%, compared to 3.5% for controls.
2. GM-fed chickens also had more erratic body weight and food intake, and less weight gain overall.
3. The study was designed so that only huge differences would be statistically significant.
4. The results were therefore dismissed without follow-up.

1.18 GM peas generated an allergic-type inflammatory response in mice
1. In advanced tests not normally part of GM crop evaluations, protein produced by GM peas generated a dangerous immune response in mice.
2. That "same" protein, when produced naturally in beans, had no effect.
3. The GM peas produced a subtle, hard-to-detect difference in the way sugar molecules attached to the protein, which likely caused the problem.
4. The response in mice suggested that the GM peas could provoke inflammatory or allergic reactions in humans; commercialization of the peas was therefore cancelled.
5. This type of subtle but dangerous change in the GM protein would rarely, if ever, be detected in the safety assessments typically used to approve GM crops.

1.19 Eyewitness reports: Animals avoid GMOs
1. When given a choice, several animals avoided eating GM food.
2. In farmer-run tests, cows and pigs repeatedly passed up GM corn.
3. Animals that avoided GM food include cows, pigs, geese, squirrels, elk, deer, raccoons, mice and rats.

1.20 A GM food supplement killed about 100 people and caused 5,000-10,000 to fall sick
1. One brand of the supplement L-tryptophan created a deadly US epidemic in the 1980s
2. The company genetically engineered bacteria to produce the supplement more economically.
3. Their product contained many contaminants, five or six of which were suspected as the cause of the disease.
4. Discovering the epidemic required multiple coincidences, suggesting that adverse reactions to GM foods may be hard to identify.

That is just a small sample size..

Mrs. Loopner
12-07-2012, 10:12 PM
You do realize that the "scientists" and whatever bogey men you imagine eat the same food the rest of us do.

So if it was poison and they and their families are going to be poisoned by it you don't think they would object?

I think the scientists and bogey men don't eat the same food as us.
They only eat spelt because they don't react to it. BEP post #57

KILLER_CLOWN
12-07-2012, 10:15 PM
Section 2: Gene insertion disrupts the DNA and can create unpredictable health problems

2.1 Foreign genes disrupt the DNA at the insertion site
1. When genes are inserted at random in the DNA, their location can influence their function, as well as the function of natural genes.
2. "Insertion mutations" can scramble, delete or relocate the genetic code near the insertion site.
3. Evaluation of insertion sites have shown relocations of up to 40,000 DNA base pairs, mixing together of foreign and host DNA, large scale deletions of more than a dozen genes and multiple random insertions of foreign DNA fragments.

2.2 Growing GM crops using tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of DNA mutations
1. The process of growing plant cells into GM plants may create hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the genome.
2. While a change in a single base pair may have serious consequences, widespread changes in the genome can have multiple, interacting effects.
3. Most scientists working in the field are unaware of the extent of these mutations, and no studies have examined genome-wide changes in commercialized GM plants.

2.3 Gene insertion creates genome-wide changes in gene expression
1. One study using a micro-array gene chip found that 5% of the host's genes changed their levels of expression after a single gene was inserted.
2. The changes, which are in addition to the deletions and mutations already discussed, are not predictable and have not been fully investigated in the GM crops on the market.
3. These massive changes may have multiple health-related effects.

2.4 The promoter may accidentally switch on harmful genes
1. Promoters are switches that turn on genes.
2. The promoter used in nearly all GM crops is designed to permanently turn on the foreign gene at high output.
3. Although scientists had claimed that the promoter would only turn on the foreign gene, it can accidentally turn on other natural plant genes—permanently.
4. These genes may overproduce an allergen, toxin, carcinogen or antinutrient, or regulators that block other genes.

2.5 The promoter might switch on a dormant virus in plants
1. When certain viruses infect an organism, they splice themselves into the host's DNA.
2. These embedded viral sequences can be passed on to future generations and even inherited by future species.
3. Most ancient embedded viral sequences become mutated over time, but some may be intact, just not switched on.
4. If the GM promoter is inserted in the vicinity of a dormant virus, it might switch it on, resulting in virus production and a potential catastrophe.

2.6 The promoter might create genetic instability and mutations
1. Evidence suggests that the CaMV promoter, used in most GM foods, containsa recombination hotspot.
2. If confirmed, this might result in breakup and recombination of the gene sequence.
3. This instability of the inserted gene material might create unpredicted effects.

2.7 Genetic engineering activates mobile DNA, called transposons, which generate mutations
1. In plant DNA, mobile elements called transposons move from place to place, and can lead to mutations.
2. The tissue culture process used in genetic engineering activates transposons, and is a major factor for the resulting genome-wide mutations.
3. Transgenes in commercial GM crops tend to be inserted near transposons.
4. This insertion might alter the transgene expression.

2.8 Novel RNA may be harmful to humans and their offspring
1. Small RNA sequences can regulate gene expression, most commonly by silencing genes.
2. RNA is stable, survives digestion and can impact gene expression in mammals that ingest it.
3. The impact can be passed on to future generations.
4. Genetic modification introduces new DNA combinations and mutations, which increase the likelihood that harmful regulatory RNA will be accidentally produced.

2.9 Roundup Ready soybeans produce unintentional RNA variations
1. A "stop signal" is placed after the transgene, telling the cell, "STOP TRANSCRIBING AT THIS POINT."
2. The stop is ignored in GM soy, resulting in longer than intended RNA.
3. It is transcribed from a combination of the transgene, an adjacent transgene fragment and a mutated sequence of DNA.
4. The RNA is further rearranged into four variations, any of which may be harmful.
5. The faulty "stop" signal may have triggered the rearrangements.
6. The same "stop" signal is used in other crops, and might lead to similar "read-throughs" and RNA processing.

2.10 Changes in proteins can alter thousands of natural chemicals in plants, increasing toxins or reducing phytonutrients
1. Plants produce thousands of chemicals which, if ingested, may fight disease, influence behavior or be toxic.
2. The genome changes described in this section can alter the composition and concentration of these chemicals.
3. GM soybeans, for example, produce less cancer-fighting isoflavones.
4. Most GM-induced changes in these natural products go undetected.

2.11 GM crops have altered levels of nutrients and toxins
1. Numerous studies on GMOs reveal unintended changes in nutrients, toxins, allergens and small molecule products of metabolism.
2. These demonstrate the risks associated with unintended changes that occur due to genetic engineering.
3. Safety assessments are not adequate to guard against potential health risks associated with these changes.

more from http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/2notes#foreign

BucEyedPea
12-08-2012, 09:11 AM
Dr. John Hagelin said it well in his statement to the EPA back in 2000, printed in the Providence Journal:

"Numerous eminent molecular biologists recognize that DNA is a complex nonlinear system and that splicing foreign genes into the DNA of a food-yielding organism can cause unpredictable side effects that could harm the health of the human consumer. Yet, the genetic engineering of our food – and the widespread presence of genetically altered foods in American supermarkets – is based on the premise that the effects of gene-splicing are so predictable that all bioengineered foods can be presumed safe unless proven otherwise."

http://archive.hagelin.org/happening/starlink.htm

BucEyedPea
12-08-2012, 09:16 AM
One of the few long-term GMO studies per this:

A new study came out last month out of France. In it, researchers found that rats on diets consisting of 11%, 22%, and 33% Roundup-resistant genetically modified corn developed far more mammary tumors than control rats on non-GMO corn diets. GMO diet rats died earlier and in greater numbers.

Why is this study notable amidst all the other studies that seem to show the safety of GMOs?

Well, it’s one of the few long term GMO feeding studies, lasting a full two years, which, to a rat, is the equivalent of 60 of our human years. The other safety studies which found no evidence of toxicity in GM foods tend to last just 90 days, or 15 rat years. In other words, the French study studied rats over the course of an entire lifespan, whereas other studies have looked at rats for a relatively brief snippet of their lives. Cancer generally develops over a lifetime, as you probably know, so this would appear to be more relevant to human health than the shorter trials.


http://www.marksdailyapple.com/should-you-worry-about-gentically-modified-food/#axzz29ezJ1CIY

BucEyedPea
12-08-2012, 09:22 AM
Rapid increase in celiac disease and gluten intolerance...

The rapid increase in celiac disease and milder forms of gluten intolerance is no surprise considering the modern Western diet, which consists in large part of grain carbohydrates.

Additionally, modern wheat is very different from the wheat your ancestors ate. The proportion of gluten protein in wheat has increased enormously as a result of hybridization.

Until the 19th century, wheat was also usually mixed with other grains, beans and nuts; pure wheat flour has been milled into refined white flour only during the last 200 years.

The resulting high-gluten, refined grain diet most of you have eaten since infancy was simply not part of the diet of previous generations.

Dr. Mercola

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/07/23/why-is-wheat-gluten-disorder-on-the-rise.aspx

BucEyedPea
12-08-2012, 09:27 AM
Listen to the hostility by some of you. My, my. You must have been raised on nutrient-negative, white processed bread/pasta products. Perhaps Wonder Bread?
Do you know that that does to your mind due to lack of B vitamins in that stuff. That, or you're all a vested interest somehow who benefits from this financially in some way.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-08-2012, 09:28 AM
Listen to the hostility by some of you. My, my. You must have been raised on nutrient-negative, white processed bread/pasta products. Perhaps Wonder Bread?
Do you know that that does to your mind due to lack of B vitamins in that stuff.

ROFL and now they're cut off. /Sad Panda

BucEyedPea
12-08-2012, 09:35 AM
ROFL and now they're cut off. /Sad Panda

I edited by adding that some of them just may be a vested interest benefiting from such foods.
Follow the money.

And now I found this by Dr. Mercola:

There is also emerging research that eating wheat, which contains gluten, can cause certain individuals to become psychotic. Most of the research on schizophrenia is focused on neurotransmitters, and the usual treatment is neuroleptic medication. However, the medicine tends to have serious side effects.

Some researchers have been looking at an unlikely suspect in the pathogenesis of schizophrenia – wheat. Many schizophrenics seem to have a history of celiac disease (gluten/wheat intolerance) as children – as much as 100 times the amount of celiac disease in the regular population.

Meanwhile, populations who traditionally eat a gluten-free diet have extremely rare occurrence of schizophrenia – just 2 in 65,000 versus close to 1 in 100 in grain-eating countries. And when populations Westernize their diets, schizophrenia becomes common.

According to Psychology Today:

"In A Case Report of the Resolution of Schizophrenic Symptoms on a Ketogenic Diet, a high fat, low carb, low protein diet (thus very low in wheat) results in the remission of psychotic symptoms in a single case report.

See what we're up against? I feel like Steve Jobs and Dr. Semmelweis.

RNR
12-08-2012, 10:17 AM
Listen to the hostility by some of you. My, my. You must have been raised on nutrient-negative, white processed bread/pasta products. Perhaps Wonder Bread?
Do you know that that does to your mind due to lack of B vitamins in that stuff. That, or you're all a vested interest somehow who benefits from this financially in some way.

And you must have had a steady diet of lead paint growing up~

donkhater
12-08-2012, 10:37 AM
Ugh....

USDA vs a snake oil salesman (Mercola)

Could there be any two more self-serving viewpoints from which to pull arguments and data?

All I know from reading this thread is that the lack of science education in this world is stunning.

BucEyedPea
12-08-2012, 11:16 AM
Ugh....

USDA vs a snake oil salesman (Mercola)

Could there be any two more self-serving viewpoints from which to pull arguments and data?

All I know from reading this thread is that the lack of science education in this world is stunning.

Mercola has helped a lot of people and got good results on them—particularly getting them off gluten. ( as my doctor did) I've seen live testimonials.
He's an Osteopathic physician. Osteopathic physicians practice a "whole person" approach instead of just focusing on symptoms.
He is board-certified in family medicine and was chairman of the family medicine department at St. Alexius Medical Center for five years.
He is trained in both traditional and natural medicine. Can't beat that combination if one seeks an integrated approach.
I'd trust him more than any govt entity. I go by results. You probably would have been one of the people who attacked Dr. Semmelweiss back in his day while allowing more women to die in childbirth until his ideas were finally accepted. That's okay, that's usually how it goes. Such things are vilified at first but accepted later. The natural food folks are ahead of the mainstream with some of their claims accepted much later.

More from his site:
In addition, I was granted fellowship status by the American College of Nutrition (ACN) in October 2012. In order to obtain fellowship status with the ACN one must meet a minimum of four requirements. Those requirements include: co-author five or more publications relevant to nutrition in referred medical or scientific journals, demonstrate significant experience in patient care, hold a doctoral degree from an institution that is accredited by the Regional Accrediting Organizations and maintain status with the ACN.

In November 2009, I was named the top Ultimate Wellness Game Changer by the Huffington Post, an honor that celebrates “100 innovators, visionaries, and leaders in 10 categories who are harnessing the power of new media to reshape their fields and change the world.” HuffPost readers voted me to the top to receive this special award.

For my insight on a variety of healthcare issues, I have been interviewed on national and local news, including:

Today Show
CNN
ABC's World News Tonight
The Dr. Oz Show
The Doctors
CBS, NBC and ABC local news shows
Time Magazine
Forbes Magazine
Dozens of Nationally Broadcast Radio Shows

BucEyedPea
12-08-2012, 11:24 AM
And you must have had a steady diet of lead paint growing up~

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5106V842oaL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

BucEyedPea
12-08-2012, 11:27 AM
Oh and Merry Christmas, Scrooges!

RNR
12-08-2012, 07:47 PM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5106V842oaL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

You have called me a Neocon, liberal, atheist, sociopath and a few other things I do not recall. I am none of the things you have offered. You on the other hand are precisely the only thing I have called you...batshit crazy~

Fish
12-09-2012, 09:57 AM
Ok are you familiar with the GM FlavrSavr tomato? What about the studies on this page? not reputable?

http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/1notes



What studies? Those aren't studies. That's just a giant bullet list of nonfactual shit thrown on a page with no studies shown at all. No sources. No peer review of the claims.

I could go through that line by line and likely refute every bit of it, but it's just not worth it. It's all based on one book actually. And it's nothing but BS meant to scare, instead of inform. On the author's page about the book, there's even a section called "Media Manipulation" in which he defends himself against how the "Media" has tried to attack him over his book. In reality the "Media" is calling him out for self publishing a POS book full of inaccuracies.

EDIT: And apparently it's such a horrible incorrect book, that it's already been exposed for the completely nonfactual tripe that it is. There's a website already out there, that actually goes through this fool's claims line by line and provides correct scientific information about what your loony author is talking about. Wow... this POS is even more incorrect than I thought...

Here's the humorous dismantlement of all your "Studies" by Academic Review:

Genetic Roulette is Jeffrey Smith’s second self-published book in which he makes unsubstantiated claims against biotechnology. In it, he details 65 separate claims that the technology causes harm in a variety of ways. On these pages each of those claims – addressed in the same eight “sections” that correspond directly with the book – are stacked up against peer-reviewed science.

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/

If you want to know why what you posted is not reputable, just browse through the above site, and you'll see why this is all wrong.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-09-2012, 10:06 AM
What studies? Those aren't studies. That's just a giant bullet list of nonfactual shit thrown on a page with no studies shown at all. No sources. No peer review of the claims.

I could go through that line by line and likely refute every bit of it, but it's just not worth it. It's all based on one book actually. And it's nothing but BS meant to scare, instead of inform. On the author's page about the book, there's even a section called "Media Manipulation" in which he defends himself against how the "Media" has tried to attack him over his book. In reality the "Media" is calling him out for self publishing a POS book full of inaccuracies.

EDIT: And apparently it's such a horrible incorrect book, that it's already been exposed for the completely nonfactual tripe that it is. There's a website already out there, that actually goes through this fool's claims line by line and provides correct scientific information about what your loony author is talking about. Wow... this POS is even more incorrect than I thought...

Here's the humorous dismantlement of all your "Studies" by Academic Review:



http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/

If you want to know why what you posted is not reputable, just browse through the above site, and you'll see why this is all wrong.

After reading through the first part, it seems a bit of backtracking has been done


Experts say no scientific conclusion can be made from the work. Two separate expert panels reviewed this research and concluded that both the experimental design and conduct of the experiments were fatally flawed, and that no scientific conclusion should be drawn from the work (Royal Society 1999; Fedoroff and Brown 2004). Smith fails to tell us this. When The Lancet published the work, editors there published a critical analysis in the same issue (Kuiper 1999). The media has devoted little time and space to these critical analyses of Pusztai’s claims.

No differences were seen between the groups of animals. Experts who reviewed the data stated that there were no meaningful differences between control and experimental groups, that the same cellular differences could be seen in all groups—GM-fed or not—and that too few animals were used to allow statistical significance to be achieved (Royal Society 1999)

Flawed study design and improper diets doomed the study to failure. The diets were protein-deficient and different groups of rats received different diets. Some rats were fed raw potatoes – raw potatoes are toxic to rats and might cause disturbances to gastrointestinal cells. Three different varieties of potatoes were fed to the three different groups of rats (Royal Society 1999).

Science should be published in peer-reviewed literature and not on TV. Scientists are expected to submit their findings to peer-review and publication in scientific journals. In their review of the Pusztai claims, the Royal Society concluded that scientists should submit their work to journals (Royal Society 1999). Peer-review is not always a guarantee that researchers’ conclusions are sound either. Lancet published the paper by Ewen and Pusztai over the objections of reviewers: (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/472192.stm). Perhaps in some misguided sense of fairness or balance, some journals have published unsound papers that make claims about the safety of GM crops (Shantharum and others 2008).

Again very vague comebacks and experts not cited.

Fish
12-09-2012, 10:11 AM
Dr. John Hagelin said it well in his statement to the EPA back in 2000, printed in the Providence Journal:

"Numerous eminent molecular biologists recognize that DNA is a complex nonlinear system and that splicing foreign genes into the DNA of a food-yielding organism can cause unpredictable side effects that could harm the health of the human consumer. Yet, the genetic engineering of our food – and the widespread presence of genetically altered foods in American supermarkets – is based on the premise that the effects of gene-splicing are so predictable that all bioengineered foods can be presumed safe unless proven otherwise."

http://archive.hagelin.org/happening/starlink.htm

Dr. John Hagelin turned loony with Transcendental Meditation. He was once a promising scientists, but is now laughed at by the field of science for trying to insist that traditional holistic teachings are "Scientific". That, and he tried running for president of the US under the Natural Law party. (LOL, I see how you discovered him)

The guy thinks that people can pray away crime and war. Is there really any more that needs said about his credibility?

Once considered a top scientist, Hagelin's former academic peers ostracized him after the candidate attempted to shoehorn Eastern metaphysical musings into the realm of quantum physics.

He has found a home in the Natural Law party, where another group present had made a similar passage from credibility to absurdity. They included Ross Perot's longtime political advisor Russell Verney and several other disgruntled former leaders of the Reform Party. Kicked out of the party after refusing to recognize Pat Buchanan as the party's presidential pick, they staked their political credibility to Hagelin by testifying he was the rightful nominee of a hijacked party.

Their presence illustrated a bizarre tale of how the deposed leaders of a once formidable, solidly Middle American party formed in the cauldron of early-'90s populism were lulled by a candidate and political party under the swoon of the strange New Age charlatan. Hagelin is a disciple of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the aged founder of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) movement and its related worldwide moneymaking empire that achieved fame after the Beatles briefly joined his flock in the '60s. The thought that regular meditation has health benefits is nearly mainstream today, but the structure built around the TM philosophy strikes religious notes and is much more questionable, even cult-like, critics say. One of the Maharishi's deepest-held beliefs is that the aura created by platoons of incredibly focused meditators prevents crime and wars, an assertion backers claim is supported by scientific "research"--much of it done by Hagelin.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2000-10-05/news/good-vibrations/

Fish
12-09-2012, 10:26 AM
After reading through the first part, it seems a bit of backtracking has been done


Experts say no scientific conclusion can be made from the work. Two separate expert panels reviewed this research and concluded that both the experimental design and conduct of the experiments were fatally flawed, and that no scientific conclusion should be drawn from the work (Royal Society 1999; Fedoroff and Brown 2004). Smith fails to tell us this. When The Lancet published the work, editors there published a critical analysis in the same issue (Kuiper 1999). The media has devoted little time and space to these critical analyses of Pusztai’s claims.

No differences were seen between the groups of animals. Experts who reviewed the data stated that there were no meaningful differences between control and experimental groups, that the same cellular differences could be seen in all groups—GM-fed or not—and that too few animals were used to allow statistical significance to be achieved (Royal Society 1999)

Flawed study design and improper diets doomed the study to failure. The diets were protein-deficient and different groups of rats received different diets. Some rats were fed raw potatoes – raw potatoes are toxic to rats and might cause disturbances to gastrointestinal cells. Three different varieties of potatoes were fed to the three different groups of rats (Royal Society 1999).

Science should be published in peer-reviewed literature and not on TV. Scientists are expected to submit their findings to peer-review and publication in scientific journals. In their review of the Pusztai claims, the Royal Society concluded that scientists should submit their work to journals (Royal Society 1999). Peer-review is not always a guarantee that researchers’ conclusions are sound either. Lancet published the paper by Ewen and Pusztai over the objections of reviewers: (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/472192.stm). Perhaps in some misguided sense of fairness or balance, some journals have published unsound papers that make claims about the safety of GM crops (Shantharum and others 2008).

Again very vague comebacks and experts not cited.

LOL... no. It's not vague, and the experts were certainly cited.

Do you see the section down at the bottom? The part you neglected to include with your copy and paste?

This part is called a "References" section. You see, some authors like to include what's called "References" when they make important claims about the factual nature of things. This way if information is in doubt, or if it sounds too fantastical, there is a "Reference" to the source of the information. I can understand why you would be unfamiliar with this practice...

References:

Ewen SW and Pusztai A (1999). Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Lancet 354 :1353-1354.

Fedoroff NV, and Brown NM (2004). Chapter 9 Poisoned rats or poisoned wells in Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist’s View of Genetically Modified Foods, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C.

Kuiper HA, Noteborn HPJM , and Peijnenburg ACM (1999).Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods.

Lancet 354 :1315-1316. Lemaux P (2008). Section 3.2.Were potatoes genetically engineered with a lectin protein unsafe to eat? In Review: Genetically engineered plants and foods: a scientist’s analysis of the issues (Part I).

Annual Review Plant Biology 59:771–812. Royal Society UK (1999) Review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes. royalsociety.org/Review-of-data-on-possible-toxicity-of-GM-potatoes/PDF file. Accessed Dec 6 2008.

Shantharam S, Sullia SB, and Swamy GS (2008). Peer review contestations in the era of transgenic crops. Current Science 95(2):167-168. Discusses the problems involved in bypassing the peer review system in science and other misuse of scientific evidence as it applies to agricultural biotechnology.

Genetic Roulette Falsely Claims: GM potatoes damaged rats.

Rats were fed potatoes engineered to produce their own insecticide.
These rats developed extensive damage to their digestive tracts and other organs.
Genetic engineering was the cause of the changes observed in the rats.
In 1998 S.W. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai claimed to have conducted experiments revealing variations in the thickness of intestinal linings of rats when they were fed diets containing either GM or non-GM potatoes. The work was published the following year in the British medical journal The Lancet.