Doctor Says Genetically Modified Wheat a Perfect, Chronic Poison

[KILLER_CLOWN]

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-p...-human-genome/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_1...n-doctor-says/

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

http://naturalsociety.com/insecticid...lluting-water/

http://naturalsociety.com/organic-fo...os-pesticides/

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...n-2508446.html

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Pants

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]

Originally Posted by Pants

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]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

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

Is there? Could you explain that difference for us?

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Fish

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]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

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]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

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.

Originally Posted by durtyrute

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)

Originally Posted by J Diddy

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

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

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

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.

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

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]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

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]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

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 ****ing 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 ****ing 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]

Originally Posted by Fish

Why would you think that?

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

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

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

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]

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

[Buehler445]

LOL Spelt is a hybrid too....

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

Wiki

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]