Healthy Whole Grains?

       Over the years, one of the the food issues that I have probably thought about the most are grains and their role in health. On one hand, you have the mainstream as well as many vegetarian/vegans espousing the health promoting effects of whole grains, the fiber, B vitamins, betaine, minerals, protein, and so forth. Then on the flip side you have the low carbers, and paleo crowd demonizing grains as if they were diabolos or something. After much thought on the issue, I have come to the conclusion that as with most problems in life, the answer lies somewhere in between the extremes. In the following papragraphs I will elaborate as to why I feel that while grains may not be optimal, they are probably okay for the general population, although not optimal. I believe they could definitely be incorporated into a relatively healthful diet and replacing typical processed food with whole grains is definetly an upgrade for most people.

Healthy whole grains?

     I'll start off with some of the knocks on grains and work my way back to the big picture. One of the main arguments made by those in the paleo crowd about grains is that they decreased the stature of man and increased the incidence of disease. Now in their defense there are scientific studies to validate these claims (1,2,3,4), however, I believe this is a classic example of mistaking an association with causation. Popular paleo "gurus" such as the Robb Wolfs and Art DeVaneys of the world point out the fact that archaelogical records show decreased stature and increased incidence of disease, but they fail to mention that real archaelogists also acknowledge that this occurence may be the result of other concommitant factors, such as  a more sedentary lifestyle (2,4) or as anthropologist and Pulitzer Prize winner Jared Diamond points out that hunter gatherer tribes often had longer gaps in between bearing their children, thus allowing the mother more time to replete the nutrient depletion that accompanies carrying, birthing , and nourishing a child in the perinatal period (Guns,Germs and Steel p.89).

      In addition, to these historical arguments against, further claims of grains being an evolutionary novelty have also been made. The argument goes as follows, grains were introduced only roughly 10, 000 years ago and that humans simply cannot tolerate them in a manner conducive to promotin g optimal health. In addition to these claims being made by popular diet writers, such as those mentioned above, one can also find these claims in the scientific literature linking agriculture, mostly grains, to prevalent ailments and disease states such as Alzheimers (5,6). Again, I believe we have to think about this more closely before ascertaining that grains are causing many or all of th modern diseases of man.

      In the classis book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Weston A. Price observed several culture's diets, or as he liked to call them dietaries.Some of the peoples he observed ate very little grain such as the Inuit and until very recently, the Massai , but he also observed several healthy cultures that subsited largely on grain such as the Kikuyu and Gaelics. In a series of very intriguing blog posts last year, Denisse Minger ran regression analyses on the China Study by T. Colin Campbell and colleagues and found that one of the most long lived and healthiest groups of people observed in the study were theTuoli (see here),  essentianly contemporary pastoralists subsisting off of dairy and wheat bread. I think with that in mind, we also have to look at another point made by Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, the advent of agriculture invited the improvement and proliferation of further agricultuaral development. Basically it can be understood as follows, once a tribe of previous hunter gatherers had decided to take up the agricultaural lifestyle whether partly or in wholeness, they then have the incentive to improve upon their means by domestication of other flora and fauna species.

Maybe we didn't evolve eating whole grains, but I bet theyre alot less problematic than items such as high fructose cornsyrup, there refined counterparts (ie pastry), and processed oils.

      The example given by Diamond is of the Fertile cresecent. The first domesticated plant species he lists are wheat, peas, flax and barey (p. 181). This is also supported by primary scinetific findings in the field of archaeology as well (7,8). Following the domestication of these grains, foods such as banana, pomegranates, figs, grapes, olives, etc. followed. So with this line of reasoning (that grains are an evolutionary novelty) then is one to reason that apples, almonds, pecans, and so forth should not be eaten either?
  
  There is some scientific literature suggesting dairy may not be optimal either, but it is largely speculative as with the grain argument (6). One might even play devils advocate and argue that modern breeds of cattle and swine are  evolutionary novelties as well (see here or here). After all, the typical corn fed confinement cow of todays agribusiness establshment isnt quite the same beast as a wild game mammal found in the pleistocene era. In fact there nutrient profile isn't even equivalent to their grass fed counterparts (9). That is actually part of the reason (aside from ethical reasons) that many people are now making the transition to grass fed beef over "conventional. Nonetheless popular beef breeds are very new in evolutionary time as well, and thats where this point ties in with the grain argument. The same can be said for many of our vegetable breeds as well. The argument doesn't hold water. It is no longer possible to eat exactly as our ancestors did.

The paleo crowd seems to forget, we didn't evolve eating this either.

      The work of Price and researchers such as Piperno (7,8) show that grains were part of a historical diet that is not inherently deleterious to health. Apart from the observational work I've discussed so far, there is the work of Staffon Lindeburg's lab, who has found that the paleo diet is preferential to the meditteranean diet in reducing ad libitum caloric intake (10). So basically if one eats paleo, they get full off less food than the mediterranean diet. While I can't and wont argue with the results, I will say other factors do come into play such that with the paleo, the exclusion of milk and soda removes liquid calories. I know I have a large appetite, but in periods in my life where I have drank calories, they could easily account for well over 500 kcals. In additon I do agree that grains are an easy food to "fill up" on so if the subjects were instructed to eat ad libitum, then yes I would suspect they would eat less when excluding grain, but I don't think that means that a health/weight conscious individual has to completely exclude grains from the if they are monitoring their intake. For thos interested the physiological mechanism proposed by Lindeberg is that grains contains lectins (wiki) a class of glycoproteins that protentially interfere with leptin kinetics, (whether it be receptor competion or binding to the leptin itself is not fully understood).

        Leptin and Insulin are thought to be two of the key hormones responsible for appetite regulation, so it can be reasoned that if the lectins in grain are interfering with leptin function then yes grains maybe causing appetite disregulation (11). However there's a problem with this argument as well. Lectins are found in all types of foods, including legumes, dairy, and night shade vegetables (tomatoes, egg plants, potatoes, and peppers). RobbWolf acknowledges this in his book The Paleo Solution and subsequently advises the exclusion of all of these foods. I won't disagree that his reccomendation may be a measure of prudence, but arguments can also be made against meats with epidemiological studies and the gotirogen content of the vegetables brassicae (12). What are we to do? rely on photosynthesis. In all seriousness I would say the point is that an argument can be made against all foods. The key is to try to eat time tested foods, and grains have thousands of years supporting them.

       I think I have been more than fair in presenting the dark side of grains, and to boot, I will mention that there are also tannins and other anti nutrients found in grains. The problem with these molecules are as follows. Taninins are and other anti nutrients such as trypsin inhibitors deteriorate the absorption of minerals (iron, zinc, etc.) and inhibit enzymes neccessary for food absorption. So while some grains might provide some iron, magnesium, etc., these anti nutrients may be inhibiting full absorption. That is why the cultures I mentioned earlier used fermentation strategies. Fermementation of the grain with bacteria such as denature some of the nutrient inhibiting protein allowing for further absorption of nutrient. This is exactly what I am referring to when I say time tested. Over periods of millenia our antecedents have perfected (well pretty close) techniques to enhance nutrient bioavailability, and the available cuisine has included grains. Soy and rice are complements in the Orient, sorghum and millet with nuts such as the ground nut and mongogo in parts Africa, and corn with several varieties of pulses in the Americas. With that in mind, it's hard for me to argue that grains are the scourge of the west, but a maybe a small peice of the puzzle.

        The last line of evidence against grain I will present here is the the anti gluten argument. Gluten like proteins found through out the grain species also alert me in that they may trigger inflammation and auto-immunity disease. There are over 80 type of autoimmune disease that may associated with the gluten protein as well (see here).  The full affects of gluten are not fully understood, and seeing as science generally tensts to isolate foods/nutrients, I doubt we will ever fully understand the effects of gluten in the matrix of molecues that is food. I don't know for sure that grains are going to cause an inflammatory cascade, or an autoimmune disease. I haven't read on the topic thoroughly enough, so I just present this information as precautionary.

        In conclucsion, my general thought is that grains won't kill most folks, so they can probably eat them, but should prepare them in a traditional manner, rather than in the form of a Pop tart or something like that. And for those trying to lose weight, or really improve or optimize health, you may want to think pretty long and hard before having that bowl or slice of healthy whole grain. To those who counter that those avoiding grains are missing out on the health promoting benefits of grains, which I mentioned in brevity earlier, I present a chart I have recopied from The Paleo Solution. For almost all sources of vital micronutrients, vegetables and meat can be used in place of grains. I will say that I personally very very rarely eat a grain of any sort. Theres just too much evidence presented above that leaves me skeptical . Personally I eat vegetables, and tubers in place of where most would eat grains. While I concede grains  may be okay, they may not be so healthful after all.



Table conposed of data from Origins and evolution of the western diet: Health implications for the 21st century. Am Journal of Clinal Nutrition 2005: 81: 341-354



Oil Processing

     Around the web and even in nutrition text books, we often  are referred to the vague term processing in regards to food stuffs manufacturing. I think most health conscious individuals acknowledge that processing is generally deleterious to the health providing qualities of food. For example refined flour, refined sugar, refined oil, etc. However I have often found that understanding the so called processing that takes place, even if only in a rudimentary manner, gives me further motivation to not eat industrialized food stuffs. I guess one might say actually knowing the methods behind the madness makes the food that much more unappeasing. Today I wanted to go over the steps from which a soybean, cotton kernel, corn kernel, and other seeds become industrial oils. I attribute much of the following information to be sourced from the online Encyclopedia Brittanica and Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill* by Udo Erasmus.

      The initiation of the process that takes a commodity seed to oil begins with general cleaning of the seed and possibly cooking. On one hand, the cooking is neccessary. Many of the seeds used, such as soy beans contain anti-nutrients such as trypsin inhibitors (1) that are only inactivated with heat. The raw oil would otherwise be inedible. Another advantage of this specific step is that heating the seed makes the pressing process (this is the following step) or the chemical extraction process (to be explained later) easier by denaturing the cell membranes which encompass the desired oils. However on the other other hand, the cooking process greatly accelerates the onset of rancidity exposing the oils to both air and heat, and possibly light (Textbook of Medical Biochemistry, Ramakrishnan, P.41) . This is confounded by the fact that most of the common commercial oils contain high proportions of the more delicate polyunsaturated fats( Ramakrishnan, P. 267).

Typical oil seeds; corn, cotton, soy, sunflower

     The next step in the process is the mechanical pressing of the seeds to extract oil. We often see this on the label of more traditional oils such as coconut, palm, and olive oils as expeller pressed. The method essentially involves subjecting the raw material to high amounts of mechanical pressure. Often times what is called a screw press is used (illustration below). This involves a continuoulsy rotating screw shaped auger pushing the seeds forward against a metal press. The friction created by the rotating auger combines with the high heat to squeeze the oil out of the seeds.The oil is released by of hole or slits in the press while the remaining solid mass(seed mash) is left behind for further processing. Accoridng to Erasmus, (p. 95) it is said that the pressing temperature takes place at 85 to 95 degrees Celsius or185 to 203 F, which subsequently  greatly increases the rate of lipid rancidity. When the end product of this mechanical extraction is sold without further processing, we have the true unrefined oils.

screw press, sounds like a resistance training exercise.

     Another consideration here is that saturated fats such as coconout and palm are less prone to be damaged by the high temperatures used (Ramakrishnan, P. 39,41). Although some companies claim to use cold pressed, Erasmus states there is not a set industry standard for this criterion or claim. The next procees described is solvent extraction, a more modern industrial practice used to further enhance the oil extraction from the seed mash, or that can be used independent of mechanical pressing.

      Solvent extraction is a very efficient means of oil extraction used by large scale industrial operations. Solvents such as heptane or hexane are used to dissolve ground seed meal or the remaining seed mash described above whilst also using mechanical agitation (think stirring on steroids). The solvent-oil mixture is separated from the naturally occuring protein and carbohydrate portion of the original seed. The same thing is going on here as the saying about oil & water dont mix. The heptane is similar to oil so it mixes while the protein, carbs, and water are repelled.) The solvent can then be evaporated at roughly 150 degrees Celsius or 302 F. The seed oil is then left behind with very minute quantities of the solvents left behind. The ranges I have found are in the range of  10-21 ppm (2). Although I am not a fan of hexane, I will say that the concentration left behind in oils does not seem to be a major casuse for concern (although there are many). What may be disconcerning to some health conscious consumers is that the solvent extracted oil may still be labeled as unrefined at this point, again placing greater importance to choosing  the expeller pressed brands if hexane is a key concern for the consumer.For the more commonly sold vbegetable oils and the oils labeled as refined, such as Spectrum refined coconut oil or NOW brands natural coconut oil, further chemical processing takes place.

       Degumming, or alkali refining is a process that removes the phospholipids naturally occuring in seed oils, such as soy lecithin (phospholipid wiki). Left behind proteins and polysaccharides (complex carbohydrates) from the preceeding extraction methods are also removed during degumming. As far as the possible health worries Erasmus claims that degumming removes chlorophyll, calcium, magnesium, iron, and copper. The degumming process is generally carried out at roughly 140 F (Erasmus, P. 96).

      During the process known as water refining or just refining, oils are mixed with strong bases  (proton or hydrogen ion acceptors that completely dissolve in water) such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Refining is meant to further remove free fatty acids from oils.The free fatty acids form soaps with the bases (eg NaOH) and dissolve in the hydrophilic (water loving) portion of the mixture. This aqueous solution is then drained off, or centrifuged and then drained off from the oil. The temperature at which refining takes place is roughly 75 degrees celcius or 167 F. Phospholipids, polypeptides, and minerals are also lost in this process (Erasmus, P. 96). Before moving on, I have to make note that at this point, the proccessing of the oil has not only removed health promoting components of the oil like lecithin and minerals like iron, zinc, and so forth, but that they are then sold back to consumers in the form of soap, soy lecithin, etc.Its pretty crazy. Although pigments may still remain., theyl'l be gone soon enough. Next up are bleaching and deodorizing.

     Bleaching is used if removal of the pigments is desired. The remaining oil treated with various bleaching agents, which may include fuller’s earth (a natural earthy material that will decolorize oils), activated carbon, or activated clays. The bleaching agents mentioned remove beneficial pigments such as chlorophyll and beta-carotene.Magnesium is stored in the chlorophyll and beta carotene is a pre cursor to Vitamin A. Additionally if the centrifuge method was not used during refinement, additonal FFAs may be removed during bleaching. The temperature at which this process takes place is 110 Celsius or 230 F. According to Erasmus, this process forms toxic peroxides as well (Erasmus P. 96).

    Deodorizing involves steam distillation under pressure. The deodorization removes any aromatic compounds that impart any remaining pungent taste or odor to the oil.  Erasmus notes that deodorization takes place a highly destructive temperatures in the range of 240 to 270 degrees Celsius or 465-520 F! And this process is said to last 30 to 60 minute depending on the oil. These temperatures are high enough to result in carcinogenic mutations to the remaining fats in the oil (3).  Trans-fatty acids are also formed at such high temperatures. Although deodorization removes some of the peroxides formed during earlier stages of processing , as well as pesticide residues, tocopherols (Vitamin E) and plant sterols are also removed as well. (Erasmus P.97)

      At this point, the oil processor has yielded a valuable commodity. Flavorless, colorless, tasteless oil (yum!) that can be further handled to add flavors, textures, colors, etc. that meet the consumer's demands for highly palatable cheap frankenfood. However, with the exception  of some of the healthier oils, such as palm, coconut, and olive oil, most of these will have synthetic antioxidants added in back as well, such as butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), or tertiary butyhydroquinone (TBHQ). These replace the plant's natural antioxidants such as the above mentioned phytochemical, Vitamin E, and beta carotene.

     As you can establish for yourselves at this point, the processing of oils, while an intriguing science, does not appear to be the optimal method of foos extraction for promoting good health. In fact up until the late 20th century there were wide spread nutrient deficiencies due to processing food without the realization that key nutrients were lost. It was believed that  biologically complete diets need only to consistr sufficient proteins, carbohydrates, fats, inorganic salts, and water (4). Unfortunately or fortunately it was later discovered that we needed micronutrients in the form of vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals. While fortification of foods with certain nutrients has probably helped, I still don't believe it's enough. Below I have created a table based the calculations of Weton A. Price in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (P.246 & 247) to show just how lacking the American diet was compared to traditional diets in his time.The numbers are how many times more of the listed nutrient (eg Ca) that the traditional cultures recieved in contrast to urbanized  Americans at the time (mid 1930's) through diet. Its pretty amazing.

    With that said, processed oils (along with processed sugar and flour) just make up too much of the American diet. The USDA recently reported that we are consuming 1.4 billion pounds of cottonseed oil, alone, annually (see here).We are eating the oils of these seeds in proportions that we would never eat in the form of real food. I have blogged on this previously as well (here). The nutrient density is just not there in addition to the synergistic effect that I believe real food nutrients provide when eaten together as one in the context of real food.



Add caption

* While I found Erasmus's book helpful for this post, I think it is important to disclose he does sell his own oil blends that are focused more on the EFA rather than the coconut oil, palm, and olive oil I would reccomend. I believe eating the fat from sources like coconuts and olives that are mostly fat, when found in nature, is probably more suitable for humans in that eating large amounts of fat from these foods is not new to us as a species.

Unsettling Findings in GMOs

      In my most recent post (see here), I discussed GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, spefically pertaining to food. We discussed how these foods are produced, as well as some history, technology, and business preactices involving GMO.s Today I specifically wanted to discuss the science behind the GMOs, are they safe or not. Is the current body of literature ambuguous in it's findings, and has it been conducted adequately?
   
    I am by no means an expert in the field of GMO research but I have read many articles regarding genetically modified foods on aletrnative health websites, blogs, and even mainstream publication such as the Huffington Post. With that in mind, I have come to be highly suspicious of secondary sources over the years so I try to find the primary documents (in case the original research). Its always a good idea to start research in an area with a few review papers. A 2007 review by By Varzakas (1) noted that while science is obviously a major arena in he tdetermination of a GMO efficacy, other issues such as economical, political, ideologica/philosophical, ethical, and human issues are also concerned. The authors concluded that inadequate legislative measureshave been taken to protect consumers from their consumption. This is based on their reasoning that there has not been enough experimentation conducted to ensure safety. Interestingly these ressearchers are based out of the Institute of Kalmata in Greece. Here in the US,  even fewer legislative measures have been taken to ensure the safety of the consumer.

     The next review I came across was more favorable towards GMO, but did have obvious flaws in reasoning.  A 2008 review by Key et al  (2) concluded that "Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health)". These researchers also more or less state that current safety testing in place is adequate, which is contradictory to Varzakas. In my opinion, these conclusion are pretty much laughable (except this is a serious issue!). To begin with, there is no mandated labelling of GMOs in the US so even if there are health ramifications associated with GMOs it will be impossible for future researchers to do an accurate epidemiological study in regards to GMO consumption. In additon the analysyes of such a study would be just about inconceivable, requiring a multivariate regression  analyses that, in theory, teased out the numerous other dietary offenses of the average US citizen such as excess sugar consumption and disproportianate w6:w3 ratio. Cause and effect could never be determined.
    
      Secondly, on the conclusion of Key et al, that current testing is adequate, GM foods must go through the FDA for approval, but there is no required independent safety testing, meaning the testing is left to the producer(see fda website). If nothing else, at the minimum, the research is thus subject to an obvious conflict of interest. There has been essentially no long term animal toxicology on any GM product, something the medical community should be concerned about.
   
  As far as some of the actual investigations involving GM foods and health outcomes, researchers such as Arpad Pusztai (3) and Irina Ermakova (4) claim to have found negative outcomes stemming from GMO intake including organ damage and fertility issues whuch I will further discuss shortly. Other researchers have noted negative outcomes as well such as  hypertrophy of the  villus epithelial cells in the small intestine,  hypernucleation, disrupted microvilli, and  mitochondrial degeneration, increased numbers of lysosomes and autophagic vacuoles,all indications of an inflammatory reponse. This has been one of the key concerns with GMOs (5). Pusztai suggests transgenic proteins can have major effects on their gastrointestinal tract. As most proteins are immunogenic their consumption may trigger immune/allergic effects both in the mucosal immune system of the gut and more worrisome a systemic effect, where by the reaction affects the whole body. In the latter case, the size, structure, and function of other internal organs would be affected, particularly in individuals more succeptible, such as the immunocompromised (the young and elderly member of a population).
  
     However the work of Pusztai was refuted in the review by Key et al for inadequate sample size and poor methodolgy leading me to  question 1) Pusztai's work, but also 2) question why Dr Pusztai has simply not been asked to do further experiments in order to clarify the issues brought into question. To the best of my knowledge,similar studies have not carried out by Pusztai or others. Another important consideration is that Ermakovas work finding infertility following GMO is exclusively sponsored by GreenPeace and is not found in mainstream peer reviewed journals. While I have no qualms with GreenPeace, their ideological believes run contrary to the use of GMO crops and I find it odd that her findings are not published in a respected journal. In addition to Ermakova's work, there is one other 2010 trial that is often discussed in anti-gmo circles.

     One of the most unsettling studies in regards to gentically modified foods was first reported in the U.S. by Jefffrey Smith and published in the Huffington Post. (see here). This story has floated around the internet quite a bit. Unfortunately The story is based upon findings that were unpublished in the scientific literature at the time and do this date, the only study I have been able to locate that is even similar to this experiment is an abstract from a Russian journal with no author name listed (6). Supposedly the research was carried out by Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov and colleagfues seeking to find if GM soy beans lead to problems in growth or reproduction. The researchers used  hamsters, and divided the population into 4 groups. All groups were fed a normal hamster chow diet (control), in addtion to non-GM soy, GM soy, and "high" amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group. After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the high GM soy diet, displayed alarming results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among offspring.
  
   Researchers are said to have selected new pairs from each group of the first generation, which generated a total of  39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group (standard chow only) and 78 to the non-GMO soy group. In the GMO feed groups (both groups), only 40 pups were born, and 25% of those born are reported to have died. This equates to a  fivefold higher death rate in GMO fed groups than the 5% seen among the controls. Also worthy of note, is that of the hamsters that ate "high" GM soy content, only 1 female hamster gave birth. The researchers claim that she had 16 pups and roughly 20% died. Although no statistics are given, Smith wrote that Surov claimed near total sterility in the third generation of GMO fed hamsters. These finding are certainly unsettling (if they are ever properly substantiated) especially when one considers that endocrine impairment is already being witnessed today. A recent study by Travison found a decline in serum testosterone levels in American men witnessed across all age matched groups compared to just 20 years ago (7).

      To wrap things up, I am uneasy about eating GMO food personally, based upon the current body of scientific literature. While it appears that most of the available literature in the peer reviewed journals has not found drastically shocking findings against GMO foods, there are also some findings that are definitely alarming. I do wish that the research that does appear to against GMOs had more mainstream credibilty, however, alot of research has been funded industry (mainly biotech industry but some anti GMO interests) as well. This leaves one to question if market forces are suppressing truth. Big tobacco comes to mind as a reference point.
  
     At the least we can say that there are inadequacies in the research. There are other factors that must be  questioned as well; How thorough researchers can be in their work simply due to current knowledge limitations. For example it is only possible to compare currently known properties and constituents of GMO foods in contrast to conventional foods. I would imagine there are still several unknown constiuents that are not even known, making it impossible to analyze these differences. This creates a severe limitation on selection criteria observed. Also results based solely on chemical analysis of macro/micronutrients and known toxins is at best inadequate and, possibly dangerous dangerous. One of the examples I read was compairng the protein, fats, etc of  healthy cows to those oo a cow with BSE (mad cow disease). They may be the same, but no one wants to eat the cow with mad cow disease.  So with all that said, I would reccomend avoiding GMOs and the best way to do that with out stressing out about it is to once agian just eat real food! Most of these crops are only found in processed foods containing GMO corn, soybean, canola, and the other usual suspects.
-AR

Genetically Modified Foods; Friends or Foes

      So the last time I posted, I thought I would have another post up within 24 hrs. Yeah not so much. Sorry but time was not on my side.I finally determined what/where I will be doing a research project next year for my masters degree, and the I started my job milking on a small dairy this week.On Saturday I took a trip back to Chicago to find an apartment and listen to Jeffrey Smith give a presentation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  Anyways today I would like to do a post GMOs myself.

     First off I want to say that I am not against the idea of genetically altering foods. Plant and animal breeding has taken place since the advent of horticulture. However this form of genetic manipulation is what one would call vertical gene transfer.The desired genes are transferred down from the parent organisms to the offspring. For example, a cattleman and dairy farmer might cross breed their herds to yield a breed that is both productive for producing milk and well muscled for meat production. An example of this would be the breed known as the American Milking Shorthorn (productive milk and beef producer). Similar means are used to produce desirable plants and flowers. Most of us probably remember learning a bit about this back in Middle School or High School science classes with Gregor Mendel and his pea plants (see more here). GMOs, however, are not achieved via vertical gene transfer. The technology utilized involves the use of horizontal gene transfer.

American Milking Shorthorn

The production of GMOs relies on a form of horizontal gene alteration known as transformation.For a thorough description of this process, you may want to refer to this article by Michael Peel, of the agriculture extension agency at North Dakota State University (here). The shortened version is something like this; a desirable gene is identified and isolated, and transferred to a bacterial plasmid (a small circular piece of DNA) for protection. The plasmid is then inserted into the cells of the plant the scientists seek to alter, with the hope that the gene on the plasmid will teansfer to the target cell. The other, more common means of transfer is coating particles of metals such as gold with the genes of interest and shooting them into the target cells with a gene gun (sounds sci-fi right?)  The scientists can then use certain markers to identify if the gene transfer has taken place between the plasmid (remember its carrying the desirable genes) or the gene carrying particles and the target plant cells.


Diagram of the described horizontal gene transfer for the visual learners out there.

      Now that we've discussed how GMOs are made, lets take a look at the implications. Genetic modification is not only used in foods. This technology can also be used to produce pharmaceutical drugs, and supplements. It is used in industry to produce useful chemical agents, and can also be used for genetic mapping purposes. To the best of my knowledge, the technology used for artifical genetic modification has only been in use since the early 1970's coincident with the Green Revolution (discussion on green revolution). There first study I could find on the use of genetic modification dates back to '73 and was done by Stanley Cohen and colleagues at UC-San Francisco (1).

  In my opinion, the discoveries of Cohen and others during the green revolution were beneficial to the quality of life for mankind, with the increased production of  high quality food (although I cant say the same for the earth as a whole due to increased population pressure and environmental degradation). Contrary to others, I dont think the green revolution was spurred by malice. The occurence of the Green Revolution is a major reason the population has ballooned from 3.7 in 1970 roughly 7 billion today. In the words of Cohen et al,

   " Here is potentially useful for insertion of specific sequences from prokaryotic or eukaryotic chromosomes or extrachromosomal DNA into independently replicating bacterial plasmids."

 

    I believe the intent was great, but unfortunately overzealous corporations and policy makers have been too quick to allow the rapid proliferation of genetically modified crops into our food system and business practices have been less than scrupulous to say the least. In theory drought resisatant rice in sub saharan Africa sounds great to alleviate hunger in the region. I would love to see cold tolerant banana & cashew treeshere in my native midwest, but there are several catches to be considered.

   To begin with, the production of GMOs is most often carried out large corporations with profits in mind, more so than the greater good of man. Four companies, Syngenta, Dupont, Bayer, and Monsanto are thought to control more than half of the world's seeds (2) Monsanto alone holds over 650 seed patents! In addition to owning a lion's share of these market these companies do not have trhe greatest track record. For example it has been well reported in documentaries such as Unatural Selection the foreign media such as The Dailymail and The Telegraph across the pond in the UK that the practices of Monsanto led to massive suicide numbers by indian farmers. Anecdotally I have discussed with many India natives over the years as well. This 2008 article in The Dailymail by Andrew Malone describes the situation (3).

   The gist of it is that in India for millenia, farmers have farmed using heirloom seeds and re-collected the native seeds every year at no cost. In recent years, Monsanto has marketed their seeds to farmers promising higher yield. The farmers pay the premium for Monsanto's patented seeds and chemicals (Roundup anyone?) with loans expecting high yields to pay back their loans. Unfortunately the promised high yields have not come to fruition in many cases, leading the farmers to yield net loss rather than financial gain. Furthermore, since the seeds are Monsantos they cannot recollect them. They must but more seeds. Several farmers have been driven so far into debt that they are forced to relinquish their familt land, which has often been passed generation to generation for several genearations. The circumstances have led many to commit suicide. Fortunately activists such as Vandana Shiva are doing their part to educate the Indianfarmers and reclaim Indias farming sovereignity. Farming in smaller, "less developed" nations is less of a business and small farms can not afford to risk their financial livlihoods on promises of companies such as the four listed above. On another positive note, farmers in other nations have got the message as well.
 
    Coverage of the Haiti earthquake aftermath by the mainstream media died down pretty quickly, but the Huffington Post reported that Haitian farmers actually burned seeds "donated" by Monsanto. The article reported that  peasant farmer leader Chavannes Jean-Baptiste of the Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP) called for the immediate burning the of 60,000 seed sacks to be donated  by Monsanto, thus saving the farmers from having to continually purchase Monsanto seeds and the pesticides that often accompany the seeds. The farmers may or maynot have given up higher yileds by burning the seeds, but I have to agree with there decision, in that I would not want to play financial russian roulette with the Monsanto seeds either.

     Well its getting past my blogging time limit, and I have some gardening to do, so let me try to top this post off. Tomorrow I plan to discuss the health implications of GMOs. As I said I am not completely against the idea of gene modification and the improvement of plant characteristics, but as noted earlier the technology is extremely recent, relatively speaking, and I don't think these plants should have been introduced to our food system without thorough inspection on health implicationsfirst. Unfortunately that is not the case. Animal studies have been mixed in regardes to health findings in animal feeding models. Negative findings have included organ damage and sterility within 3 generations of feeding aniamls GMO feed! I plan to discuss this tomorrow.

   As I stated above, our media has not done a great job of informing the public on GMOs, the possible associated risks, and the bad business practices taking place. Below is the story of two respected journalists, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre who were censored from reporitng an unflattering news piece on a local Florida Fox station. No conspiracy here, as it makes perfect financial sense for media mogul Rupert Murdoch not to risk losing millions in advertising dollars from Monsanto for his Fox empire (see Murdoch wiki).

     In conclusion let me finish this up with a little positive news and a couple of resources. The knowledge on GMOs is finally going a little more mainstream. Prince Charles has actually been calling for cessation on the use of GMO and even spoke against factory farming just days after the recent royal wedding (4 & 5). Jeffrey Smith, one of the worlds leading advocates made a recent appearance on the Dr. Oz show to discuss GMOs (here). The Huffington Post   recently reported that 9 out of 10 Americans would like to see GMOs labeled (which they currently are not) and 53% of those polled stated they would make a conscious effort NOT to buy GMOs if they knew what foods they were found in (here).

I really have not discussed the health findings that may lead many to want to forfeit GMOs quite yet but for those interested in learning more I suggest navigating the Institute for Responsible Technology. There you can find non GMO shopping guides, as well as read the blog solely dedicated to GMOs, and download other resources such as audio CDs you can use for your own further education and to give to friends , family, etc.
Heres the link....
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

Lastly (no really), a quick tip I often reccomend to avoid GMOs is to just avoid processed foods (as you should be doing anyway) and read your PLU's when you buy produce. If it begins with 4, it's conventional. If it begins with 9, it's organic and if the PLU begins with 8, the product is GMO. In the 3-4 years I have known to do this, I have never seen a PLU beginning with an 8. Heres an example just in case; 4060 = broccoli, 94060 = organic broccoli, 84060 = GMO broccoli. Again just an example, Ive never seen GMO broccoli. A mnemonic my mom came up with is 8 is evil, 9 is nice.

Mmmm

Alright that's it for today.

-AR

Home Food

"Most lawns are purely cosmetic in function. Thus, affluent societies have, all unnoticed, developed an agriculture which produces a polluted waste product, in the presence of famine and erosion elsewhere, and the threat of water shortages at home"-Bill Mollison

Pretty handy book if your in to gardening or self sustainablility...

My current night stand read is Introduction to Permaculture by Bill Mollison. Mollison is credited as being the founder of Permaculture, which essentially focuses on establishing sustainable cultures through sustainable food production, urban design,even efficient use of city refuse (humanure) and so forth. I first heard about Mollison while reading some of Joel Salatin's work. The past couple of years I have been reading gardening books and putting my skills to the test, but permaculture is the equivalent to putting your garden on steroids.* The point of this post is that it is spring time and therefore time to start getting seeds ready or at least planning your garden. Even a couple of symbolic tomato plants on the patio hepls. Here is a photo of some plant's from my garden last year.

The Brassica gang holding down fort.

In any case, I would reccomend the book and the practices it espouses to just about anyone. Whether you are interested in good health or the environment, self subsistence, or even saving a buck; growing your own food is a good idea. Personally, I do it for all of the above. Growing your own food is great supplemental exercise for the fitness enthusiast and probably adequate for the lay person if they take an old school approach and minimize the use power tools. On top of that, you can't beat fresh food. No matter what "diet" one follows, low carb, paleo, vegan/vegetarien, etc. All of these diets tend to include some plant matter unles your trying to get your Vilhjalmur Stefansson on (see bio). 

This is proof that mowing the lawn is much less cool in contrast to gardening.

Current events taking place in the world further validate the need for at least the supplemental production of local food. Not to start any debates on the merits of the globalized food production system, but the current situations in Japan and the middle east  illustrate this point quite well. For example, imagine if nuclear fallout indeed did make its way over to California soil. California is the number one food producing state in our country (1). According to a California tourist site, which I will be the first to admit may not be the most credible source, California produces over half the nations fruit, vegetable, and nut products, along with being a major dairy producer (2). Personally I know a majority of the produce I have eaten since late December has come via California.

Our food is often times more traveled than we are.

Certain foods are also highly specialized in only one or two parts of the country leaving the entire crop production highly vulnerable to disease or natural disaster. For example a majority of the worlds corn is grown in the midwest and Brazil. An article released from University of California-Davis also reports that 60 perccent of the nations apples come from Washington state alone (3). With that in mind, I understand that we can't live in fear of hypothetical situations, but it is probably prudent for the country not to put all of its eggs (and other foods) in one basket. A little bit of effort by surburanites and even city dwellers could really help to fortify our food base as well as increase the general nutrition of the food we eat.**

Think about how much food could be produced in suburban yards as well as the gas from lawn mowers that could saved or reallocated, and nitrogen run off from all the turf builder/fertilizer applied. We would also drastically cut down on food mileage. According to a report form the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University, its takes about 250 Calories to produce a typical pound of pears or apples once all fuel input is taken into account (4). According to nutritiondata.com, a pound of apple only provided about 250 Calories itself (see here). In my current city, Chicago, it takes an average of 1518 miles traveled to put produce on the table (4). In Michael Pollan's The Omnivores Dilemma, it is written that it takes roughly 10 Calories to produce every 1 Calorie provided in typical California grown lettuce.


I am trying to further develop my food production adroitness this year by starting all my plants from seed, but it really can be as simple as buying a few plants from Lowes or Home Depot and plopping them in the ground, followed by an occasional watering and weeding. It really comes back to the situation being a win-win. We can have people reconnected with their food, use millions of acres of "lawn" to grow food rather than practice indentured servitude to grass. There are obviously  flaws in the current system of food production, and getting out and growing a little of your own certainly wouldn't hurt.

Mixing up some of my seed starting mix...home made compost, potting soil & vermiculture

 * Just to be clear in "gardening on steroids" comment I mean Permaculture is a step up in terms of sustainability and production. I am not referring to use of synthetic fertilizers or using pesticides.

**Analytical studies show that certain processing techniques and the travel/aging of foods can cause nutrient loss in the form of vitamin and phytochemical loss (5, 6).

Pig Business!

About a year ago, I met a women by the name of Barbara Sha Cox. I had read an article featuring Barbara earlier in the week profiling her work as the founder of the advocacy group Indiana CAFO Watch (see here) Anyways the article discussed the environmental and societal problems evoked by CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operation) in Indiana. Ever since meeting her, I have stayed in touch and tried to do my small part (writing legislatures, signing petitions, etc.) to keep CAFOs and CAFO waste out of my home state. CAFOs basically produce inferior quality meat, the animals are treated terribly, they put small family farms out of business, and the concentrated waste produced in CAFOs damage local ecosystems and makes locations virtually unlivable due to the pollution and smell.

The first I had heard of CAFOs was a 2007 Rolling Stone article entitled Boss Hog (here). I immediately stopped eating commercial pork. Since then other sources that I heave read or watched include Omnivores Dilema, Fast Food Nation, Food Inc, The Future of Food, and others. For anyone interested, Barbara just sent me the link to a new UK documentary Pig Business discussing how Smith Field Farms, the number one pork producer in the U.S. has moved over to Poland to break a foothold in the european market. The movie features Rick Dove, a speaker at the last Indiana CAFO Watch conference, and does a great job of showing the myriad reasons why CAFOs are not an optimal means to produce meat. The official Pig Business website cane be here.

Check out the documentary...