Our World

[kolah]

Our World? This 30 minute video explains the simple truth.

 

[squiggly]

Ah, squigs, they all need to be studied, first. The more my own mother (the registered dietitian) is delving into this stuff, the more she's tooting *my* (organic) horn. It's not just pesticides, it's foods we can't adequately digest, foods that cause allergic reactions, and foods that cause reactions we have not yet determined.

30 years down the road we may be collectively culling ourselves if we don't get a handle on obesity and diabetes. And that's just to start.

As far as allergies you're right on the money. However I don't buy the reactions we have not yet determined bit.

Something which is often touted in the world is the idea that science is incomplete and therefore it cannot "know everything". Of course that is true, but what that doesn't mean is that science is totally ignorant or that it doesn't know a whole lot.

One of my favorite versions of this argument is the following one:

"Evolution is just a theory."

It's true, it is a theory. However, in science, the word theory means something different from what this sentence implies to a laymen. To many the word theory will invoke the idea of a "hunch" or a "guess" or in this case perhaps an "educated guess". In science the proper way to say this would be "Evolution is just a hypothesis." But that's not what it says--because that isn't at all the case.

In science a theory is something which organizes a large amount of data into a bigger picture. It takes experimental results, confirmed/unconfirmed hypothesis, and other snippets of scientific data and organizes them into a model. This is what we call a theory. It's VERY different from a hunch. To use an analogy all of the points that we have tested and all agree upon when it comes to growing pot are a part of the greater "Marijuana Growing Theory" that we present on this site. There are still some hypotheses which are untested or not adequately tested--but we all, for instance, agree that you can grow marijuana hydroponically, or organically, or in coco or peat moss. We agree on these things because hundreds if not thousands of us have tested those hypotheses and now we can organize them into our greater "theory" about growing the plant. This is the same model that the "theory of evolution" takes on. It represents the results of 100+ years of all of our best observations and experiments on the subject, not some guy's guess from 100 years ago (as many would have you believe with regard to Darwin).

In this particular instance I think your implication is that we don't know everything about the body. That's true, but what we do know a lot about are molecules.

One of the biggest discoveries in all of chemistry was that organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry are unified under a single theory--or rather that the atoms and molecules which make up both types of substances are the same atoms/molecules. This was proven when a gentleman synthesized urea (an organic substance) from only inorganic materials. Previously the two disciplines were utterly separated--as much as english and physics are today.

This was our first peer into the understanding (which has now been greatly expanded) that when you break everything down into smaller and smaller parts they are all the same. IE oxygen is oxygen, nitrogen is nitrogen, hydrogen is hydrogen, and the only exception to this rule being that of isotopes.

So when you suggest that there may be reactions to something sourced organically versus a GM product the reason it doesn't make sense to me is that, as I've said here already, the digestive system breaks these things down very well into their constituent parts. It reduces both products to molecules/atoms which are wholly indistinguishable from one another.

This isn't a case of one enzyme doing this and another doing that. For the most part it is incredibly concentrated acid just totally hydrolyzing all of the bonds holding the stuff together.

We've yet to find or conceive of something that a hot enough fire can't burn (think throwing flame retardant objects into the Sun for instance -- *poof*). A very similar argument can be made for organic molecules with regard to strong enough acid. In natural terms, human stomach acid is about as strong as it gets.

This stuff really kicks the crap out of molecules.

There may be allergies we don't understand fully and things of that nature (and that's really why I added the caveat about wonky proteins in my above statement as these tend to be the molecules by and large which cause allergic reactions)--but we're not going to discover some whole new thing that our body does wherein it would be able to tell the difference between a GM product and a natural one.

If there is some kind of discovery to be made here it would have to occur between the mouth and stomach which is HIGHLY unlikely. The main thing that makes this very unlikely is that all of the cells from the mouth down to and including the stomach have an extremely high turnover rate. They fully replace themselves once or twice a day. The linings, the mucous membranes, even your taste buds. None of them are long lived enough to be the site of some type of newfangled reaction that would have this giant impact on the body.

Do these products need to be studied? Yes. I think we should study everything. However, that doesn't mean that they're unsafe to eat in the interim.

On the other side of this is the undeniable fact that, yes, indeed pesticides are QUITE unsafe to eat and not only might but certainly do cause the types of unwanted reactions people are blaming on GMO products.

I totally agree that GMO products are bad and should be avoided. I just think they're bad because of what is done to them, not because of what they physically are.

 

[Natural]

The biggest problem I think, is that the general public has no way of distinguishing between GMO and the use of pesticide/herbicide. They tend to go hand in hand especially our biggest crop..corn. The reason for abundant chemical spraying is directly related to GMO. Monsanto and Dupont are billon dollar industries, they are beginning to monopolize farming especially here. Ever heard the words "to big to fail"? Regulation isn't going to happen unless people demand it. Farming along with tech are the biggest industries in this country and are not going anywhere, but there is a public desire for health and green technology.
As for mutagenesis..everything on the planet is mutated. The radiation from Sun and Earth do this naturally..after WW2 we used increased levels to make this occur. There isn't much in the world that this hasn't happened to by way of nature or hastened by man. When we cook our food it is also a form of mutagenesis. The enemies are clear enough if you take a trip to the grocery. Farm chemical laced food..(sometimes irradiated..see fruit flies) and most of all highly processed, often with substandard sources or laboratory created food substitution. Take for example the idea that food must have a shelf life in that it goes through long shipping and sits on the grocery shelves till it gets bought; hydrogenated oils being a great example. We all know it isn't good for us, simply put, it doesn't digest well. The list goes on and on..a person needs a chemistry degree to understand common grocery food.
Trying to eat well and you'll end up going broke buying organic or simply give way to sustainable farming of your own food. The heyday of Science AG has seen it's day, it's time to turn the table and send them fleeing to better more useful techs. Start rewarding sustainable and organic food production and limiting what can be called food. It's definitely a slippery slope for both sides of the issue..mainly because alot of our financial well-being as a country is due to science agriculture..and right now they own the deck of cards and have the biggest pile of chips at the table.

 

[squiggly]

The list goes on and on..a person needs a chemistry degree to understand common grocery food.

I honestly think this is a problem on both sides of the argument, if not THE problem. It's true the way you framed it, and it's also true the way I framed it (inasmuch as people point fingers when they really don't know what to point them at).

Trying to eat well and you'll end up going broke buying organic or simply give way to sustainable farming of your own food.

100% agree.

The heyday of Science AG has seen it's day, it's time to turn the table and send them fleeing to better more useful techs. Start rewarding sustainable and organic food production and limiting what can be called food. It's definitely a slippery slope for both sides of the issue..mainly because alot of our financial well-being as a country is due to science agriculture..and right now they own the deck of cards and have the biggest pile of chips at the table.

Yeah I don't know how true that is. As you've said a big part of our comparative advantage as a country (we've lost most of the rest of them that we had) is that we're able to feed ourselves cheaply. Big Ag has a lot to do with that.

This is why, to my mind, one of the most un-American things possible is opposing immigration reform, or supporting mass deportation of migrant workers. These are both good plans if you want to ultimately pay a shitload of money for your fruit and veg, otherwise they might not be in our best interest.

It sounds nice but I think you've hit it on the head, the industry is too big to fail at this point. We're on a path to mutually assured destruction on an economic level if we want to get rid of it.

I think a better plan is to simply regulate the shit out of the industry. There is no reason organic farming can't work on a massive, factory farm, scale--no reason but for price of course.

 

[kooter840]

Freedom to fascism.......youtube it. Bush was behind all of it.

 

[Ohiofarmer]

Freedom to fascism.......youtube it. Bush was behind all of it.

America has been primed for fascism since 1949 when the u.s. saw how well it worked in germany.....take it easy

 

[Seamaiden]

Squigs, what I'm saying is nothing to be compared to "evolution is just a theory," and it's actually a little insulting when you take it to that level. What you're saying is VASTLY oversimplifying the chemistry that occurs in the body, from the moment something touches your lips (or your nose picks up its scent) to the moment it exits, and I'm willing to bet that your background is not, in fact, in human nutrition.

How do we explain the vast increase in Celiac? Do we just say tritely, as so often occurs with autism and ADD/ADHD, that it's merely an instance of more diagnoses being made? How about the vast increase in other gastrointestinal issues? How about the current diabetes epidemic? How about other food sensitivities (not allergies)? Would you like to discuss what solanoids, or other alkaloids found in various plants do to people with certain conditions? E.G. folks with rheumatoid arthritis should avoid Solanaceous veggies because they seriously aggravate inflammation in the joints--known fact. Those who are prone to calcium oxalate building up in the blood should avoid foods high in oxalic acids/oxylates, because these compounds actually bind with many vital minerals making them unavailable. And these things I'm discussing are just what's known to those whose area of study is human nutrition down to the molecular level.

Now, what molecules or compounds are being created by GM'd and mutagenic organisms? Do we know? Honest answer is we don't know what the reaction will be in the gut when we take a wheat variety that once had something like 14 chromosome pairs, to over 40? What are those other chromosomes doing? Was this wheat spliced? No! It was created via chemical mutagenesis (just like making an S1), and that's just one example.

And the issue can not, in my strong opinion, be boiled down to a comparison of the definition of the term 'theory' to a layman vs 'theory' to a scientist.

 

[kolah]

vaccines are a large part of allergies and illness,,,but that's a whole other topic. :)

 

[Seamaiden]

Do you think vaccines are tied to the issues that appear to be related to nutrition?

I feel strongly that my son's autism is directly tied to the chemicals I was exposed to while pregnant. I worked first for a Sir Speedy printer (you folks remember those, right?), then I worked at a wedding thermographers where I was exposed to lead daily. The year Prop 65 was passed. I refused to sign the papers and I was promptly fired.

 

[Natural]

did monsanto buy blackwater?!

 

[Ohiofarmer]

Squigs, what I'm saying is nothing to be compared to "evolution is just a theory," and it's actually a little insulting when you take it to that level. What you're saying is VASTLY oversimplifying the chemistry that occurs in the body, from the moment something touches your lips (or your nose picks up its scent) to the moment it exits, and I'm willing to bet that your background is not, in fact, in human nutrition.

How do we explain the vast increase in Celiac? Do we just say tritely, as so often occurs with autism and ADD/ADHD, that it's merely an instance of more diagnoses being made? How about the vast increase in other gastrointestinal issues? How about the current diabetes epidemic? How about other food sensitivities (not allergies)? Would you like to discuss what solanoids, or other alkaloids found in various plants do to people with certain conditions? E.G. folks with rheumatoid arthritis should avoid Solanaceous veggies because they seriously aggravate inflammation in the joints--known fact. Those who are prone to calcium oxalate building up in the blood should avoid foods high in oxalic acids/oxylates, because these compounds actually bind with many vital minerals making them unavailable. And these things I'm discussing are just what's known to those whose area of study is human nutrition down to the molecular level.

Now, what molecules or compounds are being created by GM'd and mutagenic organisms? Do we know? Honest answer is we don't know what the reaction will be in the gut when we take a wheat variety that once had something like 14 chromosome pairs, to over 40? What are those other chromosomes doing? Was this wheat spliced? No! It was created via chemical mutagenesis (just like making an S1), and that's just one example.

And the issue can not, in my strong opinion, be boiled down to a comparison of the definition of the term 'theory' to a layman vs 'theory' to a scientist.

there is only one definition of the term theory, and just because somone is a "scientist" does not increase their odds of using the term correctly over a laymen. Just the same as calling yourself a scientist on an online forum does not give credibility to your education: in the eyes of people whom are educated; rather then being knowledgeable, therefor making said one a laymen, a holder of knowledge, by definition. peace

 

[Ohiofarmer]

vaccines are a large part of allergies and illness,,,but that's a whole other topic. :)

their also a large part of the completly destroyed nueron synapsis in 90 something percent of the population, thats why there's self proclaimed educated people who have zero ability to think rationaly, use critical thinking, or come to terms with who they really are to begin with.

 

[Seamaiden]

there is only one definition of the term theory, and just because somone is a "scientist" does not increase their odds of using the term correctly over a laymen. Just the same as calling yourself a scientist on an online forum does not give credibility to your education: in the eyes of people whom are educated; rather then being knowledgeable, therefor making said one a laymen, a holder of knowledge, by definition. peace

Ok.

 

[dirk d]

I been educating my patients about nutrition and what is in our food. please everyone help educate someone else so they aren't ignorant anymore.

 

[dirk d]

man if only...been away growing but back :) hope everyone's been good...