USMB Coffee Shop IV

[ChrisL]

Also the way adding chemicals, etc to food is approached is from the statistics/measurement standpoint, how many parts per 100/1000/million/billion will the human body be able to take without ill effect on average. That's great except for two problems, cumulative toxicity and genetic predisposition (which includes genetic differences).

My grandmother is in her late 80s and she is quite healthy for a person of her age. She eats the same foods I eat. She never really drank or smoked. She was never overweight and always did things in moderation.

Right there is the primary key. But look at what I posted;

That's great except for two problems, cumulative toxicity and genetic predisposition (which includes genetic differences).

What that means is you and your grandmother may never ever have a problem from the added chemicals, your bodies may be quite efficient at expelling toxins, the people next door my not be so lucky with their genetic makeup.
It's all genetics related.

Unfortunately, her mental health is failing. She has a touch of dementia and has to be in a nursing home because she needs 24-hour supervision. She still remembers me and stuff, but she is very forgetful. That is kind of tough, but she is actually doing very well, participating in activities, etc. She is one tough lady!

 

[gallantwarrior]

Modern corn as we know it is a complete GMOed product modified over centuries.

Huge difference between that and what they've done with modern GMO foodstuffs.

 

[Ringel05]

Also the way adding chemicals, etc to food is approached is from the statistics/measurement standpoint, how many parts per 100/1000/million/billion will the human body be able to take without ill effect on average. That's great except for two problems, cumulative toxicity and genetic predisposition (which includes genetic differences).

My grandmother is in her late 80s and she is quite healthy for a person of her age. She eats the same foods I eat. She never really drank or smoked. She was never overweight and always did things in moderation.

Right there is the primary key. But look at what I posted;

That's great except for two problems, cumulative toxicity and genetic predisposition (which includes genetic differences).

What that means is you and your grandmother may never ever have a problem from the added chemicals, your bodies may be quite efficient at expelling toxins, the people next door my not be so lucky with their genetic makeup.
It's all genetics related.

Unfortunately, her mental health is failing. She has a touch of dementia and has to be in a nursing home because she needs 24-hour supervision. She still remembers me and stuff, but she is very forgetful. That is kind of tough, but she is actually doing very well, participating in activities, etc. She is one tough lady!

Sorry to hear that, I would prefer to lose physical abilities over mental. Heck it's possible that the foods we now eat are at least partially responsible for that, we just don't know yet.

 

[Ringel05]

Modern corn as we know it is a complete GMOed product modified over centuries.

Huge difference between that and what they've done with modern GMO foodstuffs.

My only point was how people view GMOs as chemically lab created only which is not completely true.

 

[ChrisL]

Also the way adding chemicals, etc to food is approached is from the statistics/measurement standpoint, how many parts per 100/1000/million/billion will the human body be able to take without ill effect on average. That's great except for two problems, cumulative toxicity and genetic predisposition (which includes genetic differences).

My grandmother is in her late 80s and she is quite healthy for a person of her age. She eats the same foods I eat. She never really drank or smoked. She was never overweight and always did things in moderation.

Right there is the primary key. But look at what I posted;

That's great except for two problems, cumulative toxicity and genetic predisposition (which includes genetic differences).

What that means is you and your grandmother may never ever have a problem from the added chemicals, your bodies may be quite efficient at expelling toxins, the people next door my not be so lucky with their genetic makeup.
It's all genetics related.

Unfortunately, her mental health is failing. She has a touch of dementia and has to be in a nursing home because she needs 24-hour supervision. She still remembers me and stuff, but she is very forgetful. That is kind of tough, but she is actually doing very well, participating in activities, etc. She is one tough lady!

Sorry to hear that, I would prefer to lose physical abilities over mental. Heck it's possible that the foods we now eat are at least partially responsible for that, we just don't know yet.

We had her home at my auntie's house for the Christmas holiday. She was really happy to be there and see everyone.

 

[Foxfyre]

Like many things, I see GMOs as having a plus side and a down side. I think we are wise to try to avoid the downside of most things and we are okay by enjoying or benefiting from the upside. I personally think most GMOs in our food supply are probably less dangerous to our health than the long term effect of processed foods stripped of much of their natural nutritious value and full of all manner of preservatives and additives to make them taste better. I do think that the current rash of ADD and ADHD, increased cancers, diabetes, heart conditions, autism and related conditions, increased obesity, allergies, and various other disorders etc. may likely be traced to the long term effect of unhealthy substances we take into our bodies in excess. I am sure the next generation will learn more and sort a lot of that out. Meanwhile I make a reasonable effort to choose a reasonably balanced and healthy diet for us and otherwise choose to just enjoy life and not worry about it all that much. And that includes enjoying the absolutely decadent chocolate pecan pie our neighbors brought over last night.

 

[ChrisL]

Like many things, I see GMOs as having a plus side and a down side. I think we are wise to try to avoid the downside of most things and we are okay by enjoying or benefiting from the upside. I personally think most GMOs in our food supply are probably less dangerous to our health than the long term effect of processed foods stripped of much of their natural nutritious value and full of all manner of preservatives and additives to make them taste better. I do think that the current rash of ADD and ADHD, increased cancers, diabetes, heart conditions, autism and related conditions, increased obesity, allergies, and various other disorders etc. may likely be traced to the unhealthy substances we take into our bodies in excess. I am sure the next generation will learn more and sort a lot of that out. Meanwhile I make a reasonable effort to choose a reasonably balanced and healthy diet for us and otherwise choose to just enjoy life and not worry about it all that much. And that includes enjoying the absolutely decadent chocolate pecan pie our neighbors brought over last night.

New studies I've read about have suggested that peanut allergies are actually caused by lack of exposure to peanuts as a young one.

 

[Ringel05]

Like many things, I see GMOs as having a plus side and a down side. I think we are wise to try to avoid the downside of most things and we are okay by enjoying or benefiting from the upside. I personally think most GMOs in our food supply are probably less dangerous to our health than the long term effect of processed foods stripped of much of their natural nutritious value and full of all manner of preservatives and additives to make them taste better. I do think that the current rash of ADD and ADHD, increased cancers, diabetes, heart conditions, autism and related conditions, increased obesity, allergies, and various other disorders etc. may likely be traced to the long term effect of unhealthy substances we take into our bodies in excess. I am sure the next generation will learn more and sort a lot of that out. Meanwhile I make a reasonable effort to choose a reasonably balanced and healthy diet for us and otherwise choose to just enjoy life and not worry about it all that much. And that includes enjoying the absolutely decadent chocolate pecan pie our neighbors brought over last night.

The sequencing of the human genome was just scratching the surface, we have a ways to go yet before we really start understanding much of what we've uncovered.

 

[ChrisL]

Peanut Allergies: Prevention by Early Exposure?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Oh and the modern, cultivated apple tree is another ancient GMOed plant.

I would guess almost all fruit bearing plants have been cultivated for maximum yields and beautiful fruit. Selective breeding by mixing the best with the best almost certainly isn't a bad thing.

But I continue to be leery of food products that have been modified chemically or unnaturally modified. Think mad cow disease as a result of force feeding in appropriate substances to cattle.

A good article on the subject here:
WHO | Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods

But the question remains, there is no way to determine who is doing this responsibly and who is not.

Excerpt:

. . .
5. What are the main issues of concern for human health?
While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are the potentials to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.

Allergenicity
As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic organisms to non-allergic organisms is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While foods developed using traditional breeding methods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for the testing of GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.

Gene transfer
Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used as markers when creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of gene transfer technology that does not involve antibiotic resistance genes is encouraged.

Outcrossing
The migration of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. Cases have been reported where GM crops approved for animal feed or industrial use were detected at low levels in the products intended for human consumption. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown. . .​

I was just referring to those GMOed foods that have been modified via "non-chemical" processes. I also understand the reasons for the lab modified processes and the inherent dangers we have and are still discovering involved in that arena. There's even some problems inherent in "natural" modification, for all intent an purposes we've all been unknowing lab rats for decades if not centuries in the search to not only increase yields but to preserve foods for longer periods of time.
It wouldn't surprise me if this modification of foods isn't one of the primary genetic triggers for some forms of cancer.

I think we're pretty much on the same page here. We both can see the benefit in increasing crop yields and the nutritional value of foods to feed a hungry world, but we are foolish not to understand that there can be good and bad coexisting side by side.

I just don't see a difference between naturally occurring hybrids and man made hybrids. We're, for the most part, using our God given talent to do what he hasn't gotten around to yet.
Were people afraid of crops grown on irrigated land?

I think where GW comes from is in response to his research in which some pretty ugly stuff is being doing to products that wind up not being good for us and possiibly even dangerous. I used the deadly mad cow disease as an excellent of GMOs gone awry in the worst way. And I'm glad some folks are researching that.

But I think Ringel and I have been arguing that there is an upside as well as a downside and it is okay to trust some GMOs while prudence might be in order in regards to others.

Modification through selective breeding of like organisms is one thing. I have very strong objections to organisms that have been genetically manipulated using genes that do not naturally occur in the original organism, especially those intended to be taken into our bodies. Studies of the effect that such alterations are woefully incomplete but there are indications that some of the unintended consequences are harmful.

 

[Ringel05]

I would guess almost all fruit bearing plants have been cultivated for maximum yields and beautiful fruit. Selective breeding by mixing the best with the best almost certainly isn't a bad thing.

But I continue to be leery of food products that have been modified chemically or unnaturally modified. Think mad cow disease as a result of force feeding in appropriate substances to cattle.

A good article on the subject here:
WHO | Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods

But the question remains, there is no way to determine who is doing this responsibly and who is not.

Excerpt:

. . .
5. What are the main issues of concern for human health?
While theoretical discussions have covered a broad range of aspects, the three main issues debated are the potentials to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity), gene transfer and outcrossing.

Allergenicity
As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic organisms to non-allergic organisms is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While foods developed using traditional breeding methods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for the testing of GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.

Gene transfer
Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used as markers when creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of gene transfer technology that does not involve antibiotic resistance genes is encouraged.

Outcrossing
The migration of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. Cases have been reported where GM crops approved for animal feed or industrial use were detected at low levels in the products intended for human consumption. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown. . .​

I was just referring to those GMOed foods that have been modified via "non-chemical" processes. I also understand the reasons for the lab modified processes and the inherent dangers we have and are still discovering involved in that arena. There's even some problems inherent in "natural" modification, for all intent an purposes we've all been unknowing lab rats for decades if not centuries in the search to not only increase yields but to preserve foods for longer periods of time.
It wouldn't surprise me if this modification of foods isn't one of the primary genetic triggers for some forms of cancer.

I think we're pretty much on the same page here. We both can see the benefit in increasing crop yields and the nutritional value of foods to feed a hungry world, but we are foolish not to understand that there can be good and bad coexisting side by side.

I just don't see a difference between naturally occurring hybrids and man made hybrids. We're, for the most part, using our God given talent to do what he hasn't gotten around to yet.
Were people afraid of crops grown on irrigated land?

I think where GW comes from is in response to his research in which some pretty ugly stuff is being doing to products that wind up not being good for us and possiibly even dangerous. I used the deadly mad cow disease as an excellent of GMOs gone awry in the worst way. And I'm glad some folks are researching that.

But I think Ringel and I have been arguing that there is an upside as well as a downside and it is okay to trust some GMOs while prudence might be in order in regards to others.

Modification through selective breeding of like organisms is one thing. I have very strong objections to organisms that have been genetically manipulated using genes that do not naturally occur in the original organism, especially those intended to be taken into our bodies. Studies of the effect that such alterations are woefully incomplete but there are indications that some of the unintended consequences are harmful.

Well most science is ostensibly done for improving the human condition but given that we already know from history how damaging and dangerous it can be (on many levels). It wouldn't surprise me if medical science/procedures a hundred years from now won't view this point in history as still the "dark ages" of medical treatment. Conversely we could all end up like this;

 

[gallantwarrior]

I was just referring to those GMOed foods that have been modified via "non-chemical" processes. I also understand the reasons for the lab modified processes and the inherent dangers we have and are still discovering involved in that arena. There's even some problems inherent in "natural" modification, for all intent an purposes we've all been unknowing lab rats for decades if not centuries in the search to not only increase yields but to preserve foods for longer periods of time.
It wouldn't surprise me if this modification of foods isn't one of the primary genetic triggers for some forms of cancer.

I think we're pretty much on the same page here. We both can see the benefit in increasing crop yields and the nutritional value of foods to feed a hungry world, but we are foolish not to understand that there can be good and bad coexisting side by side.

I just don't see a difference between naturally occurring hybrids and man made hybrids. We're, for the most part, using our God given talent to do what he hasn't gotten around to yet.
Were people afraid of crops grown on irrigated land?

I think where GW comes from is in response to his research in which some pretty ugly stuff is being doing to products that wind up not being good for us and possiibly even dangerous. I used the deadly mad cow disease as an excellent of GMOs gone awry in the worst way. And I'm glad some folks are researching that.

But I think Ringel and I have been arguing that there is an upside as well as a downside and it is okay to trust some GMOs while prudence might be in order in regards to others.

Modification through selective breeding of like organisms is one thing. I have very strong objections to organisms that have been genetically manipulated using genes that do not naturally occur in the original organism, especially those intended to be taken into our bodies. Studies of the effect that such alterations are woefully incomplete but there are indications that some of the unintended consequences are harmful.

Well most science is ostensibly done for improving the human condition but given that we already know from history how damaging and dangerous it can be (on many levels). It wouldn't surprise me if medical science/procedures a hundred years from now won't view this point in history as still the "dark ages" of medical treatment. Conversely we could all end up like this;

That gent looks like lots of people one often sees on the nightly news.

 

[Foxfyre]

Peanut Allergies: Prevention by Early Exposure?

I have always thought the folks were onto something who advocate allowing kids to get really dirty, taste their mud pies, etc. This could likely do the kids a huge favor by gradually building their immune system to protect them against all sorts of uglies. Could our current national obsession with absolute cleanliness in fact be contributing to our susceptibility to more illnesses?

And our grand parents did believe in exposing babies and young children to all sorts of different foodstuffs. It was in the late 50's and 60's I think that the conventional wisdom changed to protect kids from allergies by delaying introduction of many substances. Time will tell which theory is more right.

And on the other hand, kids of my generation endured a lot of none life threatening but ugly maladies like unexplained skin rashes, boils, canker sores, etc. etc. etc. that are quite rare now that we have cleaned up our food and water supplies. So again a balance in all things I think.

 

[Ringel05]

Peanut Allergies: Prevention by Early Exposure?

I have always thought the folks were onto something who advocate allowing kids to get really dirty, taste their mud pies, etc. This could likely do the kids a huge favor by gradually building their immune system to protect them against all sorts of uglies. Could our current national obsession with absolute cleanliness in fact be contributing to our susceptibility to more illnesses?

And our grand parents did believe in exposing babies and young children to all sorts of different foodstuffs. It was in the late 50's and 60's I think that the conventional wisdom changed to protect kids from allergies by delaying introduction of many substances. Time will tell which theory is more right.

And on the other hand, kids of my generation endured a lot of none life threatening but ugly maladies like unexplained skin rashes, boils, canker sores, etc. etc. etc. that are quite rare now that we have cleaned up our food and water supplies. So again a balance in all things I think.

Our infant/child mortality rates have dropped dramatically over the last 100 years, especially over the last 60 years. However, like you pointed out, the over use of medications like penicillin and the move to a more "germ free" home environment could (and I believe will) cause those numbers to start rising again, resistant superbugs and insufficiently developed immune systems will be the cause. Our drive to find cures and prolong lives has been a boon to many but also has a "dark side", it seems nature finds a way to counter much of our advancements in pharmaceutical medicine.

 

[Ernie S.]

So if this food is so poisonous, why aren't we all dropping like flies?

Never took biology didja.
The quantities ingested are very small but build up over time, some are flushed via the kidneys, some are not. When the quantities reach a certain concentration one of two things happen, either the actual poisons start affecting the person making them very ill with multiple symptoms or the concentrations trigger cancer. We're still learning how the triggers work. Our bodies constantly produce cancer cells, the bodies immune system takes care of them, kills them off until some genetic "trigger" is activated that stops or prevents the body's ability to kill the cancer cells.

Some thing trigger different people differently. Take cashew nuts. I'd bet everyone here can sit down with a jar of cashews and enjoy the whole thing. I'll eat 2 nuts and if I don't have medical intervention in 5 minutes, I'm DEAD. Yeah some folks may react to GMOs and pesticides, but most won't unless they restrict their diet to just one certain food

 

[Ringel05]

So if this food is so poisonous, why aren't we all dropping like flies?

Never took biology didja.
The quantities ingested are very small but build up over time, some are flushed via the kidneys, some are not. When the quantities reach a certain concentration one of two things happen, either the actual poisons start affecting the person making them very ill with multiple symptoms or the concentrations trigger cancer. We're still learning how the triggers work. Our bodies constantly produce cancer cells, the bodies immune system takes care of them, kills them off until some genetic "trigger" is activated that stops or prevents the body's ability to kill the cancer cells.

Some thing trigger different people differently. Take cashew nuts. I'd bet everyone here can sit down with a jar of cashews and enjoy the whole thing. I'll eat 2 nuts and if I don't have medical intervention in 5 minutes, I'm DEAD. Yeah some folks may react to GMOs and pesticides, but most won't unless they restrict their diet to just one certain food

Now you're talking about allergies and yes I agree, I'm talking (primarily) about cancer triggers something we're just starting to learn about and understand.

 

[Montrovant]

So if this food is so poisonous, why aren't we all dropping like flies?

Never took biology didja.
The quantities ingested are very small but build up over time, some are flushed via the kidneys, some are not. When the quantities reach a certain concentration one of two things happen, either the actual poisons start affecting the person making them very ill with multiple symptoms or the concentrations trigger cancer. We're still learning how the triggers work. Our bodies constantly produce cancer cells, the bodies immune system takes care of them, kills them off until some genetic "trigger" is activated that stops or prevents the body's ability to kill the cancer cells.

Some thing trigger different people differently. Take cashew nuts. I'd bet everyone here can sit down with a jar of cashews and enjoy the whole thing. I'll eat 2 nuts and if I don't have medical intervention in 5 minutes, I'm DEAD. Yeah some folks may react to GMOs and pesticides, but most won't unless they restrict their diet to just one certain food

It wouldn't kill me, but I sure wouldn't enjoy eating a jar of cashews!

 

[Spoonman]

the problem with gmo's is what they are engineered for. i.e. resistant to herbicides. that way they can spray the fields and the plants with herbicides, kill the weeds and not kill the plants. the fruit and vegetables contain much higher levels of these poisons. you then ingest these poisons.

I've known people who have been ingesting this type of food and are in their 80s. This fear of genetically modified food products reminds me a lot of the fear of vaccinations where a lot of misinformation is spread.

a lot of people have been smoking heavily all their lives and live into their 90's

 

[Spoonman]

Like many things, I see GMOs as having a plus side and a down side. I think we are wise to try to avoid the downside of most things and we are okay by enjoying or benefiting from the upside. I personally think most GMOs in our food supply are probably less dangerous to our health than the long term effect of processed foods stripped of much of their natural nutritious value and full of all manner of preservatives and additives to make them taste better. I do think that the current rash of ADD and ADHD, increased cancers, diabetes, heart conditions, autism and related conditions, increased obesity, allergies, and various other disorders etc. may likely be traced to the long term effect of unhealthy substances we take into our bodies in excess. I am sure the next generation will learn more and sort a lot of that out. Meanwhile I make a reasonable effort to choose a reasonably balanced and healthy diet for us and otherwise choose to just enjoy life and not worry about it all that much. And that includes enjoying the absolutely decadent chocolate pecan pie our neighbors brought over last night.

I think foods should be labeled if they contain GMO products. I'm not saying ban them but we should have the choice to buy products with them or not. let people make their own choice

 

[ChrisL]

the problem with gmo's is what they are engineered for. i.e. resistant to herbicides. that way they can spray the fields and the plants with herbicides, kill the weeds and not kill the plants. the fruit and vegetables contain much higher levels of these poisons. you then ingest these poisons.

I've known people who have been ingesting this type of food and are in their 80s. This fear of genetically modified food products reminds me a lot of the fear of vaccinations where a lot of misinformation is spread.

a lot of people have been smoking heavily all their lives and live into their 90's

Well, if they haven't died from a lung disease, then I would say they are probably lucky. I definitely wouldn't recommend smoking for your longevity though. My ex's dad smoked and had emphysema and had a terrible time during his last days. Not something I would want to go through or want to see my loved one (s) go through either. OTOH, we all basically consume the same foods. I tend to believe that cancer is something more genetic. A genetic anomaly. But smoking and serious (often times fatal) lung disease go hand in hand.