Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Future Foods from the past

Posted 8 years ago on Sept. 16, 2013, 2:21 a.m. EST by Builder (4202)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

People keep telling me that it's so expensive to eat a healthy diet.

That depends on how much you expect others to be involved in feeding you.

Are you truly a puppet of the system? Are you ready to disconnect?

Will you take responsibility for your own choices, and your own health?

Are you looking for a magic potion? Or are you wanting an instant cure?

Is food something that comes in plasic wrappers and paper bags?

How long have humans actually relied upon others for their daily food intake?

Is it normal to expect honesty from a corporation that manufactures consumables?

These are all questions that we need to consider, when we partake of our daily sustenance.

Did you know that over fifty percent of the global population consumes just one bowl of rice per day? No sodas. No fries. No cheeseburgers. No pizza. No coffee. No donuts. No chewing gum. No candy. No chocolate. No drugs.

Just rice. These people live quite productive lives, and suffer far fewer health problems than afluent westerners.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by LeoYo (5909) 8 years ago

USDA Seeks to Expand Pilot Program Which Leaves Meat Contaminated With Fecal Matter

Tuesday, 17 September 2013 09:50 By Candice Bernd, Truthout | Report


Half of the USDA inspectors in industrial meat plants will be replaced with inspectors employed by the very same companies whose meats they are inspecting if plans by the US Department of Agriculture are allowed to go forward.

Is there poop in your pork and poultry? It’s a serious question. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has plans to expand a privatized meat inspection model that has been in place for 14 years at five hog plants in the United States and which has been found to fail time and time again at preventing contamination of meat - with fecal matter.

The program, known as the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point-Based Inspection Models Project - or HIMP - has been in place since the late 1990s and its expansion would replace almost half the USDA Food Safety Service inspectors in industrial meat plants with inspectors employed by those very same companies. It would reportedly speed up production lines by as much as 20 percent. But a recent article in The Washington Post, reports that three out of the five pilot HIMP plants were among the 10 worst health and safety violators in the country, according to a spring report by the USDA inspector general.

"The USDA all along has been saying that these pilots will prove that removing government inspectors and turning over [their] the responsibilities to the company employees will enhance food safety when, in essence, the exact opposite has occurred," said Tony Corbo, who directs the food program at nonprofit Food & Water Watch.

Although the HIMP pilot program is still in a preliminary stage, the Agriculture Department has given a green light to Australia, Canada and New Zealand to use this experimental, privatized model of food inspection in meat plants whose products are for export to the United States, even though the foreign plants operating under processes considered equivalent to the HIMP program have experienced an epidemic of contamination-related problems within the past two years, including a Canadian plant which had to recall more than 8.8 million pounds of beef product fouled with E. coli.

Corbo told Truthout that, in a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, a coalition of consumer groups are formally requesting the USDA halt the HIMP pilot projects and revoke the determination the department has made with foreign countries, which allows them to use similar meat inspection processes.

"In the other countries, it’s going to be a little more complicated [to stop the pilot programs] because the USDA has already given their blessing, unless they re-evaluate the equivalency," he said. According to Corbo, poultry companies like Tyson Foods began pushing for the privatized model in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration, and self-selected their company plants for these privatized pilot programs. Currently, 20 poultry plants in the United States are using a similar pilot program to HIMP, and the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced in January of 2012 that it would expand the program across all poultry plants in the country.

The meat industry continues to support the HIMP program, as well as similar privatized pilot programs operating within pork and poultry plants around the country despite the many problems plaguing these pilot plants. Tom Super, vice president of communications with the National Chicken Council said the HIMP program doesn’t fail to prevent contamination because the cases of contaminated meat found by the inspector general at the HIMP pork plants did not actually leave the plant. The meat found to be contaminated with fecal matter was still caught by health inspectors at the end of the processing line, but federal officials told The Washington Post that the contamination was found much too late in the inspection process. "In essence, the inspectors did their jobs, the public was protected and no recalls or foodborne illness outbreaks were linked to any of these plants," Super told Truthout in an email.

He also asserted that the average positive rate for salmonella contamination in HIMP pilot plants is 20 percent lower than the average positive rate of contamination in nonpilot plants. His data is drawn from a 2011 FSIS evaluation of chicken slaughter establishments participating in the HIMP program.

But according to reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the inspector general, there just isn’t enough data to support whether or not HIMP improves food safety.

In fact, the GAO report found that the "FSIS’ conclusion about the pilot project was based, in part, on comparisons of data that were not designed to be comparable." Additionally, the data FSIS and Super cite is outdated, according to the GAO assessment:

Moreover, data from the last 2 years analyzed did not show a significantly lower prevalence of salmonella for plants participating in the pilot project. According to FSIS officials, FSIS did not collect data to demonstrate the relative effectiveness of plants participating and not participating in any of the pilot projects. Instead, the agency analyzed data for a variety of inspection activities performed in all plants (regardless of a plant’s inspection system) to ensure their compliance with regulatory requirements.

Super also cited data from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics showing the poultry industry has had a 74 percent decrease in its worker injury and illness rates since 1994. But again, there just may not be enough data to fully back up the industry’s claims.

Food & Water Watch has teamed up with other consumer advocate groups to pressure USDA to examine the worker safety aspect of increased line speeds at pilot plants, but Corbo says the USDA has thus far been resistant to look at the rates of carpal tunnel syndrome among employees at HIMP plants.

The FSIS did not respond to Truthout’s request for comment. "They’re going to increase the line speed, in those plants, to 175 birds-a-minute for chicken plants. There’s only going to be one USDA inspector left on that line, so you tell me how a USDA inspector is supposed to look at three birds every second to determine whether there’s visible fecal contamination on that bird," Corbo said.

"What they’re essentially doing here is replacing inspection with chemical treatments that they think are going to deal with contamination, with E. coli or salmonella. So the companies are going to be using more chemicals to try to sanitize the meat that we eat instead of having real inspection."

Copyright, Truthout.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

It's this kind of article that leads me more and more towards providing my own food in any way that I can. I'm still looking for some evidence, but I have been told that chicken feathers are powdered, and added to bread and cake mixes, under the auspicious handle of "bread improver".

Went fishing this morning, and caught some rather nice whiting. Pleasant enough outing, watching the waves roll in.

[-] 4 points by LeoYo (5909) 8 years ago

I used to live on rice until I found out about the high arsenic levels in it. Then I only consumed black rice from China since China is the only nation with low arsenic regulations. This was until I found out about the high levels of lead in rice. Now I don't eat rice at all and won't until further studies can refute recent findings. Life has become so empty without rice.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Hmmm, I rarely eat rice, but when I do, it's Australian-grown.

I've been exploring dishes made on chia seeds, which are very nutritious. Small quanitities are all that we require.

[-] 4 points by LeoYo (5909) 8 years ago

I've been thinking of creative ways to combine portabella mushrooms (200g), kale (100g), sesame seeds (100g), sunflower seeds (100g), and wheat bran (100g). If I exclude the wheat bran, I have to increase the mushrooms to 300g and double the sesame and sunflower seeds to 200g each.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Yeah, I'd lose the wheat bran as well.

Mushrooms are loaded with B12, as long as they aren't overcooked.

[-] 2 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

People who eat just rice don't live decades longer than westerners. Life expectancy rates are higher in the western world than almost any where else, except places like Japan where they don't only eat one bowl of rice per day.

The future is synthetic foods.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Life expectancy is just one issue. Illness and the expectancy of chronic disease is another thing altogether. Just because drugs can keep sick and obese people alive, that has no bearing on the quality of that life. A bowl of rice a day will not lead to obesity, cancer, or toxicity from GMO produce.

(quote) Studies are showing that Bt toxins found in Monsanto crops are harmful to mammalian blood by damaging red blood cells and more. RBC’s are responsible for delivering oxygen to the body tissues through blood flow.

Bacillus thuringensis (Bt) is a bacterium commonly used as a biological pesticide. It is a microorganism that produces toxic chemicals. It occurs naturally in the environment, and is usually isolated from soil, insects and plant surfaces. Prior to this study, Bt was thought to be toxic only to insects, but recent studies are proving otherwise.(unquote)


[-] 0 points by leilathomson (-13) 8 years ago

Sure, but you incorrectly stated that people who eat one bowl of rice per day live decades longer. That's what I was replying to.

And yes, there's all kinds of problems with Monsanto. They are evil beyond imagination.

Still, synthetic foods are the future. Monsanto isn't, but GMO technology is. Great technologies full of promises cannot be stopped, even if one company uses it for evil. And, why would anyone refuse the immense fine grain power and control that GMOs can offer.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Because they don't offer anything lasting nor substantial.

Nutrient levels in GMO and GE produce are not higher.

Pesticide use is not lower. In fact, farmers are being forced to use the "bad old" chemicals because of growing resistance to glyphosate, whether its sprayed on the crops, or engineered to be produced within the crops themselves.

The claims that crop yeilds will be higher have also failed to be proven.

Can you find anything that might back up these premises of yours, that GMO crops are beneficial?

On the bowl of rice thing, longevity and health are two different issues.

[-] 0 points by leilathomson (-13) 8 years ago

Nutrient levels in GMO and GE produce are not higher.

Because of how Monsanto uses GMOs. GMO technology can create food with higher nutritional value. It just depends on the application, on the particular genetic modification.

Pesticide use is not lower.

Because of how Monsanto uses GMOs. Their applications are meant to create a need for a particular pesticide so they can sell it and make a lot of money. That says more about capitalism than it says about GMOs.

Your judging GMOs as a whole based on a few applications from a capitalism money hungry company. Confusing technology with application. We see this all the time in GMO discussions and it's really sad.

Is the technology of robots inherently evil because of what DARPA is doing? What about robots that can be used for surgeries? Are computers inherently evil because of viruses? Are drugs inherently evil because some can seriously mess you up or even kill you?

GMOs are simply a technology which offer you more fine grained control over food than cross-breeding does. You can design food more scientifically instead of using a trial and error method. What you do with that gained power is another story all together. You can't judge GMO technology from particular applications. What you've done above is tell us about particular applications, not about GMOs.

I'm not going to go around finding links to defend what I'm saying. The reason is I don't really care if people who read this believe me. Most anti-GMOs function like conspiracy theorists and no amount of evidence will convince them. The others can easily do some research themselves.

Instead, I appeal to common sense. You could cross-breed foods with the intent of creating poisons. You could also do that with GMOs. The only difference is you'll have more fine grain control with GMOs, hence more power. It's evident you could also create foods with better nutritional values if you wanted simply because you have more control. Again, you could also do that with cross-breeding, but it's less efficient.

On the bowl of rice thing, longevity and health are two different issues.

Yes, but your OP referred to longevity which is what I commented on. We agree you were wrong right? That people who eat one bowl of rice a day don't live decades longer than westerners. Right?

If you want to change this to them living healthier, than it's another story. This becomes really tricky. For one, the living expectancy in many countries where people only eat one bowl of rice a day is around 60 years or so. You can't say an 80 year old westerner living because of pharmaceutical drugs isn't living as healthy as a 50 year old living on one bowl of rice a day. You'd have to compare people of the same age. Generally, westerners live pretty healthy lives until they reach old age.

I'm too lazy to research this, but I'd be quite surprised to find someone eating one bowl of rice a day and not suffering from health issues. There's so many things your body would be missing. It seems ridiculous to me.

Apart from US where people are really fat, most westerners are healthy.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

How much have you actually studied the GMO subject? The thing is, there ARE problems with the technology. For example, when glyphosate was first being pushed, it was claimed it didn't harm humans because it works by affecting a plant's 'shikamate pathway,' which mammals don't possess (Google it). That's true, BUT, the human gut microbiome was virtually unknown at the time, and as we now know, many of the microorganisms in our GI tract do have this pathway. So, glyphosate alters our digestive system in negative ways, something which is just now coming to light.

Also what's lacking is a firm understanding of what happens when you start playing around with genes. We don't know near enough about it to even consider using it in our food supply. This paragraph sums up part of the problem:

"The rationale and impetus for genetic engineering and genetic modification was the ‘central dogma’ of molecular biology that assumed DNA carries all the instructions for making an organism. This is contrary to the reality of the fluid and responsive genome that already has come to light since the early 1980s. Instead of linear causal chains leading from DNA to RNA to protein and downstream biological functions, complex feed-forward and feed-back cycles interconnect organism and environment at all levels, marking and changing RNA and DNA down the generations. In order to survive, the organism needs to engage in natural genetic modification in real time, an exquisitely precise molecular dance of life with RNA and DNA responding to and participating fully in ‘downstream’ biological functions. That is why organisms and ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the crude, artificial genetically modified RNA and DNA created by human genetic engineers."

Eventually, we'll know enough about it to be able to safely play around with DNA and know EXACTLY what the outcomes will be, but that day is far in the future, in my opinion. And this is why a lot of us want GMO's banned immediately. It's not conspiracy-theory bullshit, it's because the products were rushed to market for the reasons you state, purely for capitalistic reasons. They were virtually untested when they were first approved.

Also check out some of the work by David Suzuki. The doc "Silent Forest" is excellent. It's talking about GM trees, but many of the things he talks about apply to all GM plants:


[-] 0 points by leilathomson (-13) 8 years ago

I agree 100%. I absolutely agree GMOs were rushed to market. I agree we need to test a lot more. I agree we aren't ready to make products with this technology. My only point is you can't dismiss a technology in its infancy because of a few applications.

I'm all for a moratorium on GMOs. Stop making products with them. Open-source them. Get governments to invest money so they can be researched by independent researchers instead of companies wanting to make a profit. Make more tests, keep playing with genes until we really understand what's going on.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

I agree with that completely. I've never been against the technology per se, it's the rush to market that I have a problem with. And now it's becoming apparent there are a LOT of problems with it. I like the idea of open-source, but considering the inherent dangers that's also a touchy subject:


One wonders what the odds would be of something truly dangerous getting out accidentally. There would have to be some serious oversight, I think, considering how GM plants have been contaminating non-GMOs already.


[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Can you extrapolate on why the future is synthetic foods?

Or, rather, why you think they are?

Rice is a subsistence diet. Most of those 50% will supplement that diet with other ingredients.

[-] 1 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

If they supplement their diet, then they are not only eating one bowl of rice per day as you stated in your OP. In any case, these people do not live decades longer than westerners. That's bunk. Even a cursory examination of life expectancy statistics from around the world shows this clearly.

Dietary science is in its infancy. We know only a little bit how vitamins, fats, etc.. affect us. The more we know, the better diets we can have. Eventually, we will know what happens to the food we eat at the atomic level. The dietary dream is to track how every single molecule we put in our bodies affect us. There are already scientists working on this.

Knowing how each food molecule affects us is one thing, but it is useless if we can't control what food we put in our bodies. That's where synthetic food comes in. They will provide us with fine grain control. You'll be able to know exactly what goes in to your body, and exactly how that affects you. With such fine control, it might even be possible to cure certain illnesses just be eating exactly the right things in the right amounts.

That's in terms of diet, the other advantages are in terms of production. For example, creating synthetic meat is much more efficient and arguably moral just than raising and killing animals. When you raise animals, the energy you spend is not only to make the meat you will eat, but also to grow the other parts of the animal. Companies will save lots of money with this, so they will engage quite forcefully. It's a more streamlined method, and has the advantage that we don't have to kill life.

These technologies cannot be stopped. They are the future. Unfortunately, they will be slowed down by anti-science groups who are against synthetic foods and GMOs, and companies like Monsanto who give GMOs a bad name by using that technology for nefarious means. We need to open-source GMOs. They shouldn't be controlled by big companies. Food production needs to be in the hands of the people.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Then what you need to push for, is transparency in the science behind transgenic production, and genetic modification of food sources, because at this point in time, there simply is none.

Double-blind testing, with full peer reviews, just like we used to have for everything we ingest.

[-] 1 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

Yes, indeed. We need full transparency. Anything less is unacceptable. Big companies should not be allowed to patent anything regarding food, and they shouldn't be allowed to do research behind closed doors. Capitalism just doesn't work when applied to food, and other things that are essential to living. Food production should be socialized, using either a model similar to socialism or communism. We need to open-source all this science so that anyone can contribute with experiments, research, etc... Money should not be the main priority, it should be the creation of better healthier foods, and the increasing of better and morally acceptable production methods.

The future is not in capitalist controlled GMOs, just like it's not in going back to the past. Primitivism does not work in the long run. The future is in GMOs and synthetic foods, but we haven't been doing it right. In the end, science will prevail, but transparency is a must to get the full trust of the people. The current problems with GMOs are not inherently due to the technology, they are caused by how that technology is used by big companies to make big money. We must change that.

Protesting against GMOs is simplistic and near-sighted. We need to protest against Monsanto and the other big companies that use this technology inappropriately. GMO technology should be encouraged.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Are you aware of the percentage of food grown in people's own plots in Russia? It's up around sixty percent of all the food grown in Russia.

Protesting against corporate-owned food production is essential to keeping the rights to produce what we want to eat. Chemical companies are attempting to limit what farmers and people are allowed to grow. How can that ever be a good thing for our future? Limiting biodiversity is good, in your vision for our future? How so?

GMO technology needs to do what all food producers have to do, and that is to prove that the products are safe for people to ingest. To date, there is no proof . It's even now doubtful whether feeding GMO produce to livestock is safe. You want evidence of this? It's not hard to find tonnes of it.

By all means, support your argument for GMO products, but do it with factual evidence.

[-] 1 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

Like I said, I disagree with what the companies are doing. I want the technology to be in the hands of the people. That means more research, more testing, etc... I agree we need more tests.

The evidence is the potential power of GMOs. We always want finer grain control. Synthetics provide this. We've been altering diversity since the beginning of time and will continue to do so.

If we produced all our food synthetically, we could actually increase biodiversity on the planet. We wouldn't have to modify foods by cross breeding. For example, there used to be more varieties of bananas before humans started cross breeding them to make them eatable. Just like tomatoes weren't eatable before, and almost all other foods.

We don't need to produce foods out in nature where they have an impact on the planet. All food could be produced synthetically in labs. This wouldn't affect the planet at all.

Like I said, the problem is the misuse of GMOs. We agree on that. And, we agree more testing needs to be done. I'm all for taking GMOs out of crops completely. Test everything in labs. Grow everything in labs. Separated from the biodiversity of the planet. Test and retest for many years before certain products are deemed safe. Etc... That's the way to go. Open-source so everyone can test.

The biggest problem with this debate is that people confuse the technology and the application. You cannot state that "GMOs are safe" or "GMOs are unsafe". Some will be safe, and some won't. You need to test each modification individually. Just like one application of nuclear power might be safe, and one might not. Being against an entire field of technology is not a good thing. It's being near-sighted.

As the population grows, we can't keep producing food the old way. We won't have enough land. If we go back to the old ways, that's a recipe for disaster for the whole planet. Fish stocks are quickly being depleted as we speak. The secret is synthetic fish. Stop fishing! Leave the oceans alone. Let's all do this in labs. Why? Because we can. We can save the planet.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

I pretty much stopped reading that when you said that all of our food can be grown in labs.

Seven billion people require feeding today. Where would these labs be situated, and who would be putting up the funding to construct them?

GMO grains have already escaped the testing stages. Farmers are losing their heritage after their own crops are infested with wind-borne GMO products, and the "owners" of the patented seeds sue for cross-pollination. A more ridiculous scenario would be difficult to imagine.

Almost every export market for US grain is now closed because of this GMO infestation.

Want some evidence?

[-] 2 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

This discussion started with a comment I made concerning the future of foods, not for the present time. The technology to create synthetic foods is just at its beginnings. We will need to develop this technology much further before it can be used to feed the people.

Where would these labs be situated, and who would be putting up the funding to construct them?

Creating food in labs takes up less space than farming, or raising cattle. For one, labs can have many floors. They could even be built underground. Secondly, you need much less space to create synthetic meat than you do to raise cattle. Synthetic meat doesn't need to move and play, it can be packed tight. The space that would be needed would be orders of magnitude smaller than the current space required to farm and raise animals for meat.

Like I said prior, ideally the production of food should be socialized. Everyone should be paying to create these labs. They should be owned by the people, for the people.

However, things don't seem to be moving this way. If food production remains a capitalistic endeavor, then big companies like Monsanto will create these labs when the technology is ready. A business would turn to synthetic meat instead of raising animals simply because it will be cheaper, take less space, no need to kill animals, etc... As a business, it's more efficient meaning higher profits.

GMO grains have already escaped the testing stages. Farmers are losing their heritage after their own crops are infested with wind-borne GMO products, and the "owners" of the patented seeds sue for cross-pollination. A more ridiculous scenario would be difficult to imagine.

Indeed, but this is the fault of big companies like Monsanto, not something which is inherent in the technology of GMOs. Let's not convolute these two very different things. Like I said, companies pose a problem and food production should be in the hands of the people.

Want some evidence?

No need for evidence, I agree with all your claims. Where we disagree is on the cause of the problem. I don't believe the issues you raise are inherent with GMOs. They are inherent with big businesses using the capitalist model. The #1 priority of capitalism is to make money, not to feed the people, care for the environment, etc... If food production were socialized, then the priorities could change. I don't blame the technology, I blame how it's being used.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Then can you propose a more realistic scenario?

You mention bringing genetic modification into the hands of the end users.

Would that actually lead to a safer working environment, considering that most modification today is all about increasing the use of pesticides, that are becoming less and less effective as weeds increase in resiliance.

[-] 2 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

Modifications today are being geared towards pesticides because this is what generates profits. Monsanto sells these pesticides. There are so many untaped potentials with GMOs. If profit wasn't the main objective of those working with GMOs these other potentials could be tapped.

We have to remember that GMOs is just a technology. It's applied human knowledge. Good or evil lies in the applications, and these applications must and should be judged on a per application basis. You can't put GMOs under the same umbrella and say they are all bad. This makes no sense. GMOs offer more fine grain control over food. This is good. It's a step above cross-breeding.

The question is not whether or not GMOs will be adopted. They will be. Technology progresses, when something comes forward some people resist, but in the end, technology progresses no matter what.

What we need to do now is educate people. Teach them about science, about evidence based research, etc... People should be wary of everyone with a biased opinion. This includes Monsanto and activists against GMOs. Being anti-GMO is the left's equivalent of right wing Global Warming deniers. It's an anti-science position which isn't good.

Most anti-GMOs activists I spoke too have very little clue of the potential of GMOs. They are confused between the technology and the application. They look at what Monsanto is doing and believe this is the technology. It's not. It's a few applications in a very specific context (capitalism).

First, educate the people about GMOs so they really understand that there are amazing potentials apart of the nasty stuff Monsanto is doing. Then start government programs to do some serious research concerning real amazing applications so we harness the true good power of GMOs. First people need to be educated because they must agree to fund research with their tax dollars.

We need to socialize GMOs as much as possible. Research should be done by the government using our tax dollars. It shouldn't be done by big businesses. Never. Applications can be researched, discussed, etc... then everyone can vote on which ones make the most sense.

Right now we are in a stuck position for two reasons:

  1. Big business controls GMOs instead of the people.
  2. The people misunderstand GMOs and often adopt a simple minded anti-science position making progress very difficult.
[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Food is a touchy subject.

So far, the attempts to cover up both the reasons FOR genetic modifications to common foods, and the side effects noticable FROM those mods, is very bad press, considering the current political bias against popular opinion.

Good luck in your endeavours, but I'm thinking that GMO's just got themselves a pass to the back of the queue.

[-] 1 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

I have no endeavor related to GMOs. I'm not an activist either for nor against. The issue simply interests me as a hobby, but I have other things in my life that make it impossible for me to actively push this issue. What will happen will happen.

I don't believe it's a question of whether GMOs will come to dominate our food production. They will. They already are in many areas. The real question is whether the people will take the production of GMOs into their own hands, or leave it to big businesses. From the many anti-science positions I'm seeing, I'm afraid people will dismiss GMOs out of misunderstanding. Like many new technologies, it might take a few generations before people don't have unfounded fears towards GMOs.This is sad because it means big business will continue to control GMOs and feed us with them. We will remain observers instead of being active participants.

As for public opinion, it's an opinion which means it's not necessarily right. The public always fears what it doesn't understand. Education is the key in this respect.

[-] 1 points by michaeljamess (1) 8 years ago

Went fishing this morning, and caught some rather nice whiting. Pleasant enough outing, watching the waves roll in.

FIFA 14 IOS Coins

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

And an excellent food source from the ancients, that requires no special storage, and retains nutrient levels indefinitely. Ideal for a number of uses.


[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

I just made a no-cook jam/spread/topping from strawberries, chia seeds, and honey. One cup of fruit, to one tblsp seeds, to one tsp honey, and mash or blend well. Very tasty, and super healthy.

Chia seeds aren't new, but they are a great source of omega3, if you aren't game to eat from the ocean any more.


[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

Good post, B. Food for thought.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

It's a work in progress, Gno.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

As are we all, or should be.

Hey, I noticed wheatgrass is starting to get some positive press:


It's definitely been added to my list of priorities.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

I just purchased a juicer/mincer combo for mother dearest, but I'll still chew most of my wheatgrass.

I'm seeing if I can just live on it, without needing more in my diet.

[-] 1 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

Bad idea. You'll get sick in the long run. Be careful, some diseases due to malnutrition are very hard to cure. You might affect your body for the long haul.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Actually, wheatgrass is a complete food.

There are others, but I'm experimenting with those that can be grown without anything other than water.

[-] 1 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

Good luck. I hope it works. Keep us posted so we can all benefit from your experience. What would be great is if you approached it really scientifically like the guy who did the McDonald test in that movie (forget the one). Get doctors to follow you throughout the process. Periodically test your organs, etc... Get periodic blood tests, etc... This will help everyone here in understanding how this diet can have an impact whether that impact is positive or negative.

I wouldn't recommend this diet, but I'm all for someone to go ahead and be the guinea pig for everyone else. If we can learn something, then it might be worth it. It's your body, you have the right to do whatever you want.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

You're right in that it would have to be a recorded and controlled experiment.

While I'm still required to perform physical activity to earn an income, I'll be partaking of protein sources, mostly pepitas and oysters.

The fact that a week's worth of total dietary supplement in the wheatgrass is only going to cost me less than a dollar, is the most appealling element of the experiment.

[-] 0 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

I'm not rich, so I hope it works. You'll probably have to keep up the diet for awhile to see if it might have long term affects. Like a year or more. The body is extremely resilient. If you're in good health now, it could take awhile for your body to suffer from malnutrition. Just be careful OK.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Oh, I've already done three months on nothing but wheatgrass.

It really is a complete food source.

If you look up Dr. Ann Wigmore, you'll find out a lot of useful info about it.

[-] 1 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

I wouldn't rely on the opinion of one Doctor, especially one that is biased. Dr. Ann Wigmore runs a health business. She has a vested interest in wheatgrass being good.

I'm not saying she's wrong, just that you should look at independent research. Look at many research papers from many different doctors. A cursory look with Google showed me in 5 minutes that there are many doctors who disagree with her. That doesn't mean she's wrong, just that she's not necessarily right.

Anyhow, here's the link to her institute. http://www.annwigmore.org/about.html

I never take the research of biased people too seriously. No matter if I agree with the conclusions of the research or not. It just doesn't seem very scientific. There are so many charlatans trying to sell all kinds of stuff nowadays. Research from independents is what moves me.

Also worth nothing that Wigmore's research isn't very current. She died back in 94. This stuff is at least 20 years old. Science moves fast. might be worth looking at what researchers are saying today.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

She's probably dead by now.

Modern medicine basically gave up on me, and put me on brain-numbing tranquilisers, because that's all they had to offer me.

If I hadn't found out about wheatgrass, I'd probably have given up the ghost and topped myself. So it's really not about the messenger, meaning Ann Wigmore, but rather the message.

[-] 1 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

Like I said, she died in 94.

The leaves of the castor plant, Ricinus Communis (Euphorbiaceae), saved me from harsh eczema on my hands. I boil the leaves then dip my hands in the resulting liquid. The next day my hands are back to normal, even in the harshest cases. Doctors were giving me steroid creams which would help in the short term, but make it worse in the long run. This plant helped me so much.

It's a shame that serious research is not done on most natural products. I'd love to have double-blind experiments, etc... I'd love to know exactly how that plant is helping me. There are many avenues of research in that direction.

That's why I suggest you monitor the effects of your diet using scientific methods. The knowledge gained could help many people. Scientific research is much stronger than anecdotal evidence.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

The active ingredients of wheatgrass juice aren't a mystery. Eleven essential amino acids, and trace elements, coupled with chlorophyll and magnesium. It's a complete food. There are others.

I could keep a daily record of everything I do, and the effects of same, but that would not be admissable as evidence of anything. It's not a double-blind experiment, per se. It would still be anecdotal only.

[-] 1 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

If you kept a diary of the scientific changes in your body with regular intervals with a doctor, then it would be scientific. It would only be one person, but if the findings point towards something interesting, other people could do the experiment to either confirm or infirm whether or not wheatgrass was the true cause of your bodily changes. Knowledge is acquired by using science and repeating experiments. You need to get a doctor without a bias. Ideally, you would go to the doctor with other people who are not doing the experiment. The doctor shouldn't know that you are eating wheatgrass only. He should know nothing about the experiment and simply do his tests.

If you're going to risk your health, you should do it for science!

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

Here ya go:


Just something I had laying around. ;-)

Now I'm really out of here for the night. Goodnight, B.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

You've been saying it's a miracle food. I'll probably juice it manually at first, for economic reasons. I have your instructions bookmarked still, plus a couple links from the web.

[-] 2 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

There's no such thing as miracle foods. The key is a balanced diet. Drinking only juice that's been filtered through a juicer is a recipe for a malnutrition disaster. If you seriously want to try this, I highly suggest you consult with more than one doctor on the issue. Better yet, consult professional dietitians. Stay away from yoga teachers who pretend to have the knowledge of professional doctors. And what strangers post on forums.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

I never said I was planning on drinking juiced wheatgrass exclusively. Quit making broad assumptions. And "miracle foods" simply means something with a multitude of benefits in a small package, not some sort of cure-all. You're splitting hairs.

Besides, Builder has my respect. I believe what he says about it. You, on the other hand, I know nothing about, so don't waste my time trying to sway my opinion.

[-] 1 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

Not trying to sway your opinion. Just putting you on guard.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

No problem. I've been learning a lot about nutrition since this time last year. Eating healthier, learning about the role of the various vitamins and supplements and the proper balance thereof. Wheatgrass juice would merely be an addition to my diet. A source for some of the micronutrients I might be missing.

[-] 2 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

I suffered from malnutrition issues in my past. Bad eating during many years of college. Not fun. That's why I provided a warning.

That being said, wheatgrass as a supplement to an already proper diet would be good I believe. I should try it. Like in teas or something.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

I can relate. Although I never suffered from malnutrition, my diet did start to suffer between 2008 and last year. I used to eat a pretty well-balanced diet, but started eating a lot of canned, frozen and processed after '08. Last year it seemed like I felt crappy for half the year, but luckily I was in contact with someone that's fairly knowledgeable about diets and supplements since she has had chronic problems for years.

Long story short, although I still have a long way to go in respect to eating healthier, I can attest that I've felt much better this year than last, by far.

Builder should be able to tell you if you can make wheatgrass tea. I don't see why not. What appeals to me the most, aside from its health benefits, is the fact that it's extremely easy to grow almost anywhere, including indoors. Very low maintenance.

[-] 1 points by hutilo (19) 8 years ago

So true. Eating canned foods makes you feel tired and sluggish. Drinking lots of water, proper exercise, and eating good fresh foods is key. It's all the preservatives they put in canned stuff so it can last forever. MSG, etc... very bad stuff. I try to buy fresh fruits and veggies everyday. I go to the farmer's market every morning.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

Exactly. We have a great farmer's market here, but I haven't been able to frequent it just yet. It's a financial and vehicular thing. Right now I'm unemployed so I'm limited by what I can get from the traditional grocery store. Hopefully that will all change, though, in which case I'll be hitting the farmer's market as well as locating a source of local grass-fed meat, eggs, and milk.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

I was researching the origins of it, and they go back to the depression years.

I have noticed that my salt and pepper beard is noticeably more pepper than salt since I've taken on most of my nutrients from wheatgrass.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

Hmmm, interesting on both counts. "De-greying" your beard, eh? That's quite intriguing, I wonder how it would be doing that? It would have to be affecting melanin production somehow, I would think.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Maybe I'm just dribbling lots of green juice all over the place? LOL.

I tend to chew while I'm weeding and picking. My skin texture is also a lot less prone to psoriasis, which has been a bugbear since I can remember.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

Heheheh, could be.

I can definitely believe a reduction in skin problems, though. I have been reading a bit about that, since I seem to have a recurring skin rash of some kind, that might be related to some of the processed foods I still eat. Processed foods, or rather the crap that's in them, can be a source of inflammation that can manifest itself it myriad ways, including skin problems.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

B12 is often lacking in processed food diets, and that can manifest in skin conditions and eye complaints.

Just dropping processed foods from the diet can make all the difference, but I'm the first to admit that it's difficult when still living amongst the mainstream lifestylers.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

B12's been getting a lot of press recently, too. I just bought some B12 supplements three or four nights ago and started doing 1000 mcg's a day, in addition to my B-complex. Renneye swears by it, but she has a definite, diagnosed deficiency. She said after that first shot, it was like a new lease on life, literally.

Yes, it is difficult to completely rid yourself of all processed foods, depending on your situation, of course. Especially being a city-dweller on the dole, for example. I'm not sure farmer's markets take food stamps, heheh.

I recently downloaded plans for an economical all-year greenhouse. It's something I have on the back-burner for now.

Anyway, B, I have to log off now. It's almost 4:00 AM here, but I'll try to get back on tomorrow night although haven't found much time for the forum lately. Many distractions. Catch you next time.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

Sweet. It's all grist for the mill.

Sleep well, my friend.