4 ms·

I can offer an analogy. Growing up in the northwestern US, I've seen firsthand how 95% of the forest in the lower 48 was harvested for timber, leaving only smal

I can offer an analogy. Growing up in the northwestern US, I've seen firsthand how 95% of the forest in the lower 48 was harvested for timber, leaving only small pockets of primordial forest. That and global warming delivered us the runaway fire seasons we have today where summer is synonymous with poor air quality, poor water quality, erosion, loss of habitat, etc etc etc. There are countless propaganda billboards here that say stuff like "thin the threat". The timber industry really wants to get back into wilderness areas and places designated roadless by the Clinton administration back in the 90s. But what I think most of us want is for the timber industry to admit their guilt. Basically that would look something like a bankruptcy and a multi-billion dollar apology in the form of trusts and endowments to leave forests alone and invest in stuff like tree farms and hemp. Which will never come. I've yet to see a major apology from GMO companies for the ways they've corrupted staple crops like wheat. We're eating processed whole grains today that were meant for animal feed (cows have 4 stomachs that can handle it, we can't), stuff like oatmeal loaded with glyphosate, and it's attacking our gut lining and causing autoimmune diseases at a scale that the previous generation can't understand. So until there are reparations for the damage done, we simple can't trust those companies or the government agencies they've captured, or the politicians they've bought, or the court justices they've installed. The problem goes so deep in our political system that people can't even see it anymore. That's why the wealthy owners of those companies keep us divided over the merits of various remedies, so we don't wake up to the facts of how we're being manipulated into giving up our health to shave a few pennies off the price to increase their profits. Edit: I'm struggling to find evidence for the effects of whole grain husks on the gut lining. But basically, the anti-pest compounds in grain husks make it past stomach acid, and when the villi (papillae was maybe the wrong term) in the lining of the small intestine try to eat the partially-digested proteins, it damages or kills them. The cycle of damage and repair continues through life until middle age, when the cells start losing their healing ability. Then one acquires sensitivity to wheat and other grains like I did, which I originally thought was sensitivity to legumes and nightshades: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.517313/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.51731... Then the villi become sparse or die, leaving the person unable to easily absorb vitamins and minerals, sending them into chronic starvation mode and obesity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intestinal_villus#Villous_atrophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intestinal_villus#Villous_atro... GMOs exacerbate this by increasing the percentages of anti-pest compounds in husks. I try to avoid whole grains now after a lifetime of seeking them. If I must eat them, I try to stick to organic.

wakamoleguy 3y ago
It's possible that you are struggling to find evidence because the evidence points in the other direction. For example, from the review article you linked: "Based on all available scientific knowledge, wheat consumption is safe and healthy for the vast majority of people. There is no scientific evidence to support that the general population would benefit from a wheat-free diet." Step 1 of fostering "shoshin" was to explain a theory or idea to someone else. Now step 2 is to stay aware of confirmation bias.
midoridensha 3y ago
>We're eating processed whole grains today that were meant for animal feed (cows have 4 stomachs that can handle it, we can't) Huh? Whole grains aren't "processed"; if anything they're less processed that other grains, hence the word "whole". We can "handle" almost anything that cows can handle with their 4 stomachs, including grass. We eat lots of food that we can't digest very well, such as lettuce and other fibers. The difference between us and cows is that they derive more energy from plant matter, whereas we just poop most of it out, but it's ok because more fiber helps keep our colons clean, plus makes us feel full so we don't eat more calorie-laden foods that make us fat.
- zackmorris 3y ago
  I just meant that processed foods aren't as likely to remove the husk as when people cook with flour themselves. I don't really disagree about the cow stuff, although they don't live long enough before slaughter to encounter the late digestive issues that humans are getting. My real point was just that GMOs were advertised as decreasing the cost of feeding the world. What that meant in practice was reducing the cost of grain for livestock, since it takes 4.5-7.5 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, so reducing that cost takes priority. Then those GMO crops, not meant for human consumption, cross-contaminated the crops we eat.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    >although they don't live long enough before slaughter to encounter the late digestive issues that humans are getting. What "late digestive issues"? People have been eating whole grains for thousands of years, and there's no evidence this causes any problems. Just look at people in the Mediterranean region; their diet has had such foods for ages and they're some of the healthiest people in the world, with very long lifespans. >Then those GMO crops, not meant for human consumption, cross-contaminated the crops we eat. There's no evidence so far that GMO crops have any bad effect on humans either. Pesticides, however... And not all GMO crops are simply designed to withstand pesticides; some are modified to make them resistant to plant diseases.

wakamoleguy 3y ago

It's possible that you are struggling to find evidence because the evidence points in the other direction. For example, from the review article you linked: "Based on all available scientific knowledge, wheat consumption is safe and healthy for the vast majority of people. There is no scientific evidence to support that the general population would benefit from a wheat-free diet." Step 1 of fostering "shoshin" was to explain a theory or idea to someone else. Now step 2 is to stay aware of confirmation bias.

midoridensha 3y ago

>We're eating processed whole grains today that were meant for animal feed (cows have 4 stomachs that can handle it, we can't) Huh? Whole grains aren't "processed"; if anything they're less processed that other grains, hence the word "whole". We can "handle" almost anything that cows can handle with their 4 stomachs, including grass. We eat lots of food that we can't digest very well, such as lettuce and other fibers. The difference between us and cows is that they derive more energy from plant matter, whereas we just poop most of it out, but it's ok because more fiber helps keep our colons clean, plus makes us feel full so we don't eat more calorie-laden foods that make us fat.

zackmorris 3y ago
I just meant that processed foods aren't as likely to remove the husk as when people cook with flour themselves. I don't really disagree about the cow stuff, although they don't live long enough before slaughter to encounter the late digestive issues that humans are getting. My real point was just that GMOs were advertised as decreasing the cost of feeding the world. What that meant in practice was reducing the cost of grain for livestock, since it takes 4.5-7.5 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, so reducing that cost takes priority. Then those GMO crops, not meant for human consumption, cross-contaminated the crops we eat.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  >although they don't live long enough before slaughter to encounter the late digestive issues that humans are getting. What "late digestive issues"? People have been eating whole grains for thousands of years, and there's no evidence this causes any problems. Just look at people in the Mediterranean region; their diet has had such foods for ages and they're some of the healthiest people in the world, with very long lifespans. >Then those GMO crops, not meant for human consumption, cross-contaminated the crops we eat. There's no evidence so far that GMO crops have any bad effect on humans either. Pesticides, however... And not all GMO crops are simply designed to withstand pesticides; some are modified to make them resistant to plant diseases.