The Walden Effect: Homesteading Year 5. Farming, simple living, permaculture, and invention.

Homestead Blog

Innovations:

Homesteading Tags

Recent Comments



Blog Archive

User Pages

Login

About Us

Submission guidelines

Store


The Walden Effect diet

Steamed kale"I keep meaning to ask 'why are you off grains?' It is hard to be self reliant in growing and harvesting them, so those of us with a self sufficiency mind set might do well to wean ourselves off them for that reason alone. I am off gluten containing grains- wheat, rye, and barley. But I would miss oats. And I do miss good homemade bread."
--- Deb


I've gotten this question a few times in the last month, so I thought it deserved a blog post.  I've been refraining from posting much about diet for two reasons.  First and foremost, people seem to have dietary beliefs that they defend with near-religious fervor, and I don't enjoy debates based on gut feelings rather than on facts.  Second, our own dietary beliefs are halfway built on gut feelings rather than on facts since the scientific data on health is far from comprehensive and is sometimes outright contradictory.  So I don't really feel comfortable saying "This is the way to eat" to anyone other than my poor, long-suffering husband.

But you asked about our diet, so I'll tell.  Mark and I don't follow any particular dietary plan precisely, but our eating habits moderately match the paleo plan.  A few years ago, we started experimenting with decreasing our grain consumption as a way of increasing the percent protein in our food, and we quickly felt perkier.  We also decreased our consumption of starch-heavy vegetables like white potatoes, sweet potatoes, and winter Pastured lambssquash, although I consider those a better way to get your carbs than the vitamin-empty grains, so we still eat some.  Meanwhile, we boosted our consumption of meat, un-starchy vegetables, fat from pastured animals (especially chicken broth), and fruits.  (Even though fruit probably isn't any better for you than starchy carbs, it's better for you than the sweet desserts it somewhat replaces in our diets.)

One reason I don't feel comfortable pushing our diet on others is because most people probably don't have access to the quality protein sources we do.  Our eggs are mostly from our own pastured chickens, our chicken meat the same, we buy pastured lamb, and kill deer for supplementary red meat.  Good health depends on the right proportion of omega-3s to omega-6s, so if your only option is grain-fed supermarket meat, you might be better off following the more standard medical advice of limiting your meat consumption.  I'm also not entirely sure that there's enough data to prove that there aren't long-term negative health effects from eating large amounts of meats even if they're pastured, but my gut feeling is that, for us at least, the short-term positive promotes healthier living (more exercise, better moods) that give long-term benefits.

Then there's the moral issue of eating so high on the food chain.  Meat: A Benign Extravagance is an interesting look at this debate, and I tend to think that if we raise our own (even if, like chickens, they get a lot of store-bought feed), meat is ethically neutral.  Others feel very differently.

Which is all a long way of explaining that our diet matches our farm, our bodies, and our morals, but might not match yours.  If you're curious, here's what we consume, in descending order of (believed) healthiness.  (We try to eat as much as we can from the top of the list.)

  • Pastured chicken brothSuperfoods (garlic, kale, pastured chicken broth)
  • Most home-grown vegetables
  • Pastured eggs
  • Pastured meat
  • Home-grown fruits
  • Kefir
  • Canned tuna
  • Store-bought nuts
  • Starchy, home-grown vegetables (winter squash, sweet potatoes)
  • Store-bought fruit
  • Store-bought meat (presumably grain-fed)
  • Store-bought cheese and other dairy products (I would consider this much healthier if it was raw, pastured dairy, but we don't have a source at the moment)
  • Store-bought peanut butter
  • Store-bought oats
  • Store-bought flour
  • Store-bought sugar

Phew!  I suspect that's more than you really wanted to know.  Hopefully it won't provoke the debate I'm afraid of, but I am curious to hear from others who have made informed but possibly anti-establishment dietary choices.



Want to be notified when new comments are posted on this page? Click on the RSS button after you add a comment to subscribe to the comment feed, or simply check the box beside "email replies to me" while writing your comment.


You left store bought cocoa off your list.
Comment by Errol Tue Jan 28 08:30:23 2014

Interesting Book: Nurishing Traditions By Sally Fallon

I couldn't put it down when I first got it

Comment by Donna Tue Jan 28 09:44:57 2014

Hi Anna and Mark and all,

I am wondering two things about the far-reaching success of the grainless, beanless and dairyless diet. See for example the numerous Friday stories on marksdailyapple.com.

  1. Does fermenting or sprouting the grains change things by neutralizing the phytic acid in the grains. Apparently phytic acid leaches zinc and other minerals from the body probably resulting in mineral anemias.

  2. "Non-hazardous" roundup herbacide is often present in grains. See for example Stephanie Seneff's recent article in Wise Traditions Magazine. It's on-line at Westonaprice.org --> journal --> recent issue. Her multi-year curve of disease verses roundup use is VERY thought provoking.

You can probably guess what I do and don't eat. Do yourself a real favor. Spend 17 minutes listening to Dr. Terry Wahls, MD recover in her TEDx video "Mind your mitochondia".

warm regards to all,

John

Comment by John Tue Jan 28 10:23:32 2014

Thanks for sharing this, despite your (reasonable) hesitation. This is similar to the way I try to feed my family but, unfortunately, as our family grows, we're not able to buy better quality meat. But I think even the conventional veggies and meat are better than grains in the long term. I just think it makes sense to eat in similar ways to how we evolved to eat (and yes, I understand we're not really going to be able to mimic our ancestors' diets exactly).

In light of your diet, do you hope to expand into raising more of your own livestock? I would love to be able to raise pork since I have heard that the pork industry is the most inhumane. Cattle is not an option for us. I would like to try raising meat rabbits and goats but I'm not sure about getting it set up because I haven't been able to try the meat - what if I do all the set up and find out I hate goat meat?

Thanks again for sharing.

Comment by Karyn Tue Jan 28 11:22:47 2014

First off... anyone who has an anti-establishment diet knows full well why there are so many contradictions out there.....:o)

Second..scientific "proof" is from the establishment thus faulty. i.e GMO food is good, and will feed the world...what a bunch of bull for patty fire starters that is. It also claims meat, and all natural food is unhealthy such as raw milk, and saturated fat. Saturated fat is essential for proper body function especially the brain. They have blurred the lines between real animal fat (saturated) with trans fat (Plastic Crisco) by mixing the two together. Armor sells "lard" but it is refined, and hydrogenated so it is now plastic. Most people do not even know what lard or tallow is today.

Third...there are really only two schools of thought on this subject with many sub categories. It is all based on confusion because of the battle between the two schools of thought.

The modern American diet is a death sentence. White flour is the only culprit in gluten intolerance issues because it is comprised of nearly 100 percent gluten. The reason for this is the refining of the grain removing the bran,and the germ....leaving the endosperm which is the starch, and gluten. This refined starch turns to sugar very rapidly in the system causing blood sugar concerns. Whole grains do NOT cause this problem.

Where did you get the idea that grains are vitamin empty?

I have studied this issue for quite sometime because of blood sugar over load in my husband. We had to find out why this was happening. Over a period of time, and study it was determined that white flour was the cause. He is now normal with no sugar drops, and sugar spikes that caused heart palpitations.

I think you have a great diet Anna. Although I am concerned about your constant demand for "scientific proof". Science does not prove anything especially in today's world where you have modern science with it's deadly GMO agenda and then you have the New Age spiritually backed science which claims meat and all natural traditional real food is bad for you agenda...they both comprise the establishment.

Who do you believe? You have to study both sides to determine the lies, and come out with the truth. Knowledge is power to overcome the oppressors. White flour is just my resent study but I have studied all of this for over 30 years. If I seem to be overbearing sometimes please forgive me. I can see the war of the compressors raging. Just look at history. I've warned on many fronts but none can see or hear.

There is a war going on.

Edith

Comment by Edith Tue Jan 28 11:25:44 2014

The difference between simple carbohydrates and complex carbohydrates must be understood to make good choices.

Simple carbohydrates are from all refined de-nature-d food such as white flour, and refined table sugar.

Complex carbohydrates are naturally occurring.

Simple carbs break down in the system very quickly turning the starch to sugar.

Complex carbs breaks down the starch very slowly thus providing the system with needed sugar.

It is not a good idea to avoid complex carbohydrates because your system needs sugar to run efficiently..

Comment by Edith Tue Jan 28 12:59:42 2014
It seems like no one else noticed that you said, "gut feeling" more than once in this post about dietary choices. I, for one, find that funny.
Comment by Stephen Tue Jan 28 14:48:36 2014

I noticed...but I left her alone. I torment her enough already...:o)

It just occurred to me that Anna may have been talking about how her gut feels after eating certain food......then again she could have meant intuition.

Edith

Comment by Edith Tue Jan 28 15:58:32 2014

@Edith; humans have been selectively breeding animals and plant for at least 10000 years. So basically everything we eat now is a GMO. The only difference between then and now is that the array of methods to do genetic engineering has increased.

Science does not prove anything especially in today's world where you have modern science with it's deadly GMO agenda

The scientific method does not have an agenda. The beauty of science is that it lets reality speak for itself. Repeatable experiments are used to confirm or deny if the predictions resulting from a hypothesis fit observations. If not the hypothesis in due course modified or discarded. Only if a hypothesis has been amply verified by experimental results is it called a theory. In the long run this method is impervious to data manipulation, because in due course the truth will come out.

Simple carbohydrates are from all refined de-nature-d food such as white flour, and refined table sugar. Complex carbohydrates are naturally occurring.

This makes no sense. The production process of table sugar from sugar cane or beetroot only removes minerals, salts and proteins. It does not alter the chemical composition of the sugar.

Comment by Roland_Smith Tue Jan 28 16:12:10 2014

I love your attitude about this subject. Nutrition IS a religion to many zealots and it's never wise to argue religion. As Roland notes above, some comments don't even stand up to scrutiny in terms of logic, let alone sound information. (Are you getting more gluten in 1 lb of whole wheat or from 1 lb of wheat after processing?)

Dietary "studies" are useless, for the most part: they either rely on questionaires (how many lbs of processed meat did you eat daily, 25 yrs ago? Like you can really give an accurate answer?) or, if diet is specified and a control group used for comparison, too short term to be meaningful.

The results of these tests usually show no more than some small "statistically significant" difference: diet A will let you live 12 days longer (out of a 79 yr lifetime) than diet B.

Differential genetics and lifestyle need to be taken into account: a diabetic lumberjack may need more starch in his diet than a non-diabetic librarian. Those with blood type O seem to thrive on a meat based diet, while As & Bs seem to tolerate more veggies.

The only people who need to pay a lot of attention to diet are diabetics, those with severe liver or renal disease, those with food allergies or genetically determined food intolerances ( eg- celiac disease, lactase deficiency, etc).

For the rest of us, just enjoy your food and don't over-eat. There's no such thing as "good" or "bad" nutrition: only "adequate" & "inadequate."

Comment by doc Tue Jan 28 16:44:17 2014

Roland,

Selective breeding is not genetic manipulation. This is the propaganda to get folks to believe that it's only hybridization.

GMO seeds have round-up within it...it's called roundup ready. They spay round-up on the entire crop and only the weeds die but the crop remains. Anyone who has used roundup knows it will kill everything it touches. GMO seeds are terminator seeds meaning the seed from the crop will not produce...they are infertile. There is much more ...

I mis-spoke. "Real" science is effective. Today's science is not, and it is not based on facts as you said and I quote "Repeatable experiments are used to confirm or deny if the predictions resulting from a hypothesis fit observations. If not the hypothesis in due course modified or discarded. Only if a hypothesis has been amply verified by experimental results is it called a theory. In the long run this method is impervious to data manipulation, because in due course the truth will come out."

Today's science is a joke ....such as Global Warming without it's facts which had to be renamed Climate Change to cover their hinny from those leaked e-mails. The weather is quite normal. Today's science is fact less and people eat it up regardless.

I mis-spoke again thinking folks would understand that white flour and table sugar together is a recipe for diabetes...i.e pies, cookies, cakes, and such. I did not mean that the refining process changes the sugar. Although I do think evaporated cane juice is a healthier choice.

I am not an eloquent speaker but I do know some things.

Edith

Comment by Edith Tue Jan 28 17:10:53 2014

For the record...there is much more Gluten in 1 lb of White Flour as opposed to 1 lb of Whole Wheat Flour. Refined White Flour is made up of the Endosperm where the Gluten and starch resides and is actually white. Whole Wheat flour does not rise as well because of this. I grind our own Wheat so I know. White Flour is pure Gluten, and starch...a simple carbohydrate.

Nutrition is very important. Diabetics can reverse their condition with proper food. But...Doc you don't know this because your a doctor. All they need is their Insulin right?.... and don't touch that doughnut!

The reason they become Diabetics probably eludes you too? It's because of sugar over load in consuming to much white flour products, and table sugar. The Pancreas is over burdened in releasing Insulin and eventually stops working all together due to Insulin resistance.

Starches should come from complex carbohydrates not simple carbohydrates.

As far as my comments standing up to scrutiny are concerned it is obvious that the weaknesses are belittled, and made fun of while the content is discredited. This is a tactic used against the truth in any forum, blog, or group.

I refuse to play that game.

Edith

Comment by Edith Tue Jan 28 20:33:33 2014

"I love your attitude about this subject. Nutrition IS a religion to many zealots and it's never wise to argue religion" I agree with Doc. This post shows a lot of common sense.

Just wondering about whether honey is a regular part of your diet. I don't think you mentioned it.

Comment by John Wed Jan 29 01:12:22 2014

Well, thanks for answering the question, knowing how it might spark the phytate wars..... Is interesting hearing the discussion. And whatever side of the fence you might find yourself on regarding meat/no meat, grains/no grains, it seems that Paleo and Vegan alike agree on one thing- just eat real food. Leave the processed junk alone. I happen to fall on the Vegan side of the fence, but I like your food pyramid because its real food. I can't remember who said this, but I like this quote. Eat ( real) food. Not too much. Mostly plants. I think thats a pretty good recipe for health. And you guys are doing it.

My neighbors have the flu. I brought them over some soup today. Knowing our vegan diet, and the fact that I keep hens, she gave me a quizzical look when she realized it was chicken soup. " dont worry" I said, " its nobody we know."

Comment by Deb Wed Jan 29 01:30:20 2014

Hi all,

With all the recent concern about refined sugar, I wonder if sugar (a crystal) has more in it that just sugar?

Has it been purposefully adulterated like alcohol and tobacco to name just a couple of popular "crops" that have extra stuff added in during their processing.

I don't refine my own sugar, so how would I or YOU know?

And except for observing symptoms, the measurement of part per trillion "impurities' is not easy yet these same "impurities" can have profound effects.

I think I will stick to apples and other natural crops that I grow and pick and whose soil I nurture.

Is there a safe branded product? --- Not for me :).

John

Comment by John Wed Jan 29 05:25:45 2014

Round-up (glyphosate) acts by inhibiting an enzyme involved in the synthesis of aromatic amino acids. Round-up Ready seeds contain a gene that allows the plant to bypass the action of Round-up. There is NO herbicide in the seed. Animals don't have that enzyme so they're not effected by it.

Since the 70s when Round-up was introduced, world population has doubled, but food production has tripled. Readers are invited to do the math and draw their own conclusions

In regards GMO: animal breeders learned long ago to select desirable genes from one species and to "implant" it in another species ( Eg- donkey x horse--> mule). Now we can do it in the test tube.

The genes involved are naturally occurring, so everybody is exposed to them all the time anyways. When we eat any food we are exposed to all the genes contained therein.. Why should the selected ones be any more dangerous than the unselected?

GMO plants do in fact produce viable seeds: that's the basis of the Monsanto patent infringement law suits. Some farmers, after signing a contract not to save seeds, have done so anyways and planted them. (Kind of dumb: the original bought seeds are hybrids, so the F2 is going to have a low yield of the desirable trait. The GMO seeds only cost a few cents more than the others.)

Comment by doc Wed Jan 29 07:28:54 2014

Propaganda concerning Monsanto is on both sides of the fence. Monsanto denies even it's own technology concerning genetic manipulation.

Doc you are mistaken. There is such technology. http://www.nature.com/news/seed-patent-case-in-supreme-court-1.12445

Monsanto has been granted immunity against alllaw suits. Why would this be if they are innocent? They are not innocent.

It's a roundup gene that is implanted into the DNA of the seed. http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html

There are lies on both sides. One needs to study, and research both sides of the story in order to come out with the truth. This is common sense, and a very good practice. Beware of deception it's all around you.

Edith

Comment by Edith Wed Jan 29 11:10:11 2014

Selective breeding is not genetic manipulation. This is the propaganda to get folks to believe that it's only hybridization

By selective breeding you control which genes can be passed on to the next generation. Ipso facto this is genetic manipulation.

Today's science is a joke ....such as Global Warming without it's facts which had to be renamed Climate Change to cover their hinny from those leaked e-mails.

You are referring to the so-called climategate? This has been investigated by several independent committees. Let me quote rationalwiki on the results:

The harshest criticism in any of the investigations claimed that the scientists were slow and occasionally non-compliant in filling Freedom of Information Act requests (mostly in relation to Steve McIntyre spamming them with FOIA requests) and one lamented that they ideally should have worked more closely with statisticians.

In other words, a tempest in a teapot.

Some good example of the way science is self-correcting is the outcome of the MMR vaccine scare and the Fleischmann–Pons claims of nuclear fusion at room temperature.

Four years after Andrew Wakefield published his original paper on the link between MMR vaccine and autism, no other researchers had been able to reproduce his findings. A subsequent investigation uncovered that Wakefield had manipulated his data.

Regarding the cold fusion claims, many groups of scientists have tried to reproduce the experiment without a single success. A consensus therefore formed that the claims were not true.

This shows the importance of reproducible experiments.

As an engineer I will agree that the coverage in the press and on the internet of scientific/technological issues is often horrendously bad. But we should remember Hanlon's razor; "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity" (or incompetence).

The weather is quite normal.

Weather is not climate. Basic physical chemistry dictates that if you change the makeup of the atmosphere, other things will change, too. And there is no question that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising since the start of the industrial revolution. However, currently our models of the earth's climate are rather simplistic and not complete enough to give detailed predictions about the future.

As far as my comments standing up to scrutiny are concerned it is obvious that the weaknesses are belittled, and made fun of while the content is discredited.

I have questioned your conclusions on factual grounds, not belittled them nor made fun of them. Ad hominem tactics are self-defeating, so I do my best to avoid them.

@John:

With all the recent concern about refined sugar, I wonder if sugar (a crystal) has more in it that just sugar?

Sugar content can be measured by polimetry. You can read about the production process of e.g. beet sugar here.

AFAICT, the concern about sugar is mostly that we eat too much of it, not about the purity of it.

Keep in mind that for a sugar factory to dilute sugar (to save on costs), they would have to add something that is cheaper but not easily detectable by taste. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

I don't refine my own sugar, so how would I or YOU know?

Send it off to a laboratory to have it analyzed.

And except for observing symptoms, the measurement of part per trillion "impurities' is not easy yet these same "impurities" can have profound effects.

The dose is the poison. For a compound in the parts per trillion range to have significant effects, it must be very potent. That would also make it easy to detect...

I think I will stick to apples and other natural crops that I grow and pick and whose soil I nurture.

How do you know that your soil doesn't contain substances that don't bother an apple tree but are toxic to humans?

Comment by Roland_Smith Wed Jan 29 16:13:22 2014
 "By selective breeding you control which genes can be passed on to the next generation. Ipso facto this is genetic manipulation."

Sorry Roland. Selective breeding is not genetic engineering but rather hybridization. Genetic engineering involves the manipulation of the DNA and actually changes it completely. What you claim... is the very lie they want you to believe.

Edith

Comment by Edith Wed Jan 29 21:18:10 2014

We used to use beef or pork insulin to treat diabetics. Now we have human insulin manufactured by the exact same technique used to produced GMO crops: a naturally occurring gene from one species is implanted in another species by way of an innocuous virus vector. This is analogous to selective breeding which uses natural copulation as the "vector." No difference in principle.

Let's concede that GMO food has some effect on our health. Now the argument becomes one of determining how big that effect is: the data suggests the effect is so small that we can't discern a difference in health status of those eating GMO and those avoiding it.

This is exactly the same argument about CO2 effecting our climate or about air resistance effecting falling, heavy objects: theoretically they have an effect, but in reality, the effect is so small compared to other factors that they can be ignored.

If you can afford to pay the expense of "organic" food and eating it will improve your mental health, go ahead and pay the premium. If you can't aford the extra price, eat industrially produced food and don't worry about it. It's perfectly safe.

Comment by doc Thu Jan 30 11:01:11 2014

Why GMOs Can Never Be Safe

By Dr. Mercola

Monsanto and other biotech companies claim genetically modified (GM) crops have no impact on the environment and are perfectly safe to eat.

Federal departments in charge of food safety in the US and Canada have not conducted tests to affirm this alleged “safety,” but rather have taken the industry-conducted research at face value, allowing millions of acres of GM crops to overtake farmland.

These foods, largely in the form of GM corn and soy (although there are other GM crops, too, like sugar beets, papaya and crookneck squash), can now be found in the majority of processed foods in the US.

In other words, if you eat processed foods, you’re already eating them… and these crops are already being freely planted in the environment. But what if it turns out that Monsanto was wrong, and the GM crops aren’t actually safe…

This is precisely what a number of scientists have been warning of for years, and the latest to sound the alarm is Dr. Mae-Wan Ho of the Institute for Science in Society, who has concluded that, by their very nature, there is no way GMOs (genetically modified organisms) can be safe.

The Greatest Danger of Genetic Modification

According to Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, genetic modification interferes fundamentally with the natural genetic modifications that organisms undergo in order to survive. Under natural circumstances, this is done in real time as “an exquisitely precise molecular dance of life.”

Genetic engineering, which assumes that one protein determines one particular trait, such as herbicide tolerance or insect resistance, and can easily be swapped out with another, with no other effects, is dangerously simplistic or, as Dr. Mae-Wan Ho says, “an illusion.”

An organism’s genome is not static but fluid, and its biological functions are interconnected with its environment and vice versa, such that trying to control genetic changes via artificial modification is a dangerous game. Dr. Ho explained:

    “The rationale and impetus for genetic engineering and genetic modification is the ‘central dogma’ of molecular biology that assumes DNA (deoxyribose nucleic acid) carries all the instructions for making an organism.

    Individual ‘genetic messages’ in DNA faithfully copied into RNA (ribosenucleic acid), is then translated into a protein via a genetic code; the protein determining a particular trait, such as herbicide tolerance, or insect resistance; one gene, one character. If it were really as simple as that, genetic modification would work perfectly. Unfortunately this simplistic picture is an illusion.

    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 to mark and change RNA and DNA down the generations … Organisms work by intercommunication at every level, and not by control.

    … In order to survive, the organism needs to engage in natural genetic modification in real time, an exquisitely precise molecular dance of life in which RNA and DNA respond to, and participate fully in ‘downstream’ biological functions.

    That is why organisms and ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the crude, artificial GM RNA and DNA created by human genetic engineers. It is also why genetic modification can probably never be safe. More importantly, the human organism shapes its own development and evolutionary future; that is why we must take responsible action to ban all environmental releases of GMOs now.”

Natural Genetic Modification is Different From Artificial Genetic Modification

Similar to the way artificial immunity acquired by vaccination is assumed to be the same thing as natural immunity acquired by contracting and recovering from an illness, genetic modification is often thought to be the same, whether it’s done in a lab or by nature. But as we’ve seen with immunity, there are actually very important differences, and these, too, are highlighted by Dr. Ho. Compared with natural genetic modification, artificial genetic modification is inherently hazardous because it lacks the precision of the natural process, while enabling genes to be transferred between species that would never have been exchanged otherwise.

10 GM myths that Monsanto wants you to believe … but which are actually far from the truth.

Myth #1: No one has ever proven that GMOs are harmful to people

The truth is that studies of GM food have shown tumors, premature death, organ failure, gastric lesions, liver damage, kidney damage, allergic reactions, and more.

Myth #2: GM crops are the only way to solve world hunger

The reality is that GM farming practices are not sustainable, which virtually guarantees future crop collapses and subsequent famine. Nor are farmers able to save their seeds due to patent infringement and poor fertility in the seeds. Sustainable agricultural practices are the answer to world hunger.

Myth #3: GM crops need less pesticide spraying

The truth is that after the first couple of years, the use of pesticides and herbicides on GM crops has increased dramatically.

Myth #4: GM technology is comparable to the cross-breeding that our ancestors did to create hardier versions of heritage crops

Cross pollination of different varieties of the same plant (what our ancestors did) is low-tech and can occur naturally. Genetic modification of seeds is done in a lab and often crosses different biological kingdoms, such as crossing a bacteria with a plant the unintended adverse effects of which may be incalculably large and impossible to ascertain before they are released into the biosphere.

Myth #5: If the FDA and the USDA allow them, they must be safe

Monsanto has close ties with the US government, such that, despite the obvious conflict of interest, Monsanto executives have been given policy-making positions in Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations.

Myth #6: There is no nutritional difference between GM food and non-GM food

A 2012 nutritional analysis of GM versus non-GM corn showed shocking differences in nutritional content. Non-GM corn contains 437 times more calcium, 56 times more magnesium, and 7 times more manganese than GM corn. GM corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, a pesticide so toxic that it may be carcinogenic in the parts-per-trillion range, compared to zero in non-GM corn.

Myth #7: GMOs are impossible to avoid

GM ingredients are found in more than 70 percent of processed foods, but you can largely avoid them by avoiding these processed foods. By switching to whole foods like vegetables, fruits, grass-fed meats and other basic staples, you can control the GM foods in your diet.

Myth #8: Monsanto has our best interests in mind

Monsanto has spent over half a million dollars on hiring a firm to help ‘protect the Monsanto brand name’ from activists. There is speculation that they have placed trolls on anti-GM Web sites, hidden posts from social media, and even possibly hacked researchers computers days before they were set to release a damaging study. There’s even speculation that the US government is spying on anti-Monsanto activists.

Myth #9: GMOs are not harmful to the environment

On the Hawaiian island of Molokai, where a nearly 2,000-acre test facility for Monsanto sits, air and water quality are horrendous and there are reports of deaths, infertility, uncontrolled cross-pollination, bloody skin rashes, asthma and pesticide contamination in the groundwater.

Myth #10: GMOs are here to stay

Biotech wants you to believe that GM crops are here to stay, but a war is being waged against GMOs, and the resistance is gaining significant ground. By sharing information like this, we can fight back against biotech and the poisons they’re releasing into our environment.

READ MORE http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/08/06/genetic-modification.aspx

Comment by Edith Thu Jan 30 11:22:48 2014

White flour contains virtually no vitamins or minerals, but even whole grain has less than 10% of the MDR of those. Grain, whole or processed, is just a source of carb calories and nothing else of value. Worse, grains are highly inflammatory.

Here's an interesting take on the role of grains in human disease: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/819232_1 (you may have to register at this site- easy and free).

But then, Alzheimer's isn't so bad: you can hide your own Easter Eggs and get to meet someone new every day ;-)

Comment by doc Thu Jan 30 13:56:25 2014

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrientprofile&dbid=133

The link above gives a Whole Wheat nutrient profile.

Doc....you amaze me....:o)

Processed white flour carbs and whole wheat carbs is apples, and oranges.

Edith

Comment by Edith Thu Jan 30 17:04:51 2014

Doc Wrote: "If you can't aford the extra price, eat industrially produced food and don't worry about it. It's perfectly safe."

Well...this statement alone reveals the actual truth of the matter.

People are dreadfully sick these days. It ought not to be. More people die at the hands of modern medicine, and the industrial food supply than all of the known plagues throughout history. Prescription Drugs are the number one killer of Americans due to side effects. The industrial food supply sends them to your office, and the pills sends them to the grave.

I have said about all I need to say. It's up to each individual to do their own research concerning these issues.

I am not an activist. Just someone who cares, and maybe something I've said will send someone on a hunt for the truth.

Edith

Comment by Edith Thu Jan 30 20:07:05 2014

One very unique homestead, $1,500 per acre, the opportunity of a lifetime