On MSG and Genetically Modified plants

tigersword

Not everything that affects the brain is caused by something in the brain. Also, some people can be allergic to MSG, just like some people can be allergic to peanuts, or strawberries.

helenium

OP, I love you a little bit.

jetscreaminagain

Not everything that affects the brain is caused by something in the brain. Also, some people can be allergic to MSG, just like some people can be allergic to peanuts, or strawberries.

That's a somewhat unsatisfying answer. If its causing these symptoms I truly don't give a flip while I'm on the floor puking and willing the world to stop spinning that there even is a blood brain barrier, much less if it has been crossed

Can we agree that to the point that msg causes or helps to cause it, it isn't *good* for me? And that me trying to avoid msg doesn't make me a crackpot worthy of ridicule?

_GlaDOS_

Ok, I'd like to just have this topic for later when I have time for a response. But, I do want to say that although I don't quite understand what the OP means by people being "afraid GMOs will affect their DNA", but certainly the idea of horizontal gene transfer is well-documented (although I can't say I've got the expertise to fully understand it). Perhaps not as well-documented with GMOs, but there is some research out there. However, GMO research itself is lacking, especially in terms of independent research, but when I have some time I'll post some of the research articles I have found.

helenium

Not everything that affects the brain is caused by something in the brain. Also, some people can be allergic to MSG, just like some people can be allergic to peanuts, or strawberries.

That's a somewhat unsatisfying answer. If its causing these symptoms I truly don't give a flip while I'm on the floor puking and willing the world to stop spinning that there even is a blood brain barrier, much less if it has been crossed

Can we agree that to the point that msg causes or helps to cause it, it isn't *good* for me? And that me trying to avoid msg doesn't make me a crackpot worthy of ridicule?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm not saying you're right - all I'm going to say is, scientifically, no conclusions could be drawn about your plight because there isn't enough data (specifically lack of data from multiple humans and lack of data from controlled double-blinded experiments)...

Main thing here is not to do something you're not happy with. Given that MSG is certainly not an essential nutrient, and it will (now) if anything exacerbate your migraines (even if entirely due to the placebo effect), you're certainly not harming yourself or others by avoiding it - so there's no reason to not avoid it. If you were talking about vaccination against a disease which can be life-threatening to you or vulnerable people, I'd have a different opinion...

_GlaDOS_

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm not saying you're right - all I'm going to say is, scientifically, no conclusions could be drawn about your plight because there isn't enough data (specifically lack of data from multiple humans and lack of data from controlled double-blinded experiments)...

It is highly unlikely that in nutrition research, we will get to a point where we can actually conduct reliable double-blind, randomized, controlled experiments in humans. It is also unlikely that we will be able to conduct reliable research on long-term health effects of specific foods, nutrients, or food additives. There are just too many other variables. So we just have to go with what we have, make sure the source is reliable and perhaps see if the same research or a more comprehensive study has been done, and decide on what we eat and how we will form food policy and regulations from there. You can't simply say that because some research studies were done on animals, they aren't good enough. That's what we have, especially in nutrition.

And I find it interesting that, especially in the United States, we would consume something anyway even when we don't know anything about it and we claim that it "hasn't been proven to be bad yet". And yet, with medication/drugs, there is no way we would approve something for an indication until it was proven safe, with rigorous research over several years and several studies. With food, it's "approve until someone complains or people get sick", and by then big business has enough money and power that it doesn't matter anymore. Forgive me if that sounds like fear-mongering, but it's essentially true. I have asked people if GM foods were labeled if they would still consume them. A lot of people say, "Yes, because I don't know anything about GMOs." It's sad to me that we would put things into our bodies without knowing what it is. Maybe that just comes from my knowledge of the regulatory practices in this country and how terrible they are, I don't know.

LabRat529

Ok, I'd like to just have this topic for later when I have time for a response. But, I do want to say that although I don't quite understand what the OP means by people being "afraid GMOs will affect their DNA", but certainly the idea of horizontal gene transfer is well-documented (although I can't say I've got the expertise to fully understand it). Perhaps not as well-documented with GMOs, but there is some research out there. However, GMO research itself is lacking, especially in terms of independent research, but when I have some time I'll post some of the research articles I have found.

I meant exactly what you're referring to... people fear a "horizontal gene transfer" from the genome of a genetically modified food into their own genome and it doesn't work that way. It just doesn't happen.

Is there such a thing as horizontal gene transfer? Yes. To the best of my knowledge, it's facilitated by viruses. But it doesn't happen with the food we eat.

LabRat529

Not everything that affects the brain is caused by something in the brain. Also, some people can be allergic to MSG, just like some people can be allergic to peanuts, or strawberries.

That's a somewhat unsatisfying answer. If its causing these symptoms I truly don't give a flip while I'm on the floor puking and willing the world to stop spinning that there even is a blood brain barrier, much less if it has been crossed

Can we agree that to the point that msg causes or helps to cause it, it isn't *good* for me? And that me trying to avoid msg doesn't make me a crackpot worthy of ridicule?

Absolutely you should avoid MSG if you feel it causes harm. You are not the only one who reacts negatively to it, and I've never suggested that someone was a 'crackpot worthy of ridicule' because they avoid it. I was simply imparting some information to the effect that, based on science, I think it very unlikely that MSG enters the brain.

The brain doesn't actually feel pain. Headaches don't come because the brain is in pain. Headaches are most often due to pain in the muscles and nerves OUTSIDE the brain (but in the head and neck surrounding the skull). So these horrible headaches you are experiencing are probably not due to MSG in your brain, but instead due to something else (possibly MSG) acting somewhere else in your body.

The reason I brought the whole MSG thing up is that there are people who assume that MSG is bad for everyone simply because some people react negatively to it. There's no evidence to support that claim. MSG is bad for people who react to it. Just like peanut butter is bad for people who react to it.

LabRat529

And I find it interesting that, especially in the United States, we would consume something anyway even when we don't know anything about it and we claim that it "hasn't been proven to be bad yet". And yet, with medication/drugs, there is no way we would approve something for an indication until it was proven safe, with rigorous research over several years and several studies. With food, it's "approve until someone complains or people get sick", and by then big business has enough money and power that it doesn't matter anymore. Forgive me if that sounds like fear-mongering, but it's essentially true. I have asked people if GM foods were labeled if they would still consume them. A lot of people say, "Yes, because I don't know anything about GMOs." It's sad to me that we would put things into our bodies without knowing what it is. Maybe that just comes from my knowledge of the regulatory practices in this country and how terrible they are, I don't know.

There's a big difference, in my opinion, between food-stuff and a pharmacologically active chemical. A genetically modified ear of corn looks exactly like a non-modified ear of corn once it's passed through our digestive system. That corn is broken down to its component parts- micromolecules such as sugars, amino-acids, fatty acids, and so on. The gene that carries the modification? It will be destroyed in our digestive track.

Pharmacological agents, on the other hand, are specifically designed to either survive the digestive tract intact (if it's administered orally), or those agents are administered by injection or inhalation or some other route. The active ingredient makes it into our body... and it remains active in our body until we metabolize it into an inactive substance. Hence pharmacological agents have a much higher risk of being harmful because they're designed to by-pass our protective barriers.

One possible exception to all this is if the corn was genetically engineered to produce it's own anti-biotic, anti-fungal, or anti-virus or something like that. THEN I might be concerned because that anti-biotic or whatever might be a molecular structure that can survive our GI tract and enter our system.

mehaugen

This is spurred by another topic in which these were mentioned. I thought I'd share my opinion. My opinion was formed by science, but this is another one of those areas (like aspartame) where there's data backing up both opinions, so you'll find stuff out there saying MSG = bad and GM = bad.

MSG is monosodium glutamate. Glutamate is an amino acid and one of the most important neurotransmitters in your brain. By neurotransmitter, I mean it's a chemical signal that's released by one neuron to communicate with another neuron.

People who object to MSG say (among other things) that it damages the brain. In mice and rats, this is true. Even in primates, this is true. If you feed these animals a LARGE quantity of MSG, they develop lesions in their brain.

But the evidence is weak in humans. It's highly questionable whether dietary MSG even crosses the blood-brain barrier, let alone damages the brain when/if it does.

What is the blood-brain barrier? The rest of our bodies are bathed in blood and interstitial fluid that is comprised of whatever was in the blood (minus the blood cells). But the brain- blood enters the skull through blood vessels, but does not come into direct contact with the brain. Instead, it is filtered through a network of tightly-fitted-together cells and this filter removes pathogens and unwanted material. The blood brain barrier makes the life of neuro-pharmacologists (like me) a bit difficult, because we can come up with the greatest drug in the world for curing <insert disease of choice here> and still utterly fail because it doesn't get into the brain.

So if MSG doesn't cross the blood brain barrier, it doesn't cause damage to the brain.

What about all the people who get a bad reaction to MSG? It's probably do to MSG acting else where in the body. It's not likely due to effects in the brain, though there are people who would argue this point.

What about these genetically modified plants?

I'm not that invested in whether someone eats or doesn't eat genetically modified foods. But I am invested in getting 'correct information' to anyone who wants it. Genetic modification is NOT my expertise. But I can tell you with absolute certainty that some of the crazy things people believe are simply not true.

Example: I have heard people tell me that they don't eat genetically modified plants because they don't want the plants to affect their DNA. This is silly. The genes in the plant will not jump across an entire kingdom into your DNA. It just isn't going to happen. We are not plants. Our DNA is not gonna mesh together happily. Also, the viruses (if there were even any viruses) used to make the genetic modification in the original plant are long gone. They don't hang around. You don't have to worry about them.

The simple truth is, from a biological standpoint, your body doesn't know whether a plant has been genetically modified or not. You body sees a composite of proteins, fats, carbohydrates, sugars, and fibers. It seems the break-down products of those items: amino acids, fatty acids, single-molecule sugars, and... well it can't break down the fiber, so it still sees fiber.

I don't object to people avoiding genetically modified plants if they wish. I just hope you're avoiding them for other good reasons and not because you're scared of them.

I went to grad school for biochemistry, and studied GMO's extensively in classes. You are correct that a GMO will not change your DNA. However, GMOs are used to express a variety of proteins usually, and many times genetically modifying an organism can produce UNINTENDED protein expression consequences. Some of these proteins are used medically for therapy. Some can be harmful to your body! So I would avoid GMOs because proteins expressed by them have not been shown to be harmless, and in some cases GM vegetables have been recalled because they were producing toxic proteins.

LabRat529

I went to grad school for biochemistry, and studied GMO's extensively in classes. You are correct that a GMO will not change your DNA. However, GMOs are used to express a variety of proteins usually, and many times genetically modifying an organism can produce UNINTENDED protein expression consequences. Some of these proteins are used medically for therapy. Some can be harmful to your body! So I would avoid GMOs because proteins expressed by them have not been shown to be harmless, and in some cases GM vegetables have been recalled because they were producing toxic proteins.

Well I guess that disproves my hypothesis that GMO corn will be 'seen' the same as unmodified corn . I'd be interested in seeing the data on this if you're willing to dig them out.

And for discussions' sake, are you of the opinion that we should avoid using all genetically modified plants because some modifications have had unintended consequences? Or would you advocate for better regulations?

I see enormous potential for good with GMOs, to be honest. I suppose I have fantasies of wiping out malnutrition in third-world countries- things like that. Can you imagine if plants could be engineered to produce all essential amino acids? In a nation where you eat nothing but rice day in and day out, that would be a boon.

I'm sure there are mistakes and I'm sure there will be more. But I suppose I'm an optimist.

llkilgore

I didn't realize that one of the reasons people were scared of GMOs was because they feared they would somehow alter their DNA. Wow! That is actually pretty funny... and sad.

A participant in a gardening forum I sometime visit warned that we should all be careful to avoid to putting scraps from genetically modified plants in worm bins because the "man made genes," having been concentrated in the worm poop, would infect the plants they were used to fertilize and end up in our vegetables, and eventually, us. No one challenged her on it - not even me. Somehow there just didn't seem to be any point.

albayin

MSGs...oh my god...I'm chinese, and I must have become a mutant without realizing it...LOL

Acg67

Ok, I'd like to just have this topic for later when I have time for a response. But, I do want to say that although I don't quite understand what the OP means by people being "afraid GMOs will affect their DNA", but certainly the idea of horizontal gene transfer is well-documented (although I can't say I've got the expertise to fully understand it). Perhaps not as well-documented with GMOs, but there is some research out there. However, GMO research itself is lacking, especially in terms of independent research, but when I have some time I'll post some of the research articles I have found.

You may be interested in this, there are a host of ethical that pop up in regards to GMO crops. Also they potentially are less micronutrient dense. it really is a fascinating topic to debate and learn about

http://apps.who.int/tdr/publications/tdr-research-publications/seb_topic1/pdf/seb_topic1.pdf

jetscreaminagain

I tried to be very clear that 1) though they are called migraine my particular brand of hell involves no pain but instead vertigo. I also tried to be clear that my vestibular organs were ruled out as a cause which to my not-a-scientist-self suggests that the problem is in the brain. (I'd notemigraines are associated with seizures though I don't have seizures). I am aware that the brain does not have feeling but that muscles etc do. Interesting early research mapping where what happens in the brain points that out.

I say this to suggest that "we're not sure but probably" appears just as rampant on the "scientific " side of this thread as it is implied to ne on the anti msg or anti gmo crackpot side.

Seems like my brain has something going wrong when it can't make out up v down. Seems like msg is involved. I already granted and listed a bumch of possibly confounding variables.

What are not applicable are placebo effect or muscle tensio. Also not helpful is "it affects things other than your brain...allergy like peanuts" as if that settles anything.my frustration is that there is a belief system as blind as any faith that supports the science side and it tends to involve dismissing expeeriences that don't allign with the view that is dominant.

I mean yes. It is clearly proven that immunizations and the mercury used to preserve certain immunizations habe nothing to do with autism. I grant you that and immunize myself and my kids. But lost in all that controversy is that mercury certainly isn't good for anyone and certainly not childre. It could do harm. So why in the hell are we putting mercury in ANY immunizations.

There really is a middle ground here.

Id suggest making fun of caution about msg and caution about the more unknown than known of gmos is not a middle ground.

Not everything that affects the brain is caused by something in the brain. Also, some people can be allergic to MSG, just like some people can be allergic to peanuts, or strawberries.

That's a somewhat unsatisfying answer. If its causing these symptoms I truly don't give a flip while I'm on the floor puking and willing the world to stop spinning that there even is a blood brain barrier, much less if it has been crossed

Can we agree that to the point that msg causes or helps to cause it, it isn't *good* for me? And that me trying to avoid msg doesn't make me a crackpot worthy of ridicule?

Absolutely you should avoid MSG if you feel it causes harm. You are not the only one who reacts negatively to it, and I've never suggested that someone was a 'crackpot worthy of ridicule' because they avoid it. I was simply imparting some information to the effect that, based on science, I think it very unlikely that MSG enters the brain.

The brain doesn't actually feel pain. Headaches don't come because the brain is in pain. Headaches are most often due to pain in the muscles and nerves OUTSIDE the brain (but in the head and neck surrounding the skull). So these horrible headaches you are experiencing are probably not due to MSG in your brain, but instead due to something else (possibly MSG) acting somewhere else in your body.

The reason I brought the whole MSG thing up is that there are people who assume that MSG is bad for everyone simply because some people react negatively to it. There's no evidence to support that claim. MSG is bad for people who react to it. Just like peanut butter is bad for people who react to it.

LabRat529

You may be interested in this, there are a host of ethical that pop up in regards to GMO crops. Also they potentially are less micronutrient dense. it really is a fascinating topic to debate and learn about

http://apps.who.int/tdr/publications/tdr-research-publications/seb_topic1/pdf/seb_topic1.pdf

Thanks!

jetscreaminagain

I live in a corn producing area and see billboards for corn seeds that will kill worms that would damage "lesser" varieties. It has been explained to me by a farmer that certain of the round up ready gmo corn varieties are lethal to butterflies that land on them and do their butterfly things. Given the still perplexing loss of honeybee population, even if this stuff won't kill me, do we really want to be killing off our pollinators?

That's the distrust of gmos and several other advances: what are the unintended consequences? DDT was an awesome idea at the time.

And I find it interesting that, especially in the United States, we would consume something anyway even when we don't know anything about it and we claim that it "hasn't been proven to be bad yet". And yet, with medication/drugs, there is no way we would approve something for an indication until it was proven safe, with rigorous research over several years and several studies. With food, it's "approve until someone complains or people get sick", and by then big business has enough money and power that it doesn't matter anymore. Forgive me if that sounds like fear-mongering, but it's essentially true. I have asked people if GM foods were labeled if they would still consume them. A lot of people say, "Yes, because I don't know anything about GMOs." It's sad to me that we would put things into our bodies without knowing what it is. Maybe that just comes from my knowledge of the regulatory practices in this country and how terrible they are, I don't know.

There's a big difference, in my opinion, between food-stuff and a pharmacologically active chemical. A genetically modified ear of corn looks exactly like a non-modified ear of corn once it's passed through our digestive system. That corn is broken down to its component parts- micromolecules such as sugars, amino-acids, fatty acids, and so on. The gene that carries the modification? It will be destroyed in our digestive track.

Pharmacological agents, on the other hand, are specifically designed to either survive the digestive tract intact (if it's administered orally), or those agents are administered by injection or inhalation or some other route. The active ingredient makes it into our body... and it remains active in our body until we metabolize it into an inactive substance. Hence pharmacological agents have a much higher risk of being harmful because they're designed to by-pass our protective barriers.

One possible exception to all this is if the corn was genetically engineered to produce it's own anti-biotic, anti-fungal, or anti-virus or something like that. THEN I might be concerned because that anti-biotic or whatever might be a molecular structure that can survive our GI tract and enter our system.

Acg67

LabRat529

I tried to be very clear that 1) though they are called migraine my particular brand of hell involves no pain but instead vertigo. I also tried to be clear that my vestibular organs were ruled out as a cause which to my not-a-scientist-self suggests that the problem is in the brain. (I'd notemigraines are associated with seizures though I don't have seizures). I am aware that the brain does not have feeling but that muscles etc do. Interesting early research mapping where what happens in the brain points that out.

I say this to suggest that "we're not sure but probably" appears just as rampant on the "scientific " side of this thread as it is implied to ne on the anti msg or anti gmo crackpot side.

Seems like my brain has something going wrong when it can't make out up v down. Seems like msg is involved. I already granted and listed a bumch of possibly confounding variables.

What are not applicable are placebo effect or muscle tensio. Also not helpful is "it affects things other than your brain...allergy like peanuts" as if that settles anything.my frustration is that there is a belief system as blind as any faith that supports the science side and it tends to involve dismissing expeeriences that don't allign with the view that is dominant.

I mean yes. It is clearly proven that immunizations and the mercury used to preserve certain immunizations habe nothing to do with autism. I grant you that and immunize myself and my kids. But lost in all that controversy is that mercury certainly isn't good for anyone and certainly not childre. It could do harm. So why in the hell are we putting mercury in ANY immunizations.

There really is a middle ground here.

Id suggest making fun of caution about msg and caution about the more unknown than known of gmos is not a middle ground.

Why do you keep thinking anyone is making fun of anyone here? Nobody is. This thread isn't 'anti-crack-pot' (or I didn't start it with that intent... it could devolve that way). It's anti-misinformation. Is trying to spread information somehow hostile these days?

If your condition does not involve the vestibular organs, it could be your brain, or it still could be something else. I'd STILL vote for something else, but that's just me. It could even still be muscle tension- if your muscles are tense, it will restrict blood flow to you brain, which will cause dizziness/vertigo in some people. It could also be blood-sugar related. The reality is, without further testing, there's nobody on MFP that has a prayer of giving you a satisfactory answer.

There ARE researchers that disagree with me- some believe MSG does get past the blood brain barrier. I do not. And most neuroscientists that I've talked to believe as I do, that in humans, MSG doesn't make it into the brain in significant quantities.

But let's say hypothetically that MSG DOES get past the blood brain barrier, then the glutamate in MSG will cause chronic, low-grade stimulation of neurons in your brain. If concentrations of MSG are high enough, then chronic stimulation will lead to neuron cell death through a process called excitotoxcity.

The mercury issue is a whole other ball of wax... I don't know enough to even try and answer the "why" on that one.

mehaugen

I went to grad school for biochemistry, and studied GMO's extensively in classes. You are correct that a GMO will not change your DNA. However, GMOs are used to express a variety of proteins usually, and many times genetically modifying an organism can produce UNINTENDED protein expression consequences. Some of these proteins are used medically for therapy. Some can be harmful to your body! So I would avoid GMOs because proteins expressed by them have not been shown to be harmless, and in some cases GM vegetables have been recalled because they were producing toxic proteins.

Well I guess that disproves my hypothesis that GMO corn will be 'seen' the same as unmodified corn . I'd be interested in seeing the data on this if you're willing to dig them out.

And for discussions' sake, are you of the opinion that we should avoid using all genetically modified plants because some modifications have had unintended consequences? Or would you advocate for better regulations?

I see enormous potential for good with GMOs, to be honest. I suppose I have fantasies of wiping out malnutrition in third-world countries- things like that. Can you imagine if plants could be engineered to produce all essential amino acids? In a nation where you eat nothing but rice day in and day out, that would be a boon.

I'm sure there are mistakes and I'm sure there will be more. But I suppose I'm an optimist.

I would say I am more in favor of regulation and labeling, as well as more research on each GMO before introducing it to the public. As I said before, some veg have been recalled because the protein ended up being toxic. I dislike the US system of assuming it is harmless until harm is proven. Think about the revisements of US policy on BPA in the last few years. Also, it cannot be true that the protein expressed by the plant is completely destroyed in the GI tract. If that were true, I'd be able to eat gluten! (I have Celiac disease).

mehaugen

And I find it interesting that, especially in the United States, we would consume something anyway even when we don't know anything about it and we claim that it "hasn't been proven to be bad yet". And yet, with medication/drugs, there is no way we would approve something for an indication until it was proven safe, with rigorous research over several years and several studies. With food, it's "approve until someone complains or people get sick", and by then big business has enough money and power that it doesn't matter anymore. Forgive me if that sounds like fear-mongering, but it's essentially true. I have asked people if GM foods were labeled if they would still consume them. A lot of people say, "Yes, because I don't know anything about GMOs." It's sad to me that we would put things into our bodies without knowing what it is. Maybe that just comes from my knowledge of the regulatory practices in this country and how terrible they are, I don't know.

This.

M3CH4N1C

In New Zealand they are passing a law that people cannot have private farms/gardens on they're properties or at they're houses. It's getting ridiculous what government is doing around the world. They are worried that people will continue to have unmodified seed strains and would be able to continue to circulate those precious seeds within small communities. It's happening in America and Canada too. The 1 % elite want to have complete control over our food freedoms and other freedoms, of course. Go to a website called naturalnews.com with Mike Adams. He and his associates have dedicated their lives to natural food and medicine. It's amazing that most of the real cures for ailments are natural, but scientists keep destroying what's natural before we get a chance to discover the truth.

LabRat529

I live in a corn producing area and see billboards for corn seeds that will kill worms that would damage "lesser" varieties. It has been explained to me by a farmer that certain of the round up ready gmo corn varieties are lethal to butterflies that land on them and do their butterfly things. Given the still perplexing loss of honeybee population, even if this stuff won't kill me, do we really want to be killing off our pollinators?

That's the distrust of gmos and several other advances: what are the unintended consequences? DDT was an awesome idea at the time.

These are good points... and the insecticidal properties of some plants do concern me a bit.

LabRat529

I would say I am more in favor of regulation and labeling, as well as more research on each GMO before introducing it to the public. As I said before, some veg have been recalled because the protein ended up being toxic. I dislike the US system of assuming it is harmless until harm is proven. Think about the revisements of US policy on BPA in the last few years. Also, it cannot be true that the protein expressed by the plant is completely destroyed in the GI tract. If that were true, I'd be able to eat gluten! (I have Celiac disease).

I'd be cool with more regulation and with labeling I'd love to see the public better educated about GMOs too somehow... so that they're at least avoiding them for the "right" reasons, if that makes sense. And obviously, there are some good reasons for avoiding them.

Speaking of better education... it looks like I do have some learning to do about GMOs. That PDF Acg67 linked looks pretty interesting. I only skimmed and will read in depth later, but thanks again. I'll see what it says and I'll do some thinking/digging. I probably won't ever change my mind completely about GMOs because, as I said, I'm an optimist, and when it comes to science, I think science should be used -with care- but used to make our lives better. So I'd be more apt to say 'let's be more careful' than to say 'GMO = evil'.

About Celiac's disease... I'm pretty sure (but not positive) that Celiac's disease causes inflammation in the gut. I should probably have been more careful with how I worded things- but proteins aren't necessarily 'destroyed' in your gut... but they don't cross the intestinal wall in their complete form. It's been a while since I've read up on my GI-physiology, but I'm pretty sure the intestinal wall prevents the absorption of any large particles. So the gluten would still be around causing havoc in the gut, but wouldn't pass as gluten into your blood-stream.

M3CH4N1C

“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.”
Albert Einstein

_GlaDOS_

Great to see others have come in with some good resources.

I would also love to believe there was a safe way to increase crop yield so that we could begin to take care some of the world's famine problems. Unfortunately, I don't think that GM crops do this. At least, not enough so the benefits outweigh the risks. There are reasons why places like India are burning GM farms and why Haiti refused our GM seeds. They refuse to grow Monsanto's (the largest producer of GM seeds in the world) crops and have them essentially own their farms, invade them with toxic pesticides, and pay the farmers terribly low wages, all for a crop that has been shown to not produce yields any higher than conventional crops. I encourage you to take a look at this article, called "Failure to Yield": http://consin.org/view/failure-to-yieldfn.pdf

As for the comment on viruses and horizontal gene transfer - GM crops are often created by inserting genes into the crop from viruses and bacteria. GM Bt corn is engineered to produce it's own pesticide, whereas other GM crops, like soybeans, are engineered to withstand massive amounts of pesticides sprayed directly onto the plant. There is, what I would really say is almost definitive evidence, that the pesticides used are carcinogens. They are a health hazard to the farmers who use them and they stay on the soybeans that are sprayed. The research out there isn't conclusive as to whether or not gene transfer is possible. It is unlikely I believe, but not impossible. Because of such an increase in pesticide use, we are threatening the monarch butterfly, bees, and farmers are now starting to see superweeds. Many of the pests that the crops are supposed to be protected from with the use of the pesticide are now becoming resistant to the actual pesticide. We aren't producing more crops and feeding more people, we are producing and using more pesticides.

My two biggest concerns with the health implications of GMOs are the pesticides we use on the crops and food allergies. When GM soy was introduced in the UK, soy allergies went up by about 50%. These GM crops produce either new proteins or more "strongly expressed" proteins that are known allergens. Our parents and grandparents never experienced the amount of food allergies my generation has today. Are GM crops completely to blame? Maybe, maybe not. I believe there is more evidence to show that they are.

I also agree that GM foods need to be labeled, and we should have enforced more strict and long-term testing of GM crops before they were released into our environment and into our food. We are at a point now where basically one company is literally trying to create a world in which all crops are GM (they have said so themselves). They do not create these GM seeds for nutritional purposes or to feed the world. They are a chemical company who produces the seeds that require their pesticides. They have manipulated the FDA regulations on what constitutes "food", and they have stuck their noses into the government, lobbying for millions of dollars. They have even convinced, somehow, Bill Gates that GM crops will save the world. Maybe they could some day, but they certainly don't now, and we are being very careless with our regulatory practices.

I avoid GM foods because I don't believe the producers of the GM seeds, nor the FDA, nor the farmers, nor any other consumers know enough about them that they can say they can safely consume them without any negative long-term health effects.

Two documentaries, if you're interested - "The World According to Monsanto" and "The Future of Food". And a few books - "Seeds of Deception", "Genetic Roulette", and "The Unhealthy Truth".

M3CH4N1C

They have even convinced, somehow, Bill Gates that GM crops will save the world. Maybe they could some day, but they certainly don't now, and we are being very careless with our regulatory practices.

Look up Bill Gates and depopulation on youtube. Bill openly with self-righteousness admits that he aims to depopulate earth or slow down population growth with vaccines and health care. Wow. I wonder how thats going to be achieved. Seems as though GMO's could be part of the depopulation agenda.

Not only is gene transfer possible, but it is inevitable.

LabRat529

No... sorry. I disagree. I'm willing to concede that there might be some negatives to GMO, though I still think the positives likely outweigh those negatives, but gene transfer isn't going to happen. We are not plants. Our genetic material is not compatible with plants. And the viruses that act on plants will not act on us. Zoonotic diseases are relatively rare (those that pass from animals to us)... plant diseases? I've never heard of such a thing. Gene transfer will not happen. It's a scare-technique used to pointlessly worry people.

So yes... possible environmental concerns? Maybe. The occasional GMO recall because of unexpected protein production? Okay. Could happen. Gene transfer? Fiction.

Neonazu

The thing I am most certain of is that MSG IS THE WORST ENEMY WITH THE PEOPLE HAVING ECZEMA. I think it is all those artificial preservatives inside MSG. It is definitely not good for the body.

And skin.

tigersword

MSG is a natural substance. There are no "artificial preservatives" in it. :huh:

That's like blaming artificial preservatives in a stalk of celery.