Gluten Intolerance
I am sure you have seem gluten free products emerging from every dark corner of the processed food industry. It is all over the news media and during my last doctor visit his recommendation was, "stop eating gluten." So what happened to bread? I grew up in a family that had bread on the table at every meal and there was no obesity. No one complained of stomach aches, bloating, IBS, where bread was responsible.
I tired researching this but gluten seems to have been labeled the culprit with little to no investigation from the medical world. However there seems to be far more to so-called gluten intolerance. I came across a couple of articles that seem to point at other sources. One theory is that the gut bacteria responsible for the digestion has been destroyed or severely weaken by antibiotics. Another was and is the destruction of our gut bacteria from the use of fluorides. Still another theory is the use of GM crops, such as BT corn, and the saturation of Round-UP ready crops with the herbicide Round-Up. I believe the reason for the relatively recent advent of gluten intolerance has been caused by the destruction of our gut bacteria and not wheat.
I bake my bread with the use of five ingredients, a good white flour, yeast, water, sugar, and salt and have no issues. (I do have issues with WW and whole grains but I don't want to sidetrack the subject). Some of the problems caused by modern day industrial bread is probably caused by the additives as such I don't think that homemade and commercial breads can be compared. I believe that gluten intolerance is caused by the products that have taken a toll on our digestive system, antibiotics, fluorides, insecticides, GM corps like BT corn, and other GM Round-Up ready crops.
Jaque Pepin said something like, 'for my last meal I would want fresh bread and butter.' I agree and hope that we will be able to enjoy our breads until our last day.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/healthy-kitchen-11/truth-about-gluten
Some people do have celiac disease; some people are sensitive to gluten, but the vast majority of us are not.
I am old enough to remember the oat bran fad of 30 years ago. Oat bran was the savior of us all; they put it in everything, including potato chips. Nowadays it is gluten.
It's all silly.
Indeed some, very few, are genuinely gluten intolerant. It's a big question as to why, suddenly, it has become so widespread, though.
It is my opinion that the prevalence can be attributed to the nocebo effect in combination with cyberchondria.
I sincerely hope that nobody takes offense at that.
The more others avoid gluten for faddish reasons the more will be available for me.
One of the most no-nonsense people i know has had a lifelong struggle with unexplained symptoms (not IBS). She and one of her daughters stays off gluten not because they call themselves gluten intolerant but because it helps them with their quality of life. Not for lack of trying either - this lady loves sourdough and bakes her own bread, and has experimented with many life and dietary changes before settling on the combination that works for her/her family.
She herself says that it can't be because gluten is inherently bad, and she definitely does not find her 'identity' in being gluten free. (She has much more to do with her time as a mother of multiple kids). But she has seen many doctors and even had surgery to try and deal with some of her issues, and as long as no one seems to be able to fix them why should she not try out various scientifically unproven fads in case they work?
A fairly recent study suggests fermentable, oligo-, di-, monosaccharides, and polyols might be the real culprit in NCGS. Which could also explain why long fermented sourdoughs are reportedly tolerated by some people who believe themselves gluten sensitive.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/non-celiac-gluten-sensitivity/
This study is in the news a lot lately but it's too small (only 35 folks) and poorly designed (only a week in between food trials when it usually takes several weeks to 6 months for gluten to clear the system) to give us much in the way of answers, as its authors admit. Further, the FODMAP digesting enzymes are manufactured in the gut, most near the villi tips. When the villi are damaged by gluten (or anything else) the enzymes can't be produced, so people with gluten & other gut problems often have other food intolerances & must take enzymes to cope with other foods or avoid them entirely. Ergo, if there are FODMAP issues that doesn't disprove gluten sensitivity, it just confirms the additional food group digestion issues already found by other researchers.
Well they have also proven that people today eat way more fiber then the body can handle to stay healthy which has the effect of bloating and tummy ache. So when they stop eating gluten off course the problem goes away, even if it wasnt the gluten that was the problem.
I have never heard it said that people generally ate more fibet than needed and always assumes it was the other way around.
65% of Americans are overweight to obese they have to eating too much of something - I'm thinking it is too much fat, sugar. processed foods, carbohydrates and faddish supposedly healthy food supplements like green slime vitamix, raw eggs and whey protein blender drinks. Thank God the eating of Chinese Dog Jerky never caught on and only their dog died:-) Poor things, they are probably the same people whose last dog died eating Chinese dog food additives.
After being in the food business and seeing the all the food fads weak minded and easily fooled people have gone for over the years, I think anything is possible and that eventually Chinese Dog Jerky will be all the rage but it will have a warning label that says - Remember what happened last 2 times?. There is always someone willing to separate them from their money - with the easy fix.
Heck even Bill O'Rielly is on the bandwagon but has taken it a step further. He has banned all wheat from his diet but not other grains with gluten it seems - never mentions the other grains with gluten.. He says it changed his life completely for the better - his conversion will most likely make him a billionaire:-)
Being a lilibertarian, I personally could care less what people do but it sure is fun to watch them make fools of themselves. It's Friday and time to get ready for this weeks bake - its not gluten free but would be if I was celiac.
When people want to eat healthy they tend to go overboard and eat too much of the "healthy" stuff. It most often these people who later remove gluten and starts to feel better and then thinks Oh I was gluten intolerant when itwas really fiber that caused the problem.
I used to be bloated and I used to be very ill, until my doctor found out that I cant have too much of labrotory foods and my body do not like bamboo or sugar beet fibers added to foods just to make then healthier.
This has caused my gut to react to even rye, I can have a little but I cant eat the amount of rye I used to. Which is sad since rye is such a common thing in bread and some cookies.
1 person in 133 suffers from gluten sensitivity - according to the internet. So it must be true...,
Has it occurred to anyone that the internet has allowed a small proportion of people suffering from hypochondria as being largely responsible for spreading a disproportionate amount of paranoia over a common food item?
I have and find it entertaining to watch - what else can one do when such a mania is in full bloom?
The Wall Street Journal recently published a piece noting that ""Saturated fat does not cause heart disease"- or so concluded a big study published in March in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine". The article goes on to say "Our distrust of saturated fat can be traced back to the 1950s, to a man named Ancel Benjamin Keys, a scientist at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Keys was formidably persuasive and, through sheer force of will, rose to the top of the nutrition world - even gracing the cover of Time magazine for relentlessly championing the idea that saturated fats raise cholesterol and, as a result, cause heart attacks".
It turns out the good Doctor Keys fudged much of the data to fit his conclusions. American's were ripe for this new war against heart disease which wasn't really a problem three decades back - have a problem? Find something to blame and promote the hell out it, It's the American way.
Kurt Vonnegut had the perfect saying for this condition, "And so it goes" which I think sums up this current war against carbohydrates and bread. Besides, as every chef knows, there's no substitute for butter.
Que sais-je?
Wild-Yeast
I am the OP and after much study now believe the problem with our grains is mainly due to a herbicide and the profit motive in commercial bread.
First, I have learned that much of our wheat is now harvested using glyphosate, (herbicide). Not all grains will be ready for harvest at the same time. In order to harvest at the same time many growers now opt to spray glyphosate on their wheat crop. With this method they are able to harvest all at the same time which is more profitable.
http://www.naturalnews.com/047962_Roundup_glyphosate_wheat.html
I now buy only organic flour.
Secondly, commercial bakeries are mainly concerned with profit and slow bread is not profitable. They add all sorts of chemical concoctions to speed up the process, extend shelf like, and keep the bread soft at the same time.
I tried sourdough for a while but found I had a little difficulty digesting sourdough breads even though I love it.
Finally I read of the slow rise. This made good sense to me as one of the reasons sourdough is healthy is the pre-digestion of the flour. I now use organic flour and a cold rise method. My bread is the best I have ever made and folks who claims to have problems with gluten have told me they had none with my bread.
http://www.rootsimple.com/2013/11/why-you-should-proof-bread-in-the-refrigerator/
Ordinarily I'd stay out of this kind of discussion but the assertion about "99%" of the wheat crop being "drenched" in Roundup to improve harvestability is so untrue that I have to chime in.
There are sometimes instances of enough weeds growing in a wheat field that the harvested wheat would be rejected because of a high incidence of weed seeds. In such an instance, a concerned farmer might, weeks prior to harvest, choose to spray the field to kill the weeds. But only if there was enough time for the glyphosate to break down prior to harvest and only if the high cost of the herbicide was less than the cost of getting no harvest at all. And no, it would have nothing to do with hastening the ripening or drying of the wheat.
If you've had the good fortune to see wheat fields as they ripen, you've noticed that the grain in some areas does ripen faster than grain in other parts of the field. And you would also have noticed that the farmer waits until all of the grain is ripe before harvesting the field, rather than trying to boost the readiness of the slower-ripening sections. Here's why: driving the spraying equipment back and forth through the field knocks down the wheat stalks in the path of the implements' tires, making them unharvestable. So, if a farmer chose to use Roundup as a dessicant (and even the manufacturer recommend it for weed control, not dessication), he's out the extra money to buy the herbicide and out the income he would have had from the wheat that has been knocked down. That's a double loss. Since many farmers operate on the razor's edge of being profitable or going bankrupt, they won't willingly do something that they know will increase costs and reduce income. Nor do they want to do anything that will harm their families, their community, or their customers.
Whether or not you believe me, a former farm boy who lives in one of the largest wheat producing states in the country and who is able to see that farmers don't use glyphosate as a dessicant, is immaterial. Maybe a source like Snopes would be perceived as more neutral. The point is that reality is vastly different than the thoroughly inaccurate essay at naturalnews.com. I hope you will be willing to consider the facts and adjust your opinion to align with them.
Respectfully,
Paul
Finally took a look at wheat farming practices using Roundup. What a monstrosity! And it's legal - for now.
First phase is for every respectable baker to switch immediately to organic flours. The next step is to begin changing the laws that stipulate at the very least the same levels as required for export of wheat to Japan - followed by a total ban on the stuff.
This chart was instrumental in my wake up call:
I have to begin a nice friendly dialogue with my government representatives regarding that croissant they're having with their coffee. Yep, have to time it just right...,
Wild-Yeast
Correlation is not causation.
Here's one:
I think I get the general attitude from the last two comments. It is now perfectly clear.
Wild-Yeast
I don't know what my attitude is, I just think that if Ms. Swanson's beliefs are strong and true, she should be able to convert people without quackery and tales of miracles and hell.
I tend to be more careful about writing derogatory remarks about people. Just saying you don't agree with their methods etc. is enough.
Admittedly I haven't researched the data but do wonder why levels for export to Japan for instance are extremely low to those now set for glyphosates in the U.S. I'd appreciate anyone chiming in with a "reliable" source for information. It would be best if at least four separate reports on the subject matter could be presented for the membership perusal.
Wild-Yeast
But is that really the case? Are there really set limits for glyphosate level for domestic production and exports? And if there are what agencies set them?
I would imagine that it is being studied and it's a good guess that Monsanto researchers have ideas about deleterious effects on human physiology. In Russia, for instance, they don't use this herbicide so you wouldn't have any source information on the subject though Russia does have import restrictions on trace herbicides on imported grains.
Help us out here and be part of the group's solution instead of playing cat and mouse answer games.
Wild-Yeast
What is cat and mouse about "Causation is not correlation?"
In the scientific community it is a common injunction about jumping to conclusions about cause and effect.
By all means, point us to some real data and research that shows a cause and effect between GI and Roundup, in a double blind study.
Publishing a "Chart" with two different ranges on the X-Y axis to force a correlation (a common technique to amplify the supposed causation) is not science.
Brief search suggests that it is well known and used there. They, however, do ban Wisconsin cheese and California almonds.
@rgconner "What is cat and mouse about "Causation is not correlation?" it's plain epistemic arrogance parading as just another internet expert naked without credentials attempting to sound "expert". This is most likely not the answer you desired but missing the theme this far off base it has full mandate.
The original graph is not proof but is enough of a hunch to be resolved - to prove or disprove application effects of glyphosase on unripe wheat crops and their effect on the human gastrointestinal tract.
If you take the time to reread the tract (thus far) you'll see I am seeking "expert" testimony - not troll like argumentation but in a group discovery fashion instead. Help join in with information to prove or disprove causation with documentation on your part. I think if you break bread then you have skin in grinding out the details of an answer to this issue, whatever it may be.
Wild-Yeast
"Causation is not correlation" ("Correlation does not imply causation" is most commonly used form) is a basic scientific principle, one does not need to be an expert to know what it means - basic set of science classes would suffice. You On the other hand I do not know and, yes, do not care what epistemic arrogance is. Sounds like something postmodernist? I so detest postmodernism. Heidegger made my head hurt. What I am getting at is we have a classic case of "and never the twain shall meet" here. You demand proof of the kind hard science is not meant to provide, and the kind of proof it does provide you are not meant or not willing to accept/comprehend.
epistemic arrogance
Means there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophies.
Or, in more plain english, he thinks I am a know-it-all.
You did not present it as a hunch, you presented it as fact.
You cannot point to research that stands up to scientific scrutiny that Roundup causes gluten sensitivity. It simply does not exist, what is out there is based on charts just like you posted, which are not facts. It is a bunch of correlations masking as causation. Much like the so called "evidence" of immunization causing autism.
But if it is just your hunch... hunch away, everyone is entitled to an opinion.
The main cause of more people testing positive GI is because more people are being tested for GI, now that there is a test for it and people know to ask for it. Before 2 years ago, the method was to stop eating Gluten, and see if it gets better.
But if you really interested in the science, you may look at this:
http://archive.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/celiacsum.htm
Which indicates that the most likely factor is genetics, seeing how Celtic and Northern Europeans suffer from it, but other populations such as Chinese, Japanese and Caribbean-African decent.
Oddly, the Finnish seem to have the highest rate of incidence of CD (Celiac Disease), a population that traditionally does not eat much wheat or gluten grains.
Here is another interesting viewpoint about Roundup and GI issues:
http://www.glutenfreeclub.com/dont-believe-everything-you-read-roundup/
"
If this was the cause of celiac disease, the gluten-free diet would be useless, because people would be replacing gluten-containing food with other foods that also contain glyphosate, possibly at even higher levels. The authors of the paper do say that the gluten-free diet sometimes works. If their theory was correct, it should fail, and a glyphosate-free diet would be the cure. They even use data from the United Kingdom about the amount of glyphosate in various foods.
In 2011, there was more glyphosate in chick peas and lentils, among other so-called dried beans and pulses. Anyone replacing gluten-containing foods with these foods would be getting more of the pesticide."
I have read a number of discussions of GMOs. Those opposed to GMOs cite data that fail to support the claimed advantages of GMO's. But all of the claims of harm from GMO's are either unsupported by any data - they are just scary claims - or really talk about the (truly disturbing) increased use of insecticides and herbicides.
So, I have two questions:
1. Why are GMO use and insecticide and herbicide use all mixed together? Is there some link I am not seeing? Is it a not so subtle intentional confusion in the interest of persuading people that GMO's are harmful?
2. Are there studies showing that GMO crops themselves are harmful to those that consume them?
The only argument I have seen that I find persuasive is really against mono-clonal agriculture leading to elimination of the genetic diversity of organisms. And that is associated with industrial production of seeds for agriculture. Those seeds may be GMO, but it is the industrial production and distribution of seeds that is harmful, not that those seeds are GMOs.
David
Generally GMO crops are created to tolerate the use herbicides at a stage in the crop's life where it would normally be killed along with the weeds. In the 1980s if you drove by a bean field or wheat field you would see a lot of weeds grow higher than the crop if you drive through the countryside today you just see nice clean fields of the planted crop. This is done to increase the crop yield per acre as well as increase the $$ value of the crop, when the farmer takes the wheat to the elevator to sell a sample is taken and the larger the percentage of non wheat seeds in the sample reduces the price paid, around here wheat fields use to have a lot of mustard seed in them.
Gerhard
I get it now.
Do you know if the expected benefits occur, in reality? Is this cost effective for the farmer? (Does the increased per acre yield and higher price paid for "cleaner" grain exceed the additional cost of the GM seeds + herbicides."
Just to make it clear: There is no rationale for a farmer using GMO seed-grain if he/she is not going to use herbicides. Right?
David
There are other reasons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice
I think there must be real benefits for herbicide resistant beans anyhow, our neighbours farm 15,000 + acres and a third would be in beans ever year. They basically grow three cops, corn, wheat and beans. They are pretty smart farmers and if it did not work financially on paper they would not do it. Another big financial benefit is a reduction in drying costs when the bean crop is killed with herbicide prior to harvest. The benefits of this type of farming is probably much less clear if you where farming hundreds instead of thousands of acres. The large farmers have lots of equipment and labour that they don't want to see sit idle during harvest waiting for nature to take it's time and then when the harvest starts they don't have enough of either before the next crop starts.
Having said all that I don't know the effects on humans other than that this is done for the benefit of the bank account not to make a better crop. We live in the middle of farm country and realize that cancer rates are higher for people living here and I suspect this must largely be due to the large amount of chemicals used in modern farming. Having said that it takes a long time for cancer to present itself so the cases we see today may well be the result of the cavalier use, storage and disposal of chemicals in the past.
Gerhard
My understanding was that the preharvest spraying of soybeans was to kill weeds and allowed only after all plants are fully mature and lost green color.
During part of my working life (most of it was in pharmaceutical regulatory affairs and drug safety), I spent some time working in the biotechnology area and in particular, plant biotechnology. I helped edit two monographs on biotechnology food safety and risk assessment. I believe that all GMO (genetically modified organisms) foods are inherently as safe as organic foods or those produced by natural breeding techniques. Some of you may have differing views and that's OK.
Roundup as with all other herbicides and pesticides has to be approved for use by the US EPA and a maximum residue must be established if the crop is for food use. Farmers use herbicides to control weed growth which competes for nutrients and certain weeds can over run a field pretty quickly (bindweed is a good example and of course there is always kudzu). Roundup is one of the most environmental benign herbicides. It degrades in the environment quickly and it's mode of action is through the leaves of plants where it blocks a key enzyme responsible for growth. It does not effect the groundwater because of its short persistence. I'm reasonably sure that it's not applied close to harvest and certainly is not a desiccant.
It's important to note that a number of other herbicides are used on wheat to control weed growth. Some varieties of herbicide resistant wheat are created through natural selection and are not GMOs; e.g., they are exposed to small amounts of herbicide and varieties exhibiting resistance are then bred for distribution to farmers. I believe in the "old" days (40-50 years ago) 2,4 D was used on wheat for wheat control as it killed broad leaf weeds but not grasses. These pesticide was indeed persistent and somewhat toxic.
Actually with bean fields herbicides (mainly round-up) are used to have all the plants go dormant at the same time making it possible to time the harvest thus making better use of the harvest equipment not to improve the quality of the crop.
Gerhard
"Why are GMO use and insecticide and herbicide use all mixed together?"
As I understand it, the modification is made to allow the plant to survive the herbicide. The two are designed to work together.
Wheat is not GMO'd to produce a Roundup resistant strain.
It is done by good old selective breeding, which if that qualifies as GMO, then all foods are GMO, as nearly all foods that humans eat have been selectively bred.
There are only nine GMO crops in the United States at the current time. These are alfalfa, Hawaiian papaya, corn, cotton (oil), canola (oil), sugar from sugar beets, soy, corn, zucchini and yellow squash.
"Wheat is not GMO'd to produce a Roundup resistant strain"
I didn't suggest that it had been.
I don't think I intended to reply to you directly, it is just the weird way this sites "reply" seems to work on my browser. This is not the first time I have seen my reply go to the wrong response.
Anyway, people were tossing around GMO while talking about wheat, with no clarification that wheat is not GMO.
OK. Thanks for the clarification.
Wheat is not a GMO. To harvest wheat all at one time glyphosate is applied killing the wheat. Round ready GMO crops would not die with the application of glyphosate. The only reason for doing this is higher profits.
They claim the glyphosate is washed off. However for the plant to die the glyphosate has to be taken up internally.
Not all wheat is harvested this way. King Arthur states they have no way of knowing how the wheat is harvested.
How safe is glyphosate? Watch this short video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB4p-5Fhd30
I would like to refer you to the earlier comment in this very thread:
http://www.thefreshloaf.com/comment/331442#comment-331442
Glyphosate Update
California is about to add glyphosate to the list of potential carcinogens (Chronicle);
"A judge says California is legally authorized to label the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, the nation’s most widely used herbicide, as a potential cause of cancer.
A state environmental agency announced plans in late 2015 to add the chemical, glyphosate, to California’s list of potential cancer-causing chemicals based on a World Health Organization research agency’s findings that it was a probable human carcinogen. Proposition 65, approved by state voters in 1986, requires companies to warn consumers if the state determines their products pose a risk of cancer or birth defects."
The next blurb may be somewhat disconcerting for bakers;
"In fact, beer brewers are having a problem with glyphosate. A few years ago, when one of my colleagues wanted to get more Abraxis test strips for testing materials for glyphosate residue, he was told that they had a 3 month backlog. He asked, what was causing this? He was told that every load of malt barley coming out of North Dakota has to be tested, because the glyphosate levels were so high that it kills the yeast in the brew mix."
I realize that many remain in the "correlation does not imply causation" belief mode but I tend to avoid being Max Planck's next funeral as far as regards waiting for science to develop credible evidence on the issue.
The probability of glyphosate being carcinogenic has been slowly swinging to "probable" as discussed in the Scientific American article here.
More definitive is the "International Agency for Research on Cancer", IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans":
Glyphosate (updated 11 August 2016): http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-10.pdf
See Section 6. Evaluation
Wild-Yeast
Harvesting using Glyphosate has expanded to include a lot more corps.
http://non-gmoreport.com/articles/grim
"Ehrhardt also says that crops grown to produce seed are not usually sprayed with glyphosate prior to harvest because this can damage seed germination."
@donsabi, the above line is from the article you posted. I'm getting this unsettled feeling that there is more to the glyphosate story than has been in the press and the scientific community. Meanwhile I have to do what I can to limit exposure to it.
Wild-Yeast
Monsanto's Roundup (glyphosate) is at the center of a growing swarm of "potential" lawsuits. A status of those lawsuits is here. The truth is out there - in a courtroom no less...,
Wild-Yeast
Sorry but these silly theories are based on absolute ignorance of science of medicine history.
Celiac's disease and gluten intolerance is not a new condition. In fact, humans has been suffering from food antigen conditions since the Neolithic period.
In the case of celiacs disease, it was first recorded and described in 250 A.D. by the Greek physician, Aretaeus of Cappadocia. Cappadocia called it "koiliakos"; koilia being the Greek word for abdomen.
The translation of Cappadocia' description stated in part: “If the stomach be irretentive of the food and if it pass through undigested and crude, and nothing ascends into the body, we call such persons coeliacs”.
Sadly, the cause was not identified it until the 18th Century when Scottish pathologist Dr. Mathew Baillie studied the condition, and developed dietary recommendations to treat it. Still, the world suffered because few took notice to Baillie's work. A hundred more years later, an English physician Dr. Samuel Gee got people's attention. So Gee gets the credit; and people incorrectly think it's a new disorder.
Since humans have suffered from antigen triggered gluten disorders since the Stone Age, one cannot deduce the causes are due to a departure from ancient grains, organic framing, and natural fermentation.