GMO's - Scientific and Economic 'realities'???

[sheeplady]

While I am sure that gluten, peanuts, MSG, mono this, di that all have some subset of the population that benefit from avoiding them and a smaller subset that absolutely has to avoid them altogether, I don't even read the articles on this stuff anymore because I get the story from the pattern. To wit, I hardly ever heard the word gluten a few years back, then it started to marginally hit my radar and I saw a few items pop up in stores - probably, this was when a rational world would have stopped as the small need for these products was met. Then, I could feel it becoming a "thing" as the word was everywhere in the supermarket and bakeries, I saw (didn't read) news stories on it and even heard people talking about the benefits of a "gluten free" diet. It has, thus, reached the stupid fad stage where consumer passion and venal marketing is in overdrive - which means it has about peaked. In two years, it will have shrunk back to a small segment of the supermarket (probably properly aligned to the small segment of the population that truly needs gluten-free items) and the world will be on to its next "life-enhancing" thing. Hence, I don't pay these events any attention as the social / cultural pattern that hits my disinterested radar tells me all I need to know.

I've known people with celiacs since I started college. In my first "college job" two of the staff avoided gluten, one had celiacs (her grandmother had it) and the other had chrons and found it caused flares.

I think one factor in knowing people who have food issues is that we're sort of a club. We've all shared experiences and tend to remember each others issues. Like I know pretty much everyone who has a food allergy in my life. We understand each other. We also take mental note and try to accommodate one another. (For instance, I made gluten-free cakes in college for my office mates; egg free cookies for a friend's daughter, etc. Other allergic people make sure the food they serve has an alternate if it has the preservative I'm allergic to, etc.)

So whereas if someone mentioned to you in passing, "I'm allergic to eggs" you might forget. Being part of the club, I'd likely remember.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I know, but like sheeplady pointed out it's a marketing ploy. More appropriate would be to call it carbon neutral, but they don't because carbon sounds scary, and has been given a negative connotation in the past few years (headlines including carbon emissions, family killed in carbon monoxide poisoning, cigarettes release carbon dioxide). "Carbon free" sounds more appealing than "carbon neutral" as much as "gluten free" sounds more appealing because gluten has that negative connotation in and of itself.

Everything advertisement is a marketing ploy. My point was that what's on the package is not related to the ingredients. "Carbonfree" is not the same as "gluten free". One refers to food composition, the other to corporate governance. Apples and chainsaws.

 

[Bushman]

Everything advertisement is a marketing ploy. My point was that what's on the package is not related to the ingredients. "Carbonfree" is not the same as "gluten free". One refers to food composition, the other to corporate governance. Apples and chainsaws.

My point was that both are preying on the same mentality. That if an item has something scary and chemically sounding about, and you put on the package that your product is now "free" of said scary and chemically sounding thing, that this item MUST be better. Like Fading Fast explained, it's a fad mentality. It's the same as every New Coke, and Diet Pepsi ever released. People try it simply because some homeopathic friend of a friend said it was new, healthier, or both. The fact is, "carbon free sugar" is no more healthier than gluten free bread for the average Joe. It gives the idea in peoples heads that it's healthier. You think people are going to read the fine print on the side of the package? No one does that. They're like warning labels on cigarettes. Nobody bothers to read them if there's some flashier, bigger text telling them that their life is incomplete without this newer/healthier product.

 

[Fading Fast]

I've known people with celiacs since I started college. In my first "college job" two of the staff avoided gluten, one had celiacs (her grandmother had it) and the other had chrons and found it caused flares.

I think one factor in knowing people who have food issues is that we're sort of a club. We've all shared experiences and tend to remember each others issues. Like I know pretty much everyone who has a food allergy in my life. We understand each other. We also take mental note and try to accommodate one another. (For instance, I made gluten-free cakes in college for my office mates; egg free cookies for a friend's daughter, etc. Other allergic people make sure the food they serve has an alternate if it has the preservative I'm allergic to, etc.)

So whereas if someone mentioned to you in passing, "I'm allergic to eggs" you might forget. Being part of the club, I'd likely remember.

This all makes sense to me and I hope my post was clear that I support having these products for those who need them; I was just trying to point out that once something becomes a "fad," it goes well past the population that needs it and becomes a marketing craze that takes it into stupid-ville until it collapses under its own idiocy. I have three food allergies and one, oat bran, I only discovered during the "oat bran will save humanity from heart disease" fad of the '90s as, all of a sudden, they were putting oat bran in everything and my digestive system went crazy. I'm really glad that fad is over as I now hardly ever accidentally encounter oat bran. I also have a friend who has a child who is really, really, really allergic to peanuts, so we take great care on that front when he and his son come over. It's great that these specialized products exist for those who need them - it's just a shame that, so many times, we have to have an arc of craziness until the market settles into an intelligent needs-meeting balance.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I just wish "onion free" would become a fad.

 

[sheeplady]

This all makes sense to me and I hope my post was clear that I support having these products for those who need them; I was just trying to point out that once something becomes a "fad," it goes well past the population that needs it and becomes a marketing craze that takes it into stupid-ville until it collapses under its own idiocy. I have three food allergies and one, oat bran, I only discovered during the "oat bran will save humanity from heart disease" fad of the '90s as, all of a sudden, they were putting oat bran in everything and my digestive system went crazy. I'm really glad that fad is over as I now hardly ever accidentally encounter oat bran. I also have a friend who has a child who is really, really, really allergic to peanuts, so we take great care on that front when he and his son come over. It's great that these specialized products exist for those who need them - it's just a shame that, so many times, we have to have an arc of craziness until the market settles into an intelligent needs-meeting balance.

I didn't think you were being dismissive at all.

 

[Fading Fast]

I just wish "onion free" would become a fad.

I understand raw (I'm fine with them, but get that raw they are strong), but even cooked / sauteed / fried / etc. you don't like them?

 

[LizzieMaine]

They cause my throat to close up and uncontrollable retching -- simultanteously. Not a good combination. It's a bona-fide allergy, so I have be extremely careful when eating out.

The only onion-related anything that I can safely eat is the dubious packaged snack called "Funyuns." Obviously it contains no actual onion.

 

[Fading Fast]

They cause my throat to close up and uncontrollable retching -- simultanteously. Not a good combination. It's a bona-fide allergy, so I have be extremely careful when eating out.

The only onion-related anything that I can safely eat is the dubious packaged snack called "Funyuns." Obviously it contains no actual onion.

Wow, that is one I hadn't heard of and, as you said, I can image it's a challenge eating out as it is an ingredient in so many things. For a few years in the late '80s / early '90s, they were shoving oat bran in everything and I was constantly asking in bakeries and reading package ingredient lists intently to vet for it - thank God that craze past. But onions aren't going away. And how funny - but not really that surprising - that Funyuns have no actual onion in them.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The worst episode I ever had came from eating a bagel which had been spread with cream cheese by a knife that had previously spread cream-cheese with onions in it. So yeah, it can get pretty ridiculous.

I also have to avoid scallions, chives, shallots, and similar things. I can handle garlic most of the time, but not too much at once, and I have to be very specific when ordering food about leaving the onions off. One reason why I tend to eat only at places where I've been able to eat before, and always order exactly the same thing every time.

It took a very long time to figure out why I was so sick so often as a kid -- nobody took such allergies seriously and my mother just thought I was a picky eater. I didn't get diagnosed until I was in my twenties, and if anything it's gotten even worse since I've gotten older. Once one of the other projectionists ate a Subway sandwich with a lot of onions on it in the booth, and left the wrapper in the garbage can, and I almost passed out just from the fumes.

 

[Fading Fast]

You sound like my friend's son and peanuts. The smell alone can set off an attack and if you've touched them and he, then, somehow puts your finger on his lips (as 2 years olds will do with their parents), he can get an attack. And they need to give him a shot in 45 minutes (I think) or it can get life threatening. I actually don't really like when he comes over as we do a hard peanut lockdown first (peanuts and peanut butter are foods we eat all the time), but I'm still always worried when he's here because he is so super sensitive I'm always worried he'll find a stray peanut somewhere.

 

[TimeWarpWife]

For the first 50 years of my life I enjoyed shrimp, clams, oysters, and crab legs, but out of the blue about 5 years ago I broke out in huge hives after eating some shrimp and crab legs. My palms turned blood red and itched like the dickens and I was having trouble breathing. I went straight to the ER and found out I'm now allergic to shellfish. I already had to give up anything with caffeine in it some 10 years ago, including my beloved chocolate and fountain Coke, because I developed atrial fibrillation. I can hardly wait to see what else my body is going to revolt against that brings me some little pleasure in life. Why is it never things like broccoli or spinach that causes my allergic reactions? I do wonder though, if possibly the pollution in our oceans had something to do with my sudden allergy to shellfish. Who knows, right?

 

[St.Ignatz]

My wife went through the same thing with shellfish. Afib also. I had an allergic reaction several years ago but I was going a little crazy on the pasta with squid.
Tom D.

 

[MisterCairo]

Everything we eat has been genetically modified. Even the meat.

You agree that selective/cross breeding is not exactly the same as altering at the genetic level, right?

For what it's worth, I couldn't care less about GMOs, but I acknowledge that altering genes is not without risk. My labradoodle is the result of a standard poodle doing it with a labrador retriever.

No one spliced genes. GMO is not synonymous with cross breeding. It is certainly not "domesticating", which means nothing more than taking from the wild and engaging in animal husbandry.

 

[MisterCairo]

don't get me started on the ridiculousness of the "gluten free diet").

As good for all, I agree.

As good for those who cannot stomach (literally) gluten, it's not ridiculous.

 

[vitanola]

You agree that selective/cross breeding is not exactly the same as altering at the genetic level, right?

For what it's worth, I couldn't care less about GMOs, but I acknowledge that altering genes is not without risk. My labradoodle is the result of a standard poodle doing it with a labrador retriever.

No one spliced genes. GMO is not synonymous with cross breeding. It is certainly not "domesticating", which means nothing more than taking from the wild and engaging in animal husbandry.

Ah, Mr. Cairo, but that deflates Bushman's specious talking point, a talking point which is, bupy the way, quite heavily promoted by industry. Most folks know so little of biology that the suggestion makes sense to them, rather like a snowball in the houses of Congress.

 

[sheeplady]

Well, to make a point, natural organisms do increase their gene diversity through more than cross-breeding, random mutation, and natural selection. (That is what is largely taught in schools, for simplicity's sake.)

Plants can also add to their genetic diversity through transfer of DNA segments through soil-borne bacteria. So, in other words, plant A can get genetic material from plant B without ever breeding with it from soil bacteria. Plant B can be sterile, even.

This is my concern with Roundup Ready crops. It would be very easy (and not at all unrealistic) for genes that are resistant to roundup to transfer to weeds. Then we have super weeds. Which, if people are concerned about feeding the world, is really going to kill no till agriculture, given their reliance on herbicides for many no till methods.