September 23, 2010
How Omega 3 Fatty Acids Reduce Inflammation

If you feel more motivated to improve your diet when you read research explaining mechanisms of how nutrients help your body function better then read on. The omega 3 fatty acids docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) reduce inflammation by binding macrophage (immune cell) GPR120 receptors and, by doing so, reduce inflammation.

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine have identified the molecular mechanism that makes omega-3 fatty acids so effective in reducing chronic inflammation and insulin resistance.

The discovery could lead to development of a simple dietary remedy for many of the more than 23 million Americans suffering from diabetes and other conditions.

Reduced inflammation and enhanced insulin sensitivity.

The scientists conducted their research using cell cultures and mice, some of the latter genetically modified to lack the GPR120 receptor. All of the mice were fed a high-fat diet with or without omega-3 fatty acid supplementation. The supplementation treatment inhibited inflammation and enhanced insulin sensitivity in ordinary obese mice, but had no effect in GPR120 knockout mice. A chemical agonist of omega-3 fatty acids produced similar results.

Given that the oceans are overfished already and yet EPA and DHA are good for our health what we need is genetic engineering of grain crops (e.g. soy and corn) to produce EPA and DHA. Then the grains could be fed to farmed salmon.

Share |      Randall Parker, 2010 September 23 08:44 PM  Aging Diet Metabolism


Comments
Kudzu Bob said at September 24, 2010 12:50 AM:

Advances in genetic engineering are all very nice, but would wouldn't the low-tech approach of adding ground flax seed to livestock feed also increase the amount of omega-3 in the meat we consume? I believe that some poultry farmers already do something similar to boost the nutritional value of eggs.

James Bowery said at September 24, 2010 3:38 AM:

RP writes: "Given that the oceans are overfished already and yet EPA and DHA are good for our health what we need is genetic engineering of grain crops (e.g. soy and corn) to produce EPA and DHA. Then the grains could be fed to farmed salmon."

The source of ocean EPA/DHA is algae. If you're serious about this stuff -- in the gigatons per year serious -- then you should look at the baseload coal to algae proposal at the Diogenes Institute. The proposal there uses arthrospira platensis (spirulina) as a baseline simply because its cultured growth has been studied most intensively, and the demand for protein is more elastic, but high EPA/DHA algae (such as nannochloropsis) can be substituted. If you're going to grow salmon for EPA/DHA, why not grow an algae grazer like sockeye?

Dena Gottlieb said at September 24, 2010 4:21 AM:

Or how about using the oil from Clary Sage seeds, which have been found to contain 50% Alpha Linolenic Acid and do not oxidize quickly like flax seeds thanks to the natural presence of antioxidants such as CoQ10 and Vitamin E?
Check out this video clip by Dr. Adiel Tel Oren (holistic MD)about Clary Sage oil, the new breakthrough in agriculture from Israel!
http://www.MarvalousWebGuide.com/adiel
The clip is in English with Hebrew subtitles.

James Bowery said at September 24, 2010 4:38 AM:

Flax Seed (α-Linolenic acid) is only 10% as bio-available as EPA/DHA.

Kudzu Bob said at September 24, 2010 7:02 AM:

"Flax Seed (α-Linolenic acid) is only 10% as bio-available as EPA/DHA."

That's why I take fish oil capsules instead of flax oil by the tablespoonful. But if plant seeds rich in α-Linolenic acid were fed to livestock, wouldn't those animals make the conversion to EPA and DHA inside their bodies, just as we do?

(I am not saying that genetically-engineered omega-3 algae isn't a better long-term solution. It might well be. But having Farmer Jones feed flax (or hemp or chia or Clary Sage) seed to his cows, pigs, and chicken for more nutritious meat, milk, and eggs is a solution that presumably could be implemented right now with existing technology.)

Engineer-Poet said at September 24, 2010 7:51 AM:

Genetically engineer the livestock (or tailor their gut flora) to make the conversion more efficient.

Just eat more grass-fed meat.  This reduces soil loss, water pollution and all sorts of emissions, and produces a superior product.

kenh said at September 24, 2010 2:37 PM:

I eat walnuts.

kudzu bob said at September 24, 2010 4:27 PM:

"I eat walnuts."

Assuming that you eat an ounce of them day in and day out, then you're getting roughly the amount of omega-3 found in a teaspoon of flax oil. That's not nearly enough.

In said at September 25, 2010 11:18 AM:

Whoa now! lets not give unscrupulous large food corporations more excuses to ram GE foods down our throats. I think I hear special interests salivating at this discussion.

Randall Parker said at September 25, 2010 1:03 PM:

In,

You've got a choice: Genetic engineering of crops or wiped out fisheries. There's not some ideal third way.

kenh,

ALA has a pretty low conversion rate into DHA and EPA. So walnuts are not a substitute for fish.

Brett Bellmore said at September 26, 2010 5:21 AM:

"Genetically engineer the livestock (or tailor their gut flora) to make the conversion more efficient."

Why not cut out the middle man, and tailor OUR gut flora to do that? There's a lot of potential for genetically engineered gut flora, in my opinion. It's the low hanging fruit for 'human' genetic engineering.

In said at September 26, 2010 8:19 AM:

Randall
Sorry for being pessimistic. I'm all for GE of food, but I just so happen to think our odds for doing it wisely are very, very dismal. There's too much to plunder and we have done it very unwisely so far. Likewise I'm not optimistic about fisheries either.

More to your point, I think you present a false dichotomy. There are many points to be made about all this but I'll just mention that I think that too much omega 6 is the greater imbalance for Americans that too little omega 3 http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2010/02/omega-6-content-of-common-foods.html

Randall Parker said at September 26, 2010 11:47 AM:

In,

If my dichotomy is false then it will be false because we'll wipe out the fisheries and produce omega 3 fatty acids from genetically engineered crops.

Odds of wise behavior: Of course they are very low. We are already wiping out the fisheries.

Too much omega 6: Well, then we'll have to genetically engineer crops to produce more monounsaturates and less omega 6 fatty acids. Just cutting back on oils is not a realistic option.

I say all this as someone who can afford salmon and olives. I avail myself of a better diet. But unless the better diet which is less environmentally harmful is cheap and tasty people won't eat it. Look for my post on vegetable consumption on that note.

DangerousDan said at September 26, 2010 12:37 PM:

Schiff is touting the Mega Red Krill Oil as a better source of the DHA & EPA than fish oils. They also state at this link that krill is a sustainable resource.

One thing I don't think is being considered in this is that most Americans want a magic pill. High cholesterol? No problem, pop a statin in your mouth and you'll be as healthy as long-distance runner. Just don't mention Jim Fixx. Or take lipitor, exercise, watch your diet and you'll be as healthy as Tim Russert.

It takes discipline to watch what you eat, to exercise, to ensure your are getting the right nutrients and vitamins/minerals into your body. I did the lipitor thing and maintained a strict regimen of exercise and diet. But yet, I was beginning to experience angina (which means atherosclerosis). I didn't immediately run to my Doc (like most Americans would do) but researched and researched some more and found this life-saving webpage and this life-saver. I researched everything that Eby, Hennig, and many others had written about zinc, angina, atherosclerosis and yes, inflammation.

I began taking 250 mg of zinc gluconate a day and my angina was gone within 5 days. I can now cut the lawn without chest pain. I quit taking the lipitor after I found this webpage and this gentleman.

I mention all of this because I am an exception. Most people wouldn't go to the trouble I went to in order to take charge of my own health. Most people wouldn't do a daily spreadsheet like I do to keep track of my food intake in order to monitor my zinc/copper ratio and ensure I consume an adequate amount of Omega 3 oils. Again, Americans want a magic pill for what ails them.

So, don't worry about depleting fish stocks as most folks won't be bothered with swallowing a single capsule of it. Not when big pharma is hawking statins and the AMA is pimping for them.

David Phillips said at September 26, 2010 1:17 PM:

"Flax Seed (α-Linolenic acid) is only 10% as bio-available as EPA/DHA."

Of course it's more complicated than this. For instance, one advantage of eating foods high in α-linolenic acid is that ALA competes for the same desaturation and elongation enzymes as the pro-inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids. With flax seed, not only does the body get the benefit of the modest amounts of EPA and DHA that the body synthesizes, it also benefits because fewer omega-6-derived eicosanoids are synthesized. To say nothing of the benefits of the lignans and fiber from flax seed.

Happily, it's not a question of flax seed or fish. If you eat some of each, you come out ahead.

In said at September 26, 2010 1:37 PM:

"If my dichotomy is false then it will be false because we'll wipe out the fisheries and produce omega 3 fatty acids from genetically engineered crops."

I could laugh or cry at this, but I think I'll laugh today. lol.

"Too much omega 6: Well, then we'll have to genetically engineer crops to produce more monounsaturates and less omega 6 fatty acids. Just cutting back on oils is not a realistic option."

The food industry currently uses in some foods high-oleic safflower oil which is high in monos (oleic acid) and low in polys. AFAIK it is not GMO at present.

Doug said at September 26, 2010 3:08 PM:

There is a ge epa already on the market. New Harvest has an epa supplement on the market where the epa comes from ge yeast. It does not have the fishy taste of other epas. As a scientist I have more fear of zombies than ge food.

ransomnote said at September 26, 2010 3:13 PM:

Kehn, I used to eat walnuts too until I read this article about the ratio of Omega 6 to Omega 3. http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/17/103781/cutting-back-omega. If that research is correct, then Omega 3 is not employed by the body until the level of Omega 6 is low enough. And walnuts possess much more Omega 6 than Omega 3.

Doug McGuff, Md said at September 26, 2010 5:01 PM:

Remember that when seeking a solution by modifying seeds that you are still stuck with the underlying issue of the seed-head's self-protective mechanisms. A seed is a plant's way of passing its DNA forward into the future. In order to protect this function it has developed mechanisms to prevent whatever tries to eat the seed-head (the plant's reproductive machinery)from passing its DNA forward. So even if you can effectively alter the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 in the seed, you are still stuck with a variety of poisons and lectins (many probably not yet discovered) within the seed-head that are quite inflammatory to any animal that attempts to consume them. To solve the diseases of civilization on a global basis probably will require some form of GE. To solve it on a personal level is easy...avoid grain based foods, eat meat from animals that is grass-fed and grass-finished, and supplement with fish oil. Also, brief, infrequent high intensity exercise will induce glutathione and mitochondrial adaptations that will make one much more capable of dealing with systemic inflammation

Douglas Fletcher said at September 26, 2010 5:17 PM:

Everybody's nuts.

In said at September 26, 2010 5:32 PM:

Doug
As a non-scientist I fear stupid people who buy your simple appeal to authority. I prefer let the facts speak for themselves: http://www.netlink.de/gen/claims_and_facts.htm.

JCee said at September 27, 2010 6:43 AM:

In said

Your link of http://www.netlink.de/gen/claims_and_facts.htm is full of falsehoods, misinformation, and errors either intentional or accidental.

1)Claim: Genetic engineering is necessary to feed the world.

Fact: Hunger in the world is caused by poverty, by the simple inability to buy food, not by lack of supply.

Correction: Currently true very well may change in the near future due to lack of available arable land.

2)Claim: Genetic engineering will help developing countries.

Fact: Biotech companies patent their seeds. To protect their investment, the farmers that use the seed sign a contract which prohibits saving, reselling, or exchanging seed. The family farms of the poorer nations depend on saved seed for survival. Biotech companies also patent other people's seeds, like basmati rice, neem, and quinoa, taking advantage of indigenous knowledge and centuries of selective breeding by small farmers without giving anything in return. The same companies, backed by the U.S. government, proposed to protect their seed patents through the terminator technology. A terminator seed will grow, but the seeds it produces are sterile. Any nation that buys such seeds will swiftly lose any vestige of agricultural self-sufficiency. Furthermore, genetically engineered seeds are designed for agribusiness farming, not for the capabilities of the small family farms of the developing nations. How are they to buy and distribute the required chemical inputs?

Correction:
A) It is true seeds are patented but Patents expire(~20years)and many countries ignore Patents.
B) Terminator Seed technologies Primary purpose is not to prevent reusing seeds it is to prevent the spread of introduced genes to similar crops and similar weeds although it will also prevent the reuse of seeds.
Note: Complex hybrids nonGM aren't generally reusable as the seeds produced are not the same as the parent

3)Claim: Genetic engineering will reduce the use of herbicides.

Fact: Genetic engineering develops crops with resistance to specific herbicides. For example, Roundup Ready(tm) crops survive spraying with RoundUp(tm). On the one hand, this allows the farmer to use more herbicide. On the other hand, this leads to herbicide-resistant weeds.

Correction: Esentially true but allows the use of No-Till Farming methods greatly reducing soil erosion, carbon fuel usage, and time. Herbicide-resistant weeds development is still under debate.

4)Claim: Genetic engineering will reduce the use of pesticides.

Fact: This claim is based on the sowing of crops genetically engineered to produce their own pesticides. Such crops produce the pesticide continuously in every cell. Some of these crops (the Bt potato, for example) are actually classified as pesticides by the EPA. The net outcome of sowing pesticide-producing crops is an vast increase in pesticides.

Correction: Bt Toxin is an organically derived toxin from the Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria. Technically they use various
Cry Delta Endotoxins from Bt. This toxin is essentially a protein based toxin that specifically binds to midgut receptors of specific insects in an alkaline midgut environment.
A) Animals don't have the proper receptors for binding to occur thus are nontoxic to them.
B) Animals have an Acidic digestive system. Insects have a Basic digestive system. BT Toxins are evolved to resist and function in an alkaline environment and will break down and be converted to amino acids in an animal digestive system and actually provide nutrients to the animal.
C) If i remember correctly the did studies with the Cry Delta Entotoxin in the 1950's had animals and even people ingest literally tablespoons of the toxin to no noticeable effect(probably would be considered to be unethical under modern standards)
D) Bt toxins being organically derived fully break down over in the environment over time and reduce or eliminate the usage of broader spectrum synthetic pesticides.

5)Claim: Genetic engineering is environmentally friendly.

Fact: The increased quantities of herbicides and pesticides noted above is one strike against this claim. Pollen from genetically engineered crops can be transferred to cultivated and wild relatives over a mile away. This threatens the future of organic crops. It can pass herbicide resistance genes from GE crops to weedy relatives, necessitating the development of more herbicides. Also, the huge areas of genetically identical crops will influence the evolution of local pests and wildlife, and through the food chain, the whole ecology.

Correction: Terminator technology prevent the spread of the Transgenes see above. Genetically identical crops in Not Unique to GM crops. There are currently huge numbers of monoculture or near monoculture crops are in use (eg Banana's) and will be whether we use GM technology or not.

6)Claim: Genetically engineered foods are just like natural foods.

Fact: There is no natural mechanism for getting insect DNA into potatoes or flounder DNA into tomatoes. Genetically engineered foods are engineered to be different from natural foods. Why else all the patents? This claim is empty sales talk.

Correction: Bt is derived from the Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria not Insects it kills insects. As for trans-species gene transfer it is thought to occur naturally although at an extremely rare frequency mostly thru viral insertions into genomes.

7)Claim: Genetic engineering is simply an extension of traditional crossbreeding.

Fact: Crossbreeding cannot transfer genes across species barriers. Genetic engineering transfers genes between species that could never be crossbred. Also, crossbreeding lets nature manage the delicate activity of combining the DNA of the parents to form the DNA of the child. Genetic engineering shoots the new gene into the host organism without reference to any holistic principle at all.

Correction: See Correction #6 above. Not all genes are shot into the host organism many transfers are done by the Agrobacterium tumefaciens bacteria and the use of viruses.

8)Claim: Genetic engineering is safe.

Fact: Safety comes from accumulated experience. In the case of genetic engineering, there has not been the time or the public debate essential for accumulating sufficient experience to justify any broad claim to safety.

There is a vast domain of ignorance at the root of the technology:

* The technique for inserting a DNA fragment is sloppy, unpredictable and imprecise.
* The effect of the insertion on the biochemistry of the host organism is unknown.
* The effect of the genetically engineered organism on the environment is unknown.
* The effect of eating genetically engineered foods is unknown.
* There is no basis for meaningful risk assessment.
* There is no recovery plan in case of disaster.
* It is not even clear who, if anyone, will be legally liable for negative consequences.

There is no consensus among scientists on the safety or on the risks associated with genetic engineering in agriculture. The international community is deeply divided on the issue. The claim to safety is a marketing slogan. It has no scientific basis.

The claims for genetic engineering are overblown and misleading. And the polls show that people are suspicious.

Correction: There is consensus of GM safety almost all of the the opposition occurs from people out side of the field. My corrections above point out the chronic use of falsehoods, misinformation, and errors by GM opponents either intentionally, accidentally, or ignorantly. People may be suspicious but that is because of crap like the above link.

Note FYI: Cry in Cry toxin stands for Crystal because in the bacteria that produces it in nature it makes an protein crystal that is observable in a microscope.

Note: Yes I do have a degree in Molecular Genetics, do have extensive research experience, and can do a good reference search unlike whoever authored the above link.

Note: Use facts not Internet anonymously generated Junk to support your position.


In said at September 27, 2010 4:37 PM:

JCee
Ironic. You commit the exact fallacy I was arguing against. Apparently we're all supposed to accept your position on the safety of GMOs because of your alleged authority on the matter.

You write: Correction: There is consensus of GM safety almost all of the the opposition occurs from people out side of the field. My corrections above point out the chronic use of falsehoods, misinformation, and errors by GM opponents either intentionally, accidentally, or ignorantly. People may be suspicious but that is because of crap like the above link.

You are wrong. People are right to be suspicious. Your points are narrow and reductionistic. There are facts related to human nature, politics, health that come into play in trying to determine one's position on GMOs. The average consumer (myself included) has no time to understand the details of genetic engineering to any great depth, however many are fully capable of determining when they are getting swindled.

Here are things I know that make me suspicious:
1.) There is/was an alleged scientific consensus on many tenuous things like anthropomorphic global warming, the lipid hypothesis, phlogiston, blood letting, etc, etc. Appealing to scientific consensus is another appeal to authority.....especially when money is involved. It is not a convincing argument.

2.) There is a lot of money for special interests to acquire in GMO food. So the food industry has a financial incentive in pushing GMOs whether they are safe or not. It all smacks of exploitation.

3.) Evidence of this can be seen in that they oppose any form of mandatory labeling. No doubt much money will be spent lobbying to keep it that way.

4.) Food affects two complex systems, human beings in terms of health and the environment. Reductionistic science has not been very successful in dealing with complex systems. This can be seen in why native peoples eating traditional diets have much fewer diseases than western peoples despite all our medical science and technology.

I could go on and on. The bottom line is it is very foolish to trust the people who want to sell us GMOs. This is a case of the fox guarding the hen house. I don't need to know anything about Agrobacterium tumefaciens bacteria to see that.

Note: Develop a broader, deeper understanding of how the world works before trying to impress people with your alleged credentials and your pedantry.

Randall Parker said at September 27, 2010 8:40 PM:

In, JCee,

The way I see it:

- The world is overpopulated.

- The world will become even more overpopulated.

- The overpopulation will cause more destruction of habitats, cutting down of rain forests, and damage to the environment.

- Industrial development, by boosting buying power, will reduce hunger. But it will also increase the buying power available to fund shifting of more land into agriculture as rising affluence shifts food consumption patterns toward more calories, more grains, more meats, more fish.

- Since population growth control is taboo the only options we have to respond to the environmental problem are technological.

- Biotechnology is a major potential way to reduce the habitat destruction by boosting yields of existing farmed land.

- Biotechnology can even reduce damage to farmed land by, for example, converting grain crops into perennials (no need to replant each year). This reduces nutrient run-off, top soil loss, and energy and chemicals used.

One can oppose genetic engineering of crops for a variety of reasons. But those reasons seem like small potatoes to me when compared to the scale of the problem which biotech seeks to address.

If someone wants to propose an alternative to biotech for the problems I outlined I'd like to hear it.

JCee said at September 28, 2010 11:09 AM:

In said at September 27, 2010 4:37 PM:
JCee
Ironic. You commit the exact fallacy I was arguing against. Apparently we're all supposed to accept your position on the safety of GMOs because of your alleged authority on the matter.

Actually I mostly provided corrections to your referenced link. Again if you’re going to use a reference try to use one with that is correct, accurate, and not anonymous. I provided my credentials however out of honesty not out of an argument of moral authority. I don’t presume you will just accept my credentials but had hoped you would go out, read up on the subject, and hopefully come up with an informed opinion not one base on anonymous Internet links/postings.

You write: Correction: There is consensus of GM safety almost all of the the opposition occurs from people out side of the field. My corrections above point out the chronic use of falsehoods, misinformation, and errors by GM opponents either intentionally, accidentally, or ignorantly. People may be suspicious but that is because of crap like the above link.
You are wrong. People are right to be suspicious. Your points are narrow and reductionistic.

Maybe but they are True and my corrections still stand.

There are facts related to human nature, politics, health that come into play in trying to determine one's position on GMOs. The average consumer (myself included) has no time to understand the details of genetic engineering to any great depth, however many are fully capable of determining when they are getting swindled.
Lets here some of these Facts.
Here are things I know that make me suspicious:
1.) There is/was an alleged scientific consensus on many tenuous things like anthropomorphic global warming, the lipid hypothesis, phlogiston, blood letting, etc, etc. Appealing to scientific consensus is another appeal to authority.....especially when money is involved. It is not a convincing argument.

I only brought up consensus as you used the author of the anonymous link and he stated there is no scientific consensus on GMO food when there is. Scientific consensus is not always right (eg ulcers, pre-plate tectonics, etc) it is usually right ~99% of the time but if you are going to argue this is a ~1% exception you need better sources.

2.) There is a lot of money for special interests to acquire in GMO food. So the food industry has a financial incentive in pushing GMOs whether they are safe or not. It all smacks of exploitation.

Anything is potentially exploitative including sending your kids to college to support you in your old age it usually based on degree with a lot of grey area.

3.) Evidence of this can be seen in that they oppose any form of mandatory labeling. No doubt much money will be spent lobbying to keep it that way.

Labeling adds to costs and I would generally expect opposition to it from companies. I personally see nothing wrong with letting a company label a product non GMO if they want.

4.) Food affects two complex systems, human beings in terms of health and the environment. Reductionistic science has not been very successful in dealing with complex systems. This can be seen in why native peoples eating traditional diets have much fewer diseases than western peoples despite all our medical science and technology.
Correction: Your statement on people eating traditional diets have much fewer diseases is still under debate but even if true it is only correlational not proof of causality. Example people who eat traditional diets may have a lot more sunlight exposure and therefore significantly higher Vitamin D3 levels which may give them their better health.
I could go on and on. The bottom line is it is very foolish to trust the people who want to sell us GMOs. This is a case of the fox guarding the hen house. I don't need to know anything about Agrobacterium tumefaciens bacteria to see that.

Personally I’ll go with Ronald Reagan’s statement “Trust but Verify” for how I function in the world. Paranoia is not the solution to anything. Everybody doesn’t need to be an expert on everything but everybody should be able to do look up and use good sources to make logical decisions and come to accurate conclusions.

Note: Develop a broader, deeper understanding of how the world works before trying to impress people with your alleged credentials and your pedantry.

I have lived in the world and do have a deep knowledge of how the world works. Over the years I have worked on a small family farm, in a plant nursery as a field laborer, worked at McDonald’s, as a painter, as a security guard, in a factory running laser welders, did a tour in the Navy, went to a university, and have worked in academic research for the last decade. My corrections are not pedantic but that of correcting of wrong/false data. Furthermore you should be happy for my corrections as the next time you argue against GMO food you hopefully will not use the same weak link to support your argument.

In said at September 28, 2010 4:54 PM:

Randall
I basically agree with you. I see two opposing trends: the food industry does everything it can to increase profitability of food frequently at the expense of health and sustainability. I would include the current state of GMOs to be primarily a part of this trend. Second, a growing awareness of the need to take sustainability and health into account (think labeling transfats, the explosion of organics, etc., etc.). Since the first trend is not sustainable, if we survive long enough, eventually our food will become more and more human and environment friendly.

Also I would include organic techniques as part of the biotech along with a lot of other non-GMO techniques (biochar for example). I expect the future of agriculture to be very diverse.

Jcee
My problem with your comments are that you push the idea that GMOs are safe and that people who question that idea are paranoid or misinformed. Criticize the link all you want, I'm not going to stop you.

..but had hoped you would go out, read up on the subject..

Man I wish I had the time to.

Lets here some of these Facts.

1 through 4 are facts and I could come up with many more.

I only brought up consensus as you used the author of the anonymous link and he stated there is no scientific consensus on GMO food when there is. Scientific consensus is not always right (eg ulcers, pre-plate tectonics, etc) it is usually right ~99% of the time but if you are going to argue this is a ~1% exception you need better sources.

This still isn't a good argument. It is a fallacy. In less than a minute I can easily find scientists that have safety concerns regarding GMOs: http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/feb1999/food-f17.shtml. There is too much we don't know about health and there is too much money surrounding this issue for scientific consensus to mean anything. Furthermore, when it comes to human health I reiterate that reductionistic approaches do not appear to have done much for us. So I am always skeptical of claims about health from scientists.

Anything is potentially exploitative including sending your kids to college to support you in your old age it usually based on degree with a lot of gray area.

This is a bad analogy. Your kids get an education and a living. With GMO s we're becoming guinea pigs and a small number of people are lining their pockets.

Labeling adds to costs and I would generally expect opposition to it from companies. I personally see nothing wrong with letting a company label a product non GMO if they want.

True but I think they are more afraid of people questioning the safety of GMOs (and suing). If you polled the American people about whether or not to label, I can guarantee they would want labeling. This is another example of RP's theme of elites as enemies.

Your statement on people eating traditional diets have much fewer diseases is still under debate but even if true it is only correlation not proof of causality. Example people who eat traditional diets may have a lot more sunlight exposure and therefore significantly higher Vitamin D3 levels which may give them their better health.

I agree that correlation does not prove causality and yes diet isn't the only factor (though IMO it is the biggest). The thing is, without knowing any examples you would still expect traditional diets/lifestyles to sustain health better than modern lifestyles. We didn't evolve to eat massive amounts of sugar, vegetable oils, white flour, pepsi, all manner of food additives, stay indoors all day, etc. etc. There is also epidemiological evidence against much of this stuff.

I think there is a lot more to this topic than you realize. Traditional cultures developed numerous practices and guidelines related to food. Soaking, sprouting, rules about freshness and much more. Their practices were developed over numerous generations (much like the domestication of plants/animals). If they weren't effective at producing health, why would traditional peoples expend the energy to do them? Moderns have thrown away most of that knowledge.

Seriously, you ought to take a look at some of Stephan's posts: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com. You will like that his stuff is usually referenced very thoroughly.

Personally I’ll go with Ronald Reagan’s statement “Trust but Verify” for how I function in the world. Paranoia is not the solution to anything. Everybody doesn’t need to be an expert on everything but everybody should be able to do look up and use good sources to make logical decisions and come to accurate conclusions.

I and others who mistrust GMOs are not paranoid. Allow me to clarify my position on GMOs and the food industry. I have never said that it (they) are all bad or even consciously malicious. I simply understand that the food industry only cares about our health to the extent that it affects their bottom line. They have a long history of reducing the nutritional qualities of food for the sake of profit/convenience. This has damaged human health in many ways. That doesn't mean that it is all bad or that there is some kind of conspiracy or that there aren't positive aspects to our current system. Our productivity is an amazing modern achievement.

Likewise I am sure there are positive/promising aspects to GMOs. However it is obvious to me that safety is not the producer's top concern. They are obviously lobbying against our interests at the moment. I don't think I hold a radical position in believing we're gonna get experimented on before we get serious benefits from GMOs.

Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

                       
Go Read More Posts On FuturePundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©