from "Farmers Wary of GMO Crops," The Zimbabwean

I continue to be wary of the long-term health effects of some GMO crops, and the use of the poor, uneducated, and/or malnourished as guinea pigs plus the predatory practices of big BioAg doesn't put me any closer to being on the thumbs-up path; however, in the interest of education, this was a good read.

A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops

Of course, I am looking for answers myself, and thus really try to check my skepticism, but this did stand out to me:

...the risk of [GMO crops] could be reliably tested, and had so far proved safe. "With scientists, we never say anything is 100 percent certain one way or another," Dr. Suzuki said. "We weigh conclusions on accumulated knowledge or evidence..." 

Yes, absolutely. But, the big BUT:  Like organic and conventional dairy and vegetables being deemed equal in nutritional profiles just a few years ago, or the scientific claim that thalidomide wouldn't cross the placental barrier, accumulated scientific knowledge sometimes goes horribly wrong. GMO crops should not be rushed to market or be allowed to propagate and be sold while in litigation, and should also be subject to litigation should there be health problems clearly associated with them; they should also submit to continual testing and monitoring once they are in the market (for now), and the patent holders/users be okay with informing the public with labeling so people have a choice.

I'm not one for a nanny state, but this should be the standard when we screw with the basic building blocks of life, especially ones that have the potential to have profound effects on the population.

There are so many promising things in GMOs, so I really hope I'm wrong, but we have to slow. down.

And now for something completely different.

What We Eat Affects Everything

This is an excellent interview with Robynne Chutkan, MD, an integrative gastroenterologist, founder of the Digestive Center for Women, and the author of the new book with the really awful name, Gutbliss: A 10-Day Plan to Ban Bloat, Flush Toxins, and Dump Your Digestive Baggage.

Y'all know about my obsession with nutrition and wellness. This interview really explains the why around the increase in gluten-sensitivity, as well as explaining the fascinating differences between men and women's GI tracts. The interview is super informative, but it is fairly long. For those of you not down with the text heavy pages, a couple of highlights for me:

It's really about the 80 percent rule. Most of us are “toxing” 80 percent of the time and detoxing 20 percent of the time. And we should really think about flipping that—we should think about detoxing 80 percent of the time. And I’m not suggesting anything extreme. Today I did some work at home, I made a fruit and veggie smoothie for breakfast, went to spin class, I met some people for lunch, and I had a kale salad with roasted chicken and a big bottle of water. Nothing so profound, but all healthy stuff that made me feel good. And if you're doing that 80 percent of the time, you can tolerate that 20 percent of debauchery in whatever form that might be, whether you’re drinking a bit too much, or not exercising, eating the wrong food, having too much ice cream. And then we don’t have this need to constantly be detoxing and cleansing all the time.

Does your daily food intake look like this...

Or like this?

Oy vey, the band-aid of constant tox/detox/tox/detox. Ugh, just take care of your body most of the time! This is how I rationalize whiskey and the occasional Sherman (and cookie), and why I'm confident I'll look as good as Christy Turlington inside and out in my mid-40s (and hopefully 50s).

You mentioned going gluten-free, and I wanted to get your take on that. It seems like a lot of people going in that direction don’t have a diagnosis of celiac disease. What do you tell people who are interested in trying it? Is there evidence that people who tested negative for celiac disease still benefit?

First of all, I think it’s important to distinguish celiac disease from gluten sensitivity, because celiac disease is an autoimmune disease that is associated with a lot of other problematic things, like osteoporosis, iron deficiency anemia, arthritis, diabetes, even cancer. And if you have celiac disease, whether or not you have symptoms, it’s important to come as close as you can to 100 percent avoidance of gluten, because the ongoing exposure to gluten can damage the small intestine and lead to some of these other associated problems. So that’s the first thing I tell patients, is that we have to figure out what’s going on. And some patients say, Well, can’t I just empirically avoid gluten? And I tell them, no, because if you have celiac disease, you have to be 100 percent regardless of whether you have symptoms. If you have gluten sensitivity (but don't have celiac disease) and you want to eat an almond croissant, go for it. Part of the issue is that the wheat itself is not what it used to be. It’s been hybridized and had different things done to it to increase the crop yield and shorten how long it takes for the wheat to bear. One can make all sorts of scientific and unscientific arguments about what we’re meant to eat, but I don’t think we’re meant to eat animal crackers, for example. I think it's a stretch to call the refined, processed wheat products a food group, but I also don’t think everyone needs to empirically avoid them all the time.

Certainly if you’re having digestive problems, it’s worth trying. I usually tell people to do a six-week elimination trial; if you don’t notice a difference there’s no reason to avoid it. But my biggest caveat is to tell people there’s no point in doing this and then eating gluten-free bread, and gluten-free pancakes, and gluten-free cookies. It’s sort of like sugar-free. If you’re diabetic, I would say to you, you should think about having fruit for dessert. I would never recommend that someone have sugar-free ice cream or a sugar free drink, because that stuff’s worse than the sugar quite frankly. The same thing applies to gluten. If you think you’re gluten sensitive and you feel poorly when you eat gluten, you should avoid wheat. It just makes sense. If you’re lactose intolerant you should avoid dairy. This is your body giving you feedback saying no, I don’t like this thing. But if you decide once a month, I’m going to have a sandwich using regular bread and I may not feel so great, but I don’t have celiac disease, just a sensitivity, I think that’s okay and I think that is preferable to eating gluten-free garbage every day. Gluten-free processed products can be just as bad for you as the regular stuff that contains gluten. They’re not providing you any nutrients, they’re empty calories. So that’s a big challenge that I face with some of my patients. If you’re just gluten sensitive, have a pancake on the weekend if you really want it, but don’t eat gluten-free cookies every day of the week and think that somehow this is being healthy. Just like I would never eat low-fat or sugar free ice cream. If I’m going to have ice cream I’m going to have the real thing—I’m just not going to eat it every day.

Amen. I may not have mentioned before that I have been following a low-gluten diet for the past couple of years. This diet has accomplished something that an army of Western dermatologists, acupuncturists, and Chinese herbalists were unable to do: rid me of my eczema. I still eat the occasional wheat-crusted pizza and white flour tortillas and hand-pulled Chinese noodles and other deliciousness, but in both small quantities AND good quality.

It can be done, people.

Good morning, US of A.



If it turns out that President Barack Obama can make a deal with the most intransigent, hard line, unreasonable, totalitarian mullahs in the world but not with Republicans, maybe he's not the problem.

Wow, even the mainstream rags are going to town on this.

Though I still let out a big ol' le sigh, because sometimes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

(at which point I transition away from the depressing and/or infuriating news of the day and aim my post toward the slightly less frustrating but more entertaining and sense-making (if I do say so myself), world of my bloggity blog, in abstract.)

Still with me?

I've been blogging here since March 2, 2006. I know! And teh internets are like dog years, which makes me, oh, at least middle-aged in internet time. Yes, I am not a Millennial! Microblogging, what? Nope, just me and the year to year grind of blogspot, baby. But if you're closing in on ancient like me, one thing that time and being both politically inclined and shallow in equal measure -- as well as holding on, pitbull-like, to your granny technology having archives -- will get you is teh hits. I've been getting a lot of hits lately where folks are clicking through my tags (which only date back to like, 2007, but whatever, that's almost 7 YEARS of my world), so, in an effort to placate my vanity see how consistent I am, I've been reading through my old posts.

Some observations...

I made a lot more time to write when I was a dewy-eyed 30-ish than a glassy-eyed [shut your mouth!]. Before I had a smartphone, or teh facebooks; when I had crappier jobs with more time that paid me more back then when I was building my career than now where I am in the midst of it; when I was less tired of EVERYTHING.

Again, the more things change...the more they stay the same.

Even though this ride has been less than a blip, a nanosecond in the life of mankind, it's been nearly a decade of mine and my contemporaries' lives, so it is disheartening to see that we're still fighting the same old battles forever and ever, and harnessing the same old fears to hasten the trading of freedom and scary civil rights violations for perceived security.

But we're winning a lot in a short time too. And even in this forever recession (RIP, amazing 21 Grand), my friends and I who were making art are still making art and living joyous lives.

Interesting, this internet life; one that is stored on both human and mechanical servers, to be reviewed at any time and, given circumstances, assessed in vastly different ways. Short and sweet, but forever there for somebody.

A subject near and dear to my heart. It's not so much how much (within reason), but what you eat. And you've gotta expend!

Severe Diet Doesn’t Prolong Life, Study of Monkeys Concludes

Lab test results showed lower levels of cholesterol and blood sugar in the male monkeys that started eating 30 percent fewer calories in old age, but not in the females. Males and females that started dieting when they were old had lower levels of triglycerides, which are linked to heart disease risk. Monkeys put on the diet when they were young or middle-aged did not get the same benefits, though they had less cancer. But the bottom line was that the monkeys that ate less did not live any longer than those that ate normally. 

I'd really like to see studies around the stress levels in the "semi-starved" monkeys vs. the well-fed monkeys. I'm surprised this factor isn't addressed.