Yum, yoga mat! List of foods that include this new food group!

[MoonRiver]

Keep the list close when you hit the super market. I can't believe how many foods contain this crap!

If you’ve planked on a yoga mat, slipped on flip-flops, extracted a cell phone from protective padding or lined an attic with foam insulation, chances are you’ve had a brush with an industrial chemical called azodicarbonamide, nicknamed ADA. In the plastics industry, ADA is the “chemical foaming agent” of choice. It is mixed into polymer plastic gel to generate tiny gas bubbles, something like champagne for plastics. The results are materials that are strong, light, spongy and malleable.

As few Americans realized until Vani Hari, creator of FoodBabe.com, spotlighted it earlier this month, you’ve probably eaten ADA. This industrial plastics chemical shows up in many commercial baked goods as a “dough conditioner” that renders large batches of dough easier to handle and makes the finished products puffier and tough enough to withstand shipping and storage. According to the new EWG Food Database of ingredients in 80,000 foods, now under development, ADA turns up in nearly 500 items and in more than 130 brands of bread, bread stuffing and snacks, including many advertised as “healthy.”

http://www.ewg.org/research/nearly-500-ways-make-yoga-mat-sandwich?inlist=Y&utm_source=201403adaemailgmail&utm_medium=email&utm_contentimage&utm_campaign=food

[packman]

1. What does bread and a Yogi Mat have in Common?

Posted a few days ago-But, probably need repeating:

ORIGINAL POST


Lord awmighty, the crap is in just about any bread product you buy be it hot dog rolls or pizza dough or just your regular loaf of "give us this day our daily bread":

Banned in Europe and Australia, but not in the U.S. - Better living thru chemicals?

http://www.ewg.org/research/nearly-500-ways-make-yoga-mat-sandwich#bran

[Scootaloo]

4. What do pickles and legos have in common?

What do your bowl of grits and bottle of liquid plumber have in common?

What do an apple and that scented candle you light in the bathroom after you eat all this stuff have in common?

[laundry_queen]

10. Not all chemicals are created equal. But it sure is fun to pretend

that it's okay to put the stuff in our food.

And it sure is fun to label those who are against certain additives 'anti-science'. It's a great way to shut down discussion.

Yes, there are chemicals even naturally in some foods, but that doesn't mean it's healthy for me to take a bucket of apple seeds and eat them, no matter how 'natural' a chemical is (eat that many apple seeds and you are poisoning yourself with cyanide). If someone started adding ground up apple seeds as an additive to something unrelated like...crackers...I'd like to know about it.

[Scootaloo]

11. Answers...

Acetic acid, lye, paraffin wax.

All are additives - not like your example of cyanide in apple seeds (your apples are sprayed with a petrochemical compound to give them that glossy shine - they're pretty dingy off the tree.)

I'm not going to call you anti-science, just pointing out that if you ever eat anything you didn't kill or grow yourself, you're eating a whole carton of assorted chemicals along the way. There's just no way to make food on a mass scale or ship it around without these additives.

An argument can of course be made for local-only grocers, which would alleviate a lot of this. And I could get behind that... but sadly I don't think it's ever going to catch on while we still have the methods of fast transit like highways and airports and whatnot.

[laundry_queen]

12. I knew the answer of that, BTW.

And I buy organic apples 90% of the time or I soak them and scrub them. I was making the point that even 'natural, already present in foods' chemicals may be harmful in the right quantities. We have to think of cumulative effects as well.

I agree we are eating too many chemicals, but I'm not resigned to it like you are. I do think this is an issue that resonates with a lot more people than you think and if it takes outrage over Subway bread to make changes, then so be it. One chemical/additive/whatever at a time. I agree with the whole local-only grocers, or at least sticking mainly to organic produce (which is prohibitively expensive for some of us who are students and single parents) or growing your own. Every year I grow as much as I can in my itty bitty backyard. I know a lot of people, around here anyway, that shop regularly at local farmer's markets (I live in an agricultural area) in the summer. I do think the tide is changing. I don't really know of anyone in my circle anyway, that eats tons of processed crap anymore. It's reflected in our local grocery store that sells tons of local and organic produce and concentrates on advertising their selection of fresh and organic food (they make a lot of foods too...my daughter has a job there where they make pizzas from scratch using store produce, her friend makes ready-made salads etc).

anyway, I don't understand why it's so important to ridicule people on this issue. I think most understand that some additives are in everything and hard to avoid and likely don't cause too many problems - although I will maintain that inulin being put in everything has totally fucked up my digestive system - however, it's not BAD that people are generally against additives. The reason is food companies are more about profit than safety and many additives haven't really been studied for side effects (maybe for safety but there should be a higher bar than that. Add too much maltitol in anything and I'm RUNNING for the nearest toilet. People should be more aware of that stuff.) I don't fault people for not knowing exactly every single thing being added - it's designed that way. Besides, with Subway, it's more difficult because you aren't reading the ingredients when you buy it. It's misleading and I think a lot of chain restaurants sure get away with a lot of crappy food additives. That should change.

[Scootaloo]

13. Why ridicule?

Well, because there's a lot of Deepak Chopra motherfuckers who set their hair on fire over the notion of "CHEMICALS!!!!!!!!" being in food. As if every chemical in the world were bleach and agent orange rolled into one.

Take for instance the point made on this thread, "It's an INDUSTRIAL chemical!" and "It's banned in the EU!" - well, that must mean it's some sort of awful nasty thing, and it's just our hideously corrupt FDA letting this CHEMICAL!!!!!! run loose in our food supply, causing us to grow hamster-sized boils in our bladders or whatever, right? Less explanation as to why Canada's cool with it, but maybe it's pressure from our FDA! yeah, that works, evil corporatist conspiracy to poison and kill off their customers because... uhm... EEEEVIL CONSPIRACY!

Never asked is WHY the EU and Australia ban its use in food production. It's not because it's a toxic food product... but because in its raw form it's a respiratory irritant, and is potentially hazardous for workers handling the powder, beyond what most food production plants are equipped to prevent (as compared to a foam rubber factory or whatever that almost assuredly has precautions far beyond that needed for azodicarbonamide.)

The ridicule is because people raising the issue so often behave in completely ridiculous ways. There's nothing in the OP about what harm the chemical causes - but it's used in INDUSTRY!!!! so it must be bad for you! You know, like the most common industrial chemical in the word, dihydrogen monoxide! It's in yoga mats fer chrissakes, and you can't eat a yoga mat, so wonderbread IS REALLY A YOGA MAT!

It's the same gullible nonsense as "margarine is just one molecule from being plastic!"

[marions ghost]

14. Come on

we have no real consumer protections. The FDA is a pathetic remnant of what it was meant to be.
And you're telling us we should trust the food manufacturers to be concerned with our long term HEALTH? We are responsible for researching everything we put in our mouths in a corporatocracy with no effective regulations.

Subway has pledged to take this additive out of food. One small victory towards less adulterated processed foods.

You know why Europe and Australia don't use AZO? (besides the fact that they care about worker health more than we do)--it's because they don't like a rubbery taste to their bread...the food in general is just not as nasty and taste-challenged over there --as it is in America. The whole world knows Americans will eat cardboard if you put enough sugar and food coloring in it. And when you eat soy fiber (GMO of course) you are eating something akin to cardboard that is not healthy to eat. But it is in everything.

This Yoga-mat bread is just the tip of the iceberg. But it's a start.

[Scootaloo]

16. I'm telling you to not get into a hyperbolic panic over OMG CHEMICALS!!!!!!

We of course have every right to be concerned over the failures of the FDA and the influence of corporate money on regulations and standards.

This doesn't mean that we should freak the fuck out over every additive that sees use outside of food. Focus the fire, don't throw it everywhere.

The whole world knows Americans will eat cardboard if you put enough sugar and food coloring in it. And when you eat soy fiber (GMO of course) you are eating something akin to cardboard that is not healthy to eat. But it is in everything.

For instance.

You know that when you eat ANY fiber, this is true, right? Soy or otherwise, GMO or otherwise. It's not called "fiber" because they think it sounds cute.

[marions ghost]

17. Soy fiber (& soy milk) is one of the most controversial food substances out there...

Westerners don't absorb soy in their systems the same way that Asians do--and Asians eat soy in "whole" food forms, not as processed fiber to pad out food products.

The jury is still out on whether soy promotes cancers, especially estrogen sensitive cancers. More research needs to be done. The benefits of soy may be cancelled out by the negatives, especially if eaten in large amounts.

Soy may be harmful to the thyroid in Westerners. My friend in college who ate tofu and soybeans in any form all the time developed serious hypo-thyroidism at a young age. Not scientific but there ya go.

This is a controversial food additive. And yet the fiber is increasingly being used as a cheap filler in all kinds of foods in this country.

------

So--in order not to waste time arguing uselessly--let's just say soy fiber as a food additive is controversial, mkay?

[Scootaloo]

18. "Not scientific but there ya go"

let's just say soy fiber as a food additive is controversial

Oh, you mean like evolution and climate change?

[marions ghost]

20. ha ha

I knew you'd seize on that one.

But I leave my comment as it stands. Much of what I have observed health wise, in myself and others, has indicated the need for caution and research when it comes to drugs or food substances.
Most Americans have no idea what's in their food. The whole GMO debate should convince those who do look into it that the manufacturers have no cred re health.

Hey, you'll really scoff at this--I also had a first cousin who was an oncologist, a surgeon--who developed a glioma by the ear that he held to a cell phone all day. He was convinced til the day he died that he got the tumor from cell phone use. (So, again not scientific but there ya go--).

(Lots of docs and biologists in my family). They think differently from chemists and physicists.

[Scootaloo]

21. Declaring something to be "controversial" is an attempt to invent controversy

I'm sorry but fiber is fiber, regardless of its source. Polysaccharides are polysaccharides and it really, truly doesn't matter what variety of plant they come out of. Fiber from organic kale in your garden is identical to fiber from GMO soybeans, and both are identical to fiber you could get from grazing on deadly nightshade like a moron. The only real difference is the balance of starches in the fiber chain that determines whether it is soluble or insoluble (that is to put it crudely, whether it plugs the pipe or cleans it out)

My point is simply to work with actual facts and data. Knock off the scare tactics and the ginning up of controversy. it just makes you look like Ken Ham or Jenny McCarthy and damages any attempt towards addressing actual issues at hand.

[marions ghost]

22. And you look like...

Oh never mind.

This info from Wikipedia is what I'd call "controversial"--I guess you wouldn't so I'm not going to go further than Wiki in response to your arrogant "knock it off" crapola.

Soy is controversial. For it to be used as an additive in foods at this point is questionable. And it's all GMO soy so that's a factor also. Controversial:

---------------------
Breast Cancer
A 2006 commentary reviewed the relationship with soy and breast cancer. They stated that soy may decrease the risk of breast cancer, but cautioned that the impact of isoflavones on breast tissue needs to be evaluated at the cellular level in women at high risk for breast cancer.[131] A high consumption of omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, which are found in most types of vegetable oil including soybean oil, may increase the likelihood that postmenopausal women will develop breast cancer.[132] Another analysis suggests an inverse association between total polyunsaturated fatty acids and breast cancer risk.[133] A 2011 analysis of the literature said: "Our study suggests soy isoflavones intake is associated with a significant reduced risk of breast cancer incidence in Asian populations, but not in Western populations."[134]

In a recent (August 2011) trial the daily administration of tablets containing 200 mg of soy isoflavones for 2 years did not prevent bone loss or menopausal symptoms.[135][136]

Brain

Though there is some evidence that estrogen can help protect and repair the brain after injury in rats,[141] there is also evidence that phytoestrogens may be harmful for the recovery of rats in other situations[142] that have sustained brain injury.

Similarly, epidemiological evidence of humans eating soya products is currently divided: a study of Japanese men between 1965 and 1999 demonstrated a positive correlation between brain atrophy and consumption of tofu meals,[143] and a study on elderly Indonesian men and women found that high tofu intake was associated with poorer memory, but the consumption of tempeh was associated with better memory.[109]

Pancreatic Cancer

Though raw soy flour is known to cause pancreatic cancer in rats[145] the cooked flour has not been found carcinogenic.[146][147] Whether soy might promote pancreatic cancer in humans is unknown because studies have not yet attempted to single out soy intake and the incidence of pancreatic cancer in humans, and the amount of soy fed to the rats is proportionately far larger than what humans would normally consume. However, the soy isoflavone genistein has been suggested as a chemopreventive agent against pancreatic cancer, by interfering with the chemical pathways that promote the creation and growth of tumors.[148]

[Scootaloo]

26. That's... interesting

Similarly, epidemiological evidence of humans eating soya products is currently divided: a study of Japanese men between 1965 and 1999 demonstrated a positive correlation between brain atrophy and consumption of tofu meals, and a study on elderly Indonesian men and women found that high tofu intake was associated with poorer memory, but the consumption of tempeh was associated with better memory.

First, of course, correlation does not translate into causation. Second... Japanese and Indonesians? What happened to the race-based diet thing you had there?

Westerners don't absorb soy in their systems the same way that Asians do--and Asians eat soy in "whole" food forms, not as processed fiber to pad out food products.

Third... do you know what tempeh is? You know it's soy, right? Interestingly, tempeh has far less non-soy in it than tofu does - tempeh being pretty much straight beans, and tofu having all sorts of coagulants nad emulsifiers, plus the effects of cooking and all that. So is it the devil's bean hindering the memory if the gastrointestinally-superior Asians, or is the the wide variety of stuff that emulsifies, or is it all just completely unrelated and simply a correlation?

I'm not telling you to "knock it off," I'm telling you that you need to have your pants on before you start marching.

[marions ghost]

35. OK now I know you're not worth replying to

--re the assertion that saying that Westerners don't absorb soy the way Asians do is "race-based." What a distortion to say that Asians are "gasto-intestinally superior" --it's not superiority, it's about evolution and adaptation to certain foods. People evolve biologically to the foods they eat, & there are many cases other than this particular food. As for the Western diet--especially in America--in the space of a very short time, we've created an industrially modified diet that we may not all adapt to it without negative consequences. It's not one size-fits-all dietary "progress."

Clearly you have little understanding of how this kind of research works. The big picture epidemiological studies that look at associations (ie. correlations) are used as indicators for helping to develop studies that DO get at causal mechanisms. (Didn't you know that?) Yes, researchers have to go beyond it--but it does not invalidate the thesis. That why I say:

Soy is controversial. Especially for Westerners who have not grown up eating it. And also questionable for Asians who do not grow up eating the industrially processed forms of soy food substance.

[Scootaloo]

37. It's a silly argument that you didn't provide any support for

Now, I've read similar things regarding lactose tolerance - but then, I also know that all mammals are lactose intolerant after a certain age - it's part of the weaning process, and that the tolerance of Europeans, west asians, and some Africans is a form of limited neoteny in that regard.

I haven't heard any such thing about east Asians and soy products, which would imply a blanket intolerance for soy in populations outside this demographic... which not only doesn't seem to actually be the case, but since the information you provide claimed deleterious effects in two east asian populations - japan and Indonesia - I'm pretty dubious about the claim.

And now you're going into the "industrially processed" argument. Okay. So the Indonesians who eat tofu and lose their brains are losing it because it's industrial tofu? How exactly does one define industrial tofu? And what exactly is the difference between polysaccharides and starches in each context?

I may not have a flawless understanding of all this stuff, but I know enough to get that you're not presenting a terribly strong case for your position.

[marions ghost]

43. My examples illustrate

that results re soy and industrially processed soy are --so far--inconclusive and therefore controversial. I do not attempt to prove or disprove anything to your "beyond a shadow of doubt" standard--about anything. So your rebuttals are inappropriately butt-headed.

Here are some true facts for ya:

[Orrex]

36. Of course you'd say that.

Hell, you're probably even made of chemicals.

[Scootaloo]

39. Not just that!

This morning, I applied an alternating electical current to a ground disk of ferrous oxide, and applied slender, pressed strips of amalgamated proteins, saturated lipids and mineral chlorides, and heated them until the heat vulcanized them into hard planks... and then I ate them, along with similarly heat-treated starch sponges (chock full of GLUTEN!) and washed it down with a suspension of more lipids, protines, and archaobacteria in liquid obtained through a bovine's genetically modified sebaceous glands!

An d then I put a smear of detergents, phenols, and gritty carbonate chemicals - the same used in industrial steel production! - on a bunch of mass-produced bristles made through the denaturation of crude oil... and rubbed it around my mouth for over a minute!

[Orrex]

40. You disgust me.

You and your shameless chemophilia. Why won't you think of the children?

[Scootaloo]

41. Kids are just chemical reactions waiting to happen n/t

[Orrex]

44. Well, you'll get no argument from me on that one.

[laundry_queen]

23. Wow. Lots of anger there. nt

[Scootaloo]

27. I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.

[laundry_queen]

29. Oh, I'm pretty sure it does.

AT the very least, you are expressing extreme frustration in a somewhat condescending and insulting manner. If I had a nickel for every time I heard 'di-hydrogen monoxide!!' as if it was some kind of thread win for the stupid among us...please won't you give me a definition of anger, oh wise one?

[Scootaloo]

30. Anger and amusement are different things

I'm mocking the way this subject tends to be framed - that chemicals - CHEMICALS!!! - are somehow just always bad, first off. Next that the appellation of industrial makes them even worse, followed by the "logic" that if a chemical is dual use then it must therefore turn the food its used in, into the non-food it's also used in.

Here's an example of angry Scootaloo:

What, do you want a fist bump? A pat on the back? A hearty "+1"? Maybe you're hoping others will re-tweet your bold stance made from the comfort of your heated computer room where you sit on your ass without having to ever fucking worry about when the plasmodium hiding in your liver is going to decide to go on a rampage again. How fortunate for you! Would you like some cheetohs to cram in your mouth while you pontificate with your defecator?

See the differences?

One is mocking bad logic. The other is going tooth and nail after someone who I think should be added to the food chain of large cartilaginous fish.

[laundry_queen]

33. Mocking often comes from a place of anger.

That's what I was seeing.
I still think it's interesting that it bothers you that people are upset about chemicals in their food. I think *most* people understand the distinctions between the things you are talking about. I just thought that post was incredibly rude and thought you must be quite angry to post it. If that's what simple amusement looks like...well...you can have your fun.

[Scootaloo]

34. It bothers me in the way they go about it

I completely understand the concerns and support the need for regulations and strictures and all that stuff, but people go about it in such a spacey, new-agey, fuzzy-headed way that they essentially neuter the issue.

Take GMO labelling. Good example of fuzzy-headedness, on two levels. First off, "genetically modified" is a really broad term. It doesn't just mean "dudes in labcoats playing with genomes" but also "dudes in overalls having the stud bull cover ol' Bessy." Every domesticated organism we have is "genetically modified" and a canny corporation would certainly exploit this - if every food is labeled "GMO" then what the hell are you going to buy? because - the second point of fuzziness - is that simply slapping a "GMO" label on something doesn't tell you anything about it. Golden rice - engineered so that it produces beta-carotine in the kernel - would be labeled exactly the same as cornmeal made from maize that produced its own gnarly antibiotics and nicotinoid insecticides.

Don't like GMO foods? That's fine, be as against them as you want, I may not share EVERY concern, but I share some of them and have no problem with you having 'em... but if you're going to oppose it, oppose it in a way that works - campaign against the patenting of genes and organisms.

Same with this issue. If there are harmful chemicals in food, hell yes, campaign against those chemicals being used! get the facts, present them, and hammer it like John Henry on speed. But don't just throw a "CHEMICALS!" blanket around, becuase it makes your campaign look ill-informed and a little hysterical. Avoid the "one molecule away from plastic!" arguments. Make the debate about the actual problem, which could be a specific substance, or the overall laxity if the FDA - in which case you still should have plenty of solid facts to launch from.

it bothers me because I see these wobbly, half-baked efforts as more damaging to the cause than helpful. It's like, the posters running around DU right now yelling "PUTIN IS JUST LIKE HITLER!" - I get their point, but he's not just like Hitler and the comparison just makes them look dumb and undermines their entire point.

[laundry_queen]

46. I can clearly tell that it bothers you.

However, what I don't get is instead of ridiculing you could do so much more if you just posted in a rational manner about the actual issues yourself. This conversation, for instance, isn't helpful:
"omg, they put CHEMICALS in bread!"
"Oh FFS, I suppose you're going to stop ingesting dihydrogen monoxide then, genius?"

This conversation, however, might be:
"omg, they put CHEMICALS in bread!"
"Actually, those particular chemicals are quite safe and here's why....."
"I don't want any of that crap in my food!"
"Sure, but you need to understand that those chemicals are not inherently bad or harmful, even in large quantities. Here are some studies: ..."

You might not convince everyone but a lot more people are going to read and learn from the second conversation than the first. Your manner of posting is just as unproductive as theirs.
And yes, before you ask, I am indeed the posting police.

[Orrex]

7. In other words, around 170 countries haven't banned this substance.

I find that comforting.

[Le Taz Hot]

2. Oh, ick!

I've used some of those breads, especially Country Pride. Time to get the breadmaker out.

[MoonRiver]

3. Yep

[pipi_k]

5. Oh, say it isn't so!!!!

I was reading that list and feeling rather good about the fact that I'm not a huge fan of bread (which comprises most of the list)...

but then got to Pillsbury

NOOOOOOOoooooo!!!!

Not the Toaster Strudels!!!!!

Wahhhhh!!!!

[Orrex]

6. Holy shit! There are chemicals in our food?!?

CHEMICALS!

[KT2000]

31. only a very few

chemicals have been tested for safety. At that, the testing is minimal. Our corporate government has created the mistrust by failing in their duties. To ridicule people who even question a chemical's safety is to disregard the failures of our regulating agencies and manufacturers.

Anyone who assumes to know more about chemical safety is fooling themselves - the information is just not there in order to save money and protect manufacturers from any liability.

To me, the intelligent person is the one who applies the precautionary principle to their personal lives. To do otherwise is misplaced trust.

Did you know that the pink ribbon campaign was started by a pesticide manufacturer that purchased a cancer drug company when their products were implicated in breast cancer? That is the god of free market capitalism at work.

[hedgehog]

8. But if you buy organic food, you're just throwing money away!

I read it on the Internet in a sciencey article, so it must be true!

[Incitatus]

9. Here's another take on it.

Why I'm Not Worried About Yoga Mat Chemicals in My Food

As you've probably heard, Subway, Starbucks, and other national fast food chains are scrambling to remove a chemical called azodicarbonamide from their foods following a consumer protest.


The online petition that started all this was launched by a blogger who makes a living writing and speaking about harmful food additives. She doesn't list any scientific or nutritional training and credentials in her bio. But don't let her apparent lack of expertise put you off. As she says on her website, the fact that she can get food companies to make changes in response to her "investigations" is proof that her charges are valid. But is it really?

Might Doesn't Always Equal Right

It's certainly proof of the power that we consumers wield. Companies will bow to our demands, no matter how irrational. Once we've gotten our teeth into the idea that something is harmful, whether it's GMOs, corn syrup, or azodicarbonamide, it is often cheaper for companies to give us what we want than to argue about whether it actually makes sense. Sometimes, of course, we're right. But sometimes, we waste all that leverage on things that aren't really worth it.

Please understand: I'm not defending the use of azodicarbonamide or apologizing for food manufacturers. Most of them are more concerned with the health of their balance sheets than the health of their customers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monica-reinagel-ms-ldn-cns/azodicarbonamide-subway_b_4770189.html

[marions ghost]

15. Contradictory article

"I'm not worried about yoga mat chemicals"

followed by:

"Food manufacturers --are more concerned with their health of their balance sheets than the health of their customers..."

"

[tkmorris]

24. Umm, yeah. The author took a balanced approach

I'm not sure why you find that problematic.

[marions ghost]

25. Since when does "balance"

mean cancelling out, undermining, negating your primary point of view--in the space of a single short article?

Writer wants to cut it both ways in a fluff piece, seeking to appeal to both points of view and avoid taking a stand. Because the writer has no concerns that are strong enough to cause writer to do any real research.

Lazy, lame.

[NCTraveler]

19. Give me a minute to smoke a bowl....

lotion my skin, take an adavan, and put hair spray in my hair, then I am going to come back and tell you how pissed I am that chemicals are in my food.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

28. Maybe that's what the gluten free is all about? The crap that goes into breads is making many of us

sick?

[laundry_queen]

32. I have wondered about this for awhile.

A little anecdote (yes, for the 'scientific' amongst us, I'm well aware this means shit in science. Don't read my anecdote then.) My mom and her 7 siblings were all raised on bread. Homemade bread from the flour that her dad grew in the field (he would set aside some to take to the flour mill himself). They ate a LOT of bread. Bread for breakfast as toast. Bread at lunch with soup. Bread for dinner in the form of dinner buns. No one had any stomach issues.

Fast forward to about 10 years ago. My grandmother had long since stopped making bread now that she could afford to buy bought bread. A bunch of my mom's siblings developed GERD (reflux) and gastritis. All concurrently. So did I and my brother and a few of my cousins. So did my grandparents (my grandfather got such a severe ulcer, he had to be hospitalized because it had swelled to close off the exit to his stomach). We are all on medication like prevacid or nexium.

Now, if stomach issues were hereditary, don't you think everyone would've developed stomach issues at a round the same ages? Like, my grandparents would've developed issues at around 40, mom's generation would develop it at around 40, then when I reached 40, I would've developed it? No, we all started with stomach issues totally concurrently. We came to the conclusion it had to be some additive that started being put in packaged food at around the same time we started with stomach issues. I never did research it (kinda busy with school and kids) but I became convinced after learning the only one without stomach issues was my aunt who grew her own food, and canned everything and made her own bread, like my grandmother did.

My mom is very anti-medication and has tried numerous times to wean herself off the prevacid. She doesn't eat very much for packaged foods, but she still eats some. I was in a lot of pain last year and went for endoscopy in my stomach because of it and basically, I have 2 mild stomach conditions that are untreatable. I decided at around Christmas time to try harder to cook from scratch (something I did before my divorce when I was a stay at home parents and I had much less stomach pain) and I have been cooking almost every dinner from scratch - I have even been trying to make my own flavorings and sauces to stay away from the bottled stuff. And my stomach is better. Not great but better. I still eat bread, but I buy organic artisan bread from our local bakery at the grocery store my daughter works at. They have basic ingredients and claim zero additives. In my quest to figure out what is wrong with my stomach I had some gluten sensitivity testing. I have zero sensitivity at all. So I know my stomach issues have nothing to do with any kind of gluten issue. I still think it's some kind of additive causing it, but I can't pinpoint WHICH additive from WHICH food because my symptoms don't show up immediately.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

38. Very interesting. I would say something is going on with the bread and cereals, no doubt.

I don't think bread is the only tampered food product that's affecting us badly, either. It's just that bread happens to be one of the main foods of life, and now it's causing an epidemic of gluten-related issues, if gluten is the issue, and not some of the crap they're throwing in there, and we cannot discount GMO tampering. I mean, who would think of putting bacteria DNA into the DNA of wheat and then using that to make bread? "Living Un-well through lab tampering" is what it is.

You made me think of something. My grandparents were all born in Spain, and all ate bread as a staple, since none of them were born wealthy, and they needed to eat a lot of bread because it was both nutritious, not that expensive, and helped them stay full rather than remain hungry. (On the bread they put a little olive oil, or they used it as a side with the main dish, or they put 1 slice of ham or 1 slice of cheese). In any case, what I'm getting at is that now a couple of their great grandkids have stomach issues with cereal and bread.

It is far too strange that in ancient times people ate bread like crazy because most people were poor and that's how they filled their belly and got vitamins and energy, and now people are reacting adversely to the staple of life.

And yes, science sometimes poo-poohs this because if it hasn't been studied at length yet, and there aren't experiments out the wazoo to prove it, they scoff at it. Hopefully they'll get with it soon!

[Orrex]

42. On the question of gluten intolerancd

It is far too strange that in ancient times people ate bread like crazy because most people were poor and that's how they filled their belly and got vitamins and energy, and now people are reacting adversely to the staple of life.

Leaving aside the fact that we don't actually know how many ancient people suffered from what we now call gluten intolerance, I would be interested to learn how many modern people claiming to suffer from gluten intolerance actually do suffer from it.

I know about celiac disease, and that's not what I'm addressing here. For every person I've met who has been diagnosed with celiac disease, I know two dozen people with a vague and self-diagnosed gluten intolerance. I don't doubt that some of these people actually do suffer this intolerance, but in the absence of a formal diagnosis, then we are, broadly speaking, dealing with anecdotal guesswork.

I begrudge no one their right to alter their diets in a way that they find to be more conducive to easier digestion. But when we're speculating about the alleged relative toxicity of modern versus ancient bread, then that raises the stakes, and we simply can't rely on the personal anecdote or self-diagnosis.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

47. I always like to look at things sorta simply, like a village girl...

Which would my cells appreciate more? A healthy piece of bread made from old seeds, or a piece of bread with chemical crap flung into it, grown with seeds developed by Monsanto or whoever, blending the DNAs of bacteria with the DNAs of wheat?

Which type of cloth would my skin cells appreciate more? A normal piece of cloth, or one with color toxins, chemicals to make it lie flat without ironing, and lots of nasty-ass crappy chemical detergent film?

Which would my body appreciate more? Clean, deep, spring water, or water that is polluted by industry dumping its waste everywhere, into which fluoride has been dumped for good measure in case the already-existing toxins were not enough?

Which would my brain cells appreciate more? Isolation as much and as often as possible, or a social environment, where there are people around to socialize with. And so on.

I guess I think that way because my grandparents and greatgrandparents all lived in villages, pulled water out of incredibly deep wells, grew normal, ordinary wheat before Monsanto decided to tamper with its DNA, and washed their plain clothing with bars of soap they made themselves, and my grandma on my dad's side told me her stories.

If that doesn't convince you, do you think our bodies are already accustomed to assimilating DNA-tampered foods, to battle toxins which were developed only a few decades ago, and the like? Evolution doesn't work that way, as we all know. That would take multi multi generations.

[Orrex]

48. That's the fallacy of provincial wisdom. It's also argument from aesthetics.

As stated above, I begrudge no one their right to make decisions for themselves, so whatever path you follow to your own conclusions is fine with me. But when we steer our health policies based on nostalgia or aesthetics, then it's reasonable to raise reasonable objections.

Which would my cells appreciate more? A healthy piece of bread made from old seeds, or a piece of bread with chemical crap flung into it, grown with seeds developed by Monsanto or whoever, blending the DNAs of bacteria with the DNAs of wheat?

Are you asking what your cells would prefer, or what do you think your cells prefer? It's actually quite similar to folk medicine prior to germ theory. Simply put, the inferred preferences of one's cells don't trump the realities of nutrition. A lot of people's cells crave nicotine, alcohol and saturated fats in preference to raw sugar and wheat germ. Does that mean that beer and cigarettes are a prescription for health?

I guess I think that way because my grandparents and greatgrandparents all lived in villages, pulled water out of incredibly deep wells, grew normal, ordinary wheat before Monsanto decided to tamper with its DNA, and washed their plain clothing with bars of soap they made themselves, and my grandma on my dad's side told me her stories.

That's nice, but it's a sort of glossed-over nostalgia. If your grandparents resided in the US, and if you're less than 500 years old, then there's a really good chance that their environment was hardly the pristine Eden that you imagine.

As a microbiologist friend once opined, with only slight hyperbole, "the dirtiest thing we're likely to eat today is cleaner than the cleanest thing most people ate 100 years ago."


In addition, I have seen no evidence that DNA-altered food presents any greater hazard than non-altered food, if such food can even be said to exist 10,000+ years after the agricultural revolution. Every single argument I've seen, including the current OP, is based on fear of technology, aesthetic squeamishness, and guilt-by-association innuendo.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

51. The environment of my grandparents was pretty clean. I stayed in the farmhouse my grandpa was born

in, and it's still pretty nice, there are no factories, and the land is clean. However, GMOs are everywhere on this planet now, and toxins are distributed everywhere through food, clothes, air, and so on.

No one has scientific evidence that DNA-altered foods do harm, since those who alter the DNA, and those who employ it (corporate entities) are not about to have tests run to determine if they cause long-term damage of one type or another, and the government are pretty much under the control of corporate entities, so they won't either, particularly under the influence of right wingers, which we're still under despite our Democratic president.

[Orrex]

56. Well, I'm glad that your grandparents were so fortunate

My ancestors lived and worked in the steel & coal industries, so the ones that didn't get roasted alive for 10 hours a day enjoyed all of the coal dust that they cared to inhale. Filthy industry was a fact of life, and that's before we even get into discussions of pre-FDA food safety. Hell, compared to a lot of laborers of the time, my ancestors had it relatively easy.

Read about the many accepted uses of lead chromate as food additive, for instance.or the use of copper to improve the color of that pure and wholesome bread you were talking about.

We in the US have access to cleaner, fresher, safer, higher-quality food than every before in history, in quantities beyond the wild dreams of gluttony just a handful of decades ago.

No one has scientific evidence that DNA-altered foods do harm, since those who alter the DNA, and those who employ it (corporate entities) are not about to have tests run to determine if they cause long-term damage of one type or another, and the government are pretty much under the control of corporate entities, so they won't either, particularly under the influence of right wingers, which we're still under despite our Democratic president.

In essence, you're saying that genetically modified foods are dangerous because the lack of evidence that they're dangerous somehow proves that they're dangerous. Sorry, but that doesn't work.

There are plenty of well-funded organizations with plenty of resources to run studies to prove how "dangerous" these foods are. Let them present their evidence. Until then, the anti-GMO campaign is indistinguishable from tinfoil hattery.

And we've been genetically modifying food for millennia. It's not enough simply to say "we didn't modify them like this" or "Monsanto is an evil corporation." There needs to be actual evidence that these foods cause harm, and this evidence needs to be more compelling than photoshopped internet meme-pics.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

57. Steal and coal were very dirty industries. My ancestors worked the land, taught, sewed clothing

and got paid a pittance, but they didn't work in industries.

Well, there are studies, but evidently not enough to fight the profit-making corporations for whom the DNA of food products has been modified. Combining the DNA of bacteria with the DNA of plants so that the plant can create a pesticide, thereby helping profits, does not sound like: 1) they did this with my body's health in mind, but with profit in mind, 2) sounds like they want me to eat pesticides, 3) it contaminates the real plants with the fake (GMO) plants, 4) the companies engaging in this have yet to prove that this is safe, yet they want ME, the little consumer, to prove that they aren't safe, in other words, I'm a lab experiment, and probably lots more reasons that I, as a non-scientist can't think of.

People are not stupid simply because they're not scientists.

[marions ghost]

50. Interesting

who's really looking out for the consumer?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

52. No one, right now. nt

[FarCenter]

45. It's used to "mature" flour & improve dough quality instead of bleaching flour with chlorine dioxide

"A new powdered agent for flour maturing" by Joiner, Vidal, and Marks

http://www.aaccnet.org/publications/cc/backissues/1963/Documents/chem40_539.pdf

Once dough is made, azodicarbonamide reacts with the water in the dough, and there is essentially none left in the baked product. The reaction with water produces biurea, which is excreted without being metabolized by the body.

[marions ghost]

49. There is no data here on long term health effects

whatsoever.

This study dates from 1963 and is all about the positive properties of the additive as far as bread-baking processes. It is not in any way conclusive about health effects in humans. The chemical was tested in the bodies of dogs and rats, not humans.

Maybe it's time for another study.

[mindem]

53. I'm glad I bake my own bread.

I am doing everything possible to grow and make my own anymore. The whole corporate farm, monsanto, dirty food thing is really starting to piss me off.

[marions ghost]

54. With ya

I'm no good at growing but I buy what others have grown organically at the farmers market as much as possible.

small farmers trying to overcome Big Agra

[Blue Owl]

55. Head on down to Shlubway for a 6" yoga on wheat