William Davis's Blog: Dr. Davis Infinite Health Blog, page 155

Wheat Belly now in paperback!

The book that triggered a 9.5 Richter scale earthquake in the nutritional world, caused heartburn to flare in thousands of dietitians, increased Preparation H sales among my colleagues, and caused nervous breakdowns among grain executives, is now available for preorder in paperback. The paperback edition contains a new foreword that updates all that has happened since Wheat Belly was first released in August, 2011.

The Wheat Belly paperback edition is available from Amazon, Barnes and Noble online and in stores, and from Indie Bound.

Gastrointestinal recovery after the wheat battle is won

Josie posted this comment that addresses the issue of bowel health recovery post-grain removal.

I have been wheat-free for almost a year now and I no longer fall asleep during the day, and my mental fog has disappeared. My wheat-free life is great!

However, I am experiencing major digestion problems. I went to see a dietitian and explained to her I do not eat wheat and try not to eat grains. She emphasized that I need fiber in my diet and based on my current food intake I was not receiving an adequate amount, which was most likely the cause of my digestion problems.

She respects that I do not eat wheat, but is encouraging me to eat rice, oats, oat bran and flax seeds. I am extremely hesitant on eating these things because I value my health and want to do what’s right based on what I know. I ate oatmeal earlier and I felt so scared and was upset afterward because I know they aren’t healthy.

What can I do to get my digestion back on track? How can I get rid of these digestion problems without having to eat grains? My mental health is suffering because of it and I feel torn between needing the fiber and having a desire to be healthy

Remove modern wheat from your diet and you have removed the great disrupter of gastrointestinal health. The gastrointestinal disruptive effects of wheat include:

–Gliadin–The peptides that derive from gliadin digestion are directly toxic to enterocytes (intestinal cells), whether or not you have celiac disease. An interleukin-driven inflammatory mechanism has been documented.

–Gliadin also induces autoimmunity. Wheat-induced autoimmune diseases of the gastrointestinal tract most commonly involve stomach parietal cells that produce stomach acid, the biliary tree and liver, the small intestine (Crohn’s disease) or the colon (ulcerative colitis). Vitamin B12 absorption is also impaired due to its complex absorptive mechanism distorted by gliadin’s effects on the stomach and small intestine.

–Wheat germ agglutinin (WGA)–WGA is a direct bowel toxin, causing “denuding” of intestinal villi responsible for nutrient absorption. It is also a potent blocker of any glycoprotein receptor lining the gastrointestinal tract, particularly the cholecystokinin (CCK) receptor responsible for triggering bile release from the gallbladder and enzyme release from the pancreas. When WGA blocks the receptor for CCK, digestion is impaired, bile stasis develops that leads to gallstones, dysbiosis results because of incomplete digestion of foods. When dysbiosis develops (VERY common), bowel health is further impaired, autoimmunity facilitated, metabolic distortions magnified.

–Phytates–Phytates block iron, zinc, and magnesium absorption. Absorption is impaired by as much as 90%. This is a big part of the reason for grain product fortification.

Remove wheat and the damage recedes over time. BUT you can still be left with residual inflammation, impaired stomach acid production (hypochlorhydria), partial healing of small and large intestines, dysbiosis, and nutrient deficiencies.

For this reason, just removing wheat is only the start; all these other factors may need to be addressed. While many people heal perfectly well over time, someone like Josie may not. Among the most helpful and effective strategies to consider in your wheat removal efforts are:

–Consider removing ALL other grains, especially rye and barley that share similar gliadin structures; corn and oats that also share somewhat similar gliadin-like proteins; rice due to a small quantity of wheat germ agglutinin (i.e., a rice lectin with a structure identical to that found in wheat).

–Take a high-potency probiotic for at least several weeks, longer if an autoimmune condition is present. 30-50 billion CFUs per day has been working very well for us, especially brands with a wide variety of Lactobacillus and Bidifobacteria species, such as VSL3, Renew Life, and Garden of Life brands.

–Bowel flora are like a garden: probiotics are the seeds, prebiotics are the water and fertilizer. If all you do is plant seeds, they may sprout but not flourish, and may even die. So you must nourish your plants. Likewise, you must nourish the bowel flora reinoculated by your probiotic. Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria love fibers that are indigestible, what I call “leftovers,” what some call “resistant starches.” Easy ways to obtain such fibers: one green unripe banana per day in a smoothie, one peeled raw white potato in a smoothie, 4 teaspoons of inulin in anything, small servings (1/4-1/2 cup) of legumes, chickpeas, hummus. It is best to start with smaller quantities, then build up over several weeks to avoid abdominal pain and bloating. I believe this issue is Josie’s #1 problem. Note that relief from symptoms requires several weeks to develop, not after your first green banana.

–Consider hypochlorhydria–Because the stomach’s parietal cells may not recover, you may be left with inadequate stomach acid. The telltale sign of this is heartburn symptoms unresponsive to acid-suppressing medication. This responds to supplemental hydrochloric acid as betaine HCL or apple cider vinegar, but is best managed under the watchful eye of someone with experience with this situation.

–Consider pancreatic enzyme supplementation–Since, for unclear reasons, full restoration of the CCK receptor sensitivity may not occur. The lipases and proteases, in particular, are helpful here. (We require less amylase and other carbohydrate-digesting enzymes since we don’t eat grain amylopectin or sugars.)

Rarely does someone need to supplement fibers with this lifestyle, as replacing the lost calories of grains with foods such as nuts, seeds, mushrooms, avocados, and vegetables easily matches or exceeds the fiber intake of a grain-based diet. If you must, psyllium, chia, and flaxseed are fairly benign fiber sources.

My new book, Wheat Belly Total Health, is my answer to questions such as Josie’s: the additional steps to take to maximize health in the aftermath of wheat removal. Total Health is scheduled for release September, 2014. It will discuss how to tip the scales in favor of full remission from autoimmune diseases, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s, diabetes, hypertension, “high cholesterol,” skin rashes, and other conditions. Yes, national advice to consume more “healthy whole grains” ruins health; you may need some help beyond their removal to fully recover.

Smoke more low-tar cigarettes!

Just kidding, of course.

But followers of the Wheat Belly discussion understand why we often repeat this message: Just because something bad is reduced or eliminated in cigarettes, it does not follow that cigarettes must now be good. Low-tar cigarettes still contain heavy metals like mercury, lead, and cadmium, as well as nicotine, naphthalene, arsenic, formaldehyde, ammonia and other toxic compounds. Low- or no-tar does NOT mean healthy. This may seem obvious, but it is surprising how many people–physicians and dietitians included–fall for such flawed logic when applied to nutrition.

So it goes with gluten in wheat, as well as secalin in rye, hordein in barley, zein in corn, and avenin in oats. If it were possible to reduce or eliminate gluten and related proteins in grains, could we declare that grains are now healthy?

No, not even close. Wheat and related grains still contain:

Phytates–that disturb digestion and block iron and zinc absorption by 90%.This is why grain consuming societies experience so much iron deficiency anemia, impaired immunity, and skin rashes.

Lectins–Wheat germ agglutinin is indigestible. It is thereby free to exert disruptive effects in the gastrointesinal tract and gain access to the bloodstream, where it yields potent inflammatory effects.

D-amino acids–Humans, as well as other mammals, have the digestive apparatus to break proteins down in to L-amino acids. But many of the amino acids in grains are the mirror image D-versions. The implications of this peculiar clash between incompatible species–non-ruminant humans and the seeds of grasses–are just starting to be appreciated.

Amylopectin A–The carbohydrate of grains that is responsible for its extravagant potential to raise blood sugar.

In other words, wheat and related grains are still quite terrible for health, with or without gluten. I highlight this issue because of this awful product: Gluten Cutter, a preparation that contains several enzymes that they purport digests gluten. They even go so far as to suggest–not overtly claim, as that would likely cross some FDA barriers–that even people with celiac disease can consume gluten if they take this supplement.

This is blatantly irresponsible. Don’t fall for it. Even if gluten digestion were complete (they have no data to prove it one way or another), there are all the other issues in wheat and other grains to contend with. And the price of even minor exposures to undigested gluten in people with celiac disease can be intestinal lymphoma, autoimmune diseases, and dysbiosis. The only reasonable use of this product would be to take it in case there is inadvertent gluten exposure that may be minimized by digestion.

There is more to wheat than gluten, more to rye than secalin, more to barley than hordein, more to oats than avenin. This is because Homo sapiens and seeds from the grasses in the family Poaceae are incompatible.

Why we START with wheat elimination

Mixhelle tells us why wheat elimination is the first and essential step in seizing back control over health and weight.

“I went wheat-free two weeks ago. And JUST wheat free. I understand the mechanisms of going low-carb for weight loss, but I was curious just how bad wheat alone can be.

“I already had a very healthy diet: I cook all my own meals, veggie heavy and quality grass fed and organic meats. I also am an athlete. I train for and play competitive rugby every other day. BUT I also have a huge sweet tooth that I indulged in regularly. And I drink moderate amounts of alcohol. I figured those were my problems to not having my body fat percentage able to drop, but I was ok with that. I’m not overweight, just not at my ideal figure. I’m 26 and socially active. I don’t want to give up my vices either.

“In two weeks of JUST wheat elimination, I am down 9 pounds and 4 inches off my waist. And I can see my abs. WHAT?! I have NEVER been able to see them outlined, despite my physical fitness being above average. They were always under a layer of little bit of fat and just bloat. I carry my fat in my hips/thighs. I didn’t know why my abs didn’t show more.

“I gorged on popcorn and skittles at a movie one night last week, essentially as dinner. Still woke up weighing less the next day. This would usually bloat me up and add water weight and I’d feel crummy about doing it. I was shocked. I felt fine and the scale was cool with it. I continue to have fruit or a sweet every day, and wine or gin and soda every other. And the bloat and weight keeps dropping.

“I stopped counting any calories. I’m estimating I’m eating over 2000 a day though, as lots of fats. I couldn’t lose anything at 1300 a day in calorie restriction.

“I NEVER feel hungry anymore. My training has improved markedly in two weeks. My persistent ankle sprain is gone. And my body fat has dropped almost 2% by doing nothing more or different than just eliminating wheat. And my cravings for sweets are gone too. I still eat them, but I’m not craving them. I can eat them cause they taste good.

“I cannot imagine how I would look/feel if I cut out the sweets and alcohol. I’m doing solely wheat-free for a month, and then incorporating the full better-insulin-control diet from the book to see where that takes me.

“Thanks for the book, the research and the results.”

As she correctly points out, removing wheat removes the driving, incessant desire for sweets and junk carbohydrates. The reverse is not true: remove candy, soft drinks, and other junk and lose the desire for junk carbohydrates or grains–doesn’t work that way.

No other food yields the peptide opiates yielded by partial digestion of the gliadin protein of wheat. Sucrose (table sugar), fructose, and other sweeteners can stimulate appetite via other mechanisms to a lesser degree, but none yield peptides (from protein) that act as opiates–none. This is why removing wheat is the first and most essential step in seizing back control over weight and health.

Advised by the USDA, the American Diabetes Association, and other agencies that grains should form the cornerstone of diet, is it any wonder that we live during worst epidemic of obesity and diabetes ever witnessed in the history of man on earth? Reject this absurd advice based on misinterpretation and dietary ignorance, and you are enlightened with the most powerful nutritional strategy for health known.

Weight Watchers no more after 37 years

Carol posted this interesting comment about her weight loss and health success experienced after reading Wheat Belly:

“I have been mesmerized by the book. Being a lifetime member of Weight Watchers since the age of 21 (now 58), I am amazed at how I feel and the weight lost.

“I have also suffered from severe scoliosis all of my life and have been on prescription naproxen for since 1987. Since I eliminated the wheat I have not taken any meds, I’ve lost my sweet and salty cravings that often consumed me. Now, with spring in the air, I have not had the sneezing and itchy eyes that I’ve suffered with in the past. I am also a breast cancer survivor, so the cancer linkage is interesting as well.

“I am a believer. I feel the best I have in years. I was also amazed at the weight loss–basically a 1 lb a day-–better than what I experienced with Weight Watchers.”

You can indeed lose weight without the insights provided in Wheat Belly, but it is typically a painful exercise in deprivation, as many people following Weight Watchers will tell you when you count and limit calories and portions. The opiate peptides that develop upon digestion of the gliadin protein in wheat are appetite stimulants. Any diet that therefore contains wheat will cause you to be hungry all the time, craving junk carbohydrates, especially when you try to cut calories.

Remove wheat, remove the gliadin derived opiates, experience a marked reduction in appetite with a drop in calorie intake of 400 calories per day (on average). You also remove wheat germ agglutinin that blocks leptin, the hormone of satiety. You also remove wheat’s amylopectin A responsible for blood sugar highs followed by blood sugar lows with mental fog, sleepiness, and desperate hunger. Wheat-free people are therefore freed from all the bonds of such appetite-controlling effects.

And what other dietary approach leads to relief from chronic pain, relief from allergies, and reductions in high levels of estrogen and prolactin that stimulate breast cancer growth? (The A5 pentapeptide from gliadin is an especially potent trigger for prolactin release.)

Cutting calories, reducing portion size, tallying up points . . . all while consuming an appetite stimulant. Why not just remove the appetite stimulant?

Wheat Belly and “Hammer hands”

Read this incisive and insightful editorial on the Wheat Belly Lifestyle Institute website:



Hitting oneself in the hand with a rubber hammer reduces pain and swelling, human study finds

Author Gary Miller highlights the flawed logic used over and over and over again in nutrition studies: replace something bad with something less bad and the less bad thing must therefore be good. It is part of the collection of epidemiological studies used to bolster the “healthy whole grain,” high-fiber, and low-fat fictions that have seized mainstream consciousness over the years, offering conclusions where none should be reached.

Melissa’s No-Bake Strawberry Cheesecake

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s a beautifully simple and tasty recipe, courtesy of wheat-free champion, Melissa, of the Satisfying Eats blog. Melissa has her own jaw-dropping wheat-free success story to tell, including losing 58 pounds and finding relief from a number of health conditions.

No-bake strawberry cheesecake

There’s only a few minutes and a few simple ingredients between you and having this cheesecake!

Serves 4

4 ounces cream cheese, softened

¼ cup heavy whipping cream

¼ cup Greek yogurt (or sour cream)

½ teaspoon vanilla extract

Sweetener equivalent to 1/4 cup sugar

6 strawberries, chopped

½ cup chopped pecans

In medium bowl, blend cream cheese at low-speed until smooth. Add cream, yogurt, vanilla and sweetener and blend until thick and smooth. Add strawberries and blend until the strawberries have released some of their juice and colored the batter pink. Taste for sweetness and adjust if needed.

Divide chopped nuts into each of 4 6-ounce ramekins. Using an ice cream scoop, divide cheesecake batter among ramekins (around 1/3 of a cup). Serve immediately or refrigerate for 1 hour for thicker texture.

Here’s Melissa’s “before” and “after”:

Doesn’t she look terrific? And she did it eating cheesecake!

Shame on the Chicago Tribune

A blatantly pro-wheat piece ran in the Chicago Tribune that bashes the anti-grain movement. Read it here.

Written by dietitian, Marsha McCullough, it is full of the oversimplifications and partial truths echoed by the wheat industry. (So it smells and looks like something either paid for by the wheat industry to be placed in the Tribune, or Ms. McCullough was paid to write. That’s how the big lobbies work. They generally cannot rely on “organic” commitment.)

“Those with an allergy to wheat or other grains must avoid them. And the one percent of the population with celiac disease and the six percent with non-celiac gluten sensitivity must avoid all gluten, a protein found in grains, including wheat, rye and barley. With a doctor’s approval, most people with a gluten sensitivity can eat small amounts of uncontaminated oats; all other uncontaminated, gluten-free grains are typically allowed.”

Well, that’s a new concession: that people can have non-celiac allergies to wheat and that 6% of the population have “non-celiac gluten sensitivity,” or NCGS. Actually, the percentage of people with NCGS is in dispute with a recent effort at a consensus discussion from several celiac experts asking the question whether all irritable bowel syndrome sufferers, constituting 25-30% of the population, are really suffering from NCGS. The fact that the wheat lobby would allow such a concession is progress, so she starts off on a fairly positive note. Even conservatively, she allows that 7% of the population should not consume wheat–yet we are told by the USDA that everybody without exception should make “healthy whole grains” the centerpiece of diet.

It is a widely held fiction that oats are okay for people with celiac disease or NCGS: Yes, you can find oats without gluten or gliadin, but oats have a closely related protein called avenin that cross reacts immunologically in some people. The question of allergy is not as well charted out, but it is a growing number, especially children suffering eczema and asthma, due to changes in wheat proteins, such as alpha amylase and trypsin inhibitors, as well as gliadin.

“According to an August 2013 review in Current Allergy and Asthma Reports, multiple case reports suggest gluten can play a role in some autoimmune diseases beyond celiac disease, but large studies are lacking. Autoimmune diseases that occur most commonly in combination with celiac disease are autoimmune thyroid disease, autoimmune liver disease, type 1 diabetes, Sjogren’s syndrome, and psoriasis.”

Alright, now she’s playing games with us, choosing one review and suggesting that this review is the totality of evidence, and suggesting that autoimmunity only occurs alongside celiac disease. Not true. Dr. Alessio Fasano, while at the University of Maryland (now at Harvard) performed the elegant series of studies that first demonstrated that wheat (rye, barley) gliadins trigger the zonulin protein-mediated process that is the first step in autoimmunity. And this mechanism has nothing to do with celiac disease or NCGS, though it is partially dependent on the genetic variant of zonulin (“haptoglobin-2″) you carry. But essentially 90%+ of the population is susceptible to this effect.

From the perspective of “large studies,” we have a study of wheat removal in rheumatoid arthritis demonstrating partial remission. A search on PubMed will also reveal the explosion of studies exploring Dr. Fasano’s work further and documenting the close relationship of wheat consumption and autoimmunity. Yes, we need more data, but it all points fingers at wheat (and consistent with our anecdotal daily experience of multiple forms of autoimmunity receding with wheat elimination).

And, by the way, there is more to autoimmunity than wheat/gliadin removal, as chronic grain consumption distorts health in other ways, such as impaired absorption of nutrients over many years, disrupted cholecystokinin signaling for digestion, and changes in bowel flora (dysbiosis). All of this must be addressed for full recovery to occur after grains are removed. Just as an alcoholic doesn’t recover full health just by stopping the flow of bourbon, so a former wheat-consumer does not fully recover once the wheat/gliadin are stopped–the long-term consequences of wheat/gliadin consumption must be corrected, as well.

Gluten-free diets carry the concern of nutritional deficiencies, and completely grain-free diets only heighten that risk. Julie Miller Jones, PhD, CNS, LN, professor emerita of nutrition at St. Catherine University, St. Paul, Minn., summarizes data showing grains provide the following amounts of nutrients in the U.S. diet: 70 percent of folate 60 percent of thiamin 50 percent of iron 40 percent or more of niacin, riboflavin, and selenium 25 percent of magnesium and zinc.”

Proponents of grain-free diets voice concern about anti-nutrients in grains. Grains, especially whole grains, contain a substance called phytate that impairs the body’s absorption of some minerals. However, in populations with well-balanced diets, this may be of little consequence. There are ways to minimize phytate, too.”

Ah, so she is aware of the phytate issue, the phosphorus-containing proteins in all grains that blocks 90% of iron absorption, 90% of zinc absorption, and at least 60-70% of magnesium absorption. In nations that have developed dependence on wheat and corn, iron and zinc deficiencies are rampant, affecting over 2 billion people. Consumption of grains provides no net increase in iron or zinc, nor of any other nutrient, because they are inaccessible. The second most common cause of iron deficiency anemia in the world (after blood loss): wheat consumption.

How to minimize phytate? Well, first of all, modern grains have been selected to be phytate-rich, as phytates serve to protect grains from pests, such as insects. So modern grains are more effective at blocking nutrient absorption than traditional grains. But she is correct: phytates can be minimized . . . . by genetic modification, GM. So she is essentially advocating that more GM crops be introduced, an argument that surely delights the agribusiness advocates.

Make no mistake: GM is an awful, crude, and desperately unhealthy process, despite the absurd FDA stand that GM crops are “substantially equivalent.” They are not and the science is bearing this out.

“‘Breads made with longer fermentation times, such as Julia Child’s French bread (which requires at least 6 hours of rise time), and classic sourdough bread, have significantly lower phytate levels,’ Jones says. Lectins, another type of anti-nutrient in grains, also may be inactivated by lengthy fermentation, and some are destroyed by heat.”

That is true: phytates are modestly reduced, but not eliminated. Lectins, on the other hand, are nearly impervious to heating, human digestion, or taking a beating at the hands of enthusiastic bakers. Wheat germ agglutinin, the lectin protein of wheat, rye, barley, and rice, remains remarkably intact despite such manipulations. But the reduction in phytates means that gliadin, glutenins, alpha amylase inhibitors, trypsin inhibitors, D-amino acids, amylopectin A are still there in all their glory, exerting autoimmune, intestinally disruptive, bowel flora-changing, allergy-provoking, and blood sugar-raising effects.

“‘Some people reason that if they eat more broccoli, for instance, then it won’t matter if they don’t eat grains. But, thinking you don’t need grain fiber because you get a lot of vegetable fiber is like saying that if you get enough vitamin A you don’t need any vitamin C. That’s just plain wrong,’ Jones says. For example, beta glucan, the fiber best at lowering cholesterol, is present only in oats and barley. It’s grain fiber, rather than fiber from any source, that is linked with a reduced risk of colon cancer.”

Several partial truths here. Jones and McCullough are referring to the presence of indigestible prebiotic fibers, or “resistant starches,” in grains, such as arabinoxylan, consumed by bowel flora and converted to butyrate, which does indeed exert healthy intestinal effects and metabolic benefits, such as reduced blood sugar.

But–given the fact that wheat has been consumed for only the last 10,000 years of human existence–how did humans obtain such fibers in the 2.5 million years prior to grains? Root vegetables. Root vegetable consumption is among the oldest documented foodstuffs to enter the diet of primates, found in even pre-Homo Australopithecus (e.g., robustus). Root vegetables are how non-grain consuming cultures, such as the Hadza of sub-Saharan Africa, obtain their prebiotic fibers–not grains. And most of the fiber in grains is cellulose–wood fiber–indigestible by humans. There is no inherent benefit to wood fiber consumption.

And the fiber data do not demonstrate that it is grain fiber that is most closely related to reductions in colon cancer risk. The data here tend to be sloppy, epidemiological studies of the sort that prove nothing. Taken as a whole, we could say that fiber intake reduces colon cancer risk, but we cannot say that it is grain fiber specifically. (I predict that the data will show, when clean data are finally generated, that it is the prebiotic fibers/resistant starches that are the truly protective component of foods, not the cellulose fibers.)

“A 2009 study published in the British Journal of Nutrition found that healthy adults on a gluten-free diet for a month had a significant decrease in protective gut bacteria, while potentially unhealthy bacteria increased in number. These findings are similar to an earlier study of children with celiac disease following a long-term gluten-free diet (Journal of Medical Microbiology, 2007).”

This is nonsense. She suggests that eliminating “gluten” is somehow unhealthy, an unhealthy and necessary evil to treat celiac disease. Yes, there are changes in bowel flora when you remove gluten, celiac or no, a process that requires months to years to correct. And they may not correct on their own, given the extensive disruption of digestion and intestinal health that derives from grain consumption. (We cannot create the healthy species we require, such as Lactobacillus plantarum, without introducing them through a probiotic or consumption of fermented foods.) The problem is not removing gluten; the problem is that bowel health is so disrupted that re-establishing healthy bowel flora requires efforts that go beyond gluten removal.

And followers of these discussions know that a “gluten-free” diet can be a terribly unhealthy diet, including effects on bowel flora, if it includes cornstarch, tapioca starch, potato flour, or rice flour, as replacements, since they also distort bowel flora and provoke inflammatory effects of their own. A faulty solution does not mean the original premise was wrong.

“In the typical American diet, wheat supplies at least 70 percent of inulin and oligofructose, which are prebiotic starches that fuel the growth of good bacteria.”

That is true, but suggests that grains are indispensable. Americans have woefully inadequate intakes of prebiotic starches on the order of 3-5 grams per day. The solution is not more grains; the solution is more root vegetables such as legumes, lentils, chickpeas, and other foods–the way humans have done it for 2.5 million years until the widespread fictions, misinterpretations, and lore of grains entered our experience. (This is an entire discussion of its own–for future!)

All in all, despite the half-truths in this piece, it demonstrates that apologists for wheat are getting a bit more savvy. But I don’t envy their position, having to defend the role of grains in the human diet–because they never belonged in the human diet in the first place. Recall that grains entered the human experience during moments of desperation, a source of calories when foods we instinctively consumed–such as organs, bone marrow, meat, nuts, seeds, roots, and berries–fell in short supply. They were intended to be consumed when real food was unavailable. But, in a world overpopulated due to the cheap, large-scale production of grains, we are told that our diets should be dominated by this nutritional intruder.

If you were starving and found yourself standing in a field of wheat, would you celebrate your good fortune and feast on the seeds of this grass? No, you would die of malnutrition. Wheat was never meant for human consumption.

Grain bashing: It’s easy

When I chose to pick on grains, I found it exceptionally easy. There is no shortage of warts, scars, and defects in this class of plants co-opted into the service of the human diet.

I chose to pick on wheat first, as it is the worst of grains with more complex genetics and thereby a greater panel of unique proteins; it is among the most changed by the efforts of geneticists and agribusiness; and it plays such a dominant role in the human diet, comprising 20% of all calories worldwide, as much as 50% or more of calories for many people.

But just because other grains are not wheat does not make them good. After all, all grains are the seeds of grasses, grasses from the biological family Poaceae, relatives of the Kentucky bluegrass or rye grass that grow in your back yard.

Let’s talk about corn. Just as wheat consumption began around 10,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent when desperate humans wondered whether they could consume einkorn wheat that grew wild, so did inhabitants of Mesoamerica (now Mexico) wonder whether they could consume the teosinte grass that grew wild. Teosinte looks like a grass, as the mutation of a large seed head–”cob”–had not yet appeared. Domestication and cultivation of teosinte led to maize. Over time, farmers chose plants with larger seeds and seed heads that eventuated in something closer to the huge cob we all recognize today. Corn has the advantage of being very prolific: high yields. As strains with large seeds and cobs were chosen, yield in calories increased even more. Today, corn exceeds even wheat in millions of acres planted worldwide.

Teosinte plants. Image courtesy Univ. Missouri

So what are the effects of consuming the seeds of another grass, the seeds of the corn plant, on humans? Let me list a few of the most prominent:

1) Just as the gliadin protein of wheat, rye, and barley triggers inflammatory reactions via several different mechanisms, so does the zein protein in corn. For instance, gliadin protein exposure has been associated with causing pancreatic beta cell autoimmunity, i.e., type 1 diabetes in children. So has the zein protein of corn. The zein protein can also recreate the response of celiac disease, though not quite as powerfully, even though corn is included in most “gluten-free” products. Corn can be gluten-free, but it is not free of proteins that act just like gluten (gliadin) or cross-react immunologically with it.

2) While many of the proteins of the seeds of grasses are indigestible, there is an exceptionally well digested component: amylopectin A. This is the carbohydrate of grains that is responsible for sending blood sugars sky-high. Problem: Most corn is not consumed as intact kernels, but as ground corn flour or cornmeal, reducing size to granules and increasing surface area for digestion exponentially. This is why, even though wheat raises blood sugar to high levels, cornstarch raises blood sugar even higher–the highest of any food. Modern corn strains are often chose for their higher amylopectin content–”sweet corn”–thereby containing higher levels of this blood sugar raising component.

3) What happens when corn plays a dominant role in diet, as it does in parts of South America and formerly did in the southern U.S. and Europe? People develop the “4 D’s”: diarrhea, dermatitis, dementia, and death, otherwise known as pellagra. Because corn products lack niacin and the amino acid tryptophan, over-reliance on corn as a calorie source makes people very ill.

4) Corn has been genetically-modified, GM. Recall that modern wheat is not the product of GM, but of methods that predate GM (though not necessarily benign–remember mutagenesis?) 90% of corn sold today is GM corn: glyphosate-resistant, Bt toxin inoculated, or “stacked,” i.e., containing both. Emerging data suggest that neither GM nor glyphosate nor Bt toxin ingested by humans are benign and exert unanticipated effects, including endocrine disruption and cancer.

5) Allergy–Seen in its most exaggerated form in people who work with corn products, such as people who work in the pharmaceutical industry involved in pill production, a process that often includes cornstarch. As many as 90% of these people, over time, develop corn allergies. As in wheat, allergies are typically due to alpha amylase and trypsin inhibitors, as well as other proteins, many of them changed via hybridizations and GM.

That’s just a sample–I could go on. The point is that finding fault with the seeds of grasses is so darned easy. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a stalk of einkorn wheat or of teosinte. The problems started 10,000 years ago–0.4% of our time on earth as the Homo species–when humans tried to consume something that never belonged in the human diet in the first place, now made worse by the manipulations of agribusiness.

And, oh yes: We are told to eat more of it by our own USDA and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

What’s WORSE than genetic modification?

Genetic modification (GM) is coming under increasing scrutiny, despite the efforts of companies like Monsanto and Coca Cola to squash legislative action to require the labeling of genetically-modified foods.

GM refers to the use of gene-splicing technology to insert or remove a gene, a collection of techniques advertised by agribusiness to be precise, generating the desired characteristic, such as resistance to an herbicide, and nothing more. Of course, this is patent nonsense: Insert a gene to resist an herbicide, for instance, and there are unforeseen consequences in changing other genes alongside the inserted gene, alterations in epigenetic control over gene expression, interactions with the products of other genes, not to mention the uncontrolled nature of just where in the chromosomal collection the gene is actually inserted. We now have a number of reports, including the most recent French study of Seralini et al of glyphosate-resistant corn fed to rats documenting early deaths from large tumors, suggesting that genetically-modified foods, as well as glyphosate itself, are not as benign as advertised.

Stephen Colbert: Amber Waves of Frankengrain

So could anything be worse than GM? Yes: Mutagenesis.

Mutagenesis refers to the intentional induction of mutations in an organism, usually using chemical methods, ultraviolet radiation, gamma rays, or high-dose x-ray. Geneticists make vigorous use of the methods of mutagenesis, as mutations can help define the function of various genes by turning them “on” or “off,” changing their code sequence, and other manipulations.

But key to understanding mutagenesis is that it is not a fully controllable process. If I aim a beam of gamma rays at a seed, embryo, cell, or other creature, plant or animal, I cannot predict what will happen, where in the genetic code changes will occur, or whether they result in viable or non-viable organisms.

Take a look at this study, for instance, from a Portuguese research group working with rice (not wheat): Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. (Transgenetic = GM. Yes: genetics is painful!) From the abstract:

We found that the improvement of a plant variety through the acquisition of a new desired trait, using either mutagenesis or transgenesis, may cause stress and thus lead to an altered expression of untargeted genes. In all of the cases studied, the observed alteration was more extensive in mutagenized than in transgenic plants. We propose that the safety assessment of improved plant varieties should be carried out on a case-by-case basis and not simply restricted to foods obtained through genetic engineering.

(Note that the genetics of rice are far simpler than the genetics of wheat. For instance, rice contains 24 chromosomes, while modern high-yield semi-dwarf Triticum species of wheat contain 42 chromosomes.)

In short, the techniques of mutagenesis have potential to exert greater genetic change and thereby more biochemical alterations in the plant than genetic modification. And the potential for unpredictable changes via mutagenesis are likely to be much greater in the more genetically-complex wheat plant than in rice.

So the mutated products of mutagenesis, such as imazamox-resistant Clearfield wheat, now grown on one million acres in the Pacific northwest, have been on store shelves for years. The Wheat Lobby is absolutely correct when it says that no commercially sold wheat today is genetically-modified. The wheat sold today, much of it the product of the techniques of mutagenesis, are the product of something potentially far WORSE.