|
Post by templeton on Nov 15, 2016 17:10:09 GMT -5
I recall reading on a thread here about the changes to wheat that are speculated to have taken place with the shift to modern wheat varieties, and the effect they may have on food intolerances. some interesting ideas in this article. not sure if I'm pleased, concerned, or amused. What is unstated is how they will arrive at these new wheat forms - I bet they don't go back to the original grains and start again by traditional breeding. but they don't mention GM. TheConversationT
|
|
|
Post by steev on Nov 15, 2016 18:53:51 GMT -5
Interesting; so we may someday have people asking "Is this made with Red Fife or Sonora wheat? I can't eat those."
The great diversity of proteins is largely why people may react differently to various mushrooms, although we all seem to react the same to those that destroy our livers.
|
|
|
Post by prairiegarden on Nov 15, 2016 20:31:38 GMT -5
An online series on health and nutrition lately really slammed wheat, saying that a Harvard study showed that all humans are affected negatively by wheat, just some more than others. They had people who were highly sensitive, people who could eat it occassionally without issues and people who had no sign at all of being sensitive to it. In every case without exception wheat pushed apart the lining of the gut to a greater or smaller degree.
This is what is referred to as leaky gut and is strongly implicated in virtually all autoimmune diseases, according to these researchers. They think that we have probably evolved to cope with wheat to a greater or lesser degree but the added toxicity of modern life pushes people over the edge of what their body can handle, so they develop the clear reaction warning them to stay away from it. Or so I understood.
This is made that much worse by the modern practice of dessicating wheat in the field, as the most commonly used one is also an antibiotic so attacks the bacteria in the gut which might help the body cope with the wheat proteins.
As far as taking apart wheat and then putting it back together less the problem proteins..not something I'd go for. Researchers keep running into issues with herbal remedies when they try to isolate " the active component" and find the result has different effects than expected. Besides, bread with Red Fife wheat is delicious. It's difficult to imagine you can carve bits of it out and expect to be the same.
|
|
|
Post by steev on Nov 15, 2016 23:07:18 GMT -5
At the risk of sounding insensitive (so me, I know), genetic diversity is as much a factor for humans as for any of our cousins; plants are entitled to diversify as much as we are (that's the deal we all signed on to, when we came into existence, a deal that includes dealing with the rest of Creation, until we die, as we are contractually obliged to, and their generations being shorter than ours, they may do it much more rapidly; that some humans cope less well with some plant mutations is certainly true and a disadvantage (as a lactose-tolerant mutant, I am pleased with this genetic advantage; neener, neener, neener; mutation is integral to the whole evolutionary scheme, which brought us all to the pinnacle of being able to read my bullshit! Allahu Akbar!).
In any event, touching back down to Earth, clearly there are genetic sensitivities to genetic variations in some foods. I think the question is: how much energy should we put into making the world unfailingly safe for every human, regardless of their genetic differences? How much energy should we put into restricting the mutations of other life-forms, for the comfort/health of humans? If the cost of such programs came out of the USA "defense" budget, I'd say "Right On!" However, that isn't likely to happen. That workers in Oz are looking into this is excellent. Knowledge is power!
Really, folks, do we want the genetic version of "Don't dump this hot coffee on your crotch, because you might not be able to reproduce"? I mean, food that makes you feel bad is food to avoid; live; learn; get on with it.
|
|
|
Post by walt on Nov 16, 2016 16:46:12 GMT -5
Templeton. The way they would make a wheat without a given protein would likely by the new (in the last 10 years or so) CRISPR method. To over simplify, one just figures out the DNA sequence next to a given gene and the CRICPR enzyme is attached to the DNA code that matches the target. Then the CRISPR enzyme cuts the DNA there and removes the code for that protein. That gives a wheat without that protein. Of course there are many proteins that wheat can not survive without. But storage proteins in the seeds are usually expendable.
|
|
|
Post by blueadzuki on Nov 16, 2016 20:19:30 GMT -5
Ideally, BOTH avenues would be pursued, multiple solutions to a given problem tend to result in more stability than a single one.
In the case of "going back to basics", I sort of assume that boils down to "going back to Farro" Since a lot of people who have wheat problems CAN eat emmer and einkorn, that would seem to indicate that a lot of the "problem" proteins come from the goat grass side of the family. Or actually (since the BB genes themselves come from a species of goat grass) even go back to einkorn and see what can be done there (has anyone found out what you get if you take einkorn and hexaploid it?)
It probably might be worth investigating Timopheevi again as well, since it, of course has another set of ancestor proteins that might be easier on the stomach (Has anyone? Since Timopheevi is a pretty obscure wheat still, I assume that, if any scientific research has been done on it's effects on the digestive system of people with allergies, it is still in the very early stages.)
|
|
|
Post by walt on Nov 17, 2016 12:32:52 GMT -5
In the last couple of weeks, I went through the GRIN wheat collection. I found no hexaploid Einkorns, but theere are tetraploid einkorns. There are hexaploid durum x einkorn doubled, and timopheevi x einkorn doubled. Those would be AAA'A'BB and AAA'A'GG respectively. But B and G are similar. I doubt, but don't know, that they would have the same problems for those who have problems with wheat. My daughter, for example. I distinguished the AA from the A'A' genomes because the A in einkorn has been seperated from the A in durum and the A in timpheevi from around 5,000 years or more. And for an annual, 5,000 years is about 5.000 generations. The D in bread wheat has been seperated from the D in Titicum tauschii for fewer generation than that, and the wild D is befinitly different from the D in bread wheat. I was looking up wheats in GRIN because I want to make an intermediate wheatgrass+AA hybrid. Get some bigger seeds on that thing!
|
|
|
Post by prairiegarden on Nov 17, 2016 15:43:32 GMT -5
Ideally, BOTH avenues would be pursued, multiple solutions to a given problem tend to result in more stability than a single one. In the case of "going back to basics", I sort of assume that boils down to "going back to Farro" Since a lot of people who have wheat problems CAN eat emmer and einkorn, that would seem to indicate that a lot of the "problem" proteins come from the goat grass side of the family. Or actually (since the BB genes themselves come from a species of goat grass) even go back to einkorn and see what can be done there (has anyone found out what you get if you take einkorn and hexaploid it?) It probably might be worth investigating Timopheevi again as well, since it, of course has another set of ancestor proteins that might be easier on the stomach (Has anyone? Since Timopheevi is a pretty obscure wheat still, I assume that, if any scientific research has been done on it's effects on the digestive system of people with allergies, it is still in the very early stages.) I've often wondered how much of the modern wheat problems are actually not so much the wheat, although certainly some people have serious allergic reactions, but the chemicals used on most wheat combined with the genetics developed over the years for shorter straw etc. That might help explain the explosion of numbers of people with wheat issues, and has also been suggested as a possible reason for the huge numbers of people with peanut allergies.. I've read that every loaf of bread tested in the UK showed up with glyphosate residue, so imagine it's also in the flour. Another possible factor might be the way wheat is handled now; years ago it mildly fermented as it dried in stooks, you'd look a long time to find any done that way now, at least in N.A. It would have been interesting to know what the source/variety of the wheat was for the Harvard study. It would also be interesting to see the results of a study done with older varieties including the emmer etc. vs newer ones. I got some pounds of emmer a few years ago and have done nothing with it, thinking the other day I should at least sprout some to see if it's still viable. Apparently it's a pain to thresh out. Years ago I worked in organic bakery which did a lot of product for people with allergies. Some people with wheat issues could eat kamut, which because of the way it was brought to North America, apparently can't legally be fiddled with and still be called kamut. Anyone done anything with that?
|
|
|
Post by steev on Nov 17, 2016 23:47:01 GMT -5
Given the current attention paid to wheat intolerance, I wonder whether any work has been done quantifying who has it. There are many people not of Middle-Eastern, Mediterranean, or European genetics currently exposed to wheat, both modern and antique, who might not have become adapted to either or both. Is it the people most accustomed to antique having problems with modern wheat, those less accustomed having problems with any wheat, or what?
What I'm saying is that I don't think this is entirely wheat's fault; nor, to make a reach, even modern breeding's fault (I'm not saying let the Devil off the hook, just maybe it's something else). While I recognize the value of computers for gaming, porn, and social media, perhaps we need to invest more computational time in ethno/genetic medicine; with no intent whatsoever to promote any racial hierarchy, nor to suggest that such might make any sense whatsoever, I will point out that we are not universally interchangeable cogs; clearly, this is an enormous problem to get our heads around; we must call in the droids to run the numbers so we can know what IS, rather than what we THINK is, given our limited computational capacities and occasional biases. This would need, to be of much use, to be a global study, certainly not beyond reach, if within interest. Do we care? That's "we" in the more-than-this-forum sense, which is about the only way it will happen. Otherwise, we can just continue dealing with this case-by-case, as we do so many things: treat the symptoms, not the cause.
Personally, I have no known wheat allergies, nor do I know of any in my family; nevertheless, it strikes me as sort of a "community" thing, even a global community thing, perhaps to be grandiose, but we, here on Our Great Mother, Earth, are all we have of Life, so far as we know, in the Universe; shall we not care for one another, that we continue to survive in what, so far as we know, is an uncaring and otherwise lifeless Universe? Are we special? Yes, but not so much; the trilobites were special, but they're gone; the dinosaurs were special, but they're gone; the mastodons were special, but they're gone. Are we special? Yes, but what are we going to do in that light?
On a less strident note, "Kamut" is a proprietary trade name for a variety of wheat, originally promoted in North America, of perhaps questionable provenance; I say nothing about its characteristics, non-allergenic or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by prairiegarden on Nov 18, 2016 2:57:06 GMT -5
Right the guy who brought it back from North Africa said he did that to prevent it from being messed with by geneticists.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on Nov 18, 2016 10:20:44 GMT -5
"Kamut" is a proprietary trade name for a variety of wheat, originally promoted in North America, of perhaps questionable provenance; That's why I don't grow that kind of wheat, nor write it's name. I only grow non-trademarked crops. So if I were to grow this variety, it would be called by it's historical name of Khorasan wheat.
|
|
|
Post by Walk on Nov 18, 2016 16:00:14 GMT -5
Ideally, BOTH avenues would be pursued, multiple solutions to a given problem tend to result in more stability than a single one. In the case of "going back to basics", I sort of assume that boils down to "going back to Farro" Since a lot of people who have wheat problems CAN eat emmer and einkorn, that would seem to indicate that a lot of the "problem" proteins come from the goat grass side of the family. Or actually (since the BB genes themselves come from a species of goat grass) even go back to einkorn and see what can be done there (has anyone found out what you get if you take einkorn and hexaploid it?) It probably might be worth investigating Timopheevi again as well, since it, of course has another set of ancestor proteins that might be easier on the stomach (Has anyone? Since Timopheevi is a pretty obscure wheat still, I assume that, if any scientific research has been done on it's effects on the digestive system of people with allergies, it is still in the very early stages.) I've often wondered how much of the modern wheat problems are actually not so much the wheat, although certainly some people have serious allergic reactions, but the chemicals used on most wheat combined with the genetics developed over the years for shorter straw etc. That might help explain the explosion of numbers of people with wheat issues, and has also been suggested as a possible reason for the huge numbers of people with peanut allergies.. I've read that every loaf of bread tested in the UK showed up with glyphosate residue, so imagine it's also in the flour. Another possible factor might be the way wheat is handled now; years ago it mildly fermented as it dried in stooks, you'd look a long time to find any done that way now, at least in N.A. It would have been interesting to know what the source/variety of the wheat was for the Harvard study. It would also be interesting to see the results of a study done with older varieties including the emmer etc. vs newer ones. I got some pounds of emmer a few years ago and have done nothing with it, thinking the other day I should at least sprout some to see if it's still viable. Apparently it's a pain to thresh out. Years ago I worked in organic bakery which did a lot of product for people with allergies. Some people with wheat issues could eat kamut, which because of the way it was brought to North America, apparently can't legally be fiddled with and still be called kamut. Anyone done anything with that? When I ate wheat family grains, including kamut, barley, rye, spelt, etc. they were organic (for about 25 years). For the past 10 years I've stuck to oats, corn, buckwheat, amaranth, quinoa, sorghum, rice, millet, and wild rice - all organic and no problems. For me the difference was gluten not glyphosate residues and I had problems with heritage varieties as well as modern ones. But for other folks these may well be factors to consider.
|
|
|
Post by steev on Dec 10, 2016 3:45:26 GMT -5
Experience is knowledge; knowledge is power.
|
|
|
Post by prairiegardens on Dec 10, 2016 8:28:25 GMT -5
According to that interview there are people who are celiac and then a whole other group of people who have a reaction to other proteins, it isn't for them a gluten sensitivity. It was actually pretty serious stuff they were tentatively linking it to developing autoimmune diseases such as M.S.
|
|