Let nature take its . . . nahh!

Dr. Peter Shewry of the University of Bristol in the U.K. is one of the world’s most eminent agricultural scientists, an expert in wheat.

I came across this particularly telling comment from a review on genetic modification he coauthored with colleague, Nigel Halford:

Conventional breeding is limited by fertility barriers that allow only plants of the same, or closely related, species to be crossed. However, ‘wide crossing’ with more distantly related species can be achieved if ‘embryo rescue’ is used to culture and regenerate embryos that would normally abort. Similarly, mutagenesis with chemical or physical mutagens can be used to induce new variation in the species of interest. Both wide crossing and mutation breeding can result in the expression in crop plants of many novel or modified genes, the effects of which cannot be assessed readily. However, both approaches are considered to be ‘conventional’, with no requirement for detailed assessment of the plants produced before they are introduced into the food chain.
[Emphasis mine]

In other words, it’s not just simply crossing plant A with plant B. It’s about rescuing mutated embryos that otherwise would not survive. It’s about inducing mutations in the genetic code that are impossible to control: Maybe it yields the trait you desire, such as short stature or photoperiod insensitivity, but it may yield multiple other effects, too, including unique proteins never before seen in nature.

And, as Drs. Halford and Shewry point out, these foods can be introduced into the food supply at your local supermarket “with no requirement for detailed assessment of the plants.” Nope: They’re just sold to you.

Repeat these sorts of efforts hundreds or thousands of times to generate the super-duper high-yield semi-dwarf strain of wheat and you’ve got oodles of opportunity to generate unanticipated effects on consuming humans.

This entry was posted in Hybridization techniques. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Let nature take its . . . nahh!

  1. Paulina J! says:

    This is very telling! And for those who think this is no big deal, imagine if this was done to animals or people… Just saying.

  2. Guy T. says:

    >> regenerate embryos that would normally abort

    So modern wheat is actually… UNDEAD wheat? Good Lord! Time to nail boards over the windows… or at least the breadbox…

  3. aerobic1 says:

    Messing around with GM modification of foods often has unintended and serious consequences. The following article is chilling and will leave one wonder how any company has the free reign to do what Monsanto has done in India.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html

    “The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops”

    An estimated 125,000 farmers to take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.

    • Dr. Davis says:

      Incredible. And chilling, Aerobic.

      The reach of the unintended consequences of genetic modification continue to astound. This is truly a bad trend.

  4. Birgit says:

    Dr. Davis,
    Wow, that is pretty creepy! It reminds me of a question that I wanted to ask. Do you know of any other plants apart from GMO that have been modified in a way similar to wheat? I wonder how one could find out? The most obvious candidates are probably the most lucrative crops like rice, canola, cotton. Then there may be the possibility to do this in animals and people in any industry that has a lot of money, like race horses, parts of the cattle industry. What comes to mind is the double-muscling gene in cattle of the Belgian Blue and Piedmontese that”s caused by myostatin-deficiency. It has come up in racing whippets as well, I own one, and is a simple recessive that is selected against in dogs but selected for in these cattle. I suspect that eating their meat may have unknown harmful effects on the human body.
    Birgit

  5. Julie Rice says:

    So what about organic breads, made with organically grown non-GMO wheat? I haven”t read wheat belly, but is it safe to assume their main problem with bread today is that we”re eating franken-wheat? I buy only organic breads from my local baker who grows his own wheat and mills his own flour. I”m assuming this is safer for myself and my child?

    • Dr. Davis says:

      Gotta read the book, Julie.

      No. Organic wheat/bread is NO different than non-organic wheat in its wide-ranging effects, because it”s not primarily about the herbicides and pesticides. It”s about the wheat.

  6. Brian V says:

    Dr. Davis,
    Could you please elaborate on Organic Wheat? For example, I’ve bought 365 Organic Wheat bread from Whole Foods and it says the wheat has not been genetically altered…so I think I can trust it…however your comment would state otherwise. Please help.

    I’ve recently lost a lot of weight being off of wheat…. surprise surprise…and really would love to know if I must go wheat free or if I can have certain types of wheat somewhere.

    I’ll go read your book this weekend and try to prevent future damage to myself.
    Thank you.

    • Dr. Davis says:

      Toss it, Brian!

      This is deceptive: Just because no herbicides or pesticides were used to grow the wheat, the strain is still every bit as destructive with its gliadin protein, wheat germ agglutinin, amylopectin A, etc . . . just no herbicide or pesticide residues!

  7. yola viva says:

    to my knowledge “organic” means not only an absence of pesticides but an absence of gmo ingredients. could you please answer directly the question that i think a couple of previous commenters seem to have had in mind: if wheat is gmo-free will consuming it be free from the issues you discuss? thanks.

  8. Brenda says:

    Hi,
    What about whole, brown short grain, non gmo rice. I was macrobiotic for around six months lost weight, skin texture even changed, it’s just so restrictive though I couldn’t stay on it.
    Also I have along with the rest of my family two of the mthfr mutations. Allegedly 60-90 precent of the population carries at least one. From everything I’ve studied I have concluded that may be the key to the people who have the most issues with wheat, milk, and chemical sensitivity, one of the mutations causes the body not to detox well, can’t remember exactly which one but I have both and definitely do not detox well.