There are several questions in my mind that nag me night and day on this thing called “wheat,” bothersome issues that, if any are true, suggest some very sinister goings-on. This is an “adults only” conversation, as it’s just too upsetting to many people to hear such speculations. So read on at your own peril.
We know that this thing being sold to us called “wheat” really isn’t . . . or, at least it is a far genetic stretch different from its natural predecessor. It stands 2 feet tall, short and stocky, a distant reminder of what wheat once was. The marked changes in outward appearance have been accompanied by similar changes at the biochemical level of the various components of the plant, changes that have, for the most part, not been studied for their effects in humans.
We know, for instance, that the gliadin protein of wheat, a component of gluten, was changed during the genetic shenanigans of the 1960s and 1970s, resulting in the creation of a powerful appetite stimulant whose introduction into the food supply was followed by an increase in calorie intake of 440 calories per day. Such issues make me ask myself several questions, questions that I don’t yet have full answers to. So, here they are.
What if . . . The changes introduced into the gliadin protein of wheat in the 1970s were intentional? What if geneticists were charged with not only the goal of increasing yield-per-acre, but also charged with finding a way to increase appetite? After all, a piece of cake or pie in 1940 made with something closer to traditional wheat was surely tasty and invited a desire for more, though not as marked an effect as modern wheat. Could they have known that a few amino acids shifted in the right direction in the gliadin protein would increase appetite by 440 calories per day?
What if . . . Smart food scientists of the 1980s noticed that this new gliadin had the ability to increase appetite and, rather than sound the alarm to the public, kept quiet and said, “Shhhhhh. Let’s keep quiet about this. Let’s just put it in everything!” thereby increasing sales and revenues. While I have no proof that they knew this, it’s the only explanation I can think of to explain why wheat is in virtually all processed foods: to increase appetite.
What if . . . The lessons learned with wheat will be (have been?) applied to other foods, foods engineered to have appetite-stimulating properties and thereby further increasing consumption? After all, Big Agribusiness has already shown us that they would like to keep us in the dark about the changes introduced into our foods, as evidenced by their vigorous opposition to the Truth in Labeling Act with their stand, in effect, stating that it is none of our business if they genetically-modify foods.
What if . . . Big Food gets its way and you no longer eat green peppers, kale, and eggs from local producers, but only consume foods that are created from low-cost commodity ingredients, all sourced from high-yield genetic strains, all conveniently subsidized by the U.S. government, that permit substantial markup. A little cornstarch, a little wheat flour, some high-fructose corn syrup, some sucrose, add a little food coloring, and–ouila–you’ve got 99% of all processed foods, complete with several hundred percent markup at the checkout register. (Then, of course, you co-opt the nutritionally blind, like the American Heart Association, and purchase a “heart healthy” endorsement or other similar meaningless purported health benefit.)
What if . . . Diabetes drug manufacturers knew this all along, from day one, that introducing foods that increase blood sugar extravagantly would predictably enlarge the franchise for diabetes drugs? What if they knew that consuming a diet low in fat and rich in “healthy whole grains” would escalate the incidence of diabetes, creating the worst epidemic of diabetes the world has ever seen, thereby increasing the need for multiple diabetes drugs costing as much as $1500 per month per person? (If we viewed diabetes as a “market,” this plan has succeeded on an unprecedented scale.)Why, for instance, does the Wheat Lobby have such close financial ties to the diabetes drug industry?
Well, if any of this were true, it all leads to one place: money. Would it be such a big shock to know that some smart, ruthless people with foresight and savvy, along with a touch of indifference to the welfare of their fellow man, would use any of the above strategies for enormous personal financial gain?
I don’t think so. Now, to gather the proof of any one of these notions . . .