What is more dangerous: GMO or DGMO?
10 theses about safe nutrition
On March 6, I was invited to the program "Word for Word" of the Mir TV channel for an issue dedicated to food safety.
I was preparing for a serious discussion, remembering everything I know about food, and pondering statements that would be useful to the viewer. There were a lot of speakers in the studio and they gave very little time to say anything. Not even all erroneous statements on the part of some guests (first of all Senator Anton Belyakov) were given the opportunity to respond. Although they don't wave their fists after a fight, I consider it necessary to summarize in a thesis form what I know about safe nutrition and the information space around it. So: ten theses about safe nutrition.
1. Don't be fooledFirst of all, pay attention to the following chemical:
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DGMO). A lot of myths have spread about him now, but here are the honest facts: It is a chemical that is used to cool nuclear reactors, in the chemical industry, in the production of potent narcotic substances, pesticides and some poisons. It can be found in large quantities in the sewer. During the First World War, DGMO was used in the creation of chemical weapons. Today, DHMO can be found practically in any food and beverages, we constantly use this chemical compound!
Scared? Then here are some more facts! DGMO can be found in the exhausts of some types of transport, and spent DGMO falls out in tons into rivers, seas and lakes, but this will not be written about in the newspapers. There are huge corporations interested in selling DGMO!
Have I convinced you of the danger of FGM and that they should be banned? I hope not. After all, we were talking about Dihydrogen Monoxide, and this is just a molecule that includes two hydrogen plus one oxygen. H20. Plain water.
Perhaps you already knew about DHMO or remember chemistry, but a huge number of people are being led to such manipulation. Back in 1997, a 14-year-old schoolboy named Nathan Zoner conducted a study on the topic "how easy is it to deceive us?" He made a report on the horrors of FGM and interviewed fifty people whether to ban FGM. Forty-three people said that FGM should be banned, six were undecided and only one guessed that it was about water. There were examples when politicians who fell for this "duck" tried to ban DGMO. Fortunately, they were stopped in time by reasonable people. Perhaps this will remind you of some modern Russian authors of "prohibitive" initiatives and fighters for the health of the nation.
Here is another example. Which chewing gum would you prefer with carbamide or with urea? I think the first one. If you don't know that urea is urea. Just by calling something beautiful or vice versa a scary word, you can force a person to buy or not to buy a particular product, convince them of danger or safety. This trick is used both for advertising purposes and for black PR: to put a competitor's product in a bad light in order to sell your own product of the same or worse quality more expensive.
2. Balanced and varied dietA real revolution in nutrition science happened a long time ago, when it was established that fats, proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals are necessary for the vital activity of living organisms.
This is the foundation, the basis of the principles of nutrition. Excluding fats, proteins or carbohydrates from the diet, a person will quickly die. Excluding vitamins, he will die, though not so quickly. Now it seems obvious, but not so long ago people were sick and dying due to a lack of quite certain nutrients, and no one understood why.
3. Fruits are healthyThere is not much to discuss here: fruits are really useful [1].
Eat more fruits, but don't forget to wash them.
4. It is harmful to eat a lot of processed meatThis is indicated by recent major studies [2].
Processed meat includes, for example, sausage.
5. Sodium glutamate is harmless in the quantities usedIn addition to the basic tastes of humans: sour, sweet, salty, bitter, there is another taste, the taste of meat or "umami".
The taste of "umami" is the taste of glutamate, and glutamate is delicious because food rich in glutamate was necessary for the survival of our ancestors, for whom it was an important indicator of nutritional value, abundance of protein in food. The myth of the dangers of sodium glutamate began with an anecdotal case described by a man named Robert Ho-Man-Kwok, who noted some of the symptoms he experienced after visiting a Chinese restaurant where glutamate is traditionally used as a seasoning. Despite the fact that there have never been any good reasons to suspect glutamate in any symptoms, thorough studies have been conducted that have refuted the link between the consumption of glutamate and any negative reactions of the body [3]. Interestingly, in the course of research, there were people who claimed that they were sensitive to sodium glutamate, but their sensitivity was manifested even on a placebo, i.e. on a dummy tablet, which was said to contain glutamate, although it did not contain glutamate. This means that there is no negative effect of glutamate, but there may be a negative effect of auto-suggestion in intimidated people. The World Health Organization today classifies glutamate as the safest category of dietary supplements and there is no need to be afraid of this substance. Dangerous doses of glutamate are not easy to eat.
6. If you see dyes and preservatives in the composition of the product, remember applesAny most organic, most natural apple contains antioxidants E300, E330, E334, E363, E375; dyes E101, E140, E160a, R163, E181; preservatives E260; E270; E280; E296; as well as the mentioned glutamate and many other things with the letter E.
This terrible letter E means only some code that is assigned to this substance in some European classifier of food additives. For example, E300 is vitamin C, ascorbic acid. What's wrong with it? A list of approved dietary supplements can be found on the website of the European Nutrition Standards Agency. There is no need to be afraid of the product just because it contains many letters "E".
7. Genetically enhanced organisms are no more dangerous than traditional onesIn the last 10 years alone, at least 1,783 articles have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals on the safety of genetically improved organisms, of which 770 are devoted to their safety as food [4].
Published [4] conclusions regarding the safety of genetically improved plants approved for sale:
- There is no scientific evidence of toxicity or allergic reactions to such products that have entered the market
- Only in three studies there were some suspicions about the negative effects of three specific varieties of such plants on health, but the experimental results were not significant. One of these works [4], the work of French scientists was withdrawn from the journal where it was published because it turned out that it contained gross methodological errors [5, 6].
- Only in two cases was the potential allergenicity of varieties of genetically improved plants established. One case has not been confirmed. Another case concerned a gene from a Brazil nut in genetically enhanced soy. This variety has never entered the market.
There are at least 12 works where the effect of genetically improved plants has been tested on many generations of animals (2-5 generations) without any negative effects on the health of the offspring [7]. In a number of countries, genetically improved plants have been used for livestock feed on the scale of commercial animal husbandry for more than ten years, in particular, there are chickens that eat such feed for dozens of generations without any detectable negative effects.
To date, there is no technology in the world that is more studied from the point of view of safety than genetic engineering. The degree of validity of the safety of genetic engineering far exceeds the validity of the safety of classical breeding, in which spontaneous mutations of genomic DNA arise and consolidate, and organic farming. By the way, there are examples of mass poisoning by plants obtained using these methods. For example, in 2011 in Germany, four thousand people were injured and 50 people died due to an infection, pathogenic E. coli, which spread through products from a natural organic farm. If you want to appeal to the "precautionary principle" that only proven products can be consumed, then this principle primarily includes not genetically improved organisms that have been studied very well, but untested breeding varieties, including varieties used in organic agriculture.
8. Natural does not mean safeToday, a lot of attention is paid in the media to discussing the dangers of food additives, as well as genetically improved organisms.
But at least someone died from monosodium glutamate or from foods created by genetic engineering methods? No. At the same time, paradoxically little attention is paid to really life-threatening phenomena, for example, food poisoning. In the United States of America, a developed country, more than 40 million poisonings occur annually, more than a hundred thousand people are hospitalized, more than three thousand die. I don't have reliable data on Russia, but some estimates point to an even more dramatic situation. Food infections are caused by viruses and bacteria. Clostridia producing alpha-toxin and botulinum toxin, pathogenic strains of E. coli, salmonella, listeria, shigella, Staphylococcus aureus, hepatitis A virus, noroviruses, enteroviruses, rotaviruses are all examples of human pathogens that can be picked up from food. Also, pathogenic amoebas can be picked up from food, as well as multicellular parasites, including some flatworms and roundworms.
All these are completely natural pathogenic organisms, invented by nature, not by man. Get out of your head the idea that natural is useful. Natural salmonella comes out of natural rotten products and causes natural nausea, diarrhea, fever and, albeit in rare cases, death. Nature wants to kill us, and we defend ourselves as best we can. And we know how to create. Intelligence is the main adaptation of a person to a changing environment. Intelligence that allows us to produce artificial means of protection against harmful microorganisms and to breed safer varieties of plants. Intelligence, manifested in the form of achievements of scientific and technological progress, which we characterize by the term "artificial", to which some for some reason undeservedly give a negative connotation, despite the huge number of lives that this "artificial" has saved, saves and will save in the future.
"Natural" organic farming uses fertilizers in the form of manure, which, by definition, is rich in various natural microorganisms. It may also contain pathogenic strains, including salmonella and pseudomones. Plants grown by organic farming methods may differ in the diversity of microorganisms from those grown by modern methods [6] and "how this will affect the health of the consumer is not fully understood," moreover, "there is not zero risk that it will affect badly." No one controls and studies which genetic mutations occur in the breeding varieties used from generation to generation. This does not mean that you need to be afraid of organic products or prohibit them. Such a position would be radical and absurd. This means that "naturalness" has nothing to do with the safety of products and their quality. This is nothing more than a publicity stunt that has brought tens of billions of dollars in profits to the "natural" products industry, an industry largely fueled by consumer fears and misconceptions.
9. Follow the rules of sanitationIn order to reduce the likelihood of the above-mentioned food infections, it is enough to follow the rules of sanitation.
Wash your hands before eating and before cooking. Do not keep raw food near cooked food. Wash fruits and vegetables properly before eating them. Keep the kitchen clean. Do not neglect the heat treatment of food. Do not eat rotten foods, or canned food from swollen cans. Check the expiration date on the food packaging. More information about food sanitation measures can be found on the website of Rospotrebnadzor.
10. Media: Don't intimidate peopleWhile it has become fashionable today to discuss the mythical threats of certain foods, do not forget that the very discussion of such dangers causes absolutely proven harm to the mental health of viewers or readers of the press.
In 2013, a paper was published in which the following experiment was carried out [8]. People were divided into two groups. The first group was shown a film about the dangers of wireless radiation (Wi-Fi). The second group was shown a film about the safety of wireless radiation. Then both were told that they would be exposed to Wi-Fi, although in fact there was no radiation. As a result, people from the first group who were frightened by horror stories about the dangers of radiation were much more likely to experience negative symptoms. Some even refused to continue participating in the experiment due to poor health. When telling people about the dangers of certain foods, additives or technologies, journalists should understand that they are responsible for the psychological health of citizens. It is ethical to talk only about those dangers that are actually proven and whose harm exceeds the harm from the nocebo effect that will be caused by the harm message itself. That's where the "precautionary principle" should be used. Otherwise, you can report the harm of anything, even water, as it was described at the beginning of the article.
List of literature:Slavin JL, Lloyd B: Health benefits of fruits and vegetables.
- Advances in nutrition 2012, 3(4):506-516.
- Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D: Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 2010, 121(21):2271-2283.
- Williams AN, Woessner KM: Monosodium glutamate 'allergy': menace or myth? Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2009, 39(5):640-646.
- Nicolia A, Manzo A, Veronesi F, Rosellini D: An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical reviews in biotechnology 2014, 34(1):77-88.
- Panchin AY: Toxicity of Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize is not supported by statistical tests. Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association 2013, 53:475.
- Retraction notice to «Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize» [Food Chem. Toxicol. 50 (2012) 4221-4231]. Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association 2014, 63:244.
- Snell C, Bernheim A, Berge JB, Kuntz M, Pascal G, Paris A, Ricroch AE: Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: a literature review. Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association 2012, 50(3-4):1134-1148.
- Witthoft M, Rubin GJ: Are media warnings about the adverse health effects of modern life self-fulfilling? An experimental study on idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF). Journal of psychosomatic research 2013, 74(3):206-212.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru11.03.2014