Why No Warnings from the FDA About gluten and sugar?

FDA’s Assessment of Gluten and Sugar.

It would be nice if this was a problem with just the grain industry but it’s not. It also involves the FDA and what has influenced them to not issue warnings for this allergen. The more I look at it, the more I see that it is a problem with overextending corporate entities. Knowing the dealings that Monsanto has had in the past with competitors and their own judicial systems, it’s not hard to fathom at all the involvement they would have, in the cover up of these studies. It’s actually easy to see their involvement the same as the sugar industry. They didn’t just cover up the studies condemning gluten , they initiated reports themselves that showed gluten was healthy. That is a complete falsehood from the truth of what gluten does.

grunge-cracked-fda-approved-background-some-smooth-lines-69009424

Gluten does the same thing as sugar. Why won’t the FDA recognize that? They have all the studies that point to it. Don’t they read them?

The following is an excerpt from an FDA study on Gluten as an allergen (1 of 173 studies).

What is the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA) of 2004? 

FALCPA is an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and requires that the label of a food that contains an ingredient that is or contains protein from a “major food allergen ” declare the presence of the allergen in the manner described by the law.

Gluten

  1. Why is there a concern about gluten? 

Gluten describes a group of proteins found in certain grains (wheat, barley, and rye.) It is of concern because people with celiac disease cannot tolerate it. Celiac disease (also known as celiac sprue) is a chronic digestive disease that damages the small intestine and interferes with absorption of nutrients from food. Recent findings estimate that 2 million people in the U.S. have celiac disease or about 1 in 133 people.

  1. What does FALCPA require with regard to gluten?

FALCPA requires FDA to issue a proposed rule that will define and permit the voluntary use of the term “gluten free” on the labeling of foods by August 2006 and a final rule no later than August 2008.

  1. What has FDA done in response to the FALCPA mandate?

FDA held a public meeting in August 2005 to obtain expert comment and consultation from stakeholders to help FDA develop a regulation to define and permit the voluntary use on food labeling of the term “gluten-free” (Public Meeting On: Gluten-Free Food Labeling). The meeting focused on food manufacturing, analytical methods, and consumer issues related to reduced levels of gluten in food.

FDA’s gluten-free definition, is that the food contain less than 20 ppm of gluten. It seems their concern is more with labelling than it is with safety. If it were with safety, they’d be warning us about the dangers that I’ve listed, yet they don’t, as if they were influenced by an outside source.

They consider wheat and gluten as undeclared allergens yet they refuse to acknowledge its allergenic properties to the extent that they won’t require a warning label for it. Yet they know what damage it does. All they require is a mention of wheat in the ingredients and nothing more. That is their warning. Consider this your warning; Grains are poison, and that includes wheat.

Their negligence in regards to our health in this manner is unconscionable. I can only assume that they’ve been influenced by the other side of the industry that provides crop seed for the farmers that grow the food that the FDA approves for us to eat. The other side of this industry, owned by the same corporations, is the pharmaceutical industry. They provide us with all of the drugs that we take to fight the disease caused by the food provided their sister pharmaceutical industry.

What I wonder is, what does the FDA consider stakeholders? Are they the corporate entities who have an interest in proliferating wheat and gluten? Since we now know that this happened with sugar, why wouldn’t the same thing happen with gluten? We know that gluten breaks down to nothing more than glucose (sugar), I can see where the same situation would exist today, that existed 50 -60 years ago. In fact, I believe it’s an ongoing problem.

Just like in the tobacco industry, “selling a product that is already sold for them as it’s addictive”, the same mantra is heard in the grain industry concerning their gluten.  “How can people refuse to buy our products? They’re addictive so people will want them more.

I salute the FDA for monitoring products claiming to be gluten free yet have more than a trace of gluten in them, such as the Investigation into General Mills for selling Cheerios that had more than the allowed limit of 20 ppm of gluten. Yet knowing what damage gluten does to the body, I have to wonder why do they still allow it to be marketed without any warnings? The tobacco companies can’t market their products without warnings. Why it the food industry allow to? The evidence lies within the vaults of the FDA, showing all the damage it does. Why do they ignore that evidence?

What evidence, you say? This evidence lies in the excerpts below, from three of their 173 studies on gluten;

  1. “Gluten is the protein that naturally occurs in wheat, rye, barley, and crossbreeds of these grains.Most people can eat gluten, but in people with celiac disease, gluten intake gradually damages the intestines, prevents the absorption of vitamins and minerals, and can lead to other health problems. Symptoms can include diarrhea, fatigue, headaches, abdominal pain, brain fog, rashes, nausea, vomiting, and other reactions.”
  2. “People who have an allergy to wheat run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they eat wheat. Symptoms may include swelling, itching or irritation of mouth or throat, difficulty breathing, nasal congestion, itchy or watery eyes, rash or hives, headaches, nausea, vomiting, cramps, diarrhea, or anaphylaxis, a potentially life-threatening reaction.”What I can’t understand, with this kind of disruption of bodily functions, why doesn’t this require a warning like cigarettes? It’s clearly killed more people.
  3. ”Unlike food allergies, clinical signs and symptoms do not appear to be reliable markers of disease activity because many individuals affected with celiac disease may be entirely asymptomatic. This tells me that a lot more people suffer from the disease than what have been diagnosed. Furthermore, although biomarkers of genetic susceptibility (e.g., presence of DQ2 and/or DQ8 HLA alleles) and gluten exposure [e.g., antibodies for gliadin (AGA), endomysial (EMA), and tissue transglutaminase (tTG)] have been defined for use in noninvasive diagnosis of individuals with celiac disease, these biomarkers have not been shown to correlate with disease severity nor to be useful in assessing daily responses to gluten exposures. Rather, evidence of intestinal mucosal inflammation is the gold standard biomarker for diagnosis of celiac disease and for assessment of disease severity. Intestinal mucosal inflammation may occur long before the development of clinical signs or a rise in antibody titers following a gluten challenge. Intestinal inflammation is assessed by intestinal biopsy, which is an invasive procedure, associated with false negatives (due to sampling error), and is impractical for frequent monitoring of disease activity or severity.”     Revised Threshold Report Page 58 of 108
  4. “Unpublished data described in Moneret-Vautrin and Kanny (2004) show that 83% of wheat allergic children reacted to less than 2 g of wheat flour while only 18% of wheat allergic adults responded at this level. Unpublished data described in Moneret Vautrin (2004) on wheat flourchallenges using 32 children and 32 adults with wheat allergy, reported a LOAEL of ≤ 1.8 mg protein for allergic children (the lowest tested dose) and 52.8 mg protein for allergic adults. Scibilia et al. (2006) reported that 2 of 13 responders reacted to the lowest dose of wheat flour tested (100 mg of a mix of bread and durum flour, approximately 15 mg protein) in DBPCFCs. In total, 31% of the patients who reacted did so to challenge doses less than or equal to 240 mg of wheat protein.” Approaches to Establish Thresholds for Major Food Allergens My question how many people eat this amount? Most people eat around 150mg of wheat products in a day, not enough to express symptoms of celiac disease, but enough to do unnoticed damage.
  5. “The foods of concern for individuals with, or susceptible to, celiac disease are the cereal grains that contain the storage proteins prolamin and glutelin (commonly referred to as glutens in wheat), including all varieties of wheat (e.g., durum, spelt, kamut), barley (where the storage proteins are called hordiens), rye (where the storage proteins are called secalins), and their cross-bred hybrids (such as triticale). The proportion of individuals with celiac disease that are also sensitive to the storage proteins in oats (avenins) has not been determined but is likely to be less than 1% (Kelly, 2005).”
  6. “The clinical manifestations of celiac disease are highly variable in character and severity. The reasons for this diversity are unknown but may depend on the age and immunological status of the individual, the amount, duration, or timing of exposure to gluten, and the specific area and extent of the gastrointestinal tract involved by disease (Dewar et al., 2004). These clinical manifestations can be divided into gastrointestinal, or “classic,” and non-gastrointestinal manifestations. Gastrointestinal manifestations usually present in children 4 to 24 months old and include abdominal pain and cramping, bloating, recurrent or chronic diarrhea in association with weight loss, poor growth, nutrient deficiency, and (in rare cases) a life-threatening metabolic emergency termed celiac crisis, characterized by hypokalemia and acidosis secondary to profuse diarrhea (Farrell and Kelly, 2002; Baranwal et al., 2003). Non-gastrointestinal manifestations are more insidious and highly variable and are the common presenting signs in older children and adults. These manifestations are frequently the result of long-term nutrient malabsorption, including iron deficiency anemia, short stature, delayed puberty, infertility, and osteoporosis or osteopenia (Fasano, 2003). In children, progressive malabsorption of nutrients may lead to growth, developmental, or neurological delays (Catassi and Fasano, 2004). Extra-intestinal manifestations such as dermatitis herpetiformis, hepatitis, peripheral neuropathy, ataxia, and epilepsy have also been associated with celiac disease (Fasano and Catassi, 2001). Individuals with untreated celiac disease are also at increased risk for potentially serious medical conditions, such as other autoimmune diseases (e.g., Type I diabetes mellitus) and intestinal cancers associated with high mortality (Farrell and Kelly, 2002; Peters et al., 2003; Catassi et al., 2002). For example, individuals with celiac disease have an 80-fold greater risk of developing adenocarcinoma of the small intestine, a greater than two-fold increased risk for intestinal or extra intestinal lymphomas (Green and Jabri, 2003) and a 20-fold greater risk of developing enteropathy-associated T cell lymphoma (EATL) (Catassi et al.,”
  7. “There is no standard protocol for gluten challenges, and challenge studies have varied greatly in amount and duration of gluten exposure. Although some studies have been designed to determine the acute effects (i.e., after 4 hours) of exposure to gluten (Sturgesset al., 1994; Ciclitiraet al., 1984), most challenges consist of an open challenge to a fixed or incremental dose of daily gluten over a minimum period of 4 weeks. Many challenge studies use a high exposure (≥ 10 g/day) to gluten, because this is believed to shorten time to disease confirmation or relapse and, therefore, to minimize discomfort to subjects (Rolles and McNeish, 1976). However, some studies have shown that low daily exposures to gluten also can elicit a disease response (Catassi et al., 1993; Laurin et al., 2002; Hamilton and McNeill, 1972).”      
  8. “At this time there is no correlative information on the efficacy of using these tests to predict or help prevent adverse effects in individuals with celiac disease.”
  9. “Although gluten-free diets are considered the only effective treatment for individuals with celiac disease, it has been recognized that it is difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a diet that is completely devoid of gluten (Collinet al., 2004). Therefore, several attempts have been made to define gluten-free in regulatory contexts. Efforts by the Codex Alimentarius to define an international standard for “gluten-free” labeling date back to 1981. At that time, due to the lack of sensitive, specific analytical methods, a threshold value of 0.05 g nitrogen per 100 g dry matter was set for wheat starch, on the assumption that wheat protein would be the only source of nitrogen in starch (Codex Standard 118-1981). The Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses is developing a revised standard. The current draft proposal would define three categories of gluten-free foods: processed foods that are naturally “gluten-free” (≤ 20 ppm of gluten), products that had been rendered “gluten-free” by processing (≤ 200 ppm), and any mixture of the two (≤ 200 ppm). The Australia New Zealand Food Agency (ANZFA) defines gluten to mean “the main protein in wheat, rye, oats, barley, triticale and spelt relevant to the medical conditions, Coeliac disease and dermatitis hepetiformis.” ANZFA recognizes two classes of foods, gluten-free foods (” …no detectable gluten”) and low-gluten foods (” …no more than 20 mg gluten per 100 gm of the food”) (ANZFA Food Code Standard 1.2.8). The Canadian standard for “gluten-free” is more general, simply stating that “No person shall label, package, sell or advertise a food in a manner likely to create an impression that it is a “gluten-free” food unless the food does not contain wheat, including spelt and kamut, or oats, barley, rye, triticale or any part thereof” (Canadian Food and Drugs Act Regulation B.24.018).”     Approaches to Establish Thresholds for Major Food Allergens and for Gluten in Food. III, IV, V.Now that you know what grains this involves you can get an idea of what not to eat.
  10. ”Like food allergies, celiac disease affects only a small proportion of the U.S. population (estimated at 1%, 3.1 million) (NIH, 2004). Susceptibility to celiac disease is genetically determined and is linked to the presence of the DQ2 or DQ8 HLA alleles. However, carrying these alleles does not necessarily lead to celiac disease. Both acute and chronic morbidity have been well documented for individuals with symptomatic celiac disease. A gluten-free diet has been shown to greatly reduce the risk for cancer and overall mortality for these individuals. The potential benefit of a gluten-free diet has not been established for individuals with silent or latent celiac disease.”

I submit that this is a disease of a much grander scale, meaning a lot more people suffer from it than what’s reported, as far too often this disease goes completely unrecognized and thus undiagnosed. I hear complaints from many carboholics about many of the disorders at the top of this list. That tells me that they each have an allergic intolerance to gluten and they don’t even know it.  Because of its addictive nature, they’ll never know it, unless they can give it up.

The above paragraphs apply to those with celiac disease, yet I contend that everyone experience some of the above reactions to some degree. This happens even more so if you consume more of their products. I thought I could eat this food for 58 years until I learned that I had allergies to it. Now I know that I have allergic intolerances to this food. It presents itself every time I try to eat it again.

My guess is 90% of the population is exactly the same as I am, allergic to the protein in gluten. I contend that the obesity and diabetes rates that exist today confirm this. The death rates of all the diseases caused by gluten prove it. That forces me to ask, with all the evidence available in your archives, why doesn’t this food require a warning?

This is what the FDA claims they’re concerned about;

“In 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 117 (part 117), we have established our regulation entitled “Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk Based Preventive Controls for Human Food.” We published the final rule establishing part 117 in the Federal Register of September 17, 2015 (80 FR 55908). Part 117 establishes requirements for current good manufacturing practice for human food (CGMPs), for hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls for human food (PCHF), and related requirements.”

After reviewing over half of the documents available and an examination of all the titles of the documents, I see nothing that bans the inclusion of any of these dangerous foods in our food products made for public consumption (processed foods, including bread). It seems their interest lies only in compliance with the labeling of the product. They want to make sure that a package that’s sold as gluten free has to have less than 20ppm gluten in the product.

They don’t even feel that it’s important enough to warn you that a product contains gluten, yet they don’t feel it important enough to warn you of the dangers of gluten on the package, like they do with the dangers of cigarettes. They recognize the danger of tobacco, why can’t they recognize the dangers of gluten and wheat? It seems that they’re content with warning you how  much a product is gluten free, but not how much gluten it has in it, as if it does no harm at all. “C’MON MAN.” I have access to the same studies they have. They’re all located at PUBMED.COM and they all explain the dangers this food presents. If I can learn about what this food does, they have to know. Why are they so willing to ignore it? Why are they so willing to treat this food as though there’s nothing wrong with it.

The first page of studies I opened brought me to this study, the twelfth study out of 1797 studies on the list and reveals the dangers of just breathing the dust from these cereal grains. The grain induced asthma which affects those who work in the various fields in the grain industry, as stated by the Allergy, Asthma & immunology Research:

“Asthma caused by allergy to proteins from cereal grains is one of the most common types of occupational asthma (OA) and its prevalence does not seem to be declining.1 The main professions affected are: bakers, confectioners, pastry factory workers, millers, farmers, and cereal handlers. Although wheat is the most commonly involved cereal, other grains (e.g. rye, barley, rice) also play a role. In addition, flour from other sources (e.g. soya, lupin), pests, and several flour additives used in the baking industry to improve fermentation and elasticity of the dough, as well as to improve storage of the bread, may also give rise to IgE-mediated allergy.”  “This disorder has been classically considered a form of allergic asthma mediated by IgE antibodies specific to cereal flour antigens, mainly wheat, rye and barley,”

In the tenth study the on list published, in July 2009, it’s been found that the globulins in wheat can cause type 1 diabetes. T1D is an autoimmune disorder that was thought to have no cause. At least, all the studies I’ve looked at didn’t reveal this. According to BioMed Central;

“Taken together, the results indicate that a diverse group of globulins exists in wheat, some of which could be associated with the  pathogenesis of T1D in some susceptible individuals.Taken together, the results indicate that a diverse group of globulins exists in wheat, some of which could be associated with the pathogenesis of T1D in some susceptible individuals. These data expand our knowledge of specific wheat globulins and will enable further elucidation of their role in wheat biology and human health.

I have read elsewhere that it might be thought that an allergen might trigger an autoimmune response that shuts down the hormones that trigger insulin manufacture in the pancreas. It appears that this is that finding. Wheat can be responsible for type 1 diabetes. Have you seen any warnings for that? I haven’t. Have any been issued? I haven’t seen them. Why haven’t they been issued? How many parents have fed their kids bread to find out that their children are diabetic because of this auto-immune disorder? Why is bread still considered by so many to be a necessity of life?  It doesn’t appear so. It appears more likely to be a destroyer of life.

This is what I’m concerned about;

47,397 deaths daily from CVDs

47,397 people died each day, worldwide, from cardiovascular disease in 2013.  That breaks down to over 1800 Americans that died every day from cardiovascular disease in 2013. That’s 17.3 million annually, worldwide. That was up from 12.3 million (25.8%) in 1990According to Wikipedia“Coronary artery disease and stroke account for 80% of CVD deaths in males and 75% of CVD deaths in females.[1] Most cardiovascular disease affects older adults. In the United States 11% of people between 20 and 40 have CVD, while 37% between 40 and 60, 71% of people between 60 and 80, and 85% of people over 80 have CVD.[10] The average age of death from coronary artery disease in the developed world is around 80 while it is around 68 in the developing world.” This rate is increasing each year by

This points to the fact the this food which is eaten on a daily basis does so little damage incrementally to the consumer that it’s never noticed until it’s too late. The disease has already manifested itself and the price is now being paid for a lifetime of consumption. The question I keep asking myself is why does this have to keep happening? Why hasn’t the FDA warned us about the dangers of this food? They have access to all of the same reports that I do, yet they still refuse to acknowledge that this food is dangerous.

Does their interest lie elsewhere? Is there corporate influence involved with this like there was with sugar?

The sugar industry actively took steps for years to influence public’s perception of the nutritional value of their product, when they clearly knew of the dangers it posed. “Food companies have spent billions of dollars to cover up the link between sugar consumption and health problems. That’s the conclusion of a new report from the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).”

According to The Guardian;

Sugar lobby paid scientists to blur sugar’s role in heart disease – report

“New report highlights battle by the industry to counter sugar’s negative health effects, and the cushy relationship between food companies and researchers”. ” Influential research that downplayed the role of sugar in heart disease in the 1960s was paid for by the sugar industry, according to a report released on Monday.

This actions are responsible for more deaths that all the world wars combined. Their actions have killed, hurt or harmed more than 500,000,000 people in the last 30 years alone. (At 17.3 million for heart disease alone, 500 million is a lowball estimate for death coming from cancer and  dementia as well.) All total, the death rate for ECC is over 24,000,000 each year. That’s over 65,753 deaths each day, simply from excessive carbohydrate consumption. (Remember carbs = sugar.)

With backing from a sugar lobby, scientists promoted dietary fat as the cause of coronary heart disease instead of sugar, according to a historical document review published in JAMA Internal MedicineThis was criminal, yet nothing was done about it.

Though the review is nearly 50 years old, it also showcases a decades-long battle by the sugar industry to counter the product’s negative health effects. Why isn’t this agency being held accountable?

The findings come from documents recently found by a researcher at the University of San Francisco, which show that scientists at the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), known today as the Sugar Association, paid scientists to do a 1967 literature review that overlooked the role of sugar in heart disease. Wasn’t that a clear case of bribery that should have been prosecuted?

SRF set an objective for the review, funded it and reviewed drafts before it was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which did not require conflict of interest disclosure until 1984. The three Harvard scientists who wrote the review made what would be $50,000 in today’s dollars from the review. Because of this bribery, over 500,000,000 have suffered from this diseases that sugar is responsible for. From diabetes to heart disease to arthritis to cancer to…you should know the list by now.

“Marion Nestle, a nutrition, food studies and public health professor at New York University, said the food industry continues to influence nutrition science, in an editorial published alongside the JAMA report When will it stop? Never, until we let this industry know that we won’t accept their definition of healthy food and stop buying their versions of it.

 “Today, it is almost impossible to keep up with the range of food companies sponsoring research – from makers of the most highly processed foods, drinks, and supplements to producers of dairy foods, meats, fruits, and nuts – typically yielding results favorable to the sponsor’s interests,” Nestle said. “Food company sponsorship, whether or not intentionally manipulative, undermines public trust in nutrition science, contributes to public confusion about what to eat, and compromises Dietary Guidelines in ways that are not in the best interest of public health.”

The cushy relationship between food companies and researcher has been captured in recent investigations by the Associated Press and New York Times.The AP revealed in June that candy trade groups were funding research into sweets. And in 2015, the New York Times showed how Coca-Cola has funded millions in research to downplay the link between sugary beverages and obesity.

The Sugar Association said in a statement that SRF “should have exercised greater transparency” in its research, but also accused the study authors of having an “anti-sugar narrative”.

“We question this author’s continued attempts to reframe historical occurrences to conveniently align with the currently trending anti-sugar narrative, particularly when the last several decades of research have concluded that sugar does not have a unique role in heart disease,” the Sugar Association said. “Most concerning is the growing use of headline-baiting articles to trump quality scientific research – we’re disappointed to see a journal of JAMA’s stature being drawn into this trend.”

The findings were based on documents found by Cristin Kearns, a postdoctoral fellow at UCSF, in library archives.

The scientists and executives involved are no longer alive.

In recent years, the link between fat and heart disease has become a more contentious topic – a 2010 review of scientific studies of fat in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that “there is no convincing evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease”. The role of sugar in heart disease is still being debated.”

Even according to Mother Jones“The industry’s tactics—similar to those used by Big Tobacco in downplaying the adverse health effects of smoking—were explored by Gary Taubes and Cristin Kearns Couzens in the 2012 Mother Jones investigation “Big Sugar’s Sweet Little Lies.” But this latest report draws on some newly released documents submitted as evidence in a recent federal court case involving the two biggest players in the sweetener industry: the Sugar Association and the Corn Refiners Association (the trade group for manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup). ”

The evidence is piling up.

The FDA can’t hide their complicity much longer.

Even according to Mother Jones“The industry’s tactics—similar to those used by Big Tobacco in downplaying the adverse health effects of smoking—were explored by Gary Taubes and Cristin Kearns Couzens in the 2012 Mother Jones investigation “Big Sugar’s Sweet Little Lies.” But this latest report draws on some newly released documents submitted as evidence in a recent federal court case involving the two biggest players in the sweetener industry: the Sugar Association and the Corn Refiners Association (the trade group for manufacturers of high fructose corn syrup). ”

“Obesity and diabetes mellitus are often linked to cardiovascular disease,[53] as are a history of chronickidney disease and hypercholesterolaemia.[54] In fact, cardiovascular disease is the most life-threatening of the diabetic complications and diabetics are two- to four-fold more likely to die of cardiovascular-related causes than nondiabetics.”

According to the World Heart Association ;

“Up to 90% of cardiovascular disease may be preventable if established risk factors are avoided.[65]“ Their goal is 25 by 25. “25×25, achieving a 25% relative reduction in overall mortality from cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes or chronic respiratory disease by 2025. In September 2011, the United Nations held a High-Level Meeting in New York on the subject of NCDs, including cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancers, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases.“

They’re actively taking steps to lower the death rate of CVDs by recommending everyone to eat right, quit smoking, and exercise, all of which will lower this number one killer of people. Eating right, in my opinion is by far the best way to combat CVDs, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, high cholesterol (which is really a problem of unbalanced cholesterol), arthritis and worst of all, dementia and Alzheimer disease.

In all of my research, I can’t find anything that says to limit the use of bread and starchy carbohydrates made from grains. Yet all research I’ve look at from PubMed and even the FDA show that this food does cause these disorders. Every time I look at the data, I’m forced to ask myself, why hasn’t’ the FDA, WHA, or the ADA condemned this food? These agencies have to know what’s going on, yet they refuse to act. Who is blocking this action?

After researching my book It’s Time For A Cure, I’ve learned that this food is at the base of all of the diseases listed above, forcing me to ask, why hasn’t the FDA, or the WHF warned us of this food. The only reason I can come up with is that it is being protected from prosecution by the industry that provides the crop seed for the farmer as well as the drugs to combat the arthritis caused by what their seed grows into.

From PubMed’s study; Characterization of Proteins from Grain of Different Bread and Durum Wheat Genotypes: “Wheat is unique among the edible grains because wheat flour has the protein complex called “gluten” that can be formed into dough with the rheological properties required for the production of leavened bread [9]. The rheological properties of gluten are needed not only for bread production, but also in the wider range of foods that can only be made from wheat, viz., noodles, pasta, pocket breads, pastries, cookies, and other products [10]. The gluten proteins consist of monomeric gliadins and polymeric glutenins. Glutenins and gliadins are recognized as the major wheat storage proteins, constituting about 75–85% of the total grain proteins with a ratio of about 1:1 in common or bread wheat [3,11] and they tend to be rich in asparagine, glutamine, arginine or proline [12] but very low in nutritionally important amino acids lysine, tryptophan and methionine [13].”

“Very low in nutritionally important amino acids” interests me. Amino acids are proteins. When you take away the protein, you’re left with little else but carbohydrates. This fact combined with the fact that gliadins have been shown to provoke the body to release anti-gliadin antibodies, which also have been shown to have the ability to attach themselves to Purkinje cells in the cerebellum, make this food suspect, at the least.

When an anti-gliadin antibody attaches itself to a cell in the cerebellum, the brain renders that cell useless and discards it. Although many parts of your brain can grow new cells to replace discarded cells, this area of the brain can’t. That means whenever an anti-gliadin antibody attaches itself to a purkinje cell, that part of the brain never comes back. Yes, that does mean brain damage for those who release these anti-gliadin antibodies.

The question this brings up is how many of us release these antibodies? Judging from the amount of Alzheimer’s disease invading the civilized world, I would say a majority of people display this form of intolerance….a rather large majority.  The next question this congers is, am I one of them? Are you one of them? I found out that I am. Have you yet?

42,657 dadeaths worldwide from cardiovascular disease

Heart disease kills more people every year than any other single cause. Over 42,000 people die from this disease and every day and the only reason it exists is the high amount of sugar we put into our bodies. It brings about the glycation ECC is responsible for and it’s this glycation that is responsible 42,000 deaths from cardiovascular disease every day.

But that’s not all it is responsible for. We have to look at Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. We have to consider cancer, and we have to worry about the amount of high blood pressure and high cholesterol ECC is responsible for. All of these disorders are money producing the diseases that this industry generates, simply for the sake of profit. It’s this profit that is killing everyone

13,698 daily deaths globally from Alzheimer disease

13.698 die each day, worldwide, due to Alzheimer disease alone. That amounts to over 500 deaths daily in the US alone, which means that at least 20 people in this country will die this hour alone, due to Alzheimer disease. Nothing contributes to Alzheimer disease as much as bread consumption. It’s the starchy carbs that break down to glucose, and it’s the glucose that glycates the cholesterol and protein that builds up the plaque and inflammation in your blood that leads to Alzheimer disease, cancer, arthritis, Atherosclerosis as well as most all other CVDs, as well as hypertension and high cholesterol.

11,232 deaths daily from cancer worldwide

11,232 people die every day globally due to some form of cancer and with all the evidence available that wheat contributes to the spread of multiple forms of cancer, why hasn’t the FDA made any statements about the dangers this food presents to the human body. Evidence shows these devastating effects going back to the bones of earliest cavemen that have been discovered.

I recently watched a Nova program on a 5,000 year old iceman mummy that had been frozen in an ice flow until he was discovered in 1991. They found remnants of einkorn wheat in his upper digestive tract suggesting his last meal was bread made from the flour of einkorn wheat. His bones also showed “disease of a modern lifestyle”, as they like to call it. What is this disease of a modern lifestyle? Arthritis. This is evidence of the glycation that occurred in this man from eating the carb loaded bread made from einkorn wheat. Even as difficult as it was to digest einkorn wheat at that time, due to its fibrous nature, it still did the same damage then, that it does today to everyone who continues to eat this food.

Copied from NOVA on PBS concerning a 5,000 year old frozen mummy ;

“Oeggl reconstructed the Iceman’s last meal from his microscopic analysis of a tiny sample removed from the mummy’s transverse colon, the part of the intestine just beyond the stomach. When the Iceman was discovered in 1991, x-rays and CAT-scans of the corpse revealed that his internal organs had shrunken so drastically in the 5,300 years in the glacier that Dr. Dieter Zur Nedden, the radiologist who examined the images, could barely distinguish them. Instead of filling the chest cavity with their billowy white form, the lungs looked like wisps of clouds.

But at the top of the colon, Zur Nedden made out a slight bulge, which the radiologist suspected was a clump of half-processed food. The progress of the food indicated that the Iceman had last eaten about eight hours before he died, possibly of hypothermia, on the Hauslabjoch pass, which cuts over the main Alpine ridge dividing Austria from Italy at 10,500 feet above sea level.

Not until several years after the discovery did the Innsbruck scientists finally cut a hole into the mummy, insert an endoscope, and snip out about .004 ounces from the colon. Dr. Werner Platzer, the University of Innsbruck anatomist then in charge of research on the corpse, gave .0016 ounces milligrams of the material to Oeggl, who had already been studying the rich botanical finds from the site.

Pollen provided a snapshot of the environment the Iceman was exposed to in the hours before his death

Oeggl’s sample was barely the size of his little fingernail. Under the microscope, he quickly identified the flake-like, semi-digested material that made up the bulk of the sample as einkorn, the most important wheat of the Neolithic, the period of prehistory in which people lived in semi-permanent settlements and survived by agriculture and keeping animals. The discovery of einkorn, which does not occur naturally in Europe, in the Iceman’s intestinal tract suggested that he had contact with an agricultural community. The dominance of bran in the sample led Oeggl to believe that the wheat had been finely ground into meal and made into bread, rather than eaten as a porridge, where the grains would have been eaten whole and found in larger pieces in the colon. But the bread would have been little like modern breads. In order to get bread to rise when yeast is added, the wheat grains must contain a high level of gluten, which lends the dough a durable elasticity and therefore holds the pockets of air. Einkorn has low levels of gluten, so the bread made with it was probably hard, somewhat like a cracker, and rather tough on the teeth.

Using an electron microscope Oeggl also spotted tiny particles of charcoal attached to the bran, probably remnants of the baking process on a hot rock, or next to a fire. In addition to the einkorn, the cells of at least one other plant, possibly some herb, were present in the sample, and Oeggl concluded that they, too, had been part of his meal. He also found a tiny muscle fiber and a burned bit of bone, evidence that the Iceman might also have eaten a meat. What kind of meat Oeggl cannot yet say, nor can he determine how much of the meal the sample represented.

 

Not everything passing through the Iceman’s gut had been swallowed intentionally, or was even desirable. Oeggl also found the eggs of the human whipworm. Many people alive today who do not live in areas with flush toilets also carry the worm, which can cause unpleasant symptoms like stomach ache and diarrhea, or even lead to malnutrition. The scientists have no way of knowing whether the Iceman had any such complaints.

Scientists may never know what prompted the Iceman to leave the relatively hospitable valley with no water or food to speak of

The sample also contained many different varieties of pollen, whose strange and beautiful forms Oeggl saw under the electron microscope. Though some peoples are known to eat pollen, Oeggl believed that the quantity in his colon was too small to represent a meal. Instead, the pollen accidentally ended up in the man’s stomach because they either had landed in food or water he ingested, or were inhaled and became trapped in saliva which he then swallowed. Scientists had long wondered where the Iceman was coming from and where he was headed, but until the discovery of the pollen inside the corpse, no scientist had any convincing documentation for his last day. But the pollen provided a snapshot of the environment the Iceman was exposed to in the hours before his death.

The majority of the pollen came from the hop hornbeam tree, which grows in a warm environment. As soon as Oeggl recognized it under his microscope lens, he not only knew which side of the mountain the Iceman had been on shortly before his death, but also the season in which he died. The hop hornbeam tree blooms between March and June, and because the sperm inside the pollen grain, which normally decays after a short exposure to air or water, was still intact, Oeggl believed it had to have been absorbed relatively soon after its release from the tree. The nearest stands of that tree could have grown to the south of the Hauslabjoch, at least five or six hours away by foot. The high valleys to the north are just too cold to sustain it.

The pollen of this particular tree was, therefore, one key to understanding the Iceman’s last hours. It meant that the Iceman was almost certainly in the valley within half a day of his death. Previously scientists had speculated that the Iceman had died in the late summer, when he was surprised by an early storm while trying to cross the pass.

Oeggl readily acknowledges that scientists may never know what prompted the Iceman to leave the relatively hospitable valley with no water or food to speak of (a single sloe berry was found with his remains) and try to cross the mountain at a time of year when several feet of snow easily could have obscured the topography of the steep and rocky Alpine ridge. But his own interest in the Iceman’s demise is not yet exhausted. He expects that his meticulous analysis of the botanical and archaeological material recovered from the bottom of the shallow in which the man died will soon reveal more details about the circumstances of the Iceman’s death.

This feature originally appeared on the site for the NOVA program Ice Mummies.”

Although not shown in this excerpt, the iceman did show signs of modern day disease in his bones. it was evident mostly around his joints in the form of arthritis. This arthritis is directly due to his diet of einkorn wheat. As it does now, in glycating all cholesterol it comes in contact with causing arthritis, it did so then. It just did it slower, due to the indigestibility of the einkorn wheat, but it occurred never-the-less.

The damage it did at that time was much less than what it does now, due to the lack of fiber it has in today’s strains of wheat, mostly the bread wheat made of Triticum aestivum, and spelt, durum, and emmer, as well. Even though arthritis seldom kills its victim, the damage it does, doesn’t go away, ever. It’s stuck to you like paint on a wall and you can’t scrape it off. Most of today’s wheat has more gluten protein than its ever had in its history, making it gluier and stickier, which make it that much more dangerous , as this is what builds up the plaque in your system and you already know what damage plaque does.

Perhaps the biggest question this brings up is, with all of this information available for this many years, why hasn’t the FDA warned us that this food has these capabilities to do this kind of damage to the human body. Should the public be able to make an informed decision as to whether or not to continue to eat this food? Or should the FDA continue to ignore the evidence and fail to even let the public know what this food does? The question I want to ask, was there outside influence in their decision to not expose this information?

Someone is trying to hide this information. They’re want to leave it up to an uneducated public to automatically know what these studies have shown. In whose best interest would it be to keep this information hidden? Whose business would hurt the most if bread and corn and wheat products all of a sudden became taboo?  The grain industry?  Monsanto? The more I look into this, the more it spells out cover-up and because this is how the FDA treats this, it instills a lot of fear in me as to how healthy the rest of our food supply is.

The FDA has to know of the damage these grains do to the body when ingested, so why do they allow these industries continue to peddle their wares as if they’re healthy?

The Iowa Corn Fed Beef Ruse

Food, Inc. is a 2008 American documentary film directed by filmmakerRobert Kenner.[4] The Academy Award-nominated film examines corporate farming in the United States, concluding that agribusiness produces food that is unhealthy, in a way that is environmentally harmful and abusive of both animals and employees. The film is narrated by Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser.[5][6]

The film received positive responses and was nominated for several awards, including the Academy Award and the Independent Spirit Awardsin 2009, both for Best Documentary Feature.

The film’s first segment examines the industrial production of meat (chicken, beef, and pork), calling it inhumane and economically and environmentally unsustainable. The second segment looks at the industrial production of grains and vegetables (primarily corn and soy beans), again labeling this economically and environmentally unsustainable. The film’s third and final segment is about the economic and legal power, such as food labeling regulations, of the major food companies, the profits of which are based on supplying cheap but contaminated food, the heavy use of petroleum-based chemicals (largely pesticides and fertilizers), and the promotion of unhealthy food consumption habits by the American public.[4][7] It shows companies like Wal-Mart transitioning towards organic foods as that industry is booming in the recent health movement.

Monsanto, the USDA and the FDA

Food, Inc is an eye opening documentary that deals with the agricultural industry’s influence in the USDA and the FDA, concentrating on the meat packing industry’s influence. In 2008 the Chief of Staff for the USDA was a former chief lobbyist for the beef industry. The head of the FDA was a former executive vice president for the national food processors Association. A majority of the staff at both the FDA and the USDA came from Monsanto or its subsidiaries, posing clear conflicts of interests when it comes to protecting consumers. These industries of Monsanto, the USDA and the FDA are responsible for more death and disease than all violence, which includes war and crime, as well as automobile accidents, all other addictions, including heroin, emphetimines and alcohol.

These industries and agencies are directly responsible for over 43,000,000 deaths each and every year.  That total continues to climb and it will continue until everyone decides that it’s time for a cure.

Decisions have been made in the past that clearly benefited industry while presenting clear dangers to humans. By not only allowing contaminated the food with worthless nutrition values or food contaminated by bacteria to sneak into our food supply, but by polluting our rivers and lakes in the process as well, with contaminated ground water from runoff from chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.

This is just a taste of how unsustainable this is and it all starts with the grain industry, and our insatiable appetites for high sugar food, which is all forced upon up by this industry, the corn producers, wheat growers, and the crop seed companies owned by Monsanto, Novartis, Syngenta, Bayer et al.. Because there food require treatment with medications that this industry controls, they have full control over what happens inside your body, when you bend to their will and buy their products.

The grain industry in Iowa promoted the Iowa corn fed beef, to sell more corn, their largest industry. This had multiple, unforeseen consequences that not only damaged our food supply, but it polluted our resources more than what could have ever been foreseen. Because of our propensity to feed our addiction to sugar, the products that this industry has devised to get us to eat more of their junk food, are putting everyone who is suckered into this cycle, in the hospital with serious disorders. These disorders range from arthritis to cancer to HBP to CVDs and much more.

This is clearly a case where this self policing doesn’t work. It’s killing Americans right now because it doesn’tt. Evidence can be seen in the number of heart disease deaths, cancer deaths, Alzheimer’s deaths, not to mention all the pain, discomfort, and drug abuse caused by the pain. Although this is nice for the profits Monsanto, Syngenta and Bayer who also make drugs that treat the diseases there foods cause, it’s leading our country down a path of destruction that we’ll never recover from if we keep eating the food they advertise. They are playing on the addiction that they’ve inflicted upon the American people as well as the world to pad their profits and boost the influence.

This industry makes sure that sugar gets into baby food, to make sure that every baby who eats it becomes addicted to it, making them lifetime users of their poison. This unwilling addiction to sugar has brought this industry to a level of evil that’s never been seen in any industry. This industry is so intent on keeping us addicted to its lure, simply to increase your profits, that they are now responsible for over 65,753 deaths, worldwide daily. Yes I said 65,753 deaths daily. If this doesn’t bother you, then you have no conscience. Yes this is something to be appalled about and appalled I am and you should be too. This is simply more proof that it’s time for a cure.

50,000 food safety inspections in 1972 to just over nine thousand of them in 2008, the FDA is failing us big time. This is directly related to departmental cutbacks reducing the number of agents available to do the inspections. This is how conservative politicians think this industry and all other industries should police themselves. It would be nice if corporate America but was concerned about more than just their profits, but unfortunately the bottom line is what wins here and the bottom line is greed.

If the FDA can allow a food this dangerous through its monitoring, I’m afraid to even think about what else has snuck through?  The beef industry is already displayed their contempt for regulation through the mass production of beef that their industry is gone last 50 years

Couldn’t this dispute, at least, be closed that wheat can kill? What I would rather ask, was there outside influence in their decision to not issue any warnings? It was recently revealed that the sugar industry took steps to cover up the reports of damage that their food offered, so why wouldn’t it make sense that this closely  related industry, the grain industry, would take those same steps to cover up the same information about what their foods provided?

Was this another case of the industry policing itself and its watchdog, as well? Does this make a solid argument for self policing for corporate entities instead of government regulations? Our health is at stake here and we’ve allowed the FDA to escape judgment. That in my estimation is borderline criminal. 2893 deaths nationally, each day from CVDs, cancer, and Alzheimer disease combined. All three of these disorders are directly due to ECC, excessive carbohydrate consumption, which can be controlled. That’s enough people to wipe out 4 towns, the same size I grew up in. That’s unconscionable and we let it happen. Is that a shame on us for allowing it to happen?

We have direct control of these disorders. We don’t have to let this continue, but we do, simply to feed our addiction. We have a societal addiction to glucose, because it’s not just sugar, it’s what breaks down to glucose, and that includes not only sugar but all carbohydrates that break down to their most basic molecule, glucose. It’s our addiction to this glucose that clouds our judgment, masks our emotions, and controls our desires by gumming up the neurons in our brains every time we eat this food. This is exactly makes it addictive and hands total control over to the glucose, every time we eat it.

Yes, we do have full control over this, and we can stop it, but we have to stop the celebration of our addiction, to stop the addiction itself. To do that we need to instill taxes on the damage it’s doing when you eat this food. It’s time to hit abusers in the pocket book where it hurts the most. This has been successful with cigarettes, why can’t we make it just as successful with glucose? Why can’t we add a glucose tax to sugary drinks and bread and pasta products? These are the products that do the most damage, outside of alcohol which already has its own tax. Why shouldn’t these products have a tax also? When people start to see the real expense in their pocketbooks, they can then equate that expense to the real expense of the devastating effects this food has, that leads to cancer, heart disease, diabetes and dementia. This may be the only manner in which this addiction can be curbed.