Installment three on the the Politics of Food: The Scott comments on "The politics of food, the second installment"

I felt that his "comment" was actually a topic... all of its own.

"I almost commented on the last thread but they get left so quickly so didn't bother. I almost started a new one but have so much to say on the subject that I don't know where to start.

First I want to comment on a statement made by Mick: "Now, using gene splicing we can do it more efficiently, producing crops with desirable features, like improved nutrition."

Statements like this are what misguide the subject of food THAT WE ARE PROVIDED to eat. 'Gene Splicing' has not raised the nutritional value of one GM modified plant on this planet. While it may make a plant resistant to this or that or grow faster, the only thing that imparts 'nutritional value' to a plant is the medium in which it is grown. Nutrients supplied by fertilizers and crop rotation raise the levels of only three minerals. These three are absolute requirements for the plant to grow... without them the crop WOULD NOT GROW. Good quality growing medium has some 20 plus minerals, generally imparted to the soil by crushed, eroded or leached from rock in the soil. Our soils are extremely depleted of most minerals and they are NEVER replaced. unless a plant is left to decompose in place, minerals taken from the soil are gone and because less crop waste is left on the ground and stalks and leaves are not turned under but instead sold off for other products, those minerals never return. GM increases yield, not quality... Mick, in the link you posted, which was a mouthpiece article of the GM Agribusiness, it equates BRIX as a measurement of sweetness in things like molasses.... Learn about BRIX and why it is a quality marker for vegetables... all vegetables. Their comments were a diversion to the facts because mineral sugars have a big part to play in the ability to digest that vegetable. 

pfunky2222 has summed up in a very succinct way what I have to say. To the subject of affordability, many people are misguided about foods nutritional value and its cost. TD, while your choice of a low salt cracker my be a wiser choice with respect to say.. high blood pressure... but the nutritional value is suspect and costs 3 times that of white bread per calorie. We are being sold grain by Agribusiness, Food industry, Pharmaceutical/medical industry and indeed the government itself. Bigger tax base, cheaper labor and an ever expanding market drive these entities. In fairness to the medical profession I will say that much of their misinformation comes from dubious trials and ‘studies’ guided and supported by vested interests... if the facts do support the conclusion, the information never get coverage. 
The subject of grains as a food source is a complete subject unto itself but suffice to say, A growing number of people are starting to see a disease ridden world in a new light and the chorus focusing on Fat and Sugar are in many ways a diversion... particularly with regards to fat. The need to keep up the grain myth is important on a lot of levels... were it not for grain at least a 1/3 of the world population would have to disappear! Not good for expanding markets and cheap labor. The problems with blaming the ill health of our population (primarily western) completely on poor life choices is that it allows for the discussion to be brushed under the carpet. People must eat X number of calories per day to maintain weight. Without that minimum amount of calories we would eventually die. Taking an average man of around 6 ft. that is about 2500 per day. When you use income as a benchmark for gaining those calories, the type of food you can afford and its effects on how you eat is important. Using current average store prices in UK's ASDA (owned by Walmart  eating bread is 12 times cheaper PER CALORIE than broccoli.. 8 times cheaper than chicken breast and 1.5 times cheaper than potatoes. So if you are on a lower income you are pushed toward the bread and potato sources of calories. For the average person, the retort to this is "So, let them eat bread" To this I say... the story gets more complex."

"Next is the subject of grains. Essential for the feeding of our ever expanding world population, population and food production is yet another subject but suffice to say, grains and starches have become a vital source of nutrients worldwide but most importantly for the poor. Grains like wheat, corn and rice and root vegetables like potatoes  like every other carbohydrate, turns to glucose in the blood stream. The speed with which foods are turned into glucose creates several responses in the body. One of those responses is a rise in insulin who’s’ job it is to carry glucose to all of the cells in the body for ready energy. The faster foods turn to glucose the higher the insulin response and the faster cells must absorb the sugar out of the blood stream because the body does not like high blood sugar. 

What is never talked about is the fact that refined carbohydrates found in breads, pastas, mashed potatoes  gravy and a thousand other products is that they turn to glucose just as fast as sugars like the much maligned high fructose corn syrup. Because of this spike of sugar in the bloodstream we get energy and a feeling of fullness but that feeling does not last but about 2 hours and the body starts signalling again that it is hungry. Fats and complex carbohydrates convert slower and keep a feeling of satiety much longer. The fact is that people who for whatever reason have a diet strongly based around these foods will actually go through a physical withdrawal process that lasts 3 to 4 days. Try not eating any sugars, grains, or starches for a week.... be careful of what you eat... they appear in many products in many different ways and be sure to have plenty of other foods on had... you might find yourself seriously calorie deficient.
While the cause for diabetes is not known, a serious line of thought is that over time the ingestion of these high glycemic foods punish cells forcing them to absorb glucose they do not need to the point where they start refusing to take it. The more cells resist the greater the response from the pancreas to produce more insulin to ‘force’ the cells to accept the glucose (insulin resistance) and punishes the pancreas which has to produce higher and higher responses to these foods and over time causing the ability of the pancreas to produce insulin to be damaged. What does that have to do with low income people? If you have to by 17500 calories and need to spent up to 40% of your income to get the cheapest available... You purchase them in the form of bread and potatoes because that is what you can afford; you set yourself up of repeated bouts of hunger which leads you by the hand to a whole host of metabolic problems culminating in diabetes. People want to blame the problem exclusively on personal control and the inability to put down that big gulp. That is certainly a problem of a rather idol society but it doesn't explain why consistently 20 years after world food organizations enter a third world country with aid, that the country develops a diabetes problem. Those people are still poor... they don't get Big Macs, or Big Gulps or Jumbo sized Snickers.... they get refined grains... very little meat protein and almost no fats. The attack on sugars in food, while very relevant diverts attention from the damage grains and starches are doing to our health... but we wouldn't want the world to know that grains really aren't very good foods... I had someone ask me a while back... why do I think that it is never heard of other mammals, other than members of the Rodentia family, ravaging fields of grain but they will lay waste to vegetables in the next field."