Читать книгу Wheat Belly Cookbook: 150 delicious wheat-free recipes for effortless weight loss and optimum health - Dr Davis William - Страница 8

Frankengrain

. . . it is true that I am a wretch. I have murdered the lovely and the helpless; I have strangled the innocent as they slept and grasped to death his throat who never injured me or any other living thing. I have devoted my creator, the select specimen of all that is worthy of love and admiration among men, to misery . . .

Mary Shelley

Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus

Wheat encapsulates a fundamental dilemma of our technological age: How much should we permit modern agriculture to modify our food, change its genetics, alter its biochemistry – but not tell us what they did, how they did it, why they did it and that there are potentially uncertain effects on us unwitting humans who consume it with our breakfast burrito?

If your hairdresser one day decided to give you a new hairdo and dye your curls red, surely she would discuss this with you first. If your spouse decided that life would be better in John o’ Groats, wouldn’t it first come with a bit of discussion?

The production of our food does not seem to adhere to such common courtesies. Food crops and livestock are changed, you buy them, you eat them – no questions asked. The changes introduced are not just that of a new colour, or an adaptation to grow under some unique condition. The food is, in many cases, fundamentally changed.

More than any other common foodstuff, wheat stands apart as the most changed. Selling bread, pretzels or ciabattas to you under the guise of wheat is a deception that you would not tolerate in other areas of your life, certainly not from your hairdresser or spouse.

Modern wheat represents the technological capabilities of agricultural geneticists that pre-date the age of genetic engineering and genetic modification, the use of gene-splicing technology to insert or delete a gene. Wheat represents the brainchild of genetics manipulations that were employed before such technologies were developed. Wheat represents the product of genetic methods that were crude, often stumbling, less controllable, less predictable – far worse than genetic modification. Yes, believe it or not, modern genetic modification using gene-splicing technology to insert or delete single genes, as frightening as it may be in its implications to mess with nature’s design, represents a substantial improvement over what geneticists were doing previously.

Using breeding methods that pre-date genetic modification, geneticists were unable to precisely control which genes were changed, which genes were turned on or turned off and whether entirely new and unique genetic traits were created by accident. They simply looked for the characteristics relevant to their own interests, such as shorter height or greater yield, but had no real interest in nor insight into what the total package did to humans. Why would they, since none of us ever asked?

And yet the products of these stumbling early efforts at creating ‘improved’ genetic variations of your food are already on your supermarket shelves. And you’ve been consuming them for something like 35 years.

Healthy Whole . . . What?

‘Healthy whole grains’. It is the mantra you hear and see repeated dozens of times each day in TV commercials, on cereal boxes and bread wrappers, and by well-meaning people offering nutritional advice. The message is delivered by happy mums, sports figures, superheroes and well-dressed leprechauns, well-intentioned nutritionists and concerned doctors. Whole grains are good for everybody, they say: every man, woman and child, from infancy on up to our retirement years. Whole grains reduce weight gain, colon cancer, diabetes and heart disease. Whole grains make you regular. Whole grains should represent the biggest part of your diet every day.

Just what are ‘healthy whole grains’? By ‘grains’, we nearly always mean wheat. After all, how many times a day do you sit down to a sandwich with bread made of sorghum flour, breakfast cereal made of quinoa or pancakes made with millet and buckwheat? If you are like most people, it is rare to never. It’s wheat that constitutes nearly all of what most people consider ‘whole grains’ and thereby dominates consumption. Whole wheat, along with white flour products in their many and varied forms, dominates the diets of most people, adding up to 20 per cent of all human calories. It’s wheat that’s in your pizza base, bagels, pretzels, bread, pasta, muffins, breakfast cereals, doughnuts, beefburger and hot dog rolls, dinner rolls, breadcrumbs and breading, pittas, wraps, subs and sandwiches. And those are just the obvious sources.

Grains occupy the widest part of the former Food Pyramid, and now the largest segment of the Food Plate, the graphic renditions of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. School lunch programmes aim to include more ‘healthy whole grains’, and educators teach children that ‘healthy whole grains’ should be a part of every child’s daily eating habits. Grains, we are told, are good for us, and without them our health will suffer.

So, just what is this thing called ‘wheat’ that occupies a huge chunk of the modern diet?

It’s not what you thought it was. I would argue that it’s not wheat, or at least it is far removed from the wheat of 1950 that predates the extensive genetics transformations introduced during the 1960s and 1970s. But these crude genetics efforts were successful in delivering what geneticists were striving for: increased yield. To a lesser degree, efforts in wheat breeding were aimed at cultivating characteristics like resistance to drought or high temperature, or the ability to fight infestations like moulds. But most of the genetic changes introduced into modern wheat were performed to increase yield-per-acre. And, from the perspective of yield, the new genetic strains of wheat were successful – on a grand scale. From the perspective of Third World countries, for instance, that adopted high-yield wheat strains in the 1970s, famine was converted to surplus within a year of their introduction. High-yield strains of wheat became cause for celebration.

But the day after the big party brings the . . . hangover. Sure, it yielded previously unimaginable riches in yield and fed the hungry. But at what price?

This modern product of genetics research looks different. Nearly all the wheat grown today in all parts of the world stands 1½ feet to 2 feet tall, a semi-dwarf strain (full dwarf strains stand 1 to 1½ feet tall) with a thick shaft that resists buckling in the wind and rain, a large seedhead and larger-than-normal seeds. (Seeds are harvested to make flour.) With heavy nitrogen fertilizer application, modern semi-dwarf wheat yields tenfold more per acre than its traditional 4½-foot-tall predecessor.

But changes in height and yield are only the start. Outward changes in appearance are unavoidably accompanied by changes in biochemical makeup. Just one hybridization, for instance, of two parent wheat plants can yield 5 per cent unique proteins not found in either parent. Modern high-yield, semi-dwarf wheat is not the result of a few hybridizations, but the result of thousands of hybridization events conducted by geneticists, repeated breeding to select for qualities like height and seed size, resulting in the creation of many unique proteins and other compounds. And breeding efforts ventured much further than just crossing two plants, often employing techniques we’d consider extreme or bizarre. It means that this new breed of wheat introduces hundreds of unique compounds to consuming humans never before encountered in nature. More on that later.

Problem: Geneticists assumed that, regardless of the degree of genetic changes introduced into the plant, no matter how severe the change in appearance, no matter how bizarre some of the methods used to generate those changes, it remains suitable for human consumption.

Tinkering with the Dinkel

Modern wheat is not wheat, any more than a human is a hairless chimpanzee.

As primates, we keep company with chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas and baboons. While apes have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46 (due to the fusion of two ape chromosomes), I’m certain you would object if I brought an orangutan to your home for dinner. Despite the extensive overlap in genetics, the outward differences are obvious. And there are internal biochemical and physiologic differences hidden beneath the obvious.

I have 46 chromosomes. You have 46 chromosomes. A Yanomamo tribesman from the Amazon rainforest has 46 chromosomes. A 4-foot-10-inch, dark-skinned Tasmanian Aboriginal woman has 46 chromosomes, as does a Nunavut Inuit hunter from northern Canada. There are marked outward differences among us humans, yet we all share an identical number of chromosomes.

Not so with wheat. Einkorn wheat, ancestor of all modern wheat, harvested by hunter-gatherers in the Fertile Crescent 10,000 years ago, is a 14-chromosome wild grain. The wheat of the Bible, emmer wheat, also grew wild in the Middle East and bears 28 chromosomes. Strains of wheat that pre-date human genetic intervention, the crop cultivated by humans during the Middle Ages through the 19th and early 20th centuries in North America and Europe, were 42-chromosome plants. Modern wheat of the 21st century is also a 42-chromosome plant. But our modern strains, thanks to genetic changes introduced by humans for our own purposes, contain new and unique characteristics, among them an inability to survive in the wild. Modern wheat is many thousands of years and many genes apart from 14-chromosome einkorn, 28-chromosome emmer and even the 42-chromosome wheat of the 19th century.

The genetic story behind the evolution of wheat has only come to be appreciated over the last 100 years. In 1913, a German scientist named Schultz developed the first genetic classification of wheat. He divided wheat into three categories: einkorn, emmer and dinkel. Five years later, a Japanese scientist performed a chromosomal analysis, making the determination that einkorn contained 14 chromosomes, emmer 28 chromosomes and dinkel 42 chromosomes. The dinkel of that day was pretty much untouched by genetic changes, representing only the crude year-over-year efforts by farmers to select for qualities such as hardiness and ability to survive a cold spell. (Since then, kamut has been identified as another 28-chromosome form of wheat and spelt another variation on 42-chromosome wheat.)

It’s dinkel that now dominates the world’s wheat and has been the recipient of all the attentions of geneticists. With 42 chromosomes, dinkel proved to be better suited to the tinkering of geneticists. Now called Triticum aestivum, dinkel wheat is a hardy ‘hexaploid’ version, meaning it comes with three complete pairs of chromosomes (‘hex’ means six), unlike einkorn’s single and emmer’s two paired sets. The greater genetic potential of hexaploid Triticum aestivum means more adaptability and hardiness – and greater potential for genetic changes to be introduced by clever human geneticists.

So dinkel, 42-chromosome hexaploid Triticum aestivum, is the form of wheat that geneticists fiddled with, striving to increase yield-per-acre during the 1960s and 1970s. While the Cold War was smack in the centre of consciousness at that time, the full realization of the power of science to do both good and bad had not yet focused on agriculture. Agricultural science was still young and full of promise, not yet having acquired the tarnished reputation that was to come in the future with herbicides like 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T (the two main components of Agent Orange, used to defoliate the jungles of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, resulting in the maiming of hundreds of thousands of natives and American soldiers) and pesticides like DDT that were linked to infertility and birth defects.

During those years, agricultural geneticists worked free from concerns about toxicity and the implications for humans consuming the products of their genetic redesigns. It was still the age of science for the sake of science, with little to no thought devoted to potential consequences for exposed humans.

The techniques used to transform dinkel wheat involved plenty more than just mating two plants. The current strains of wheat – high-yield, semi-dwarf strains – were generated using repetitive hybridization (crossing two strains), wide crossing (crossing two very dissimilar plants, even distantly related wild grasses, to generate unique genetic combinations), repetitive backcrossing (repeatedly crossing to winnow out a specific genetic characteristic), embryo ‘rescue’ (artificially sustaining an embryo of a hybrid that would have died naturally due to mutations), and chemical, gamma ray and x-ray mutagenesis (the purposeful provocation of mutations, followed by cultivation of desired mutants). Most modern strains are the result of many, if not all, of these techniques.

Semi-dwarf wheat started with the 42-chromosome mutant spawn of the Norin 10 dwarf strain from Japan and the Brevor 14 strain from Washington. Progress in developing an especially high-yield strain of wheat was accelerated with the dedication and ingenuity of Dr Nor man Borlaug and colleagues working in Mexico City at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (IMWIC). Thousands of hybridization experiments, crossing strains repeatedly, shuttling seeds back and forth between two very different climates (the high-temperature, low-altitude plains of the Yaquí Valley and the lower-temperature, high-altitude mountains of the Sierra Madre Oriental), helped create a unique, never-before-seen strain of wheat: exceptionally high-yield (tenfold greater yield-per-acre), short (1½ to 2 feet tall), with a thick stem and large seeds.

Mexican farmers quickly recognized the production advantages of this super-yielding strain. It was exported to other countries, including the United States, Canada, India, China and elsewhere. Adopted reluctantly at first in the United States and Canada in the late 1970s because farmers thought it looked peculiar, word spread quickly about this new odd-looking semi-dwarf strain once the remarkable yield-per-acre became evident, and it was embraced widely by the early 1980s. By 1985, virtually all wheat grown in the United States and Canada was the high-yielding semi-dwarf strain. Today, nearly all wheat grown worldwide is the semi-dwarf strain, with only small odd pockets of older strains still under cultivation in southern France, parts of Italy and the Middle East.

This brings us to the present. Today, the wheat products you are sold in the form of whole grain or white bread, bagels, biscuits, cakes, pretzels, pizza and breakfast cereals, as well as the myriad other clever ways food manufacturers have managed to transform this grain, originate with the semi-dwarf brainchild of genetics research. It’s not wild einkorn, it’s not biblical emmer, it’s not spelt or kamut of the Middle Ages, it’s not the dinkel of the 19th century. Modern wheat with its newly introduced genetic changes is uniquely and genetically suited to accommodate our demands for increased yield, more desirable baking characteristics and more pliable dough.

It’s just not perfectly suited for human consumption.

What Changed?

While wheat has been a problematic food for as long as humans have consumed it (with records suggesting coeliac disease, or intestinal damage from wheat gluten, for instance, as long ago as AD 100), modern changes introduced by geneticists made it much worse.

Now, if you take me at my word that wheat has been changed extensively at the hands of geneticists but don’t care to know all the details, then skim the heavy stuff over the next several pages. But if you desire a deeper understanding of what exactly changed, then pour yourself another cup of coffee and read on. Warning: The discussion unavoidably gets a bit complicated for the next several pages. But there are truly important details here for those of you who want to know just what happened.

So what exactly changed?

First, there are obvious outward changes visible to the naked eye. The knee-high semi-dwarf plant has a shorter stalk that diverts less fertilizer and nutrients from the seeds. This change in height is due to changes in Rht (reduced height) genes that code for the protein gibberellin, controlling stalk length (discussed later). The seedhead is larger, with seeds that are also bigger and different in shape. While there is variation among the 25,000 modern strains, semi-dwarf wheat also tends to have reduced protein content and higher carbohydrate content, and it yields different baking and texture characteristics.

The differences in outward appearance are accompanied by internal genetic and biochemical differences.

Gliadin

Gliadin is among the most interesting – and most destructive – of all the many components of modern wheat.

Gliadin is one of the proteins in the gluten family of proteins. Gluten is actually a combination of smaller gliadin proteins and lengthier glutenin molecules. While gluten is often fingered as the source of wheat’s problems, it’s really gliadin that is the culprit behind many health issues.

Gliadin can assume many forms, with more than 200 gene variants coding for as many variations of gliadin protein. The past 50 years of genetics research has introduced extensive changes into gliadin structure, but the full implications of these changes have not been fully mapped out, as they were assumed to be benign. And, after all, this research was performed by agricultural scientists, not doctors or people with insights into human health. Changes in gliadin have therefore been dismissed as harmless, despite the fact that gliadin is capable of increasing intestinal ‘leakiness’ to foreign proteins and triggering cross-reactions with human structures (i.e., triggering an abnormal immune response to similar, though not identical, proteins in the body, a process called molecular mimicry), such as nervous system proteins like synaptin, cells of the intestinal lining (enterocytes) or the ubiquitous calcium-modulating protein calreticulin, potentially triggering inflammatory and immune responses to these proteins.

The changes introduced over the past 50 years in particular have increased the expression of the Glia-α9 amino acid sequence within gliadin that has been most closely linked to triggering coeliac disease. While the genetic sequence coding for Glia-α9 was absent from most strains of wheat from the 19th and early 20th centuries, it is now present in nearly all modern varieties. Glia-α9 is a perfect fit for the transglutaminase enzyme that activates it into the form that strongly binds immune-activating (‘HLA DQ’) molecules lining the intestinal wall, activating the characteristic T-cell immune response that sets coeliac disease in motion. The dramatically increased presence of Glia-α9 likely explains why there has been a fourfold increase in coeliac disease since 1948. (Interestingly, the Glia-α9 sequence, coded for on the sixth chromosome of the ‘D’ collection of genes in modern wheat, is also absent from primitive strains of wheat that lack ‘D’ genes, such as einkorn, which contains only the ‘A’ set of genes, and emmer, which contains the ‘A’ and ‘B’ sets of genes.)

Opiates, such as heroin, have been shown to activate appetite in addition to pain relief and euphoria. Likewise, the new forms of wheat gliadin have been shown to have effects on the human brain via binding to opiate receptors – yes, opiate receptors, the very same receptors that are activated by heroin, morphine and Oxycontin. The opiate-like effects of wheat gliadin, however, are less of a ‘high’ and more that of increased appetite and increased calorie consumption, with studies demonstrating a very consistent increased calorie intake of 400 or more calories per day (see ‘Wheat Gliadin and Exorphins: The Ultimate Obesogens’). Blocking gliadin with opiate-blocking drugs like naloxone and naltrexone has been shown to reduce calorie consumption by 400 calories per day and induce weight loss of 1 stone 11 pounds over 6 to 12 months.

Glia-α9 represents just one change introduced into so-called α-gliadins. Changes have also been introduced into the three other fractions of gliadin, including the Ω-gliadin responsible for some forms of wheat allergy and anaphylaxis, and γ-gliadin that, along with the α form, bind HLA DQ. The full effect of these changes, given the widely held assumption that wheat is good for health, has not been fully explored.

Gluten

Gluten is the stuff that confers the viscoelastic properties that are unique to wheat dough, the stretchability and mouldability that allow it to be so accommodating to bakers and shapeable into so many varied configurations, from pretzels to pizza. Gluten is also popular as an additive to processed foods like sauces, instant soups, and frozen foods, causing the average person to ingest from 15 to 20 grams per day.

Gluten is a diverse collection of proteins that vary from wheat strain to wheat strain. Gluten is the recipient of much genetic manipulation, as the long chain and branching structure of the glutenin proteins within gluten determine baking characteristics (firmness, sturdiness, bendability, stretchability, crust formation). Geneticists therefore bred and crossbred wheat strains repeatedly to achieve desired baking characteristics, bred wheat with non-wheat grasses to introduce new genes, and used chemicals and radiation to induce mutations that included new and unique changes in glutenin characteristics.

In addition to adding lightness to doughnuts and chewiness to wraps, gluten is also among the most destructive of proteins in the human diet, thanks to its ability to bind to what are called HLA DQ proteins (via gliadin) along the insides of the human intestinal tract. People with specific genetically determined forms of the HLA DQ proteins, such as DQ2 and DQ8, are especially prone to this effect, yielding inflammatory responses that result in coeliac disease or sensitivity to gluten. Up to 30 per cent of the population has either the DQ2 or DQ8 genes – by no means rare, though only around 1 per cent of people with either DQ gene will develop the full-blown coeliac disease syndrome, while another 10 per cent develop gluten sensitivity. (It’s not entirely clear why some people develop gluten sensitivity with symptoms of abdominal cramps, gas, diarrhoea, etc., while others develop more severe coeliac disease.)

Other important changes have been introduced into gliadin proteins of gluten (see here), including enrichment of the more harmful Glia-α9 sequences that likely underlies the quadrupling of coeliac disease over the past 50 years.

Wheat Gliadin and Exorphins: The Ultimate Obesogens

Obesity research has raised an intriguing question: Are we being exposed to industrial chemicals that cause weight gain and contribute to the obesity epidemic? Bisphenol A (BPA), which is found in polycarbonate plastics and the resin lining of cans, and the pesticide atrazine, for instance, are two compounds suspected to provoke weight gain by blocking or distorting various glandular responses. These chemicals have been dubbed obesogens – compounds that cause obesity.

Could something new in wheat also be an obesogen?

The gliadin proteins of wheat are degraded in the gastrointestinal tract to a group of polypeptides named exorphins, or exogenously derived morphine-like compounds. Several different exorphin compounds, called gluteomorphin or gliadorphins by researchers studying these curious compounds over the last 30 years, have been identified. Not only do wheat-derived exorphins bind to the brain’s opiate receptors, but they are blocked from interacting with brain opiate receptors by the opiate-blocking drugs naloxone and naltrexone, the very same drugs used as antidotes, for example, for heroin or narcotic overdose.

So what is the evidence that the opiate-binding compounds that derive from wheat gliadin, in particular the newest forms of gliadin in modern wheat, via wheat exorphins, stimulate appetite? Here’s a sampling of the research.

• Coeliac disease, intestinal destruction from wheat gluten/gliadin, is traditionally regarded as a condition yielding emaciated, malnourished people, but has, over the last 40 years, become a disease of the overweight and obese.

• Overweight people with coeliac disease who eliminate all wheat and gluten lose 1 stone 12 pounds to 1 stone 13 pounds of weight in the first 6 months. Growing, overweight children with coeliac disease lose fat mass and return to normal body mass index (BMI) with elimination of wheat and gluten. (These effects, by the way, tend to be short-lived because of the common mistake of resorting to weight-increasing gluten-free foods.) Note that in all of these studies, weight was lost without restricting calories, grams of fat or anything else except eliminating wheat and gluten (and thereby gliadin).

• People who eliminate wheat consume, on average, 418 fewer calories per day, or 14 per cent fewer daily calories compared to wheat-consuming people in another study.

• Normal volunteers injected with the opiate-blocking drug naloxone consumed 400 fewer calories in 1 day’s time compared with those administered a placebo.

• People who suffer with binge-eating disorder (who often experience binge and ‘purge’ cycles and are usually obese) consume 28 per cent fewer calories during a binge after administration of naloxone.

• Multiple studies have recently demonstrated the efficacy of the oral opiate-blocking drug naltrexone (in combination with the antidepressant bupropion) for weight loss. Participants receiving the combination drug lost 25 pounds over the first year and experienced substantial reduction in food cravings. (These studies served as the basis for a pharmaceutical company’s 2010 application to the FDA for a weight-loss indication for this drug.)

This is perfectly in sync with what I witness in my office every day, what I’ve witnessed over the past 5 years in people who have eliminated all wheat from their diet and what I have seen unfold many thousands of times in the people who have read and followed the advice provided in Wheat Belly: Lose the wheat, lose the weight.

Wheat, in effect, is a powerful obesogen. Exorphins from the wheat protein gliadin increase appetite and increase calorie consumption by 400 or more calories per day; blocking the morphine-like effects of wheat exorphins with opiate-blocking drugs reduces calorie consumption and results in weight loss. The introduction of modern high-yield, semi-dwarf wheat in the late 1970s, with widespread adoption by 1985, was accompanied by a surge in weight gain, an explosive increase in the number of Americans classified as obese, and, after a lag of a few years, the greatest epidemic of diabetes ever seen.

Say goodbye to wheat, say goodbye to wheat gliadin and exorphins, say goodbye to excessive appetite and say goodbye to weight – a lot of it.

The breeding methods used prior to modern techniques of genetic modification to alter gluten quality did not always result in predictable, controllable changes. For example, just one hybridization event between two different wheat plants can yield as many as 14 new glutenin protein sequences within gluten, the great majority of which have never before been consumed by humans. New genes for glutenin proteins within gluten have been described in modern forms of wheat that have never been found in older forms, such as the unique glutenin genes GluD3-3 and GluD3-12.

Usually as part of efforts to change the genetics of wheat to increase yield or enhance baking characteristics, new and unique gliadin, glutenin and other proteins have resulted, none of which were tested for suitability for human consumption prior to their introduction into your food – they are just produced and sold, no questions asked.

Lectins

Lectins are a class of protective molecules found in plants. Lacking such things as cellular immunity and antibodies like we higher mammals have, plants instead rely on proteins called lectins to protect themselves from moulds, insects and other would-be predators. Because it is an effective defence against pests, geneticists have genetically engineered the gene for wheat lectin, wheat germ agglutinin, into other plants, such as corn, as an insecticide, given its lethal effects on the larvae of a pest known as the European corn borer.

The lectin of wheat, wheat germ agglutinin, is toxic. Found at highest concentration in wheat germ that many people regard as especially healthy, it has peculiar effects at many levels in wheat predators such as humans. Unlike gluten and gliadin, whose toxic potential is amplified in the genetically susceptible through HLA DQ genes, wheat germ agglutinin can do its damage directly, no genetic assistance required. It binds to the lining of the intestinal tract, disrupting cellular structure and microvilli, the short absorptive ‘hairs’ on intestinal cells, and causing ‘hyperplasia’, i.e., abnormal cell growth, of the small intestinal lining. These phenomena increase intestinal permeability, suspected to explain why foreign substances are able to gain entry into the bloodstream in the presence of wheat germ agglutinin. Wheat germ agglutinin is unique in that it is resistant to digestion in the human gastrointestinal tract, as well as to cooking, baking, sprouting the seeds or sourdough fermentation. Because of its relatively small size, in addition to allowing other intruding compounds into the bloodstream, it is itself readily able to penetrate the intestinal lining and gain access to the bloodstream, with many people expressing antibodies against wheat germ agglutinin.

Once it gains entry into the bloodstream, wheat germ agglutinin has the capacity to exert an entire range of peculiar and unhealthy effects, including amplifying the effects of insulin on fat cells (increasing fat storage) and stimulation of abnormal immune responses such as that underlying rheumatoid arthritis. Wheat germ agglutinin is believed to worsen coeliac disease; studies suggest that wheat germ agglutinin alone is sufficient to generate coeliac disease–like intestinal damage.

Oddly, wheat germ agglutinin resembles the protein hevein, the lectin from rubber plants responsible for latex allergy. The three variants of wheat germ agglutinin in modern wheat, isolectins A, B and D, all contain eight copies of the hevein sequence. The full implications of this peculiar juxtaposition have not been explored in humans, though it has potential for allergic and immune consequences, given the frequency and severity of latex allergy.

The genetic changes inflicted on wheat have potential for expressing altered forms of wheat germ agglutinin. The structure of this protein in modern wheat is different by several amino acids from that of the ancient wheat strains emmer and einkorn. Unfortunately, what is not clear, given the general lack of interest among agricultural scientists and the recent development of technology able to make such distinctions among molecules, is whether new forms of lectins created over the last 50 years are more harmful than older forms. (It might turn out, for instance, that wheat lectins are bad for humans no matter what form they take.)

Rht Genes

Nearly all of the world’s wheat is the semi-dwarf variety, a high-yield 1½ to 2-foot-tall plant. Dwarfism is controlled by reduced height, or Rht, genes that reduce the production of the protein gibberellin, which stimulates growth of the stalk. Genes for dwarfism were originally obtained during the flurry of genetics research conducted in the 1960s and 1970s through repeated crossings with the mutant Norin 10 strain from Japan.

As with many mutations, one ‘defective’ (or, in this case, desirable) gene is often accompanied by other genetic changes. Changes in Rht genes are accompanied by other changes in the genetic code of the wheat plant. Reduced height is also associated with thicker shafts, greater nutrient uptake in the seedheads (which are ground to produce flour), yielding larger and an increased number of seeds, and variations in other proteins expressed, such as alpha amylase inhibitors. As with much of the research of this age, some of the characteristics created were desirable to agricultural scientists, some not, but most were not even identified nor outwardly expressed or visible to the eye since the nature of the methods used did not seek to identify each and every change, just the obvious ones. (Imagine, for instance, I provoke a mutation for height in a chimpanzee. A 1-foot-tall chimpanzee dwarf might also have mental impairment, odd hair texture and colour, endocrine abnormalities, etc., some of which are apparent to the eye, many of which are not.)

What consequences do these unique genes and proteins have for humans consuming various Rht mutants with their accompanying changes? Nobody knows, since the question was never asked.

Alpha Amylase Inhibitors and Other Allergens

Allergy to wheat is on the increase (along with allergies to peanuts, dairy and other foods). This means that more people generate an IgE (immunoglobulin E) antibody response to various protein triggers, or ‘allergens’, in wheat. Eighteen per cent more children today have various dietary allergies, including wheat, than children did as recently as 1997.

Clearfield Wheat: Product of ‘Traditional Breeding Methods’

Clearfield wheat is a strain of patented semi-dwarf wheat, the product of ‘hybridization’ research at BASF, the world’s largest chemical manufacturer.

Hybridization is a loosely used term. In common usage, of course, hybridization simply means mating two plants or animals to generate a unique offspring. Mate a red apple with a yellow apple, and you get a happy red-yellow hybrid. There is a presumption of safety with hybridization: The FDA doesn’t come knocking at your door asking for your animal or human test data. Hybridize to your heart’s content and you can just sell your unique vegetable or fruit, no questions asked.

Clearfield wheat is resistant to the herbicide imazamox, also known as Beyond. Imazamox resistance is conferred by an alteration in the acetohydroxyacid synthase gene. The promotional literature to farmers proudly proclaims that imazamox resistance in Clearfield wheat is not the product of genetic modification: Clearfield wheat is non-GMO, unlike Roundup-resistant corn and soya. Clearfield brand wheat seed is sold to farmers in the northwestern United States. Farmers in Colorado, Oregon, Idaho, Washington and other states are now planting nearly one million acres of Clearfield wheat.

So how did chemical company BASF (with the collaboration of Oregon State University), which holds the patent on Clearfield and sells the seed, create this genetic variant?

Clearfield wheat was created through a process called chemical mutagenesis. Developers exposed wheat seeds to the chemical sodium azide, NaN₃. Sodium azide is highly toxic to animals, bacteria and humans, with human ingestion of small quantities yielding effects similar to those of cyanide. With accidental ingestion, for instance, the CDC recommends not performing CPR on the victim (in effect, just letting the victim die), since the CPR provider could be fatally exposed along with the victim. The CDC also advises not to dispose of any vomit into a sink, since it can explode (and this has actually happened).

In addition to methods of chemical mutagenesis, gamma and x-ray radiation are also used on seeds and plant embryos to induce mutations. These methods of inducing purposeful, though unpredictable, mutations all fall under the umbrella of ‘traditional breeding methods’.

So plants subjected to all manner of chemical- and radiation-based hybridization techniques are unleashed on the unwitting public, all presumed to be safe for human consumption, without safety testing in animals, just . . . used to create your foods.

There are some efforts made to analyse carbohydrate content, fibre content and other crude measures of compositional change. Oh, you’ll be happy to know that they also did test for its ability to yield cohesive biscuits and light sponge cake.

Numerous allergens have been identified in modern wheat that were not present in ancient forms like einkorn. Wheat contains alpha amylase inhibitors, probably the most common among proteins responsible for wheat allergy in children (usually resulting in hives and/or asthma, cramps and diarrhoea and eczema). The structure of alpha amylase inhibitors of modern wheat overlaps with that of alpha amylase inhibitors of ancient strains by 90 per cent, meaning that 10 per cent of the genetic code and alpha amylase inhibitor structure are different. As any allergist will tell you, just a few different amino acids can spell the difference between no allergic reaction and a severe allergic reaction, even anaphylaxis (shock). When it comes to allergy, little changes can have big consequences.

Unfortunately, with the numerous protean changes introduced into the 25,000 strains of modern wheat, it is a virtual impossibility to track which strain contains which form of alpha amylase inhibitor. The loaf of bread you bought at the supermarket, the Cinnabon from the shopping centre, the bagel from the bagel shop – none are labelled, of course, with the strain of wheat they are sourced from. You can begin to appreciate the difficulty in tracking which strain of wheat might be associated with a specific individual’s allergic reaction. But one thing is certain: Modern forms of wheat, thanks to busy geneticists, are associated with increased potential for allergy, some of which are due to changes introduced into alpha amylase inhibitor genes.

There are other forms of wheat allergy as well, with people in the baking industry who develop a condition called Baker’s asthma. There is also the peculiar condition called wheat-derived exercise-induced anaphylaxis (WDEIA). a severe and life-threatening allergy induced by exercise after eating wheat. Both conditions are likely due to allergy to a gliadin protein fraction.

In addition, many other proteins – such as lipid transfer proteins, Ω-gliadins, α-gliadins, serpins and low-molecular-weight glutenins – have also been shown to trigger IgE-mediated allergic reactions to wheat. It is unclear whether the changes introduced in modern wheat have been associated with increased allergy to any of these wheat proteins, but clearly the potential is there.

It’s Alive!

‘Come on! Wheat can’t be that bad! If it’s so bad, how come my mum ate bread every day and lived until she was 85 years old in perfect health?’

What we are being sold today is so far removed from the wheat of even 50 years ago that I challenge that it should even be called wheat any longer.

Let me weave you a scary tale that helps illustrate what has been done to this thing called wheat. This story might freak you out. So put the kids to bed, close the door and make sure no nosy neighbours are watching.

Okay. Imagine you and I are evil scientists. We want to know what happens when we mate a 4-foot-7 Mbenga pygmy tribeswoman from the Congo with a 6-foot-4 blond Swedish male. We obtain the offspring, a child somewhere in between the Pygmy mom and Swedish dad. Once it reaches sexual maturity, we mate this Swede-Pygmy with yet another Pygmy, but this time chosen for the shortest stature among this short race. We repeat this process several more times over several generations. We also introduce mates that have other characteristics, such as hairlessness or resistance to malaria. We also ignore some of the unexpected genetic characteristics that emerge, such as peculiar facial features, missing limbs or other body parts, or unique metabolic derangements.

Then the really creepy part starts. We mate our Swede-Pygmy descendant with some non-human primates, such as an orangutan, because we’d like to see whether our creature can be made to ably climb trees. The offspring are not always viable, but that’s not our concern. We just keep our creations alive with whatever artificial means are required. It might require surgical correction, antibiotics or artificial nutrition. We also take pregnant mothers and expose them to chemicals that induce mutations in the developing fetus in utero, and use gamma radiation and high doses of x-rays, also to induce mutations. Most of the mutations are grotesque and non-viable. But every so often, we’re lucky and the mutant survives. It may be really weird looking, with odd facial features, deranged teeth and deformed bones, as well as peculiar health problems, but that’s also not our concern.

At the end of this process, repeated over and over again over many years, what do we call the creatures we’ve created? We can’t call them Swedish humans. We can’t call them Pygmies. They are artificially created things that bear no name, no resemblance to anything that occurs in nature because we used unnatural methods to create them. Maybe they’re 3-foot-tall creatures that, permitted some mix of synthetic food for sustenance, provide a unique service that we’ve sought, e.g., climbing trees to harvest coconuts.

Thankfully, nobody outside of Nazi Germany conducts such horrific practices in humans and our close primate relatives. But such practices are commonplace in plant genetics.

Apply something similar to wheat of the early 20th century: repeated crossings to select for specific characteristics such as short stature, ease of release of the seeds, extreme oil production to discourage birds, resistance to mould and fungi; occasionally mate with non-wheat grains to introduce entirely unique genetic characteristics; salvage otherwise fatal mutants by embryo ‘rescue’; and expose the seed or embryo to the process of chemical or radiation mutagenesis to induce random mutations that occasionally are useful – well, those are the techniques that agribusiness and geneticists like to call traditional breeding methods. These are the methods that lobbyists for the wheat industry don’t talk about, choosing instead to say things like ‘modern wheat is not genetically modified’, meaning gene-splicing techniques have not been used to insert or delete a gene.

So the truth of it is that ‘traditional breeding methods’ used to create modern semi-dwarf, high-yield strains of wheat were cruder, less controllable, much less predictable and prone to produce consequences outside of the intended characteristic. In short, they were far worse than genetic engineering, yet these products made it to your supermarket shelf, dinner table and gastrointestinal tract . . . no questions asked.

The result: what I call a Frankengrain, the result of extensive genetic changes, unable to survive without artificial chemical support, genetically stitched together with parts from various sources, like the creature created using the pieces from cadavers and charnel houses by Dr Victor Frankenstein.

Except this Frankengrain isn’t terrifying the countryside – we willingly invite it onto our dinner tables, package it in clever eye-catching ways and feed it to our children.

This raises a fundamental question that has not yet been answered in agriculture or agricultural genetics: How much genetic and biochemical change can a plant like wheat undergo, after being subjected to extensive efforts to change its genetics, yet still be called wheat?

At the very least, we should be informed of the degree of change introduced into our foods, but even that modest concession is vigorously opposed. For instance, witness the intense lobbying agribusiness has waged to block the Truth in Labeling Act that would require food companies to declare whether a genetically modified ingredient is contained in a product. Nobody is asking them to stop generating genetically modified crops, but just to tell us if they did it. But even this modest disclosure is vigorously opposed.

No, the extreme changes introduced into the genetics of food crops like wheat are a well-kept secret, not divulged on labels, certainly not discussed in advice to ‘eat more healthy whole grains’.

So we have increasing allergy to modern strains of wheat, occurring most commonly among children. Surely, such a substantial increase in allergic reactions in children would sound the alarm among geneticists and prompt some serious questions, perhaps even a moratorium on any additional changes? Nope. Changes introduced into wheat continue unabated, allergy or no.

Products made from wheat flour are delicious, smell great and make for all sorts of clever variations, from pitta bread to wedding cake. But wheat flour is a delivery vehicle for all manner of compounds that exert undesirable effects on the human body, including new forms of gliadin, new and unexplored glutenin sequences, new forms of lectins, new alpha amylase inhibitor sequences and many other new forms of proteins never before consumed by humans.

Surely, regulatory agencies like the USDA or FDA scrutinize each new change, study the biochemical changes introduced, examine the evidence of safety for every genetic alteration, look at animal safety testing and then ask for human safety data when necessary? Nope. No such thing. Geneticists create new strains of wheat with its collection of genetic changes, agribusiness sells it, farmers grow it, bakers put it to use and then you and your family eat it.

Imagine one day the FDA announces that pharmaceutical manufacturers no longer need to file an FDA application to introduce new drugs; they can just develop and sell them, should they see fit. Pandemonium would result, of course, a scramble to introduce new drugs with uncertain side effects in the hopes of accelerating profits. Such a laissez-faire attitude, of course, would never be acceptable to the public – but that is precisely what has been going on in agricultural genetics.

When you examine the health effects of the various pieces within modern wheat, you can’t help but conclude: It is a perfect poison.

Why Pick On Wheat?

Why am I so intent on bullying poor wheat? Surely there are other problems in the modern diet and lifestyle besides wheat.

The proliferation of high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener, causing fructose consumption from corn sweeteners to skyrocket from an annual average per capita exposure of almost none in 1960 to 39 pounds in 2005, has undoubtedly contributed to obesity and other distortions of metabolism. Fructose in high-fructose corn syrup, as well as that in sucrose, is a uniquely metabolized sugar that does not generate satiety and is converted to triglycerides, introducing unique distortions that contribute to heart disease, insulin resistance, diabetes and weight gain.

Corn, soya, beets and potatoes have been genetically modified, i.e., gene-splicing technology has been used to insert or delete single genes, while wheat has not. Roundup Ready corn and soy, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) engineered to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup), dominate corn and soya fields on most farms today, meaning much of the processed food now sold contains these GMOs (as well as glyphosate residues). Preliminary observations of undesirable health effects in experimental animals suggest that they contribute to health problems, including weight gain, too.

Of course, the favourite explanation from ‘official’ sources for the widespread weight gain, obesity and diabetes epidemic is laziness and gluttony: You watch too much TV, spend too much time behind the computer or desk, don’t exercise enough, eat too much fat and drink too many soft drinks. In this worldview, we are a bunch of indulgent, slothful, chip- and fizzy drink-consuming people, no different from many 14-year-olds.

So why is wheat different? Why is wheat so bad, especially if the wheat sold today is not genetically modified?

First of all, the gliadin protein, the opiate-like compound that stimulates appetite, is unique to wheat. No other food or additive – high-fructose corn syrup, GMO corn, sucrose, fat, food colourings, preservatives, etc. – stimulates calorie consumption like wheat. Eat wheat, increase calorie consumption by 440 calories per day; remove wheat, reduce calorie consumption by 440 calories per day. The phenomenon is consistent and predictable. No other food is capable of such a phenomenon.

Second, due to the unique properties of the amylopectin A of wheat, few foods increase blood sugar and thereby insulin as much as wheat. Ice cream, Snickers bars and Milky Way bars do not increase blood sugar and insulin as much as two slices of wholemeal bread. Recall that foods that increase blood sugar and insulin the highest are the most likely to stimulate growth of visceral fat, the deep abdominal fat that is uniquely inflammatory. Grow visceral fat, increase inflammation, which in turn further blocks insulin and causes worsening resistance to insulin – around and around, until you have a big swollen collection of visceral fat, a ‘wheat belly’, that underlies even more health conditions, such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and cancer.

Third, the intestinal ‘leakiness’ (the increased entry of foreign substances into the bloodstream from the intestinal tract) encouraged by the lectin in wheat, wheat germ agglutinin, is unique to wheat. No other lectin in any other plant is capable of disrupting intestinal health in such a way – not the lectin in lentils, nor the lectin in elderberries, nor the lectin in peanuts. This likely explains why eating lentils does not cause or worsen rheumatoid arthritis, lupus or polymyalgia rheumatica, but consuming wheat does. Wheat lectins therefore heighten inflammation that, in turn, worsens insulin resistance, causing visceral fat to accumulate.

Can We Go Back?

Can a return to the old ways teach us some useful lessons about wheat?

If the product of 1960s and 1970s genetics research, high-yield, semi-dwarf wheat, is the source of so many modern problems, what happens if we reject this genetic mutant and bring back some of the older, even ancient, forms? Are the predecessors of modern wheat free of all its problems? Should we ask farmers, for instance, to resurrect wheat strains (‘landraces’) popular during the 19th century, such as Russian and Red Fife, or the wheat that Moses and the Israelites carried with them in their flight from Egypt, emmer wheat?

Recall that modern wheat is a 2-foot-tall strain bred primarily for exceptional yield. It is the combination of three unique genetic codes, designated the A, B and D sets of genes (genomes), the most recently added D genome being the recipient of most of the genetic manipulations and the source of unique glutens, glutenins and gliadins that make modern wheat such a nasty creature.

In other words, say you, me and Sherman accompany Mr Peabody in the WayBack Machine, and we sample the wheat of bygone ages. If we go back in time, we’ll encounter:

Wheat of the early 20th century – i.e., Triticum aestivum, or 42-chromosome wheat that pre-dates the extreme breeding and mutation-generating interventions of the latter 20th century, with its genetics relatively untouched. These strains of Triticum aestivum share the A, B and D genomes, but this D genome lacks all the extreme changes introduced by 20th-century geneticists. This includes strains such as Sonora, a strain that flourished in rural late-19th- and early-20th-century California, and Ladoga, which was transplanted from Russia to Canada in the late 19th century and spawned several successful 20th-century varieties.

19th-century and previous landraces – These are the strains of Triticum aestivum wheat that developed unique to specific climates and terrains, similar to wine grapes’ terroir. Strains adapt to a location’s humidity, temperatures, soil, day-night cycles and seasonal changes. This includes several thousand varieties, all of which also share the A, B and D genomes.

Spelt – Spelt is a 42-chromosome A, B, D wheat dating from pre-biblical times and cultivated widely until the Middle Ages.

Emmer – Emmer is the 28-chromosome A, B offspring of an ancient natural cross between einkorn wheat and a wild grass. Emmer is likely the wheat of the Bible. It lacks the D genome that contains most of the genes coding for the most disease-causing forms of gliadin.

Kamut – Kamut shares genetics similar to that of emmer, i.e., 28 chromosomes, and the combined genes of einkorn wheat and a wild grass. Like emmer, kamut contains the A and B genomes, but not the D.

Einkorn – The great-granddaddy of all wheat, the grain first harvested wild, and the source of the original 14 chromosomes, the A genome, of wheat.

Obviously, experience with the various forms of wheat, particularly the varieties of ancient wheat, is extremely limited. But we do know a few things.

Hunter-gatherer humans who first began to incorporate wild einkorn into their diets experienced a downturn in health, including more dental disease, bone diseases and possibly atherosclerosis and cancer. Likewise, modern hunter-gatherer cultures who do not consume wheat are spared these conditions.

We also know that coeliac disease is not unique to modern wheat but was described as early as AD 100 by ancient Greek physician Aretaeus and by others many times over the centuries, meaning it likely occurred with consumption of emmer, spelt, kamut and Triticum aestivum landraces, though the relative frequencies were likely much lower.

If we go back step-by-step from modern semi-dwarf wheat, back to the wheat of 1950 that pre-dates human genetic intervention, back to the wheat of the early 20th and 19th centuries, back to the wheat of the Middle Ages and the first millennium, back farther to the wheat of the Bible, then the wheat of pre-biblical civilizations, and finally to the einkorn wheat harvested wild, wheat becomes less and less destructive each step of the way, less likely to trigger human illness.

But does wheat ever become entirely benign, perhaps healthy, the farther back we go?

Here’s a tough question: How much better does a wheat strain have to be in order to be acceptable to most people – 50 per cent, 70 per cent, 80 per cent, 100 per cent better than our modern choice? What level of risk would you be willing to accept in order to consume foods made of this grain? If I had a cigarette, for instance, that posed 80 per cent less risk of lung cancer than conventional cigarettes, is that safe enough for you to consider?

There are no right or wrong answers. It will be something to ponder in the coming years as information and experience with the older forms of wheat grow. In the meantime, given what we know (and don’t know) about these older forms of wheat, my commonsense advice is to steer clear of all forms of wheat, new and old, and be certain you have great health and nutrition.

Fourth, and very importantly, wheat is about so much more than weight. Consumption of modern wheat is about acid reflux and irritable bowel syndrome. It’s about neurological impairment and coeliac disease. It’s about water retention and leg oedema. It’s about allergies, asthma and chronic sinus congestion and infections. It’s about inattention and behavioural outbursts in children with ADHD and autism. It’s about worsening symptoms of bipolar illness and schizophrenia. It’s about mental ‘fog’ and depression. It’s about acne, dandruff, seborrhoea, psoriasis and a whole host of other skin conditions. It’s about triggering the number one cause of heart disease, small LDL cholesterol particles.

Fifth, what other food contains the gluten protein that causes coeliac disease, neurological impairment (gluten ataxia, peripheral neuropathy and dementia), dermatitis herpetiformis and non-coeliac gluten sensitivity? Yes, barley, triticale, rye, bulgur and perhaps oats overlap with the immune properties of wheat, but the gluten of wheat remains the Emperor of Gluten. Corn syrup, sucrose, sweets, ‘trans’ fats – none of these foods can cause the range of diseases caused by wheat.

In other words, even if you struggle to come to grips with the appetite-stimulating and blood sugar-provoking effects of wheat, there is so much more to wheat’s effects on health that you’ve got to conclude that weight is among the least important of wheat’s effects. Yes, it’s an important effect, but the many components of modern wheat impair human health in so many other varied ways.

Put all these pieces together in the form of modern wheat, and you’ve got a heck of a health-distorting foodstuff. In short, wheat is the dietary perfect storm capable of generating in humans undesirable health effects that no other plant or food can match. And it enjoys the endorsements of ‘official’ agencies, all urging us to eat more ‘healthy whole grains’.

So, yes, wheat is the worst.

What’s in the Future?

While no current commercially produced wheat products on the market today are, in the language of geneticists, genetically modified, i.e., the product of gene splicing techniques to insert or delete a gene, they are coming. Their appearance on your supermarket shelf is inevitable.

Genetically modified wheat has been around since the mid-1980s, when gene splicing techniques, such as exposure of wheat embryos to polyethylene glycol (the same as in antifreeze), electrical current and particle bombardment that force insertion of new genes, made their appearance in genetics laboratories. Monsanto has been sitting on several strains of GM wheat but has not yet marketed the seed to farmers due to public resistance – but it’s coming, public resistance or no.

Semi-dwarf wheat strains with new genes for high-molecular-weight glutenins (a component of gluten) to improve visco-elasticity are in the works, as well as efforts to reduce the blood sugar-raising potential of wheat amylopectin A. Extensive work is also ongoing to generate new strains resistant to various pests, fungi and moulds by inserting genes encoding viral coat proteins, antifungal proteins and proteinase inhibitors.

Characteristic of the naive thinking of plant geneticists when considering the effects on humans who consume their products, much genetic research with wheat has focused on ways to disable the adverse health effects of gluten. In their way of thinking, breeding new strains of wheat that lack the 33 amino acid sequences most likely to stimulate the immune response of coeliac disease would yield a more benign form of wheat. The problem: All the other problem components of wheat remain, including wheat germ agglutinin, amylopectin A and alpha amylase inhibitors, not to mention the unanticipated effects of altered forms of gliadin, glutenin and gluten created by these genetics efforts never before consumed by humans.

With all that uncertainty, surely there will be extensive biochemical analyses, experimental animal assessments and human volunteer studies testing these products of genetic modification prior to introduction of such genetically and biochemically unique products . . . but probably not. Genetically modified wheat can be produced, marketed and sold in the supermarket, but there does not have to be any record of safe consumption in humans. After all, there hasn’t been any such effort for any genetically modified food before. And agribusiness has been spending tens of billions of dollars to lobby the federal government every year to oppose legislation that would only require that genetically modified food say so on the label.

Eat It . . . and Weep

Now that I’ve scared you silly with the science behind this crazy genetic monster called modern wheat, let’s now turn to understanding how this thing fiddles with your health.

What happens to us humans who, unadvised of the genetic changes introduced, consume this stuff every day?