FarmPlate: A Yelp For Local Food And Local Farmers

In Iraq, the groundwork has been laid to protect the patents of Monsanto and other G.M.-seed companies. One of L. Paul Bremer’s last acts as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority was an order stipulating that “farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties.” Monsanto has said that it has no interest in doing business in Iraq, but should the company change its mind, the American-style law is in place.

To be sure, more and more agricultural corporations and individual farmers are using Monsanto’s G.M. seeds. As recently as 1980, no genetically modified crops were grown in the U.S. In 2007, the total was 142 million acres planted. Worldwide, the figure was 282 million acres. Many farmers believe that G.M. seeds increase crop yields and save money. Another reason for their attraction is convenience. By using Roundup Ready soybean seeds, a farmer can spend less time tending to his fields. With Monsanto seeds, a farmer plants his crop, then treats it later with Roundup to kill weeds. That takes the place of labor-intensive weed control and plowing.

Monsanto portrays its move into G.M. seeds as a giant leap for mankind. But out in the American countryside, Monsanto’s no-holds-barred tactics have made it feared and loathed. Like it or not, farmers say, they have fewer and fewer choices in buying seeds.

And controlling the seeds is not some abstraction. Whoever provides the world’s seeds controls the world’s food supply.

Under Surveillance

After Monsanto’s investigator confronted Gary Rinehart, Monsanto filed a federal lawsuit alleging that Rinehart “knowingly, intentionally, and willfully” planted seeds “in violation of Monsanto’s patent rights.” The company’s complaint made it sound as if Monsanto had Rinehart dead to rights:

During the 2002 growing season, Investigator Jeffery Moore, through surveillance of Mr. Rinehart’s farm facility and farming operations, observed Defendant planting brown bag soybean seed. Mr. Moore observed the Defendant take the brown bag soybeans to a field, which was subsequently loaded into a grain drill and planted. Mr. Moore located two empty bags in the ditch in the public road right-of-way beside one of the fields planted by Rinehart, which contained some soybeans. Mr. Moore collected a small amount of soybeans left in the bags which Defendant had tossed into the public right-of way. These samples tested positive for Monsanto’s Roundup Ready technology.

Faced with a federal lawsuit, Rinehart had to hire a lawyer. Monsanto eventually realized that “Investigator Jeffery Moore” had targeted the wrong man, and dropped the suit. Rinehart later learned that the company had been secretly investigating farmers in his area. Rinehart never heard from Monsanto again: no letter of apology, no public concession that the company had made a terrible mistake, no offer to pay his attorney’s fees. “I don’t know how they get away with it,” he says. “If I tried to do something like that it would be bad news. I felt like I was in another country.”

Gary Rinehart is actually one of Monsanto’s luckier targets. Ever since commercial introduction of its G.M. seeds, in 1996, Monsanto has launched thousands of investigations and filed lawsuits against hundreds of farmers and seed dealers. In a 2007 report, the Center for Food Safety, in Washington, D.C., documented 112 such lawsuits, in 27 states.

Even more significant, in the Center’s opinion, are the numbers of farmers who settle because they don’t have the money or the time to fight Monsanto. “The number of cases filed is only the tip of the iceberg,” says Bill Freese, the Center’s science-policy analyst. Freese says he has been told of many cases in which Monsanto investigators showed up at a farmer’s house or confronted him in his fields, claiming he had violated the technology agreement and demanding to see his records. According to Freese, investigators will say, “Monsanto knows that you are saving Roundup Ready seeds, and if you don’t sign these information-release forms, Monsanto is going to come after you and take your farm or take you for all you’re worth.” Investigators will sometimes show a farmer a photo of himself coming out of a store, to let him know he is being followed.

Lawyers who have represented farmers sued by Monsanto say that intimidating actions like these are commonplace. Most give in and pay Monsanto some amount in damages; those who resist face the full force of Monsanto’s legal wrath.

Scorched-Earth Tactics

Pilot Grove, Missouri, population 750, sits in rolling farmland 150 miles west of St. Louis. The town has a grocery store, a bank, a bar, a nursing home, a funeral parlor, and a few other small businesses. There are no stoplights, but the town doesn’t need any. The little traffic it has comes from trucks on their way to and from the grain elevator on the edge of town. The elevator is owned by a local co-op, the Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator, which buys soybeans and corn from farmers in the fall, then ships out the grain over the winter. The co-op has seven full-time employees and four computers.

In the fall of 2006, Monsanto trained its legal guns on Pilot Grove; ever since, its farmers have been drawn into a costly, disruptive legal battle against an opponent with limitless resources. Neither Pilot Grove nor Monsanto will discuss the case, but it is possible to piece together much of the story from documents filed as part of the litigation.

Monsanto began investigating soybean farmers in and around Pilot Grove several years ago. There is no indication as to what sparked the probe, but Monsanto periodically investigates farmers in soybean-growing regions such as this one in central Missouri. The company has a staff devoted to enforcing patents and litigating against farmers. To gather leads, the company maintains an 800 number and encourages farmers to inform on other farmers they think may be engaging in “seed piracy.”

Once Pilot Grove had been targeted, Monsanto sent private investigators into the area. Over a period of months, Monsanto’s investigators surreptitiously followed the co-op’s employees and customers and videotaped them in fields and going about other activities. At least 17 such surveillance videos were made, according to court records. The investigative work was outsourced to a St. Louis agency, McDowell & Associates. It was a McDowell investigator who erroneously fingered Gary Rinehart. In Pilot Grove, at least 11 McDowell investigators have worked the case, and Monsanto makes no bones about the extent of this effort: “Surveillance was conducted throughout the year by various investigators in the field,” according to court records. McDowell, like Monsanto, will not comment on the case.

Not long after investigators showed up in Pilot Grove, Monsanto subpoenaed the co-op’s records concerning seed and herbicide purchases and seed-cleaning operations. The co-op provided more than 800 pages of documents pertaining to dozens of farmers. Monsanto sued two farmers and negotiated settlements with more than 25 others it accused of seed piracy. But Monsanto’s legal assault had only begun. Although the co-op had provided voluminous records, Monsanto then sued it in federal court for patent infringement. Monsanto contended that by cleaning seeds—a service which it had provided for decades—the co-op was inducing farmers to violate Monsanto’s patents. In effect, Monsanto wanted the co-op to police its own customers.

In the majority of cases where Monsanto sues, or threatens to sue, farmers settle before going to trial. The cost and stress of litigating against a global corporation are just too great. But Pilot Grove wouldn’t cave—and ever since, Monsanto has been turning up the heat. The more the co-op has resisted, the more legal firepower Monsanto has aimed at it. Pilot Grove’s lawyer, Steven H. Schwartz, described Monsanto in a court filing as pursuing a “scorched earth tactic,” intent on “trying to drive the co-op into the ground.”

Even after Pilot Grove turned over thousands more pages of sales records going back five years, and covering virtually every one of its farmer customers, Monsanto wanted more—the right to inspect the co-op’s hard drives. When the co-op offered to provide an electronic version of any record, Monsanto demanded hands-on access to Pilot Grove’s in-house computers.

Originally Printed in Vanityfair.com

Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.

by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele

No thanks: An anti-Monsanto crop circle made by farmers and volunteers in the Philippines. By Melvyn Calderon/Greenpeace HO/A.P. Images.

Gary Rinehart clearly remembers the summer day in 2002 when the stranger walked in and issued his threat. Rinehart was behind the counter of the Square Deal, his “old-time country store,” as he calls it, on the fading town square of Eagleville, Missouri, a tiny farm community 100 miles north of Kansas City.

The Square Deal is a fixture in Eagleville, a place where farmers and townspeople can go for lightbulbs, greeting cards, hunting gear, ice cream, aspirin, and dozens of other small items without having to drive to a big-box store in Bethany, the county seat, 15 miles down Interstate 35.

Everyone knows Rinehart, who was born and raised in the area and runs one of Eagleville’s few surviving businesses. The stranger came up to the counter and asked for him by name.

“Well, that’s me,” said Rinehart.

As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto’s genetically modified (G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company’s patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him—or face the consequences.

Rinehart was incredulous, listening to the words as puzzled customers and employees looked on. Like many others in rural America, Rinehart knew of Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them. But Rinehart wasn’t a farmer. He wasn’t a seed dealer. He hadn’t planted any seeds or sold any seeds. He owned a small—a reallysmall—country store in a town of 350 people. He was angry that somebody could just barge into the store and embarrass him in front of everyone. “It made me and my business look bad,” he says. Rinehart says he told the intruder, “You got the wrong guy.”

When the stranger persisted, Rinehart showed him the door. On the way out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can’t remember the exact words, but they were to the effect of: “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.”

Scenes like this are playing out in many parts of rural America these days as Monsanto goes after farmers, farmers’ co-ops, seed dealers—anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of genetically modified seeds. As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the “seed police” and use words such as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” to describe their tactics.

When asked about these practices, Monsanto declined to comment specifically, other than to say that the company is simply protecting its patents. “Monsanto spends more than $2 million a day in research to identify, test, develop and bring to market innovative new seeds and technologies that benefit farmers,” Monsanto spokesman Darren Wallis wrote in an e-mailed letter to Vanity Fair. “One tool in protecting this investment is patenting our discoveries and, if necessary, legally defending those patents against those who might choose to infringe upon them.” Wallis said that, while the vast majority of farmers and seed dealers follow the licensing agreements, “a tiny fraction” do not, and that Monsanto is obligated to those who do abide by its rules to enforce its patent rights on those who “reap the benefits of the technology without paying for its use.” He said only a small number of cases ever go to trial.

Some compare Monsanto’s hard-line approach to Microsoft’s zealous efforts to protect its software from pirates. At least with Microsoft the buyer of a program can use it over and over again. But farmers who buy Monsanto’s seeds can’t even do that.

The Control of Nature

For centuries—millennia—farmers have saved seeds from season to season: they planted in the spring, harvested in the fall, then reclaimed and cleaned the seeds over the winter for re-planting the next spring. Monsanto has turned this ancient practice on its head.

Monsanto developed G.M. seeds that would resist its own herbicide, Roundup, offering farmers a convenient way to spray fields with weed killer without affecting crops. Monsanto then patented the seeds. For nearly all of its history the United States Patent and Trademark Office had refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life-forms with too many variables to be patented. “It’s not like describing a widget,” says Joseph Mendelson III, the legal director of the Center for Food Safety, which has tracked Monsanto’s activities in rural America for years.

Indeed not. But in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world’s food supply. In its decision, the court extended patent law to cover “a live human-made microorganism.” In this case, the organism wasn’t even a seed. Rather, it was a Pseudomonasbacterium developed by a General Electric scientist to clean up oil spills. But the precedent was set, and Monsanto took advantage of it. Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data.

Farmers who buy Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising not to save the seed produced after each harvest for re-planting, or to sell the seed to other farmers. This means that farmers must buy new seed every year. Those increased sales, coupled with ballooning sales of its Roundup weed killer, have been a bonanza for Monsanto.

This radical departure from age-old practice has created turmoil in farm country. Some farmers don’t fully understand that they aren’t supposed to save Monsanto’s seeds for next year’s planting. Others do, but ignore the stipulation rather than throw away a perfectly usable product. Still others say that they don’t use Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds, but seeds have been blown into their fields by wind or deposited by birds. It’s certainly easy for G.M. seeds to get mixed in with traditional varieties when seeds are cleaned by commercial dealers for re-planting. The seeds look identical; only a laboratory analysis can show the difference. Even if a farmer doesn’t buy G.M. seeds and doesn’t want them on his land, it’s a safe bet he’ll get a visit from Monsanto’s seed police if crops grown from G.M. seeds are discovered in his fields.

Most Americans know Monsanto because of what it sells to put on our lawns— the ubiquitous weed killer Roundup. What they may not know is that the company now profoundly influences—and one day may virtually control—what we put on our tables. For most of its history Monsanto was a chemical giant, producing some of the most toxic substances ever created, residues from which have left us with some of the most polluted sites on earth. Yet in a little more than a decade, the company has sought to shed its polluted past and morph into something much different and more far-reaching—an “agricultural company” dedicated to making the world “a better place for future generations.” Still, more than one Web log claims to see similarities between Monsanto and the fictional company “U-North” in the movie Michael Clayton, an agribusiness giant accused in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit of selling an herbicide that causes cancer.

Monsanto brought false accusations against Gary Rinehart—shown here at his rural Missouri store. There has been no apology. Photographs by Kurt Markus.

Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds have transformed the company and are radically altering global agriculture. So far, the company has produced G.M. seeds for soybeans, corn, canola, and cotton. Many more products have been developed or are in the pipeline, including seeds for sugar beets and alfalfa. The company is also seeking to extend its reach into milk production by marketing an artificial growth hormone for cows that increases their output, and it is taking aggressive steps to put those who don’t want to use growth hormone at a commercial disadvantage.

NFC clients and prospective may may want to read the following draft guidance carefully and provide comments, if they wish, as there are some differences between this and past understanding of the exclusion section of the regulation, §205.101(b).  If the draft guidance is implemented as final guidance with no changes made, then a number of different operations will have to be certified organic where they could’ve been considered “excluded” before. 

New Document: Click Here

The Many Aliases of MSG

In today’s ever-growing health-conscious world, where people are becoming increasingly more aware of the dangers of trans fats, hydrogenated oils and sugars in the foods they consume, one additive is still giving consumers the slip. Backed by food companies and manufacturers, an additive known to cause neurological damage and toxic reactions in a large percentage of the public, continues to be used in a wide variety of processed foods. This dangerous flavor enhancer is cleverly concealed under an array of pseudonyms and is present even in products touted as “all natural” and “organic.”

Monosodium glutamate, more commonly know as the flavor enhancer MSG, is an additive typically found in canned and instant soups, crackers, chips, snack foods, dressings, and frozen foods. It is widely used in Chinese restaurants and is even found in baby food and instant formula. Actually a salt of the amino acid called glutamate or glutamic acid, MSG was originally gleaned from natural sources such as seaweed and beets. Today however, MSG is chemically produced using bacterial fermentation, a process which contains many contaminants.

The reason for its popularity in the food industry is that, more than just a seasoning or spice, MSG actually augments the taste of foods by tricking the tongue into tasting better and differently. It works on the brain and neurological system, making foods taste stronger and more appetizing. Chemically speaking, MSG is an “excitotoxin”, a substance that over-stimulates the nervous system leading to a host of uncomfortable side effects, and in some cases, dangerous ones, including migraines, numbness and tingling, vomiting, changes in heart rhythm and difficulty breathing. Known to kill brain cells in laboratory animals, experts in the medical field advise that children under 12 and elderly or infirm individuals avoid ingesting MSG since these groups have weakened or underdeveloped blood-brain barriers, which would render their bodies unable to prevent MSG from getting into the brain tissue. MSG can also potentially trigger and or worsen learning disabilities and such diseases as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and ALS.

After 10 years of being labeled as “GRAS”, (Generally Recognized as Safe) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a condition known as “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome” entered into medical literature, depicting a host of commonly experienced side effects after eating MSG. These sypmtoms include facial and neck numbness, heart palpitations, fatigue and nausea. Today the FDA calls this condition “MSG Symptom Complex,” which is described as short-term reactions to MSG. Although the FDA states that ingesting MSG is really not harmful, many medical experts claim otherwise, and have linked regular consumption of MSG to such adverse medical conditions as obesity, eye damage, headaches, disorientation and muscle weakness.

Unfortunately food manufacturers have caught on to the fact that people don’t want this additive in their food. Since the FDA requires food companies to list the ingredient “monosodium glutamate” on food labels, the companies have cleverly (if not sinisterly) determined ways to avoid revealing the usage of this toxic additive: By using free glutamic acid (which is the main component of MSG) in their products, they are exempt from including the name MSG on their packaging. The flavor-enhancing properties remain; so does the damage they cause.

The following ingredients are commonly found in soups and processed foods and even in soy products touted as “organic” and “all natural.”

They all contain MSG:

Autolyzed Yeast

Glutamate

Monopotassium Glutamate

Texturized Protein

Yeast Nutrient

Calcium Caseinate

Glutamic Acid

Yeast Extract

Hydrolyzed Protein

Sodium Caseinate

Vegetable Protein Extract

Textured Protein

Hydrolyzed Oat Flour

Gelatin (non-kosher source)

There are other additives used in conjunction with MSG, the most popular being disodium guanylate and disodium inosinate, which are found in foods even when the label says “NO MSG.” The MSG is hidden in the food in the form of glutamic acid, which, as stated earlier, does not have to be labeled as MSG according to current FDA guidelines. Disguised as “soy protein complex” or “hydrolyzed vegetable protein”, glutamic acid partnered with disodium guanylate and disodium inosinate is just as hazardous and reaction-causing.

While it seems that the food industry is intent on maintaining the status quo despite the discomfort and danger to the public, consumers do have some recourse. By reading ingredient labels carefully and looking for the aliases by which MSG is known and more importantly by avoiding processed and packaged foods as much as possible, people can gain control of their diets and their health.

 Chaya Schaeffer is a free-lance writer who lives in Monsey, N.Y. with her husband and six children. She enjoys writing about healthy eating issues with the intention of educating consumers, particularly kosher consumers, so that they can make informed choices for themselves and their families. She also writes about women’s heart health.

A few recipe notes before embarking on your vegan cheesecake adventure!

For the crust, vegan healthy graham crackers can be hard to find. If you can’t find them, you can either make your own, or use gingersnaps. We baked a few of these with gingersnaps and they were amazing!

Soak the cashews overnight to make quick work of the recipe. Although this recipe is for a fancy marbled cheesecake, you can skip that step if you’re pressed for time or would just rather not do it. Just mix everything in the filling together instead of dividing the batter and swirling.

You can use either water packed silken tofu or the vacuum packed kind (like Mori-Nu.) If using Mori-Nu, extra firm silken works best.

For the crust:

1 1/4 cups of finely ground graham crackers or gingersnaps

3 tablespoons organic sugar

3 tablespoons melted non-hydrogenated margarine, melted organic coconut oil, or organic canola oil

1 tablespoon plain organic soy or almond milk.

Filling:

1/2 cup whole unroasted cashews soaked in water for 2 to 8 hours or until very soft

1/4 cup mashed banana (about half of 1 medium-sized banana)

1 12 to 14 oz package silken tofu, drained

1/2 cup organic sugar

1/3 cup organic brown sugar

3 tablespoons organic coconut oil, at room temperature

2 tablespoons cornstarch

2 tablespoons fresh organic lemon juice

2 1/2 teaspoons pure vanilla extract

1 teaspoon grated orange zest

1/4 teaspoon sea salt

1 3/4 cups canned pumpkin puree

3/4 teaspoons ground cinnamon

1/4 teaspoons ground ginger

1/4 teaspoon ground nutmeg

Topping

1/3 cup organic brown sugar

1 tablespoon nonhydrogenated margarine *or* coconut oil

Pinch of salt

1 cup pecans, roughly chopped

Make the crust:

Preheat oven to 350F and lightly spray a 9 inch spring form pan with nonstick cooking spray.

In a mixing bowl, combine the crumbs and sugar. Drizzle in the oil or melted margarine.

Use a spoon to blend the mixture thoroughly to moisten the crumbs, then drizzle in the soy milk and stir again to form a crumbly dough.

Pour the crumbs into the pan. Press firmly into the bottom. Bake for 8 to 12 minutes until firm. Let the crust cool a bit before filling. Keep oven on 350 to bake the cheesecake.

Make the topping:

In a mixing bowl use a fork to mash together brown sugar, margarine, and salt until crumbly, then fold in the chopped nuts and stir to coat the mixture. Set aside until ready to use.\

Make the filling:

Drain the cashews and place in a blender with the banana, tofu, sugar, brown sugar, coconut oil, cornstarch, lemon juice, vanilla, orange zest, and sea salt. Blend until completely smooth and no bits of cashew remain, a food processor or strong blender should be able to get the job done.

Set aside 1/2 cup of batter. To the remaining batter, add the pumpkin puree, cinnamon, ginger, and nutmeg and blend until smooth, then pour it into the crust. Randomly spoon dollops of the reserved batter onto the cheesecake. Poke the end of a chopstick into a batter blob and gently swirl to create a marble pattern; repeat with the remaining dollops.

Bake the cheesecake for 45 to 50 minutes. Remove cheesecake halfway through baking and sprinkle on the topping. Return to oven to continue baking. Cheesecake will be done when the top is lightly puffed and the edges of the cake are golden. Remove it from the oven and let cool on a rack for about 20 minutes, then transfer to the refrigerator to complete cooling, at least 3 hours or even better if overnight. To serve, slice the cake using a thin, sharp knife dipped in cold water.

A Gluten-Free Diet May “Cure” ADHD

from mercola.com

Many children with ADHD do not respond well to most grains, especially wheat. This could be because they have full-blown celiac disease, which impacts an average of one out of every 133 people in the United States (although some studies have found that this number may be as high as 1 in 33 in at-risk populations) — or because they have a less obvious condition known as gluten sensitivity.

People with gluten sensitivity, which may comprise 10 percent of the U.S. population or more, experience many of the same symptoms as celiac disease causes, including headaches, fatigue, muscle and joint pain, gas and more, but may be unaware that the culprit triggering these symptoms is wheat and other gluten-containing grains. It’s also very possible to have celiac disease and not know it … as researchers state, “in many cases, the disease may be clinically silent despite manifest small bowel mucosal lesions.”

But the psychological and behavioral symptoms of ADHD are now overlapping so often with those of celiac disease and gluten sensitivity that it’s recommended “celiac disease … be included in the ADHD symptom checklist.” This suggestion was prompted by a new study, which found people with ADHD who tested positive for celiac disease improved significantly after following a gluten-free diet for at least six months. The researchers noted:

“After initiation of the gluten-free diet, patients or their parents reported a significant improvement in their behavior and functioning compared to the period before celiac diagnosis and treatment … ”

It may sound strange to you that eating a grain that wreaks havoc on your gut would manifest as symptoms related to your brain, rather than your digestion, but grains are inherently pro-inflammatory and will worsen any condition that has chronic inflammation at its root — and not just inflammation in your gut, but anywhere in your body. Chronic inflammation in your body can wreak havoc in your brain, and the importance of reducing inflammation when dealing with mental health issues is well known. It is very common for people to experience a wide variety of mental health and emotional improvements upon eliminating gluten from their diet.

Why Even Whole, Sprouted Wheat is a Problem

I recommend that everyone following my beginner nutrition plan eliminate all gluten from their diets, whether or not they have celiac disease or ADHD, because many experience health improvements upon doing so. Among the most important foods to avoid are those gluten-containing grains that contain gliadin molecules, such as wheat.

When gliadin in the wheat protein complex (containing over 23,000 proteins) activates the protein zonulin in the gut, it opens up the gaps between the enterocytes causing an influx of improperly digested wheat proteins and stomach bacteria.

Therefore regardless of your sensitivity level to the wheat proteins, gliadin opens up a pandora’s box of intestinal permeability, and subsequent systemic inflammation and immune dysregulation.

Wheat also contains high amounts of wheat germ agglutinin (WGA), a glycoprotein classified as a lectin, which is largely responsible for many of wheat’s ill effects. Other grains high in lectins include rice, spelt, and rye. Interestingly enough, the highest amounts of WGA is found in whole wheat, including its sprouted form, which is touted as being the most healthful form of all.

Lectins are actually designed to withstand degradation through a wide range of pH and temperatures, which is why sprouting, fermenting and cooking will NOT negate its ill effects. WGA lectin is particularly tough because it’s actually formed by the same disulfide bonds that give strength and resilience to vulcanized rubber and human hair.

Furthermore, because lectins are so small and hard to digest, they tend to bioaccumulate in your body, where they can interfere with biological processes. WGA is particularly troublesome in this regard. Studies indicate it has a number of health-harming characteristics and activities:

Pro-inflammatory–WGA stimulates the synthesis of pro-inflammatory chemical messengers (cytokines) in intestinal and immune cells, and has been shown to play a causative role in chronic thin gut inflammation.       Immunotoxicity–WGA induces thymus atrophy in rats , and anti-WGA antibodies in human blood have been shown to cross-react with other proteins, indicating that they may contribute to autoimmunity. In fact, WGA appears to play a role in celiac disease (CD) that is entirely distinct from that of gluten, due to significantly higher levels of IgG and IgA antibodies against WGA found in patients with CD, when compared with patients with other intestinal disorders.

Neurotoxicity– WGA can cross your blood-brain barrier through a process called “adsorptive endocytosis,” pulling other substances with it. WGA may attach to your myelin sheath and is capable of inhibiting nerve growth factor, which is important for the growth, maintenance, and survival of certain target neurons.     Excitotoxicity– Wheat, dairy, and soy contain exceptionally high levels of glutamic and aspartic acid, which makes them all potentially excitotoxic. Excitotoxicity is a pathological process where glutamic and aspartic acid cause an over-activation of your nerve cell receptors, which can lead to calcium-induced nerve and brain injury.  These two amino acids may contribute to neurodegenerative conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s disease, and other nervous system disorders such as epilepsy, ADD/ADHD and migraines.

Cytotoxicity—WGA has been demonstrated to be cytotoxic to both normal and cancerous cell lines, capable of inducing either cell cycle arrest or programmed cell death (apoptosis).  Disrupts Endocrine Function—WGA may contribute to weight gain, insulin resistance, and leptin resistance by blocking the leptin receptor in your hypothalamus. It also binds to both benign and malignant thyroid nodules, and interferes with the production of secretin from your pancreas, which can lead to digestive problems and pancreatic hypertrophy.

Cardiotoxicity—WGA has a potent, disruptive effect on platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule-1, which plays a key role in tissue regeneration and safely removing neutrophils from your blood vessels.       Adversely effects gastrointestinal function by causing increased shedding of the intestinal brush border membrane, reducing the surface area, and accelerating cell loss and shortening of villi. It also causes cytoskeleton degradation in intestinal cells, contributing to cell death and increased turnover, and decreases levels of heat shock proteins in gut epithelial cells, leaving them more vulnerable to damage.

Why ADHD Symptoms are Closely Linked to Gut Health

A variety of behavioral problems are linked to problems in your gut, not only from gluten, WGA and other components of grains but also due to the gut-brain connection. The gut-brain connection is well recognized as a basic tenet of physiology and medicine, so this isn’t all that surprising, even though it’s often overlooked. There’s also a wealth of evidence showing gastrointestinal involvement in a variety of neurological diseases.

With this in mind, it should also be crystal clear that nourishing your gut flora is extremely important at all life stages because in a very real sense you have two brains, one inside your skull and one in your gut, and each needs its own vital nourishment.

Your gut and your brain are actually created out of the same type of tissue. During fetal development, one part turns into your central nervous system while the other develops into your enteric nervous system. These two systems are connected via the vagus nerve, the tenth cranial nerve that runs from your brain stem down to your abdomen. This is what connects your two brains together, and explains such phenomena as getting butterflies in your stomach when you’re nervous, for example.

As explained by Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, a medical doctor with a postgraduate degree in neurology, in the video below, toxicity in your gut can flow throughout your body and into your brain, where it can cause symptoms of autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, depression, schizophrenia and other mental disorders.

Hearty Lentil and Mushroom Shepherd’s Pie

Ingredients

8 large or 10 medium potatoes

2 tablespoons nonhydrogenated margarine

1/2 cup rice milk

Salt to taste

2 tablespoons olive oil

1 large onion, finely chopped

2 cloves garlic, minced

6 ounces cremini or baby bella mushrooms

Two 15-ounce cans lentils, lightly drained but not rinsed (or about 3 1/2 cups cooked lentils with a little of their cooking liquid)

2 tablespoons dry red wine, optional

1 to 2 tablespoon reduced-sodium soy sauce or Bragg’s liquid aminos

2 teaspoons seasoning blend (such as Spike or Mrs. Dash)

1/2 teaspoon dried thyme

Freshly ground pepper to taste

3 tablespoons cornstarch or arrowroot

8 to 10 ounces baby spinach or arugula leaves

1 cup fresh bread crumbs

Instructions

Peel and dice the potatoes. Place in a large saucepan with enough water to cover. Bring to a simmer, then cover and simmer until tender, about 20 minutes. Drain and transfer to a small mixing bowl.

Stir the margarine into the potatoes until melted, then add the rice milk and mash until fluffy. Cover and set aside until needed. Preheat the oven to 400 degrees.

While the potatoes are cooking, heat the oil in a medium skillet. Add the onion and sauté over medium heat until translucent. Add the garlic and mushrooms and continue to sauté until the onion is golden.

Add the lentils and their liquid and bring to a gentle simmer. Stir in the optional wine, soy sauce, seasoning blend, thyme, and pepper. Cook gently for 5 minutes. Combine the cornstarch with just enough water to dissolve in a small container. Stir into the lentil mixture.

Add the spinach, a little at a time, cooking just until it’s all wilted down. Remove from the heat; taste to adjust seasonings to your liking.

Lightly oil a 2-quart (preferably round) casserole dish, or two deep-dish pie plates. Scatter the breadcrumbs evenly over the bottom. Pour in the lentil mixture, then spread the potatoes evenly over the top. If using two pie plates, divide each mixture evenly between them.

Bake for 30 to 35 minutes, or until the potatoes begin to turn golden and slightly crusty. Let stand for 5 to 10 minutes, then cut into wedges to serve.

Preparation time: 15 minute(s) | Cooking time: 1 hour(s)

Number of servings (yield): 8

From: Fatfreevegan.com

Click here to download the forms and information. If you want to combine packages or ask any question please click here to send us your question.