A Look At Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

There has been a lot of hubbub in the media and online about genetically modified organisms (a.k.a. GMOs) recently.  There are many people and organizations who are concerned about GMOs and whether or not products containing them should have to be labelled to reflect that fact. I really wasn't sure what side I was on in this argument, to be honest, as I don't like to jump to conclusions and I really didn't know very much about GMOs in the first place.   So, I decided to see what I could find out.

Most of us are aware of cross-breeding and cross-pollination which have been used since the mid-1800s.  Our modern day rice, potatoes and corn, for example, are the results of cross-breeding.  These traditional methods take quite a bit of time - 10 to 12 years -  to get the desired results.

Genetic modification can be seen as a shortcut to get the desired results quicker. Scientists first must isolate a particular gene that causes a specific attribute.  They are then able to transfer that genetic material from one organism to another. Unlike traditional cross-breeding, they are not limited to using only related plant genes but can also use unrelated genes, as well.  This creates quite a huge range of possibilities!

So, genetic modification is more time efficient than traditional methods and the method opens up more possibilities but is it safe?

The National Academy of Sciences tells us that genetic transfers between unrelated organisms do not pose any additional risks from those we encounter through traditional cross-breeding methods.  Keep in mind that the transfer of genes between unrelated organisms is only possible because of the similarities of all living organisms.  That is, any given living organism has more in common with any other living organism than it has differences.

The truth is that there are hundreds of studies that indicate that GMO foods are as safe as conventional foods.  Why, then, are people so upset about them?  Let's take a look at some of the objections to GMOs, then.  Here are some that I've seen:

1. Genes from herbicide-resistant crops may cross over into the wild weed population and create "super weeds" that are resistant to herbicides.  The USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is responsible for reviewing new plant varieties.  They are careful to allow only plants that are unlikely to cross-breed with weeds to be approved for this reason.  Remember that plants can only cross-breed with related plants in the wild, so this limits the possibilities of this sort of thing happening. We should also keep in mind that weeds are already adapting to become more resistant to herbicides so this is already happening. An herbicide will not kill all the weeds. Some will survive. The survivors will drop seeds that grow into plants that might be more resistant to the herbicide.  Over time, this creates weeds that are more resistant to a particular herbicide. This is why we change up the herbicides we use over the years.

2. Genes from a food a person is allergic to could be added to another food he is not allergic to and this could cause him to have an allergic reaction to the new food. The FDA is responsible for overseeing all new food products. One of their requirements for producers of new food products is that they address whether or not new food allergens have been created during the modification process that may cause a reaction.  If so, the product will have to be labelled as such.

3. Antibiotic-resistant genes could be transferred to bacteria in our bodies during the digestive process.  If an antibiotic-resistant bacteria causes an infection, it could be impossible to treat.  There have been numerous studies addressing this possibility. These studies indicate that the possibility of the transfer of an antibiotic-resistant gene to a bacterium is very low. We should also keep in mind that when we consume fruits and vegetables we are eating antibiotic microorganisms from the soil and this has no adverse effects.

So, should GMO foods be labelled?  Frankly, my conclusion is that it shouldn't be necessary.  In the event that an allergen might be present in a different food, then yes - a label should be created to reflect this. Otherwise, it appears that this food is perfectly safe to consume and therefore I don't think labelling should be required.

Disagree with me?  Think I overlooked something?  Let me know in the comments!

Information for this post was obtained from the following sources:
GMO Compass
Time
Quackwatch
Slate

Image was obtained here.

5 Myths About Depression

I've noticed that, in general, many people now days have a better understanding of depression and other forms of mental illness than they did 20 or 30 years ago.  At the very least, it's not as taboo a subject as it once was so we are able to actually talk about it in "polite company" a bit more.  Still, there are some misconceptions that persist.  Some of these are understandable, to be honest. After all, if you haven't experienced it yourself nor had a close family member or friend suffer from depression, you only have information that you've obtained from the entertainment industry, the media, and/or advertisements.  That's not the best way to get a clear understanding of anything, in my opinion.  So!  I thought we'd take a look at some common misconceptions about depression today.

1. Depression is the result of a chemical imbalance. Pharmaceutical companies will imply that all you need to do is to take their medication to correct the problem and be well.  The truth is that depression is really a complex illness and narrowing it down to a simple chemical imbalance is not possible.

2. Taking an antidepressant will "cure" a clinically depressed person. Depression is not like a physical disease where the correct medication will fix the problem. The best treatment is a combination of medication and psychotherapy.  Medication alone is not going to do the trick and it might take some time to find one that is helpful for a particular individual.

3. Depression is just a deep sadness - like grief. If this were true, a person would get better over time on their own or be able to just "pull themselves together".  Depression is a profound sadness and sense of hopelessness for no reason. It isn't a reaction to a particular situation that will just go away.

4. Depression is hereditary so if one of my parents suffers from it, I will too!  Recent studies seem to indicate that having a relative with depression only increases a person's risk of developing the disorder themselves by 10%.

5. Only women suffer from depression.   This seems to be a persistent myth but it is just not true.  More women are diagnosed with the disorder than men but that doesn't mean that men don't suffer from depression!  In fact, here is a list of some famous men you may not have realized suffered from depression: Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Theodore Roosevelt, Michelangelo, Stephen Hawking, Charles Darwin, George Patton and Sir Isaac Newton.

The important thing to keep in mind is that depression is not just having the blues.  So if a friend or family member is suffering from this disorder, they can't just cheer up and get over it.

Image found here

Saturday Six - June 15, 2013

1. Would you have ever dated someone you knew was in a committed relationship with someone else, even if you knew that the other person was okay with the idea? I don't think so.  I'm way too jealous to consider that sort of situation.

2. If you were in a longterm relationship and your significant other gained weight because of a medical issue, would you think less of him/her as a person? No. Not at all.

3. When dating someone, how important is it that you’d communicate with that person every day? No need to smother a person!  I don't think you need to talk every day if you are just dating!

4. If you had to choose one or the other, which is more important in a relationship: dedication or passion? Dedication.

5. Is jealousy healthy or unhealthy in a relationship? I suppose it can easily be unhealthy but an occasional pang of jealousy isn't horrible as long as you keep things in perspective.  You just have to trust your partner.  If you can't, you have a problem.

6. Would you have a problem with your significant other spending a good deal of time with his/her exes if you knew it was completely platonic? No.  Nothing wrong with being friends with an ex.

These are the Saturday Six from Patrick's Place!

Random Friday is Random

As many of you many know, the Friday blog topic here is "random".  That is, there is no set topic.  I post whatever I want.  (I call it a Friday Free-for-all in my own head.)

You would think that this would be great!  I can write about anything I want!  Any subject or topic is acceptable!  Easy-peasy!

Yeah, no.  It doesn't seem to work that way.  Without a topic, I'm floundering around like a powerless ship out in the middle of the ocean during a storm.  (How's that for a visual?)

So, yeah.  Clearly I need to figure out a topic to base my Friday posts on but this does not help me today!

So!  We're just going to take stuff off the top of my head (and perhaps the middle and sides if we get desperate) and see how that goes.  I apologize in advance.

**I was going to post about a couple absurd cosmetic surgeries but both of the procedures in question were things I really didn't want to mention on my blog.  Yeah, I know. Hard to create a post around stuff that I really don't want to talk about.  So!  I'm going to place a couple links here and if you really, truly want to know what they are then click away.  Don't say I didn't warn you.  Here is Link One.  Here is Link Two.

**Moving on.... You know the classic Happy Birthday song? (Happy Birthday to you!  Happy Birthday to you!  etc.) Well, it is copyrighted. Anyone who wants to perform it in public has to pay a royalty fee to use it.  Turns out, the copyright might be invalid and the copyright-holder, Warner/Chappell Music, may have to repay millions of dollars in fees! There is a lawsuit pending and it should be interesting to see the outcome.

**The other day, I was reading another blogger's blog.  She had some very strong opinions about vegetarians, vegans and others who voluntarily limit their diet for reasons other than allergies.  In short, she despises them. She calls them "picky eaters" and thinks that they are inconsiderate of others.  Because they don't eat meat.
Now, as many of you might already know, I no longer eat meat (except fish and seafood) and yes, my decision is voluntary and based on the fact that I just wasn't enjoying eating meat anymore so I stopped.  (and some vague notion that it might be a little healthier but I don't think too much about it)
I don't judge anyone else for what they eat.  That is your own business.  I worry about me and that is that. I don't think in any way that I am better than anyone else because I don't eat meat.
So... if  person is not eating meat but isn't judging those who do, how is that being inconsiderate?  The blogger is not the first omnivore who I've encountered who seems threatened by people who don't eat meat but I really don't get it. Can someone explain to me how my choice of what I eat should bother anyone else?

**I'm going to borrow a phrase from Bill Maurer:   New Rule!  It is time that we learned that it is right to treat another person like a human being - regardless of their race, gender, country of origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion (or lack of...), hair color, eye color, etc., etc.  Just treat others like you would want to be treated and you're golden.  Simple.  Didn't we all learn this in elementary school?  If not, we should have. People are people and we all just want to be happy. Why is this so complicated?

**Yes, yes.  I'm sure, too, that I've stated the previous item before but it needs to be repeated because some of you aren't listening! You know who you are.  Or you might not, now that I'm thinking about it...

**Go.  Read.  The Bloggess has an excellent post about depression up today but you should read her on a regular basis because she is seriously hilarious! (most of the time.  Depression isn't funny, so...)  (and she's real, too, so BONUS!) Buy her book. (This is not a paid endorsement.  I just like to share links to awesome stuff/people when I find it/them.)

**Speaking of books!!!  *bounces slightly in her chair* Neil Gaiman's new novel, The Ocean at the End of the Lane, comes out in 4 days!!  Four! *grins* I'm sooo excited as I have preordered a signed copy and cannot wait to get my hands on it!

**My two latest obsessions:  Making my own graham crackers and obtaining a Roomba (but not paying full price because, seriously!  They are really, really pricey!)

**And.. that's it!  Have a lovely weekend all!  Hopefully I'll get my shit stuff together for next week!

Image found here and used for no particular reason other than that I like it and because I wanted a picture on this post.

Is It Safe To Consume Raw Milk?

A local news story caught my attention a couple of weeks ago. It concerned a dairy that sells raw milk. Customers of the dairy were being advised to discard any raw milk recently purchased from that dairy because of an outbreak of Campylobacter infections associated with the milk sold there.  The same farm had an outbreak of the same bacteria last year.

Raw milk is simply milk that has not been pasteurized or homogenized. The pasteurization process involves heating the milk to kill off harmful bacteria.

Raw milk is a controversial product. The CDC and other health agencies do not recommend consuming it for health reasons. The sale of raw milk is illegal in 22 states of the United States.  Pennsylvania is one of the states where it is legal. Many countries have outlawed the sale of raw milk entirely.

I know people who purchase raw milk because they say it tastes better.  I also know people who purchase it because they think it is healthier. I won't address taste as that is subjective but we can take a look at nutritional claims and whether they seem to be accurate.

Raw milk advocates claim that the pasteurization process destroys nutrients contained in the milk.  Studies show that heat-sensitive vitamins - vitamin C and thiamine - are affected by pasteurization.  10% to 30% of these vitamins are destroyed when the milk is processed in this manner.  The thing is, milk is not a significant source of either of these nutrients so that doesn't seem to be a great issue.

The main nutrients found in milk are calcium and protein.  These are not affected by the pasteurization process nor are other vitamins in milk besides vitamin C and thiamine.  In addition, pasteurized milk is usually fortified with vitamin D which helps our bodies absorb calcium. Raw milk doesn't contain this addition.

Raw milk contains 4.2% butter fat. By comparison, pasteurized whole milk contains 3.25% butter fat. (3.5% in the UK) So, there is more fat in raw milk - which would be a consideration if you are watching your diet. As a side note, I imagine that the higher fat content might contribute to the better taste people mention when talking about raw milk.

Now let's look at some of the bacteria that could be found in raw milk.  E. coli, Listeria, Salmonella and the aforementioned Campylobacter can all be found in raw milk and can make you sick.  E. coli can cause diarrhea and some strains could cause kidney failure or even death. Listeria can cause a fever, muscle aches, nausea and diarrhea and miscarriage in pregnant women. If it goes untreated, it could become dangerous and affect the nervous system. Salmonella can also cause nausea, vomiting, cramping, and diarrhea. Campylobacter can cause infectious diarrhea.  As with any food poisoning, the very old and very young are at the greatest risk of having a serious complications and even dying.

There are other possible bacteria contained in raw milk but I'm not going to mention them as they are less likely to be found or difficult to catch.

In my opinion any possible health benefits of raw milk are minimal and it is not a reason to consume it. The health risks are rather rare but still a possibility. I will not drink it myself as I don't want to take the risk of developing food poisoning.  A healthy adult might consider this a risk they are willing to take for the sake of flavor but this isn't a good reason for me.  I would not ever consider serving raw milk to children, pregnant women or to the elderly because of the possible risks involved.

You might disagree with me and that's fine but make sure that your reasons for drinking it aren't based on misconceptions and be aware of the risks.
-------

The following websites were used as some of the sources for the facts in this post:
Quackwatch
Treehugger
Wikipedia
WebMD
MayoClinic
CDC

Image of Bernardus Johannes Blommer's The Milk Maid found here

5 Myths You Should Know About Tornadoes

There have been some heavy storm systems bringing significant tornadoes so far this year.  Oklahoma has seen the worst of these weather phenomenons but they could appear anywhere at any time of the year and it's important to know something about what to do if one is headed your way.

There are a lot of myths about tornadoes.  I think most of us realize that tornadoes don't target trailer parks. Trailers are just more likely to sustain damage in a storm because they aren't as well constructed as most houses.

What about some of the more realistic sounding myths?  How many of these did you believe?

1. If you are driving when a tornado approaches, you should shelter under an overpass until it passes.  This is actually a bad idea as the winds can accelerate under them and there is no shelter from flying debris. If you are in your vehicle and there is a tornado close by, it is best to abandon the vehicle and shelter in a ditch.  If it is farther away, then move away from the storm by driving at a right angle to its path. 
2. Opening windows in a house will prevent it from exploding when a tornado passes by.  No.  There is no truth to pressure changes causing a building to explode. Don't stop to open windows.  Just get to the safest area of your home.
3. Large cities can't be hit by tornadoes.  Nope!  You're not safer in an urban area.  This is a myth. Atlanta, Salt Lake City, St. Louis and Topeka are all cities that have been struck by tornadoes.
4. The southwest corner of a building is the safest place in a tornado.  This used to be believed true but has been debunked.  It was based on the idea that most tornadoes travel in a northeasterly direction and presumptions about how debris moves in a tornado.  In any event, there is no truth to this one.
5. Tornadoes don't strike in winter.  While it may be less likely for a tornado to form in winter as they often require warm temperatures to form, it is not impossible. 

Image found here

Saturday Six - June 8, 2013

1. Would you rather have your doughnuts hot, room temperature or chilled? Hot or room temperature.  They aren't good chilled, in my opinion.

2. Do you prefer Krispy Kreme, Dunkin Donuts or a different restaurant when you have the doughnut craving? We have a local doughnut shop that I prefer. They aren't a chain.

3. How often do you buy doughnuts? Hardly ever - though I will occasionally get 1 or 2. I never get an entire dozen anymore. I guess once every 2 or 3 months I'll get one.

4. Your favorite doughnut: plain, filled or iced? It depends on my mood.  I like them all, to be honest.

5. If you were in a doughnut frame of mind but your only choice was iced doughnuts, which flavor of icing would you most be likely to choose? Chocolate.

6. The new trend is putting bacon on everything: what do you think about doughnuts topped with bacon? I think they sound good but I don't eat bacon anymore so I wouldn't indulge.

These are the Saturday Six from Patrick's Place!