Saturday, 25 June 2011

Oats Supplementation (2) Prevents Alcohol-Induced Gut Leakiness in Rats by Preventing Alcohol-Induced Oxidative Tissue Damage

Oats Supplementation Prevents Alcohol-Induced Gut Leakiness in Rats by Preventing Alcohol-Induced Oxidative Tissue Damage

Thus, oats supplementation has to interfere with the physical, chemical, or metabolic effects, or a combination, of chronic alcohol. These effects include alcohol-induced changes in metabolic and signaling pathways responsible for gut leakiness and endotoxemia. We hypothesized that oats supplementation protects through its effects on oxidative pathways. We had two primary rationales for our hypothesis. First, it has been generally accepted that oats are of benefit to human health and normal gut growth and function not only because of their nutrient and fiber values but also because of their antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities (Nie et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2007). Second, several studies have demonstrated the importance of oxidative stress and up-regulated iNOS in alcohol-induced tissue injury and organ dysfunction (Nanji et al., 1995; Sisson, 1995; Chow et al., 1998).

More specifically, several reports demonstrated the pivotal role of the up-regulation of iNOS and oxidative stress in alcohol-induced gut leakiness. For example,
our in vitro studies showed that preventing the up-regulation of iNOS that is induced by alcohol, using both iNOS inhibitors and dominant-negative mutant for iNOS, prevented alcohol-induced disruption of the barrier integrity of intestinal cell monolayers (Banan et al., 2000, 2001, 2007). Furthermore, we recently showed that inhibition of iNOS by l-N6-1-iminoethyl-lysine reduces EtOH-induced NO overproduction, oxidative tissue injury, and gut leakiness in alcohol-treated rats (Tang et al., 2009). Our current study, which uses immunohistochemical staining, provides direct evidence that EtOH induces iNOS activation in colonic epithelium and that oats prevent this effect and prevent alcohol-induced intestinal mucosal oxidative stress.

We also determined whether oats supplementation protects the cytoskeletal network in epithelial cells because our in vitro study, our in vitro study, using monolayers of intestinal epithelial cells, demonstrated that alcohol-induced leakiness is associated with disruption of both actin and microtubule cytoskeletons (Banan et al., 1999, 2000, 2001). We now show that oats prevents disorganization of actin and disruption of tight junctions. Moreover, our previous studies demonstrated that chronic, daily alcohol administration causes mild but detectable histological changes in intestinal mucosa of rat (Keshavarzian et al., 2001, 2009). In the present study, we show that alcohol-fed rats exhibit evidence of mild colonic inflammation with elevated mucosal MPO levels and that oats prevent alcohol-induced colonic inflammation. Thus, oats supplementation substantially attenuates these deleterious effects of EtOH on the colonic mucosa, preserves the architecture of the intestinal epithelium, protects the integrity of the intestinal barrier, and prevents gut leakiness.

Oats, like many other plant materials, contain numerous constituents—vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids, β-glucan (fermentable fibers), and phytochemicals, including several phenolic compounds (Chen et al., 2007). These constituents have been found to possess many types of bioactivity, including antioxidant, antiproliferative, anti-inflammatory, and detoxification effects, which may contribute to the promotion of good health (Anderson and Hanna, 1999; Chen et al., 2007). Thus, the antioxidant effects of oats may not be limited to its ability to prevent up-regulation of iNOS. Therefore, in addition to the inhibition of EtOH-induced iNOS activation and NO overproduction in colonic mucosa, oats may also directly scavenge NO from other sources in the gut. EtOH can increase other oxidants such as OH- and CO-3, which may play an important role in the mechanism of gut leakiness (Nagata et al., 2007). The effect of oats on other oxidants needs to be further studied.

In addition, the beneficial effects of oats may not be limited to their antioxidant properties; their other bioactivities can contribute to their ability to prevent gut leakiness and endotoxemia. For example, the fermentable fiber component of oats, like any other fiber compounds, can affect intestinal microbiota composition and/or function (prebiotic effect). This effect can not only decrease the production of endotoxin by the gut lumen but also can affect alcohol metabolism by bacteria and thus affect the production of acetaldehyde. Because acetaldehyde is even more injurious to the intestinal barrier than alcohol (Rao et al., 2004), oats can prevent alcohol-induced disruption of the barrier, at least in part, by lowering the level of acetaldehyde in the colonic lumen of alcohol-fed rats. However, before we can consider the prebiotic effects of oats as a mechanism of its protection against alcohol injury to the intestinal barrier, we first need to demonstrate that alcohol causes abnormalities in gut microbiome composition and function (dysbiosis). Further studies are needed to assess gut microbiome in alcohol-fed rats and alcoholics.

Finally, studies are needed to identify the specific components of oats that are responsible for the protective effects of oats against alcohol-induced gut leakiness and endotoxemia.

In summary, we found that oats supplementation prevents EtOH-induced oxidative tissue damage and loss of intestinal barrier integrity. Our findings now provide a strong scientific rationale to test oats supplementation as a therapeutic strategy to prevent and/or treat gut leakiness in disorders such as ALD and inflammatory bowel disease in which oxidative stress is the key pathogenic factor. Clinical trials are needed to determine whether oats supplementation is useful for preventing and treating gut leakiness, endotoxemia, and liver injury in alcoholics.

Oats Supplementation Prevents Alcohol-Induced Gut Leakiness in Rats by Preventing Alcohol-Induced Oxidative Tissue Damage

Oats Supplementation Prevents Alcohol-Induced Gut Leakiness in Rats by Preventing Alcohol-Induced Oxidative Tissue Damage

Oats Supplementation Prevents Alcohol-Induced Gut Leakiness in Rats by Preventing Alcohol-Induced Oxidative Tissue Damage

Yueming Tang, Christopher B. Forsyth, Ali Banan, Jeremy Z. Fields, and Ali Keshavarzian
Division of Digestive Disease and Nutrition, Departments of Internal Medicine (Y.T., C.B.F., A.B., J.Z.F., A.K.), Pharmacology (A.B., A.K.), Molecular Biophysics and Physiology (A.B., A.K.), and Biochemistry (C.B.F.), Rush University, Chicago, Illinois

Received November 12, 2008; Accepted March 9, 2009.
Abstract
We reported previously that oats supplementation prevents gut leakiness and alcoholic steatohepatitis (ASH) in our rat model of alcoholic liver disease. Because oxidative stress is implicated in the pathogenesis of both alcohol-induced gut leakiness and ASH, and because oats have antioxidant properties, we tested the hypothesis that oats protect by preventing alcohol-induced oxidative damage to the intestine. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were gavaged for 12 weeks with alcohol (starting dose of 1 g/kg increasing to 6 g/kg/day over the first 2 weeks) or dextrose, with or without oats supplementation (10 g/kg/day). Oxidative stress and injury were assessed by measuring colonic mucosal inducible nitric-oxide synthase (iNOS) (by immunohistochemistry), nitric oxide (colorimetric assay), and protein carbonylation and nitrotyrosination (immunoblotting). Colonic barrier integrity was determined by assessing the integrity of the actin cytoskeleton (immunohistochemistry) and the integrity of tight junctions (electron microscopy). Oats supplementation prevented
alcohol-induced up-regulation of iNOS, nitric oxide overproduction in the colonic mucosa, and increases in protein carbonyl and nitrotyrosine levels. This protection was associated with prevention of ethanol (EtOH)-induced disorganization of the actin cytoskeleton and disruption of tight junctions. We conclude that oats supplementation attenuates EtOH-induced disruption of intestinal barrier integrity, at least in part, by inhibiting EtOH-induced increases in oxidative stress and oxidative tissue damage. This inhibition prevents alcohol-induced disruption of the cytoskeleton and tight junctions. This study suggests that oats may be a useful therapeutic agent—a nutraceutical—for the prevention of alcohol-induced oxidative stress and organ dysfunction.

Leaky Gut / Intestinal Permeability - Enzyme & Intestinal Health Research

Enzyme & Intestinal Health Research

Research Related to Enzymes and Intestinal Health

Leaky Gut / Intestinal Permeability
last updated 8.25.05

1. Ambrus JL, Lassman HB, and DeMarchi JJ. Absorption of exogenous and endogenous proteolytic enzymes. Clinical Pharmacol Therapy 1967;8:362–8.

2. Amoss M, et al. Release of gonadotrophins by oral administration of synthetic LRF or a tripeptidle fragment of LRF. Journal of Clinical Endocrinol. Metab. 35: 135-177, 1972.

3. Andre C., et al. Interference of oral immunization with the intestinal absorption of heterologous albumin. Eur. J. Immunol. 4:701-704, 1974.

4. Avakian S. Further studies on the absorption of chymotrypsin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1964;5:712–5.

5. Bergkvist R. and Svard PC. Studies on the thrombolytic effect of a protease from Aspergillus oryzae. Acta Physiol. Sand. 60:363-371,1964

6. Bjarnason I, et al. Intestinal permeability in celiac sprue, dermatitis herpetiformis, schizophrenia and atopic eczema. Gastroenterology 86: 1029, 1984.

7. Bockman DE, and Winborm WB. Light and electron microscopy of intestinal ferritin absorption: Observations in sensitized and non-sensitized hamsters. Anat. Rec. 155:603- 622,1966.

8. Campbell CA, Forrest J, and Muscgrove C. High-strength pancreatic enzyme supplements and large-bowel stricture in cystic fibrosis. Lancet 1994;343:109–10 [letter].

9. Cichoke AJ. The effect of systemic enzyme therapy on cancer cells and the immune system. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients 1995;Nov:30–2 [review].

10. Dannaeus A., et al. Intestinal uptake of ovalbumin in malabsorption and food allergy in relation to serum IgG antibody and orally administrated sodium chromoglycate. Clin. Allergy 9: 263-270,1979.

11. Deitrick RE. Oral proteolytic enzymes in the treatment of athletic injuries: a double-blind study. Pennsylvania Med J 1965;Oct:35–7.

12. DiMagno EP, et al. Relations between pancreatic enzyme outputs and malabsorption in severe pancreatic insufficiency. New England Journal of Medicine 228:813-815, 1973.

13. Ferguson A and Caldwell F. Precipitins to dietary proteins in serum and upper GI secretion of coeliac children. British Medical Journal 1 :75-77,1972.

14. Fitzgerald DE, et al. Relief of chronic arterial obstruction using intravenous brinase. Scandinavian Journal of Thor. Cardiovasc. Surgery 13:327-332,1979.

15. Fitzgerald DE and Frisch EP. Relief of chronic peripheral artery obstruction by intravenous brinase. Irish Med. Ass. 66:3, 1973.

16. Frisch EP and Blomback M. Blood coagulation studies in patients treated with brinase. In: Progress in Chemical Fibrinolysis and Thrombolysis. Vol. IV, J. F. Davidson (Ed.), Edinburgh: Churchill-Livingstone, pp. 184- 187, 1979

17. Frisch EP, et al. Dosage of i. v. brinase in man based on brinase inhibitor capacity and coagulation studies. Angiology, 26:557, 1975.

18. Gardner MLG. Gastrointestinal absorption of intact proteins. Annual Review of Nutrition 8:329-350,1988.

19. Gardner MLG. Intestinal assimilation of intact peptides and proteins from the diet - A neglected field? Biol. Review 59:289-331,1984.

20. Gonzalez NJ and Isaacs LL. Evaluation of pancreatic proteolytic enzyme treatment of adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, with nutrition and detoxification support. Nutr Cancer 1999;33:117–24.

21. Griffin SM, et al. Acid resistant lipase as replacement therapy in chronic exocrine insufficiency: a study in dogs. Gut, 30:1012-1015, 1989.

22. Gullo L. Indication for pancreatic enzyme treatment in non-pancreatic digestive diseases. Digestion 1993;54(suppl 2):43–7.

23. Hamilton I, et al. Small intestinal permeability in dermatological disease. Q. J. Med., 56:559-567, 1985

24. Heatley RV, et al. Inflammatory bowel disease, In Gut Defenses in Clinical Practice. M. S. Losowsky and R V. Heatley, eds., Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp. 225-277, 1986.

25. Hemmings WA and Williams EW. Transport of large breakdown products of dietary protein through the gut wall. Gut 19:715-723, 1978.

26. Husby S, et al. Passage of dietary antigens into the blood of children with coeliac disease: Quantification and size distribution of absorbed antigens. Gut, 28:1062-1072,1987.

27. Husby S, et al. Passage of undergrade dietary antigen into the blood of healthy adults: further characterization of the kinetics of uptake and the size distribution of the antigen. Scand. J. Immunology 24:447-455, 1986.

28. Izaka K, Yamada M, Kawano T, and Suyama T. Gastrointestinal absorption and anti-inflammatory effect of bromelain. Jpn J Pharmacol 1972;22:519–34.

29. Jackson PG, et al. Intestinal permeability in patients with eczema and food allergy. Lancet 1:1285-1286, 1981.

30. Jacobson, I., et al Human beta-lactalbumin as a marker of rnacromolecular absorption, Gut, 27: 1029-1034, 1986.

31. Jones R, Franklin K, Spicer R, Berry J. Colonic strictures in children with cystic fibrosis on low-strength pancreatic enzymes. Lancet 1995;346:499–500 [letter].

32. Larson, L. J., et al Properties of the complex between alpha-2-macro-globulin and brinase, a proteinase from Aspergillus oryzae with thrombolytic effect, thrombosis Research, 49:55-68, 1988.

33. Laskowski M., et al, Effect of trypsin inhibitor on passage of insulin across the intestinal barrier, Science, 127: 1115-1116, 1958.

34. Layer P, Groger G. Fate of pancreatic enzymes in the human intestinal lumen in health and pancreatic insufficiency. Digestion 1993;54(suppl 2):10–4.

35. Liebow, C. and Rothman, S. S., Enteropancreatic circulation of digestive enzymes, Science, 189:472-474,1975

36. Loehry, C. A., et al Permeability of the small intestine to substances of different molecular weight, Gut, 11 :446-470, 1970.

37. Lund, F., et al, Thrombolytic treatment with i. v. brinase in advance arterial obliterative disease, Angiology, 26:534, 1975.

38. Kiesslling, H. and Svenson, R, Influence of an enzyme from Aspergillus oryzae, Protease 1, on some components of the fibrinolytic system, Acta Chem. Scand., 24: 569-579, 1970.

39. Kleine MW, Stauder GM, Beese EW. The intestinal absorption of orally administered hydrolytic enzymes and their effects in the treatment of acute herpes zoster as compared with those of oral acyclovir therapy. Phytomedicine 1995;2:7–15.

40. Mackie, R D., et al, Malabsorption of starch in pancreatic sufficiency, Gastroenterology, 80:1220, 1981

41. McCann M. Pancreatic enzyme supplement for treatment of multiple food allergies. Ann Allergy 1993;71:269.

42. McCarthy, C. F., Nutritional defects in patients with malabsorption, Proc. Nutr. Soc., 35:37- 40,1976.

43. Menzies, I. S., Transmucosal passage of inert molecules in health and disease, In Intestinal Absorption and Secretion, E. Skadhauge and K Heintze, eds., MTP Press, Lancaster, pp. 527-543, 1984.

44. Milla CE, Wielinski CL, Warwick WJ. High-strength pancreatic enzymes. Lancet 1994;343:599 [letter].

45. Nakamura T, Tandoh Y, Terada A, et al. Effects of high-lipase pancreatin on fecal fat, neutral sterol, bile acid, and short-chain fatty acid excretion in patients with pancreatic insufficiency resulting from chronic pancreatitis. Int J Pancreatol 1998;23:63–70.

46. Oades PJ, Bush A, Ong PS, Brereton RJ. High-strength pancreatic enzyme supplements and large-bowel stricture in cystic fibrosis. Lancet 1994;343:109 [letter].

47. Oelgoetz AW, Oelgoetz PA, Wittenkind J. The treatment of food allergy and indigestion of pancreatic origin with pancreatic enzymes. Am J Dig Dis Nutr 1935;2:422–6.

48. Ormistron B. J., Clinical effects of TRH and TSH after i. v. and oral administration in normal volunteers and patients with thyroid disease, In Thytropin Releasing Hormone (Frontiers of Hormone) Research, Vol. 1), R. Hall, et al, eds., Karger, Basel pp. 45-52, 1972.

49. Patel RS, Johlin FC Jr, Murray JA. Celiac disease and recurrent pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 1999;50:823–7.

50. Phelan, J. J., et al, Coeliac disease: The abolition of gliadin toxicity by enzymes from Aspergillus niger, Clin. Sci. Molec. Med., 53: 35-43,1977.

51. Powell CJ. Pancreatic enzymes and fibrosing colonopathy. Lancet 1999;354:251 [letter].

52. Roschlau, H. E. and Fisher, A.M., Thrombolytic therapy with local perfusions of CA-7 (fibrinolytic enzyme from Aspergillus oryzae) in the dog, Angiology, 17:670-682, 1966.

53. Seligman B. Bromelain: an anti-inflammatory agent. Angiology 1962;13:508–10.

54. Siefert, J., et al, Mucosal permeation of Macromolecules and particles, See Ref 31, pp. 505-513.

55. Shorter, R G., et al, A working hypothesis for the etiology and pathogenesis of nonspecific inflammatory bowel disease, Am. J. Dig. Dis., 17: 1024-1032, 1972.

56. Stevens JC, Maguiness KM, Hollingsworth J, et al. Pancreatic enzyme supplementation in cystic fibrosis patients before and after fibrosing colonopathy. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1998;26:80–4.

57. Suarez F, Levitt MD, Adshead J, Barkin JS. Pancreatic supplements reduce symptomatic response of healthy subjects to a high fat meal. Dig Dis Sci 1999;44:1317–21.

58. Taylor CJ, Hillel PG, Ghosal S, et al. Gastric emptying and intestinal transit of pancreatic enzyme supplements in cystic fibrosis. Arch Dis Child 1999;80:149–52.

59. Udall, J. N. and Walker, W. A., The physiologic and pathologic basis for the transport of macromolecule's across the intestinal tract, J. Pediatr.. Gastroentarol. Nutr., :295-301,1982.

60. Vanhove, P., et al, Action of brinase on human fibrinogen and plasminogen. Thrombos Haemostas., 42: 571-581, 1979

61. Verhaege, R, et al, Clinical trial of brinase and anticoagulants as a method of treatment for advanced limb ischemia, Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 16: 165- 170, 1979.

62. Verstraefe, M. and Verhaege, R, Clinical study if brinase, a proteolytic enzyme from Aspergillus oryzae, 19th Annual Congr. Intern,. Coll. Angiology, Dublin, Ireland, 1977.

63. Walker, W. A., Antigen absorption from the small intestine and gastrointestinal disease, Pediatr. Clin., North Am., 22:731-746, 1975.

64. Warshaw, A. L., et a, Protein uptake by the intestine: Evidence for absorption of intact macromolecule's, Gastroenterology, 66: 987-992,1974.

65. Wolf, J. L., et al Intestinal M cells: A pathway for entry of retrovirus into the host, Science, 212:471-472, 1981.

66. Wolf M, Ransberger K. Enzyme Therapy. New York: Vantage Press 1972, 135–220 [review].

Enzymes & Leaky Gut/Intestinal Permeability

Enzymes & Leaky Gut/Intestinal Permeability

Leaky Gut / Intestinal Permeability and Enzymes
last updated 8.25.05

What is Leaky Gut

The largest part of the immune system in our body is in the mucosal lining in the gut. The immune system makes sure all those undesirable elements do not get across into the bloodstream to begin with. The intestines are permeable to a certain degree so the proper nutrients get through. Spots in the gut wall open and close selectively to admit the good stuff as the contents of the intestines pass by. Normally, only certain nutrients are absorbed if they are sufficiently broken-down and in the right form. Everything else is selectively blocked out. But when the pores are too big or the screening process breaks down, the intestines become hyperpermeable (overly permeable). Leaky gut syndrome is a term used when the intestines become damaged, more openings develop in the gut wall, and the wall becomes more ‘porous’ to the extent that some of the contents passing through the intestines are allowed to get into the bloodstream when they should be kept out.

Not just food particles slip through. Pathogens, toxins, and other types of ‘waste’ get through that should normally be screened out. Insufficiently broken-down food particles or toxins may cause the liver to work much harder trying to clean everything out. The liver may not be able to keep up with all the detoxification demands sent its way and the toxin load starts building up in the body.

When the gut becomes hyperpermeable, all sorts of gunk can get through and run loose in the body. When this happens, the immune system kicks into gear to stop these invaders. Typically the immune system escorts the invaded out of the body quickly. However, this task often falls to the liver, which may be quite overworked and not able to do this immediately. If not removed right away, the troublesome particles and complexes can migrate through the body and settle in any of the different tissues they pass by. This leads to inflammation in whatever part of the body they settle.

Now we have a new problem: inflammation. This puts even more pressure on the immune system to cover even more ground in defending the body. With the immune system running on ‘high’ on a regular basis, it may be spread thin over a wide array of territory defending the gut, cleaning the blood, fighting inflammation, warding off pathogens, and so on. Many autoimmune conditions start this way. Which type of autoimmune condition a person ends up with may depend on which part of the body the immune complexes settle into.
see Autoimmune / Neuro Conditions

If you are having food sensitivities to more than a dozen foods, you may very likely have a leaky gut. When the gut is injured in this way, any food eaten may be a candidate to be insufficiently digested and absorbed leading to food intolerances. If you find you are sensitive to a few foods, remove those, then later notice some previously tolerated foods are now causeing problems, consider a leaky gut. The core issue may not be the foods you are eating, but simply that digestion is poor and the gut injured, so anything eaten (and eaten frequently) may become problematic.

Sunday, 19 June 2011

Against Grain: How Agriculture Hijacked Civilization

Amazon.com: Against the Grain: How Agriculture Has Hijacked Civilization (9780865477131): Richard Manning: Books

Most Helpful Customer Reviews


55 of 58 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Deceptively easy-to-read book on a complex topic, February 23, 2004
By 


 
 
In many ways Manning has written a remarkable book. The basic thesis, very gently stated by the author, is that the advent of agriculture has caused the loss of what it means to be human by replacing our ancestral senses of the many flavors and varieties of nature with the dull security of industrial monoculture based overwhelmingly on just three crops. It has also heralded the breakdown of social egalitiarianism, led to vast numbers of malnourished poor worldwide, and is ultimately unsustainable on its current scale.  

In making his argument, Manning wanders through numerous disciplines: cultural anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology, climatology, cognitive science and ecology, even religion. He begins with an explanation of how agriculture developed and spread despite its apparent disadvantages to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle (worse nutrition, less leisure-time) and then develops these disadvantages more fully, surveying the prevalence of famine in agricultural societies throughout history and moving through the detrimental social and ecological effects of industrial agriculture such as how it enabled the feeding of high concentrations of cheap labor.

`Against The Grain' hits a weak spot in looking at modern agricultural corporations, in particular ADM. At this point, he draws less from his apparent strengths as a writer and person - his awareness and appreciation of nature and his solid understanding of the historical breadth and scope of agriculture's effects - and loses his effectiveness as his underlying anger is displayed. Fortunately he leaves himself time to recover and does so in discussing the formation and driving force behind the modern industrial agricultural diet, arguing that its intention is more to promote efficient (and profitable) agriculture than good nutrition. He ends with a plan for reversing the worst of agriculture's effects through small steps - advocating the patronage of farm stands that are now prevalent in most urban centers (including my Chicago suburb), and giving us a glimpse of how he himself practices food sustainability.

Any book treating a subject as complex as the effects of agriculture on human society, even one with such a narrow focus as this one, could fill volumes of plodding data and cite vast numbers of bibliographical sources. Instead, Manning treats the subject nimbly, almost dancing through his arguments with a sense of precision and conciseness. He uses the term `gracile' in his book to denote speed and quickness while making a point about antelope, but the term could just as well apply to the book itself. Nevertheless, while I find many of his conclusions convincing, and the ideas themselves both engaging and thought-provoking, I found myself often wishing for more substantial backup for his assertions or a better system of citation. I have read a few books tangential to this material (particularly Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond which alludes to similar conclusions) and am familiar with many of the facts and events used by Richard Manning in developing his ideas, and still it seemed a little light. Someone reading this book without having read anything similar or related might well walk away unconvinced of his credibility or even his earnestness, and that would be a shame.

The book is deceptively easy to read. Despite Manning's obvious passion for the topic, he thankfully doesn't beat you over the head with his rhetoric. But I found that I needed to re-read some sections in order to catch the subleties of his argument (and as I write this I'm wondering when, with the stack of books I keep adding to, I'll have time to read it again). If you read 'Against The Grain' you may find you agree or disagree with Manning's conclusions, but regardless, you should feel that it was worthwhile.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

Saturday, 18 June 2011

Food Industry Lobby - Why Grains (And Soy) Are Gov Endorsed


further to "Food pyramid - USDA changes yet again, now its the "Plate"" ... discussion follows of the financial incentives at work in determining government and industry policy on food:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Food Industry - Why Grains (And Soy) Are Profitable - from the article: You Are A Radical, And So Am I: Paleo Reaches The Ominous “Stage 3″ - GNOLLS.ORG  

There’s one big reason that industrial food manufacturers like Kraft (Nabisco, Snackwells, General Foods, many more), Con-Agra (Chef Boy-Ar-Dee, Healthy Choice, many more), Pepsico (Frito-Lay, Quaker), Kellogg’s (Kashi, Morningstar Farms, Nutrigrain, more) are huge and profitable. 

It’s because grains are cheap, but the “foods” made from them aren’t.
One reason grains are so cheap in the USA, of course, is gigantic subsidies for commodity agriculture that, while advertised as helping farmers, go mostly to agribusinesses like Archer Daniels Midland ($62 billion in sales), Cargill ($108 billion), ConAgra ($12 billion), and Monsanto ($11 billion)—and result in a corn surplus so large that we are forced to turn corn into ethanol and feed it to our cars, at a net energy loss!


“There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.”
-Dwayne Andreas, then-CEO of Archer Daniels Midland

“At least 43 percent of ADM’s annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM’s corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10.” (Source.)

(And if you’re not clear on just how deeply in control of our government these corporations are, here’s another example: Leaked cables reveal that US diplomats take orders directly from Monsanto.)

That cheapness, however, doesn’t translate to profits for farmers or cheap food at the supermarket.

Let’s do some math!

(Note: these are regular prices from the CBOT and my local supermarket, as of today. Supermarket prices will be somewhat cheaper on sale or at Costco.) 

A bushel of corn weighs 56 pounds and costs $6.85. That’s 12.2 cents per pound.
A bag of Tostitos contains about 10 cents worth of corn, and costs $4.00.
That’s a 4000% increase.

A bushel of wheat weighs 60 pounds and costs $7.62. That’s 12.7 cents per pound.
A loaf of Wonder Bread contains about 16 cents worth of wheat, and sells for $4.40.
That’s a 2700% increase.

A bushel of soybeans weighs 60 pounds and costs $13.64. That’s 22.7 cents per pound.
A box of “Silk” soy milk contains about 4.5 cents worth of soybeans, and sells for $2.90.
That’s a 6400% increase.

In other words, it’s highly profitable to turn the products of industrial agriculture—cereal grains and soybeans—into highly processed “food”.

It’s not the snack aisle, the cereal aisle, or even the bread aisle...it’s the profit aisle.

Note that the profit for the processors and middlemen comes out of the pockets of the producer and the consumer. Farmers are squeezed by the 12 cents per pound, and consumers are squeezed by the $4.40 per loaf.

In contrast, pork bellies cost $1.20 per pound today.
A pound of bacon costs about $5.
That’s a 400% increase…

…which looks like a lot until you compare it with 2700%-6400% for grains.

Also, unlike grain products, bacon must be stored, shipped, and sold under continuous refrigeration—and it has a much shorter shelf life.

It’s clear that it’s far more profitable to sell us processed grain products than meat, eggs, and vegetables…which leaves a lot of money available to spend on persuading us to buy them. Are you starting to understand why grains are encased in colorful packaging, pushed on us as “heart-healthy” by the government, and advertised continually in all forms of media?  

And when we purchase grass-fed beef directly from the rancher, eggs from the farmer, and produce from the grower, we are bypassing the entire monumentally profitable system of industrial agriculture—the railroads, grain elevators, antibiotics, growth hormones, plows, combines, chemical fertilizers (the Haber process, by which ammonium nitrate fertilizer is made, uses 3-5% of world natural gas production!), processors, inspectors, fortifiers, manufacturers, distributors, and advertisers that profit so handsomely by turning cheap grains into expensive food-like substances.