Fungal toxins are widespread in European wheat
theconversation.com
theconversation.com
PS: Happy to add a link but didn’t want to create unnecessary advertising.
I wonder if we’ll find out again that some of our wide-spread mental or general health problems are caused by a fungus.
Does Ukrainian wheat count as European, or not, (these days)?
Yes, in geological terms. But in political terms, Moscow is not european (anymore).
My point above was simply, that words have different meaning in a different context. There is the geographical meaning of "Europe" then there is the political construct called EU and then the vague cultural concept Europe. Switzerland and Norway for example are not in the EU, but are very much part of europe. Bulgaria is in the EU, but is rather "balkan".
When speaking in political terms, it does mean exactly that. There is a clear wall between moscow and europe and everyday more of the remaining ties are being cut.
10 years ago, it was a lot different.
But of course this does not affect the geographical classification of moscow, but this is really not the same.
No, it does not. Russia is part of Europe purely because of the geographical location. It always will have a relevance for neighboring countries, simply because it's there. This won't change, as long as people are living there, and it won't change just because the communication has lowered or even shutdown.
> There is a clear wall between moscow and europe and everyday more of the remaining ties are being cut.
The Wall is between Russia and the EU (+NATO), not Europe. The majority of Europe is part of the EU, but EU is not Europe. And Political, Russia wasn't a big player in EU anyway. East-Europe is their interests, there they still have their connections running in Non-EU-Countries.
Yes, in the geographical context.
But this is still not the same as the political context.
There is kind of a long, shared (christian) history. And there are people who say, russia should be closer to the EU, than Turkey, or Bulgaria, because of that.
Putin sees himself in the image of the european (christean) emperor tradition.
"The majority of Europe is part of the EU, but EU is not Europe"
And EU means Unified Europe. So who and what is european, to qualify to become unified?
Open and ongoing question, but geography only plays a minor part in it. That was my main point. Political charged terms are seldom clear and precise and european is such a term, with more ambiguity than the clearly defined geographical term.
My brothers master-professor loved to point that out during field inspections and sampling.
It's a classic problem. At scale, industrial farming and everything that goes with it is net positive to society. It produces the best nutrition, on average. But on any individual level (be that geographic location, or you, the person), organic farming can have more nutritional benefits.
It's the same as the COVID vaccine. For society as a whole, it's beneficial if everyone gets the vaccine. It produces better health outcomes, on average. But at the individual level, it might be better if you don't get the vaccine.
Unfortunately, organic farming at scale has issues, and avoiding the vaccine at scale also has issues.
Besides,you have absolutely know way of knowing what you assert. And I'd go a step further and say it's absurd to claim that injecting anything in your body is neutral or strictly positive. There are absolutely tradeoffs to medicine.
Neither of these even account for the fact that a 1 in a million chance of adverse vaccine effects might dwarf the chance of long term harm from covid in a healthy person.
So, again, on a personal level these things look different.
Not exactly. Weight is used as a price multiplier, but nutrient density is one of the factors that goes into establishing the per unit price. I grow wheat in a climate that struggles to produce high protein content and absolutely see a reduced price when my product doesn't meet the grade.
The safety network is not perfect and gaps occasionally occur, meaning batches of contaminated wheat are eaten.
The fungicide might also be killing my yeast. I wonder what's worse from a health standpoint - fungal toxins, or anti-fungal toxins.
I am hoping people would find fresher food as a consequence.
It’s not even a problem for livestock until you force feed them nothing but wheat. But it turns out that’s exactly what the ag industry wants to do.
But I don't feel like paying for mystery yeast. I found a brand of fresh yeast which never failed for me, and it's worth keeping in the fridge.
But really, this article and its referred study are thinly veiled climate change propaganda:
> Climate change is projected to cause earlier anthesis, coinciding with wetter, warmer weather, thus increasing the severity of FHB epidemics.
It's very hard to sell Europeans pesticides, so if we scare them with climate change, they might change their tune. It's also ironic, considering how we heard all summer that the tough drought in Europe was also caused by climate change, it's all very convenient that climate change causes both wetter and drier conditions in the same region.
We should be moving away from monocultures in food, just as in software.
Wheat tortillas are also an obvious choice if you’re stuck choosing between packaged tortillas.
The reason corn and wheat tortillas are compared is because they are the two options given to you, so they aren’t hard to compare. You can get the same taco in each tortilla in the same sitting and come to a conclusion of which one you prefer right then and there.
It’s like eating day old rice cold out of the refrigerator and saying that it doesn’t taste good, like yeah, it doesn’t.
Corn tortillas prepared fresh are delicious and if you haven’t had them then that’s a shame.
There is no requirement that you must like corn tortillas, but to act like one is objectively better, rather than simply a matter of personal preference, is ridiculous. (Not that you said this, but the original post I responded to did)
We are, aren't we? You can go to a supermarket anywhere in North America and literally get whatever you want in abundant variety. I'm not sure how you can claim we aren't "moving away" from resource constraints that have existed for eternity.
We've historically used a lot of wheat in products because we grow a lot of wheat. But there are plenty of alternatives now that never existed before.
"There are more than 1 000 varieties of bananas produced and consumed locally in the world, but the most commercialized is the Cavendish type banana, which accounts for around 47 percent of global production." ... "Virtually all bananas supplied to the US and European markets are Cavendish, which are better suited to international trade than other varieties as they are more resilient to the effects of global travel."
Just as an example. You may find three types of banana in your supermarket from the 1000 varities. But most of the production is Cavendish. The other ones are just a novelty item and it the logistics to get them to the supermarket are more complicated.
"The impact of TR4 on food security in developing countries has so far luckily been limited because the spread of the disease is gradual at larger scale. The disease predominantly affects the Cavendish variety, which primarily meets the international market demand but is also important for local consumption in developing countries."
And Cavendish is in danger. Partly because it is so dominant that it is very difficult to stop a disease that targets this variety.
- https://www.fao.org/economic/est/est-commodities/oilcrops/ba...
> This mycotoxin occurs predominantly in grains such as wheat, barley, oats, rye, and corn, and less often in rice, sorghum, and triticale.
I figure if you want to avoid toxins in your food, don't eat.
Just because Prop 65 is overdone it doesn't follow that food standards are pointless.
https://www.nature.com/articles/news050801-5
Was the first thing I could pull up, but I've read that in a couple places
Indian restaurants would likely use the authentic recipe - the use of wheat is more for supermarkets.
[1] https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/273927062
Just a few I wasn't aware of before I had to reduce gluten in my diet:
- Spelt (still wheat)
- Buckwheat (not a wheat)
- Bitter vetch
- Amaranth
- Finger millet
Also tried something called Dosa and Idli during my brief visit there.
I was told they are made from fermentation process and from all I read fermentation is healthy. Maybe one of the reasons Indians are not as obese as their western counterparts? Not sure just guessing.
Although every time I tried making Dosa it turned out not as soft or crispy as the ones I had in India.
Also, wouldn't the expansion of tortillas to use other grain products push for exactly the kind of move away from monocultures that you want? As a grain farmer myself, having a market for both corn and wheat means that we can rotate our crops, to not have to rely on monocultures.
I would welcome tortillas made using other grains, but the majority of them available in shops just use wheat which is problematic to some people. How about mixing them up with some buckwheat or millet? As well as varying the type of grain crop, I'd like to see greater variety of the types of grain used e.g. blue corn