Introduction
Grains have calorically supported humanity for over 100,000 years, weaving themselves into our history long before we developed lactose persistence. Caloric consumption is clearly a necessity for survival, and grains have fulfilled this need for thousands of years. In the abundance of modernity, 50% of the world’s calories are from cereal grains. Growing grains is generally more efficient and less resource intensive than animals– giving them an advantage (although, this is nuanced, as most things are). Grains came easier for us, as they were domesticated prior to livestock.
So why now, a book about grains? It seems to be something so trivial and simplistic. Something shallow and uninteresting. But yet, grains are, or have been, the backbone of our society. This statement I could see to cause a spark of controversy, as one might point out that they do not have to be. This is correct. But yet, our world has been built on grains. History has shown us how grains can be weaponized, such as in the Soviet instigated Holodomor in 1933. With the enactment of harsh grain requisitioning quotas and blocking outside help– it led to the death of 3 to 7 million people. They have been a sole force of survival for millions. Keeping grain in a surplus and bread prices low in medieval Europe was a sure way to prevent peasant revolts.
Being a major point of contention in Roman politics, the role of grains becomes clearer through the intricate system of the Annona. Grains were not merely a food source; they were a political crux. Without the centralized management of the grain supply, Rome risked instability and revolt. The Annona, particularly the Annona Civilis, which provided plebeians with free or subsidized grain, played a pivotal role in ensuring societal stability. Established by Emperor Augustus, this system did more than meet the dietary needs of the plebeians—it allowed Augustus to secure a greater degree of political control and stability, strengthening his reign by feeding both the people and their loyalty.
Now, in the modern world of choice, surplus, and knowledge we can view grains with a different frame. With abundance, indulgence in grains has shifted to a choice rather than a necessity. We modern men can look at the contents of the grains, and think towards our health. We can look at the expanse of monoculture crops and think about our earth. We dictate what we eat, how we eat, and when we eat more than ever before. The power of grains has shifted, and although they still have a vital role of supporting the larger population (in lower GDP areas) the average American citizen has a grand grain choice. And, on a world scale, wheat bread alone provides more nutrients than any other substance, but is this required? What a lovely power of choice we are gifted!
This book is not intended to encourage or dissuade, for I have started writing this with a question mark. The title started as “Grains, a multifactorial world” to remind me to keep my mind open and my brain eager for information. I felt inspired to take on the hurdle of this book as it seems like a boundless and nuanced topic that has yet to be tackled in this way in book form. There are so many aspects such grains and health or grains and earth that hundreds of thousands of words can be written on.
With our gift of choice, the power is in us to be able to consider the whole. This is why I seek for this book to be inclusive. Every aspect that could affect this choice, I seek to understand and write all the words that I can. Throughout this book I want to grace an array of questions. Firstly, how have modern grains changed fundamentally? What are the nutritional aspects of various grains? Are there any blanket statements about avoiding grains? What are the effects of grain farming practices– on both the grains and the ecosystem? Are organic, ancient grains a solution? What has caused the rise in modern gluten intolerance? Is gluten the only culprit that should deter us from grains? What are grains impact on the population? The largest question I want to ask is, do grains redeem themselves enough for modern man to reasonably consume? With a gift of choice, that is.
Chapter 1: A Brief Grain History
A candle to the past seems to illuminate the present, and to take a stroll to the neolithic revolution yields insight of transformation. Humans have been dabbling in plants as an adjunct to meat since the very beginning of our hominid evolution. Early hominids relied on a combination of plant matter—fruits, seeds, and leaves to meet their nutritional needs. The exact balance of plant matter and types of plants consumed is of course seen in very different ratios depending on geographical location– so I am not going to delve into this aspect or exactly who ate what. My intention is to be general, so both useful information and insight can be garnered from history.
Our humanity is continuous and ever changing, and 10,000 years ago humans underwent a diet altering event known as the neolithic revolution. Humans were now able to partially grab the reins of food supply, although it was still at the mercy of nature’s will. This agricultural drift was adopted repeatedly and independently in various parts of the world– and they cultivated different plants at slightly different times. For example, it is not likely that the rice cultivation in the Yangtze valley was at all influenced by the indus valley shift to agriculture. Independently, this evolution from nomadism had vast ramifications, laying the foundation for our modernized world. Since the shift towards a sedentary life, and a more stable food supply, humans have tightened the reins more intensely.
Socially; the Neolithic revolution had striking consequences– the emergence of a “sedentary” lifestyle and changes in social organization. There is a link between state emergence and the time of the neolithic revolutions in a given region, additionally there is no record of a centralized political organization without agricultural food production. The cultivation of grains changed our societal organization alongside our access to food– but it also opened a new world of nutritional changes.
Chapter 2: Tainted grains
Not all grains are made the same; over millennia, they have been transformed through generations of human intervention, evolving far from their wild ancestors into the forms we recognize today. Modern agriculture has created modern quantities but also modern conundrums– enabling the support of a very large population at the sacrifice of our health. These farming practices’ specific impacts on grains are essential to cover before addressing the multifactorial nature of grains. The blanket term “grain” loops many nutritionally different compounds into the loops. Rice, oats, and all of the varieties of wheat are extremely different– but all are tainted nonetheless.
Modern grains come packaged with traces of herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, growth regulators, desiccants (drying agents), and various post harvest treatments. Of course, all of these enable grain production, but do they have any negative physiological effects on humans? Is this something to note in our grain consumption, even eating organic? This conversation can not be had without first an indepth look on glyphosate, the most common of herbicides. No foods are immune to the tainting nature of modern agriculture, but grains can be nasty deliverance of such things. From Glyphosate to fungicides, there is a broader scope of concern when thinking about partaking in the wheat wonderland.
Glyphosate, its impact and safety
Glyphosate is the most used herbicide worldwide, earning a special section due to its wide reaching effects and impact on grains. First sold to farmers in 1974, the volume of glyphosate/glyphosate based herbicides has increased approximately 100 fold. In the United States, glyphosate is used on 30-60% of total crops– and to even greater degrees on genetically modified corn and soybeans. Wheat and corn are impacted to the largest degree, but oats and barley are also affected. Different formulations of glyphosate are used– In the harvesting process, glyphosate is applied before the wheat grain fully matures; which tends to minimize the amount present on the final product– but this does not free it from health consequences. Glyphosate works by inhibiting the enzyme EPSP synthase in plants.
Despite all of the attention glyphosate has garnered lately; it is considered a category IV substance by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), meaning practically non toxic. With an increase in public attention, in the subsequent months this designation was challenged. Through the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, petitioners argued that the EPA violated the Endangered species act. A year later, the EPA requested the court to allow it to reconsider part of its decision on the ecological risks of glyphosate without invalidating the entire decision. The Ninth Court ruled in favor of the environmental advocates raising concerns about glyphosate and instated a deadline for the EPA to revise their previous assessment. The EPA could not meet the deadline, so they opted to withdraw the glyphosate decision. To this date (3 years later) the EPA has not issued a final, official decision regarding glyphosate. But, the EPA is not the only body that has a regulatory review board on glyphosate.
The World Health Organization (WHO) plays a pivotal role in shaping global health policies—making their assessments crucial when evaluating substances like glyphosate and their potential impact on public safety. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a report classifying Glyphosate as a 2A carcinogen, meaning that it is a probable carcinogen for humans. This conclusion came after a year-long review of around 1,000 studies by independent experts. The IARC is an intergovernmental agency that is part of the WHO, specifically focusing on cancer research and risk classification. Although, this is not the only grading scale for chemical risk and it should be noted that solely glimpsing at the carcinogenicity of a substance can be limiting. Another organization of value in this discussion is the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN). The FAO works on many different aspects of food– from production to pesticide use.
The U.S. EPA has established a chronic reference dose (RfD) for glyphosate, which is a safety threshold for long-term exposure. The RfD is set at 0.1 mg/kg/day. This means that exposure to glyphosate up to this level is considered safe for humans based on available toxicity data. (FIND SOURCE AND CONTRAST TO 0.3 NUMBER) not just glyphosate… bioaccumulates ?????
Once a year, the WHO and FAO meet in the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). International scientists, toxicologists, among others meet and conduct a review of the literature. Chemical toxicology, data on the residue remaining, and acceptable daily intake tolerances are reviewed. The JMPR conducts a more general risk assessment than the IARC, which is specifically evaluating cancer risk.
The last JMPR report published on Glyphosate was in 2021, with the conclusion that glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic risk to humans, with an acceptable daily intake (ADI) established as 0.3 mg/kg of body weight per day. However, not every organization has supported the JMPR conclusion, with some being the Environmental Working Group (EWG), The Center for Food Safety (CFS), and independent scientists.
The purpose, and the effects
I do not intend on tunnel vision dissecting glyphosate– but for a comprehensive perspective I simply can not brush over the ecological ramifications of glyphosate usage. What exactly is it? How much do we actually need it? And are there any solutions? A comprehenisve dive on grains themselves and the ecological consequences has an entire chapter dedicated to it.
The levels of loss
Some may have seen the daunting headlines about weed killers in the very breakfast cereal slobbery kids gouge their faces with, but what exactly does this entail? The JMPR’s official number on a safe range for glyphosate exposure is 0.3 mg / kg, but this has been disputed? Environmental Working group is a nonprofit organization focused on public health that conducts independent scientific testing. In 2018 with the release of EWGs Glyphosate Testing of Quaker products unleashed a fusillade of morbid headlines… “Weed killer in your children’s breakfast!.” These headlines are forgotten as soon as the eyes meet another bold and breaking one, but the reality of the situation does not change. In these 2018 testings, the EWG found shockingly high levels of glyphosate. In Quakers granola, the average number of glyphosate found was 743.5 Parts Per Billion (0.7435mg/kg). Astoundingly, in Quaker Oatmeal Squares Honey Nut the number found was 2837 ppb, or 2.837 mg/k. This is 9.46 times over the “safe” limit designated by the JMPR. Almost everything tested surpassed to 0.3 mg/kg designation, but some to a far greater degree. Clearly, this seems to be an issue of compliance.
Glyphosate content in food is multifactorial, as a wide array of conditions dictate exactly how much remains.
They are keeping us safe, right?
Regardless of conflicting evidence, agencies like the EPA have established safe limits of glyphosate exposure. This is of vital importance, because following these guidelines impacts public health immensely. So, who regulates the levels of glyphosate in our food? The U.S Food and Drug Administration and the U.S Department of Agriculture are the two primary regulatory bodies In the United States that test for glyphosate residue on crops. keeping us in vindicated safe levels. There is no systematic testing of glyphosate content before products hit the market– making exact levels not known.
The current governmental testing programs are the Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program (FDA) and the Pesticide Data Program (USDA). According to the FDA, the EPA sets the tolerances based on federal safety standards that they follow, and most of the tolerances the EPA establishes are for raw agricultural commodities. The FDA monitors around 4,000 food samples (as of 2018) and tests for over 800 pesticides. The FDA tests to target this testing to crops that are more likely to have a greater degree of pesticides.
EPA approved glyphosate tolerance levels in crops
As you can see, the tolerances set are very different. These are the tolerances tested on raw commodities, meaning before they are processed. These are decided by a detailed risk assessment. In regards to grains, they are typically consumed in a processed form as opposed to fruits which are consumed usually in an unprocessed form that is more likely to have residues remaining.
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=186c36f172c2a5f98f740677f73ae152&node=40:24.0.1.1.27&rgn=div5 (search for glyphosate exact standard here) Check out FDA total diet study (TDS) “What is a violation rate in the APR?
The violation rate is the percentage of samples that contain at least one violative pesticide chemical residue.
In essense, it is not broad. Clearly, not every sample has been tested or there would not be horrendous EWG testing results showing enormously out of range glyphosate levels on final products.
“
The USDA’s testing system is slightly different.
Questions:
Is there systemic pesticide testing? Does not seem like there is.
Is the raw material tested, I suppose it is probably not tested independently
Can there end up being more glyphosate if you are using multiple raw commodies together? How else does it end up that high? At what point are the plants tested?
Carginocity of Glyphosate
In the current literature base, it is indicated that glyphosate does not accumulate in the body. It has a decently expedient half life, which is around 6-12 hours in humans.
Glyphosate and cystine
Mechanisms are not the whole story, but yet they are incredibly meaningful to take a deep dive into. On a cellular level, glyphosate has been shown to impact cystine in the cells (a precursor to glutathione) as well as affect glutathione levels.
In a 2007 study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1382668907000208 looking at human cell lines and three pesticides (Bentazon, metalaxyl, and glyphosate)
Glyphosate and folic acid??
Glyphosate residue levels in food are regulated and are usually quite low. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set limits for glyphosate residues in food ranging from 0.1 mg/kg to 50 mg/kg, depending on the type of food.
The associations
Associations are nothing but associations, and it is not certain that insight can even be gleaned from them. Regardless, a thorough review of the literature on glyphosate warrants a gaze at these. Often times these studies pull away context, isolating variables and utilizing dosages that are generally unheard of in our day to day.
Other substances and their impact on grains
An Organic Solution
Chapter 3: The modern grain
Chapter 4: Gluten intolerance
Chapter 5: Are grains a necessity for population growth?
Chapter 6: Is it the carbs… or the contents? (Maybe make this an earlier chapter)
Chapter 7: Grains and your gut
Chapter 9: Grains and energy production
Chapter 10: Grain production over the earth’s health
Chapter 11: Damage mitigation of grains
Drop a post when chap 11 makes it to the public