GMO advocates: Is organic non-GMO salt more healthy than GMO salt?

You forgot the sarcasm indicator.

Because I wasn’t being sarcastic.

Well, lets be honest, the salt wasn’t genetically modified.

This requires a double face palm!!

@Lightlyseared Of course it wasn’t.

I’m surprised they didn’t advertise it as “GLUTEN FREE” or “FAT FREE”.

I’m surprised that they haven’t advertised it as “WHOLE” salt.

@Rarebear exactly. So the labelling was accurate. Misleading perhaps but then most advertising is.

No minerals were harmed in the making of this product.

It’s kind of silly. I agree with you @Rarebear. Still, it’s no worse than the (apparently required) nutrition label on water bottles saying that it has no calories or nutrients, and implying that it’s not necessary for health. Who knows why they put that “Not GMO” label on that salt.

@snowberry I think that plastic water bottles are a bane of modern civilization. But boy, are they handy!

Thanks for the laugh, @Rarebear.

Also enjoyed the brand name, Himalania. Is that like an extreme enthusiasm for tall mountains?

Rarebear, the public has a RIGHT TO KNOW that their food products are SAFE from tampering by MONSANTO SCIENTITIANS who own our GOVERNMENT.

‘MURIKA!

Lol actually salt has corn in it most of it does anyway. Corn is often gmo. So the reason to buy specialty sea salt if you aren’t talking different mineral or colored salt is a corn allergy or just refusing to support gmo products and merchants.

Oh just http://www.cornallergens.com/list/corn-allergen-list.php

@Unbroken And all these years, I’ve been putting salt on my corn. What was I thinking??

Lol people think salt is a condiment they really must learn a good salt lick is the cornerstone of a good meal.

I think, as @Unbroken says, that this refers to the dextrose present in table salt which comes from corn, which is mostly GMO in the US.

The author of the article you link to has made some incorrect assumptions. It took all of two minutes to find the below information, using one of the links in the article you provided. Gotta love it when people actually include but selectively overlook the evidence needed to tear their own bad arguments apart.

The Verification Standard of the Non-GMO Project”, p. 12, sections 2.4.1 & 2.4.1.1. And as @Cupcake points out, there can sometimes be a component of salt with GMO risk.

Additionally, the Non-GMO Project Verified seal ≠ non-GMO product, as the website for the Non-GMO Project explains. Section 3.2.4 on p. 22 explicitly prohibits participants from such misleading labeling.

Okay, but… is that something that anti-GMO people feel they need? A “may contain” warning? Because that tells me that the desire for labelling is less about politics (which I could at least somewhat understand) and more about health concerns, which seems completely insane to me.

Let’s say there is a speck of corn pollen somehow in the salt, or that it is stabilized with dextrose as you say, @Cupcake. Do people actually think this is going to make them sick, or give birth to children with two heads, or even effect them in any way whatsoever?

@glacial is that something that anti-GMO people feel they need?
Some do. Others oppose GMOs and support labelling for different reasons (to put forth one of several). Like most groups of humans, we are nonhomogeneous.

I’m not certain if this is what you are referring to @glacial but the may contain or processed on equipment contamainated with…. (Ie milk, soy, tree nuts,) is very helpful to those of us with food allergies, I remember the times and still do of having a powerful negative reaction to certain items that were gluten free and didn’t have derivatives of food I had become allergic to. As to the symptoms they vary from person to person and what type of allergen it is. Migraines, bloating diaherra and or constipation. Skin rashes inflammation of in joints etcetc short term very unpleasant. and the more I am exposed to those products the more severe my reaction becomes. So yes may contain labels are extraordinarily useful it helps to know when you are gambling with your health.

We’re not talking about allergies. We are talking about a single molecule. Dextrose cannot be genetically modified, as it is not an organism. It can be from a genetically modified source, but there is no difference in the dextrose molecule whether it is taken from a Monsanto Frankencorn or from free range grass fed organic unicorn tears.

Ok @Seek_Kolinahr my sister’s reaction was clearly in her head. You are absolutely right.

I know this is a gmo thread but given the link between food allergies and gmos it is hard to seperate the two. I know I didn’t give a tinker’s damn about them not even after I got diagnosed celiac. When I was continuing to have problems got a food allergy panel and traditional docs were throwing around terms like chron’s disease, ibd, etc my naturopath said leaky gut and took me off of those foods.. and all the problems cleared up.. I started perking up and started doing my own reading. So in my mind they are linked.

@Seek_Kolinahr Well, to be fair, it’s not a “single molecule”, it’s a crystalline structure. (chemistry geek snort here)

Whatever. I dropped chemistry. Point is, it’s not organic.

@Seek_Kolinahr True ‘nuff!
I wonder if the nonorganic salt is sprayed with pesticides. You know, bugs can be a real problem on the salt crystal trees.

@Unbroken Yeah, I have no problem with a “may contain” label if the suspect ingredient is a potential allergen. But you have to admit – the label on this salt is an attempt at catching the eye of an anti-GMO consumer. It’s pure BS, and not meant to keep someone from having a reaction to trace amounts of anything. They are preying on people’s irrational fears… with hilarious results.

Ya’ll are hilarious. You should start your own show to relieve our ignorant minds…

Here you go
Fortified foods such as cereals, vegetable oils, and flours, all use corn derived nutrients that are synthetically derived. Eating whole foods where the nutrients are present in their natural form is a better alternative. Eggs from corn fed chickens may cause allergy in some people with corn allergy

Copied from this article. http://www.medicalhealthtests.com/diseases-and-tests/allergy/corn-allergy.html

But… this relates to salt how?

Oops copied wrong part of article.

Corn allergy is difficult to diagnose because corn products are often not listed with the ingredients as corn. Even binders used in the manufacture of vitamins and supplements may be corn byproducts. Iodized salt often contains dextrose, which is made from corn. Enriched flour, baking powder, cereals, and snack bars all contain corn-based ingredients that may trigger allergy symptoms in those with corn allergy.

And glacial the other purpose is that the non gmo project is non profit buying these products is putting money where your mouth is. The non gmo project is protecting us.. even if the person only cares about food allergies because they support proper labeling.

@Unbroken You keep mentioning iodized salt. The product in the ad is rock salt. It is mined from underground! It is not iodized.

Re. “putting your money where your mouth is”, see my post above. This is why I was asking if such a label would be purely political or if someone could possibly think there was a health risk via “contamination” or whatever.

Is there any evidence to suggest that corn derived dextrose can trigger an allergic reaction?

Evidence, by the way, not a blog article.

Glacial as far as that goes I am not sure the manufacturing process of rock salt. But cross contamination happens in bottling facilities if the lines or equipment is used with other products that contain allergy by products. I have occasionally had a severe reaction where the company stated that they did use dairy in my case on a line but thourghly cleaned the equipment between product switches. They rotated days each item was produced.

Oy vey.

Seek_Kolinahr I didn’t find any at first glance I did pull this from a study on nitroglycerin Allergic reactions to organic nitrates are extremely rare, but they do occur. Nitroglycerin in 5% Dextrose Injection is contraindicated in patients who are allergic to it. In patients with pericardial tamponade, restrictive cardiomyopathy, or constrictive pericarditis, cardiac output is dependent upon venous return. Intravenous nitroglycerin is contraindicated in patients with these conditions. Solutions containing dextrose may be contraindicated in patients with known allergy to corn or corn products.
Address here
http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/lookup.cfm?setid=457a026c-ebce-4701-9deb-2d7652759a99

Beyond that it is widely accepted in the food allergy sensitivity field.

@Rarebear – can you chime in on that?

More again not a study specifically to your specifications but still…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1808842/

@Seek_Kolinahr I think this is silly, but I’ll comment. @Unbroken cut and pasted from the drug information. First of all, drugs can cause allergic reactions, but the things listed are not allergies, but contraindications to using the medication. I also encourage people not to cut and paste things that they know nothing about. For example, nitroglycerine works by decreasing SVR and PVR. That will decrease preload and therefore decrease the LVEDP. In hypovolemic states, decreasing LVEDP (and, by extension, PCWP and CVP) will decrease MAP since MAP is related to CO (which is, of course, HR X SV) and SVR. So your SVR decreases, and your SV decreases because, of course, your LVEDV (and by extension LVEDP) also drop. That’s why it’s contraindicated, not because it’s an “allergy to dextrose.”

Naturally.

Sigh I am copying and pasting the second link. It’s not a flipping study. But it recognizes the difference.

Abstract Secondary to the i.v. administration of a corn-derived dextrose solution, a 23-y-old pregnant female patient admitted to the hospital at term gestation developed an anaphylactic reaction. Orofacial swelling, difficulty in breathing, hypotension, cardiac arrhythmia, voice hoarseness, total body warmth and flushing occurred within 8 min of initiation of a 5% dextrose Lactated Ringer’s solution. The i.v. solution was discontinued and plain lactated Ringer’s solution was begun with no sequelae. The patient delivered a viable male infant with a post-operative course being unremarkable. A sample of suspect solution was sent to the manufacturer but no contamination was reported. Although the reaction elicited in this patient was rare, clinicians should be aware of the possibility of corn allergy due to the administration of i.v. fluids containing corn-derived dextrose.

PMID 1808842 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

notice same solution minus the corn additive equals no reaction.. even I, uneducated in the field can figure that much out.

I encourage people not to mock things they don’t understand. I have been living a life ever changed by food allergies. I tried fighting it taking a conservative approach. I may not understand all the medical jargon. But I live the life and I pay every time I make acceptances or allowances.

I can’t stop you from laughing at me. I can however fight tooth and nail to make sure the lack of informed information and a bias toward disbelief is going to warrent a response.

For the sake of argument, I’ll concede that dextrose may be harmful to the odd person with the incredibly rare, ridiculously sensitive corn allergy.

Getting back to the original question – pointless anti-GMO labeling – How the freak does it make a difference whether the dextrose they are allergic to derives from frankencorn or heirloom corn?

@Seek_Kolinahr It doesn’t. The allergy issue is a straw man as far as this topic goes.

@glacial Of course it is. But I put this in social for a reason. I was curious who would come out to play.

@Unbroken “I encourage people not to mock things they don’t understand”. Did you really just write that? Do you have any self-awareness of what you’ve been posting?

First, you try to post something on an ICU medication and try to lecture us on it. And this is what I do for a living. I run an ICU and I deal with critically ill patients every day. That’s my job. Next, you admonish me for “not understanding?” Really? Have you ever saved a life by giving IV nitroglycerine? I have.

As to your allergy to IV dextrose issue. I have no issue with the hypothesis that anything can cause an allergy, even IV dextrose solution. Your case report is interesting for what it is, but that’s all it is, a case report. In the medical literature, a case report is the lowest form of evidence that is out there. Honestly, the only thing that is lower is opinion pieces. The only reason why many doctors publish case reports is that they’re easy to publish and they get their name in print. They are not subject to rigorous peer review and are usually published at the end of journals.

Life saving IV dextrose solutions are given the world over to millions and millions of people without any problems. One isolated case report means nothing. Sorry to disappoint. But getting to that particular article you posted. First, it’s in an obscure journal that frankly nobody reads. Why is that? Could they not get it published in the Annals of Internal Medicine? Second. Correlation does not mean causation. This woman walked in and they started an IV. She could have eaten a strawberry before she came in and maybe she’s allergic to strawberries. Third. Even they basically say that they don’t know what really happened. They say “clinicians should be aware of the possibility of corn allergy due to the administration of i.v. fluids containing corn-derived dextrose” This means nothing and is totally unhelpful to anybody. They’re basically saying with this: “This woman came in and had an allergy to something. We don’t know what it is, but it could have been the IV dextrose solution. But we’re not sure but we’re going to publish this useless case report anyway.”

As I said, it’s interesting for what it is. But unless there is a rash of allergic reaction to the millions of people who get IV dextrose I’m going to do what any respectable physician would do and go “huh”. And move on.

And you’re right @glacial This has absolutely nothing to do with genetically modified salt. (I can’t type that with a straight face).

@Rarebear In response to your “correlation does not mean causation” comment… you may enjoy this if you haven’t seen it already this week.

@glacial Oh, that’s great!

Do I wish there were studies available to the public about these issues hell yes. Those I have found and bookmarked usually get a 404 notice when I try to return.

As to what the non gmo project has to do with this… Besides the correlation to rise in gastro intestinal and food allergies. Which I admit doesn’t prove anything. Is that they are the biggest organization getting the most recognition and response for proper labeling. And for studies. It is political but I don’t care. I support it and its direct cause as well as the ancillary benefits as well.

Have a nice day. I’m out.

WHAT ANCILLARY BENEFITS? Seriously. If you’re allergic to corn, don’t eat corn. That has abso-fucking-lutely twat-all to do with GMO labeling.

@glacial – please say something to keep me from posting that on the local parenting club facebook group.

@Seek_Kolinahr Mmmm… nope, I got nothing. :D

Yup. I love it. “My mind’s made up. Don’t confuse me with the facts. I don’t want to play with you anymore.”

What facts darlings?

The fact that there is nothing to support your position, considering your position rests at the top of a pile of straw men.

@Unbroken I thought you left. What Seek said. Show me a study (a good epidemiological analysis will do—heck at this point I’ll take even a mediocre epidemiological study) and I’ll consider changing my practice. Until then, I’ll continue saving lives with IV solutions.

The fact is, there are none. You said it yourself: There are none. And you’re absolutely right. Your stance is entirely political and not based upon one shred of actual science.

I forgot to unfollow it. And I do have trouble keeping my mouth shut.

You know what I find interesting is you posted a blog that had a view was derisive of the non gmo project and followers.

You didn’t submit any proof that their view was wrong. You were having fun. Nothing terribly wrong with that.

Glacial seems opposed to the politicness of the non gmo project. But considering the other side is just as political I fail to see the problem.

The posts I pulled from acknowlged a risk for an ige response due to the corn derived dextrose in them. The dextrose itself was not in question.

That is what I found interesting. That and many people do not have that severe an allergy to corn. I agree that is extremely rare. Must be hard to live with. What isnt pertinent to those two cases and not mentioned is the igg and iga sensitivities that also respond but would not be an emergency on an operating table. Makes life difficult but one is not threatened by immediate death so not note worthy. I didn’t feel it was necessary to point that out but apparently it is.

As to lack of proof I question whether or not the burden of proof is on me. The facts being there isn’t enough proof in either direction. Thus the controversy.

In the words of the pew foundation on allergies and biotechnology.

The ability of biotechnology to move genes from one organism into another creates the possibility of introducing allergenic proteins into foods that would not ordinarily contain them. When the source of an introduced gene is a food known to have allergenic potential, product developers can readily test the genetically modified food to see if the allergenic properties have indeed been carried over into the new variety. Under current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines, a genetically modified food must be labeled if the new variety contains an allergenic substance that a consumer would not ordinarily expect to find in that food. The more difficult issue is posed by the introduction of novel proteins that have not been previously in the food supply. Without prior exposure data, the ability to predict the potential of the protein to cause an allergic reaction is very limited. This problem became readily apparent in the recent recall of food products that had been inadvertently contaminated with StarLink, a genetically modified corn variety that had not been approved for human food by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because it could not be shown that the novel protein in StarLink was not an allergen. With new genetically modified foods under development, some of which could involve novel proteins, what is being done to improve scientists’ ability to understand and predict the allergenic potential of new proteins? This is a key question for food safety regulators. To find the answer to this question, the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology commissioned Dr. Lynn Goldman, Professor of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, to conduct a study of ongoing federal research efforts. While the report finds a variety of food allergy research projects scattered over several federal agencies, Dr. Goldman and her co-author Dr. Luca Bucchini conclude that both the level of funding and the type of research being funded are unlikely to substantially advance scientific knowledge on this key question and therefore will not address fully the needs of food safety regulators. Given the millions of dollars invested in the development of new biotechnology food products, and the importance of maintaining consumer confidence in the safety of the food supply, increased research attention to this issue appears warranted.

Back to me. We may both not have a leg to stand on as facts go. But until you face or know someone intimately that faces the challenges on health a food allergy has and feels there is enough reason to question the safety of biotechnology in the change in their health or until there is definitive proof one way the other your opinion is as uninformed as my own, in a different manner of course.

@Unbroken I think you misunderstood this post… the one I earlier linked (this is now the second time I’m linking it) to show that I can somewhat understand people avoiding GM foods for political reasons. I am not against people voting with their money – and I think companies like Monsanto are generally bad for the planet, even though I don’t think GM foods are, by definition, dangerous at all.

What I keep responding to here, with increasing incredulity, is the idea that rock salt can contain any amount of corn. Rock salt is a mineral, mined from under the Earth’s surface. It is not iodized. Iodization is something that is only done to fine grained table salt. So, to say that rock salt should sport a label to warn that it may at some point have come into contact with corn is to say that everything we touch should sport the same label. Because this salt can contain no corn. Period.

I am sympathetic to your evidently very serious allergy problem, but if you can’t eat this salt for fear of its corn content, I have to wonder how you can consume any food at all.

I was making fun of the idea of non gmo salt since salt is neither organic nor genetic. If the anti-gmo crowd want to be taken seriously then they need not to make such asininely stupid mistakes.

@glacial as I said before which led us into a debate about dextrose was the assurance of quality line purity.

.

What does “Non-GMO Project Verified seal” mean?The verification seal indicates that the product bearing the seal has gone through our verification process. Our verification is an assurance that a product has been produced according to consensus-based best practices for GMO avoidance:

We require ongoing testing of all at-risk ingredients—any ingredient being grown commercially in GMO form must be tested prior to use in a verified product. We use an Action Threshold of 0.9%. This is in alignment with laws in the European Union, where any product containing more than 0.9% GMO must be labeled. Absence of all GMOs is the target for all Non-GMO Project Standard compliant products. Continuous improvement practices toward achieving this goal must be part of the Participant’s quality management systems. After the test, we require rigorous traceability and segregation practices to be followed in order to ensure ingredient integrity through to the finished product. For low-risk ingredients, we conduct a thorough review of ingredient specification sheets to determine absence of GMO risk. Verification is maintained through an annual audit, along with onsite inspections for high-risk products

I appreciate your sympathy. I don’t have the corn allergy my sister does. And she is always experiencing symptoms. The most noticeable to me is a skin rash that gets worse or better depending on how much control she has. Traveling is very hard on her body, as she has less control over diet. But it is always present. She is desperate and takes a level of comfort in the labeling. The corn in salt was a revelation to her. The rock salt is unlikely to have an effect but in our own way we are irrational everytime we learn of another hidden source we are relieved but also worried and helpless. I have other allergies I struggle with.

But really non gmo project label is one of pride. Several more of himalania’ s products are nongmo project verified and they are waiting additional verification for more of their products. There is a line.

Monsanto hides and buys out small health food companies or simply sells them lower quality gmos while maintaining price to fool the customer. http://www.examiner.com/article/list-naming-monsanto-owned-companies-not-accurate-actions-for-change

I do regret I became angry several times in this thread and let that anger spill out.

Would not your sister be better served by a small line in the ingredients stating ‘corn-derived dextrose’ instead of a ginormous ‘holy shit there’s science in this foods!’ sign on the front of the box that doesn’t even list which ingredients may be genetically modified, ignoring entirely the fact that there it’s no actual evidence that there is any good reason to distinguish between GMO and non GMO food anyway.

@Seek_Kolinahr Yes, exactly. They are just capitalizing on people’s irrational fears.

@Unbroken I find it truly ironic that you are praising Himalania for using disinformation to take advantage of its customers, even while condemning Monsanto for the same thing. The difference is that you want to believe what Himalania is saying.

Relevant.

@gorillapaws that is a thing of beauty. I love xkcd.

Yes of course you are right. But considering that

By 2012, 88 percent of corn (maize) and 94 percent of soy grown in the United States were genetically modified, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Odds are against it. And of course this is the only quality managed labeling that is verified and held to standards in relation to corn that I am aware of. The FDA at this time doesnt recognize the need for labeling of hidden sources of corn. We take what we can get and push for more change. But change is still slow.

What does that have to do with anything?

Oh @Seek_Kolinahr there is a scientific provable difference between gmo and non gmos or else we wouldn’t be able to test for it. http://www.hudsonalpha.org/education/kits/gmod/gmo-test

As to the comment about scientific reasons for choosing non gmo products well there is enough to question its safety certainly.

The the USDA and FDA decided when gmos first came into being that they didn’t require any testing to prove their safety. They chose not to distinguish any difference between the food stuffs created by biotechnology and organic or heirloom. Without any proof of safety. I and many others have come to believe that to be a giant oversight.

Then there is the impact on exports and our environment. Or the monopolies trust and patent ownerships…. But do you really want to get into that?

Again, what does that have to do with labeling corn based dextrose for allergy purposes?

You’re all over the place, here.

And, what dangers would you like them to test for? ‘test for safety’ is a meaningless phrase.