Unzipping Our Food’s Genes

In yesterday’s newsletter, we asked you for your (health-related) views on GMOs.

But what does the science say?

First, a note on terms

Technically, we (humans) have been (g)enetically (m)odifying (o)rganisms for thousands of years.

If you eat a banana, you are enjoying the product of many generations of artificial selection, to change its genes to produce a fruit that is soft, sweet, high in nutrients, and digestible without cooking. The original banana plant would be barely recognizable to many people now (and also, barely edible). We’ve done similarly with countless other food products.

So in this article, we’re going to be talking exclusively about modern genetic modification of organisms, using exciting new (ish, new as in “in the last century”) techniques to modify the genes directly, in a copy-paste fashion.

For more details on the different kinds of genetic modification of organisms, and how they’re each done (including the modern kinds), check out this great article from Sciencing, who explain it in more words than we have room for here:

Sciencing | How Are GMOs Made?

(the above also offers tl;dr section summaries, which are great too)

GMOS are outright dangerous (cancer risks, unknown risks, etc): True or False?

False, so far as we know, in any direct* fashion. Obviously “unknown risks” is quite a factor, since those are, well, unknown. But GMOs on the market undergo a lot of safety testing, and have invariably passed happily.

*However! Glyphosate (the herbicide), on the other hand, has a terrible safety profile and is internationally banned in very many countries for this reason.

Why is this important? Because…

• in the US (and two out of ten Canadian provinces), glyphosate is not banned
• In the US (and we may hypothesize, those two Canadian provinces) one of the major uses of genetic modification of foodstuffs is to make it resistant to glyphosate
• Consequently, GMO foodstuffs grown in those places have generally been liberally doused in glyphosate

So… It’s not that the genetic modification itself makes the food dangerous and potentially carcinogenic (it doesn’t), but it is that the genetic modification makes it possible to use a lot more glyphosate without losing crops to glyphosate’s highly destructive properties.

Which results in the end-consumer eating glyphosate. Which is not good. For example:

❝Following the landmark case against Monsanto, which saw them being found liable for a former groundskeeper, 46 year old Dewayne Johnson’s cancer, 32 countries have to date banned the use of Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer. The court awarded Johnson R4.2 billion in damages finding Monsanto “acted with malice or oppression”.❞

Source: see below!

You can read more about where glyphosate is and isn’t banned, here:

33 countries ban the use of Glyphosate—the key ingredient in Roundup

For the science of this (and especially the GMO → glyphosate use → cancer pipeline), see:

Use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)-Containing Food Products in Children

GMOs are extra healthy because of the modifications (they were designed for that, right?): True or False?

True or False depending on who made them and why! As we’ve seen above, not all companies seem to have the best interests of consumer health in mind.

However, they can be! Here are a couple of great examples:

❝Recently, two genome-edited crops targeted for nutritional improvement, high GABA tomatoes and high oleic acid soybeans, have been released to the market.

Nutritional improvement in cultivated crops has been a major target of conventional genetic modification technologies as well as classical breeding methods❞

Source: Drs. Nagamine & Ezura

Read in full: Genome Editing for Improving Crop Nutrition

(note, they draw a distinction of meaning between genome editing and genetic modification, according to which of two techniques is used, but for the purposes of our article today, this is under the same umbrella)

Want to know more?

If you’d like to read more about this than we have room for here, here’s a great review in the Journal of Food Science & Nutrition:

Should we still worry about the safety of GMO foods? Why and why not? A review

Take care!

“Early To Bed…”

In yesterday’s newsletter, we asked you for your (health-related) views on orgasms.

But what does the science say?

Orgasms are essential to good health: True or False?

False, in the most literal sense. One certainly won’t die without them. Anorgasmia (the inability to orgasm) is a condition that affects many postmenopausal women, some younger women, and some men. And importantly, it isn’t fatal—just generally considered unfortunate:

Anorgasmia Might Explain Why You’re Not Orgasming When You Want To

That article focuses on women; here’s a paper focusing on men:

Delayed Orgasm and Anorgasmia

Orgasms are good for the health, but marginally: True or False?

True! They have a wide array of benefits, depending on various factors (including, of course, one’s own sex). That said, the benefits are so marginal that we don’t have a flock of studies to cite, and are reduced to pop-science sources that verbally cite studies that are, alas, nowhere to be found, for example:

• For women: 9 Orgasm Benefits That Might Surprise You
• For men: 9 Ways Orgasms May Benefit Your Health

Doubtlessly the studies do exist, but are sparse enough that finding them is a nightmare as the keywords for them will bring up a lot of studies about orgasms and health that aren’t answering the above question (usually: health’s affect on orgasms, rather than the other way around).

There is some good science for post-menopausal women, though! Here it is:

Misconceptions About Sexual Health in Older Women

(if you have the time to read this, this also covers many very avoidable things that can disrupt sexual function, in ways that people will errantly chalk up to old age, not knowing that they are missing out needlessly)

Orgasms are good or bad, depending on being male or female: True or False

False, broadly. The health benefits are extant and marginal for almost everyone, as indicated above.

What’s that “almost” about, then?

There are a very few* people (usually men) for whom it doesn’t go well. In such cases, they have a chronic and lifelong problem whereby orgasm is followed by 2–7 days of flu-like and allergic symptoms. Little is known about it, but it appears to be some sort of autoimmune disorder.

Read more: Post-orgasmic illness syndrome: history and current perspectives

*It’s hard to say for sure how few though, as it is surely under-reported and thus under-diagnosed; likely even misdiagnosed if the patient doesn’t realize that orgasms are the trigger for such episodes, and the doctor doesn’t think to ask. Instead, they will be busy trying to eliminate foods from the diet, things like that, while missing this cause.

Orgasms are better avoided for optimal health: True or False?

Aside from the above, False. There is a common myth for men of health benefits of “semen retention”, but it is not based in science, just tradition. You can read a little about it here:

• What to know about semen retention
• What are the side effects of not releasing sperm?

The short version is: do it if you want; don’t if you don’t; the body will compensate either way so it won’t make a meaningful difference to anything for most people, healthwise.

Small counterpoint: while withholding orgasm (and ejaculation) is not harmful to health, what does physiologically need draining sometimes is prostate fluid. But that can also be achieved mechanically through prostate milking, or left to fend for itself (as it will in nocturnal emissions, popularly called wet dreams). However, if you have problems with an enlarged prostate, it may not be a bad idea to take matters into your own hands, so to speak. As ever, do check with your doctor if you have (or think you may have) a condition that might affect this.

One final word…

We’re done with mythbusting for today, but we wanted to share this study that we came across (so to speak) while researching, as it’s very interesting:

Clitorally Stimulated Orgasms Are Associated With Better Control of Sexual Desire, and Not Associated With Depression or Anxiety, Compared With Vaginally Stimulated Orgasms

On which note: if you haven’t already, consider getting a “magic wand” style vibe; you can thank us later (this writer’s opinion: everyone should have one!).

Top tip: do get the kind that plugs into the wall, not rechargeable. The plug-into-the-wall kind are more powerful, and last much longer (both “in the moment”, and in terms of how long the device itself lasts).

Enjoy!