I smoke for flavor, not for nicotine.
GMO Tobacco/No Nicotine
- Thread starter Wheels
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Yes. But the ritual and slowing down is why I do it.Pipe tobacco other than Rustica has a nicotine hit?
I smoke for both.
There are tobaccos I have and really enjoy that have almost no nicotine to mention like Black Gold and Mr. B's Afternoon Delight.
I remember a Pipes Magazine article called The Golden Ticket: Two Days at the Richmond Pipe Show where it says you found your favourite McClellend's blend, Navy Cavendish. Surely, I believe, a tobacco that would be all about the flavour.
The main reason I wouldn't smoke a GMO tobacco would be because it was a GMO product.
I was wondering if such a product would be interesting for you to smoke and review. I am sorry if my comment came across another way.
It is difficult, but I too avoid most wheat and corn. Apples and potatoes I buy organic, and seasonally have my own to consume. Some of us actually ARE like that.
While for some it may be dogma, for me it is not. I have spent time studying issues of particular concern to my well-being (such as food) and make my decisions on combinations of known facts, observations, and logical reasoning. Pretty much the same as individuals do when determining whether or not to smoke a pipe...
I miss most of the GMOs by not eating breads, or pre-made cookies, crackers, and the sort. Almost all pre-processed foods you buy ready to eat are GMO.
Then, we eat almost 90% of our vegetables from the garden. We have a friend who sells us corn that he has milled into meal for us. But, we don't eat much grain otherwise. I just don't like breads that much. My grandfather was always saying that breads are what is killing us. True or false, I just avoided it all of these years. This is one reason I never buy condiments, because bread is what you mostly put those on.
My wife will pick up pasta every now and then, as well as rice when the mood hits. So, we may be getting some GMO in our diet. Not sure why its bad... but, there's no way it is a substantial part of our diet.
Some of you are concerned about the GMO process. Let me ask this: If they were to develop a tobacco using normal breeding practice that had no nicotine but smoked and tasted the same, would you smoke it?
Could not apple and potatoes be organic yet have been altered genetically?
I think the fear of all GMO products is similar to the fear of water and pipes.
Yes, some products are "raised" organically, yet they are inherently a modified GMO crop.
Canola oil is modified rape seed oil, which was an industrial lubricant, unfit for human consumption. Supposedly, the modification of rape seed into "canola" (Canadian Oil I read in the past) made it digestible. Now, canola is grown under "organic" conditions and sold as an "organic" product.
Knowing how these oils (canola in this case) destroy physiology and lead to chronic inflammation, I will not eat them willingly; which means most restaurant food is out of the question, unless I wish to consume it at the moment in time, with the knowledge of what is going in my mouth.
I do not think that the apples and potatoes which I purchase as organic, are GMO at all. Remember, most GMO is done to withstand the application of RoundUp (glyphosate) and organic labeling prohibits usage of glyphosate.
Canola is unique because it is truly a Frankenfood creation. Some grown now organically, some not.
I did not know that GMO was so tied to survival after glyphosate application! Any cite on that?
I don't smoke low nicotine tobaccos now. Aromatics tend to not be very absorbable because of the stuff they add as scents, or maybe it is the process.
Now, if they used the GMO process to make a heavy hitter like Rustica... lets say one that tastes like Turkish or a Virginia, but has a nic hit like Rustica, I'd be more interested in trying it.
Of course there are many different reasons why people are avoiding GMO's, but mostly it is the unknown. As GMO's started rising in popularity, so did allergies to foods, like gluten and such. Is there a connection? Because these crops are annual, it will take time for science to give us an accurate picture of what GMO's are doing to us. Then, there is the ethics of tampering with genetics like this. Just because we "can" do something, doesn't mean that we should. I am against AI for this reason also.
When certain food have their genetics altered, there have been a few examples where the plants developed unexpected toxins. This hasn't been extensive, but if the possibility exists, why take the risk.
It's not exactly the same as watering your pipes, in that there isn't much danger that rinsing a pipe will create a new allergy or possibly make me sick. But, I get what you're saying, and maybe agree a little.
I have a new found allergy to oranges, melons, carrots, and cucumbers. The allergist suggested that this could be a natural development or maybe related to new foods hitting the market. Reading between the lines, I think she meant GMO's. I do not grow my own oranges or melons, and I never really liked carrots as they taste bitter to me. So, the chances that my allergies came about because of genetic tampering is a possibility.
Last edited:
Reply to part of the above:
"Of course there are many different reasons why people are avoiding GMO's, but mostly it is the unknown. As GMO's started rising in popularity, so did allergies to foods, like gluten and such. Is there a connection? Because these crops are annual, it will take time for science to give us an accurate picture of what GMO's are doing to us. Then, there is the ethics of tampering with genetics like this. Just because we "can" do something, doesn't mean that we should. I am against AI for this reason also."
_________________________________________________________________
The bolded portion- truly cause and effect? Certainly allergies were- and maybe still are— on the rise - or more accurately, acknowledging them has become a popular pastime.
Was Luther Burbank unethical?
"Of course there are many different reasons why people are avoiding GMO's, but mostly it is the unknown. As GMO's started rising in popularity, so did allergies to foods, like gluten and such. Is there a connection? Because these crops are annual, it will take time for science to give us an accurate picture of what GMO's are doing to us. Then, there is the ethics of tampering with genetics like this. Just because we "can" do something, doesn't mean that we should. I am against AI for this reason also."
_________________________________________________________________
The bolded portion- truly cause and effect? Certainly allergies were- and maybe still are— on the rise - or more accurately, acknowledging them has become a popular pastime.
Was Luther Burbank unethical?
I just did a search for "GMO and allergies". The FDA and Ag sites say, "NO". I also noticed that these sites also say that there are only 9 foods with allergens, which is NOT what my doctor says.
But, some of the more medically and scientific sites report that more research needs to be done, with some sites saying that the companies doing the modifications are hiding their process.
Ok, think about it this way. They are modifying genetics so that plants develop a natural pest resistance. They change corn, so that if a mouse eats it, it will die. That doesn't make me salivate to eat it.
They are not modifying plants to taste better, but to create poisons to repel pests. This should raise eyebrows on everyone.
But, some of the more medically and scientific sites report that more research needs to be done, with some sites saying that the companies doing the modifications are hiding their process.
Ok, think about it this way. They are modifying genetics so that plants develop a natural pest resistance. They change corn, so that if a mouse eats it, it will die. That doesn't make me salivate to eat it.
They are not modifying plants to taste better, but to create poisons to repel pests. This should raise eyebrows on everyone.
I'm not sure what you mean, but I think I might?
I think it can be readily found that the purpose behind GMO crops such as corn, was that they were modified to be able to withstand the toxin which is sprayed on them to keep down pests (it is generally a neurotoxin to the pest if I recall). But the plant would typically suffer as well, so the modification was designed to prevent that. A plant that survived the chemicals used to keep down the pests, so that less crop is lost to said pest.
Yes, this is what I have read also, but as most of the agricultural chemicals are being found to be highly carcinogenic, they are making modifications (or experimenting with them) to make the plant directly pest resistant and weed resistant without having to spray. How much of this is already out there... they aren't exactly transparent about it. Montsanto has been changing the corporate names of many of these areas doing the developments in GMOs to avoid scrutiny. This also makes me cringe.
If this was all safe as safe can be, then why all of the hiding and curtains? This should make anyone suspicious.
Now, keep in mind that I grew corn for 12 years. Our co-op would keep us very informed on what we were doing and what out products were... but, there was much of what "no one had the answers for" out there. I saw the curtains in all of this, and it made me want to get out of it.
"People have been eating grain for thousands of years, but suddenly you have large numbers of people allergic to gluten?"
I posted a meme on Facebook with those words, a picture, and no mention of glyphosate.
I got "fact-checked" and told that there was no evidence that glyphosate caused allergies or something very similar.
With all that I've seen in the last few years, THAT alone is enough to tell me they are actively hiding things.
Anecdote: For decades now it's been common to hear stories about traveling to Europe and being able to enjoy the breads and grain products over there without have gluten / IBS / or similar issues. I've heard it from others and experienced it myself. Currently the EU (or individual countries) prohibits glyphosate products on their grains, despite being attacked and sued by Monsanto & similar. Thus, breads, beer and other grain products from across the pond are often enjoyed by those who cannot consume the same here at home.
If the court system is any reflection of truth?, there are settlements for millions of dollars indicating that glyphosate causes various cancers.................................
I posted a meme on Facebook with those words, a picture, and no mention of glyphosate.
I got "fact-checked" and told that there was no evidence that glyphosate caused allergies or something very similar.
With all that I've seen in the last few years, THAT alone is enough to tell me they are actively hiding things.
Anecdote: For decades now it's been common to hear stories about traveling to Europe and being able to enjoy the breads and grain products over there without have gluten / IBS / or similar issues. I've heard it from others and experienced it myself. Currently the EU (or individual countries) prohibits glyphosate products on their grains, despite being attacked and sued by Monsanto & similar. Thus, breads, beer and other grain products from across the pond are often enjoyed by those who cannot consume the same here at home.
If the court system is any reflection of truth?, there are settlements for millions of dollars indicating that glyphosate causes various cancers.................................
I like pipe smoking, but have never cared for feeling the nicotine. I'd be pretty happy with nicotine-free tobacco if it could be used to create my favorite blends (which are all Oriental-heavy Englishes and so pretty low nic to begin with.).
As far as the GMO issue, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding. Almost everything you eat has been genetically modified. Natural selection hasn't produced hardly anything in our food supply; thousands of years of artificial selection have, in the form of hybridization (and more recently, other techniques like mutagenesis). Humans have intentionally bred and modified for desirable traits - these processes genetically modify the organism in question. Of course. Any such trait is genetically coded; modifying traits IS genetic modification. Corn would still be a grass if its genetic coding hadn't been modified as one example; that modifying was just done by selective breeding. But same result - modified genetics.
What people refer to as "GMO" is just a new technique of the same old process of modifying genetics to express desirable traits. With transgenic tech, for the first time we have the ability to specifically target a desirable trait without changing anything else. Previous techniques (crossbreeding, mutagenesis etc) all relied on a shotgun approach of dumb luck: "let's try a couple dozen tweaks and see if any of the results are what we wanted, and hope they don't screw anything up in the process.". It was a lot of trial and error, and really just dumb luck when you finally got what you wanted.
Now, we can target exactly what we want and get it right away. If transgenic tech didn't exist we'd still be doing it the old fashioned way - wasting a lot more time, but ultimately ending up with the exact same genetic sequences that the transgenic techniques yeild.
There's no such thing in humanity as not eating "GMOs". There hasn't been since the dawn of the neolithic.
As far as the GMO issue, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding. Almost everything you eat has been genetically modified. Natural selection hasn't produced hardly anything in our food supply; thousands of years of artificial selection have, in the form of hybridization (and more recently, other techniques like mutagenesis). Humans have intentionally bred and modified for desirable traits - these processes genetically modify the organism in question. Of course. Any such trait is genetically coded; modifying traits IS genetic modification. Corn would still be a grass if its genetic coding hadn't been modified as one example; that modifying was just done by selective breeding. But same result - modified genetics.
What people refer to as "GMO" is just a new technique of the same old process of modifying genetics to express desirable traits. With transgenic tech, for the first time we have the ability to specifically target a desirable trait without changing anything else. Previous techniques (crossbreeding, mutagenesis etc) all relied on a shotgun approach of dumb luck: "let's try a couple dozen tweaks and see if any of the results are what we wanted, and hope they don't screw anything up in the process.". It was a lot of trial and error, and really just dumb luck when you finally got what you wanted.
Now, we can target exactly what we want and get it right away. If transgenic tech didn't exist we'd still be doing it the old fashioned way - wasting a lot more time, but ultimately ending up with the exact same genetic sequences that the transgenic techniques yeild.
There's no such thing in humanity as not eating "GMOs". There hasn't been since the dawn of the neolithic.
I have 2 things on this. First, there are people that are truly hurt by gluten (ie, they have celiac disease and gluten destroy their intestinal linings).
Second, many people including my sister-in-law chose gluten free as a form of control. She was having problems conceiving and went to a wholistic healer who told her gluten was preventing pregnancy. Obviously not true, but she has been a control freak on family get together meals for almost 20 years and still has not gotten pregnant. - Kind of makes me wonder about some things, but I don’t want to be rude. So, I don’t say anything.
Yes and no. Over hundreds of years, our digestive system can change along with our foods. Plus, we could never make corn that will kill a mouse without being able to go in and modify chemical reactions within the plant. How long would that be able to happen naturally? Probably never.
I've seen this all happen from the farmer's perspective as well. One of the reasons I chose to grow the cheaper industrial-use (or dent crop) corn, were the strange ways the AG side of Montesano was so controlling of what and how we grew their products. If all of the smoke and mirrors doesn't make you suspicious, then do what you want.
They change corn, so that if a mouse eats it, it will die. That doesn't make me salivate to eat it.
That is frightening. Have a cite for that bit?
They are not modifying plants to taste better, but to create poisons to repel pests. This should raise eyebrows on everyone.
Yes, that's frightening. But I can't believe geneticists aren't also working to make plants taste better. We've also seen what regular breeding did to tomatoes to make them stand up better to mechanization and longer shelf life. Yuck! Hard, tasteless fruit.
That is frightening. Have a cite for that bit?
They are not modifying plants to taste better, but to create poisons to repel pests. This should raise eyebrows on everyone.
Yes, that's frightening. But I can't believe geneticists aren't also working to make plants taste better. We've also seen what regular breeding did to tomatoes to make them stand up better to mechanization and longer shelf life. Yuck! Hard, tasteless fruit.