GMO Grains in Scotch and Bourbon

France is also fluoride free in its water sources, by the way. Bien!!!!

@rigmorole - you stated, "I was wondering if the rye in most scotches made in Scotland are GM Free (GMO free)." I'll take a case of that, single malt or blend - genetically modified or not.

@rigmorole "rye" and single malt Scotch aren't of the same pedigree so your question is moot.

@rigmorole

I think that it's called a hangover, and was there much before any GMO were invented.

@olivier I meant to quote "A drink here and there of bourbon is fine, of course, but more than that tends to make me feeling "green around the gills" so to speak, especially the next morning" before my comment about that being a case of old-fashioned (non-GMO) hangover.

I meant barley, not rye. My mistake. Barley can be GMO and often is. My question is not "moot" two bit cowboy.

So the question is this: Is GMO Barley used in the making of single malt scotch from Scotland?

Olivier, I don't appreciate the smugness of your reply.

Olivier, since you are from France, this discussion seems especially tailored to you. How do you feel about the fact that your country bans GMO foods and products? Sorry if you response initially made me feel as though you were making fun of me. Or were you?

I wonder if the French government has thought to ask for GMO labeling on Single Malt Scotch, Bourbon, and Canadian Whisky, for example?

Cognac and other made in France could have labels that prove they are GMO free. That might be a selling point for those who are aware of how damaging GMO products can be.

I would very much welcome clear labeling of whether the distilled grain involved in any alcohol is the product of genetic tampering or not. Since alcohol affects the body differently from normal foods-- altering the heart rate, temporarily altering metabolism, etc.--it's even possible that GMO alcohol products are more harmful than, say, regular bread and gluten-intensive foods. The effects of GMO food and drink adds up over time, obviously. It's cumulative.

@rigmorole You could try the Bruichladdich organic offcourse. Although just the existence of this bottle indicates that most of the rest is not made in an organic way. And btw, the 'magical/mythical' Scots put E150 in most their stuff so its always something here and there.

As for whisky produced in Scotland, I have absolutely no idea if the barley or anything else for that matter is GM but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were. Personally, I don't experience any extraordinary 'sickness' when drinking bourbon or rye whisky. I don't however, usually drink either simply because I don't usually like bourbons or ryes ; )

I do think that @rigmorole's topic, yet more specifically the topic of substances which are added to our food and water is of extreme importance though. I think that governments should make clear and detailed descriptions of contents in food products mandatory. As well, the adding of fluoride to water is something that should be outlawed in my opinion. Very happy we don't do that here in Japan, can't say the same thing for my home country!

@PeatyZealot is totally right. The addition of E150 and other chemicals by the Scottish distilleries should not be overlooked.

@rigmorole "Most corn used to make bourbon in the USA is GMO corn...My reaction to Scotch is dramatically different from bourbon and Canadian whisky (which also uses a lot of corn, and probably mostly GMO corn, as well)"

Do they all use GMO corn? Do you have any evidence to support this claim i.e. from where distilleries source their grains? It may very well be true, but I certainly won't take your word for it. And since it is the first, and central, premise upon which your entire argument rests, you really should offer some evidence to back it up. If you are wrong, then everything else that follows from your first statement is irrelevant.

And do you know whether scottish barley is GMO? If it is, then most of your claims are invalid. And what about scottish grain whisky, like that which is found in all blends? Have you ever tasted a blend? What were the side effects?

I am also skeptical that you, or anyone else, can tell the difference between GMO and non-GMO based grain distillate. In a blind line up under even modest controls you'd either fail to detect it, or the negative outcomes you associate with GMO grain whisky would fail to manifest (or manifest as a false positive).

Without actual concrete evidence, or a convincing argument, this sounds mostly like something out of a homeopath's monthly newsletter.

All of that said, I still like to know what's in my food and water.

@rigmorole GMO and gluten intolerance are two different things in my mind. I thought I read somewhere that some American producers try to avoid GMO grains but I could be wrong. I do not really know much about GMO issues.

As to gluten intolerance, distilled whisky basically has no gluten, even beer has very little as compared with say a piece of bread. I would not be worried at all about the miniscule amounts of gluten in whisky.

Chuck Cowdery has a blog post where he says that Four Roses sources non-GMO grains

chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2012/03/…

Not to minimize gluten intolerance, I know some people are incredibly sensitive. I can easily handle a bit but more than say two pieces of bread and I can feel some gut issues. Still for the overwhelming majority, the miniscule amount of gluten in any type of whisky should not be an issue.

@JeffC Now thats helpful :)

Ahhhh... I see. "the climate skeptics of the left" are here too.

It's like conspiracy-a-day around here.

"Currently, up to 85 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as are 91 percent of soybeans and 88 percent of cotton (cottonseed oil is often used in food products). According to industry, up to 95% of sugar beets are now GE. It has been estimated that upwards of 70 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves–from soda to soup, crackers to condiments–contain genetically engineered ingredients."

centerforfoodsafety.org/campaign/…

There is mounting evidence to indicate that GMO products and gluten intolerance are in fact related. The rate of gluten intolerance in the USA is far greater than most other countries. France, for instance, has very little celiac and gluten intolerance and France has always kept a rather stringent eye on GMO imports. limiting them where possible.

GMO stuff is not a left right issue. I detest the left-right paradigm in America and refuse to vote based upon it. I detest the penis puppetry passing as a presidency in Obama's so-called "leadership" the same as Bush's so called "leadership." I personally believe that some of the really large non-profit environmentalist groups like Greenpeace and the Audubon Society are controlled by globalist banking interests to help facilitate globalist goals/scams, such as the "green bubble" of Goldman Sachs.

I won't stop drinking my favorite whiskies any time soon because the company's potentially use GMO grain products. It's merely something to consider and to push for as consumers. We are the people who put down our hard earned money for whisky. We have a passion for it, and we are leaders merely by taking part in this website that is read by thousands due to search engines on Google, etc.

My point of view here is not an argument, it is a friendly observation and discussion. The principles of my statements here are enduring regardless of whether "all" distilleries in the USA use GMO corn or not. To suggest otherwise is a slippery slope fallacy. Naturally, ad hominem fallacy also crept in there by MCM who is my buddy but lives in a part of the country that is highly influenced by corporate interests pertaining to corn in particular. The present Secretary of Agriculture is a Monsanto lobbyist as well as being the former Governor of Iowa. If that isn't a conflict of interest, then I don't know what is. As for the word "conspiracy theory" it is a catch phrase designed by cultural programmers to shut down critical thinking skills. It is normally uttered by those who have been most thoroughly mind controlled to the extent that they pass on their operant conditioning to others through peer pressure. Whenever I hear that word I feel sorry for the person who utters it because it indicates not a lack of intelligence (some of the highest IQs are easiest to brainwash) but a lack of insight and independent thinking. Group Think was what Orwell's novel, 1984 was all about. Ironically, Orwell himself was a globalist who made his living writing war propaganda for the BBC.

GMO grains have not been studied enough to let them become the simple majority grain (anything over 51% is a simple majority by the way Conscience). Letting huge corporations like Monsanto rule the roost in Washington DC (through a penis puppet masquerading as a Secretary of Agriculture) is more than a little naive. It is quite symbolic of the state of the nation and the world right now.

If some upwards of 65-70% of all corn sold in the USA is GMO and the distiller that buys the corn does not attempt to buy GMO Free corn then it makes sense that almost all batches will have some GMO corn mixed it. Less barley is GMO than corn, so the percentage would be lower in a distiller that did not attempt to buy GMO Free barley for single malt scotch.

My discussion here is friendly because I care about people and I care about my own health. I spent this much time writing it because I want to help make the world a better place. I have nothing to gain from raising the topic for discussion other than calling people's attention to the importance of paying attention to what we eat, drink, etc. I am not a zealot at all. I'm a mellow person who eats GMO regularly when I can't help it (in restaurants and sometimes in the grocery store) but I do make an effort when I can to eat GMO free products. Why? Because the FDA is bought and sold by the likes of Monstanto, ADM, and the other "big boys." I don't trust that the FDA really cares about the public's health when the financial interests of huge multinational corporations are at stake. Aspertame is a perfect example. It is the waste product of e-coli bacteria and is highly toxic, contributing to health problems like diabetes, and yet the FDA passed it when Donald Rumsfeld shoved it through the process. That's not to say the FDA is always working against the general public good, just in key cases where the public good is at odds with the financial interests of huge multinationals. GMO Corn, wheat, and soybeans are perfect examples of that conflict. Most studies about the potential harmful effects of GMO foods have been either directly or indirectly funded by the very corporations that want GMO food on supermarket shelves. If that's a conspiracy theory then so be it. It's also a reality. So that makes it more than simply a "theory."

I think the discussion is an interesting one. I read somewhere that back in the 70's and prior, the yield of spirit per tonne of barley was substantially less and, the author speculated, this has resulted in scotch that is at least different and, in the authors opinion, not as good. Certainly, the old standard bottles from the 70s and before that I've tried have been better than their modern equivalents, but whether this is due to a larger proportion of older spirit, obe, or the change in grains is anyone's guess.

I guess my point is merely that of course the grains matter in the eventual outcomes of the whisky. That said, I would certainly be more concerned with several other arts of our food supply chain than whisky. HFCS and corn fed cows spring to mind, but this isn't the place to discuss those topics...

I can't imagine there's anything in the whisky that could possibly be more harmful to our health than the ethanol itself. I don't think gene manipulated crop is the main concern when I pour a liquid that's over 40% cell poison down my throat. Just saying.

That's a good point, Nils

@JeffC I've spoken with Jim Rutledge personally about GMO use and Four Roses does not use GMO corn. They've sourced their grain from the same farms for at least the last 40 or 50 years.

Thanks bourbondork, it is intersting to know and have that confirmed.

I buy virtually exclusively organic foods, as anyone above the poverty line should. But I tend to agree with NilsG, when it comes to alcohol, it's not doing a lot compared to the alcohol itself. Then again, I would be happy if GMO foods were outlawed globally because it's a stupid thing to do in the first place. It's amazing to me that a food will sell better if it's pretty than if it's healthy (ignoring the cost-cutting reasons).

What was that about climate change? I'm hoping everyone here understands that it IS a thing and yeah we caused it. Pretty sure this is an intelligent enough group.

^ That came across kinda harsh, but there is no edit option that I can see. Main point is that while I totally think GMO foods are a problem, I think alcohol is pretty much the last place people ought to worry about it.

And as for buying organic (not the same thing, I realize) - it's a balance for everyone whether to justify the additional cost, but I think everyone should make the effort to buy organic when possible, it's better for everyone. But that's not what this forum is about.

Good to hear from you, lostboyscout.

That's cool you are paying attention to the problem with GMO's, etc. And, yes, Nils made some good sense about liquor being more toxic than GMO's, which is most likely true and quite sensible.

However, I must say that I can't really drink much bourbon and I can drink scotches all night. My body just does not process distilled corn very well, and it processes barley quite well. I also don't know for sure if anyone can say whether the harmful effects of GMO plants are completely destroyed by distillation. This conclusion has a common sense gut-level logic to it, but such things really should be studied by experts in the field to determine the veracity of such a conclusion.

Unfortunately, the media won't really tell us what such experts discover in this regard, at least not in the US where the media is wrapped up tighter than the head on a snare drum. And then there's the problem with academia being bought and sold these days by corporate interests that are behind the push for GMO's.

Even if a biologist or geneticist not working for a university or a big hospital could suffer the results of his/her career being sabotaged by corporate interests, and so the double blind studies do not really flourish when it comes to studying the dangerous effects of GMO products. Considering how diabetes rates and celiac rates have skyrocketed since GMO's became the majority grain in American foods, a great deal more studies should be done than are being done, especially double blind ones with a certain modicum of autonomy from multi-national corporate influence and/or collusion.

I certainly agree that GMO-laden grains in alcohol are the least of our worries compared with other types of food and drink. As for your off hand comment regarding manmade climate change, your vehement regurgitation of the junk science (mainstream media/academia) mantra made me chuckle a little bit. You have been indoctrinated, my friend, and it's not your fault. You mean well, and I appreciate that. I can tell you want the world to be a better place, like most of us do.

I spent the first twenty years of my adult life (up until ten years ago) as a liberal democrat, but I'm wide awake enough these days to see the forest from the trees when it comes to the green scam and the climate change scam. I also think that the answer has nothing to do with endorsing petroleum and coal technologies or nuclear technologies, any more than it should endorse crappy windmills that will break and become garbage in about ten years.

When it comes to my strong stance on making a difference insofar as protecting forests in the Pacific Northwest, for example, I actually can say that I have personally made a difference. I single handedly stopped a large stand of virgin forest in very inaccessible (except by timber copters) part of Gifford Pinchot from being logged by identifying a few rare species of animals that stopped the logging, at least for another decade or so. The trees in that square mile area would probably not have produced enough toilet paper for New Yorkers to wipe their behinds with over the course of a week or so, but it is a priceless biome worthy of saving, to be sure. The trade-off was a no-brainer.

So, yes, I'm an environmentalist, but I'm also open minded enough to see the globalist footprint on the manmade climate change scam. Lostboyscout: It's high time to do your homework before assuming that people who are wise enough to smell a rat on the topic of climate change and the real gloablist interests behind it, lack intelligence. On this topic, it's amazing (as a college professor) to see how many salt of the earth types (among my students) grasp the fishiness of the scam intuitively, while my the vast majority of my fellow colleagues with PhD's are utterly blind to it.

Ironicallly, there is no correlation between high IQ's and the ability to see outside the box, especially when that box has been carefully prepared for the population by cultural designers well versed in the theories of Edward Bernays and BF Skinner's even more sophisticated proteges. This is not surprising when one considers the reason IQ tests were invented in the first place: to separate officers from soldiers for the draft to rush the US military into WWI. Officers must follow orders quite well. They simply direct the troops to do what their commanders wish. I'm afraid, IMO, that's what you are doing with the whole tired man made climate change argument when you make a comment such as, "What was that about climate change? I'm hoping everyone here understands that it IS a thing and yeah we caused it. Pretty sure this is an intelligent enough group."

If you are really dedicated to learning about the subject, then why not do some independent research on your own instead of believing everything that globalist minions like Al Gore force feed you?

Start with John Perkins Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, and then read Matt Taibi's Great American Bubble Machine article from a few years back, and then read about Greenpeace founder, Dr. Patrick Moore's stance on the climate change scam in particular and the green bubble scam in general. I"m certainly not advocating the poisonous diatribe of provocateur's like Glen Beck, who simply mix in genuine facts with projectile vomiting rhetoric designed to "divide and conquer" the psyche of the American people for his globalist bosses into left/right and "tea party."

As for your comments on GMO grains in scotch, I appreciate your sentiments. When I originally posted the discussion, I had suffered greatly after drinking three glasses of bourbon the night before. As I've said, I can drink scotch (reasonably) all evening and suffer no ill effects the next day other than being a little groggy, perhaps. I dearly love my scotch. My discussion here was merely a reflection of my curiosity about GMO grains in scotch, bourbon and canadian whisky. I was very interested to read the posts about Four Roses bourbon. I already like that brand and now I am even more inclined to try it again and see how my system does reacts to it.

@rigmorole I like to think that connosr is a place where people from all over the (English speaking) world can come together, irrespective of background, political or religious leaning, economic status or gender to discuss, celebrate and imbibe in the greatest of all spirits, whisk(e)y.

Your asides into topics which aren't whisky are both polarizing and not in keeping with the spirit of this great place. Certainly your entitled to your opinions, so all I would ask is some tact in their deployment.

Just a general comment.

I disagree with some of the views expressed by @rigmorole on this thread (though I must say that I also am a huge fan of Matt Taibi and Confessions of an Economic Hitman is a great read, scary but great!). I have also disagreed with many other views on many other threads.

However, I completely support anyone who wishes to voice them. Personally, I'm not at all concerned about views which may be expressed in ways that are less than diplomatic. I've never been 'offended' by anyone's opinions, perspectives or beliefs, I find it impossible to see how I could be. I have often vehemently disagreed... but never been offended.

I think that connosr is a fantastic forum to discuss everything whisky. However, I also think it is completely natural and often necessary that discussions will inevitably turn to topics of politics, economics or whatever. I welcome this. I think an open forum and the freedom to express one's ideas is something that needs to be maintained on this or any other social networking site.

I realize that the subject of connosr is whisky. And of course that is the reason I am here. However to think that it's best to, or even worse, to purposefully try to censor all discussions so that other issues are not addressed will, in my opinion, reduce the appeal of the site in general.

If you ask me, topics regarding politics, the environment, society and of course, WHISKY are always welcomed. If you find the thread isn't for you, move on to another ; )

Well, a few glasses of Jack Daniels makes me very obnoxious, rebellious and overly confident. It must have something to do with the corn... ;)

@CanadianNinja I was trying to craft an entry to say what you said, but I didn't get anywhere close to how perfectly you put it. This is a forum so there will certainly be disagreements, and the important thing that we have to do is realize that and not take offence by mere disagreement. Although it is in all our best interests to keep the dissenting opinions civil and on topic as to prevent it from turning into a contest of "your momma" jokes

@rigmorole I just wanted to highlight a few things. You raise an interesting point, in general, about the constituent parts of what we drink, and potential health concerns. GMO corn was not 'created' in a vacuum; it was designed to achieve high-yield production without increased exposure to the risks of pests, pesticides, and herbicides. Is it perfect? No. Still, it's been valuable in efforts to keep up with global demand. It's a contentious issue, no doubt, but the surplus grain from GM production has allowed nations and people to provide food to starving people around the world who are unable to meet their own food production demands.

I did want to take you to task a bit over your argumentative style in presenting and responding to other posts. It's cropped up in other threads, but I wanted to get into it here because there's a kernel of interest here. Your statement about the "left-right issue" was all over the place and didn't serve much point. You followed that up with the statement:

"Naturally, ad hominem fallacy also crept in there by MCM who is my buddy but lives in a part of the country that is highly influenced by corporate interests pertaining to corn in particular."

Admittedly, MCM's comment wasn't helpful, but you mention the woeful introduction of an ad hominem and then follow suit with your own, implying strongly that his opinion, due to his location, must be driven by corporate interests and, therefore, not objective or of value.

You proceed with:

" As for the word "conspiracy theory" it is a catch phrase designed by cultural programmers to shut down critical thinking skills."

It is, in fact, not that at all. It's a description of a theory that relies on a significant amount of unsubstantiated speculation to provide an alternate answer, sometimes despite apparent evidence. It has little, if anything, to do with critical thinking skills. Your response, though, suggests that the phrase is necessarily a persecution of you and those who realize the "real truth," which the rest of us "sheeple" are not able to see. It comes off as an extremely arrogant position that undermines the rest of your argument.

Your discussion of the growth of diagnosis about celiac disease and diabetes, though possibly linked or exacerbated by GMO foods, may not be linked. Generally, the increase in diabetes is taken more to the preponderance of simple sugars consumed en masse along with an increase of torpor. Celiac disease is more complicated, and I also wonder whether the increase in diagnosis is linked more to increased awareness and better ability to test/diagnose than anything else. Also, some in the field are looking to GM techniques to create wheat that doesn't trigger problems for people with the disease. You broadly incorporate the issue into your argument without further substantiating or explaining it, and this, too, weakens your argument as a whole.

Again, you then turn to state:

"On this topic, it's amazing (as a college professor) to see how many salt of the earth types (among my students) grasp the fishiness of the scam intuitively, while my the vast majority of my fellow colleagues with PhD's are utterly blind to it."

Again, this goes to the previous point that comes off as rather arrogant. You and your class, non-scientists, naturally are better able to see the truth behind the science than the actual scientists. It doesn't serve much point other than illustrating that you're a lay-person (as most of us here are in the matters), but somehow you come to expect that your instinct must be more on point and that it's high time we realize that your gut instinct is the one to which we should listen.

Lastly, I'm not sure why you bring up IQ so much. You're the only person to even refer to it; and you seem to set it up rather as a straw-man argument. I'm not sure whether you want to get into an actual discussion on the topic elsewhere and separately or not, but the issue didn't follow in your post, which detracts from the argument that you're trying to make. Again, it gives a sense of needing to demonstrate ability despite some arbitrary marker, but let the strength of your argument stand on its own without venturing too far afield into areas that are unrelated and appear to put forward an overly defensive/arrogant theme.

@CanadianNinja said: " If you find the thread isn't for you, move on to another ; ) ."

Amen!

And here I go, moving on ...