Community | August 26, 2009 | 31 comments

Lyme/Autism group blasts genetically modified foods as dangerous

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/lymeautism-group-blasts-g_b_268580.html

Image
JanforGore
Stop eating dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods! That's the upshot of the Lyme Induced Autism (LIA) Foundation's position paper released today.

The patient advocacy group is not willing to wait around until research studies prove that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cause or worsen the many diseases that are on the rise since gene-spliced foods were introduced in 1996. Like the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) earlier this year, the LIA Foundation says there is more than enough evidence of harm in GM animal feeding studies for them to "urge doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets" and for "individuals, especially those with autism, Lyme disease, and associated conditions, to avoid" GM foods.

Dr. Jannelle Love, founder of the Autism Relief Foundation, is quoted in Kimberly Wilcox's excellent article:

"It is known that children on the Autistic Spectrum suffer from fragile immune systems, significant digestive and brain inflammation, and the environmental toxin overload. Putting foreign entities such as GMO foods into such a fragile child may indeed cause further deterioration and perhaps block the delicate biochemical pathways needed for appropriate functioning and possible recovery."

The LIA Foundation calls for physicians and patient advocacy groups to explain to patients the role that GM foods may play in disease and to distribute non-GMO educational materials, including the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, which makes it easier to find brands without GM ingredients. (See www.nonGMOGuide.com). They also called for a moratorium on all GM foods and for "Research to evaluate the role of GM foods on autism, Lyme disease, and related conditions."

GMOs: pervasive and high-risk

The five main GM foods are soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets. Their derivatives are found in more than 70 percent of the foods in the supermarket. The primary reason the plants are engineered is to allow them to drink poison. They're inserted with bacterial genes that allow them to survive otherwise deadly doses of poisonous herbicide. Biotech companies sell the seed and herbicide as a package deal. Roundup Ready crops survive sprays of Roundup. Liberty Link crops survive Liberty. US farmers use hundreds of millions of pounds more herbicide because of these herbicide-tolerant crops, and the higher toxic residues end up inside of us. The LIA position paper acknowledges that "Individuals with infections that compromise immunity... and/or high toxin loads may also be especially susceptible to adverse effects from pesticides."

Some GM corn and cotton varieties are also designed to produce poison. Inserted genes from a soil bacterium produce an insect-killing poison called Bt-toxin in every cell of the plant. Bt is associated with allergic and toxic reactions in humans and animals, and may create havoc in our digestive system (see below).

All GM crops, in fact, should be considered high-risk. Irrespective of which gene you insert, the process of genetic engineering itself results in massive collateral damage within the plants' natural DNA. This can result in new or higher levels of toxins, carcinogens, allergens, or nutrient-blocking compounds in our food.

Because of a corporate takeover at the FDA, they don't require a single safety test on GMOs -- so almost none of the potential side effects are evaluated before the crops are approved for sale. The few animal feeding safety studies that have been conducted, however, show serious problems. It's obvious why those suffering from autism, Lyme, or any ailment, would want to stop being used as a guinea pig in this massive GMO feeding experiment.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Current Tonight,   Earth and Science,   3 more
  2. tags:
    Environment,  Disease,  GMOs,  Autism,  4 more
  3.     
    |

31 comments // Lyme/Autism group blasts genetically modified foods as dangerous

  • MotherForTruth
  • GodsnConservatives
    • 0
      GodsnConservatives  

    • you will never be given truth about your food, your money, your wars, or how your government operates. The best thing you can do is protect yourself and your family as best as you can. There will always be politicians looking to take more money from you and give it to their buddies. Like the health care bill that will force millions of uninsured people to purchase insurance. The insurance companies must be salivating. Just like the prisons salivate over the war on drugs and banks salivate on economic "crisis" that provides bailouts for bad behavior. Someday in the near future Monsanto may own everything that you put in your mouth. Hopefully, they are a good company that cares more about people than money, but I doubt it.

    • 2 years ago
  • Drach
  • lucidstone
  • unclematt
    • 0
      unclematt  

    • They're making us sick with the crap they feed us, then they deny claims when we are treated for the illnesses caused by the crap they're feeding us!

    • 2 years ago
  • quanta
    • 0
      quanta  

    • It's a shame that the direction of feeding the planet is left up to corporate money makers. How did they get approval to market these products . The good old FDA? what options do we have to eat otherwise, organic marketing, although expensive to grow and still use of pesdicides (of a healthy nature) (maybe). IN the long run the option is obvious . Plus our genetic framework will adapt as it always has. You are what you eat, be careful.

    • 2 years ago
  • ras_menelik
  • hunzedog
  • thewallisgirl
    • 0
      thewallisgirl  

    • I think it is pretty egotistical to think that we can change the genetic properties of our food for profit and not think its going to do us or the Earth any harm...

    • 2 years ago
  • ras_menelik
    • 0
      ras_menelik  

    • Lucidstone still playing devil's advocate,why don't you defend the product with your facts for once trying to poke holes in the general direction of all anti GE news is geting old...

    • 2 years ago
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  
    • ras_menelik:

      First off, the science of genetically modifying food is not a singular product . . . every strain of genetically engineered organism is different and needs to be evaluated for their safety and value separately.

      Just because we have an FDA that isn't doing it's job adequately, doesn't mean the entire science is bad. Trying to engineer better and more productive foods is a very very important thing in a world with a finite amount of land and an ever growing population.

      We just need to make sure that we are doing it in a safe manner. So the call to arms should be "let's have a functioning and credible FDA free of corruption" in order to have it effectively screen the safety of genetically engineered products . . . not "let's categorically ban all GMO's" . . .

    • 2 years ago
  • ras_menelik
  • pjacobs51
    • 0
      pjacobs51  

    • Picture the Earth and everything on it as one organism. And if something within that organism (humans) starts to change things, like the chemical structure of the atmosphere, the properties of the water, the genetic structure of another species, it effects the organism as a whole, including the entities that are changing it (us). With unknown consequences.

      Call it what you want, messing with Mother Nature, instant karma, the Gaia Theory, or whatever. But that is precisely what is happening, we are seeing it everywhere, new diseases, climate changes, the extinction of species and so on. We are causing the organism to fall out of balance.

      Don't you think we should do everything in our power to put it back in balance, like ending this GMO experiment for one. Not just for the survival of our species, but for the survival of the organism as whole.

    • 2 years ago
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  

    • I'm kind of disgusted in Huffingtonpost's falling standards . . .

      -Half the facts are uncited/highly questionable

      -The blogger uses the word "may" 13 times and "might" another 3 times . . . any statement can be qualified in a "may" or "might" format . . . There "may" be a pink elephant outside my front door tomorrow, or instead I "might" when the lottery today . . . you can say ANYTHING with those words.

      If there's a real chance GMO's could cause harm, quantify it with an actual percentage. . . but I guess we're "not willing to wait around until research studies prove that GMO's [are dangerous]" . . . i mean really, who would want proof . . . ><

      -And then there's my favorite part of this Blogger on Huffpost . . . he has TWO books about the "dangers of gmo's" being advertised for sale on Amazon . . . RIGHT next to his fear-mongering blog. It's kind of hard to take a guy seriously when he's also trying to sell a book while trying to scare the be-jeezus out of you.

      "Ready to change your diet?
      Inspired? How about alarmed? Choosing non-GMO diets is not only a good idea for those suffering from disease, but for anyone wanting to eat healthy and prevent disease.

      Safe eating."

      Holly effing hell, according to this guy the sky is falling. But I guess it's well established that fear sells . . . go figure.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • lucidstone:

      Jeffrey Smith who wrote this article and does so for many publications has more knowledge about GMOS and their dangers than you ever will. Now come back with another self righteous know it all answer. You attack every post and the "source" because it goes against your science is perfect BS precepts even if it is proven to be harmful to the environment. People like you are the reason this world is owned by corporations and fake science destroying our very biodiversity.

    • 2 years ago
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  
    • lucidstone:

      This guy is selling fear, and he IS making a pretty penny while doing it.

      His concerns may be valid to a point, and they may not be. I couldn't tell you, but my geneticist friends (academics not associated with industry) aren't concerned. Personally, I WOULD very much like there to be a tighter screening process with a fully functioning FDA so this kind of confusion isn't tearing down the entire science categorically.

      My main problem with this guy's agenda (as well as your own) is that it's for a "GM free world", and I do not want that at all, I do not at all want a blanket ban on genetically engineering better foods.

      If his agenda was for tighter screening processes/regulation, eliminating corruption in the government by corporate influences, and to inspire people to "choose" to live healthier and more informed lives . . . than that I could most definitely get on board with.

      But his FEAR mongering isn't going to win my support, and neither will your bullshit "spiritual earth" ideology that permeates through your posts.

    • 2 years ago
  • allIknowis
    • 0
      allIknowis  
    • lucidstone:

      I agree with lucid, I'm totally against GMO, but the anti-GMO groups need to use hard facts and real repeatable data to back them up. Else, we'll wind up with a bunch of crap data like the global warming scam.

      Sure the world is warming, a little, and we need to cut back on carbon based fuels, but come on, this chicken little sky falling business puts off as many people as it converts.
      There are people that react with emotion and people that react with logic, that's why we have Republicans and Democrats, if we use facts and logic, and the treat is real people will back this.

      Kudzu is a good example of messing with nature, even with the best intentions, and Alar apples is an example of emotional over reaction.

    • 2 years ago
  • QuestionGeek
  • JanforGore
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  

    • You're mad because I didn't include a link to the current article that reported on the study that proved the vaccine thing was garbage?

      current search "autism vaccine study" buys you 14 of em
      http://current.com/search.htm?s=on&v=on&r=off&q=autism+vaccine+study...

      Or is it that you don't like that I don't know what does cause it and can merely tell from the language used that it is obvious that they don't have any idea either and are merely pulling things out of their butt?

      Can't help you there. NO ONE knows what causes or affects it. Sure GMO is poorly understood, probably dangerous, and generally disliked, which makes it a perfect victim for rumor mongers like this. That's how junk science works. Find something that no one really understands but almost do, and start pulling out the magical thinking tricks.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • laserdog
    • 0
      laserdog  
    • bombastinator:

      "Sure GMO is poorly understood, probably dangerous, and generally disliked, which makes it a perfect victim for rumor mongers like this. That's how junk science works. Find something that no one really understands but almost do, and start pulling out the magical thinking tricks."

      I am not a fan of GMO because at the end of the day it is another tool agribusiness can use to make our food as dangerous as the consumers will allow.

      I try not to buy GMO since I prefer to spend a few more pennies per produce rather than accept the largely unknown risks that modifying the DNA of foods to suit food chain logistical processes might introduce.

      But as you said, their arguments that GMO foods somehow hurt or cause people with autism is bizarre and feels like lashing out.

      So I'm torn. Anti-GMO argument haven't gotten much traction in the US. But if this hogwash at least reintroduces a dialog (even if it is based on absolute "junk science" like you said), does that redeem it?

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  

    • Why are they going after GMO? Because the last thing they tried to blame it on turned out to be complete horseshit.

      >"...Putting foreign entities such as GMO foods into such a fragile child may indeed cause further deterioration and perhaps block the delicate biochemical pathways needed for appropriate functioning and possible recovery."<

      might, maybe, perhaps... You could just as easily blame it on automobile fumes, rap music, or any other "foreign entity".

      These people are witch hunters. They'd much rather have it be some sort of mysterious poison than, you know maybe bad genes or the fact that they had a kid after 40. There is NO reasonable science here. That's likely not going to stop them though until someone else spends a couple million dollars to prove them wrong again.

    • 2 years ago
  • Marilynn_Murray
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • I would suggest that pregnant women also stay away from processed foods as a rule. It is not known how GM organisms in food may affect a fetus. Also, be sure to check the link for the NON GMO guide in the article for NON GMO baby formulas.

    • 2 years ago
  • WakeUpPeople
  • hunzedog
  • dariusvons
    • 0
      dariusvons  

    • monsanto is satan! the FDA is a trade organisation not a safety organization, and when codex passes in december we're all screwed!

    • 2 years ago
  • AlexBush
more from Community:
from the community

top videos