Study Shows Dramatic Correlation Between GMOs And 22 Diseases

www.alternet.org...

Now to begin with, before a certain GMO loving member arrives to derail the conversation, let me say these studies show correlations to glyphoste herbicides rather then the GMO plants modified to withstand it.

So we are dealing with a chicken/egg situation that is easily exploited by those supporting this 'agenda'.

And I quote:

Correlation is not proof of causation. But the authors point out "we have data for 22 diseases, all with a high degree of correlation and very high significance. It seems highly unlikely that all of these can be random coincidence." They point out that according to "the American Academy of Environmental Medicine's position paper on genetically modified (GM) foods: '[S]everal animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.'"

The article has several charts of data, four of which I will share (please look at the others in the article and in the source material).









And while the fight to label rages there is this to help you avoid GMO foods:

In the meantime, people need to continue to take political action to require labeling, urge a new regulatory structure that applies the precautionary principle and urge the banning of GMO crops now that correlation to disease is being shown. There are a few things you can do to protect yourself from GMO foods: (1) Buy organic, (2) Look for the Non-GMO seal, (3) Avoid crops where GMO's are common.

The eight GM food crops are Corn, Soybeans, Canola, Cottonseed, Sugar Beets, Hawaiian Papaya (most) and a small amount of Zucchini and Yellow Squash. Sugar is likely to contain GMO beets unless it is labeled as pure cane sugar. Dairy is also likely to be GMO unless it is labeled No rBGH, rBST, or artificial hormones. Here's a non-GMO shopping guide [11] for further assistance.

There are links in the article to the original source material and other resources mentioned.

Again the article can be found at:

www.alternet.org...

...and thanks to my buddy Maria for sending it to me in the first place.

About time we underline the problem in this whole debate. I am glad to see this information. But is the source one we can trust?

I want to believe the title, but I am scared to see the source. I hope it is legit.

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
About time we underline the problem in this whole debate. I am glad to see this information. But is the source one we can trust?

I want to believe the title, but I am scared to see the source. I hope it is legit.

Why do you look at the source material and see what you think. And please share your conclusions with us.

Here's a linky poo for the Journal of Organic Systems with full text and all the info you need:

www.organic-systems.org...


and from "Organic-Systems Journal":

In 2006 the first issue of the Journal of Organic Systems was posted on this website. This resulted from several years of discussion, prompted by the need for a peer-reviewed scholarly journal in which researchers could publish their findings on ‘Organic Systems’ in the Australasian and Pacific Regions (and beyond).

www.organic-systems.org...

And a link to their major supporters:

www.organic-systems.org...

you have to be very careful what genes you put into a plant because if you give it protein where an artificially dependant bacteria grows such as the bacteria found feeding on glysophate it's going to cause problems.

You cannot introduce a ground poison into plants and not expect the subtrate to effect the molecular biology of the organism feeding off the plant as the bacteria is now introduced into the intestines.

Not only that but they do the same thing with viruses too to fine tune the genetics and infect the plant with the specific strain of genes they want to splice.

So in order for GMOs to be good they have to be made on the micro and macro scales not to be killers.
Soy is already toxic enough as it is we don't need to add anything else to it.

Same as many beans ect. There are lots of non GMO foods out there that have no need to be GMOed i think kale is one of them.

So far i think its corn, wheat apples orange strawberries and bananas. Just all the major exports right now.

You cant export kale as it spoils quickly so it is only ever produced locally where ever it is grown.

Well, I don't like GMO foods and I don't think we really need them. We do not really need all the soybeans or corn. Most animals shouldn't be fed these products so much as they are.

But I can't say this evidence properly identified GMO foods as the cause of the disease. There are so many changes in our foods chemistry since the original time of the study that I doubt if anyone can prove any single chemical is causing all the health problems we are seeing. I think it is set up that way myself to keep any company from being sued. The creators of these chemicals are possibly purposely doing this to keep us from being able to narrow anything down.

I can't see reasons for most of the chemical changes that are in our food and agricultural industry. They are trying to convince us that we really need all this unnatural chemistry. They ignore the side effects when evaluating whether their product is toxic. They ignore the long term effects and the effect on our thinking. The government allows more calming chemistry than chemistry that keeps us alert, then they complain when we get fat because we can't process energy properly.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Well, I don't like GMO foods and I don't think we really need them. We do not really need all the soybeans or corn. Most animals shouldn't be fed these products so much as they are.

But I can't say this evidence properly identified GMO foods as the cause of the disease. There are so many changes in our foods chemistry since the original time of the study that I doubt if anyone can prove any single chemical is causing all the health problems we are seeing. I think it is set up that way myself to keep any company from being sued. The creators of these chemicals are possibly purposely doing this to keep us from being able to narrow anything down.

I can't see reasons for most of the chemical changes that are in our food and agricultural industry. They are trying to convince us that we really need all this unnatural chemistry. They ignore the side effects when evaluating whether their product is toxic. They ignore the long term effects and the effect on our thinking. The government allows more calming chemistry than chemistry that keeps us alert, then they complain when we get fat because we can't process energy properly.

As I noted in the OP the correlations were drawn on the Gyrophashate (I can't spell worth pucky - sorry) and not the GMO crops designed to withstand them.

They worked from 'known' toxicities of the herbiside (it's explained in the article and source material).

It's a system problem - does the GMO cause more herbicide use or does more herbicide use require GMO plants and which causes the very real health problems that correlate with the rise of both around the globe.

Please read the article and then the source article - good stuff, I promise.

Nice topic



I thought I would add this vid...
it really covers this topic well...slow at the beginning, but gets very interesting...if you haven't seen it, check it out.

I think it will be tough to prove an actual disease is caused by Glyphosphates/Roundup due prolonged period taken to see these known side effects. Many of these correlating diseases can be found in animal tests with higher dosing.

I don't think this poisoning of the food chain was the intention of Monsanto type companies, but rather they initially set out to produce crops that were resistant to herbicides. Once they succeeded, farmers realized they could get the yields they were after with much less effort and became dependent on roundup.

This was a breakthrough combination that changed everything, was heralded as the best option, without long term testing, or releasing of test results by Big Ag.

Monsanto has run one of the smartest, dirtiest marketing scheme on the planet.

1-Introduce a chemical that kills all plants.
2-Introduce a plant that can grow in the chemical.
3-Plants spread to adjoining properties.
4-Glyphosphate contaminated soil will only support Glyphosphate modified plants.
Legally
1-Patent strains
2-Sue field owners of roundup plant pollen contaminated crops

This is legally spreading a disease for profit.
Billions in payouts to regulatory bodies have kept it going.

There is no other reason I see, to genetically modify plants.
Selective breeding can get the same results, by picking the plants to breed with the characteristics you are looking for.

Most of these farming tactics are used with chemical fertilizers to increase yields and the amount of time taken to grow, as well as stopping weeds without any manual labor besides a quick spray.

This is probably one of the biggest conspiracy of our lifetimes.
Control the food chain parasitically through dependency of the seed, the herbicide and the fertilizers.
The money involved was too great to stop it.
Extensive non-biased research is need asap, with results being directly released to the public.

Good topic, I watch this closely, and am getting back into home gardening and organic meats, for a majority of my food from now on.

a reply to: FyreByrd

As a rule I really distrust studies which results are shown in graphically manipulated charts.

Notice how the y-axis in almost every picture does not start in zero. Sometimes you have to do that to make the graph readable in a meaningful way, but given the numbers in questions, this is not the case in this study. It just plainly manipulative.

This is almost exclusively done to give or enhance the impression of certain tendencies.

It is bordering on dishonesty and at the very least it tells us that there is an agenda.



Beware!

I do not believe in using gmo's, with the exception of papaya. But, I can't full heartedly trust the graphs. Unless, these people only ate gmo foods, aren't there other factors that could also play a role (exercise, environment, genetically inherited illnesses, career field, etc). Couldn't yOu also just plug in another variable that has an increasing rate such as amount of sugars being added in Food, or amount of oils or butter being added in Food and say that this caused that. I think this is a good start but they need to put in more research. Wouldn't it be great if they had a volunteer that would only eat gmo Food for 2 weeks and then have that person undergo mri scans or have their cells looked at to see if there's any changes.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Very nice dramatic pictures - however CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!!!!!

What is missing is the so-called "significant" increases of risk of disease. The word "significant" has two meanings. One is a mathematical term indicating the degree of difference between two samples. An increase of risk can be mathematically significant BUT still be clinically insignificant.

There are now so many epidimiological studies showing correlations between the same diseases and tobacco use, alcohol use, drinking milk, eating meat, staying up late at night, eating chocolate, eating eggs, and the list is absolutely endless.

Who actually an truly believes anything that epidimiologists say anymore - who believes in these nonsense studies.

Remember that epidimiology is only supposed to used to identify possible relationships - then the relationship must be proved through hard science.

Epidimology is now a heavy money maker. A competitor (like say the organic food industry) hires an epidimologist to find "evidence" that non-organic veggies cause disease. This is very easy to do. You simply stop counting and observing once you have the result that you want. In this case, they approached people who are suffering from the target disease and ask them is they ate organic or GMO. Once the numbers look the way you want them to - VOILA - you have found a connection.

Then the competitor hires a group of activists to present themselves as "grass-roots" citizens and the activists start lobbying for change, all while advertising the benefits of eating organic.

And there you have it - you have created a whole market for yourself!!!

And of course - its always painted as a David vs Goliath battle - poor, beleagered citizens against the evil corporation putting profits above people.

Of course - public health is on board - if you want to create an "epidemic" all you have to do is re-define the parameters of the disease as they did in 1998 when they changed the meaning of each catagory of BMI so that there was now significantly more obese people and lowering the blood glucose level to create more diabetics.

This story has been used on tobacco, alcohol, perfume, wood burning stoves, meat and on infinitum until you begin to suspect that the world and everything in it is going to kill you. In the meantime, in the real world, the average age of death continues to rise, the average age of disability continues to rise and it turns outs that we are actually pretty healthy people.

Are you not all sick of being scared all the time and paying others to scare you so badly?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: FyreByrd

I just read the source and it does say it is a Correlation.

I do not like using roundup, I used it one year in my potato garden about twenty years ago and the potatoes had a bland taste to them. Of course it was toted as completely safe at the time. I haven't used it since, and I think I even have the rest of the roundup somewhere, needing to be tossed out. I have learned a lot about roundup over the years and it is not safe by any means and it does pose a problems for years afterwards, especially if you add fertilizer. One application does not hurt the land that much but the way they keep putting that stuff over and over is not safe. I won't even use it again because of the seemingly inferior taste in the products I planted.

Maybe others are bound to only looking at safety, but I like to look at taste. Organic produce seems to have a better taste than most commercial products. I do not have a problem with the use of NKP fertilizer in moderate amounts but even too much of that causes a reduction in taste. Potatoes grow better with 10-24-24 fertilizer than with manure, less black spots on them. Too much and the potatoes turn dark inside when cooked. Leaves and hardwood ashes along with a little pine needles are a decent source of fertilizer for potatoes.

Just because they say GMO foods and foods high in chemicals are considered safe doesn't mean I have to eat them. We have a choice.

a reply to: rickymouse

I do not like using roundup,

It is an illegal substance out here. There are no non toxic substances to kill plants. If it kills a plant, it will get in the soil directly or when the plant is decomposing.
You can add fertilizer though, if it is from a biological source, the only issue is that the oceans get over run by algae from all the fertilizer that gets in streams and canals and rivers and eventually the oceans. It isn't so weird if you consider it to be closely related to plants.

Just because they say GMO foods and foods high in chemicals are considered safe doesn't mean I have to eat them. We have a choice.

We Should Have A Choice

A Choice when people go to the store to purchase something, to know what is in it, GMO or other.

I'm blessed to be able to raise my own, organic veggies, but many can't, at least not enough to preserve to get them through the winter.
I guess I don't understand why more people haven't voted yes to labeling. If nothing else, regardless of your stance, it should be about having a choice.

OP, Thank you for the information. I've done so much reading about roundup and Bt, and honestly, I believe that not only are we hurting our bodies, but seriously hurting the land we need to grow things as well.

We should be given the option to choose whether or not we want to consume GMOs. I'm glad Oregon is voting on it, I wish them the best of luck! Maybe the state level is just the way to approach this problem.

The higher prevalence of many of the diseases referenced is visible through more than studies. I personally know two friends who have had strokes in their 30's, one of whom continues to have ongoing problems with them. Food allergies are another phenomenon that is drastically on the rise. We just found out my son is allergic to soy, eggs and peanuts. Growing up I didn't have food issues. I could eat anything. Over the years I have developed a list of allergies and managed to turn on my celiac disease. I can't even breathe in wheat flour now with out the most horrendous reactions. The scary part is that I live an active lifestyle, grow my own vegetables organically, and wild harvest as much as I can. All over the place more grown adults are developing these autoimmune problems, and the poor little ones aren't getting much of a chance to avoid an entire host of issues.

Thank you for continuing to bring awareness in front of people. Companies will do what they may, but give us the option to choose what we put in our bodies. I'm about as libertarian as it gets, but I'm getting to the point that I wish we would regulate our food here to the standards they do in Europe.

a reply to: Sinter Klaas

The only problem with adding just the three is that it causes a burnout of the soils. Sure the plants grow big but then as the micronutrients in the soils get depleted, the plants do not contain enough microminerals to supply us with what we need. Lime can help to release these, but that only works till the soils get depleted. Much of what we get from commercial sources is low in these. You cannot just replenish a handful of minerals.

Phosphorus added to the soil after glycophosphate is applied is supposed to renew the glycophosphate from what I have read. I don't have any way of knowing if the evidence is true though as the sources were all related that I looked at.

a reply to: DupontDeux

The actual figures are that the chart were derived from are available in the source material. Making a blanket assumption because charts/graphs are used is really weak, add to that that the charts are "obviously manipulated' takes the argument to pitiful.

a reply to: Mandroid7

Thanks for posting the video; I've never watched but may at this juncture. Was worried it might make my head explode.

You may be correct about Monsanto and other chemical companies not intending to make GMOs bad for animal consumption, but I do believe they intended to make more and more chemicals that they knew and know very well were toxic to humans. They've taught us well do disregard 'correlation' as a valid argument and focused all the discussion on specific cause knowing that is hard to prove to a certainity. Look at big tobacco - they taught the industries of the world.

Do you think Eberhard Faber didn't intend to make poisions or Bayer or Monsanto.

Remenber, if you old enough, the propoganda slogan of Monsantos (that was co-opted by the counter-culture movement of the sixties "Monsanto - Better Living through Chemistry".

I don't believe that the majority of people working for these companies intend to kill people with their 'products', I think it's an emergent properties of big companys.

A documentary you might enjoy - and scare the pants off ya - is "The Corporation". It's an oldy but goody and very relevant.

Again thank you for the link to "The World According to Monsanto".

originally posted by: rickymouse

But I can't say this evidence properly identified GMO foods as the cause of the disease. There are so many changes in our foods chemistry since the original time of the study that I doubt if anyone can prove any single chemical is causing all the health problems we are seeing. I think it is set up that way myself to keep any company from being sued. The creators of these chemicals are possibly purposely doing this to keep us from being able to narrow anything down.

I can't see reasons for most of the chemical changes that are in our food and agricultural industry. They are trying to convince us that we really need all this unnatural chemistry. They ignore the side effects when evaluating whether their product is toxic. They ignore the long term effects and the effect on our thinking. The government allows more calming chemistry than chemistry that keeps us alert, then they complain when we get fat because we can't process energy properly.

You are correct. These cronic diease rates are influenced by many things. Would it not be prudent to get rid of those substances you know are harmful rather then insist on proving them the single factor cause?

Shouldn't the standard be to prove safety of GMOs and toxic agro-chemicals as it is to a better degree then in Europe.

I avoid GMO foods like the plague and eat nearly a complete organic diet - and I am fortunate, privledged in being able to do so. Many don't have the resources or availability to do so.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I want to piggyback on my response to rickymouse about.

You will see the diseases listed are cronic diseases, ones that cause death after a long illness, requiring 'treatment' by - wait for it - more toxic chemicals in many cases.

And this goes to the INTENT question raised by Mandroid7 as well.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: FyreByrd

Very nice dramatic pictures - however CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!!!!!

Since you didn't see fit to read the OP past the title, I won't bother to read past the above.

I stated it, the article stated it and the source materials stated it.

Correlation is perfectly valid evidence. Causation cannot be proven for anything.