GMO Food causing rise in food allergies

GMO Food causing rise in food allergies

www.responsibletechnology.org

When natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room for allergies or asthma.[1],[2] Workers who applied Bt sprays reported eye, nose, throat, and respiratory irritation,[3] and some showed an antibody immune response in linked to Bt.[4] Farmers exposed to liquid Bt formulations had reactions including infection, an ulcer on the cornea,[5] skin irritation, burning, swelling, and redness.[6] One woman who was accidentally sprayed wit

(visit the link for the full news article)

I have been racking my brain for a while now trying to figure out why all of a sudden over the last few years there are so many more allergies. So many people are now allergic to peanuts. I never knew anyone growing up allergic to them. Beef, Eggs and other food allergies. Super bugs and the latest E. Coli superbug. Could they all be related?

www.responsibletechnology.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

I know that I never was allergic to anything before.
Now, sometimes when I eat certain foods, I get skin rash called urticaria.

I can't even put the finger on what ingredients gives me this, it just seems so random.
I'm not sure if GMO's are the problem, all I know is that GMO's are NOT a solution to anything.

So true, for all the older guys here how many of you remember going to school and people being allergic to peanuts to this extent?
Or not being allowed to peel oranges near others.

I've never heard of these things while I was in schoool

I HATE GMO foods, I hate it more than anything on earth

This should not be unexpected. Even just a hundred years ago - the people carrying these genetic traits died more often than not.

Now, the average person has access to dietary diversity that allows someone in regions that, otherwise, would only have wheat-based grains available for consumption to avoid wheat gluten all together. We should only expect food allergies to become far more prevalent as time goes on.

Of course - we should distinguish between an allergy and a food intolerance.

Food Allergy: en.wikipedia.org...

A protein in the food is the most common allergic component. These kinds of allergies occur when the body's immune system mistakenly identifies a protein as harmful. Some proteins or fragments of proteins are resistant to digestion and those that are not broken down in the digestive process are tagged by the Immunoglobulin E (IgE). These tags fool the immune system into thinking that the protein is harmful. The immune system, thinking the organism (the individual) is under attack, triggers an allergic reaction. These reactions can range from mild to severe. Allergic responses include dermatitis, gastrointestinal and respiratory distress, including such life-threatening anaphylactic responses as biphasic anaphylaxis and vasodilation; these require immediate emergency intervention. Non-food protein allergies include latex sensitivity. Individuals with protein allergies commonly avoid contact with the problematic protein. Some medications may prevent, minimize or treat protein allergy reactions.

Although sensitivity levels vary by country, the most common food allergies are allergies to milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, seafood, shellfish, soy and wheat.[12][clarification needed] These are often referred to as "the big eight."[13] They account for over 90% of the food allergies in the United States.[14] Allergies to seeds — especially sesame — seem to be increasing in many countries.[15] An example of allergies more common to a particular region is the surplus rice allergies in East Asia where rice forms a large part of the diet.[16]

Food Intolerance: en.wikipedia.org...

Food intolerance or non-allergic food hypersensitivity is a term used widely for varied physiological responses associated with a particular food, or compound found in a range of foods.

Food intolerance is negative reaction, often delayed, to a food, beverage, food additive, or compound found in foods that produces symptoms in one or more body organs and systems, but it is not a true food allergy. A true food allergy requires the presence of IgE antibodies against the food, and a food intolerance does not.

Food intolerances can be classified according to their mechanism. Intolerance can result from the absence of specific chemicals or enzymes needed to digest a food substance, as in hereditary fructose intolerance. It may be a result of an abnormality in the body's ability to absorb nutrients, as occurs in fructose malabsorption. Food intolerance reactions can occur to naturally occurring chemicals in foods, as in salicylate sensitivity. Drugs sourced from plants, such as aspirin, can also cause these kinds of reactions. Finally, it may be the result of non-IgE-mediated immune responses.

They are caused by various organic chemicals occurring naturally in a wide variety of foods, both of animal and vegetable origin more often than to food additives, preservatives, colourings and flavourings, such as sulfites or dyes.[13] Both natural and artificial ingredients may cause adverse reactions in sensitive people if consumed in sufficient amount, the degree of sensitivity varying between individuals.

Pharmacological responses to naturally occurring compounds in food, or chemical intolerance, can occur in individuals from both allergic and non-allergic family backgrounds. Symptoms may begin at any age, and may develop quickly or slowly. Triggers may range from a viral infection or illness to environmental chemical exposure. It occurs more commonly in women, which may be because of hormone differences, as many food chemicals mimic hormones.

A deficiency in digestive enzymes can also cause some types of food intolerances. Lactose intolerance is a result of the body not producing sufficient lactase to digest the lactose in milk;[25][26] dairy foods which are lower in lactose, such as cheese, are less likely to trigger a reaction in this case. Another carbohydrate intolerance caused by enzyme deficiency is hereditary fructose intolerance.

Linking this to GMO foods is pretty silly, as the cause of all allergies revolves around your own biochemistry and genetic factors. Since the process of natural selection has a much weaker hold on our diets, these days, it would be highly intriguing if food allergies were -not- on the rise in nations where the average person had access to such wide ranges of foods to allow for one to avoid eating foods he/she is allergic to.

All these allergies may be caused because we humans are now so much in to this germ free mode that we are killing everything our bodies are so used to fighting against...Germ free this and killing bacteria here, anti bacterial soaps and creams plus add all those alcohol based gels for your hands that everyone seems to be using and .....Well....You are killing your parasites...Humans have parasites, yeah...wow...Who would of thunk it...It a symbiotic relationship and when these germs are illimitable our bodies tend to fight it own immune system.

Ask any ex smoker.....They will tell you that the first 5 to 10 years after quitting smoking they are suddenly allergic to almost everything...Why...???? The body "stops" fighting so hard...With all the anti bacterial product out there being used, we are killing and mutating the natural germs that are supposed to make our immune system stronger!

reply to post by Aim64C


I'm sorry, I can't accept zionist controlled wikipedia as an expert or unbiased source on this.

There is a mountain of credible research which supports the fact that toxins cause allergies, and an increasing amount of research that GM food causes an abreaction in animanls and humans.

reply to post by wcitizen

I'm sorry, I can't accept zionist controlled wikipedia as an expert or unbiased source on this.

Since you used the word "zionist" - I'm simply going to place you in the category of wanna-be enlightened. Which pretty much boils down to: "if it disagrees with there being a concentrated effort to destroy the general population, it must be propaganda."

Against which - there can be no valid argument, as there is no valid concern.

There is a mountain of credible research which supports the fact that toxins cause allergies, and an increasing amount of research that GM food causes an abreaction in animanls and humans.

Then you wouldn't mind sourcing this claim?

I'll admit to using wikipedia as a source - but I can kick it into overdrive and start citing university studies and post-graduate material that about 2% of the people reading the post would even look at. When presented with information that appears to be overwhelming, people will just stick to their guns rather than actually attempting to understand the issue.

For example - the source article of this thread is completely off the topic. BT Toxin has been used in agriculture since the 1950s and is very widely used amongst certified organic farmers because it is a toxin that is produced by a soil-dwelling bacterium. This is, not at all, linked to GMO foods.

The Cry- series toxins (those derived from the BT toxin) are also completely inert to mammals as they lack the proper receptors to allow the protein to be considered a toxin. In fact - "BT toxin" is a 'soup' of different proteins derived from the bacterium, as each type of toxin only affects a rather narrow range of insects.

Because of its inert nature and it being manufactured naturally by bacteria - it was a prime candidate in the 80s and 90s for projects to modify plants to also produce these proteins to ward off insect pests.

The spraying of "BT toxin" and the implementation of Cry- series protein production in crops are two completely different issues, really. This whole thread displays a severe lack of understanding of what GMO crops actually are - let alone the biochemistry involved.

reply to post by wcitizen


Of course you can't take just one source to be 100% true, but wikipedia is a great place to start and get the gist of different subjects. Saying everything on that site is untrue is anti-popular elitism. I don't care if universities don't take it like valid research, universities are probably still full of stupid elitist that think they are better then everyone.

reply to post by Aim64C


BT being sprayed on something is a totally different animal than genetically fusing it with an edible food crop. When you start altering the cellular structure of something you can not predict what the outcomes will be. I don't trust university research as far as I can throw it. These people are the same ones who tell you this is safe, wait no it's not but this is...wait not that either and so on. When you genetically engineer an organic substance you cannot predict how that substance will react to other substances. How do you know what will happen when that seed germinates and pulls a toxin from the soil, and that toxin reacts to the new genetic structure? You don't. When you ingest it you have no idea how it will react with other things you have consumed. Unless every single substance on earth has been tested with the new genetic mutation, then you can never know the consequences.

reply to post by haarvik


So, uh - why is it that the article you are opening this thread with is about spraying a substance onto plants... and you use it to support your claim that GMO foods are to blame for the rise in food allergies (a claim that is not backed with any statistical data, might I add)?

When you start altering the cellular structure of something you can not predict what the outcomes will be.

This is quite false.

DNA-RNA transcription is entirely predictable. Implanting a gene sequence into a cell in the proper manner will result in the corresponding RNA being produced. This RNA will then be used to form proteins.

There's no magic involved - and no real uncertainty. The only issues revolve around using the correct 'tags' to identify the sequence as something to be transcribed, and work to govern the quantity produced.

I don't trust university research as far as I can throw it.

There's a difference between trusting university research and taking it for what it is.

These people are the same ones who tell you this is safe, wait no it's not but this is...wait not that either and so on.

The media likes to take studies and draw all kinds of conclusions from them that should never be drawn. Take most whole-food studies. The studies are completely irrelevant as they lack any kind of lifestyle controls - and most don't even offer a method of identifying other lifestyle variables (take salt, for example - a high-salt diet is likely going to be accompanied by foods we use a lot of salt on - french fries, fried foods, fatty meats, etc - a reduced sodium diet is likely going to reduce these foods as well - but is sodium/salt the cause of high blood pressure, or the foods that generally accompany salt consumption... the studies are useless in this regard).

The media likes to sensationalize. Eggs will kill your ass on the spot. Being a wino will lead to a long and healthy life (so long as you can afford liver transplants) - that sort of thing. The actual research these media sensations are based off of do not lend easily to such absolute assertions.

Again - this is why I usually just cite wikipedia anymore - most people don't actually read research - just read what other people have said about it.

When you genetically engineer an organic substance you cannot predict how that substance will react to other substances.

This is a give-and-take argument, here.

It is no more possible to predict how tomato juice will react with your milk. Adding lemon to tea improves antioxidant uptake, but adding milk to tea pretty much destroys this benefit. What happens if you add tomato juice to milk (or tea... or lemonade, for that matter?) How can you prove that some kind of harmful substance will not be produced that we find out in 50 years links to cancer?

You can't.

To expect that out of genetically engineered products is silly - especially considering that this type of engineering is not really adding anything new or unusual - it is simply splicing one type of protein from another organism into another.

How do you know what will happen when that seed germinates and pulls a toxin from the soil, and that toxin reacts to the new genetic structure?

How is that any more of a concern in GMO foods compared to 'normal' foods?

When you ingest it you have no idea how it will react with other things you have consumed. Unless every single substance on earth has been tested with the new genetic mutation, then you can never know the consequences.

Nor can we know the consequences of growing a tomato in your back yard (that has not been tested to ensure there is nothing in there that will adversely react with the chemicals in the tomato).

You are expecting a completely unreasonable degree of certainty. Need I remind you that uncertainty is a principle of physics? Cry-series proteins have been in use for the better half of a century and are even used by 'organic' farmers - and the proteins, themselves, are as ancient as the bacteria producing them (nothing new to the ecosystem). Corn is more recent, being a selective breeding project of humans. Most crops are - but they are generally accepted as safe - unless you're allergic to them.

Combining the two and doing experimental research to demonstrate no adverse chemical composition or animal reactions is a reasonable amount of testing.