An interesting article on GMO corn

[Deb]

http://www.elle.com/beauty/health-fitne ... ified-corn

[Zizzle]

Wow, that is a worthwhile read! I've been wondering whether the autoimmune and allergy epidemic was started by GMO corn and soy. How long will it take for this country to come up with the answers!?

I also wonder - does Enterolab testing provide any clues if the person is having eosinophilic reactions to food?

[tex]

What the . . .?

What kind of article is that? The author can't resolve her symptoms by changing her diet (we all know that most people don't have the foggiest idea how difficult it is to actually avoid our food sensitivities 100 %), so she concludes that diet is not the problem and goes to a doctor who blurts out (without any testing, or further investigating) that she is sensitive to GMO corn and soy. Really? You don't suppose he might have had his mind made up before she ever even set up an appointment, do you? I'm thinking that he probably did.

And then she goes on to describe how difficult it is to avoid corn (tell me about it — I avoided it 100 % for about a year and a half), and she mentions how long it will take to be "cured", and the story ends there. Really??????

Until she actually recovers, there is no story. Why on earth would she post such as "story" as if it were fact, when all it amounts to is speculation that remains to be proven? Where's the beef? That story was posted a year prematurely. I want to see an article after that "diagnosis" is either upheld by her complete recovery, or ruled out by a lack of response by the patient.


Deb,

You're right. It is very interesting, and I'm anxious to see if a followup article will appear a year from now, but I don't understand why someone would write something such as that with absolutely no reference to any recovery response (or absence thereof). It gives the impression that even though all previous attempts to find a solution failed to pan out, for some strange reason this one will somehow magically be correct. Why? Is it because the world has decided that GMO is the cause of every unexplained problem that comes along to plague the human race, so therefore GMO is the culprit by default? If so, that's really interesting.

And the sad part is that even if the GMO issue should turn out to be the debacle that anti's are hoping to convince the world of, with articles such as that one on their side, based on half-truths and innuendos, how can anyone put any faith in the integrity of such a rationale? Why on earth couldn't the author wait until she had at least some evidence that the "diagnosis" was going to result in some improvement in her condition, instead of pretending that it was a done deal, as if by fiat?

I also wonder - does Enterolab testing provide any clues if the person is having eosinophilic reactions to food?

EnteroLab tests by detecting antibodies, not by detecting leukocytes. Leukocyte detection falls within the domain of the examination of biopsy samples under a microscope. From page 18 of my book:

For example, research has shown that whenever the eosinophil count is significantly higher in the left-side colon than in the right-side colon, drug-induced colitis may be indicated.3

where reference 3 is:

3. Casella, G., Villanacci, V., Fisogni, S., Cambareri, A. R., Di Bella, C., Corazzi, N., . . . Bassotti, G. (2009). Colonic left-side increase of eosinophils: A clue to drug-related colitis in adults. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 29(5), 535–541. Retrieved from http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/707040

So clearly, many drugs can cause an elevated eosinophil count in the mucosal tissue of the distal colon. Likewise, the high eosinophil count in the mucosal tissue of that patient's nasal passages may also be drug-induced for all we know. As she said, "I visited every doctor who’d see me and tried everything they threw at me:"

I rest my case.

Tex

[Deb]

I'm not sure I understand your point, Tex. She quit eating gmo corn in 2011 and has improved significantly since then.

The first thing I noticed was that my skin rashes began to dissipate. Then, slowly, my body stopped aching, and I could walk or even jog easily, for the first time in years. I started to have more energy, and I slept better at night. The head cold went away—poof—and I wasn’t going through a box of tissues a day. My hands became less stiff. I realized, in retrospect, that my frozen hands had been the hardest symptom to tolerate: I could barely button my son’s small shirts or apply a Band-Aid, which made me feel useless as a mother. Almost four months later, in late May, I felt pretty much like my old self. I was so startled by my physical well-being that I didn’t know how to enjoy it. Each night I’d go to bed preparing myself for the possibility that I might wake up sick again the next morning. Could GMO corn really be my problem? Could this blessed state really last? I couldn’t let go; I had to know more. I decided to visit Rothenberg and his team of researchers endeavoring to crack open the black box.

Yet when I was sick for all that time, my life felt totally out of control. I still rue the day when I was desperate enough for a diagnosis to believe I had chronic Lyme disease, which necessitated weaning my small son from my breast before either of us was ready so I could be bombarded with antibiotics. When I think back to how suffocatingly powerless I felt, how sidelined as a wife, mother, and productive person, I just feel, well, sick. Although Dr. Mansmann told me that most people allergic to GMO corn can end up tolerating small amounts after a couple years of abstinence, each time I’ve dared cheat, I’ve awoken the next morning with a frozen left hand, a sore hip, and a facial rash.

[tex]

Hi Deb,

Thanks for posting those quotes. My browser was only showing me the first page, with no link to additional pages. This morning, after being unable to find the passages that you had quoted, I temporarily relaxed some of the security features in my browser, and then I could see the link, and read the additional pages.

It appears to be a very compelling indictment against GMO corn, but since I was unable to find anywhere in the article where she mentioned that she can eat non-GMO corn without any problems, I have to wonder if she simply has a severe case of corn sensitivity. Did she write about it and I just missed it by sloppy reading? IMO, that's a critical element in this entire issue, because it makes or breaks the GMO corn argument.

If that's in the article, please point it out to me. Thanks, I appreciate your help.

Tex

[Zizzle]

Her doctor said organic corn is likely cross-contaminated with GMO corn, so there is no safe corn for her now. She had been sick since 2007, and GMO corn was first introduced in the 1990s, eventually growing to represent 88% of all US corn, so I suppose the timing suggests GMO corn is the culprit.

Mansmann’s advice was to strip all corn, even that marked organic, from my diet. “It’s almost impossible to find a corn source in the United States that doesn’t have the [protein] in it,” he said. The U.S. government started approving GMO corn and soybeans for sale in the mid-1990s, and today, 88 percent of corn, and 93 percent of soybeans, are the transgenic varieties. Moreover, Mansmann and others contend that due to cross-pollination via winds, birds, and bees, there’s no such thing anymore as a GMO-free corn crop.

[Deb]

That's a good point, Tex and I didn't see anything in the article discussing non GMO corn (if that is even possible to find) but I'm still not feeling the GMO corn love. ;) Deb

[tex]

Thanks for verifying that, because I certainly could have overlooked it. I definitely agree that it's not easy to find non-GMO corn, but it does still exist, and I would think that anyone dead set on proving that GMO is the problem, would want to use patients such as her (with her agreement, of course) to definitively rule out a non-GMO corn sensitivity, thus conclusively proving, once and for all, that GMO is the problem, at least in her case. That would be an indisputably huge victory in the anti-GMO movement. Monsanto would still argue that a sample size of 1 is not statistically significant, but 1 becomes a very relevant number when the previous number was 0. And without even a single verified case, the argument against GMO is strictly speculation.

GMO corn can be identified by DNA testing, and it's still available somewhere in the world (though it may not be for much longer) so researchers could certainly acquire a quantity of corn, verify it's safety, and then initiate a testing program that would yield valid (indisputable) results. I would love to see that happen, but I would be very surprised if it is pursued.

I'm not actually a fan of GMO corn either. Sure, it's easier to grow and keep pests away, but it does have disadvantages, not the least of which is the fact that roundup won't kill it. During handling operations, such as putting it into (or loading out from) storage tanks, any grain that's spilled will germinate and come up and grow, and there's no easy (economical) way to kill it. And it's not practical to mow or shred it around all the machinery and tanks (where a mower won't fit). You pretty much have to sterilize the ground in order to prevent volunteer GMO corn from germinating and growing.

In the fields, volunteer corn can be a real problem for the following crop, because some grain is always lost during harvest operations, and if those seeds don't germinate and come up in time to be destroyed by plowing, or freezing weather, or by rotting due to excess moisture, before a different crop is planted there the following year, the volunteer corn becomes the equivalent of a very competitive weed. In years with a dry fall and winter, volunteer corn can be a major problem. And yes, that's why it's pointless to plant non-GMO corn following a GMO corn crop, because cross-pollination is a certainty. Once the cat is out of the bag, it's almost impossible to get it back in there.

Tex

[gluten]

Hi, I read an interesting research report about a doctor who found that prisoners were fed corn at every meal and were plagued with rashes and no one could dx the problem. He recommended that they take corn out of the diet and was highly critized by the medical community because diet had nothing to with the rashes. But when they took corn out the diet the rashes disappeared. I do not remember the year of the report but it was many years ago. Jon

[Zizzle]

Does anyone know if the corn grown and consumed in Central America is GMO? My family there eats insane amounts of corn in the form of tortillas and tamales, without trouble. I would like to know if GMO corn has made its way there, either through US exports or through seeds cultivated there.

[tex]

Zizzle,

You can ask that question and get an accurate answer at the site at the bottom link below. This is a brand new site that went live on Monday of this week. The first link below gives some info about the purpose of the site.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... 18ace.html

http://gmoanswers.com/

Tex

[Zizzle]

Slate.com published an article refuting the Elle article. It seems compelling, except it overrelies on government's ability to detect problems, if there were any, with GMOs. And the AMA? Give me a break.
But I'm almost convinced that GMOs are not the smoking gun we yearn for.

Since GMOs were introduced into the food supply almost 20 years ago, there has not been one documented case of any health problem in humans—not even so much as a sniffle—linked to GMOs. The American Medical Association, whose physician members would have long ago picked up on a GMO-allergy connection, definitively rejects such speculation. “Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature,” it has stated. That scientific consensus has been endorsed by every major science oversight body in the world.

But what about the undeniable fact that the rise in autoimmune disorders tracks GMO consumption? The rise in such problems, including allergies, started long before GMOs were introduced. Incidences of these same conditions across U.K., Europe and in other countries where there is no consumption of GM foods match U.S. trends.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... 504252#%21

[tex]

But I'm almost convinced that GMOs are not the smoking gun we yearn for.

To say that I never expected to read those words in one of your posts, is the understatement of the year. Especially in view of the fact that (as you are well aware) the AMA probably wouldn't notice an allergy connection to anything, even if they accidentally sat on it and it bit them on their double-blind, peer-reviewed butt.

And the government? The government is very good at collecting taxes and spending tax money before it's even collected, and it does a fair to middling job of discovering and imposing fines for taxpayer violations of various arbitrary laws and bureaucratic regulations, and politicians are great at passing laws that take away personal freedoms, . . . but when it comes to discovering serious, long-term health threats, who in their right mind would rely on the government to protect us from health threats?

Years ago, when the government warned Texas that killer bees were on their way through Central America, and they would eventually cross the Mexican border into Texas, if nothing were done to stop them, they told us that they would find a way to stop them, so they began studying the problem. The killer bees zoomed right past all the government researchers, as they sat there studying them, and guess what — they're still studying them.

This is exactly the same approach that they have always used to "defend" us from all such invading animal, insect, plant, and pathogen threats. They study them, but nothing ever comes of it — it's money down a rat hole. The only success story that I'm aware of is the eradication of the screw worm fly. They actually eradicated the screw worm fly (during the 1960s), even after the flies had become established in the state for many years. So I certainly give them credit for doing a great job on that one, but their one victory is eclipsed by all the thousands of failures that they have racked up over the decades.

Anyway, my point is, I'm not holding my breath expecting the government, or the AMA, to spot any major problems that might arise from the exploitation of GMOs. If problems arise, someone else will have to discover them. That said, I believe I pointed out long ago in this debate, that not a single case where human health had ever been compromised due to GMO technology, has ever been verified, so I'm very pleasantly surprised to read that you may be changing (or considering changing) your opinion on the topic.

Like you, I would feel much better about that article if the AMA and the government actually knew what they were doing, and could be relied upon.

Thanks for the link.

Tex