Will my child be born autistic if I eat GMOs? A scientist’s view

| January 5, 2015 |
autism

Cyberspace has been awash with claims over the past two weeks that glyphosate, an herbicide used with some genetically modified crops, causes autism. “Half of All Children Will Be Autistic by 2025, Warns Senior Research Scientist at MIT,” blared a headlined article on a natural products website that was shared by more than 100,000 people. Other sites had similarly headlined articles.

Similar near hysterical claims appear like clockwork every few months on the Internet, promoted by natural products and supplement sites working in concert with anti-GMO activists. The alleged link between autism and GM foods is heavily promoted by notorious alternative medicine and natural products advocates, such as Dr. Joseph Mercola, as well as by Jeffrey Smith, the controversial founder of the anti-GMO one-man Institute for Responsible Technology. Mercola even promotes a Smith video headlined: “Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide May Be Most Important Factor in Development of Autism and Other Chronic Disease”.

[Editors’ suggested reading: Mother’s science-based view: Organics and Whole Foods are ‘scam of the decade’]

Is there any truth to the claims of a GMO-glyphosate-autism link?

The autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterized by “difficulties in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication and repetitive behaviors”. There is a broad range in the severity of these symptoms, which is why the term “spectrum” is used in the definition of the disorder. It is hypothesized that there are multiple causes for ASD, including genetic, epigenetic and environmental factors. The heritability of autism has been studied in twins and historical data suggest 80-90 percent values, while more recent data using different ascertainment criteria suggest roughly 50 percent heritability.

A study in 2011 found that the recurrence risk of autism is ~19 percent in infants if an older sibling is autistic, with a roughly three-fold increase in risk if the infant is male and a two-fold increase in risk if there is more than one older sibling with autism. A recent review highlighted that a genetic cause can be elucidated in 10-30 percent of cases of ASD depending on the technology used and cohort examined, and that exome and whole genome sequencing of ASD patients has led to the discovery that there are “hundreds of genes” involved in the disorder.

However, genetics does not account for all cases of autism and many studies have focused on identifying non-genetic causes of ASD. Environmental risk factors that have been associated with ASD include parental age, pre- and perinatal complications (particularly respiratory distress), air pollution, maternal use of valproate and maternal exposure to pesticides, among others. It is this last factor that is being exploited by Mercola and Smith to fuel their campaign against genetically modified foods.

I do not use the word “exploit” lightly, but can find no better term. The link between autism and GMOs is most often restricted to the criticism of glyphosate-use. Glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp, is used on genetically modified crops that are made to resist this herbicide. However, whether you are searching for a link between autism and GMOs or autism and glyphosate, your findings can be summarized in one brief sentence: “there is no data that I could find”.

Throughout the course of doing research for this piece, I contacted several research scientists including my former lab, which is now one of Canada’s leading autism research laboratories and part of a project that is sequencing the genomes of 10,000 ASD patients (note that I am not an ASD research scientist). My request for an opinion on the topic was passed from one research scientist to the next and across the board, I got the same message: “there is no evidence-based data we are aware of.” That is not to say that a link does not exist or may not be identified in the future, but as I write this article, there is no credible research linking GMOs to autism.

However, the memes and websites preying on the fears of parents and the vulnerabilities of those with autistic children abound, which is why I consider this to be exploitation of the worst sort. The recent spate of articles and Mercola’s website feature interviews or talks by Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a Massachusetts of Technology computer scientist and electrical engineer who has written about autism and glyphosate. Seneff, whose previous work include a thoroughly lambasted paper in a low tier journal claiming a “link” between autism and vaccines, also wrote a paper in 2013 in a similar marginal journal outlining a hypothetical link between glyphosate and multiple disorders, including “gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.”

Neither paper included any novel research. But her work was legitimized by Carey Gillam, a reporter for Reuters, whose news story was headlined “Roundup linked to health dangers”.

Seneff’s latest claim, eagerly promoted by anti-GMO alternative medicine sites, is that half of the US childhood population will be born autistic within 10 years as a result of GMO use:

At a conference last Thursday, in a special panel discussion about GMOs, she took the audience by surprise when she declared, “At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.” She noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity, and presented data showing a remarkably consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops (and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds) with rising rates of autism. Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder.

A fellow panelist reported that after Seneff’s presentation, “All of the 70 or so people in attendance were squirming, likely because they now had serious misgivings about serving their kids, or themselves, anything with corn or soy, which are nearly all genetically modified and thus tainted with Roundup and its glyphosate.”

Multiple reviewers, including most recently David Gorski, a surgical oncologist and well known science blogger, have noted the incoherent nature of Seneff’s claims and papers and the pay-for-play nature of the publishing journal. Seneff hypothesized that glyphosate causes nutritional deficiencies and systemic toxicity, primarily by impacting the bacteria in the gut, yet fails to provide any evidence supporting her hypothesis.

There have been very few studies that have specifically examined glyphosate and ASD. In 2007, one study examined maternal exposure to pesticides during gestation and ASD among children in the California Central Valley. The pesticides selected for analysis were based on the toxicological and physical properties of the compound, as well as substances that were of community concern. The final list of pesticides included in the analysis lists glyphosate, yet fails to find association between maternal exposure to the chemical and ASD.

Pesticide use is recorded in the United States and there are multiple databases that house this information, ranging from the amount of pesticide used to the exposure that handlers have experienced. As such, it stands to reason that if glyphosate were associated with autism, there would be more instances of ASD in regions of the U.S. where glyphosate use is high. Geographic clusters of ASD cases do exist in the U.S. (see here and here for example studies), but the analysis of these clusters has not identified glyphosate exposure as a possible cause, despite the availability of data.

The onus is on the researcher to disprove the null hypothesis, i.e. to prove that something exists or that there is a link. Until that point in time, there is no link. Seneff points to glyphosate as the cause of autism based on her observation that glyphosate use has increased while the rate of autism has increased in the same time period. Seneff states, “I’ve watched the rate of autism skyrocket in the last five years. It’s extremely scary. One in 150, one in 100, one in 88, and the most recent numbers from March 2013, one in 50… You do the math… 20 years from now every other boy in this country will be diagnosed on the autism spectrum.”

Yet the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that “the recent prevalence increase [of ASD] is likely attributable to extrinsic factors such as improved awareness and recognition and changes in diagnostic practice or service availability”. This is supported by the fact that recent statistics have noted an increase in the incidence of autism in specific populations and racial backgrounds, suggesting increasing awareness in such groups. But for the sake of argument, let’s acknowledge that there has been an increase in the occurrence of autism. The link is a classic case of association with no causation.

There’s a plethora of items whose prevalence or use has increased during the past 20 years: the number of electronics we own, the number of pedicures women get, the amount of coffee we drink, etc, and each would make an equally convincing graph if their rate was compared to the incidence of ASD over time. This is not to say that glyphosate should not be studied; yet until a link is identified, its association with ASD is equivalent to that of eating organic food, whose salves have also risen in tandem with the increase in incidences of autism.

ScreenHunter_04 Jan. 07 23.11

GMOInside.org, an organization that promotes the labeling of GM ingredients, also has an article promoting the autism-GMO link on its site. The article shares anecdotal stories about the commonality of gastrointestinal symptoms between autistic patients and GMO-fed animals. Gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with ASD are well documented and recent funding grants will infuse hundreds of thousands of dollars to better understand this relationship. But as it stands today, “there is no data”.

I’ve searched publication databases to find a scientific article providing evidence for gastrointestinal symptoms associated with GMOs and was unable to find even one. Additionally, glyphosate is not used exclusively on GMOs: it is used for a wide-range of different applications including “weed control in vineyards, olive groves, fruit orchards, grass pastures, forestry, parks, gardens and underwater usage in rivers and lakes”. In fact, it could not be avoided through a GMO labeling law or ban.

There are those who will read this article and will conclude that research has not been done examining the link between autism and GMOs because corporate interests have silenced researchers, that corporations paid off scientists or that universities threatened to cut off funding. However, I think that there are very few scientists who wouldn’t give their life savings and the naming rights for their first born for the opportunity to identify an environmental cause for autism. Monsanto, Dow Agro, and Syngenta combined aren’t big enough to silence that. The reason it hasn’t been examined is far simpler: there is no likely connection based on the known comparatively benign toxic profile of glyphosate and most researchers do not want to waste their time and effort and preciously limited support dollars on a project that would most likely find no association with ASD.

Although the world of science has tried to study the emotional toll that ASD takes on families, I think that there’s nothing that could fully describe the full range of emotions that parents experience when their child is diagnosed with ASD. I know I’m lucky to be the parent of a healthy and rambunctious toddler, and I feel arrogant even imagining myself in the shoes of families with ASD. But there is one thing that I know that I share with all parents: we are equally concerned about the health and well-being of our children.

I wrote this article more harshly than I generally would and condemned scientists for poor research more strongly than I generally would because they have made conclusions where none are to be made and would have us believe facts where none exist by exploiting the concern we have for our children. So rather than listening to the advice of Mercola, Seneff or Smith, consult your pediatrician or GP and have them address any concerns that you may have about your family’s diet.

Note: This piece, in large measure, was originally posted on May 9, 2014

Layla Katiraee, contributor to the Genetic Literacy Project, holds a PhD in Molecular Genetics from the University of Toronto and is a Senior Scientist in Product Development at a biotech company in California. All opinions and views expressed are her own. Follow her on Twitter @biochicaGMO

  • 2

    It is very easy to prove your point, if you are SO sure glyphosate is SO safe, Why dont you get expose to it and get pregnant? would you do it? surely not, you are murderers that is what you are

    • BioChicaGMO

      If you’re asking me to expose myself to the limits that are allowed in our food supply and get pregnant, I did and my family’s doing great. Thanks for asking. If you’re asking me to expose myself to limits beyond what is recommended, why would I do that? There’s a reason why there are recommended limits for glyphosate in our food supply and why there are strict guidelines for those who handle it. After all, it is an herbicide. But it’s all in the dose and there’s no evidence to suggest that we should be concerned with the amount of glyphosate currently in our food supply. If you know of a legitimate source that would suggest otherwise, please let me know. Please see this excellent graphic: http://doccamiryan.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/toxicity-table4.png

      • Daniel Ros

        Socrates talked about u. U should read him

    • First Officer

      Is that the way your parents told you how people get pregnant?

  • http://www.nurselovesfarmer.com/ Sarah [NurseLovesFarmer.com]

    I’ve had two healthy pregnancies and two healthy babies and my husband works closely with glyphosate and sprayed right by our home in both pregnancies. With the logic you likely have, therefore we can assume glyphosate has no negative impacts on pregnancy. Throwing a “murderer” stone at someone for writing an article, “2”, really?

    • http://amoebadick.blogspot.co.uk Flatulentia Buttox

      First class rebuttal of the Luddites!

      • Bill Carey

        Your “nom de plume” was aptly chosen. Or was it awarded?

        • http://amoebadick.blogspot.co.uk Flatulentia Buttox

          Goodness me Bill, you’ve found yourself debating the pros and cons of GM tech with somebody who has a juvenile predilection for fart jokes. So tell me, Bill. What is your stance on GM tech?

      • Loren Eaton

        Do you even know what a Luddite is??

        • http://amoebadick.blogspot.co.uk Flatulentia Buttox

          Yes.

          • Loren Eaton

            Your characterization of Sarah as a Luddite shows a colossal misunderstanding of the term.

          • http://amoebadick.blogspot.co.uk Flatulentia Buttox

            I didn’t characterise Sarah as a Luddite at all! I congratulated her for rebutting the Luddites. Frankly, and with all due respect, I think the misunderstanding is on your part.

          • Loren Eaton

            Got it now. My bad.

          • http://amoebadick.blogspot.co.uk Flatulentia Buttox

            No worries. We all make mistakes like that from time to time. I certainly do.

    • jlfenton

      So called “organic foods” have been all that has been available since the begining of mankind. NOW we have GMs (for about 25 years) and the rise in Autism started, or what, 25 years ago..!

      • gadfly85

        People haven’t been aware of Autism since the beginning of mankind. The rise in diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorders correlates with our ability to recognize that there is a clinical reason for certain unusual behaviors.

        • sciguybm

          No, but we HAVE been aware of it since the 1930s….so say you’re sorry.

          • Daniel Ros

            Dude I need to connect with u. Please look me up on Facebook. I need smart sci people to learn from. Daniel Rold

          • sciguybm

            Dude; that’s a scary request….. but I’ll look you up and see what you are saying to make up my mind how to respond to your request.

          • gadfly85

            How does that make me wrong? It takes time to go from discovering that a disorder exists to having a society full of well-informed parents and doctors that can recognize the symptoms. Correlation is not causation.

          • http://amoebadick.blogspot.co.uk Flatulentia Buttox

            “Correlation is not causation”.

            According to your logic, jlfenton above is wrong to assert a causal link between GM’s and autism. I agree.

            “NOW we have GMs (for about 25 years) and the rise in Autism started, or what, 25 years ago..!

      • BioChicaGMO

        Pick anything whose use has increased in the past 2-3 decades and you could make the same argument:

        So called “communication” has been all that has been available since the beginning of mankind. NOW we have COMPUTERS (for about 25 years) and the rise in Autism started, or what, 25 years ago..!

        • jlfenton

          To my knowledge, no one is ingesting computers.

          • BioChicaGMO

            You’re trying to define a mechanism of action to support your correlation, which again, has no evidence indicating that it causes autism.

            For my argument, I hypothesize that the toxins from computers are leeching through skin. Additionally, when computers heat up, they release harmful chemicals into the air which we breath since we’re in close proximity to the computer. This is particularly harmful to pregnant mothers, which is why there are signs of autism at such an early age.

          • sciguybm

            ok, here’s the hitch in your get-along Bio: the circuit boards used in computers and monitors are washed in benzene and toluene when they are completed. The out-gassing from these boards often is so severe many develop sicknesses they never relate to those boards from the gasses they give off. So, frankly, maybe it IS computers. I’ll guess the computer industry isn’t doing THAT research are they?

          • Fred

            You know, you might have something there… Most of the computers require you to sit close and stare at a monitor. The flickering of the refreshing of the monitor at some 50-60 times per second affects the optic nerve and causes a type of electrical storm in the brain (not unlike a seizure) this sub conscious seizure is what is being diagnosed as autism. The degree of the autism in each individual could be highly correlated to how often, or possibly what the refresh rate of your monitor is!
            BTW, my post above is just a tongue in cheek example of how STUPID this entire argument is
            Correlations are never proof of anything!

          • The Grand Poobah

            We got a console peasant here

          • Judy Nonarchi

            O – kaaaaay. Let’s do another correlation here.
            Hey! The consumption of … let’s see here … bottled water! yes, bottled water! has gone up dramatically in the last 25 years!!! Guess what — bottled water causes autism !!!!!!!!

          • sciguybm

            oh, you mean the bottles they wash with ammonia and that give off BPA? Those bottles? Guess what – bottled waters cause cancer, gender-bending and may be linked to autism! you’re a genius!

          • Loren Eaton

            I notice you called yourself a “college associated teacher”.

            “Guess what – bottled waters cause cancer, gender-bending and may be linked to autism!”

            Rrrrrright! I wouldn’t count on becoming tenured any time soon. If you have been, PLEASE let me know where, so I can send my kids somewhere else.

          • sciguybm

            huh? molecular biologist who doesn’t know what BPA does to all of us???

            Chew on this:

            http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/

            or this:

            http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/sya-bpa/

            sheesh.

          • http://www.jonentine.com Jon Entine

            The scientific consensus on BPA has shifted sharply in the past few years and the consensus of the most advanced INDEPENDENT tests–financed by the US government and conducted but non industry scientists–is that BPA is relatively harmless. Most of the prior studies were done by injecting BPA into animals while humans consume BPA. It is rendered relatively harmless when passing through liver and kidneys. Moreover, chemicals substituted for BPA are far less tested and generally demonstrably more potentially harmful. Rather than cherry picking studies to reinforce your bias, you need to do what federal regulators have done and look at ‘weight of evidence’ and not just the injection and correlation and in vitro studies, almost all done by scientists with an avowed ideological agenda. The truly independent research is pretty clear that we are passing out of our ‘BPA is a dangerous endocrine disruptor” belief to one more grounded in science. The FDA and major international agencies concur. Here are a few articles, by Trevor Butterworth, executive director/founder of Sense Against Science-USA, and by me:
            –http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/04/09/bpa-the-scientists-the-scare-the-100-million-dollar-surge/
            –http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2013/02/26/anti-bpa-crusade-discrediting-science-and-environmental-health-says-leading-independent-expert/
            –http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/silent-spring-bpa-and-tox_b_1392555.html

          • http://amoebadick.blogspot.co.uk Flatulentia Buttox

            Yeah, but autism is causing computers, obviously.

          • http://batman-news.com Marlene Smith

            I know this is meant as a joke but if you look at Steve Wozniak, steve Jobs and Bill Gates you may just be right

          • http://amoebadick.blogspot.co.uk Flatulentia Buttox

            Good point.

      • Judy Nonarchi

        Guess what!!! So did the use of seat belts!!!
        I think the increase of seat belt use causes autism !!!

      • http://amoebadick.blogspot.co.uk Flatulentia Buttox

        Actually, I think you’ll find that nature has been GM-ing organisms since life first evolved. The only difference between natural GM and the GM technology developed over the last 25 years is that the latter has been a lot less haphazard.

        • Daniel Ros

          Amazing how stupid this argument is. Nature has been splicing bacteria genes with corn? Wow! Dude ur either the scientist of the millennium or a complete idiot. Ur little word play fools no one except for yourself. LMAO

          • http://amoebadick.blogspot.co.uk Flatulentia Buttox

            Firstly, yes, it’s very likely indeed that some bacterial genes have got into corn without human intervention. I really don’t see what is odd about that supposition.

            Secondly, I’m neither a scientist nor a complete idiot. I’m an ex-philosopher. Here’s a link to the copy of my thesis held at the British Library:- http://copac.ac.uk/search?author=Craven%2C%20Richard%20Murray&rn=1

            Thirdly, what’s your point? Are you saying that I am wrong and that e.g. nature has not been e.g. splicing bacterial genes with corn?

            Fourthly, you might try writing “you’re” and “your” properly. Writing “ur” all the time makes you seem like a monkey grunting.

          • gadrogeek

            It certainly is reassuring to have a philosopher, ex or not, telling us not to worry because we have evolved. That is complete poppycock!

            How many assumptions do we need to make to be satisfied with our position?

            The writer works for a biotech company?!

            Of course she will find a way to downplay any hazards associated with our “playing God”.

            Dr. Vandana Shiva is far more credible than this obvious shill for the biogenetics crowd.

            Glyphosate and corn. Hmm… not Mmm.

            http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/01/29/gmos-glyphosate-discovered-kelloggs-froot-loops/#.VNlQjkLvifQ

            GMO? OMG!

          • http://amoebadick.blogspot.co.uk Flatulentia Buttox

            “It certainly is reassuring to have a philosopher, ex or not, telling us not to worry because we have evolved. That is complete poppycock!”

            Firstly, I only mentioned my being an ex-philosopher, because Daniel Ros said I must be either the scientist of the millennium or a complete idiot. I’m neither of those things. I’m just someone with an opinion about GMO’s. Try not to get side-tracked.

            Secondly, what I said was that there is nothing terribly peculiar or “unnatural” about GM. Nature always has GM’d organisms, and now humankind is doing so, but being somewhat less haphazard about it.

            “The writer works for a biotech company?!”

            I went to the trouble of googling Layla Katiraee on your behalf. Here is her potted autobiography:-

            “Layla Parker-Katiraee holds a PhD in Molecular Genetics from the University of Toronto and an undergraduate degree in biochemistry from the University of Western Ontario. Her PhD work focused on epigenetics, specifically in the field of genomic imprinting. She’s been working in the biotech industry for over 6 years and is currently working as a Senior Scientist in Product Development at a biotech company in the San Francisco Bay Area. She’s been learning about GMOs in her spare time, and keeps a blog as a hobby. All opinions and views expressed are her own.”

            I would imagine that Dr Katiraee is quite well-informed on the subject. She is certainly better informed than your Dr Shiva. I suggest you goole “Dr Vandana Shiva quack”.

          • Good4U

            Daniel, you can “LMAO” all you want, but what FB posted is true. If you truly wish to learn anything, you might study the meaning and process of transduction, i.e. the movement of genes from one organism to another, i.e. transgenics. Transgenics has been happening since the beginning of life on this planet, and none of it was controlled in the slightest way by human activity. It’s happening in the soil environment, in plants, in animals, and essentially in every living niche of the biosphere (the part of the earth where life exists). Bacteria in your own gut are transferring genes from their cells into yours, and vice versa. It’s happening right now, as you sit at your computer, fat and happy, but ignorant of it. You can “LMAO” all you want at a cartoon, or at a comedy show on TV, but to sit there as an ignorant fool and “LMAO” at your own puffed up silliness is not an intelligent way to approach any topic of this importance. If you’re going to do that, you have nothing of importance to lend to this discussion.

          • Daniel Ros

            U ur your you’re an idiot if you think that ur argument in any way strengthened the idea that we should have pesticide producing corn in our gut. Thanks for giving me 1 more reason not 2 believe the GMO hype. So now the BT producing gene can be transferred to bacteria in my gut that can then start producing pesticides? Wow sounds fun. Furthermore the ‘gene’ splicing we are talking about does not happen in SIMILAR fashion to what happens in nature. That is obvious. To argue that it is kinda dumb. Nature doesn’t use guys in white lab coats with complex machinery to splice genes. Saying its the same when its not the same is a Red Herring. I admit I don’t know as much about genetics beyond my bio 101 course but to be honest it doesn’t matter. Your point that it is the same is rather obviously not true. Now you could say that the difference has no health repercussions but then I would refer you directly above to a guy who farts a lot and read what he wrote about transduction. Are you willing to take the chance that DNA that makes pesticide won’t be tranduced into your gut bacteria? Not me. You can be the science experiment. Come back happy and healthy in 30 years and I’ll be glad to admit I’m wrong. Then you and I can go the Rubios and chow down on some BT-Corn chips with salsa.

          • hyperzombie

            Are you willing to take the chance that DNA that makes pesticide won’t be tranduced into your gut bacteria?

            Not that it happens, but it would not matter anyway. The Bt toxin is only toxic to some grubs and caterpillars, to you it is just a harmless protein. Bt is everywhere, it is a natural soil bacterium that is found in the soil, air, on you food, if it has been touched by or been near dirt it most likely has this bacterium on it. We have coexisted with this bacterium for 100 of thousands of years, if it was possible for it to contaminate our gut Bactria, it would have happened a long time ago….

          • marie72

            You took the words out of my mouth.Just label it and there will be nothing more to argue about.It’s not fair not knowing how your food is produced.

          • http://amoebadick.blogspot.co.uk Flatulentia Buttox

            Thanks for saying this. Much appreciated.

    • sciguybm

      oh, really. “no negative impacts?” You sure of that? No asthma? No allergies? Not gay?
      Learn what “endocrine disruptor” means then come back to this forum and apologize.

      • Loren Eaton

        The endocrine disruptor study was done on CULTURED human liver cells. You can pretty much screw up isolated cells with just about any compound. Know the difference between in vitro and in vivo? Can you cite any studies showing this in whole organisms at concentrations actually found due to normal exposure? I think you owe HER an apology.

    • Daniel Ros

      Risk ur children’s health for money? How sick. Rural people used to be good people. Now ur not fit to raise ur own children. How do u even look at urself in the mirror let alone in ur child’s eye.

    • Daniel Ros
    • jude

      I am glad you got so lucky. did you eat what he sprayed?

  • Eric Bjerregaard

    Mr. First Officer, Thanks for the chuckle. I enjoy it when you smart folks display a bit of smart aleck.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1554651942 Alaric Quema

    I hate evil Monsanto, I prefer to eat organic food and I have an Autistic child. But it’s very suspicious that this anti-GMO activist has supposedly have found the cause of autism.

    > autism rates in other countries that doesn’t use roundup or glycophosphates are about the same as in the U.S.
    > this theory hasn’t been backed by any scientific study.
    > statistical correlations can be very tricky.

    I think it’s very arrogant and irresponsible to make this claim without scientific proof.

    It’s like that debunked vaccine-autism link all over again. People can get hurt by this false science.

    I hate these unvaccinated hippies. I hope a plague would wipe them out.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1554651942 Alaric Quema

      I googled “evil companies”. Monsanto comes up #1 in every list. Ha ha! at least my sentiments were right.

      my list:
      1)Monsanto
      2)Haliburton
      3)Chase, Goldman Sachs and most big banks
      4)All health insurance companies

      • Tom Mcdonald

        Yea, right, Google is the ultimate brain, do you believe every answer it gives, so sad.

    • Daniel Ros

      It’s a straw man. Beat up the crazy GMO conspirators about something u can’t prove now GMOs are validated along with the toxic pesticides and herbicides. It’s a simple magicians switch. Get the opposition to fight on ur terms while setting them up other ways. Sun Tzu anyone? I hope no one falls for this. Oh wait critical thinking and logic are NOT taught in schools. As is obvious that we have to argue with MOTHERS NOT TO FEED THEIR KIDS UNPROVEN TOXINS!!!! Mothers? Aren’t u supposed to be driven by an intense love where u protect ur child above even ur own life???? Wow. Now we have to fight for ur kids so u don’t poison them???? All the while examples abound around u of the massive failure of the system of which u suck at the tit???? This is about a way BIGGER issue then whether or not GMOs can be linked to autism. This is about the fact that these toxic chemicals DO HAVE A GOD DAM effect!!!! And it’s killing our future and our kids. U don’t even know what people are supposed to look like. Yes I will call names. Yes I will piss u off. Yes I will because I’ve got the concern, the caring, the love, and the EMOTION that should make any logical mother a skeptic about GMOs, about these toxic chemicals and about the cronyism that pays subsidies to big farms to grow monoculture low nutrient foods and wipes out decentralized small farmers who are MORE then able to feed the world’s population. The emperor has no clothes!!!

  • blue horse

    Wrong! Pesticide use is NOT recorded in many parts of the US as you stated. At current time, activists in Maryland are trying to get a law enacted to do just that, for agricultural pesticides. But still, no one is keeping track of the data of the astronomical amount of pesticides put on lawns. Birth defects in many areas are also not recorded. THERE IS A COMPLETE LACK OF DATA WHEN IT COMES TO PESTICIDE USE.

    • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

      No reason to SHOUT. You are dead wrong that there is an “astronomical amount of pesticides put on lawns.” It’s incredibly small…far smaller than put on crops, which itself is infinitesimally small, as this story makes clear: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/06/03/myth-gm-farmers-drown-crops-in-dangerous-glyphosate-fact-farmers-use-eye-droppers/

      • sciguybm

        homeowners account for over 60% of all pesticides used in the USA: try Google moron.

        • JPEnge

          60% of a small amount is still a small amount.

      • cold340t

        The doubling of cancer rates in Farmers and families in Argentina since the intro of GMO’s and associated Pesticides is just a myth? And again, please provide some proof of fish genes merging with soybeans in a natural ecosystem. Not from Missouri, but “Show Me?”

        • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

          There is no study in a major journal that shows a doubling of cancer rates linked to GMOs. There is not a such thing as “fish genes” or soybeans. About 30% of your genome are “fish genes”, about 25% of your genes have a shared ancestry in marigolds, etc. We all have common ancestors. That’s evolutionary science. None of the major foods you eat today, from grains to vegetables to fruits, occurred naturally in our ecosystem–NONE. Like your Italian pasta? That was “created” in a laboratory—wheat seeds subjected to toxic and chemicals and irradiation creating thousands of mutations that never would’ve occurred in a “natural ecosystem.” Like your organic Ruby Red grapefruit? Took six years of laboratory studies, radiating grapefruits. Not so “natural” by your definition. Yet they can be organic. Go figure.

          • cold340t

            Sorry, but fish genes are/were being used in GMO experiments. And quite honestly, form your defense of GMO’s. One could easily suspect that you have some financial interest in them. As you clearly don’t remember why Olean/Oletsra was pulled from the market. And it would seem that all the food allergies/issues just happened to start around the same time as the mass intro (without OUR consent or knowledge) of GMO laden food products. It’s ALL just a CO-INKYDINK! Right? Cigarettes don’t cause cancer either, right? Your unquestioned fealty to the GMO Industry is just that, fealty.
            That clients of mine, who work for Monsanto and other GMO producers, won’t let THEIR OWN CHILDREN eat or Drink their products is how. Say’s a lot about safety or lack of. Sort of like how Silicon Valley Techie’s started their OWN SCHOOLS. One’s WITHOUT ANY COMPUTERS or “EDUCATIONAL ELECTRONICS” either. Just paper, pencil, books and a Teacher using chalkboard. What’s GOOD for their kids is Good for Me! No GMO’s or HFC etc. Same with FLU shots.
            Lastly, I again suspect YOU have a Financial interest in supporting GMO’s. Enjoy, they are ALL YOURS!

        • hyperzombie

          Here is a thought experiment…. Denmark has the highest cancer rate in the world, they also consume the most “Organic” food per capita…..Is there a link?

          • cold340t

            Well, most of the planet was eating “organic” food prior to gmo introduction. Could it be now they have cross contamination of gmo crops and organic crops in Denmark. Like what is happening here in USA? How does what happens in Denmark a disprove what is happening in Argentina? Can you say apples to oranges? Your fealty to the GMO products is great for you and your family, enjoy. Those of us who see a correlation to the massive increase in food allergies etc. Occurring simultaneously with GMO introduction. Well, we will leave them for you guys to eat. A field test as they call it. When Industry Employees won’t let THEIR KID’s eat/drink this stuff. Well, thats good enough for me. Kinda like the Techies in Silicon Valley who started their own schools. One’s WITHOUT ANY COMPUTERS or Tech gadgets. Just Pencil, paper, books and Teacher with chalk board. While. promoting the use of Computers and Tech gadgets for everyone else. Seem’s to be a parallel here. Oh, I know just coincidence right?!?! I think you have financial interest in GMO products to be so supportive the Industry.

          • hyperzombie

            Well, most of the planet was eating “organic” food prior to gmo introduction.

            No, they were eating conventional foods.

            Could it be now they have cross contamination of gmo crops and organic crops in Denmark.

            No, because they don’t grow GMOs.

            Like what is happening here in USA?

            There are no cross contamination issues in America..Name one.

            How does what happens in Denmark a disprove what is happening in Argentina?

            It doesnt, just like the rise in Ag chemicals and cancer in Argentina doesn’t prove anything.

            Your fealty to the GMO products is great for you and your family, enjoy.

            I dont grow GMOs, but I am not Organic either.

            When Industry Employees won’t let THEIR KID’s eat/drink this stuff. Well, thats good enough for me
            Total BS, I know some and they eat GMOs all the time..

          • cold340t

            “Conventional” is the key. Yes, they bred animals and plants that exhibited preferred characteristics. No doubt. Gene manipulation is totally different. Test tube combo’s that produce toxicity? Really, I’m not into eating gene modified Agent Orange et al. Cross contamination on the other hand. Well, 1/3 of US Organic farmers have experienced cross contamination and 1/2 of those had loads of grain rejected because of GMO contamination. This is according to Organic Farmers Agency for Relationship Marketing. “Bowman v Monsanto Co.”
            China rejected corn and rice shipments why? The Farmers and AG Business effected are suing why? Damn, you obviously can’t take the time to “google gmo contamination”. But, why would you? Clearly there is a finacial incentive for your support. Oh, how is GMO’s support in Hawaii? Most of the natural plants have been cross contaminated already. You welcome to eat all the GMO laced FOOD PRODUCTS you like or are AWARE OF. I won’t be joining you, unless they kill labeling Bill’s arising in many states. Then I won’t know until my stomach aches, too late. Cigarettes don’t cause cancer ether, right?

          • hyperzombie

            Yes, they bred animals and plants that exhibited preferred characteristics.

            that is gene manipulation, all plant breeding is.

            I’m not into eating gene modified Agent Orange et al.

            Agent Orange was a weapon of war, it has nothing to do with agriculture.

          • cold340t

            Agent Orange or Glyphosate pick your GMO poison.

          • hyperzombie

            I dont get it, why do you continue to comment on an Ag issue when you obviously know nothing about it?

          • cold340t

            Why do so you strenuously protect something like GMO’s? You are welcome to eat/drink as much as you want. Just don’t expect me to do the same. The science is in on GMO’s and it ain’t pretty. I’ll take the same path as my clients who work(ed) for these GMO producers. Like you they get paid by the GMO Producers, unlike you, they won’t eat it themselves.
            Also, by your way of thinking ALL the People in other Countries with health issues they believe to be related to GMO’s. Well, they are just subjects of “Mass Hysteria”? It’s ALL psychosomatic as far you are concerned? Too many GMO shill’s on sites like this. Yes, I said “paid shill”. If the shoe fits……

          • hyperzombie

            Why do so you strenuously protect something like GMO’s?

            I don’t, I am just informing you on how it is done in the real world.

            Eat and drink whatever you want, I dont care.

            The science is in on GMO’s and it ain’t pretty.

            Ummm, no. The science is in and it is as safe or safer than conventional crop breeding. It is a massive consensuses even stronger than the one on climate change and evolution.

            health issues they believe to be related to GMO’s.

            Belief doesn’t mean squat. Evidence is needed.

          • cold340t

            Keep drinking the Cool-Aide. Evidence is in and GMO’s are BAD!

          • hyperzombie

            There is no evidence, My god are you a “special person”?

          • cold340t

            No I’m a very reasonable person who doesn’t believe what the GMO Producers say about their Product safety. I just read a funny tweet:
            1913 Corn is 100% Farmer owned vs. 2013 Corn is 95% Corporate owned and 90% GMO, & Apparently you need a HAZMAT SUIT to TUOCH IT!. Trutherbot @trutherbot. Check it out. Plus a cool pic of “Corporate Farmers” Keep earning your GMO Sponsored pay check! TTFN!

          • hyperzombie

            2013 Corn is 95% Corporate owned and 90% GMO

            98% of all farms in the US are family owned, visit a farm sometime, they are owend by real people.

          • hyperzombie

            I suggest spending less time on the internet and more time visiting real farms.

          • hyperzombie

            HAZMAT SUIT to TUOCH IT!.

            LOL, city folk are so funny…

            Here is modern farming near my place….No hazmat suits,,,,

          • cold340t

            Agri-Prop luv it! Your unstinting defense of GMO Producers and Products. Remind me of the Useful Idiots who claimed with equal conviction that Cigarettes were safe to smoke. That they didn’t cause cancer. So everyone who believes their Health is being effected by GMO consumption are just suffering from Mass Hysteria? According to You.

          • hyperzombie

            Useful Idiots who claimed with equal conviction that Cigarettes were safe to smoke.

            No that would be you? You are the one without science and who is sowing FUD, just like the tobacco supporters.

          • cold340t

            At this point it is obvious that you have a financial stake in supporting GMO Products. It’s ok, enjoy your status as a quisling for GMO’$.

          • hyperzombie

            it is obvious that you have a financial stake in supporting GMO Products.

            LOL, so do you have a stake in the Organic industry?? I bet when wagon wheels were phased out the wagon wheel manufactures said the same about the tire guys… So transparent…So basically you have nothing and are conceding defeat…. Maybe spend the weekend in the wild corn fields of Alaska thinking about where it all went wrong…..

          • cold340t

            Spent most of my youth in the rice fields of central california. Your point?

          • hyperzombie

            Was that the wild rice or the man made rice that everyone eats?
            My point is that GMOs are an overall positive to the environment and human health. You for some reason think that old fashioned farming is better, and it is not. If you really grew up in an Ag community you would know this.

          • cold340t

            If you really grew up in Ag Community you would know GMO’s are bad for your health. Your posts fit to a T , those of a paid poster. TTFN!

          • hyperzombie

            LOL youre funny and obviously don’t live in an Ag community…

          • cold340t

            I am reading Readers Digest as I type, the article? Genetically Modified Foods: 7 Things Every Shopper Needs to Know/ by Perri O. Blumberg. Alas, as the Paid Shill of GMO’s Producers you wouldn’t be interested. But, reading the comments there, the Paid Shills are really getting an education. Just “google” it if you will.
            You are right, I don’t live in Ag Community. Just grew up in One!

          • cold340t

            Click on the “several studies” link. You will find it quite interesting. That is, if you are not just trolling me to fatten your paycheck.

          • hyperzombie

            What evidence?

          • cold340t

            Well, you got me…..smoking doesn’t cause cancer and GMO’s are safe to consume. According to you. Now enjoy your Monsanto paycheck.

          • hyperzombie

            Smoking does cause cancer and GMOs are safe to eat, so says the science.

          • cold340t

            So you say….Gmo’s are safe. Enjoy all you like. There is plenty of GMO Product that the rest of the World is rejecting to keep you fed forever.

          • hyperzombie

            There is plenty of GMO Product that the rest of the World is rejecting

            Sure and you and your ilk keep polluting the environment with your old fashioned crops.

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            Not any reputable evidence I’ve seen. As a matter of fact, I’ve seen just the opposite.

          • cold340t

            Sorry to hear that. I guess those that are suffering from GMO related illness are just part of a Vast Mass Hysteria Conspiracy. And cigarettes don’t cause cancer, unless you smoke them. No problem!

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            You pulled out the conspiracy word, not me. As for the hysteria part? Yes, I agree. They are very hysterical. Because, you see, they like to point to things that gave them those “illnesses” as being GMO that actually, are not.

          • cold340t

            Climate change is hoax too! Right? By the way, was just reading about Paid Posters. Those of you who seem so unstinting in your support for GMO’s totally fit that profile. Just saying.
            Yah, you know increasing the the “safe” levels of radiation exposure to fit with increased radioactivity in the atmosphere from Fukushima. Yah, the science is IN isn’t it? Enjoy your GMO’s and your GMO paycheck.

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            Wait. Let me get this straight: You accept the science that says climate change is real, but you reject the science that says GMOs are safe, and there’s no danger from Fukushima? How does that work? In your mind, I mean.

            Me, I don’t pick & choose my science to believe. I go where the evidence points.

            By the way, let me know how I can get said paycheck.

          • cold340t

            You are funny with MY words. TTFN!

          • http://beginingsinwriting.wordpress.com/ R.w. Foster

            (blink blink) The works are English, but they make no fuckin’ sense.

          • tidi

            But there are also lifestyle factors which could be having an influence on the figures reported by the World Cancer Research Fund from the World Health Organisation.

            A larger than average proportion of Danish women are smokers, while the country also has high levels of alcohol consumption, both of which have been shown to increase the risk of developing cancer.

          • hyperzombie

            Or maybe it is the Organic foods that they consume?

    • First Officer

      If there is a complete lack of data, then how can anti-gmoers claim pesticide use is causing diseases from A to Z ? (In alphabetical order, no less !)

    • sciguybm

      In 2007 the federal government announced it would stop publicly printing pesticide use numbers. They ARE available: you have to get permission to get them. Good luck with that.

  • http://amoebadick.blogspot.co.uk Flatulentia Buttox

    Even if a link were to be established between glyphosate and ASD, this would have no bearing on the safety of GMO’s. The only inference of any relevance to GMO science would be that there was no point in engineering glyphosate-resistant GMO’s. There would be no inference validating the hypothesis that glyphosate-resistant GMO’s – let alone GMO’s quite generally – were unsafe.

  • peter

    Senior Scientist in Product Development at a biotech company in California…enough said, why would anyone listen to you, this is your bread and butter of course your going to defend it…

    • BioChicaGMO

      Ummm… Take a second and look me up in Linkedin. Then come back and chat.

  • marie72

    It all has to to do with gut flora…

    • Daniel Ros

      Wait that’s to far ahead for these science people to think!!!!

  • LaurentS

    Layla, I would take your article more seriously if you weren’t funded by Monsanto.

    • BioChicaGMO

      Hi Laurent,
      Do you have evidence for this allegation? If so, please share with all the readers here.

      • BioChicaGMO

        On second thought, I’m not sure if I should have asked you to do that… I had been pretty successful at setting up off-shore accounts for Monsanto to funnel money into without my husband or my employer’s knowledge. If you’ve managed to find my accounts in the Cayman Islands, let me know and I’ll give you a cut of my income rather than exposing me so openly!

        • Leah

          What does your comment mean? Are you exadurating since you just openly let everyone know something you supposedly want to keep hidden?

          • BioChicaGMO

            I was being sarcastic.

          • jlfenton

            Sarcasm seems to be your only argument in this thread. That and perhaps denial. Chica, you need to get a little more information to make better decisions. Connections between the FDA, our food guardians, and Monsanto run deep.

            “According to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), its responsibilities include “[p]rotecting the public health by assuring that foods are safe, wholesome, sanitary and properly labeled.” This responsibility entails regulating a large number of companies producing this nation’s food, making appointments to the high-level positions within the agency very important.

            “Over the past decades, at least 7 high-ranking employees in the FDA were employed with Monsanto.” Most high-level FDA employees have a background in either medicine or law, but one of the largest private-sector sources is the Monsanto Company. Over the past decades, at least seven high-ranking employees in the FDA have an employment history with the Monsanto Company.”

            Chica, just to help you out, a decade is ten years. Seven Executives from Monsanto working at the FDA in only ten yearsd.

          • BioChicaGMO

            “Sarcasm seems to be your only argument in this thread.” A comment where I’m accused of being a shill for Monsanto when no evidence is provided deserves nothing but sarcasm.

            In your comments for this article, you’ve suggested that GMOs cause Autism, yet have failed to provide evidence for this allegation. You have now set that aside and are now invoking the “Monsanto” argument. My thoughts on this argument are here: http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/08/13/are-geneticists-who-work-for-corporations-less-ethical-than-university-researchers/
            “There are certain jobs in government and in academia that I would excel at because of the work I’ve done in industry. To dismiss the skills and training of those in industry by virtue of where they were gained, and not because of their quality, is a loss to the public arena.”

          • jlfenton

            !. It was NOT a suggestion, it was a question. and,
            2. Where, when did I call you a “Monsanto shill”. You flatter yourself. Monsanto has more money than that.

          • Judy Nonarchi

            O my. Another conspiracy theorist.

          • Daniel Ros

            Another humans cannot lie moron who never took a history class.

          • Daniel Ros

            Ever hear of Machiavelli? Sun Tzu? Google is good for you! YAY!!!!

          • Loren Eaton

            Right. Let’s just fill up the FDA and other government orgs with Greenpeace types. Yeah that’s the ticket. Most of them have NO science background.

            “Most high-level FDA employees have a background in either medicine or law,” And former Monsanto employees have a background in…..FOOD. I think a while back Monsanto had a pharmaceutical arm (Searle, maybe). So they have a background in DRUG. Hence, the FDA.

          • sciguybm

            Wait, something you don’t know: reagan fired all the federal EPA and FDA review, regulation and approval board employees and replaced them with short-term employees from the very companies making the applications…. yes truth.
            Those EPA/FDA/USDA members determine the safety, toxicology and approval of ALL chemicals.
            reagan claimed it a “government cost cutting tactic”…. it was pay-back for the corporations funding his election. Up until reagan (the worst criminal in mankind’s history), the approval rate for new chemicals and new human consumption technologies, was 61%. reagan and since? 97%

          • Loren Eaton

            First of all, it is “exaggerating”. Second, she’s pointing out what a moronic post you just made.

        • Judy Nonarchi

          I want in! I keep promoting gmos as being as healthy (according to science) as non-gmo food, and have yet to see a penny from Monsanto. Pout, pout. Darn. I SO wanted to hang a sign on my door “MONSANTO SHILL; DROP YER MONEY IN THE ENVELOPE”

          • Loren Eaton

            All I got was a lousy T-shirt.

      • sciguybm

        No Monsanto NEVER directly funds these types of researchers. But if
        she’d give you who they are I would guess one of the GMO companies is
        there. She can say “No Monsanto” but it can easily be DuPont or Syngenta
        and she can be telling the truth and lying at the same time….it’s a
        neat trick. Or it can be The Grocery Association: one of the largest contributors to the “defeat GMO labeling” providers. Any molecular biologist who flatly denies the connection may exist between GMOs, GMO chemicals and ANY disease or health issue is either a shill or a moron.

        And obviously was a C student (or less) in cell biology.

    • Thinkabit

      Good one!!! Monsanto, Dow, etc. have far more power than some might think. They DO have sway in a lot that has been published, telling us we have nothing to fear while they take in the dough! Corporate greed is the downfall of mankind! And what is all of this doing to the pollinators, all the beneficial insects who help our crops, but are now being killed off with the pesticides being freely used on GMO crops? Chew on that for a little while!

      • BioChicaGMO

        Again, do you have any evidence to support this? At the same time, if your hypothesis is that powerful and wealthy companies control what is published in science, how do you explain the vast amount of data that exist about climate change when Exxon Mobil alone is worth ~400billion dollars (in contrast, Monsanto is worth ~60billion).

        • Daniel Ros

          Again we have to reduce to the ridiculous just to explain simple concepts. Go look at any sufficently crowded street in this entire country to see examples of fake misdirected crony science. Just because ur memory is to short to remember what people used to look like is no excuse. Are u that dense? Shill for sure. U get paid by covering up the doubts in ur own mind to ur own bullshit. Keep lying to urself. It’s funny to watch.

      • Judy Nonarchi

        Hey, thinkabit — Think A Bit. Do you use any products by Microsoft or Apple? (maybe your mommy is typing this for you and you have an old carriage-return typewriter). And do you drive a car? Corporate pig.

      • sciguybm

        Sheer utter nonsense pandering at the chemical companies. For a molecular
        biologist to make such statements is not just absurd it is ridiculous.
        It fits right in with the tobacco companies claims that cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer.
        1st: we have known about autism since the 1930s. Period. Not another word.
        2nd: Ms Molecular biologist doesn’t seem to understand the words “endocrine disruptor” how convenient.
        3rd; oh and she apparently also has no conception of what “transgenes” mean either. Sweet!
        Finally:
        The GMO & chemical companies shunt billions, yes I said billions,
        of dollars into virtually every university and research facility in
        North America….even Canada. The loss of those monies, as the federal
        government, since reagan, has cut back monies to universities &
        colleges, would be devastating. Her notion that “…very few scientists
        who wouldn’t give their life savings and the naming
        rights for their first born for the opportunity to identify an
        environmental cause for autism…”
        is
        just not true. As a researcher & college associated teacher I know
        full well that the universities have indeed been paid off. This is a LIE
        on her part.

      • http://www.insectnation.org Andy Buckley

        This is nonsense. I can’t even tell if you’re being sarcastic. Assuming you’re not, go find some data — you will be surprised how many compelling anti-corporate narratives turn out to have no foundation.

    • sciguybm

      No Monsanto NEVER directly funds these types of researchers. But if she’d give you who they are I would guess one of the GMO companies is there. She can say “No Monsanto” but it can easily be DuPont or Syngenta and she can be telling the truth and lying at the same time….it’s a neat trick.

  • LG

    THIS IS BOGUS! I have an autistic son and I never ate organic. Organic eating has been around aince the beginning of time but autism didn’t start to rise til after the patten ended, as you know. FACTS ARE FACTS! YOU ARE GETTING PAID FROM SOMEWHERE OR YOU WOULDNT BE DEDICATING SO MUCH TIME TRYING TO PROVE MONSATO RIGHT! Aspartame eats holes in ur brain, NO MATTER HOW MANY RATS OR HOW LONG THE TESTING OCCURED (according to your other comments). Shame on you for ATTEMPTING to misinform the people around you!!!

    • BioChicaGMO

      I think that you didn’t read the article. I never said that organic food causes autism. I pointed out that just because two things are correlated, it doesn’t mean that one causes the other.

      • marie72

        The title of this article is confusing,It sounds like it’s saying organic food causes Autism and that makes no sense.

        • Loren Eaton

          The point is that the rise in autism correlates just as tightly with the rise in organic food growth as it does with the rise in Round up sales or vaccines. NONE of these things CAUSE autism. That’s the point.

          • Daniel Ros

            Thank GOD! Loren has figured it all out. Well please do tell. Why would u hold back suck important information? Are u a sick person? Why would u not enlighten the world? Oh…u don’t know. Then how do u know none of these things cause autism? U don’t. That’s the point. Ur killing our kids but want to keep doing it cause we don’t have definitive science? U fing sick moron. Ur like nurse loves Monsanto over here bathing ur kids in toxic chemicals of which SCIENCE IS NOT DIFINITIVE!!!!! U POS it’s called the precautionary principle. U don’t give it to kids unless u know for sure its not going to harm them. And u don’t know. U people are sick dimented idiots.

    • sciguybm

      Sheer utter nonsense pandering at the chemical companies. For a molecular biologist to make such statements is not just absurd it is ridiculous.
      It fits right in with the tobacco companies claims that cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer.
      1st: we have known about autism since the 1930s. Period. Not another word.
      2nd: Ms Molecular biologist doesn’t seem to understand the words “endocrine disruptor” how convenient.
      3rd; oh and she apparently also has no conception of what “transgenes” mean either. Sweet!
      Finally:The GMO & chemical companies shunt billions, yes I said billions, of dollars into virtually every university and research facility in North America….even Canada. The loss of those monies, as the federal government, since reagan, has cut back monies to universities & colleges, would be devastating. Her notion that “…very few scientists
      who wouldn’t give their life savings and the naming
      rights for their first born for the opportunity to identify an
      environmental cause for autism…” is just not true. As a researcher & college associated teacher I know full well that the universities have indeed been paid off. This is a LIE
      on her part.

  • glamourschatz

    Laylaaaa… why don’t you take your fancy PhD and create a correlation chart that compares glyphosate to women who use nail polish and also drink coffee so you can keep this sham of an SEO propaganda site going. I’m sorry that there are not real opportunities for scientists like yourself and you get stuck keeping the bottom line of corporations like Monsanto looking good to Wall Street. Do we have to wait for the entire Gulf of Mexico to die from de-oxygenation and the collapse of insects that pollinate a large supply of our food? We need weeds, we need insects! We need ecosystems to thrive. We have to get our country out of this monoculture mess created by Agribusiness and get back to loving “weeds” in our backyards. I’m optimistic that in 100 years our non-autistic offspring will laugh at their grandparents “science” that believed there would be no repercussions for introducing “weed” killing genetic modification into our water and food supply. Just zoom out a bit and get away from your spreadsheets…

    • BioChicaGMO

      Well, aside from the claim that I work for Monsanto (which I don’t) or get paid for writing articles (which isn’t true), you raise valid concerns, such as monocultures, weeds, etc. But instead of attacking me, why don’t you offer your thoughts/concerns/suggestions on these issues. For example, given the fact that 96% of US farms are family owned (http://www.nifa.usda.gov/nea/ag_systems/in_focus/familyfarm_if_overview.html), how would you resolve these issues? Given the fact that most individuals in North America don’t live in a climate where they could have a year-round garden, how should they grow their own food? What about in urban areas?

      • jlfenton

        There may be more family farmers than corporate farmers, but corporate farmers have way more land than the families have. That, however, is irrelevant.. BOTH corporate and family farms are tied to Monsanto for their seeds.

        “…individual proprietor family farms had average sales of

        $162,179 in 2007, they had an average

        of 200 acres of land, the estimated

        market value of land and buildings

        averaged $1,292,699, and the estimated

        market value of all machinery and

        equipment averaged $63,809. In contrast,

        California corporate farms had

        average sales of $2,187,321; their average

        size was 784 acres; the estimated

        market value of land and buildings

        averaged $6,315,180; and the estimated

        market value of all machinery

        and equipment was $396,451.

      • sciguybm

        oh oh oh oh oh…….yes the GMO mantra; “Who’ll feed the children!” The best excuse to tug at the heart-strings of women everywhere….the #1 rule of the chemical companies.

        Perfectly fitting.

    • Lakota in Austin

      The author has laid out a solid case that there is insufficient evidence to support the glyphosate-ASD link. Her level-headed approach is not an endorsement of Monsanto.

      I wish Roundup and Monsanto would vanish from the face of the Earth, a sentiment that makes me more likely to accept arguments against Monsanto’s products and practices. I avoid GMOs and buy organic while also maintaining a great deal of skepticism toward articles and “studies” that appear in the popular magazines and blogs of advocates for lifestyles (such as vegan and organic) that I happen to favor. I initially read about the glyphosate issue on the Alliance for Natural Health website. That article uncritically reported the claims of Dr. Seneff. I immediately searched for a more credible source and landed here. You can hold on to your idealism while also being rational and skeptical.

      • http://influential.com.au/ Dallas McMillan

        Great point Lakota – the bee issue alone is a great reason to rethink the use of herbicides, but making up a link with autism where no evidence exists doesn’t help anyone.

        • sciguybm

          Making a link where none exists is called “hypothesis.” Love it when idiots open their mouths.

          • Stuart M.

            Well, you certainly must love the sound of your own voice!

          • sciguybm

            I am certainly tired of having to say the same things over and over and over to morons who would rather die than pay $400 more a year in grocery/energy/auto fuel bills.

        • First Officer

          Except that herbicides are not insecticides.

      • sciguybm

        Hey Lakota: learn what transgenes are and what endocrine disruptors are then make your broad sweeping nonsense comments.

        Layla’s a shill, pure and simple. Guaranteed she’s funded by GMO related corporations. Come on Layla: make the bet. We’ll do it publicly just to make sure you embarrass me in a public forum.

        • Daniel Ros

          Please sci guy get ahold of me performancetraining at yahoo

        • Lakota in Austin

          “Layla’s a shill, pure and simple.”

          That’s a very thoughtful, deep, nuanced, and persuasive argument. Especially when contrasted with my “sweeping nonsense” comments. I feel ashamed, exposed, and humiliated. You win.

          • sciguybm

            No, I’m sure you’ll continue to ignore whatever is found that works against your pathway to riches and I’m equally sure that, if your are a woman, you will remember these words in about, oh, 15 years judging by that photo… see you then. Like I said: Don’t forget to curse God for that cancer men gave you.

          • Lakota in Austin

            I actually have no idea what you’re talking about. Pathway to riches? I’m unemployed, spent the summer working for room and board on organic farms, and I plan to do that again starting in April. But i do feel rich, in the sense that I feel as though the entire world is my home, and enjoying nature’s beauty is my priceless treasure. I don’t have any idea what your cancer comment means, and I don’t believe in the type of god that one would curse or praise. I’m male, though I kind of like that you thought I was female. I wonder what age you were guessing…

            Take care of yourself, you sound a bit depressed and anxious, and rather angry. Try to enjoy your life and not get wrapped up in fear of things that are beyond our control. Everything looks horrible and wonderful at the same time, depending on what you pay attention to. Either way, it has always been like that, and always will be. I wish you peace.

    • Daniel Ros

      The same way we laugh at the world is flat. Their science has become the new religion. Too bad it’s not REAL science. It’s bought and paid for paper about as valuable as ur toilette paper and stinks just as bad after it’s been used.

  • jlfenton

    The dramatic rise in organic foods stems from the dramatic rise in GMOs. the correlation between GMOs and Autism is direct.

    • Genevieve Malouin Diraddo

      I agree 100%. I tell ya … in a few generations… all there will be left are the people who’s parents and grandparents ate organic because everyone else will be infertile. I think it’s Mother Earth’s way of purging herself of her human infestation.

  • bill

    It is my understanding Norway prohibits GMOs and the autism rate is 1 in 2000. USA rate is 1 in 68 and GMOs dominate our food supply.

  • JustTellingYouTheTruth

    How could you link ANYTHING to organic food?? That’s the dumbest title for an article I’ve seen in a while.. Organic food is food, without added chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, and the countless other chemicals that are put in. So tell me again how organic food is causing problems? If this were the case, food would always have caused these problems.
    Do some more research on neurotoxins and their effect on a developing child’s brain.. blood brain barrier, etc.

    • BioChicaGMO

      Read the very first sentence.

    • cmac

      this is a demonstration of shooting blanks. Read the article before making an opinion, or you just look like an idiot.

  • Genevieve Malouin Diraddo

    Glyphosate (Round-Up) = Autism (amongst many other conditions)

    Dr. Thierry Vrain (Retired Genetic Engineer) showed your “Organic Food Sales” chart immediately after Stephanie Seneff’s chart, at the GE Foods & Human Health Speakers’ Tour.

    The correlation between Glyphosate and Autism is a fact and demands further investigation including Glyphosate testing upon request at all laboratories in Canada. It is too important to ignore or to call a coincidence.

    The correlation chart between Autism and Organic Sales is completely useless and used by Monsanto Supporters as a way of saying “nani nani poopoo” It’s just a pathetic little attempt to defend dangerous fat-cats playing Russian roulette with our food supply and frankly that chart is a joke. Everyone who sees that chart says “D’you think we’re idiots?”

    • Loren Eaton

      “Everyone who sees that chart says “D’you think we’re idiots?””
      Not everyone….I see that chart and I can come up with a dozen other things that follow the red line. This is the difference between correlation and causation. You’re not an idiot…you just don’t understand statistics. Oh, Thierry Vrain hasn’t done any actual science for nigh onto 20 years….he’s a dinosaur.

  • Genevieve Malouin Diraddo

    Glyphosate (Round-Up) = Autism (amongst many other conditions)

    Dr. Thierry Vrain (Retired Genetic Engineer) showed your “Organic Food Sales” chart immediately after Stephanie Seneff’s chart, at the GE Foods & Human Health Speakers’ Tour.

    The correlation between Glyphosate and Autism is a fact and demands further investigation including Glyphosate testing upon request at all laboratories in Canada. It is too important to ignore or to call a coincidence.

    The correlation chart between Autism and Organic Sales is completely useless and used by Monsanto Supporters as a way of saying “nani nani poopoo” It’s just a pathetic little attempt to defend dangerous fat-cats playing Russian roulette with our food supply and frankly that chart is a joke. Everyone who sees that chart says “D’you think we’re idiots?”

    • BioChicaGMO

      Hi Genevieve,

      Sure, the number of individuals diagnosed with autism and the amount of glyphosate used may correlate. This paper draws graphs for 22 different disorders and how they correlate with glyphosate, very similar to the graph you’ve shared: http://t.co/xpFVdzFQuw As you can see from the link, GMO Inside has been promoting this paper. Somehow, 22 disorders with vastly different aetiologies are all caused by glyphosate!

      No, I don’t think you’re an idiot. I included the graph to highlight there’s the same amount of evidence for a link between glyphosate and autism as there is for a link between organic food and autism, i.e. no evidence whatsoever. But somehow you’re convinced that glyphosate causes autism. I’d like to know how you reached that conclusion.

      If you want someone to examine the autism/glyphosate correlation, you’ll have to convince a researcher that a compound that inhibits a biochemical pathway that does not exist in mammals has an impact on human development, and that the impact is specific to humans since it hasn’t been seen in animal feeding studies.

      • Daniel Ros

        It all boils down to this u popmous a@@. U don’t have the right to try science experiments on our children. U ‘scientist’ are nearly universally self deceived by ur hurt little egos to believe u know more then u do. U have a horrific track record and have hugely failed the entire world population which is sicker and sicker dumber and dumber. All because in ur little ego enslaved mind u think u know far more then u do and u cant use common sense like the precautionary principle any real mother would use for her own kids. And ur paid off to do it. Dispicable and pathetic. Ur paper thin. U have no grounding in critical thinking logic and even ur own profession. U think science is caught up in ur ego? U think u know science? The nature of real science is that u don’t know. It is a never ending search deeper and deeper. How come every time we go deeper all ur bullshit is exposed for what it is? Every time. U think u would learn. What gives U the right to risk our lives on ur experiments????? U don’t have that right. Nearly everything u said in ur article I agree with. What u say? I know what ur doing. Compared to most people I’m not stupid. This is the red cape in front of the bull, the magicians left hand, the faint before the real punch. If u dont know what this is then ur a simple tool of people who do know. Ur a PR campaign. Sad.

        • JPEnge

          It really makes your argument more authoritative when you start by insulting.

          • Daniel Ros

            Dear Hitler, I don’t mean to insult you, can you please stop burning the Jews in the ovens? Thanks. I’m glad we had this conversation. :) YAY!!!!!!!

  • Eliza

    Did no one think that the rise in organic food and autism are linked because many parents who have children with autism switch to organic diets since research does show that these diets help? I find the article hard to believe. I have a child with HFA and my husband and I have just recently been looking at going all organic or possibly gluten free. Seems to me that this article is promoting an invalid correlation.

    • BioChicaGMO

      Hi Eliza,
      The whole point of the article is that correlation does not imply causation, and that there’s no evidence to suggest that glyphosate use or GMOs cause autism. The # of individuals diagnosed with ASD correlates both with the amount of glyphosate use correlate and organic food sales. There’s no evidence to suggest that either one of them cause autism.

    • Daniel Ros

      But all of them are definitely having an effect. That’s why people are so overweight sick and our intelligence level is going down. Stick with nature science isn’t close at all to nature which is the subject of science. Don’t fall for these fake pseudoscientists which is pseudonature of which they have barely scratched the surface. I can guarantee u one day humans will look back on these fake PhD and fake MDs and their reliance on factory produced chemicals the way we look on the idea that the world is flat.

  • cmac

    The comments below reming me of the quote of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts”.

  • Rachel

    An article like this is a dis-service to both sides. It is written by a smart-ass, a clever smart-ass that will say anything to make a point. You CAN’T argue with somebody that thinks they know everything because they will do everything to make sure they WIN because their end game is more about winning than being right. The person writing this article is a tool that obviously lives in a test tube and doesn’t play well with others. Holds a PhD. Whoopie! Scientist in Product Development = Part of the problem. Biotech means “I think I’m better than God” and so that’s all I need to know about Layla Katiraee.

    • BioChicaGMO

      Hi Rachel,
      Could you explain why you think this article is a disservice to both sides? Is there anything in the article that is incorrect?
      Could you also explain why my job as a scientist in product development is part of the problem? For the past 7 years, I’ve been working on making assays and machines to better diagnose genetic disorders, and I currently work only on human DNA sequencing. So I’m not sure what problem you’re referring to or why you think I’m better than God?

  • disappointed

    I read all of the comments in hopes of further research or insight into this debate. Instead I just recalled this NPR prank: http://www.npr.org/2014/04/01/297690717/why-doesnt-america-read-anymore

  • MFay

    Here is a compelling article from an MIT research scientist on the effects of glyphosates on the human body. She has 3 decades of research behind her…….
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/autism-and-the-health-impacts-of-monsanto-glyphosate-roundup-on-children-research-scientist-at-mit/5421901

    • BioChicaGMO

      The MIT research scientist that you’re referring to is the person I’ve written about above… Please read the article.

    • Canadian_Skeptic

      That’s not a compelling article. Seneff has a PhD in computer science. She’s not an expert in biology. Her writing about GMOs is like me trying to write about artificial intelligence algorithms (I have a PhD in biochemistry).

      • Daniel Ros

        A skeptic with an ad hominem fallacy. U should try another method of thought. This one ur failing at miserably. Maybe stick with simpler things like joining a religion.

        • Loren Eaton

          So would discounting out of hand any research on safety done at Monsanto or any other company an example of your ad hominem fallacy?

          • Daniel Ros

            Good point. 100% <<< GUILTY!!! No I don't trust people that are paid for
            research. They wrote it. I wasn't there. When its reproduced
            independently sure I'm down. Of course each instance would be taken on
            its own. See, I don't rely on Mercola or Jeffery Smith or anyone else. I
            rely on my eyes. My eyes show me lots of fat, sick people. Try
            walking down a crowded street. Then
            I find out you all have tried to 'improve' nature. Then I realize that we
            all have different bio-chemistry. And very few researchers have considered
            using genetically similar clines in their research, a rather obvious and simple
            to understand (BIO 101) variable that could easily be isolated. Then I realize
            that science relies on isolating independent variables to effect the dependent
            variables. I know that our ability to isolate independent variables is
            very limited currently in a multi-faceted complex system such as the human
            body. Based off the current limitations of science I realized dependence
            on a system that sucks at isolating independent variables is a system that will
            not give very good information in a complex multi-faceted system. Then I
            realize that there may be many things hidden in this system that would not come
            to light and could easily be washed over for profit. So yes after years
            and years of lying, falsities and fake science, which only after the
            preponderance of evidence which could not be ignored brought to light lead,
            tobacco, PCBs, Dioxin, DET, etc. I have found that most of you believe you know
            far more then u actually know. I don't trust you; I don't believe you have any
            more interest other then your ego stroked and your bank account fattened like
            the little kids your feeding. I find you all pretentious, ignorant,
            self-inflated, and most of you have hurt egos from being little nerds growing
            up. Good way to get back at the bully, huh? Poison his kids.
            Lol. I live in a pathetic world full of idiots who can't see the
            obvious no matter how clear. Why? Cause everyone else is doing it.
            Cause I feel good in my little group. Cause I'm edumacated and my edumacation
            was modeled after the Prussian school system, which rewards memorizers and
            punishes out of the box thinkers. Yes you're the memorizers. You
            did a good job.

        • Canadian_Skeptic

          Daniel, maybe you should learn what an ad hominem fallacy actually is. Pointing out that someone lacks the expertise to back his or her claims is NOT an ad hominem fallacy. If I go to a garage to get my car fixed and am told a carpenter is going to do the work, I am logically justified to protest and take my business elsewhere. However, according to your line of thinking, this would be fallacious of me.

          • Daniel Ros

            An ad hominem is attacking the person rather then the argument. Its pretty simple. Not much more to it then that. Its not generally used by educated people in a setting of debate. Well at least people who know logic and those types of common sense things.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Daniel, pointing out that someone lacks expertise is not a personal attack. It’s a factual statement.

          • Daniel Ros

            Funny I didn’t know that people couldn’t become educated outside of their piece of paper of anointment lol. I guess thats why its called a FALLACY. But don’t bug me about it. There are lots of people with impressive papers that taught this to me. You can start a crusade for all I care. Skeptic my a@@ lol. Maybe you should start by overthrowing the logic textbooks. Let me know how far you go Mr. Skeptic.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            Daniel, education and expertise come from training, study and experience. This is often represented in the form of a fancy piece of paper, but the piece of paper itself means nothing. Otherwise, ordering a degree from an online diploma mill would make anyone an expert. Recognizing this fact does not mean one is committing a fallacy. I’m not sure why you’re getting so belligerent about this.

  • Jonikay

    I am a farm wife, we live right in the middle of farm country~its as rural as it gets~the nearest town to us has a population of 230. The main industry here is agriculture. We crop 7,500 acres. We use roundup and all sorts of chemicals to support our crops. We use them responsibly and with great care. In thinking about this whole autism thing I racked my brain trying to come up with a family in our area with an autistic child, and I come up empty~there are none that I can recall…. My husband and I have 5 children, none of them are autistic. It’s becoming increasingly tiresome having to defend what we do for a living. Reading so much misinformation on the internet makes me wonder if the information highway is a help or a hinderance? You have to use common sense. I feel for parents with autistic children and I hope they do figure out what causes autism, I hope a cure is found for cancer, and all the other illness and disease that we struggle with! The finger pointing and rash comments only make things worse for everyone.

    • sciguybm

      Ohhhhhh, and what about gender-bending? How’s the cancer rate in your part of the rural nation? If you tell me where that part of the nation is I’ll give you the stats but rest assure over 80% of your neighbors die of cancer. You will too. And those 5 children; immune diseases? Allergies? Asthma? My guess is that at least 3 will be gay. Just a guess based on what endocrine disruptors do to children.
      Nah, defend your toxic lifestyle because it profits you….not buying it.

      • Jonikay

        Cancer has been around far longer than chemicals have been used in our country. 80% is outlandish~we live in a rural area we have few neighbors. It’s not like living in a city. My husband had bad allergies as a child~he’s 61 years old so his allergy problems as a child couldn’t possibly be linked to chemicals used in farm practices, because they were not used back then. All but one of our children are adults and married. You can keep your statistics that prove you don’t have a clue. Do you profit from what you do for a living? I’m guessing you do.

        • sciguybm

          From what I do as a living? Oh, you mean the cancer clinical trials I run and self-fund helping those with incurable hormonal cancers find some relief from the chemicals of death you & your rural buddies spray on everything we eat, drink and breathe? The ones that save you, what, $7 and acre using?
          I get it: you are addicted to your paycheck. Got it.
          I have learned one thing in life that is undeniable: I can teach a dog not to do wrong but humans, once they justify their evil, are beyond consciousness and reality. Everything goes, even murder.
          So; rock on Jonikay. Spend every waking hour hoping your humanism atheist beliefs are true true true. Cause if not, I’ll be one of those millions in that line at your Judgment Day.

          • Jonikay

            Wow you are nasty little person! Good luck to you~I won’t be wasting time here with you anymore.

          • sciguybm

            No no, don’t think a thing of it…..which I’m sure you wouldn’t. The wasted time was all mine.

          • Jonikay

            I feel for you, being such a broken person that you had to lash out at me like that. I was only trying to make a point that we all need to have an income. If you read what I said I didn’t ask what you did for a living. We all need an income. And farm folks aren’t monsters. We are trying to feed people. You know that anger is harmful to your health, so is stress. In fact many believe its the most harmful aspect related to health. Might be worth it for you to look into some anger and stress management before you end up sick too! And as far as judgement day goes~I don’t think we are going to be lined up so others get the chance to judge us like you imagine~it’s going to be between each of us and God. Good luck on your chosen day :)

          • sciguybm

            “Feeding people” GMOs, toxic chemicals and then demanding that the rest of us never have access to the information, ie GMO labeling?
            Nah, not buying your song & dance sister; I am of the newer belief that most farmers today are criminals who need to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity. I was an Ag consultant for over 31 years, exactly why I started trying to fix the problems you create. Farmers are only interested in feeding their wallets.
            The 1950s growers who cared about their crops are gone, all dead. I can walk onto your farm tomorrow and find every little ditty you do that a) is probably illegal (off labels) and b) ignores human health concerns. Like atrazine…use it? I’m sure. Listed as a KNOWN endocrine disruptor by EPA? Yup. Still using it are you? Yup. Tens of millions of TONS every year just here in USA.
            I spent 25 years being Mr Nice Guy, no more. Time to treat those who ignore the damage they do EXACTLY like they treat us; the innocent who consume your products.
            Go exclaim your innocence elsewhere, I know your number.

          • Jonikay

            We are not doing anything illegal~come read labels by all means. I’ve been reading about some very intelligent scientists and activists who are the complete opposite of you~they were against GMOs and current farm practices and are now spending their time trying to educate people and see they were on the wrong track.

            How do you propose to fix things? How do you intend to feed the world? You seem to know how wrong the farming and scientific community are~lets hear some solutions from you! We all are aware that we need to find ways to cut down and stop chemical use. In fact we use less chemicals all the time. We owe that to GMO’s and hybrid crops that are available now. We also know that we have to grow enough to feed more people as the population grows. You are cynical about farmers in general~obviously you’ve dealt with some who are only interested in money. That doesn’t mean all of us are the same.
            If you really wanted to make a difference and find solutions you would learn to work with people instead of against them. Temper tantrums tend to turn people off. I dare you~ do something productive! Stop whining and be a problem solver!

          • sciguybm

            Again, you mean other than paying for and running our own clinical trials? Trials that are not about some drug we can patent or new technique: purely nutritional compounds giving the cancer victims some hope that they can actually help themselves?
            And again, cancer trials due to the increase in hormonal cancers that (I am sure you will say “coincidence) started increasing with the advent of GMO related endocrine disruptor chemicals???
            To be sure; I have worked with growers across North, Central & into South America. Now mostly EU growers who have some intelligence and conscious. USA? Arrogant, egotistical & greedy are the only words I can say. Offer an alternative chemical to their “favorites” and nope, even if its a few cents more, nope. Compared to EU, Asian & even South American growers USA farmers use tens of millions of TONS more herbicides. And ignore it all you want: endocrine disruptors mean breast, uterine,. ovarian and prostate cancer. It means gender-bending and fertility problems.
            So I AM making a difference. And I’m too old to coddle any longer those who I lump with thieves & murderers.
            Finally; I’m sick to death of the GMO shills crying “feed the world, feed the children” …. I worked with growers in virtually every crop in every country….feed the world? We throw away 1/2 of what we grow. If we used better fertilizers you could double your yields. Oh but Nooooooooo: $200/acre for herbicides but no more than $57 acre for crappy nitrates and ammonia which, Whoa!, lead to even more health problems.
            This isn’t a temper tantrum; its reality check.

          • Jonikay

            EVERYTHING in excess becomes poisonous~too much medication, too much sugar, too much food, too much alcohol. Anger in excess is poison to the system. Sorrow and sadness become like poison in the body.

            In order to continue to feed the world, agriculture will continue to use chemicals to some degree, balance is important. Honestly I think the farming community does a better job of trying to find a balance than areas where large populations reside. The farmers I know attend classes during the winter months to learn chemical applications and regulations. And I do know the farmers here are required to do this. The ag departments won’t sell chemicals to farmers who don’t certify. Where chemicals are sold they have an agronomist to help the farmers too. We don’t just go buy a truck load of chemicals and haphazardly spray them everywhere. We try to do the best we can and I say that in all honesty. Attacking me is solving nothing, you end up looking like a moron.

            There needs to be more balance in large communities where people are putting chemicals on their yards etc~that list is long. There is a big need to change things in cities.

          • hyperzombie

            We don’t just go buy a truck load of chemicals and haphazardly spray them everywhere.

            They think farmers use chemicals like these guys use gasoline. Start at 0:50 sec

          • Jonikay

            Ha! Thanks for the laugh! No we sure don’t do that though!

          • hyperzombie

            No we sure don’t do that though!

            Not even any dancing???

          • Jonikay

            ummm okay we do dance, I’ll admit to the dancing :)

          • hyperzombie

            :)

          • sciguybm

            That’s a joke right? Because I’ve seen, with my own eyes, growers who spray, spray again, spray again because they have resistant weeds (resistant to the damn chemical they are spraying!!) and yet when you offer advice that a new rotational crop might be in order they curse you like a dog.
            Yeah, you need to be a certified to buy those chemicals: but NO ONE matches the amounts you buy with the crop OR acres you use them on NO one!
            All those peanut allergies? Cotton chemical allergies….because the labels say 12-18 months until food crops and the growers take that to mean “next year”….which is 6 months later. Where are all those state agronomists then? I’m talking a million acres of this bs from Virginia to Texas.
            Nah, either you are totally naïve or just not in the loop.

          • Jonikay

            I can’t speak for people in the lower states. I have no idea what they do~I’m only telling you what happens in the frozen north. We do rotate our crops and we do care about the land, the people and even people like you. I’m guessing your clinical trials are never going to be accepted anywhere because you are doing your own thing and experimenting with peoples lives using things that aren’t ever going to cure them. Nice of you to want to help them though. You use words like million and tons too much. Facts would be easier to accept~maybe find some facts rather than rely on your memory of a job you obviously hated.

          • sciguybm

            2 crops aren’t a rotation.
            Our trials are indeed unnoticed here in the USA. However, in the EU and Asia we are quite busy.
            That’s the twin towers of human abuse; chemical & pharmaceutical industries. Nice little 1-2 punch they’ve got there;
            Ag Chemical: “Hey, big pharma: don’t blow it for us and we’ll get you millions of new patients EACH YEAR. The payback to you is about $750,000 PER PATIENT! Deal?”
            Big Pharma: “Great! No, we’ll not finger you for the cancers…Wow, this is great. And if we don’t cure cancer it’s a golden-goose!”

          • Jonikay

            We grow 3 sometimes 4 different crops. So that is a rotation :) Wheat, soybeans, ryegrass and some years we have sunflowers.

            Yes the world and it’s evil scientists! Like in the cartoons perhaps??

          • sciguybm

            Well, good for you. In Alberta are we?
            Science = good
            Corporate Science = evil
            However that is random analysis…your results may vary.

          • Jonikay

            Nope, Northern Minnesota~pretty close to Canada though~we live an hour from the border.

            Good and bad reside in all things~even the world of organic living. The blame game has a really twisted side too when you become so blind you can’t see this.

          • sciguybm

            Just to be clear: I am not an organanut. But I am a scientist. Endocrine disruptors are real, the scientific evidence is real and the lobbying by the GMO companies to stop any and all work to “out” their deceptions are real.
            The info on the EPA & FDA approval & review boards being staffed by full-time GMO company employees is real. And horrific. People like you point to those labels and use them as shields thinking they are legitimate. They are not. I was associated with the GMO industry back in the early 90s… you do not know better than I.
            I also see all too well what they have wrought to the suffering and deaths of women & men across the USA. You may well chose to ignore the science but our clinical trials live it everyday.
            The growers have become addicted to the ease of chemical farming: safety and “science” have nothing to do with it.

          • Jonikay

            IF you were a scientist I highly doubt this type of “conversation” would be of interest to you. You exaggerate, you treat people badly. If you are who you say you are you would be presenting facts. I think you are addicted to yourself.

          • Jonikay

            EVERYTHING in excess becomes poisonous~too much medication, too much sugar, too much food, too much alcohol. Anger in excess is poison to the system. Sorrow and sadness become like poison in the body.

            In order to continue to feed the world, agriculture will continue to use chemicals to some degree, balance is important. Honestly I think the farming community does a better job of trying to find a balance than areas where large populations reside. The farmers I know attend classes during the winter months to learn chemical applications and regulations. And I do know the farmers here are required to do this. The ag departments won’t sell chemicals to farmers who don’t certify. Where chemicals are sold they have an agronomist to help the farmers too. We don’t just go buy a truck load of chemicals and haphazardly spray them everywhere. We try to do the best we can and I say that in all honesty. Attacking me is solving nothing, you end up looking like a moron.

            There needs to be more balance in large communities where people are putting chemicals on their yards etc~that list is long. There is a big need to change things in cities.

          • hyperzombie

            Tens of millions of TONS every year just here in USA.

            The US only uses about 70 million pounds, not tons. And its use is trending down.
            Why do you folks always exaggerate so much?

          • sciguybm

            EPA says differently: “Pesticide use in agriculture is down slightly, from 948 million
            pounds in 2000 to 877 million pounds in 2007. But that’s only about 1%
            per year, and still close to a billion pounds of toxic chemicals
            intentionally introduced into the environment and our food supply each
            year.”
            Last I check a billion pounds is over 70 million…. no?

          • hyperzombie

            It is still under a million tons. Jeepers you People are so poor at math…

          • roninjje

            wow, you really are a douche bag

          • sciguybm

            better than being a murderer…..

          • Daniel Ros

            No you are

          • NoToGMOs

            Thank you for speaking out.

          • sciguybm

            WHAT???? You’re not going to curse me like a dog for calling GMOs toxins of death??
            Huh. Well. That made my day.

          • NoToGMOs

            :-)

          • cancer jill

            somehow you have time for this. more likely you’re some fat p.o.s. living at your parents house chewing an organic candy bar.
            p.s. cancer is fun and people enjoy dying from it.

          • sciguybm

            glad you like the idea of cancer…… call me when you get yours.

      • Jonikay

        Gender bending? Holy cow you are grasping! LOL Most of the people who have cancer that I know were smokers. 80% is too high for this area~we live in a very rural area~ I know that’s hard for you to comprehend, however try to imagine living on a farm surrounded by fields and your nearest neighbor is 1/2 a mile away….the nearest town has about 230 people. 80% would be pretty outlandish~and is. Our 5 children have no food allergies, one is allergic to pet hair. My husband had severe allergies from the time he was an infant. He is 61 years old so there were no chemicals used on his family farm back in those days. Oh and my children are older~except one who is 11. The older ones are married or in relationships with the opposite sex~not that matters because I’d love em and accept them no matter what. Do you profit from your occupation? I’m guessing you bring home a paycheck.

        • Jonikay

          One more little thing I forgot to add~my husband out grew his allergies as he grew to adulthood. We have a dog and cat in the house, no problem there! He still gets an itchy nose when he eats ham~pesty preservatives! And he does most of the chemical handling and spraying on our farm.

        • rc

          I’m 57 and my dad used chemicals on our family farm. Spray plane would go overhead & spray herbicides/pesticides; the wheat seed was treated, etc. I also know a few men who worked for the fertilizer (read: chemical) company and who all got cancer YOUNG, like about 30 yrs old.

          • Jonikay

            It’s so awful when cancer strikes. I”m sorry to hear people getting it no matter what age they are. When I was in my 20’s we used a small sprayer and my sister and law and I flagged for my brother in law. What that amounted to was standing out in the field like a fence post for him while he sprayed. We walked in the newly sprayed fields. This was back in the 90’s when more chemicals were used. None of us got cancer. And I’m not making light of cancer, I’m just stating how it was for us. I’ve read that everyone has cells prone to cancer in their bodies many factors have to line up for cancer to “happen” and environment, eating habits and stress all play a part in developing cancer. Stress is a huge problem for the farm community. I always wonder if people don’t shrug that off too much~I know my husband has huge levels of stress! I try to keep things on an even keel as much as I can and I am his sounding board when he needs to vent. However I think it all comes into play~how well we eat is huge too. I make an effort to cook healthy meals for our crew. I bring food to my husband and his hired men during the busy season, for us in the frozen north we work hard from May-November. We have great respect for chemicals and are very careful. More careful now than we were in our younger years. I don’t have all of the answers. I really think the whole food processing industry needs to clean up their act too. Processed foods are terribly unhealthy. Taking the time to cook at home rather than eating out is so much better for us.

        • http://amoebadick.blogspot.co.uk Flatulentia Buttox

          I think you dealt with that weirdo with a great deal more dignity than I could have mustered.

      • Canadian_Skeptic

        “Ohhhhhh, and what about gender-bending?”
        >>My goodness. You’re a whole new kind of stupid.

        • sciguybm

          seriously?
          well what I’ve learned from morons like you is that you can teach a dog not to do wrong but humans are vile foul creatures that will stop at nothing to justify their actions.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            “humans are vile foul creatures that will stop at nothing to justify their actions”
            >>How ironic. You just perfectly described your own comments. You’re an example of ignorance inbred with arrogance.

          • roninjje

            yeah, I think you are stupid too. there are more cases of cancer because we live longer, heart disease and diabetes can be managed better, but eventually cells break down and don’t recover, mutate and viola cancer. I say all the farmers stop producing and watch you idiots die of starvation…

          • sciguybm

            “live longer?” hahahahahahahaha that’s rich. I suppose somehow you can also relate that to the lower of the incidence age of cancers? You know, median age of cancers? Going down every year…because younger and younger are getting cancer.
            Love it. Keep shoving it in your mouth….

          • hyperzombie

            Wow you are just crazy……seek medical help

          • Daniel Ros

            Damn you are killing these quacks lol. Love it!!!

          • sciguybm

            The problem is that these “quacks” vote. And equally amusing: I’ll bet most of them shop organic. Grow/produce/support GMO crops: buy organic.
            On LinkedIn, the Monsanto, GMO, ag chemical paid bloggers are so fierce and numerous that one cannot have a discussion about GMO impact without them dominating the thread. It is the perfect solution for preventing those with common information to get it across to each other. Sick. And sad.

      • AndRebecca

        Suffer from autism, do you?

        • sciguybm

          I suffer from watching the evil humans have been doing to each another for the last 30 years with no hope they get smarter and compassionate.
          Go have your breast/ovarian/uterine cancer, compliments of your GMO buddies, and suffer. Don’t forget to blame “God” for it.

          • AndRebecca

            Sounds like you are suffering from something. Stay away from the adult beverages or illicit drugs or whatever it is causing your problem. It ain’t GMOs, buddy.

      • http://amoebadick.blogspot.co.uk Flatulentia Buttox

        Wow! Genuine internet space cadet.

    • jude

      is the chemical you use on the field from Monsanto. is it the round up kind. that is the one I am consernced about, not just any chemical.

      • jude

        are you eating the crops you plant? what is your crop anyway? and why do you have to use round up? just a choice or are you contracted?
        they should do generational studies on you guys to find out why you are not being effected by the poisons. it is interesting.

      • Jonikay

        Look, you need to be aware of all of the misconceptions out there about chemical use in farming practices.

        http://www.askthefarmers.com/wheat-farmers-response-to-toxic-wheat/

        This is one article worth reading if you are concerned about round-up. So many bloggers and journalists, and others don’t bother to check sources and they misquote very often. Many of them are not even qualified to be writing about farm practices or chemical use.

        Man has harnessed electricity and use it responsibly~if we don’t it kills us. Radio active material is used to treat cancer and to produce electricity~it can kill us if we are careless. Anything used irresponsibly can cause harm~over eating can kill you!!! Farmers do really work at being responsible. Stop reading garbage that is harmful to your mental heath!

  • Rick

    your statement
    So rather than listening to the advice of Mercola, Seneff or Jeffery Smith, consult your pediatrician or GP and have them address any concerns that you may have about your family’s diet.

    The average nutritional study hours accross the board for doctors is in the 20 hour range.
    Those holistic Dr’s you reference have devoted their lives to the study of nutrition.

    How can I take the rest of your article serious?

    • BioChicaGMO

      Smith is not a doctor. He attended the Maharashi school of management. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_M._Smith

      Seneff is a computer scientist. I’m pretty sure that her program would have had zero hours of nutritional study hours.

      Dr Mercola’s advice is so off base that he’s received several warnings from the FDA. http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html

      • Daniel Ros

        Haven’t u ever head of the ad hominem fallacy? Grow up

        • Loren Eaton

          This is not. of course, a personal attack or fallacy. BioChica is pointing out that Rick’s claim that these people have the qualifications to “educate” us on these matters is in fact the fallacy. I would go so far as to state that these three are a pretty good example of the Dunning Kruger effect. Look up that one.
          And you accusing anyone on this board of an ad hominem attack is the pot calling the kettle black.

          • Daniel Ros

            Name the point in time I made the ad hominem mistake? Name one.

          • Daniel Ros

            Lol love the Dunning Kruger Effect. Have you ever heard of the Socrates Effect? Its goes like this: Educated people think they know more then they actually know.
            I guess it should just be called the ego effect. Maybe a human trait? Looks like your a victim.

        • jpenge

          This is the most ironic post I have ever read.

          • Guest

            At what time did I attack a person over their assertions? That is what an ad hominem is. Did I ever say, such and such is not qualified so I won’t listen to them? Go google ad hominem.

          • Daniel Ros

            My post on the ad hominem did not automatically imply my support of the original statement. I did make a mistake of looking over the original post.

    • Canadian_Skeptic

      Seneff is a computer scientist. Jeffery Smith is not a doctor of anything. And Mercola might as well burn his MD given the pure quackery he’s been called out on.

  • Zeph

    Thanks for the article Layla.

    Looks like a good summary of the limited science to date on the subject, and you make your points well.

    Please don’t let the rancor of some comments push you into being polarized in return (not that you necessarily would, but being attacked can push humans into reaction sometimes) – there are ignorant people on all sides of many issues and they tend to be the most outspoken in many internet forums. Know that some people read your article with an open mind.

    I think many people are overwhelmed by modern life, and feel disempowered and confused and angry – and are looking for some simple narratives that make sense of things and help them feel more in control – or at least know who has the white hats and black hats. When combined with a sometimes justified cynicism about corporate motives and ethics, it becomes easy to throw out science too. At some level I feel sympathy for people – the world’s more complex than I can keep track of too. And at some level I fear for our future as more people choose to believe whatever is most satisfying to believe and get better at ignoring evidence and discounting anybody who does take the time to delve deeper (like a scientist) – unless said authority agrees with them.

    Anyway, thanks again for your contribution.

    • BioChicaGMO

      I appreciate the comment. Thanks.

    • Daniel Ros

      Maybe u should care more. Then the world wouldn’t be so screwed.

  • KnowName

    I think the key statement here is….”is a Senior Scientist in Product Development at a biotech company in California.” I think looking at that statement as well as about funding cutoff (leverage and threat to excommunicate from future monies); ostracizing in the medical community for speaking out; and that Washington DC is staffed with an abnormal amount of former Monsanto activists and employees/stockholders; will not allow us to make informed decisions on GMO. The science used to show correlation is data; data that shows parallel increases in genetic disorders to increased GMO and vaccination use. Its up to credible scientists to refute (with hard data – not opinions based on how many letters after their name), not dispute. The challenge is that most of these research groups are funded by Corporations interested in turning America’s heads in another direction (for financial gain) rather than providing clear information for informed decisions.

  • segundo asensio suarez

    relativamente benigna?…señor es usted un farsante. Solo deseo que se coma usted su glifosato con sus hijos y se alimenten de sus aberraciones…no es valadi lo que esta tratando. es muy hipocrita de su parte como doctorado genetica decir semejante estupidez

  • segundo asensio suarez

    laila…no se como no se muere de verguenza…como es posible que una persona dedicada al estudio sea tan sumamente descerebrada

  • sciguybm

    Sheer utter nonsense pandering at the chemical companies. Layla is a moron at best, a criminal co-conspirator at worst. For a molecular biologist to make such statements is not just absurd it is ridiculous.
    It fits right in with the tobacco companies claims that cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer.
    1st: we have known about autism since the 1930s. Period. Not another word.
    2nd: Ms Molecular biologist doesn’t seem to understand the words “endocrine disruptor” how convenient.
    3rd; oh and she apparently also has no conception of what “transgenes” mean either. Sweet!
    Finally: The GMO & chemical companies shunt billions, yes I said billions, of dollars into virtually every university and research facility in North America….even Canada. The loss of those monies, as the federal government, since reagan, has cut back monies to universities & colleges, would be devastating. Her notion that “…very few scientists who wouldn’t give their life savings and the naming
    rights for their first born for the opportunity to identify an
    environmental cause for autism…”
    is just not true. As a researcher & college associated teacher I know full well that the universities have indeed been paid off. This is a LIE on her part.
    Which then makes me conclude that she IS aware of all the things above I have noted and is just a liar; a shill for the chemical companies.
    The notion that “research doesn’t exist therefore it is not there to be found” is equally a fraudulent statement. The research IS there; she, ms “doesn’t understand endocrine disruptors or transgenes” just doesn’t like it.
    Well Missy; here’s a hint: if the GM transgenes can make parallel jumps into other bacteria……
    Moron.

  • Loren Eaton

    “As a researcher & college associated teacher I know full well that the universities have indeed been paid off.”

    Lets see that data. Oh, and it is pretty bad form to accuse someone of being a crook with no proof (Jon???)…especially from a “researcher & college associated teacher”.
    I’ve been working with transgenes and plants for 25 years, so instead of being condescending with “Missy”, why don’t you bounce your elevated level of knowledge off of me…I’ll do you a solid and fact check you till get it.

    • sciguybm

      Yes, I’ll go straight to the Prosser’s office and get a list of grants and donations. Check back.

      Sister: if you don’t know what transgenes are by now, your working with them as a GMO designer for 25 years, you ain’t gonna get it now.

      But here: let’s hear the excuses you have for this one:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1364539/

      • Loren Eaton

        First, I’m a dude.
        Second, I’ve made products with transgenes, I’m well aware of what they are. Have YOU ever worked with them…or do you just read papers?
        Third, a grant is a payoff??
        Fourth, many bacteria swap DNA quite readily, what’s your point.

        • sciguybm

          “a grant is a payoff??” A grant from any corporation is, indeed, a payoff. A grant from any sector where the funding is corporate aligned is, indeed, a payoff.
          I get it: you are addicted to your paycheck. Got it.
          I have learned one thing in life that is undeniable: I can teach a dog not to do wrong but humans, once they justify their evil, are beyond consciousness and reality. Everything goes, even murder.
          So; rock on Loren the dude. Spend every waking hour hoping your humanism atheist beliefs are true true true. Cause if not, I’ll be one of those millions in that line at your Judgment Day.

      • Canadian_Skeptic

        If horizontal gene transfer were such a risk, then we’d be at risk every time we ate food. The very fact we can eat fermented and pro-biotic foods kind of speaks against this notion that microbial genes pose a threat to our health.

        • sciguybm

          so then, according to your obviously advanced biological education and expertise, horizontal transfer does not occur?
          Love morons like you…… you make it easy.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            “Morons” like me understand how logic and evidence work. Is there any evidence of horizontal gene transfer occurring in human cells from plant ingested material?

            I am inclined to go with the default position of disbelief (i.e. that it isn’t happening) until someone can present positive evidence demonstrating that it is.

            Do you think horizontal gene transfer occurs frequently between ingested organic material and human cells? If so, why do you believe this to be the case?

            Here’s a tip, when you think you find something “easy” about science, stop. There’s a really good chance you’ve just made a mistake. Science is anything but easy.

          • sciguybm

            Here, chew on these Canadian:

            Freese W, Schubert D. Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev. 2004:299-324.

            Pusztai A, Bardocz S. GMO in animal nutrition: Potential benefits and risks. In: Mosenthin R, Zentek J, Zebrowska T, eds. Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals.Vol 4. Elsevier Limited; 2006:513–540. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877182309701043.

            Netherwood T, Martin-Orue SM, O’Donnell AG, et al. Assessing the
            survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nat Biotechnol. 2004;22:204–209. doi:10.1038/nbt934.

            Heritage J. The fate of transgenes in the human gut. Nat Biotechnol. 2004;22:170-2. doi:10.1038/nbt0204-170.

            Yum HY, Lee SY, Lee KE, Sohn MH, Kim KE. Genetically modified and wild soybeans: an immunologic comparison. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2005;26:210-6.

            Nordlee JA, Taylor SL, Townsend JA, Thomas LA, Bush RK. Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:688-92. doi:10.1056/NEJM199603143341103.

            Aris A, Leblanc S. Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides
            associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec,
            Canada. Reprod Toxicol. 2011;31.

            Goldstein DA, Dubelman S, Grothaus D, G. Hammond BG. Comment: Aris
            and Leblanc “Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to
            genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.” Reprod Toxicol. 2012;33:120-121.

            Aris A. Response to comments from Monsanto scientists on our study
            showing detection of glyphosate and Cry1Ab in blood of women with and
            without pregnancy. Reprod Toxicol. 2012;33:122-123.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            I had a look at each of the sources you indicated. I’ll address them in order.

            1) Horizontal gene transfer is never even mentioned in this source.

            2) Unfortunately, I don’t have access to this book chapter. It appears to be a bit dated though, even though it’s from 2006. Here’s a more recent paper that reviewed long-term safety studies in animals (the same subject this book chapter discussed).

            Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399

            Conclusion: “The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.”

            3) This paper actually contradicts your claims, leading me to suspect you either didn’t read it or more likely, didn’t understand it. From the abstract: “we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment”. The trace levels of epsps DNA were found in intestinal microflora (i.e. bacteria) at very low levels (1-3 copies per million cells). But importantly, there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE of transfer to human cells. You understand the difference between bacteria in your gut and your cells, right? And even more importantly, transgenic DNA was completely degraded after passage through the colon in healthy volunteers in this study.

            4) This is simply a review of #3. It’s important to note that the work presented in #3 looked at a specific sequence known to be of transgene origin, but did not present any reason why transfer of plant derived transgenic DNA would be different from that of native plant DNA. This returns to my original point, that if transfer of DNA from plants to the bacteria in our gut posed any actual risk, we’d have died eons ago since we’ve been eating plants since before we were human. At best, this study suggests that antibiotic selection markers (i.e. antibiotic resistance genes) used in GMOs should be removed prior to final commercialization. That’s a position I happily agree with and think is simply a precautious, prudent measure to take.

            5) Not sure what you’re hoping to demonstrate with this reference. If anything, the results show that people are less likely to have an allergic reaction to GM soybeans than wild soybeans. From the abstract: “The skin test results of 49 patients showed 13 positive results to wild soybeans and 8 positive results to GMO soybeans.” But regardless, this has nothing to do with horizontal gene transfer.

            6) Again, nothing to do with horizontal gene transfer. But I’ll address this anyway. This is a very specific example and has no bearing on GMOs in general as the transgene is for a known allergen. Therefore it is of no surprise that the transgenic soybeans produced an allergic response in people allergic to Brazil nuts. This is an obvious case where screening prior to commercialization is both necessary and effective (note: this transgenic soybean is NOT commercially available for this very reason).

            7) I’ve seen this study before. The methodology is flawed and I am frankly surprised that it passed peer-review. I’ll only speak to the Cry1Ab data as this is the only part of the paper that is relevant to GMOs (the rest deals with chemical pesticides). First, the kit used to test the contraction of Cry1Ab in human blood was not designed for that. It was designed to test for Cry1Ab in plant tissue samples, which have a very different matrix than human blood. This is a gross error. Second, the concentration value claimed for Cry1Ab in materal blood is at the limit of detection (based on the standard curve used for the assay), whereas the value for fetal cord blood is BELOW the limit of detection, which means it is effectively zero. These are rookie mistakes and suggest to me that the people conducting the experiments were not familiar with the techniques they were attempting to employ.

            8-9) Refers to #7, which I just addressed.

            I suggest you spend more time actually reading these sources instead of blindly citing them. Nothing you presented supports your claim about horizontal gene transfer between plant DNA into human cells.

          • Daniel Ros

            But your belief that all these chemicals are NOT having an effect is…skepticism? Logic? You don’t have the first clue of logic. You’re a priest in the religion of pseudoscience. You an apologist for the very people who lack logical skepticism. I’m a true skeptic because I don’t believe the methods of scientific inquiry give us enough information to justify spraying these toxins on the foods that go in our babies mouths. You’re paper thin.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            What “chemicals” are you talking about? The discussion you’re jumping into was about the claim of horizontal gene transfer from plants to humans cells. You seem to have just gone on some sort of tangent about chemicals being sprayed into babies’ mouths??? I’m starting to think you just want to rant and aren’t interested in actually trying to learn anything.

          • rick

            I’ll second Canadian Skeptic’s reply to you. You were so off topic, your comment completely irrelevant to the exchange Canadian Skeptic was engaged in with sciguybm.

            The discussion was about the likelihood that horizontal gene transfer could occur from ingestion of food. In other words, when you eat a food, say a tomato, you are ingesting DNA that exists in the tomato cells. Sciguybm was advancing the concept that genetic sequences from say that tomato could survive intact through your digestive system, enter your bloodstream, be distributed to cells in your body, be incorporated into your cell DNA and start functioning the way they do in the plant. For example, tomatoes (and potatoes) contain genetic information that codes for producing solanine, a very toxic substance (I invite you to look it up solanine on Wikopedia) that is probably part of the plant’s natural defense , and with every bite of any tomato, it could be an heirloom, organically raised tomato, you ingest a certain amount a solanine. With every bite, you also ingest tomato DNA that incudes the genetic code that instructs cells to produce solanine. Do we worry that if you eat a tomato that that particular gene will get embedded in your body’s cells DNA instructing them to start making solanine? No, and thank god because if that happened, that eating a tomato could turn cells in your body into solinine producting factories, would kill us.

            Sciguybm repeats an often stated fear that somehow a sequence of DNA inserted via genetic engineering somehow behaves differently than any other DNA we ingest and somehow, survives degradation in the stomach, avoids barriers throughout the body and successfully embeds itself in our cells and starts functioning in our cells. I agree with Canadian Skeptic that there is little, if any compelling evidence that horizontal transfer of DNA through food can and does occur, or that transgenic DNA is any more likely to remain intact and functional after ingestion.

            I agree with Canadian Skeptic, horizontal gene transfer through ingestion of food is at best, a very speculative proposition. I also agree with Canadian Skeptic that the papers sciguybm offered up as supporting that proposition are hardly compelling.

  • First Officer

    The SAS. SHill Accusation Syndrome, is strong in this one !

  • Michael Breuker

    I hate to feed the trolls, especially the ones shouting and calling people idiots, but for everyone else interested in an intelligent conversation, I offer two complimentary pieces of information. The first is a Danish study showing that any apparent increase in autism rates are a result of changes and improvements in diagnostics, rather than an increase in actual rates of autism. http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1919642. In the US, just look at the changes between the DSM III and DSM V and an increase in diagnosis rates would become evident. But only someone with an agenda would completely fail to factor for this (such as Dr. Stephanie Seneff who recently claimed that 50% of children will have autism by 2025).

    The second is a study that shows that autism rates, contrary to popular belief, have not been increasing at all for the past 20 years.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/contrary-popular-perception-autism-rates-havent-increased/. And remember that more than 20 years ago, the diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder were very different.

    • BioChicaGMO

      Thanks for the links, Michael. Forbes also had a straightforward article about the study published in JAMA that some readers may find helpful: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/01/05/majority-of-autism-increase-due-to-diagnostic-changes-finds-new-study/

    • Loren Eaton

      Thanks, I have two sons. Both were ADHD and my younger one is Autism Spectrum NOS (does fine in school, not a big deal). I’m wondering, as with ADHD, how much of this perceived increase is flat out misdiagnosis. Like when they used to label everyone bipolar.

      • Michael Breuker

        That’s an excellent question, Loren. I’ve been a long time scientific skeptic – which means I am open-minded about just about anything. One thing I have found over the years is that people with agendas (usually politicians, lawyers, health advocates, etc.) love to point to charts showing increases or decreases in whatever thing they are fighting for/against, and almost never adjust their data for changes in diagnostic practices. One example I have is when my wife and I were researching co-sleeping for our new baby. She wanted to do it because it would make breastfeeding easier and felt there were other benefits, and I was concerned because SIDS and suffocation risks. The generally accepted advice now, due to advocates pushing for this, is to leave a baby alone (no blanket), on their back, in a crib. There is even an A-B-C (alone, back, crib) acronym for it and advocates are even pushing for public policy to enforce this, showing that since parents have started doing this (thanks to public health recommendations), there has been a dramatic decrease in SIDS-related deaths. At the urging of my wife, I did further research, and found that over the same period of time quoted by advocates of this, the number of infant deaths overall did not decline significantly. The number of SIDS deaths declined, but at the same time, the number of deaths due to other causes increased. The issue is that SIDS is a generic “catch-all” diagnosis to describe when a baby suddenly stops breathing and there is no other known cause. As post-mortem diagnostics have improved, the actual causes of infant deaths are being labeled, thus reducing SIDS. (by the way, this is just an example and, by no means am I trying to derail this thread by advocating co-sleeping or anything else).

        I now have three children and my oldest has some ADHD and autism-like symptoms, though multiple experts have ruled out both. I know a lot about what he does NOT have, but nothing about what he DOES have. The only thing we do know is that anxiety is related to his issues, and its the only thing we can try to address. One of the unfortunate side-effects is that he also has an eating disorder, and its pretty severe. He won’t eat anything but a limited set of carbohydrates. We force him to drink milk and eat protein supplements just to try and get fat and protein into his system, and its painful and exhausting. I was talking to his nanny today about his eating habits and expressed that I believe if his eating habits were better, his behavior would be better. Not that his issues are caused by food, I don’t buy into that nonsense. But that doesn’t mean that an unbalanced diet doesn’t cause blood-sugar and insulin spikes that exacerbate behavioral problems. It doesn’t mean that a lack of fat and protein in the diet doesn’t impact brain development. I am certain that if we can improve his diet, while it won’t “fix” whats wrong, it will certainly help to make things better. Her response to me was to tell her own story about her food journey, and about how cutting out gluten made her life so much better.

        She then went on to tell me about how she thinks that putting GMOs in our bodies is poisoning us – and has her doctor telling her this. I normally don’t argue with people about this (except on the Internet :-)), but I decided to sit her down for a long talk. At the end of it, she said “you have really done your research on this. I had no idea. I was just listening to my doctor and doing what he told me. I will take a look at this information you have given me and rethink what he has told me.” On the one hand, it felt really good to actually change someone’s mind. On the other hand, she only believed what she believed because a doctor told her. That’s tough to fight.

        Anyway, sorry for the long post. I wish you the best with your child and hope you find what works, regardless of labels.

        • Daniel Ros

          Yeah there are no problems in our health. Our children are just as smart as they used to be and food is just for fun tasting 3x a day and doesn’t actually have any other important functions. We’re not calling u out for being a skeptic, we’re calling u out for not being SKEPTICAL ENOUGH!

          • Michael Breuker

            I can’t tell is you are being sarcastic, since our health is better and children are smarter than they used to be. Unless, perhaps, you have some solid empirical data that says otherwise. A peer-reviewed scientific study would be good.

            And I am not sure who this “we” is that you are referring to, since you are the only one making this claim against me. I think you don’t understand the definition of scientific skepticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

          • Daniel Ros

            “I can’t tell is you”

            Yes I iz not…LOL

            You’re the biggest moron
            on the planet! Healthier? By that you mean rounder? Lol.
            Can’t fix stupid. Go read Nutritional and Physical Degeneration by
            Dr. Weston A Price. Oh wait your a skeptic about photos and real science
            until your big daddy okays it?
            There was no Photoshop in the 1930s, retard, meaning those photos, which
            have been part of the public record since, are…drum roll…AUTHENTIC.
            Changing the standards on IQ testing doesn’t mean we got smarter we just
            made the test easier. You’re a moron if you think the average person
            today is SMARTER then 50 years ago.

            The video game playing,
            cocopuff eating diabetic obese American child is smarter and healthier?????

            What planet have you been
            spending your time on?

            That’s why America scores
            so high internationally huh? Skepticism goes both ways idiot. I
            know what it means. Its means you would be just as SKEPTICAL about GMOs
            and all the chemicals as you are about the concerns of those SKEPTICAL about
            them. And you think you own the term? You’re a pathetic
            small-minded fool. You’re the court jester nodding in agreement at the
            laughter at those who said the world is round. And you say you’re a skeptic????? You, a simpleton tool,
            whose ego is so shallow you seek validation for your little pea brain from
            group consensus. You’re the
            jackass of jackasses, the second wind of idiots.

            You’re the guy Socrates
            warned us about. Go play in Plato’s
            cave idiot.

          • Michael Breuker

            Thank you for catching that typo. Now I suggest you go back and take your meds. Something has you all worked up.

          • Daniel Ros

            Nice response when you’re
            made to look like an idiot in public. I wouldn’t say anything either.
            Maybe I’m worked up because of all the kids who have no quality of life,
            who have died before it was their time, who never got a chance at life so the
            orks who run your companies can drive nicer yachts. I’m the reaction of a natural human who can see right through
            your shallow pathetic thought processes. I can make you look dumb with
            the simple. Have anything to say of substance? You know maybe a
            thought out logical rebuttal to show me where I’m wrong? Oh…you don’t.
            Not surprised. I have no
            problem showing you the simple 2+2 mistakes in your supposed ‘superior’ mind.
            I can make your lack of consciousness apparent and leave you naked in the
            open for all to see. Yeah I’m worked up cause of ignorant fake apologists
            like you.

          • Daniel Ros

            Kids are smarter despite the fact that their brains are made of cocopuffs, they play video games, don’t exercise, suck on standardized tests compared to the rest of the developed world but they are getting SMARTER? Oh yes, it’s that unseen, evolutionary change which we can’t describe yet but is moving towards increased intelligence despite the fact that natural selection actually is moving towards lower intelligence. IQ testing changes has nothing to do with it? Hmmmmm…and you’re a skeptic? Lol. No your a fluoride drinker. And rather easy to make look as you are.

          • Michael Breuker

            I hear that quite often from folks who don’t understand what scientific skepticism means. Let me help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

      • Daniel Ros

        Hmmmmmm….conventional farming apologist, two sons with mental disorders that were unheard of 200 years ago. Things that make you go…Hmmmmmmm

        • Loren Eaton

          First, “mental disorders that were unheard of 200 years ago?” Care to back that up with some evidence?
          Just so you know, those two sons were special needs and adopted out of a neglectful environment. So…hmmmmm yourself.

          • Daniel Ros

            Ummmmm go read Nutritional and Physical Degeneration by Dr Weston A Price. That is a REAL scientist. And more then enough validation of the common sense behind what I’m saying. Which BTW can also be reached with simple deductive reasoning.

          • Loren Eaton

            “That is a REAL scientist.” Don’t you mean ‘was’? He’s been dead for almost 70 years. And he was a dentist….but he played a nutritionist on TV, I guess. And ANY foundation advocating non pasteurized milk should be tarred and feathered.

        • rick

          What a cheap shot.

          • Daniel Ros

            Sorry if I’m smart enough to figure out that food is what makes ur brain. Sorry that I’m not a tool idiot that cares enough to call out idiots who can’t compute this basic fact. Sorry I study and support health rather then the yachts of executives and I what u call an actual ‘skeptic’. Let’s see nature works ur psuedoscience doesn’t. This woman is apologizing for the very destruction of children and u want me to worry about taking a cheap shot? Lol. Sorry a future child’s life is more important to me then this sick ignorant brain washed fool.

          • Loren Eaton

            Thanks for your support, Rick. But Daniel is like Forrest Gump….’stupid is as stupid does.’

  • Canadian_Skeptic

    “3rd; oh and she apparently also has no conception of what “transgenes” mean either.”
    >>What do transgenes have to do with this issue?

    • sciguybm

      if you have to ask you are either ignorant on the subject or justifying…which is it?

      • Canadian_Skeptic

        I’m am very well versed in molecular biology, and I don’t know how I can be justifying something when I’m not even clear on what you’re talking about.

        Back to my question, care to answer it?

        • sciguybm

          on transgenes or endocrine disruptors? I would think you can use Google….try alittle detective work and see what you find.
          Don’t forget to ignore anything that doesn’t agree with your point of view.
          “trans-genes” are complete snipets that can move and replicate their entire process anywhere they are inclusive.

          • Canadian_Skeptic

            “”trans-genes” are complete snipets that can move and replicate their entire process anywhere they are inclusive”
            >>That’s not even close. Transgenes are pieces of DNA inserted into an organism that are derived from a different species. This is in contrast to cis-genes, which are modified pieces of DNA inserted into a species and derived from the same species.

            Transgenes are not self-replicating. Transgenes are unable to “move” on their own accord. Their transmission, e.g. by horizontal gene transfer, is no different that that of any other DNA within an organism’s genome.

            Simply put, you’re wrong and don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • sciguybm

            Ummm not to belabor the point: snippets aren’t DNA…they are RNA. Here moron; try alittle science:

            http://wi.mit.edu/news/archive/2010/rna-snippets-control-protein-production-disabling-mrnas

            hence how they get snippets to produce bt toxins in plant gene systems…GMOs. Those aren’t DNA they move.
            Sheesh…… where did you learn your cell biology???

  • AndRebecca

    If at today’s rate one in two will be autistic in 2025…that alone should rule out a genetic link to the problem. Why haven’t any of the scientists looked at the differences in what is going on closer to home? One of the Marcuse doctors, a Doctor Carlson years ago believed an increase in autism he was seeing was due to parental neglect of the mother. We know mothers work outside of the home more today, is there a connection? Infant formulas have been changed since autism came to light, is anyone looking into that? Increased use of micro-nutrients by both mother and child could have something to do with it, anyone looking? Increased use of illicit drugs… increased use of soy formulas-a plant based food, instead an animal based (milk) products- anyone looking? The push to reduce fat in the diet, has it had a negative effect on brain development on the infant? Come on “scientists”, like those at MIT…do you work.

  • Daniel Ros

    I’m the anti-PR. This is PR pure and simple.

  • Loren Eaton

    Actually the tests have been done, over and over and over. You just don’t like the results. Since a lot of things correlate with the rise in autism, perhaps we should ban all of them, including organic food, until you can prove conclusively it is not harmful. After all, you don’t get to pick and choose which things fall under the PP. (See Michael’s post below).
    And…finally….do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Stop being a petulant child.

    • Daniel Ros

      Precautionary principle is the same thing as looking both ways before you cross the road. I know its a tough concept. Organic food? Its been the way food was grown since the beginning of time. There is no correlation between organic food and autism. Autism is most likely caused by a gut flora imbalance. Which can be influenced by what? Well lets put on our thinking caps. I hope you had your afternoon nap so you can follow along here. Well gut flora is what? A bug. Yay!!!! Clap your hands together with your fingers pulled back! You did goooood. Ok what does a pesticide kill? Bugs. Yay!!!!!! Your so smart today little Loren. So pesticides kill bugs. We have bugs that our bodies depends on. Can you make the connection yet Loren? Yay!!!! Enough thinking for today!!!! You did goooood! Yay!!!!

  • Robb Equality de Vournai

    Bad Science.

  • Robb Equality de Vournai

    This article is based on bad science, and these areas needed further exploration — not based on corporate/industry logic.

  • Canadian_Skeptic

    Um, not to sound like a broken record, but you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. There’s no such thing as a “snippet”. That’s not a scientific term that means anything. What that link you posted discusses in microRNAs which are nucleic acid molecules that place a role in RNA interference (RNAi), which is a mechanism of gene expression regulation. They’re only described as being “snippets”, i.e. short pieces, of nucleic acids. MicroRNAs, by and large, are unrelated to transgenes (exception being RNAi silencing transgene constructs used to purposefully silence endogenous genes), and microRNAs have nothing at all to do with horizontal gene transfer as microRNAs do not encode protein.

    “Snippets” DO NOT (let me repeat that, ABSOLUTELY DO NOT!) produce Bt toxins. And of course microRNAs aren’t DNA. They’re RNA. Like the name says. Do you know the difference?

    Unlike you I’ve actual taken cell biology and genetics course.

    • sciguybm

      Unlike you I TEACH cell biology, 200 level college.

      And you are missing the point of snippet…. they are the protein producing rna gene “snips” capable of producing the same proteins in any gene array.

      This is the last “snippet” from me; you obviously flunked cell and genetics:

      http://wi.mit.edu/news/archive/2009/rna-snippet-suppresses-spread-aggressive-breast-cancer

      Now, just to make sure you aren’t a blockhead ( as the Quebecois call you English Canadians) here is the part you need to reread carefully: “….MicroRNAs are single strands of RNA about 21-23 nucleotides long. Within
      a cell, a single microRNA can fine-tune the expression of dozens of
      genes simultaneously. This capability could be particularly important in
      metastasis, a multi-step process that could be influenced by a single
      microRNA at several points….”

      Get it? Come on, not too far a stretch here….because you obviously either never learned or forgot:

      “….A gene is a sequence of DNA that contains genetic information and can influence the phenotype of an organism. Within a gene, the sequence of bases along a DNA strand defines a messenger RNA sequence, which then defines one or more protein sequences. The relationship between the nucleotide sequences of genes and the amino-acid sequences of proteins is determined by the rules of translation, known collectively as the genetic code. The genetic code consists of three-letter ‘words’ called codons formed from a sequence of three nucleotides (e.g. ACT, CAG, TTT).

      In transcription, the codons of a gene are copied into messenger RNA by RNA polymerase. This RNA copy is then decoded by a ribosome that reads the RNA sequence by base-pairing the messenger RNA to transfer RNA, which carries amino acids

      ….”
      So….one more time: what did they put into the GMO plants…DNA or snippets of rna that produce selected proteins…..such as bt protein compounds?
      This is a test.
      Maybe you are confused little one because they used the term “recombinant DNA?” And you think that means DNA….?

      • Aaron

        Hello, I’ve recently been awaken about GMO’s and didn’t realize it’s been around for so long and have been interested obtaining more information about its use and effects on our body. After reading much of this thread and what you’ve said I would like to know if I can somehow get in touch with you so that I can get more knowledge from you about it. I’m not even sure if this message will get through to you but I’m hoping it will and hope you can find me on Facebook. You can find me on FB as Aaron “uno” Chang. Hope to hear from you.

        • sciguybm

          I will try. I do not “friend” people on Facebook: my Facebook is private reserved for family only. But I will try and find a way to get to you.
          Are you on LinkedIn?

  • Canadian_Skeptic

    Get your head out of your a– and maybe you’ll eventually get a clue.

  • majiandsn

    What organizations fund this site?

    There are many, many peer-reviewed scientific research papers that establish correlations between pesticide exposure and developmental disorders. Hereditary and de novo mutations and alleles may increase or decrease susceptibility to environmental insults, but to claim that autism is purely or mostly hereditary ignores the growing body of research that has found a clear link between recently acquired mutations and autism (and also de novo mutations and congenital heart diseases).

    I personally heard the director of UC Davis’ MInd Institute state that most scientists he works with see autism and PDD as largely environmentally-caused diseases.

    • BioChicaGMO

      You must have skipped reading this sentence: “Environmental risk factors that have been associated with ASD include parental age, pre- and perinatal complications (particularly respiratory distress), air pollution, maternal use of valproate and maternal exposure to pesticides, among others.”

      • majiandsn

        Round up is a known endocrine disruptor. Most pesticides and herbicides were tested for toxicity using fish exposed to high amounts of a single chemical for three days. Tests for endocrine disruption are relatively new and so we have no idea what disruptive effects stem from real world exposure and bioAccumulation of the myriad toxic chemicals in our environment.

        Our safety protocols lack ecological validity.

        I’ve read enough about round up to avoid all non organic corn and soy in cooking for my family and friends,

        The article above does not do justice to legitimate concerns being raised about a ubiquitous chemical.

        I don’t think autism is caused by chemicals exclusively. Read about bioAccumulation of strontium in the human brain and plutonium in men’s testes.

        Perhaps we will drive ourselves to extinction by degrading the human genome, epigenome. And biome while some scientists continue to deny that human biology is shaped by the health of our ecosystem.

        • Good4U

          Wrong…Roundup is a registered trademark, and as such, it cannot be an endocrine disruptor. Glyphosate, which is the active pesticidal component in Roundup branded herbicides (as well as others that are not branded Roundup), is not an endocrine disruptor. A couple of holistic clap-trap websites that want to scare their readers into buying “organic” stuff would have you believe that it is; but it isn’t.

          What do you mean by stating “And biome while some scientists continue to deny…etc.”? A biome is an ecological zone.

          Your post makes little coherent sense. The only part that seems to be of value is the part about your beliefs pertaining to autism.

  • cold340t

    I wonder, does this mean all those videos of GMO Fed rats in Eurozone Labs are fake? I mean they seem to have been carried out in very Clinical and Scientifically based Experiments. The tumor laden bodies were caused by? The reports from ACTUAL FARMERS of deformed calves and problem births is all just fantasy? The health problems of Farmers and their children in Argentina near the GMO laden farms is just a fluke? Autism, From 1 in 1000 to 1 in 88 during the last 30yrs or so years is all just coincidence. Hmmmmm, really?
    Please explain this supporters of GMO’s. Thanks.

    • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

      The rats are a breed bred to create tumors regardless of what they are fed…100% develop those tumors. The Seralini study is considered junk research and has never been replicated, but hundreds of other studies have shown no unusual issues. There are no unusual health problems among farmers or Argentinians from growing or eating GM food. There has been not one illness or health problem linked to GMOs.

      • cold340t

        So the doubling of cancer rates in farmers since the introduction of GMO’s and related pesticides is just a made up story. It’s all in their heads? You know I would like to see proof of natural crossing of fish genes and soybeans etc. Please lead me to some facts as to when this crossing of genes happened in a naturally occurring fashion. Thanks. Glyphosate it’s whats in OUR food!

      • cold340t

        I’m still waiting for a fact based response. Thought as Moderator that would occur. Guess not? And yes, those rats were bred to be susceptible to tumor/diseases. That is nothing new. However disregarding said results is new. Why are rats used in first place if they aren’t effective choices for observing affects of chemicals et al. on humans?
        In regards to Argentina, they are just mass hysteria victims? That is what you are saying , right?

        • http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ Jon Entine

          There are different strains of rats that can be used. The ones used were inappropriate for longer than 90 day studies, which among things rendered the study useless. That’s why every major independent food oversight agency in the world considered the study junk science.

    • Mary M.

      Yes… I’m here to share that deformed calves and problem births is just fantasy… or at least NOT attributable to GMOs. We have raised livestock for over 25 years. We have a 250 head purebred beef cattle operation and raise market lambs as well. Not only have these animals been raised next to and in biotech fields… They have been fed GMO grain after coming off pasture grass. Their genetics are top notch. We even have a four-star restaurant in our community buying our meat.

      • cold340t

        So I guess those that have problems are just part of a vast “mass hysteria” type syndrome? Glad YOU PERSONALLY are having success, just there are MANY WHO AREN’T! Just because your GMO experiment is going OK. you are just one. I would also assume by your complete fealty to GMO’s products and consumption that you are also on the payroll of these GMO’s producers. You clearly have a finical interest in GMO’s. I won’t be eating at any 4star Restaurant using your GMO meat products. If I see a Microwave in a 4Star restaurant I don’t go back either. Cause’ 4star restaurants DON’t GMO nor use Microwaves.

        • Mary M.

          Most people I know with health problems are urbanites with their own set of environmental and genetic/hereditary issues. GMOs are not the cause of any known problems… If they were, everyone I know would be affected in some way. But everyone I know involved in agriculture and raising genetically engineered crops for over twenty years are healthy. This includes those that are my age… It includes our children… and now it includes the grandchildren arriving. Sorry that you so fear the food around you. It really is not necessary if you simply eat wisely and exercise often.

  • Crusader

    the author is a senior scientist in product development at a biotech company in california…but is unbiased. sure.

    • BioChicaGMO

      I’ll explain again, as I have below. Biotech is a huge industry. I have no affiliation with agricultural biotech, and again, you’re free to check out my profile on LinkedIn. I work on product development in a company that only deals with human DNA.

      It’s similar to accusing an organic apple farmer of being biased towards Burger King because they’re in the “food industry”.

    • la verità e qui

      Well, you can believe either a true scientist to make scientific claims, or a website like NaturalNews which has no scientists on staff, induce hysteria and spew blatant misinformation.

  • http://mantoos.com/ Awais Irshad

    oh, you mean the bottles they wash with ammonia which offer off BPA? Those bottles? Guess what – bottled waters cause cancer, gender-bending and should be connected to autism! you are a genius!

  • Bilbo Swaggins

    lick

  • Bilbo Swaggins

    my licklicklick

  • Bilbo Swaggins

    buttocks

  • Nathan

    10000 patients genome study for autism is not powerful enough to be conclusive. The majority of children are not exposed to organic foods (considering they comprise a small amount of market sales in comparison to GMO foods). It does not mean that GMOs cause autism, environmental factors are significant in genome expression. Furthermore, the gut microbiome has over 200 years of documentation in medical literature and is still largely understood. What is understood, is that glyphosate and other herbicides and pesticides have the potential to influence/alter the microbiome and consequently, genome expression on neurobiology.

  • Peter

    We have always farmed organically simply to avoid all these issues. Being completely natural – not trying to bend nature world for us – it is the precautionary principle in action.

  • icky_ater

    no there is no evidence for this however it can cause allergies in your children. but that’s a maybe autism would be more likely caused by genetic markers for it combined with the child’s exposure to flame retardant chemical used in plastics such as diapers and mattresses.

  • Abe

    So how many here dare go into a VAMC and say it’s BS about Agent Orange? After all Uncle Sam said it was safe 30+ years after people linked it with there medical problems. That BS chart all the shills use it! Why not take it back to Raquel Welch and her animal skin thongs?