Monsanto and Autism - Half of all kids by 2025?

[Hardscrable]

I'm not even going to pretend to be smart enough to understand half of this but no way I believe it's true. Like many others, friends and family, I was working in the fields for years with direct exposure to roundup every year. That plus eating the food had to raise my exposure way past a normal persons. If any of this is true why aren't we seeing a landslide in autistic farm kids?

I totally agree. I am a retired farmer and have lived through everything from the days of zero herbicide usage to today's practices. I have seen all of the "flavor of the day" predictions and "proven" causes of _______( fill in the blank). Most are hyped to the max and then fade away. Today organic is the best and RoundUp is the devil causing autism.

I handled every "poison" on the farm for decades. Years of it with zero safety equipment, no hand washing before eating my brown bag lunch in the field, etc. I have literally 'taken a bath' in herbicides due to ruptured hoses while pumping, etc. I used RoundUp from the day it was introduced. We have eaten food "contaminated" by these things, including today's evil GMOs. All my friends and neighbors have similar stories. To the best of my knowledge we have no higher rate of cancer, autism in our children, etc. than the general public. What I have seen and personally experienced is skin cancer from years of sun exposure, lung problems from breathing dusts & molds, etc...all naturally occurring.

I do not profess to be all knowing. I am not saying that all things proclaimed are wrong. What I do know is that we are the best fed while spending the least % of income, healthiest people to ever walk the face of this planet. If we did away with evil "factory farms", GMOs, all herbicides, hybrid seeds, went back to raising all livestock as free range raised with zero modern practices, etc as we are told today would be the best, there is absolutely no way enough food could be produced to feed the population of our country or planet.

I am am not saying we do not need to study, monitor, research, investigate, etc. I am saying that I take what is reported in the media, the results of the latest study, and hyped by many people with a grain of salt.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm not even going to pretend to be smart enough to understand half of this but no way I believe it's true. Like many others, friends and family, I was working in the fields for years with direct exposure to roundup every year. That plus eating the food had to raise my exposure way past a normal persons. If any of this is true why aren't we seeing a landslide in autistic farm kids?

Why aren't we seeing a landslide in autistic farm kids? Probably because it isn't possible to get a large enough dataset in any local population, even if someone did want to do this study.

There are people who smoke 3 packs a day for their entire lives and never get lung cancer. Would you use this information to suggest that smoking cigarettes does not cause lung cancer?

I totally agree. I am a retired farmer and have lived through everything from the days of zero herbicide usage to today's practices. I have seen all of the "flavor of the day" predictions and "proven" causes of _______( fill in the blank). Most are hyped to the max and then fade away. Today organic is the best and RoundUp is the devil causing autism.

I handled every "poison" on the farm for decades. Years of it with zero safety equipment, no hand washing before eating my brown bag lunch in the field, etc. I have literally 'taken a bath' in herbicides due to ruptured hoses while pumping, etc. I used RoundUp from the day it was introduced. We have eaten food "contaminated" by these things, including today's evil GMOs. All my friends and neighbors have similar stories. To the best of my knowledge we have no higher rate of cancer, autism in our children, etc. than the general public.

See above for a response to your anecdotes.

What I do know is that we are the best fed, healthiest people to ever walk the face of this planet.

Are we? Life expectancy has peaked thanks to modern medical care, but are we actually healthier?

I could go on. We are plagued with chronic disease, both mental and physical. We spend the most money in the world on pharmaceuticals for chronic illnesses:

I submit that we are not healthy.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I submit that we < have a growing subset of the population that >are not healthy.

I agree that we are as a population "more healthy" than a generation ago, and will continue to be more healthy...although healthy has some caveats. Yes, the population has a growing demographic of morbidly obese individuals that are obese largely due to poor decisions in diet and exercise. As a result of our prosperity and free market, we have access to an endless supply of "food," much of which is not good for us. To make matters worse, much of the junk food is relatively more affordable than the healthy food creating a situation where affordability comes into play as much as deciding to buy "healthy." What used to be luxury items, or "Sweets" a 1/2 century ago, have become staples in the diets of many people. Couple that with a change to a much more sedentary lifestyle (fewer and fewer of us rely on physical activity as part of our jobs) and our calorie intake is exceeding our caloric work done. The body's response is to store that remaining energy, usually in the form of fat.

We also have a fine line of overmedication...modern medicine is a blessing, and can help improve overall health tremendously. We can nip a simple cold or other ailment in the bud early with an antibiotic or other OTC remedy before it gets worse and turns into pneumonia or other issues. That said, I'm personally concerned that our bodies are losing their ability to fight infection themselves, since our first course of action now seems to be to jump on an antibiotic vs. allowing our immune system to fight it off. I personally have a 3 day rule...if I get a little cold (which happens maybe 1-2 times a year) I'll give my body 3 days to fight it off. If its getting worse then I'll go to the Dr.

I don't make all the best choices in my diet, could probably use a bit more exercise, etc. but try to have a general awareness that I can't just go on autopilot. Our bodies are an incredible invention that can deal with a great deal of situations. However, they can't deal with everything, and our own worse enemy is ourselves sometimes.

 

[steveh_131]

I agree that we are as a population "more healthy" than a generation ago, and will continue to be more healthy.

I suppose this comes down to how you define 'healthy'. Chronic disease and life-long dependence on pharmaceuticals is not how I would define it. I see no way to look at these numbers and conclude that we are 'healthier' than the previous generation.

The previous poster suggested that the cheap and plentiful supply of these gmo foods contributes to our overall health and well-being. Does it? Most of the GMO Corn that we end up eating is in the form of corn syrup. I don't know many people who would argue that there is anything healthy about corn syrup, yet it contaminates nearly every food that you can purchase at the grocery store.

So while I am not necessarily making the case that lifestyle has no bearing on overall health, I also disagree that the positives of plentiful GMO food outweighs the negative effects on our health that the research is illuminating.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I kind of skimmed the powerpoint presentation. Some of that information I've seen presented elsewhere. Like some other folks, I don't have the medical expertise to be able to read, absorb, and speak to the information. I do have experience though. In my experience of over 50 years, I've seen many substances come into question and panic ensue over their supposed health risks only to find out years later, after the public has moved on to some other panic, that new discoveries have proven the previous discoveries flawed or inaccurate. So excuse my skepticism. I'm all for studying these chemicals but I'd hope we can do it from a clinical, scientific standpoint rather than in the hysterical environment I seem to be seeing associated with Monsanto and glyphosates.

 

[cobber]

I'm not even going to pretend to be smart enough to understand half of this but no way I believe it's true. Like many others, friends and family, I was working in the fields for years with direct exposure to roundup every year. That plus eating the food had to raise my exposure way past a normal persons. If any of this is true why aren't we seeing a landslide in autistic farm kids?

I totally agree. I am a retired farmer and have lived through everything from the days of zero herbicide usage to today's practices.

I am am not saying we do not need to study, monitor, research, investigate, etc. I am saying that I take what is reported in the media, the results of the latest study, and hyped by many people with a grain of salt.

Why aren't we seeing a landslide in autistic farm kids? Probably because it isn't possible to get a large enough dataset in any local population, even if someone did want to do this study.

And yet, if you really wanted a study that could falsify (i.e. prove) these 'results', wouldn't you study farm kids as a control group?

Too many interest groups out there with a policy axe to grind, not to take all of this with a really big grain of salt.

There are people who smoke 3 packs a day for their entire lives and never get lung cancer. Would you use this information to suggest that smoking cigarettes does not cause lung cancer?

Actually yes, that would seem to prove that smoking does not cause lung cancer in a strict cause-effect relationship. And some people who never smoked get lung cancer. Suggesting either a second cause, or that smoking is not the cause, but a contributing factor in the development of lung cancer.

 

[5.56'aholic]

I kind of skimmed the powerpoint presentation. Some of that information I've seen presented elsewhere. Like some other folks, I don't have the medical expertise to be able to read, absorb, and speak to the information. I do have experience though. In my experience of over 50 years, I've seen many substances come into question and panic ensue over their supposed health risks only to find out years later, after the public has moved on to some other panic, that new discoveries have proven the previous discoveries flawed or inaccurate. So excuse my skepticism. I'm all for studying these chemicals but I'd hope we can do it from a clinical, scientific standpoint rather than in the hysterical environment I seem to be seeing associated with Monsanto and glyphosates.

Agreed. When they can document why a disproportionate number of males develop ASD from any said vaccination, chemical, or GMO then I may be inclined to believe it. Until then, to me its purely a genetic link.

 

[Draco]

A Preamble: I am speaking my opinion and nothing more, I haven’t facts or sources handy to back up my thoughts. In short, I could be wrong.

Autism is getting blown out of proportion; yes, there appears to be an increase in cases, however this will happen with any disorder that suddenly gets attention. When you start looking for something, you are much more likely to find said thing. Maybe the diagnosis criteria are not precise enough; perhaps it stems from the overthinking of character traits, and the clinical categorization of said traits. Not everyone is an extrovert, not everyone is socially adept; and it is quite easy to take an introverted, asocial person and diagnose that as an autism spectrum disorder.

Consider the explosion of Attention Deficit Disorder/Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADD/ADHD); the criteria for diagnosis were not specific enough, given that a sizeable portion of society would fail the Connor’s Test, yet it was several years before that test fell out of practice. Meanwhile, with people suddenly screening for ADD/ADHD, there seemed to be an explosion of cases. You’d find the same phenomenon with scoliosis, I’d wager; when you actively look, you are find cases that meet the diagnostic criteria but would never otherwise have been diagnosed because the patient would never have complained or the doctor would never have thought to check.

With all that said, let us suppose that I am wrong and there is an explosion of autism. Let us further suppose that we all agree this is a disorder in each case, not just a system wide overreaction; and further still that there are causes for this explosion that can be pinpointed.

In such a case, I find it unlikely that there would be any single variable that would account for this great spike. I’m no fan of Monsanto, but pinning the rise of autism to them is going to be difficult. Far more likely it would be the interplay of multiple variables; genetic predisposition, environmental exposure to any number of chemicals and compounds, and so forth. Say, for example, that it caused by glyphosate and bisphenol A; two things that independent of each other that would have no such effect could combine to have a severe effect internally. Think of it as alcohol and acetaminophen: neither are so toxic as to pose a great risk of bodily harm, but combining the two can put you into irreversible liver failure with remarkable ease.

We are complex creatures living in an increasingly complex world, I do not think a chart will magically explain away the rise of any given problem. It isn’t impossible, mind you, but I find myself wary of any chart that portends to solve a complicated problem in a very nice, very neat fashion. I’d need more evidence.

Last, though certainly not least: Sola dosis facit venenum; or, the poison is in the dose. Water will you kill you are surely as cyanide; nothing is non-toxic in sufficient quantities. I do have doubts about there being glyphosate levels that are orders of magnitude beyond what is considered safe in our water supply; I’d need more evidence of that.

(Yeah, I tweaked the Latin translation; I find it more memorable this way.)

 

[Draco]

Are we? Life expectancy has peaked thanks to modern medical care, but are we actually healthier?

Exactly, there is a very curious phenomenon where people confuse quantity of life with quality of life.

I won't fall back on anecdotal evidence as my case is hardly standard, but I suspect this generation has a very good chance of being the one that breaks the trend of each generation living longer than the previous. Obesity, sedentary life styles, diet issues and the like all take a toll; and that is before we run into the spectre of a time where antibiotics lose much of the effectiveness, which would certainly put a dent in progress.

 

[Zoub]

If you unknowingly dodge a bullet while saying you don't believe in bullets it does not make you an expert in either bullet dodging or bullets.

When your kid catches that bullet, the one you never heard coming, the one you never knew anything about, you become educated. My kid caught a bullet, not Autism, but a "bullet" just the same. When she was young I told her it did not have to consume her, define her or shape her future. However, once and only once, when she was young I told her it was my belief that she was still on the planet for a reason. That she should consider giving back somehow and perhaps that was her destiny? Mine was now to ensure she had the chance to do so. Her entire life we always surrounded her with what we considered to be good science. We also stressed critical thinking and decision making. On her own she chose a path of Bio Chemistry. She caught the bullet and perhaps it influenced her decisions? I don't know because I have yet to ask. The questions I ask convince me she is on a path of her own choosing and that is all I care about. Once and only once will I ask her if catching that bullet influenced her choices. Maybe some day she will solve a nonexistent problem? I hope so.

Regardless, there are bullets out there and it pays to listen to those who see them coming first. Remove yourself from the equation. Do you want to see something happen to your Grandchildren, Nieces, Nephews? I was exposed to my share of Trichloroethylene in my younger days, would I ever allow my kid to be? No way in hell.

It never hurts to listen and consider that maybe something is going on.

 

[cobber]

Autism is getting blown out of proportion; yes, there appears to be an increase in cases, however this will happen with any disorder that suddenly gets attention.

As also for example with PTSD. Just watching the news from Ferguson leads some to claim the disorder... like the poor law students who were too traumatized to take their final examinations. (I know, they didn't claim PTSD...yet.)

The whole ADHD thing and resulting over-medication is frightening. Ritalin is probably much more of a gateway drug to other drug abuse than marijuana ever was. (Plenty of controlled substance arrests involve kids with ritalin/amphetamine who once had, but no longer have, vaild scrips.)

 

[Zoub]

there is absolutely no way enough food could be produced to feed the population of our country or planet.

To me, you just described a problem, not a solution.

The planet is overpopulated and Nature will balance itself out. The largest source of naturally occurring protein in cities is human flesh. When you say that out loud, that in itself sounds unnatural. There are both economic and ethical motivations to continue to feed an unsustainable population. Now add political motivations to continue growing that population while going full circle to the economic motivations. I don't see any Country or any form of Government willingly solving this problem. People have once again become a commodity. The solution will come from outside Mankind.

 

[steveh_131]

So excuse my skepticism. I'm all for studying these chemicals but I'd hope we can do it from a clinical, scientific standpoint rather than in the hysterical environment I seem to be seeing associated with Monsanto and glyphosates.

I like skepticism. I believe you are wise to be skeptical. There is plenty of hysteria to be found on this subject, but the two ladies I sourced in this thread have fairly impeccable credentials and provided substantial evidence to back their claims. It is still circumstantial and purely correlational, I hope that I've made that clear several times. It does warrant further research and some caution with these chemicals though, in my opinion.

And yet, if you really wanted a study that could falsify (i.e. prove) these 'results', wouldn't you study farm kids as a control group?

What? No. That doesn't even make sense. There could certainly have been farm kids included in this study, since their proximity to the chemicals (based on their address) would have been very close.

Too many interest groups out there with a policy axe to grind, not to take all of this with a really big grain of salt.

Do you take Monsanto's claims of safety with an even bigger grain of salt, considering that they essentially hold a monopoly over our corn supply with this product?

Actually yes, that would seem to prove that smoking does not cause lung cancer in a strict cause-effect relationship. And some people who never smoked get lung cancer. Suggesting either a second cause, or that smoking is not the cause, but a contributing factor in the development of lung cancer.

Are you saying that there can be multiple variables in a disease progression? This is ground-breaking. Clearly the conclusion to be drawn is that we should then ignore all variables that do not hold an exact 1:1 causal relationship.

If you unknowingly dodge a bullet while saying you don't believe in bullets it does not make you an expert in either bullet dodging or bullets.

When your kid catches that bullet, the one you never heard coming, the one you never knew anything about, you become educated. My kid caught a bullet, not Autism, but a "bullet" just the same. When she was young I told her it did not have to consume her, define her or shape her future. However, once and only once, when she was young I told her it was my belief that she was still on the planet for a reason. That she should consider giving back somehow and perhaps that was her destiny? Mine was now to ensure she had the chance to do so. Her entire life we always surrounded her with what we considered to be good science. We also stressed critical thinking and decision making. On her own she chose a path of Bio Chemistry. She caught the bullet and perhaps it influenced her decisions? I don't know because I have yet to ask. The questions I ask convince me she is on a path of her own choosing and that is all I care about. Once and only once will I ask her if catching that bullet influenced her choices. Maybe some day she will solve a nonexistent problem? I hope so.

Regardless, there are bullets out there and it pays to listen to those who see them coming first. Remove yourself from the equation. Do you want to see something happen to your Grandchildren, Nieces, Nephews? I was exposed to my share of Trichloroethylene in my younger days, would I ever allow my kid to be? No way in hell.

It never hurts to listen and consider that maybe something is going on.

There is much wisdom to be found in this post. I've been clear several times that this is not set in stone. There are some warning signs, for those of us who are interested in protecting our children. I don't know for sure that Roundup will hurt my kids. I also don't know for sure that starting them smoking cigarettes will give them lung cancer. Nevertheless, I'll be avoiding both roundup and cigarettes. Make your choice.

I'd also like to point out that for all the accusations of 'hysteria', I'm the only one in this thread who has presented any actual scientific evidence in lieu of anecdotes.

 

[Hardscrable]

Each and everyone posting on all sides of the issue(s) have valid points. I do not wish to imply that I am saying anyone's beliefs are totally wrong. I do not intend to imply that I am all knowing, nor is anyone one else. No one INHO has everything 'right.' Never will everyone agree on ANY issue. My position is that there is more involved in every problem than one thing. Whether it be health, climate, or what have you, I believe that many, many things contribute to these complex issues.

Someone mentioned decreased disease resistance due to over meds...a lot of truth in that. I believe current lifestyles...over use of hand sanitizers, kids & adults inside 24/7 vs. outside playing in the dirt & thus allowing the body to build natural resistance, etc. also contributes. So again, not merely one cause.

Over use of corn syrup...I agree. However with out GMO,hybrid, etc. corn our production would not meet need. One stated that population is the problem vs food supply...who do you propose does with out ? Is over population a problem or will it be at some point in time...possibly but I am not convinced today.

Many of the things that make our life "better" to day also cause problems. Technology has many, many benefits but greatly contributes to obesity and health problems. If we did away with many modern conveniences and thus needed to go back to physically working the way our great grandparents did, we would have much less obesity but would the net be a better life ?

Again, I have no intent to insult anyone nor cause anyone to believe I am belittling them or their opinions. I could post responses/rebut, etc. to each that disagree with me. I have no time today nor desire to. I am willing to consider anything that is presented. I was merely trying to point out that "facts" continually change. The findings of today's released study contradicts the facts from the one released last year...eggs are good/eggs are bad, etc. Totality of cause and effect (net) need to be considered...because one thing has good results in one area, it may cause more harm in another area that more than offsets the good. I have seen too many " experts' be disproven too many times to believe something merely because they say it is so. Knee jerk reactions rarely prove to be beneficial in the long run. Unforeseen consequences. We see this played out almost daily.

 

[steveh_131]

I believe that many, many things contribute to these complex issues.

This is certainly true, but you can attempt to study a single variable's contribution by controlling for the other variables. This is what is done in the study that I provided.

Over use of corn syrup...I agree. However with out GMO,hybrid, etc. corn our production would not meet need.

Do you have a source for this? Farmers have been growing corn for a very, very long time. We didn't have Roundup ready crops until 1996 and we did just fine. I don't believe that anyone in America would starve without Monsanto to save us.

 

[Leadeye]

Either way it sounds like more big money for big pharma.

 

[mrjarrell]

Either way it sounds like more big money for big pharma.

Why would pharma stand to profit? There is no pharmaceutical treatment for autism or any of the others on the spectrum. Effective treatments for autism are almost solely behaviourial and occupational. Used to see the kids getting their treatment years ago when I'd take my daughter for speech therapy. No drugs involved. The only kids who would be medicated would be the ones who are violent and that's not a significant number.

 

[steveh_131]

Why would pharma stand to profit? There is no pharmaceutical treatment for autism or any of the others on the spectrum. Effective treatments for autism are almost solely behaviourial and occupational. Used to see the kids getting their treatment years ago when I'd take my daughter for speech therapy. No drugs involved. The only kids who would be medicated would be the ones who are violent and that's not a significant number.

Well, we were off on a tangent that dealt with overall well-being, not just autism.

Actually, though, it is not at all uncommon for autistic children to be prescribed medications. It really depends where they are on the spectrum. Anxiety, aggression and impulsivity can all be treated this way.

 

[hoosierdoc]

This chart is showing how many kids are treated by IDEA, not the prevalence and NOT the incidence of autism, and NOT the number of kids with autism.

Autism was added to IDEA in 1990. It just took time for people to realize it. The graph of an expanding social program is not a useful tool to compare disease prevalence with something.

cute correlation graph though

 

[Mad Macs]

Folks, read a food label. If you can't pronounce or even know what something is, chances are it's probably not good for you. We aren't eating food now, we're eating "food-like" substances. Preservatives and artificial food coloring based on Petroleum and HFCS are KILLING our kids slowly.