Let Them Eat (genetically engineered) Cake

About the food industry, not in a nice way

Archive for the ‘Research’ Category

finally a study of autism in adults

Posted by jeanne on October 4, 2009

For the First Time, a Census of Autistic Adults
By CLAUDIA WALLIS
Saturday, Oct. 03, 2009

Among the many great mysteries of autism is this: Where are all the adults with the disorder? In California, for instance, about 80% of people identified as having an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are 18 or under. Studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) indicate that about 1 in 150 children in the U.S. have autism, but despite the fact that autism is by definition a lifelong condition, the agency doesn’t have any numbers for adults.

Neither has anyone else. Until now.  On Sept. 22, England’s National Health Service (NHS) released the first study of autism in the general adult population. The findings confirm the intuitive assumption: that ASD is just as common in adults as it is in children. Researchers at the University of Leicester, working with the NHS Information Center found that roughly 1 in 100 adults are on the spectrum — the same rate found for children in England, Japan, Canada and, for that matter, New Jersey.

This finding would also appear to contradict the commonplace idea that autism rates have exploded in the two decades. Researchers found no significant differences in autism prevalence among people they surveyed in their 20s, 30s, 40s, right up through their 70s. “This suggests that the factors that lead to developing autism appear to be constant,” said Dr. Terry Brugha, professor of psychiatry at the University of Leicester and lead author of the study. “I think what our survey suggests doesn’t go with the idea that the prevalence is rising.” In England, where there is widespread suspicion that the childhood vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella has led to an explosion in autism cases, the study was hailed as part of a growing body of evidence that the vaccine, which was introduced in the 1988, is not to blame.

Brugha’s study was part of a larger national survey of psychiatric disorders among adults. In the first phase, researchers conducted 90-minute interviews with 7,461 people in 4,000 randomly selected British households; the interview included a 20-item questionnaire designed to screen for autism.
(Sample yes-or-no questionnaire items: I find it easy to make friends. I would rather go to a party than the library. I particularly enjoy reading fiction.)

Based on their answers in the first phase, investigators further assessed 618 individuals, using a battery of psychiatric measures, including a state-of-the art autism diagnostic tool. (About 200 of these participants had been selected for scoring high on the autism screen; the rest had been selected to sample for other disorders.) In the second phase, researchers identified 19 adults with ASD. But had they been able to evaluate all 7,461 in the survey, they estimate that they would have found 72 cases, or roughly 1% of the total.

One limitation of the study is its relatively small size, says Brugha. Being the first of its kind, it also needs to be confirmed by other studies. Another issue, notes Richard Roy Grinker, an autism researcher and professor of anthropology at George Washington University, who was not involved in the work, is that the study looked only at adults in the general population. Had it included people living in institutions, which is where the most severely autistic adults are likely to be, the estimated rate of ASD may have been even higher than 1%. Michael Rosanoff, an epidemiology specialist with Autism Speaks, emphasizes that “the small sample size for estimating prevalence requires caution about interpreting this finding on a population-based scale.”

Despite its limits, the new study does begin to fill in the profile of high-functioning adults who are on the spectrum but living in an ordinary home in the community. Researchers found that they are primarily male and unmarried: about 1.8% of men surveyed were on the spectrum — among never-married, single men, an estimated 4.5% had ASD — compared with just 0.2% of women. (Brugha notes, however, that autism screening tools may be poorly adapted for identifying autism in adult females.) People with autism are less likely than average to have finished college but about as likely to be employed. Only 0.2% of adults who had finished college were on the spectrum, but the rate was 10 times higher among those without a high school degree. And, in contrast with people with depression or anxiety disorders, autistic adults were unlikely be receiving any sort of mental health services.

Why has it taken so long to do a study of this sort? For one thing, you need an enormous sample size — at an enormous cost — to find significant numbers of people with autism. Second, it’s more difficult to detect autism in adults than in children. Children often have glaring symptoms, like delays in learning to speak, extreme social withdrawal and terrible tantrums. Less is known about how autism looks in adults. “To diagnose autism, you need to have good information on people’s behavior,” says Brugha. “It’s much more straightforward to get that with children because you’ve got parents and teachers as observers. Adults with autism are not the best people to describe their own behavior.”

The Irish-born psychiatrist and epidemiologist says he sees a lot of adults with ASD in his own clinical practice, and “they have so much difficulty saying what their own difficulties are.” He suspects that this lack of insight and inability to communicate emotional issues also reduces their ability to seek professional help. Efforts to identify and help adults with ASD have lagged far behind efforts to help children.

And yet, Brugha notes that just having an ASD diagnosis to explain their troubles can be enormously beneficial to his adult patients, who often struggle with relationships at home and at work because of difficulty reading social cues. “Once you help them to understand that they are not the only person on the planet who is like this, and help their families understand, it can be a breakthrough. People also have a better chance of staying in their work, if their employer understands why they are the way they are.”

Moreover, Brugha says it is not expensive to provide services to adults with relatively mild autism. “The cost of treating a child with autism is phenomenally high. We are not talking about this. We are talking about support, helping people adapt their lives” with help from a social worker. Grinker, who has a teenage daughter with autism, finds the study to be in some ways comforting. “I would think that a study like this would encourage people that children with autism could grow up and have futures that are meaningful and that they are not going to end up in institutions.”

Posted in Research, medical industry | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Big Food Goodguys

Posted by jeanne on November 24, 2007

Again, from the appendix of Appetite for Profit – How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back, by Michele Simon. Nation Books, 2006.
National Organizations – Nutrition and Children’s Advocacy

Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood

Center for Informed Food Choices

Center for Science in the Public Interest

CHOICE – Citizens for Healthy Options in Children’s Education

Commercial Alert

Community Food Security Coaliatioon

The Food Studies Institute

GRACE – Factory Farm Project

Health Care Without Harm

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Parents Against Junk Food

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

Public Health Advocacy Institute

Organic Consumers Association

Small Planet Institute

State and Local Groups

California Center for Public Health Advocacy

California Food and Jusitice Coaliion

California Project LEAN

India Resource Center

International Food Policy Research Institute

Sustain – The alliance for Better Food and Farming

Tracking Legislation and Lobbying

Center for Media and Democracy

Center for Public Integrity

Center for Responsive Politics

Consumer Deception

Corporate Accountability Project

Freedom of Information Center

The Institute on Money in State Politics

National Conference of State Legislatures

National Restaurant Association

Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy

Reclaim Democracy

Posted in Research, food industry | Leave a Comment »

Big Food Badguys

Posted by jeanne on October 24, 2007

This list comes from Appetite for Profit – How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back, by Michele Simon. Nation Books, 2006.

Appendix 2 – Guide to Industry Groups and Spin Doctoring

Industry trade associations

Industry Trade Associations – Advertising

Industry Trade Associations – Legal

Industry Front Groups

Industry Science Institutes and Advisory Boards

Corporate Educational Wellness Programs

Public-Private Partnerships

Industry Newsletters

Posted in Research, food industry | Leave a Comment »

From Appetite for Profit

Posted by jeanne on October 24, 2007

“The idea is for healthy eating to be the default instead of constantly being the more challenging way to live.” p.43

“Today’s generation of children may be the first to have shorter lives than their parents. According to one prediction, nearly half the children in North and South America will be overweight by 2010. Especially troubling are the rising obestity trends in developing countries as Western foods are increasingly marketed overseas.” p.xiv

Center for Consumer Freedom. Despite its populist name, this organization does not represent consumers at all. Rather, it’s a lobbying front for the restaurant, food, beverage, and alcohol industries. Employing attack dog-style tactics, CCF consistently portrays nutrition-policy advocates as ‘food cops’ and radicals.” p.xxi

Big Food is facing a public relations nightmare. The United States is in the midst of a growing epidemic of diet-related health problems, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Experts have written extensively about our ‘toxic food evironment,’ caused in large part by overzealous corporate marketing strategies.” p.1

“Over the last century, the human diet has been radically altered. The foods we eat now bear little resemblance to those that sustained our ancestors for millennia. In their ceaseless pursuit of profits and new markets, a small number of multinational corporations are running roughshod across the globe in flagrant disregard for public health, the environment, and the welfare of workers and farm animals. We have to stop dancing around the issue and admit this simple truth. In recent years, the privatization of water has spurred global activists to mount passionate and inspiring campaigns againts the takeover of another substane essential to human survival. Why aren’t those of us concerned with food raising similar demands? Like water (and unlike most other commodities, such as toys or electonics), food is indispensable and a basic human right. Why have we turned its production over to private interests? Shouldn’t at least some aspects of society remain off-limits to corporate control?” p.318

Quotes taken from Appetite for Profit – How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back, by Michele Simon. Nation Books, 2006

Posted in Research, food industry | Leave a Comment »

A scientific study ‘proving’ hog farming is clean

Posted by jeanne on September 2, 2007

Yep, the scientists at Guelph University in Canada have done a study examining hog farms in the field, and simulated real-life conditions in the laboratory, and they’ve decided that we could increase the levels of antibiotics many times before there would be a problem with antibiotics running off into our water supply.

Only at the bottom of the article, it reveals that the study was financed by the food industry, specifically the Canadian Pork Council and the Canadian Cattleman’s Association.

This report will be used as an argument for less oversight and fewer laws, even tho it’s as flawed a piece of research as money can buy.

Here’s how it really works:

Antibiotics in animal feed, used as growth enhancers rather than to treat existing medical conditions, are causing increased antibiotic resistance in the humans who eat them. This is a big problem, and you can find more information here.

Antibiotics fed to animals, especially in factory farms, do re-emerge into the environment in the pee and shit these overcrowded animals excrete. These nasty fluids are collected in huge ponds and allowed to evaporate, which is a much ‘better’ solution than letting them simply run off into our streams and rivers.

Why are we exposed at all? But of course, the laws favor the producers, and don’t give a shit about the consumers.

Posted in Research, food industry | Leave a Comment »

MSG – insidious poison, food industry conspiracy

Posted by jeanne on August 6, 2007

What is MSG – Monosodium Glutamate – and why is it bad for you? Proponents will tell you that it’s been used in the Orient for thousands of years (in the form of soy sauce and seaweed); the FDA has it on the GRAS (generally recognized as safe) list with no limit on dosage; you’ll find it in everything from ramen noodle flavor packets to toothpaste. It’s even been approved as a crop spray that will remain on your fruits, vegetables, and coffee beans, never appear on any label, and won’t wash off. So how could anything that ubiquitous be bad for you? Hah. Two tablespoons of MSG on a piece of bread will kill a dog in a matter of minutes.

MSG is a flavor enhancer first developed in the early 1900s, and introduced to the west in 1948. Since then, its use has doubled every ten years, until now, in America, we’re exposed to 300 million pounds of it a year.

How does it enhance flavors? It’s a neurotransmitter. It’s an excitotoxin. It swells the nerve endings in your tongue. And then it crosses the blood-brain barrier to excite neurons in your brain. To swell neurons in your brain. To cause cellular death in neurons in your brain.

In many tests on rats, MSG has caused disturbing, sometimes horrifying abnormalities. These effects include obesity, growth retardation, short stature, diabetes, hormone deficiencies, brain lesions, and more. And rats are less sensitive to MSG than humans are, and their bodies get rid of it faster.

What are some of the physical effects people experience after exposure to MSG? As for myself, the first symptom comes while eating – the food tastes yummy and I feel an overwhelming desire to eat it all up. Then I feel flushed in the face, my hands and feet tingle, and I get rapidly exhausted, so that I really need to lie down and take a nap – now. If I was doing something before I ate, then I have to stop and become unconscious for awhile. This is troublesome when I’m driving. When I wake up, it’s with stiff joints, a headache, and an intensely dry mouth. My face and the skin around my eyes are puffy, and my feet and hands are swollen. Sometimes I’m groggy for hours, only really recovering the next day. Every time I get a reaction to MSG, it’s worse than the time before, a cumulative effect.

What happens to other people? Tingling and numbness and the sensation of tightness or pressure in the tongue, the face, the hands and feet, headaches and migraines, fatigue, asthma, chest pains, heartbeat irregularities, nausea, skin rashes, seizures, depression.

It gets worse. MSG is a suspected link in such different pathological conditions as stroke, epilepsy, brain lesions, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Huntington’s diseases. See this article for a long list of effects of exposure to MSG.

People have been complaining about MSG for many years. It’s been called “Chinese restaurant syndrome” in the literature, and it’s so effective in causing obesity that there is a subspecies of laboratory rat called MSG rats. Its effects are minimized and its opponents are demonized using badly-faulted research paid for by the food industry, and any objection to it at government levels is quashed by well-funded lobbyists whose professional loyalty is to the bottom line, rather than the public health.

The food industry is so intent on spreading the use of MSG throughout our diets that they’ve invented a fifth taste to justify it. They call it umami. Added to the traditional four types of taste – bitter, salty, sweet, sour – it is quite simply the aftertaste of MSG. Here’s a food industry article about the “inexplicable taste sensation that can help food technologists increase consumer acceptance and preference.”

Even health conscious organic-food enthusiasts are being subjected to MSG all over the place. You’d expect organic and health food to be pure and simple, but since the food industry has sunk its claws into organic, they’ve just gotten more sneaky. If you buy organic chicken broth, hoping to avoid the MSG that is constant in every regular brand of broth, and you don’t notice the yeast extract, or the natural chicken flavor, the autolyzed yeast, the hydrolyzed soy protein, then you might think you’re eating something that won’t swell your tongue. but you’d be wrong. These non-MSG ingredients contain from 20-60% MSG each, and they add up fast, so some foods contain enough MSG to poison a dog, with five or six different ingredients each containing MSG.

With all this evidence, why doesn’t the FDA do something about the MSG in our food? Because the chemical, agriculture and food industries own the FDA. Duh.

Posted in Research, food industry | 1 Comment »

A food industry lie: “Clean Labels”

Posted by jeanne on July 28, 2007

Ever since consumers started complaining about the rising use of MSG and other adulterants in processed foods, the food industry has sought to hide its presence.

Now they’ve started using ‘clean labels‘, ingredient labels that don’t mention MSG and other undesirable food additives, so that the consumer will think (mistakenly) that their food is made from ‘real ingredients’.

This is an attempt by traditional food industry manufacturers to jump on the natural and organic food bandwagons, where customers expect minimally processed, no-pesticide, no-antibiotic, no-chemical food, just like you’d grow in your garden.

In the words of one food-industry website (foodnavigator.com)

“This is significant because functional foods are more appealing when terms that consumers already perceive to be good for them are used. Natural-sounding ingredients carry more clout than scientific-sounding ingredients that may not yet have entered consumer consciousness.

Because processing food reduces its nutritional content, as well as its taste and texture, manufacturers struggle constantly to reintroduce things like nutrition and taste into what otherwise might resemble gruel rather than something you’d pay good money to eat. So there is a lot of pressure to shortcut the traditional cooking methods you use in your home kitchen.

To do this, they have to add things, change things, make raw materials strong enough to survive industrial processing methods, industrial baking, freezing, canning, packaging without turning to goo or paste or crumbs.
Because food manufacturers are in business to make money, not food, they take other shortcuts, like using cheaper ingredients and covering them with chemical flavors and flavor enhancers, texturizers and other chemical ingredients to make the food taste like your mom made it. But really, only if your mom is named Jekyll.

They use terms like:

“sumptuous eating qualities consumers crave and the processing advantages food manufacturers require,” “chef-inspired appeal, a simplified ingredients statement and excellent shelf life stability,” and talk about how the product’s “exceptionally clean flavor characteristics also offer manufacturers opportunities for reducing costly ingredients,” and how the product’s “enhanced mouthfeel may enable foodmanufacturers to reduce cream or butter while maintaining acceptability.”

So when you see a so-called “clean label” on the back of a food item, don’t be fooled into thinking the manufacturer is concerned that you eat a healthy, natural, minimally processed product. They’re doing business as usual, with the same shortcuts, but they’ve gone the extra mile to hide it from you.

Posted in Research, food industry | Leave a Comment »

Plotting points

Posted by jeanne on June 17, 2007

Suzie gets a job in the customer service department at the health foods division of Mega Food Brands International. She answers questions based on a script the computer throws up on the screen. She has a soothing voice, and customers believe her, even tho the scripts sound somewhat false to her. Nobody in her department questions anything.

Suzie has a bunch of friends with radical opinions. She hides her job at Mega Food Brands from them, because they think it’s an evil corporation.

Suzie meets a guy who works in the flavor lab, and discovers that everything boils down to chemicals.

She invites her coworker to dinner, where he goes thru her pantry and the trash of the dinner preparations, and shows her and her friends what they’ve been eating. Suzie’s friends decide that flavors and chemicals are bad.

Suzie develops food allergies and learns to read labels.

A character at Mega Food Brands, high up in the food chain, is working on a way to remove raw ingredients from food, to increase the bottom line, streamline production, and avoid the inconvenience of the challenges in growing and manufacturing. This character is concerned with having a clean label, and hiding the fact that there is no meat or vegetable matter in this new kind of food. It will be marketed in the health food division.

Suzie gets sicker and sicker at work. One of the benefits of working at the global hq of Mega Food Brands is that the employees get a free lunch. The cafeteria is really a laboratory, and they are testing the food on the employees. while suzie finds the food yummy, it makes her ill.

An outbreak of e-coli is traced to one of the big 4? meat manufacturers, and the industry solution is irradiation. A huge outcry ensues nationwide, with a growing back to basics movement demanding cleaning up of industry practices. Mega Food Brands steps in and offers another solution – instafood, artificially processed food. The idea is kept secret from the public, but the meat producers go for it because they can deliver spoiled and diseased meat to the production factory that turns out unrecognizable derivatives, increasing profts to both. Farmers also go for it because they can grow a single crop of genetically modified corn, wehat or soy, and it can be turned into anything.

The meat and agriculture industries further consolidate, driving out the last of the family farmers, creating more contractor farmers, and eliminating all but approved gm seed and genetically engineered animals. Pesticides increasingly taint food.

Suzie’s friends decide to sabotage the process, to call attention to industry malpractice. They debate how to best do this – cause an outbreak of contaminated food – which food, how. So many routes are available, choose any spot in the vertically integrated (seed to table) industry. Food borne illness. A discussion about responsibility and the possibility of killing people.

How to show all the various ways the food supply is being tainted and destroyed.

When a food outbreak occurs, it is blamed on imported chinese food, so we get to see how pesticides, additives and adulterants are used outside of USDA regulations, which are weak enough.

Inside the FDA and USDA, these supposed watchdog branches of the US government are dominated by industry, and serve industry interests rather than the good of the people.

 

Posted in Research, plot line | Leave a Comment »

Some research links

Posted by jeanne on June 17, 2007

Here are some research links to get you started educating yourself about the state of our food supply.

This one is from the union of concerned scientists, about cross engineering salmon to grow faster. The FDA is not admitting any knowledge of the approval process currently underway. Hey, what’s going to happen when they get out of their cages and start breeding with real salmon?

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/genetically-engineered-salmon.html

Here’s an interesting site. USDA puts out a database of pesticide residues every year, and the toxic chemicals that are in all our food will absolutely astound you.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/

 

Posted in Research | Leave a Comment »