AllergyKids Blog

As the world reels from food price inflation, the focus is turning to the biotech industry and its promise to genetically modify our food supply in order to increase crop yields, feed the world’s poor and stave off  riots at the supermarket.  What is interesting is that this responsibility, and most of the profits and liabilities associated with it, falls squarely on the shoulders of one corporation, an agrichemical corporation called Monsanto (NYSE: MON). 

Monsanto began as a chemical company almost one hundred years ago.  At the time, the FDA was actually called the “Bureau of Chemicals,” and quickly became the regulatory agency that oversaw the approval of Monsanto’s chemicals including DDT and Agent Orange.  

Today, the regulatory approval of Monsanto’s chemicals is not only conducted by the FDA, but also by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)  and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  These agecies are responsible for the oversight and regulation of chemicals in our food supply, as well as the sale and distribution of genetically modified foods, which include Monsanto’s glyphosate pesticides, phenylalanine (a chemical also known as aspartame), Monsanto’s corn and soy crops that produce their own insecticidal and pesticide-resistant toxins, and Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone (a chemical protein designed to increase the milk supply in cows that has been banned in developed countries around the world given research that appears to link rBGH” to breast, colon and prostate cancer (source: www.preventcancer.com ). 

BUT LET’S TALK ABOUT WHAT’S FOR DINNER

Corn and soy are the world’s largest genetically modified crops – accounting for 90% of all soy and 60% of all corn now grown worldwide (source: USDA).  Corn and soy are used in everything from Kraft mac and cheese, to baby formula, to livestock feed to corn-based ethanol .  These two crops are also some of the most heavily traded commodities in the world, and Monsanto controls 97% of the market share for genetically modified corn and 91% of the market share for genetically modified soy.  These statistics are based on industry sources and reflect 2004 data: Monsanto and ISAAA.  Source: Etc. Group

Monsanto’s recent domination of the genetically modified corn and soy markets appears to have been obtained through their patenting of the chemicals that they have genetically engineered into our food supply, enabling them to privatize agricultural commodities like corn and soy.  Their market dominance is reflected in their financial performance and share price (NYSE: MON):

At the world supermarket, we suddenly have one corporation genetically modifying, patenting and growing the majority of our corn and soy – ingredients found in food products in 99% of American households (source: Kraft). 

And according to Friedman economics, when one corporation dominates the market, prices increase, as can be seen in the recent increase in the price of corn:

POWER AND POLITICS:

But, how could a monopoly of the food supply be allowed to exist, given the impact that it would appear to have on the price of food?

A recent article in the May 2008 issue of Vanity Fair under “Power and Politics” highlights exactly how Monsanto’s monopoly has been created:

Industry influence at the US Department of Agriculture (May 2008, Vanity Fair, “Power and Politics”)

“Monsanto has long been wired into Washington. Michael R. Taylor was a staff attorney and executive assistant to the F.D.A. commissioner before joining a law firm in Washington in 1981, where he worked to secure F.D.A. approval of Monsanto’s artificial growth hormone before returning to the F.D.A. as deputy commissioner in 1991. Dr. Michael A. Friedman, formerly the F.D.A.’s deputy commissioner for operations, joined Monsanto in 1999 as a senior vice president. Linda J. Fisher was an assistant administrator at the E.P.A. when she left the agency in 1993. She became a vice president of Monsanto, from 1995 to 2000, only to return to the E.P.A. as deputy administrator the next year. William D. Ruckelshaus, former E.P.A. administrator, and Mickey Kantor, former U.S. trade representative, each served on Monsanto’s board after leaving government. Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas was an attorney in Monsanto’s corporate-law department in the 1970s. He wrote the Supreme Court opinion in a crucial G.M.-seed patent-rights case in 2001 that benefited Monsanto and all G.M.-seed companies. Donald Rumsfeld never served on the board or held any office at Monsanto, but Monsanto must occupy a soft spot in the heart of the former defense secretary. Rumsfeld was chairman and C.E.O. of the pharmaceutical maker G. D. Searle & Co. when Monsanto acquired Searle in 1985, after Searle had experienced difficulty in finding a buyer. Rumsfeld’s stock and options in Searle were valued at $12 million at the time of the sale” (source: May 2008, Vanity Fair, “Power and Politics: Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear”).

But why corn?

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?  OR MISSION IMPOSSIBLE?

In 2002, as “Mission Accomplished” turned into “Mission Impossible”, the Farm Bill was introduced at the same time that the current administration was mandating the integration of corn based ethanol into our nation’s energy supply in an effort to reduce US dependency on foreign oil.  In order to support this 2002 government mandate for corn based ethanol, legislation was introduced in the 2002 Farm Bill that allocated additional taxpayer resources to farmers, encouraging them to grow more corn in order to support this federally mandated food-for-fuel program .    

As new federal policies were being put in place with the introduction of genetically engineered corn, the President nominated Linda Fisher to the #2 position at the federal agency responsible for the oversight of genetically engineered crops, the Environmental Protection Agency.  The EPA regulates the distribution and sale of genetically engineered crops. 

In joining the EPA in 2001, Ms. Fisher brought a wealth of knowledge on genetically engineered crops to the Agency, given that she had been the head of government affairs for Monsanto whose market share included 97% of genetically engineered corn and 91% of genetically engineered soy. 

Fisher also followed on the heels of William D. Ruckelshaus, former chief administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), a member of the board of directors of Monsanto Corporation for over twelve years.

However, despite Monsanto’s best efforts to ensure a successful regulatory environment for their genetically engineered corn crops, they were apparently unable to ensure the successful yields they had promised.

FAILED  PROMISES AND YIELDS

According to the US Department of Agriculture, “currently available GE [genetically-engineered] crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety. In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars”. (Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and M. Caswell. 2006, The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. USDA-ERS http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB11/).

Furthermore, a 2004 report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization on agricultural biotechnology acknowledges that genetically engineered crops can have reduced yields (FAO, 2004).  Additionally, a 2007 study by Kansas State University agronomist Dr. Barney Gordon suggests that Roundup Ready soya continues to suffer from a yield drag: RR soya yielded 9% less than a close conventional relative, and a 2003 report published in Science stated that “in the United States and Argentina, the world’s largest growers of genetically engineered soy, the average yield effects [of GM crops] are negligible and in some cases even slightly negative”. (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003). (Source: http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/3cacfd251aab6d318025742700407f02!OpenDocument

FEEDING THE FARMERS $300 BILLION 

As the promises of increased crop yields failed to materialize, government incentives had to be put in place in order to encourage farmers to grow more corn in order to address this new federally mandated increase in demand for corn based fuel.  In simple words, the government realized that it had to pay the farmers to grow more corn so that we would have enough corn to feed to our kids and our cars. 

In order to address the fact that corn yields had failed to materialize, the government had to encourage farmers to dedicate increasing farm acreage to corn.  As a result, in the 2007 Farm Bill, additional federal resources were paid to the farmers in the hopes of encouraging them to plant more corn (and less soy, wheat and other crops) in order to feed the federally mandated need for corn based ethanol.  The results of this farming shift from wheat (and other agricultural commodities) to corn meant that less wheat (and other commodities) were available for the food supply, driving up their prices, as seen in the chart of wheat prices below:  

As farmers allocated less acreage to wheat, not only did it reduce the supply of wheat on the market, making wheat more expensive (as reflected above), but it also impacted the price of bread in the grocery store, as seen below:

EVEN THE GROCERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION CHIMED IN!

At almost $300 billion, the 2007 Farm Bill is the largest “food bill” in US history.  An analysis of these taxpayer dollars (and the fact that this $300 billion in taxpayers’ revenue represents the equivalent of $1,000 per American or 10% of our federal budget) reveals that this “federal food-to-fuel mandates led to over one quarter of corn to be diverted from food to ethanol production, driving up the price of corn and other commodities to historic highs” (Scott Faber, vice president for federal affairs, Grocery Manufacturers Association).

As a result, the Grocery Manufacturers Association now pinpoints “food for fuel as a major factor in US food price hikes as indexes this week showed finished food prices are rising at twice the rate of all other finished goods.” (Source: http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=84744-gma-americas-second-harvest-food-for-fuel-global-food-shortages-farm)

INNOVATION: THE MOTHER OF ALL INVENTIONS

The fact that none of these chemicals are labeled in the American food supply means that Monsanto will never be held liable for diseases like breast, colon and prostate cancers that may result from our exposure to these chemicals, as without labels, we will never be able to trace these chemicals to the increases in the “American epidemics” that we are now seeing.

 Given Monsanto’s “allergy to labels” and the price inflammation resulting from their market dominance, is it any wonder that their stock was one of the best performing stocks in 2007? And who is benefiting from this remarkable upside to their profits?  Certainly not the American consumer.   

Financial panic has hit households across the country, as parents on budgets try to navigate the run up in food prices, gas prices, and health care costs. 

According to The Economist, in the last 12 months, there has been a 62% increase in the price of food, making everything from milk to baby formula to bread more expensive for mothers across the country.  And according to the Wall Street Journal (and your local gas station), we are now getting stung by gas prices, as oil hits record highs. 

And despite our best efforts to conserve gas, we find ourselves in the car, because our children are sick.  Our countless appointments with pediatricians, specialists, allergists, and speach therapists are followed by trips to the pharmacy to purchase more prescriptions for our children who are quickly earning the title, “Generation Rx”.  As our budgets get squeezed by all of these factors, we find our children overmedicated, undernourished and sick, with health care costs also taking their toll on our family budgets.

Yet at the same time, we watch as our government allocates $600 billion to the Pentagon for war efforts and only $2.4 billion to the FDA “to protect the health of the American public”.  That translates into the FDA receiving only two days worth of Pentagon spending to serve as its budget for the entire year.  It therefore comes as no surprise that, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, that a November 2007 FDA report states that “American lives are at risk” because the FDA lacks resources and ”can no longer ensure the safety of the food supply”.  Two days worth of military spending to ensure that the food that we are feeding our children and the medications with which we are injecting our babies are not going to put them at risk for health conditions later in life. 

In the meantime, we read in the New York Times about a beef recall large enough to feed every American two hamburgers, an ABC report about drugs and sex hormones found in our children’s drinking water and an EPA report stating that air pollution is so severe that it threatens the public’s health, with asthma now affecting half of all inner-city children. 

And yet, according to our government, the FDA should only receive two days worth of military spending to protect the lives of our children for the entire fiscal year.  Even more explicity, the Food Protection Plan will receive an increase of $42 million - the same amount, according to CNN, that the IRS just spent to send all of us a letter announcing the rebate that we will be receiving.  The safety of our food supply is worth no more than a letter from the IRS. 

As parents, we watch as the government finds resources to fight wars, bailout banks and subsidize corn based ethanol, knowing that these resources are being financed by a future debt and taxpayer burden that our children will never be able to repay. 

How will my five year old feel when he is old enough to learn that his parents’ government financed a $3 trillion dollar war with his future taxpayer dollars?  A war that risked our dependency on foreign oil, prompting our government to pay farmers some of the largest subsidies in history to encourage them to plant ethanol-yielding corn over wheat, soy and other commodities?  Will my children understand the food price inflation that resulted?  Will they learn that the Cato Institute tried to warn that ethanol would make gasoline costlier and dirtier?

How will they feel when they learn that, according to the New York Times, these food riots were caused by the food price inflation that resulted from our government’s farm subsidies, subsidies financed by their future taxpayer dollars?  Will they question if these subsidies were designed to win favor and buy farm votes in an election year as easy money encouraged the use of an untested corn-based ethanol?  Will they ever know that, according to the Wall Street Journal, the corn farmers themselves questioned the very development of these crops? 

As the EPA, FDA and the CDC repeatedly cite lack of funding as the leading cause for their inability to protect the lives of the American public, our government finances its corporate agenda by taking out billions of dollars of debt on our children’s future, potentially indebting them for their lifetimes.

And in the 130 million American households across the country, as we struggle to cope with the sudden inflationary pressures that appear to result from our goverment’s allocation of taxpayer resources, the Centers for Disease Control now reports that one in three American children has diabetes, one in three is obese and one in every three American children has allergies, autism, ADHD or asthma.

In 1946, Harry Truman said, “A nation is only as healthy as its children.”  What have we done to ours?

Please consider visiting www.allergykids.com to learn how you can protect the health of your children and family. 

According to CNN and a recent study published in the Journal of Allergy and Immunology, milk allergy is the most common food allergy, having established itself in the number one position in the last ten years.

Interestingly, a new protein was introduced into the American milk supply just over ten years ago.  Children with a milk allergy are allergic to the proteins found in milk. 

Are these recently introduced proteins responsible for the milk allergy epidemic?  You decide.

What the leading pediatric allergists (funded by Big Food and Big Pharma) failed to tell us… 

In the early 1990s, one of the world’s largest chemical companies, in conjunction with a global pharmaceutical corporation, invented a vaccine that could be injected into cows to increase their milk production. 

This vaccine contained a new protein that was designed to manipulate the hormones of cows in order to force them to produce more milk.  More milk out of cows meant more money for the corporations, so their concept was a hit. 

The only snag was that the vaccine that they were injecting into the cows contained a manipulated protein engineered to be a growth hormone.  Because of the hormonal disruption that this protein created, increasing evidence showed that this manipulated protein was proving to cause breast, colon and prostate cancer .  Mounting evidence also showed that cows injected with this protein showed increases in infertility, birth defects and fetal loss.  

Because of these health consequences, government agencies around the world decided NOT to allow this manipulated protein and growth hormone into their milk and beef supplies.  In the US, however, it was a different story. 

In order to ensure passage through the FDA,  the corporation who stood to profit from this cow vaccine, employed a strategy of placing their employees in critical decision making positions by essentially creating a revolving door between their corporation and the FDA. 

For example, at this corporation, a Ph.D. named Margret Miller assisted in the development of this manipulated growth hormone.  When it came time for the FDA to approve this hormone, Ms. Miller jumped ship to join the FDA and take a role in its scientific and safety evaluations! 

Given Ms. Miller’s success at playing both sides of the field, Michael Taylor, an attorney at this same corporation, became a lobbyist and drafted guidelines that exempted milk producers from labeling dairy products from cows that had been treated with rBGH.

The revolving door strategy became so successful that this corporation continued to staff regulatory, scientific and positions of influence from both sides of the aisle right up to the Supreme Court where they placed their former attorney, Clarence Thomas, who provided legal clout in the manipulation of America’s food supply.

As a result, in 1993, this genetically manipulated milk protein, rBGH, was controversially approved and allowed to enter the American food supply - in the form of milk, cheese, yogurt and beef.  Today, 1 in 8 women has breast cancer, 1 in 6 men has prostate cancer, and milk allergy is the most common food allergy in children.

Has the financial relationship that leading pediatric allergists have with this chemical corporation affected their ability to fully disclose the risks presented by the introduction of this protein in 1993?

To learn more about What’s In Your Milk? , there are three things that you can do right away!

• Visit www.preventcancer.org
• Buy milk, cheese and yogurt that is labeled “rBGH-free”
• Purchase beef that is also labeled “rBGH-free”

 Signs of a milk allergy may include but are not limited to:

• Stomach aches, colic, gastrointestinal discomfort
• Allergic Shiners (dark circles beneath the eyes)
• Eczema, rashes and skin disorders (including acne)
• Migraines, headaches and other neurological symptoms
• As well as the classic allergic symptoms like hives, swelling, difficulty breathing and possible anaphylaxis (as detailed at www.allergykids.com)

According to a November 2007 report from the FDA, the FDA “does not have the capacity to ensure the safety of the nation’s food supply” putting “American lives at risk.”

So stay smart, stay savvy…and keep asking questions!  In a system that is failing our children, mothers can’t!  There is so much that you can do to protect the health of your family!  Learn more at www.allergykids.com

NOTE: One of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies assisted in the development of the controversial rBGH vaccine. 

According to Congress, a provision was added to the Homeland Security Act just prior to passage that shields the pharmaceutical industry from billions of dollars of anticipated lawsuits over vaccines, removing liability for any injuries that may result from vaccines they manufacture. 

The provision was added so late that most members of Congress were not even aware that it had been added to the 470-plus page bill.  And it was so similar to a defeated vaccine bill from 2002 that an aide even commented that the provision was actually in a different font than the rest of the Homeland Security Act, as if someone had cut and pasted it into the new bill.

Despite concerns over vaccines’ toxicity, allergenic risks and the 100,000,000 DNA fragments that each vaccine is allowed to contain, the FDA lacks funding and does not conduct independent tests to assess the safety of these vaccines, relying on industry-funded research conducted by the pharmaceutical and chemical corporations themselves.

The CDC recently reported that the belly fat of children has grown by over 65% since 1999 and recent statistics highlight a 400% increase in food allergies.

As a result, over half of all Americans purchase organic foods due to ‘food safety’ and health concerns in an effort to make healthier food choices.

Organic’s Health Benefits:

A recent study into organic food found that it appears to:

• Strengthen your immune system
• Improve sleeping habits
• Cut the risk of cancers
• Reduce the risks of heart disease
• Reduce a child’s exposure to hidden allergens
• Promote weight loss  (Keep reading!) 

As you can imagine, the un-organic, junk food industry’s response to this groundswell of healthy food choices is to highlight industry-funded research that suggests that eating organic food is no more than a lifestyle choice.  

What the Europeans Know

(and Our “Industry-Funded Experts” Haven’t Told Us!):

 Thankfully, an insightful four-year, $25 million European study found that:

• Animals fed an organic diet were slimmer (yes, skinnier!) than their un-organic fed counterparts because fat cells appear to ”trap” and store the heavy pesticide residues found in un-organic produce
• Organics appear to promote weight loss by reducing your exposure to chemical pesticides which bind to fat and once absorbed may stay in the body for a lifetime (over 350 chemicals can accumulate in our body fat!)
• Organic fruit and vegetables contain up to 40 percent more antioxidants
• Milk from organic herds contained up to 90 percent more antioxidants (source: Times Online October 28, 2007)
• Organic food also had higher levels of beneficial minerals such as iron and zinc, critical minerals in the development of a child’s brain.

Un-Organic Food Contains Hidden Allergens:
Additionally, according to the Institute for Responsible Technology, un-organic corn and soy contain insecticidal chemical toxins (which may be why these crops are being banned in Europe, Australia, Japan, Russia and almost 40 developed countries around the world!) and hidden allergens that may be contributing to the recent allergy epidemic. 

So What Does “Organic” Mean? 

And What About “All Natural”?

Because the US lags other developed countries when it comes to food safety, understanding label claims can often be a challenge for even the savviest shopper!

The Definition of “Organic”

The term “organic” refers to foods grown and processed without chemical toxins, artificial ingredients, chemical preservatives or ionizing radiation (similar to cancer “radiation” only for food).

The guidelines for organic foods were established on October 21, 2002 by the US Department of Agriculture.  To use these terms, producers must pay additional fees and follow strict guidelines and regulations:

• 100% Organic- All ingredients are organic.
• Organic- 95% or more of the total ingredients are organic.
• Made with Organic Ingredients- At least 70% of the ingredients are organic.

For the savviest of label readers, the following are the legal guidelines established by the US Department of Agriculture for organics: Organic Fruits and Vegetables:Must be grown without the use of:

• synthetically created chemical pesticides
• synthetically created chemical fertilizers
• sewage sludge
• genetic engineering which appears to introduce novel proteins, allergens, viruses and toxins into crops.
• irradiation (similar to cancer radiation for produce).

 Organic Beef and Chicken:

• Fed only 100% organic feed, are not the offspring of cloned animals and have never been administered growth hormones or antibiotics.  In addition, their meat must never be irradiated. 
• Natural (or All Natural) meat or poultry products contain no artificial ingredients and are minimally processed. They are not necessarily organic.
• No hormones administered or no antibiotics added is sometimes seen on labels, but it can only appear if the producer can document the absence of hormone or antibiotic administration. 
• Free-range or free-roaming poultry have access to the outdoors without a minimum time.  They are not necessarily organic.
• Cage-free poultry means nothing as most chickens are kept indoors (but cage-free) if they are grown for meat. 

Organic Milk:

Comes from animals that were fed 100% organic feed and were not given antibiotics, prophylactic drugs or genetically engineered and synthetically created growth hormones (such as rBGH) for at least the last year.

rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) is a genetically engineered, synthetic chemical hormone vaccinated into cows to artifically boost their milk production. Like aspartame, rBGH has been banned in Europe because of the breast cancer risk that it may present.

 Organic Eggs:

• Produced by hens that are fed 100% organic feed and have never been given growth hormones or antibiotics.
• Cage-free Eggs are produced by hens that are not confined in cages.  The hens may not have access to the outdoors and are not necessarily organic.

Organic Seafood: 

The USDA currently has no guidelines set for seafood; however, un-organic fish is often caged underwater and treated with pesticides to prevent the spread of disease. 

Organic Bread:

Cereal and grain crops are regularly sprayed with pesticides that collect in the grain’s outer layers, raising concerns about chemical residues in bread, cakes and cookies

Other Terms:

The following terms are often found on packaged products and can be confusing to consumers:

 Natural is often a misnomer.  There are no true guidelines for this term when used on a packaged product, although it is used frequently and often assumed to mean organic or healthier.  

Gourmet is another misleading term that leads consumers to believe that they are purchasing a product that is made finer ingredients, when in reality it has no established guidelines or regulations.

(Source: Whole Nutritionist)

Organics on a Budget:

 Now that a scientific study out of Southampton University in the UK has revealed that certain artificial colors and preservatives may trigger hyperactive behavior, asthma and allergies in our children, you may well be racing to the “organic only” section of your supermarket believing it to be the foolproof way to protect your young from such nasty additives.

There are some other commonsense steps you can take to minimize your children’s intake of chemicals and additives.

In pole position is the idea that you regain ownership of the meals you produce in your home kitchen and the food you put in children’s lunchboxes.

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, leading pediatric allergists have testified to the safety of the MMR vaccine and the thimerosal containing flu vaccine.  These pediatric allergists have also testified to the safety of MSG (which is used as a preservative not only in foods, but also in vaccines) as well as a genetically engineered milk protein, bovine lactoferrin, introduced in 2001 that is also used as a binding agent in vaccines and processed foods, as well as an antimicrobial agent to spray down raw beef carcasses. 

If, as these doctors claim, these vaccines and milk proteins are “generally recognized as safe”, then why has a rider been added to the Homeland Security Act to shield the pharmaceutical industry and vaccine developers from liability?

According to Congress, a provision to the Homeland Security Act was added just prior to passage that shields the pharmaceutical industry from billions of dollars of anticipated lawsuits over vaccines, removing liability for any injuries that may result from vaccines they manufacture. 

The provision was added so late that most members of Congress were not even aware that it had been added to the 470-plus page bill.  And it was so similar to a defeated vaccine bill from 2002 that an aide even commented that the provision was actually in a different font than the rest of the Homeland Security Act, as if someone had cut and pasted it into the new bill.

Despite concerns over vaccines’ toxicity, allergenic risks and the 100,000,000 DNA fragments that each vaccine is allowed to contain, the FDA lacks funding and does not conduct independent tests to assess the safety of these vaccines, relying on industry-funded research conducted by the pharmaceutical companies themselves.

According to the Washington Post, Maryland’s Attorney General is now mandating that parents vaccinate their children or else they will be fined and put in jail.  Do we no longer have a right to choose?

Are these vaccines a matter of national security, or has the financial health of pharmaceutical corporations taken precedent over the health of an entire generation of children?

As industry-funded experts try to blame the mothers, perhaps it’s time that the mothers blame the money.

Given that just this week, Newsweek’s cover is Kids and Food Allergies: The Growing Food Allergy Threat and the Today Show told Emily’s Story, we wanted to highlight, as we did in our April 2007 newsletter, the role that soy plays in the development of peanut allergy and the danger that soy’s cross reactivity presents to people with peanut allergy and asthma. 

As many of you know, soy is one of the top eight allergens.  What you may not know is that a child with a peanut allergy can have an allergic reaction after eating a food that contains soy, according to the Mayo Clinic and the Asthma and Allergy Resource Center.  

Soy’s Role in the Food Allergy Epidemic

In 1996, soy was engineered to contain new proteins, chemicals and toxins so that soy crops could withstand the spraying of industrial pesticides.  90% of soy is now engineered with these new proteins and chemicals, which created new allergens .  These new allergens are similar in their amino acid structure to known shellfish and peanut allergens. 
 
How could soy cause an allergic reaction in my child with peanut allergy?
In scientific terms, soybean allergens are “homologous” to known peanut allergens and are  recognized by 44% of peanut-allergic patients.
 
What that means is that a child with a peanut allergy can have an allergic reaction and even go into anaphylaxis after eating soy.  Because this cross-reactivity is rarely mentioned in the press, many parents are unaware of the potential health risks that soy may present to children with peanut allergies.

What are the Signs of a Cross-Reaction to Soy and How Can I Protect My Child with Peanut Allergy?
According to Dr. Yman, PhD of the Swedish National Food Administration, these deaths initially appear as an asthma attack, with no or very mild symptoms for the first 30-90 minutes after consumption of foods containing soy (much like Emily’s Story).  Then, the children suffer fatal asthma attacks.   “If your child is allergic to peanuts, you should consider eliminating soy as well as peanut from your child’s diet, even if your child has never reacted to soy poorly in the past (as Emily never had). Some sensitive children have “hidden” soy allergies that manifest for the first time with a severe – even fatal – reaction to even the low levels of “hidden” soy commonly found in processed food products.  Those at the highest risk suffer from asthma as well as peanut allergy”.  

What products contain soy?
In Europe and other developed countries around the world, soy is rarely used since it contains chemicals, toxins and new proteins whose safety has never been tested in human trials.  In the United States, soy can be found in soy milk, soy formula, conventional formula, tofu, soy sauce and other soy products.  Soy is also used in many processed foods, as soy lecithin, soy lectin, soybean oil and other soy derivatives by the United States food industry, despite being banned in foods around the world (in Europe, where consumers have not embraced genetically engineered soy, lupine is often used in place of soy, given that 90% of soy has now been engineered to contain these new chemicals.  However, please note that a child with a peanut allergy can have a severe reaction to lupine, given the similarities in protein structures, so consult with your child’s doctor when traveling abroad). 
 
Soy is also commonly used as animal-feed in livestock in order to expedite the weight gain in livestock, ensuring a faster time to market and heavier fish, pork, cattle, etc.
 
It is only within the last ten years, since soy was engineered with new proteins, chemicals and toxins in an effort to make it a more profitable agricultural crop and commodity, that soy has become one of the top eight allergens.
 
Are there other facts that I may not know about soy?
According to Daniel Sheehan, PhD and director of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) National Center for Toxicological Research, soy-fed babies are taking part in “a large, uncontrolled and basically unmonitored human infant experiment.” 
 
The British Dietetic Association now warns parents to avoid soy formula given a the results of a 2003 study conducted by Dr. Gideon Lack from St Mary’s Hospital, Imperial College, London, UK.  The French Food Agency will soon require warning labels on all soy foods, soy formulas and soy milk so that consumers will be aware of the risks that soy poses to children under the age of three, as well as people with hypothyroidism, and women with a family history of breast cancer. 

What’s an American Mother to Do?

It looks like what you don’t know, CAN actually hurt you…and your babies!   So until the federal government decides to bestow the same value on the lives of the American children that government agencies around the world have bestowed on the lives of their children, American mothers might want to take a cue from mothers in the UK, Europe, Asia, Japan and even Russia and consider avoiding exposing their little ones to soy.

If the system is failing our children, moms can’t!

Did you know?? In 2005, the average American consumed 25.7 pounds of candy, per capita, much of it around Halloween?! From belly aches to allergic reactions, parents can help kids avoid Halloween hazards.

There is growing evidence that many allergies are caused by the ingredients in our diet.  About 40% of the population suffers from allergies, and annual medical costs exceed $4 billion.  According to Kenneth Bock, MD, allergies now affect 20% of children.  Maybe it’s time to think about what we’re slinging into those jack o lanterns!

Chemicals in your candy?  Ever read the side of a candy box?  Artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, pesticides and chemical toxins!  According to Pure Fun Candy, the FDA does not monitor these flavorings nor require that they be tested. Rather, (and this is scary!) the concept of “threshold of toxicological concern” has been proposed to set acceptable daily intake for chemicals of unknown toxicity, apparently on the theory that a little bit can’t hurt!   Ever seen a kid eat a ‘little bit’ of candy!?    

Research out of the UK suggests that these chemicals do affect the brain chemistry of children, causing hyperactivity and ADHD like behavior.  The research is so strong that Wal-Mart in the UK agreed to ban these ingredients in children’s foods and government agencies around the world have banned these chemical additives in children’s foods.

And as if that wasn’t enough, the Today Show points out that you may also want to avoid high fructose corn syrup, another chemically engineered ingredient found in our kids’ foods and treats (but not found in children’s foods in Canada!), given the controversial role that it appears to play in diabetes!  And on Oprah, Dr. Oz warns us that our brains and our bodies get mixed signals when consuming high fructose corn syrup, causing us to EAT MORE!! 

Not to mention that the corn that we’re feeding our children (and ourselves!) has now been engineered to contain and produce a toxin designed to kill the little creatures that try to eat it out in the fields.  In an effort to make corn a more profitable crop for ethanol production, the toxins now being engineered into our corn cause “gut paralysis” in the little creatures that eat it!  Not what any of us need!!

According to Yummy Earth, organic candy matters partially because it has no pesticides, chemicals or genetically modified ingredients, but mostly because manufacturers must adhere to the very strict USDA organic rules which assure families that manufacturers truly use no artificial ingredients and are not playing “label claim games”, such as calling high fructose corn syrup “all natural” as some food companies do!

According to the Centers for Disease Control, one out of every three children now has obesity, one out of every three children now has diabetes, and one out of every three kids now has allergies, asthma, ADHD or autism.  Given recent reports by CNN addressing toxicity in children and the fact that none of these chemical additives now found in our kids’ Halloween candy have been tested by the FDA, are we gambling with the health of your kiddos?         

Perhaps here in the US, we should take a cue from mothers in Europe, Canada and Australia and try to avoid the ingredients that their government agencies have banned in children’s foods: high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, MSG and genetically engineered ingredients. 

Hopefully, the FDA will soon acknowledge that American children deserve the same rights as the little kids around the world.  But until then, we should do our kids a favor…engage them in a candy swap!  For every 2-3 pieces of conventional candy that they collect, let them “buy” an organic treat, a sticker or some small toy! 

It might just be the savviest thing you could do this Halloween! 

I was honored to be included on a bloggers only call last night for LUNA BARS.  On the call, remarkable women, working to protect the health and well being of all women (and our daughters), addressed the risks that environmental toxins present to our health.

As we work to empower mothers and inspire them in ways that they can protect the health and well being of their children, LUNA is doing the same thing: advising women of simple steps that they can take to help minimize their chances of developing breast cancer, so here are the tips!

1. Create a Healthy Home (Learn How!)
2. Eat Smart (just like AllergyKids, LUNA understands the importance of avoiding chemical toxins in our diets in an effort to prevent breast cancer)
3. Choose Safe Cosmetics (our make-up is loaded with chemicals)
4. Get Outside (grab the stroller and go!)

A few more ideas, for those that are taking this seriously (remember only 1 out of every 10 cases of breast cancer can be attributed to a genetic link.  So does that mean that 9 out of 10 cases could be prevented?  We can always hope!)

• Reduce your consumption of red meat and conventional milk due to the hormones and chemicals that these contain.
• Eat organic whenever possible (to avoid consuming pesticides and other toxins linked to breast cancer risk)
• Exercise (get out the stroller and take a walk!)
• Avoid drinking liquids out of plastic containers (these containers ‘leach’ dangerous chemicals into your liquids)
• Try to avoid eating canned foods (the chemical lining of cans, bisphenol A, has also been linked to breast cancer)

Jeanne Rizzo, R.N., did a phenomenal job of fielding questions about diet’s role in the development of diseases.  AllergyKids can not begin to express our gratitude for Jeanne and LUNA BARS.

To learn more about ways to protect your health (and your daughters), please visit www.pureprevention.org

It is now estimated that farmers across the midwest receive approximately $8-10 billion a year in federal corn subsidies.  Not only does this insure a prolific corn crop to meet the growing demand for ethanol, but it also appears to insure political loyalty, as it provides an economic boon to farmers across the heartland.

But at what cost? 

According to the Wall Street Journal, “American families, which spend 9.9% of disposable income on food, are facing the fastest-rising food prices in 17 years.”

Rising prices for this year alone that can be attributed to the increase in the cost of corn include:

• 40% increase in the price of corn

• 75% increase in the price of soy

• 70% increase in the price of wheat

• 15% increase in the price of 3-pound chickens

• 26% increase in the price of a gallon of milk

• 24% increase in the price of a loaf of bread

• 50% increase in retail pork prices

“The consumer’s cost of everything from yogurt and popcorn to breakfast cereal and fast-food french fries is climbing.  And a growing number of economists and agribusiness executives think the run-ups could last as long as a decade, raising the cost of all kinds of food.”

And you wonder why your credit card bill has grown?

On top of all of this (or under it?) is the fact that corn has recently been engineered to produce its own insecticidal toxins to achieve greater crop yields for these federally funded crops.  To achieve this profitability, toxins have been engineered into corn that are designed to cause gut paralysis and kill the insects that consume it. 

It obviously works, as we’ve already lost the bees.  But you have to wonder what it is doing to our health and the digestive tracts of our children?

Eight months ago, warning bells sounded: “Politicians will see that, first of all, corn ethanol is not helping our oil independence.  It is increasing the price of food for people in the U.S., it is costing an enormous sum of money for everyone, and it is contributing to environmental problems.”

Is corn ethanol really the elixir promised to deliver us from our foreign dependency on oil?  Or have we thrown our country into the largest food price shock in decades while at the same time subjecting our children to a deadly toxin designed to cause gut paralysis and death in those that consume it?

As Alan Greenspan makes headlines with his just-released memoir, “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” one line stood out in his critique of current government policy: “Little value was placed…on the weighing of long term consequences.” 

In no way is this more apparent than in the current race to convert our food supply to fuel, developing corn crops for ethanol, in an effort to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. 

As Greenspan highlights, the effort “fundamentally focusing on how to maintain political power”  has led to the corporate consolidation of the food and fuel supply into a single crop upon which we are increasingly dependent.

To meet this increased demand, bio-chemists have introduced the first ever eight-gene stacked DNA combination into corn.  These eight genes are inserted into corn using live viruses and combine insecticidal toxins designed to kill creatures that attempt to eat it.

Given that our children are included in the list of creatures eating this corn, should we really be engineering the “first-ever” eight-gene, neurotoxic stack into our food supply while our government places “little value…on the weighing of long term consequences?”

Greenspan warns in his book that we have “traded principles for power.”  Given that one out of every three American children now has ADHD, autism, allergies and asthma, have we traded something even greater?