Do Organic Foods cause autism and diabetes?

Acg67

Please read the full post at the link below before commenting

http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2013/02/organic-food-causes-autism.html

While people think of "organic" cultivation techniques as natural and safe, there are important points we might consider. Most of the plants used today have only been developed genetically in the last 100 years, and even "heirloom" varieties were bred relatively recently. There have been no long term studies, and plants certainly are known to produce a wide suite of toxic compounds.

Worse, organically cultivated plants are placed in highly artificial environments. Rather than growing in soil as it exists, soils are highly amended with composts and manures. High levels of nitrogen and carbon dramatically alter gene expression leading to patterns never observed in nature. Van Djik et al. (2012) found that there were dramatic differences in gene expression between conventional and organically-grown potatoes, with organic potatoes showing higher expression of stress-related genes. There have been no long-term studies to assess the effects of this un-natural gene expression.

It is clear that this causes human diseases. The first graph below shows organic food sales. The second graph shows increasing numbers of autistic children and the bottom graph shows diabetes. Those results are pretty conclusive.

The graph on the left shows organic food sales. The graph on the right shows autism incidence. The graph below shows increases in diabetes. Clearly a connection.

Delicate

My nephew (has aspergers) always was better when he had organice food, and food without e-numbers.

Autism is also more diagnosed now, instead of seeing it as a 'hysterical woman' thing (my gyna is still opposite the mental ward from the victorian times!)

Or frui/veg/animals are rising up against humans cause they dont want to be eaten?

MissMormie

The author makes a very good point. Saying that just because two graphs have the same shape doesn't mean one is the cause of the other.

Basically his point is that this does not prove that organic, or none organic food causes autism or diabetes. And that sounds about right.

Carnivor0us

LOL That association to autism isn't valid. You could say the same about vaccines, and we all know that's bull****.

Good blog post.

itslucyr

Big difference between correlation and causation. What if parents of children with autism are buying organic foods to see if it makes a difference? Therefore more children with autism = higher sales of organic foods.

Acg67

Big difference between correlation and causation. What if parents of children with autism are buying organic foods to see if it makes a difference? Therefore more children with autism = higher sales of organic foods.

img]http://www.thegraphicrecorder.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/CorrelationCausationFinal1.jpg[/img]

img]http://blog.lib.umn.edu/huber195/psy1001spring12/Research6.jpg[/img]

img]http://genpsychsum10.umwblogs.org/files/2010/06/correlation_causation1.gif[/img]

So I take it you did not actually read the link by your post

richardheath

Ha! I won't post spoilers, but yeah. Correlation does not mean causation.

LAW_714

Big difference between correlation and causation. What if parents of children with autism are buying organic foods to see if it makes a difference? Therefore more children with autism = higher sales of organic foods.

Good point.

affacat

This thread is full of fail.

NO, they do not.

Organic simply means: no chemical pesticides. no chemical based fertilizer. no genetically modified organisms. How in the world would adding chemical based pesticides, etc, suddenly make the food 'not' cause cancer. It's such backwards thinking it's hilarious.

I see Monsanto is working overtime at putting out misinformation and spin in order to counterbalance the negative press they're getting.

We've been eating 'organic' for most of our existence as a species. It's from the earth. It's only recently in our history that we started adding chemicals to everything (often without careful study, just research the list of banned pesticides over time) and modifying things at the gene level.

Acg67

This thread is full of fail.

NO, they do not.

Organic simply means: no chemical pesticides. no chemical based fertilizer. no genetically modified organisms. How in the world would adding chemical based pesticides, etc, suddenly make the food 'not' cause cancer. It's such backwards thinking it's hilarious.

I see Monsanto is working overtime at putting out misinformation and spin in order to counterbalance the negative press they're getting.

We've been eating 'organic' for most of our existence as a species. It's from the earth. It's only recently in our history that we started adding chemicals to everything (often without careful study, just research the list of banned pesticides over time) and modifying things at the gene level.

^ This post is full of fail as well, as you did not even read the link, then proceeded to make ridiculous statements. So organic crops use chemical free pesticides and fertilizers? LOL. And nice to see the tinfoil hat Monsanto comments/

wbandel

I'm seeing a strong correlation between reading comprehension and following directions. Oh wait, maybe that's a cause and effect relationship.

lsmsrbls

Your quotes are really misleading since the blog post is arguing against what you quoted.

ahamm002

Big difference between correlation and causation. What if parents of children with autism are buying organic foods to see if it makes a difference? Therefore more children with autism = higher sales of organic foods.

LOL, they're not even correlated! A temporal association is not enough to label it a correlation. You'd have to do an epidemiolgy study and link autism with organic food. Then you could say you have a statistically significant correlation.

I assume the post is a sarcastic attempt to discredit epidemiology. Obviously correlations from epidemiology must be taken with a grain of salt. However this example is a bad one because there is no signficant correlation demonstrated.

EDIT: and no, I definitely did not follow that link!

totem12

Excellent blog post about a really irritating subject - SO many people would look at those graphs as conclusive. It is SO difficult to prove whether something 'causes' something else, and so many factors can be involved, hence the relative surprise when after YEARS of research smoking was shown to cause almost all lung cancer.

Of course, just because something can't be proven to cause something YET doesn't mean it DOESN'T. Research into food and nutrition is such an infant science and it's far easier to disprove links!

whiteheaddg

Good post - and the comments from the folks who didn't read the blog are especially hilarious. Reminds me of another blog I read that regularly includes links to a satire news site (similar to The Onion, but military-centric). Every time they put in such a link there will be a large number of genuinely outraged comments over the "news" in the "article."

pastryari

Your quotes are really misleading since the blog post is arguing against what you quoted.

_noob_

If you follow the link posted, this whole thread/link is to show how easily data is made to say bull**** conclusions.

Nice job Ac. Should be a great thread. Grabs popcorn.

magerum

In.

iAMsmiling

Yes, I read it...still, I've been wanting to use this.

girlinahat

I like the blog.

First thing that sprang to mind actually was - 'wow, they've actually figured out that both illnesses are directly attributable to diet. That's BIG news'

LuckyLeprechaun

iAMsmiling, there's ALWAYS a relevant xkcd. ALWAYS.

FR sent * :laugh: