Posted on 10/17/2012 8:09:45 PM PDT by djf
A new study released this past week has once again linked the consumption of processed foods to health complications, giving food safety advocates even more cause for concern. The April 10th publication of the Clinical Epigenetics Journal reported a link between high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and autism in the United States. According to the study, the rise in autism rates "is not related to mercury exposure from fish, coal-fired power plants, thimerosal, or dental amalgam but instead to the consumption of HFCS.”
The study, led by former FDA toxicologist and whistleblower Renee Dufault, found that a deficiency of zinc, triggered by the consumption of HFCS and other processed foods, interferes with the body’s ability to eliminate toxins such as mercury and pesticides.
High fructose corn syrup has long been suspected of having an adverse impact on health and has been purportedly linked to obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and liver disease. The fructose-laden ingredient has even been reported to facilitate the growth of cancer cells.
Dufault made news in 2009 with another study (which was referenced in these new findings), also linking high fructose corn syrup to mercury. Many HFCS proponents and some in the autism community will immediately (and predictively) discount these new findings, but regardless, they still warrant further research.
With autism rates now at a mind-blowing 1 in 88, there are many who are desperately looking for a definitive cause and a silver bullet theory. Whether or not there is something to these new findings remains to be seen, but we must not give up on our quest for the truth.
Actually, it is 100% the same. Your body really cannot tell the difference if fructose is made by a corn plant, a flower, an agave plant, or by an apple. And matter doesn't have any magical properties that we haven't found yet.
I sometimes think it's a lost cause when I read a science article on MSNBC or other media outlet, and see the comments following the article. Especially if the article concerns food or health, the level of scientific illiteracy is so thick you need a machete to get through it.
Thank you for being one of the few reality based people posting on this thread.
You're welcome. I try to educate people, a few here and a few there. Unfortunately, a number of them are very emotionally attached to their pseudoscience.
Sophisticated imaging techniques are beginning to reveal some of the differences in brain function between autistic and normal individuals. So it is not true that there are no physical differences; we just haven't had the imaging capability previously to see them.
Even given that we may not have a complete understanding of what exactly is happening, we can still look at correlations. And there is no doubt that the rise in autism correlates with increased HFCS consumption.
There is no correlation that I know of, nor any mechanism to explain why fructose from corn would cause brain damage, but identical fructose from fruit, honey, agave, etc., would be perfectly harmless. The author of this study is, as other posters have pointed out, a kook.
Correlation is not causation. That seems to be a very difficult concept to grasp, but it is essential to understand it.
I see these things as tantalizing hints until we have more concrete answers. And one of the fudging factors introduced by epigenetics is that the answer for what YOU should eat might be very different from what I should eat!
Epigenetics, I'm afraid, is going to be one of those catch-alls that people start throwing around, thinking they know what they are talking about. I've seen similar woo expressed by people talking about DNA.
(Technical discussion follows.) Specifically, epigenetics refers to modification of DNA that does not actually change its structure. Most often, the modification consists of methyl groups being attached at specific nucleotide sequences. These methyl groups have the effect of changing gene expression. The accumulation of such modifications takes place over a period of time. Identical twins have nearly identical epigenomes at 7 years old, but not at 67 years old. My hypothesis, aka "educated guess": If autism can be traced to alterations in the epigenome, those alterations are highly unlikely to have happened within the child's short life (autism symptoms can start appearing in 12 mo old children). They'll be changes that occurred at the level of the gametes produced by the mother or father.
I am not sure you can equate fructose in it’s natural form (in fruit!) to HFCS.
Naturally occurring fructose is almost always complemented by a good mix of some of the 20 or so other sugar forms. (ribose, xylose, mannitol, etc).
You make a good point about epigenetics being a “later” process. But if it does turn out to be epigenetic-related, we are looking at the newborns immediate environment, which points to the womb and possible habits/lifestyle choices of the mother.
Whatever it is, it is interesting, and I’m not smart enough to say for sure one way or the other.
I try to keep an open mind about things, that’s all.
BTW, methylation is the primary method of turning on genes for gene expression, but there are about three other variants of the same idea.
Is there ANYTHING autism isn’t linked to?
I am allergic to corn in all forms, confirmed by allergy testing. Corn gives me a headache.
The fructose is identical, whether it is produced in corn and ends up as HFCS, or it is produced in flower nectar, fruit, or other plant tissues. The biosynthesis is pretty much the same in any plant.
Naturally occurring fructose is almost always complemented by a good mix of some of the 20 or so other sugar forms. (ribose, xylose, mannitol, etc).
Excuse my bluntness, but that's not relevant. No one eats pure fructose; it is always mixed with other ingredients. The enzymes that convert fructose to glucose in the body don't care about what is mixed with the fructose; they act on the fructose, and only the fructose.
You make a good point about epigenetics being a “later” process. But if it does turn out to be epigenetic-related, we are looking at the newborns immediate environment, which points to the womb and possible habits/lifestyle choices of the mother.
To expand on my epigenetics hypothesis: it is likely that we'll find gene variants that, have an epigenetic modification pattern that is different between normal and autistic children, even though the gene itself is unchanged. It would be like this: ATAATCG versus ATAATCG, where the letters in bold have been epigenetically modified, but the letters are the same. So a child could carry five gene variants that predispose towards autism but be normal because none of them happened to be modified epigenetically. And *none* of those epigenetic modifications would have happened in the child; they would have happened in the ovaries or testes of the parents. It takes years for epigenetic changes to accumulate; the time between conception and toddlerhood is just too short. (That is, the damage is done before the child exists.)
Whatever it is, it is interesting, and I’m not smart enough to say for sure one way or the other.
I try to keep an open mind about things, that’s all.
Just be careful. There are all kinds of pseudoscientific quacks out there, some of whom even have some sort of scientific training and know the language. There are ways to tell between genuine science geeks (such as myself) and quacks. One of those ways is that the quacks will often be trying to sell you something. They'll also be spouting all sorts of conspiracy theories (theory with the layperson definition, not the scientific definition, which is a different thing). An open mind is great, as long as you avoid the quackery.
Who’s a moron?
I understand your epigenetic hypothesis but don’t totally buy it.
developmental damage can occur to the child in the womb that was not an inherited factor.
Caused possibly by malnutrition of the mother.
Look at FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome).
Look at the role of folic acid in preventing spinal bifida, clearly a developmental dysfunction that was not inherited, but is genetically regulated.
developmental damage can occur to the child in the womb that was not an inherited factor.
Caused possibly by malnutrition of the mother.
Look at FAS (fetal alcohol syndrome).
Look at the role of folic acid in preventing spinal bifida, clearly a developmental dysfunction that was not inherited, but is genetically regulated.
I was speaking specifically of autism. Its behavior is that of a disease that is influenced by many genes and also has some environmental components. Twin studies have shown that both members of identical twin pairs are more likely than fraternal twin pairs to be autistic. That suggests to me that most of the epigenetic changes are already there at conception, and that maybe one or two additional changes in the right genes are enough to cause or prevent autism in someone who is right on the edge. The damage has to occur during development.
My hypothesis could be generalized to an extent to other genetic diseases that seem to have an environmental component, but would not apply to diseases like fetal alcohol syndrome or other diseases caused by malnutrition or exposure to toxins.
Well, if they found a good correlation of autism shared by identical twins, that might be a strong argument for a genetic component.
But then again, they share the same environment, snuggled up next to each other!
So we are back to the whole tabla rasa stuff, is it genetics or is it environment?
This argument will still be going on 1000 years from now... but we will continue to zoom in on the ones we can solve.
On a personal note, I am unwilling to declare HFCS as being totally not at fault here. We simply cannot say for sure now.
But I appreciate very much your knowledge and tone of the discussion. You have shown yourself worthy of having a Ph.D.
I probably could have done it, my fields being Computer Science and psychology, but I was just too lazy and way, way too interested in skirts back then...
;-)
Don’t be so sure that we have found everything or know even close to anything. The very “reality” our minds can perceive is such a small piece of the Universe’s big picture. Imagine the limitation of looking at a 100 foot mural through one pinhole at a time. Then multiply that by infinity. That is how much we can “see” right now. The human race is likely to be extinct before we even truly understand 1%.
“Everything that can be invented has been invented.” — Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899
“Inventions reached their limit long ago, and I see no hope for further development.” — Julius Frontinus, Lead Roman Engineer, 1st century A.D.
“Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957
btt
People who make silly claims about fructose.
But then again, they share the same environment, snuggled up next to each other!
So we are back to the whole tabla rasa stuff, is it genetics or is it environment?
If autism were completely genetic, both or neither identical twin would be autistic. If it were completely environmental, the chance of both twins having it would be the same as non-identical twins or non-twin siblings. (I may not be completely correct here; it's been a LONG time since I took genetics.)
Even in the womb, the environment of identical twins is not uniform. Those small differences in environment could be enough to account for epigenetic differences between twins; epigenetic differences can even arise randomly.
On a personal note, I am unwilling to declare HFCS as being totally not at fault here. We simply cannot say for sure now.
Humans have been consuming fructose for millions of years; it really is ubiquitous in plant foods. There is no basis to think that fructose extracted from corn (HFCS) has an effect on human health that fructose from other sources doesn't have. That would be like thinking that pure water purchased in San Francisco would somehow have different health effects than pure water purchased in Boca Raton.
But I appreciate very much your knowledge and tone of the discussion. You have shown yourself worthy of having a Ph.D.
I probably could have done it, my fields being Computer Science and psychology, but I was just too lazy and way, way too interested in skirts back then...
Why, thank you!
It is never too late to get a Ph.D. I went to graduate school while my son was in Jr. High and High School; he and I graduated the same year. But it takes a level of dedication; I don't recommend it to people unless they are absolutely certain that is what they want to do. If you already have a good career, it might not be worth the time and effort.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.