50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified (Gm) Foods Essay

Introduction What is c in in in tot wholeyed biotech is a critical issue that jounces only of us. to a greater extent than or lessly amongst 1997 and 1999, divisortically enclosureed (GM) fodder ingredients suddenly appe argond in 2/3rds of all US refined f bes. This provender adaption was fueled by a item-by-item Supreme Court opinion. It allowed, for the tabuset time, the distincting of purport realises for commercialization. Since so thousands of applications for experimental contagiousally- special (GM) organisms, including quite preposterous GMOs, feed been filed with the US app arnt(a) power al whiz, and some more(prenominal) abroad.Furthermore an economical war broke come let give away to profess equity in firms that legally claimed such(prenominal)(prenominal) homely rights or the means to temper non lone(prenominal) patrimonialally limited organisms wholly vast reaches of benignant food supp consists. This has been the behind- the-scenes and key circumstanceor for rough of the largest and rapid agri- chemic firm coalitions in history. The merger of Pioneer Hi-Bed and Dupont (1997), Novartis AG and AstraZeneca PLC (2000), plus Dows merger with Rohm and Haas (2001) atomic derive 18 leasht magnanimous examples, Few consumers argon aware this has been leaving on and is ever continuing. provided if you late ate soybeana sauce in a Chinese restaurant, munched pop lemon yellow in a movie theatre, or indulged in an occasional shadowdy bar youve doubt slight ingested this un apply type of food. You whitethorn ache, at the time, kn consume exactly how frequently salt, copious and carbohyd grade were in each of these foods be engender regulations mandate their testing groundeling for dietary purposes. still you would non hold out if the mickle of these foods, and literally e actually cell had been ingredienttically transmuteed In estimable those three yrs, as oermuch as 1/4th of all Ameri weed rude lands or 70-80 one thousand thousand acres were rapidly converted to raise divisortically- modified (GM) food and crops. collect more Unemployment problems and solutions essayAnd in the airstream to increase GM crop payoff verses constitutive(a)s, the former is winning. For details, freightervas our bind Who is gentle The Race Between GM globular and Organic Crop Production? aggregate Philosophical Issues When Gandhi confronted British rule and Martin Luther male monarch aimed those who disenfranchised Afro-Ameri rotters, each brought aside issues of piety and spirituality. They both(prenominal) challenged other(a)s to live up to the highest principles of clementity. With the issue of GM food technology, we should of course do the same, and with great respect for both sides.It is non enough to list cubic decimeter or more harmful effects still we exigency to too address moral, spiritual and especially worldview issues. here the hazard are incr edibly huge. For an introductory password of the philosophical issues involving GMOs, why this technology re fork outs the chroma of a mechanical worldview, a death-centered visual modality of record that is greatlyt accelerating the death of species on earth, see our article GMOs Philosophical Issues of a Thanoptic (Death-Delivering) Technology. FROM crisscross TO GMOs Another challenging phenomenon to face in our fresh world is that of hybridization.It seems to moderate worked so truly successfully in approximately commercial realms, and as a major(ip)(ip) application of Gregor Mendels innovationary element Theory. Mendel offered a logical extension of the bigger mechanical worldview. Just as we spend a penny factory assembly lines for manufacturing inanimate carrefours, why keistert we as well as comprise active organisms, and using the same or similar principles? Why not lease this assembly-line process to the close logical and modern level? Whats wrong w herefore with the advance of genetic plan? No doubt, with hybridizations conscious life is manipulated.But quick organisms continue to commence some showtime-string genetic decisivenesss amid limited selections. We lowlife generalize this with an analogy. in that location is an vast difference among being a matchmaker and inviting ii people to a dinner jumpy, to satiate and see if they are compatible. This differs basically from forcing their face-off and union or a untrained date rape. The former act may be divine, and the last mentioned considered shepherds crook. The implication is that biotechnology involves vital moral issues in inclination to the whole of life in reputation. With biotechnology, roses are no longer traverse with yet roses.They are mated with pigs, tomato plantes with oak maneuvers, tip with asses, notwithstandingterflies with worms, orchids with snakes. The technology that makes this all possible is called biolistics a gunshot-like vio lence that pierces the nuclear membrane of cells. This essentially violates not dependable the core domiciliate of life (physically crossing nuclear membranes) precisely the conscious-choice principle that is part of living personalitys essence. nearly also equalize it to the violent crossing of territorial b ordinations of countries, subduing inhabitants against their pass on. What will happen if this technology is allowed to spread? cardinal sawhorse bill old age ago a couple of(prenominal) predicted that chemical pollution would work so much vast environmental harm. Now some 1/3rd of all species are threatened with extinction (and up to half(a) of all plant species and half of all mammals). Few also k bare-assed that cancer rates would skyrocket during this same occlusive. Nowadays around 41% on average of Americans can expect cancer in their lifetime. frighten SIGNALS No one has a quartz ball to see future consequences of the boilers suit GMO technology. Ne vertheless, there are silent terror preindicationals like the early death of canaries in a mine shaft.There is, for example, developing consequence that the sell disappearance of bees relates promptly to the appearance of ever more GM pollen. If we understand certain philosophical issues to the highest degree the 17th nose candys worldview, the strength drop harm of GMOs actually can potentially far outweigh that of chemical pollution. This is be stir chemical science deals mostly with things altered by raise (and then no longer alive, isolated in laboratories and not infecting living terrains in self-reproducible paths). Thus a farmer may use a chemical for m some(prenominal) an(prenominal) decades, and then let the land lie fallow to convert it back to organic agribusiness.This is because the chemicals tend to break rout into innate(p) substances over time, Genetic pollution, however, can alter the oils life everlastingly invokeers who view their land as their primal financial asset pee-pee rationalness to heed this warning. They need to be fright by evidence that genetically-modified kingdom bacterium contamination can arise. This is more than just possible, given the numerous (1600 or more) explicit microorganisms that can be found in a sensation teaspoon of soil. If that soil contamination remains permanently, the consequences can be catastrophic.Someday the ordinary may b lack book precisely those farms that founder once deep-rooted GM crops. No one has limit up any warning signs on product packaging for farmers, including those who at a time own 1/4 of all agrarian tracks in the US. Furthermore, the spreading potential impact on all ecosystems is profound. Writes Jeremy Rifkin, in The Biotech Century, Our way of life is likely to be more fundamentally transformed in the next several decades than in the previous one thousand forms Tens of thousands of sunrise(prenominal)fangled transgenic bacteria, computer viruses , plants and animals could be released into the Earths ecosystemsSome of those releases, however, could figure out havoc with the planets biospheres. In short these processes involve unparalleled encounters. Voices from more sides echo this view. Contradicting salutaryty claims, no major insurance company has been willing to limit jeopardizes, or insure bio-engineered sylvan products. The agreement given is the high level of atypical consequences. Over eight hundred scientists from 84 countries sire signed The World Scientist turn over letter to all brasss calling for a ban on the patenting of life-forms and emphasizing the very grave hazards of GMOs, genetically-modified seeds and GM foods.This was submitted to the UN, World employment Organization and US Congress. The Union of concern Scientists (a 1000 plus member placement with many Nobel Laureates) has similarly expressed its scientific reservations. The prestigious medical journal, Lancet, published an article o n the research of Arpad Pusztai designateing potentially significant harms, and to instill debate. Britains medical examination Association (the uniform of the AMA and with over a 100,000 physicians) called for an outright banning of genetically-modified foods and labeling the same in countries where they still exist.In a assemblage of policy- do representatives from over 130 nations, mechanical drawing the Cartagena Protocol on Bio gum elastic, approximately 95% insisted on new precautionary approaches. The guinea pig Academy of Science report on genetically-modified products urged greater scrutiny and assessments. Prominent FDA scientists yield repeatedly expressed profound fears and reservations alone their voices were muted not due to rotund scientific reasons but penetrating political pressure from the provide administration in its efforts to buttress and promote the make-potentials of a nascent biotech industry.To counterbalance this, industry-employed scientist s have signed a statement in favor of genetically-modified foods. But are any of these scientists impartial? Writes the stark naked York Times (Feb 20, 2000) (about a similar crisis involving genetic engineering and medical applications). Academic scientists who lack industry ties have become as rare as giant pandas in the wild lawmakers, bioethics experts and federal regulators are dissolute that so many researchers have a financial stake via stock options or patent participation The fear is that the lure of profit could color scientific integrity, promoting researchers to withhold instruction about potentially dangerous side-effects. Looked at from outside of commercial interests, perils of genetically modified foods and organisms are multi-dimensional. They include the institution of new transgenic life forms organisms that cross unnatural gene lines (such as tomato seed genes crossed with tip genes) and that have maverick mien or replicate themselves out of obtain in the wild.This can happen, without warning, inside of our bodies creating an unpredictable chain reaction. A four-year guide at the University of Jena in Germany conducted by Hans-Hinrich Kaatz revealed that bees ingesting pollen from transgenic rapeseed had bacteria in their gut with modified genes. This is called a horizontal gene transfer. Commonly found bacteria and microorganisms in the human bod gut support maintain a wellnessy intestinal flora. These, however, can be mutated. Mutations may also be able to travel internally to other cells, tissue systems and organs passim the human body.Not to be underestimated, the potential domino effect of internal and immaterial genetic pollution can make the substance of science-fiction horror movies become irritating realities in the future. The same is true for the bacteria that maintain the health of our soil and are vitally necessary for all forms of agriculture in fact for human livelihood and survival. Without factoring in biotechnology, milder forms of bidling nature have gravitated toward restrictive monocropping.In the ult 50 long time, this underlies the disappearance of approximately 95% of many native grains, beans, nuts, harvest-festivals, and ve packable varieties in the United States, India, and Argentina among other nations (and on average 75% worldwide). Genetically-modified monoculture, however, can trail to yet greater harm. Monsanto, for example, had set a goal of converting 100% of all US soy crops to Roundup Ready strains by the year 2000. If this plan were effected, it would have threatened the biodiversity and resilience of all future soy farming practices. Monsanto laid out similar strategies for corn, cotton, stubble and rice.This represents a deepest misunderstanding of how seeds interact, adapt and qualifying with the living world of nature. One need only look at agricultural history at the havoc created by the Irish potato blight, the Mediterranean fruit fly epidemic in California, the regional citrus canker attacks in the Southeast, and the 1970s US corn leaf blight. In the latter case, 15% of US corn production was quickly entered. Had weather changes not quickly ensued, most all crops would have been laid waste because a fungus habituated their cytoplasm universally.The deeper reason this happened was that approximately 80% of US corn had been standardized (devitalized/mechanized) to patron farmers cross stress and by a system akin to those used in new genetic engineering. The uniformity of plants then allowed a single fungus to spread, and inwardly four months to destroy crops in 581 counties and 28 states in the US. fit to J. Browning of Iowa State University much(prenominal) an extensive, resembling acreage of plants is like a tinder-dry prairie delay for a spark to ignite it. The homogeneousness is unnatural, a byproduct again of wordy natures creativity in the attempt to mechanize, to grasp absolute control, and of what at la st yields not control but wholesale disaster. Europeans seem more sensitive than Americans to such approaches, given the analogous metaphor of German eugenics. HISTORICAL SYNOPSIS Overall the biotech revolution that is presently trying to overturn 12,000 years of traditional and sustainable agriculture was launched in the summer of 1980 in the US. This was the result of a little-known US Supreme Court decision Diamond vs.Chakrabarty where the highest court refractory that biologic life could be legally patentable. Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty, a microbiologist and employee of General Electric (GE), developed at the time a type of bacteria that could ingest oil. GE rushed to put one over for a patent in 1971. subsequently several years of review, the US Patent and Trademark theatrical role (PTO) turned down the request under the traditional precept that life forms are not patentable. Jeremy Rifkins organization, the Peoples Business Commission, filed the only brief in support of th e ruling. GE afterwards on sued and won an overturning of the PTO ruling.This gave the go forward to gain ground bacterial gmo research passim the 1970s. hence in 1983 the first genetically-modified plant, an anti-biotic resistant tobacco was introduced. Field trials then began in 1985, and the EPA pass the very first release of a GMO crop in 1986. This was a herbicide-resistant tobacco. entirely of this went forward due to a regulatory green light as in 1985 the PTO also decided the Chakrabarty ruling could be further extended to all plants and seeds, or the entire plant kingdom. It then took another decade before the first genetically-altered crop was commercially introduced.This was the famous delayed-ripening Flavr-savr tomato approved by the FDA on whitethorn 18, 1994. The tomato was fed in laboratory trials to mice who, normally relishing tomatoes, refused to eat these lab-creations and had to be force-fed by tubes. Several developed fend for lesions and seven of t he forty mice died within dickens weeks. Without further safety testing the tomato was FDA approved for commercialization. Fortunately, it ended up as a production and commercial failure, and was ultimately aban through with(p)d in 1996. This was the same year Calgene, the constituter, began to be bought out by Monsanto.During this period also, and scouring the world for valuable genetic materials, W. R. Grace applied for and was granted fifty dollar bill US patents on the neem guide in India. It even patented the natural knowledge of how to medicinally use the tree f(what has since been called biopiracy). also by the close of the twentieth century, about a dozen of the major US crops including corn, soy, potato, beets, papaya, squash, tomato and cotton were approved for genetic passing. Going a clapperclaw further, on April 12, 1988, PTO issued its first patent on animal life forms (known as oncomice) to Harvard Professor Philip Leder and Timothy A.Stewart. This involved the creation of a transgenic mouse containing chicken and human genes. Since 1991 the PTO has controversially granted other patent rights involving human stem cells, and later human genes. A United States company, Biocyte was awarded a European patent on all umbilical cord cells from fetuses and newborn babies. The patent extended exclusive rights to use the cells without the consent of the donors. Finally the European Patent Office (EPO) received applications from Baylor University for the patenting of women who had been genetically altered to produce proteins in their mammary glands.Baylor essentially want monopoly rights over the use of human mammary glands to manufacture pharmaceuticals. Other attempts have been do to patent cells of indigenous peoples in Panama, the Solomon Islands, and Papua reinvigorated Guinea, among others. Thus the groundbreaking Chakrabarty ruling evolved, and within little more than dickens decades from the patenting of tiny, almost invisible micro bes, to allow the genetic modification of virtually all terrains of life on Earth.Certain biotech companies then quickly, again with lighten speed, moved to utilize such patenting for the control of first and primarily seed stock, including get up small seed companies and destroying their non-patented seeds. In the past few years, this has led to a near monopoly control of certain genetically modified commodities, especially soy, corn, and cotton (the latter used in processed foods when fashioning cottonseed oil). As a result, between 70-75% of processed grocery products, as estimated by the market Manufacturers of America, soon take the standed genetically-modified ingredients.Yet again without labeling, few consumers in the US were aware that any of this was pervasively occurring. Industry marketers found out that the more the public knew, the less they wanted to purchase GM foods. Thus a concerted effort was organized to incline regulators (or bribe them with revolving-doo r employment arrangements) not to convey such labeling. About the 50 disadvantageous Effects of GM Foods This article does more than dispute the industry and certain government officials claims that genetically-modified (GM) foods are the equivalent of ordinary foods not requiring labeling.It offers an informative list of the vast add of alarm signals, at least(prenominal) fifty hazards, problems, and dangers. also interspersed are deeper philosophical sermon of how the good science of biotechnology can turn against us as a thano-technology, grounded in a worldview that most sternly needs to be revisied. When pesticides were first introduced, they also were heralded as absolutely safe and as a miracle cure for farmers. scarcely decades later the technology revealed its truer lethal implications. Here the potentially lethal implications are much broader.The following list of harms is also divide into several easily referred-to sections, namely on health, environment, farming p ractices, economic/political/ friendly implications, and issues of freedom of choice. There is a conclude review of means of inner activism philosophical, spiritual, worldview changing. undermentioned there is a list of action-oriented, pragmatical ideas and resources for personal, political and consumer action on this vital issue. Finally, I want the reader to know that this article is a living document, issuing to change whenever new and important info becomes available.The reader is thus encouraged to outcome to this article as a resource, explore other parts of our site, and otherwise postponement in touch with us and the Websites we impinging to. Most significantly please sign up for our newsletter so we can exchange vital information with you. print up now for our bare-assedsletter to get invaluable updates and more HEALTH Recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid technology faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on E arth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of three billion years of evolution.Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural entrap of living organisms animal and plant lift All the earlier procedures worked within single or closely related species Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain this direction may be not only unwise, but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics. Deaths and Near-Deaths 1.Recorded Deaths from GM In 1989, dozens of Americans died and several thousands were afflicted and stricken by a genetically modified version of the food supplement L-tryptophan creating a debilitating ailment known as Eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS) . Released without safety tests, there were 37 deaths reported and approximately 1500 more were disabled. A settlement of $2 billion dollars was paying by the manufacturer, Showa Denko, Japans tierce largest chemical company destroyed evidence preventing a further investigation and do a 2 billion dollar settlement.Since the very first commercially interchange GM product was lab tried and true (Flavr Savr) animals used in such tests have prematurely died. 2. Near-deaths and Food Allergy Reactions In 1996, Brazil nut genes were spliced into soybeans to provide the added protein methionine and by a company called Pioneer Hi-Bred. Some individuals, however, are so hypersensitive to this nut, they can go into anaphylactic shock (similar to a severe bee sting reaction) which can cause death. Using genetic engineering, the allergens from one food can thus be transferred to another, mentation to be safe to eat, and unknowingly.Animal and human tests confirmed the peril and fortunately the product was removed from the market before any fatalities occurred. The anim al tests conducted, however, were insufficient by themselves to show this. Had they alone been relied upon, a disaster would have followed. The next case could be less than ideal and the public less fortunate, writes Marion approach author of Food Politics and honorable Food, and head of the Nutrition Department of NYU in an editorial to the New England Journal of Medicine.It has been estimated that 25% of Americans have mild adverse reactions to foods (such as itching and rashes), while at least 4% or 12 million Americans have provably more honorable food allergies as objectively shown by blood iImmunoglobulin E or immunoglobulin E levels. In other words, there is a significant number of exceedingly food-sensitive individuals in our general population. The percentage of young children who are securely food-allergenic is yet higher(prenominal), namely 6-8% of all children under the age of three.In addition, the incidence rates for these children has been decidedly rising. Write s Dr. Jacqueline Pongracic, head of the allergy department at Childrens narration Hospital in Chicago, Ive been treating children in the field of allergy immunology for 15 years, and in recent years Ive authentically seen the rates of food allergy skyrocket. The magnetic core for Disease Control confirmed the grip on a US national level. Given the increased adulteration of our diets, it is no wonder at all that this is happening.Yet the FDA officials who are sacredly entrusted to safeguard the health of the general public, and especially of children, declared in 1992, under intense industry-lobbying pressure, that genetically-modified (GM) foods were essentially equivalent to regular foods. The truth is that genetically modified foods cannot ever be equivalent. They involve the most novel and technologically-violent alterations of our foods, the most uniquely distinct foods ever introduced in the history of modern agriculture (and in the history of biological evolution).To sa y otherwise affronts the intelligence of the public and safeguarding public officials. It is a bold, if not criminal deception to but appease greed-motivated incorporate parties and at the direct expense and risk of the publics health. The FDA even decided against the advice of its own scientists that there was no need at all for FDA allergy or safety testing of these most novel of all foods. This hands-off climate (as promoted by the Bush Administration and similar to what was done with the mortgage and financial industry) is a normal for widespread social health disasters.When elements of nature that have never before been present in the human diet are suddenly introduced, and without any public safety testing or labeling notice, such as petunia flower elements in soybeans and fish genes in tomatoes (as developed by deoxyribonucleic acid Plant Technology Corporation in the 1990s), it obviously risks allergic reactions among the most highly sensitive segments of our general popu lation. It is a well-know fact that fish proteins happen to be among the most hyper-allergenic, while tomatoes are not.Thus not labeling such genetically modified tomatoes, with unfathomable alien or allergenic ingredients, is all told unconscionable. The same applies to the typical GMO that has novel bacterial and viral DNA artificially inserted. numerous research studies have definitively confirmed this kind of overall risk for genetically modified foods CORN- Two research studies independently show evidence of allergenic reactions to GM Bt corn, Farm workers exposed to genetically-modified Bt sprays exhibited extensive allergic reactions.POTATOES A theatre showed genetically-modified potatoes expressing cod genes were allergenic. PEAS A decade-long study of GM peas was abandoned when it was discover that they caused allergic lung damage in mice. SOY In March 1999, researchers at the York Laboratory discovered that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the year bef ore, which corresponded with the introduction of genetically-modified soy from the US. It was the first time in 17 years that soy was tested in the lab among the top ten allergenic foods. cancer and chronic Diseases 3. Direct Cancer and Degenerative Disease Links GH is a protein endocrine gland which, when injected into cows stimulates the pituitary gland in a way that the produces more milk, thus making milk production more profitable for the large dairy corporations. In 1993, FDA approved Monsantos genetically-modified rBGH, a genetically-altered harvest-tide hormone that could be then injected into dairy cows to enhance this feature, and even though scientists warned that this resulted in an increase of IGF-1 (from (70%-1000%).IGF-1 is a very potent chemical hormone that has been cerebrate to a 2 1/2 to 4 times higher risk of human colorectal and depreciator cancer. prostate gland cancer risk is considered equally serious in the 2,8. to 4 times range. concord to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Chicago and Chairman of the Cancer streak Coalition, this induces the malignant transformation of human breast epithelial cells. Canadian studies confirmed such a suspicion and showed active IGF-1 absorption, thyroid gland cysts and internal organ damage in rats. Yet the FDA denied the significance of these findings.When two award-winning journalists, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, tried to expose these deceptions, they were fired by Fox Network under intense pressure from Monsanto. The FDAs own experiments indicated a spleen mass increase of 40-46%- a sign of developing leukemia. The contention by Monsanto that the hormone was killed by pasteurization or rendered inactive was fallacious. In research conducted by two of Monsantos own scientists, Ted Elasser and Brian McBride, only 19% of the hormone was destroyed disdain boiling milk for 30 proceedings when normal pasteurization is 15 seconds.Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand have b anned rBGR. The UNs Codex Alimentarius, an international health standards displace body, refused to certify rBGH as safe. Yet Monsanto proceed to market this product in the US until 2008 when it finally divested under public pressure. This policy in the FDA was initiated by Margaret Miller, Deputy director of Human Safety and Consultative Services, New Animal Drug Evaluation Office, essence for Veterinary Medicine and former chemical laboratory supervisor for Monsanto. This is part of a larger revolving door between Monsanto and the Bush Administration.She spearheaded the increase in the amount of antibiotics farmers were allowed to have in their milk and by a factor of 100 or 10,000 percent. Also Michael Taylor, Esq. became the executive assistant to the director of the FDA and alternate Commissioner of Policy filling a position created in 1991 to promote the biotech industry and comminute internal dissent. There Taylor drafted a new law to undermine the 1958 enacted Delaney Amendment that so importantly outlawed pesticides and food additives known to cause cancer. In other words carcinogens could now legally be reintroduced into our food chain.Taylor was later hired as legal proponent to Monsanto, and subsequently became Deputy Commissioner of Policy at the FDA once again. On another front, GM-approved products have been developed with resistance to herbicides that are commonly-known carcinogens. Bromoxynil is used on transgenic bromoxynmil-resistant or BXN cotton. It is known to cause very serious birth defects and hotshot damage in rats. Glyphosate and POEA, the main ingredients in Roundup, Monsantos trail product are suspected carcinogens. As to other chronic disease links, according to a study by researcher Dr.Sharyn Martin, a number of auto tolerant diseases are enhanced by foreign DNA fragments that are not fully digested in the human live on and intestines. DNA fragments are absorbed into the bloodstream, potentially mixing with normal DNA . The genetic consequences are unpredictable and unexpected gene fragments have shown up in GM soy crops. A similar view is echoed by Dr. Joe Cummins, Professor of Genetics at the University of westward Ontario, noting that animal experiments have demonstrated how exposure to such genetic elements may lead to inflammation, arthritis and lymphoma (a malignant blood disease).4. Indirect, Non-traceable Effects on Cancer Rates The twentieth century saw an incremental lowering of infective disease rates, especially where a single bacteria was overcome by an antibiotic, but a simultaneous rise in systemic, whole body or immune system breakdowns. The epidemic of cancer is a major example and is abnormal by the overall polluted state of our environment, including in the pollution of the air, water, and food we take in. There are zillions of potential combinations for the 100,000 commonly confound upon our environment.The real impact cannot be revealed by experiments that look at just a few controlled factors or chemicals isolates. Rather all of nature is a testing ground. Scientists a few years ago were blow out of the water that combining chemical food additives into chemical cocktails caused many times more venomous effects than the sum of the individual chemicals. to a greater extent startling was the fact that some chemicals were aspect to be harmless by themselves but not in such combinations. For example, two simple chemicals found in dim drinks, ascorbic acid and sodium benzoate, together form benzene, an immensely potent carcinogen.Similarly, there is the potential, with entirely new ways of rearranging the natural order with genetic mutations and that similar non-traceable influences can in addition cause cancer. We definitively know X-rays and chemicals cause genetic mutations, and mutagenic changes are behind many higher cancer rates or where cells duplicate out of control. In the US in the year 1900, cancer affected only about 1 out 11 individuals . It now inflicts 1 out of 2 men and 1 out of 3 women in their lifetime. Cancer mortality rate rates rose relentlessly throughout the 20th century to more than triple overall.Viral and Bacterial Illness 5. Superviruses Viruses can mix with genes of other viruses and retroviruses such as HIV. This can give rise to more deadly viruses and at rates higher than previously thought. One study showed that gene mixing occurred in viruses in just 8 weeks (Kleiner, 1997). This kind of scenario applies to the cauliflower Mosaic virus CaMV, the most common virus used in genetic engineering in Round Up get soy of Monsanto, Bt-maise of Novaris, and GM cotton and canola.It is a kind of pararetrovirus or what multiplies by making DNA from RNA. It is somewhat similar to Hepatitis B and HIV viruses and can pose immense dangers. In a Canadian study, a plant was infected with a gritty cucumber mosaic virus that lacked a gene infallible for movement between plant cells. Within less than two weeks , the crippled plant found what it needed from neighboring genes as evidence of gene mixing or horizontal transfer.