50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified (Gm) Foods Essay Example for Free

50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified (Gm) Foods Essay Introduction What is called biotechnology is a vital issue that impacts all of us. Largely between 1997 and 1999, genetically modified (GM) food ingredients suddenly appeared in 2/3rds of all US processed foods. This food alteration was fueled by a single Supreme Court ruling. It allowed, for the first time, the patenting of life forms for commercialization. Since then thousands of applications for experimental genetically-modified (GM) organisms, including quite bizarre GMOs, have been filed with the US Patent Office alone, and many more abroad. Furthermore an economic war broke out to own equity in firms that legally claimed such patent rights or the means to control not only genetically modified organisms but vast reaches of human food supplies. This has been the behind-the-scenes and key factor for some of the largest and rapid agri-chemical firm mergers 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) are three prominent examples, Few consumers are aware this has been going on and is ever continuing. Yet if you recently ate soya sauce in a Chinese restaurant, munched popcorn in a movie theatre, or indulged in an occasional candy bar youve undoubtedly ingested this new type of food. You may have, at the time, known exactly how much salt, fat and carbohydrates were in each of these foods because regulations mandate their labeling for dietary purposes. But you would not know if the bulk of these foods, and literally every cell had been genetically altered! In just those three years, as much as 1/4th of all American agricultural lands or 70-80 million acres were quickly converted to raise genetically-modified (GM) food and crops. See more: Unemployment problems and solutions essay And in the race to increase GM crop production verses organics, the former is winning. For details, see our article Who is Winning The Race Between GM Global and Organic Crop Production? Core Philosophical Issues When Gandhi confronted British rule and Martin Luther King addressed those who disenfranchised Afro-Americans, each brought forth issues of morality and spirituality. They both challenged others to live up to the highest principles of humanity. With the issue of GM food technology, we should naturally do the same, and with great respect for both sides. It is not enough to list fifty or more harmful effects but we need to also address moral, spiritual and especially worldview issues. Here the stakes are incredibly huge. For an introductory discussion of the philosophical issues involving GMOs, why this technology represents the impregnation of a mechanical worldview, a death-centered vision of nature that is greatlyt accelerating the death of species on earth, see our article GMOs Philosophical Issues of a Thanoptic (Death-Delivering) Technology. FROM HYBRIDIZATION TO GMOs Another challenging phenomenon to face in our modern world is that of hybridization. It seems to have worked so very successfully in some commercial realms, and as a major application of Gregor Mendels revolutionary Gene Theory. Mendel offered a logical extension of the larger mechanical worldview. Just as we create factory assembly lines for manufacturing inanimate products, why cant we also manufacture living organisms, and using the same or similar principles? Why not take this assembly-line process to the next logical and progressive level? Whats wrong then with the advance of genetic engineering? No doubt, with hybridizations conscious life is manipulated. But living organisms continue to make some primary genetic decisions amid limited selections. We can understand this with an analogy. There is an immense difference between being a matchmaker and inviting two people to a dinner party, to meet and see if they are compatible. This differs essentially from forcing their meeting and union or a violent date rape. The former act may be divine, and the latter considered criminal. The implication is that biotechnology involves vital moral issues in regard to the whole of life in nature. With biotechnology, roses are no longer crossed with just roses. They are mated with pigs, tomatoes with oak trees, fish with asses, butterflies with worms, orchids with snakes. The technology that makes this all possible is called biolistics a gunshot-like violence that pierces the nuclear membrane of cells. This essentially violates not just the core chambers of life (physically crossing nuclear membranes) but the conscious-choice principle that is part of living natures essence. Some also compare it to the violent crossing of territorial borders of countries, subduing inhabitants against their will. What will happen if this technology is allowed to spread? Fifty years ago few predicted that chemical pollution would cause so much vast environmental harm. Now nearly 1/3rd of all species are threatened with extinction (and up to half of all plant species and half of all mammals). Few also knew that cancer rates would skyrocket during this same period. Nowadays approximately 41% on average of Americans can expect cancer in their lifetime. ALARM SIGNALS No one has a crystal ball to see future consequences of the overall GMO technology. Nevertheless, there are silent alarm signals like the early death of canaries in a mine shaft. There is, for example, growing evidence that the wholesale disappearance of bees relates directly to the appearance of ever more GM pollen. If we understand certain philosophical issues about the 17th centurys worldview, the potential harm of GMOs actually can potentially far outweigh that of chemical pollution. This is because chemistry deals mostly with things altered by fire (and then no longer alive, isolated in laboratories and not infecting living terrains in self-reproducible ways). Thus a farmer may use a chemical for many decades, and then let the land lie fallow to convert it back to organic farming. This is because the chemicals tend to break down into natural substances over time, Genetic pollution, however, can alter the oils life forever! Farmers who view their land as their primary financial asset have reason to heed this warning. They need to be alarmed by evidence that genetically-modified soil bacteria contamination can arise. This is more than just possible, given the numerous (1600 or more) distinct microorganisms that can be found in a single teaspoon of soil. If that soil contamination remains permanently, the consequences can be catastrophic. Someday the public may blacklist precisely those farms that have once planted GM crops. No one has put up any warning signs on product packaging for farmers, including those who now own 1/4 of all agricultural 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 years Tens of thousands of novel transgenic bacteria, viruses, plants and animals could be released into the Earths ecosystems Some of those releases, however, could wreak havoc with the planets biospheres. In short these processes involve unparalleled risks. Voices from many sides echo this view. Contradicting safety claims, no major insurance company has been willing to limit risks, or insure bio-engineered agricultural products. The reason given is the high level of unpredictable consequences. Over eight hundred scientists from 84 countries have signed The World Scientist open letter to all governments 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 Trade Organization and US Congress. The Union of Concerned Scientists (a 1000 plus member organization with many Nobel Laureates) has similarly expressed its scientific reservations. The prestigious medical journal, Lancet, published an article on the research of Arpad Pusztai showing potentially significant harms, and to instill debate. Britains Medical Association (the equivalent 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 gathering of political representatives from over 130 nations, drafting the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, approximately 95% insisted on new precautionary approaches. The National Academy of Science report on genetically-modified products urged greater scrutiny and assessments. Prominent FDA scientists have repeatedly expressed profound fears and reservations but their voices were muted not due to cogent scientific reasons but intense political pressure from the Bush administration in its efforts to buttress and promote the profit-potentials of a nascent biotech industry. To counterbalance this, industry-employed scientists have signed a statement in favor of genetically-modified foods. But are any of these scientists impartial? Writes the New 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 troubled 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 information 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 creation of new transgenic life forms organisms that cross unnatural gene lines (such as tomato seed genes crossed with fish genes) and that have unpredictable behavior or replicate themselves out of control in the wild. This can happen, without warning, inside of our bodies creating an unpredictable chain reaction. A four-year study 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 gut help maintain a healthy intestinal flora. These, however, can be mutated. Mutations may also be able to travel internally to other cells, tissue systems and organs throughout the human body. Not to be underestimated, the potential domino effect of internal and external genetic pollution can make the substance of science-fiction horror movies become terrible 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 farming in fact for human sustenance and survival. Without factoring in biotechnology, milder forms of controlling nature have gravitated toward restrictive monocropping. In the past 50 years, this underlies the disappearance of approximately 95% of many native grains, beans, nuts, fruits, and vegetable varieties in the United States, India, and Argentina among other nations (and on average 75% worldwide). Genetically-modified monoculture, however, can lead 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, wheat and rice. This represents a deepest misunderstanding of how seeds interact, adapt and change 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 destroyed. Had weather changes not quickly ensued, most all crops would have been laid waste because a fungus attached their cytoplasm universally. The deeper reason this happened was that approximately 80% of US corn had been standardized (devitalized/mechanized) to help farmers crossbreed and by a method akin to those used in current genetic engineering. The uniformity of plants then allowed a single fungus to spread, and within four months to destroy crops in 581 counties and 28 states in the US. According to J. Browning of Iowa State University: Such an extensive, homogeneous acreage of plants is like a tinder-dry prairie waiting for a spark to ignite it. The homogeneity is unnatural, a byproduct again of deadening natures creativity in the attempt to mechanize, to grasp absolute control, and of what ultimately 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 decided that biological 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 apply for a patent in 1971. After several years of review, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) turned down the request under the traditional doctrine that life forms are not patentable. Jeremy Rifkins organization, the Peoples Business Commission, filed the only brief in support of the ruling. GE later sued and won an overturning of the PTO ruling. This gave the go ahead to further bacterial gmo research throughout the 1970s. Then in 1983 the first genetically-modified plant, an anti-biotic resistant tobacco was introduced. Field trials then began in 1985, and the EPA approved the very first release of a GMO crop in 1986. This was a herbicide-resistant tobacco. All 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 May 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 stomach lesions and seven of the forty mice died within two 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 abandoned in 1996. This was the same year Calgene, the producer, 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 US patents on the neem tree in India. It even patented the indigenous knowledge of how to medicinally use the tree f(what has since been called biopiracy). Also by the close of the 20th century, about a dozen of the major US crops including corn, soy, potato, beets, papaya, squash, tomato and cotton were approved for genetic modification. Going a step 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 permission 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 sought monopoly rights over the use of human mammary glands to manufacture pharmaceuticals. Other attempts have been made to patent cells of indigenous peoples in Panama, the Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea, among others. Thus the groundbreaking Chakrabarty ruling evolved, and within little more than two decades from the patenting of tiny, almost invisible microbes, to allow the genetic modification of virtually all terrains of life on Earth. Certain biotech companies then quickly, again with lightening speed, moved to utilize such patenting for the control of first and primarily seed stock, including buying 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 making cottonseed oil). As a result, between 70-75% of processed grocery products, as estimated by the Grocery Manufacturers of America, soon showed 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 convince regulators (or bribe them with revolving-door employment arrangements) not to require such labeling. About the 50 Harmful 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 number of alarm signals, at least fifty hazards, problems, and dangers. also interspersed are deeper philosophical discussion of how the good science of biotechnology can turn against us as a thano-technology, grounded in a worldview that most seriously needs to be revisied. When pesticides were first introduced, they also were heralded as absolutely safe and as a miracle cure for farmers. Only decades later the technology revealed its truer lethal implications. Here the potentially lethal implications are much broader. The following list of harms is also divided into several easily referred-to sections, namely on health, environment, farming practices, economic/political/social implications, and issues of freedom of choice. There is a concluding review of means of inner activism philosophical, spiritual, worldview changing. Next there is a list of action-oriented, practical 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, subject to change whenever new and important information becomes available. The reader is thus encouraged to return to this article as a resource, explore other parts of our site, and otherwise keep in touch with us and the Websites we link to. Most importantly please sign up for our newsletter so we can exchange vital information with you. Sign up now for our Newsletter to get invaluable updates and more HEALTH Recombinant DNA technology faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on Earth. 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 order of living organisms: animal and plant breeding 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 impaired 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 paid by the manufacturer, Showa Denko, Japans third largest chemical company destroyed evidence preventing a further investigation and made a 2 billion dollar settlement. Since the very first commercially sold GM product was lab tested (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 allergic 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, thought 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 animal 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 Nestle author of Food Politics and Safe 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 serious food allergies as objectively shown by blood iImmunoglobulin E or IgE levels. In other words, there is a significant number of highly food-sensitive individuals in our general population. The percentage of young children who are seriously food-allergenic is yet higher, namely 6-8% of all children under the age of three. In addition, the incidence rates for these children has been decidedly rising. Writes Dr. Jacqueline Pongracic, head of the allergy department at Childrens Memorial Hospital in Chicago, Ive been treating children in the field of allergy immunology for 15 years, and in recent years Ive really seen the rates of food allergy skyrocket. The Center for Disease Control confirmed the spike 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 different foods ever introduced in the history of modern agriculture (and in the history of biological evolution). To say otherwise affronts the intelligence of the public and safeguarding public officials. It is a bold, if not criminal deception to but appease greed-motivated corporate 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 recipe 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 DNA Plant Technology Corporation in the 1990s), it obviously risks allergic reactions among the most highly sensitive segments of our general population. 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 hidden alien or allergenic ingredients, is completely unconscionable. The same applies to the typical GMO that has novel bacterial and viral DNA artificially inserted. Many 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 study showed genetically-modified potatoes expressing cod genes were allergenic. PEAS A decade-long study of GM peas was abandoned when it was discovered 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 before, 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 Degenerative Diseases 3. Direct Cancer and Degenerative Disease Links: GH is a protein hormone 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 growth 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 linked to a 2 1/2 to 4 times higher risk of human colorectal and breast cancer. Prostate cancer risk is considered equally serious in the 2,8. to 4 times range. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Chicago and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, this induces the malignant transformation of human breast epithelial cells. Canadian studies confirmed such a suspicion and showed active IGF-1 absorption, thyroid 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 despite boiling milk for 30 minutes when normal pasteurization is 15 seconds. Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand have banned rBGR. The UNs Codex Alimentarius, an international health standards setting body, refused to certify rBGH as safe. Yet Monsanto continued 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, Center 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 deputy Commissioner of Policy filling a position created in 1991 to promote the biotech industry and squelch 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 counsel 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 brain damage in rats. Glyphosate and POEA, the main ingredients in Roundup, Monsantos lead product are suspected carcinogens. As to other degenerative disease links, according to a study by researcher Dr. Sharyn Martin, a number of autoimmune diseases are enhanced by foreign DNA fragments that are not fully digested in the human stomach 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 Western 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 infectious 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 affected 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 thrust 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 startled that combining chemical food additives into chemical cocktails caused many times more toxic effects than the sum of the individual chemicals. More startling was the fact that some chemicals were thought to be harmless by themselves but not in such combinations. For example, two simple chemicals found in soft 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 likewise 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 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 ready 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 crippled cucumber mosaic virus that lacked a gene needed 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.

50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified (Gm) Foods Essay Example for Free

50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified (Gm) Foods Essay Introduction What is called biotechnology is a vital issue that impacts all of us. Largely between 1997 and 1999, genetically modified (GM) food ingredients suddenly appeared in 2/3rds of all US processed foods. This food alteration was fueled by a single Supreme Court ruling. It allowed, for the first time, the patenting of life forms for commercialization. Since then thousands of applications for experimental genetically-modified (GM) organisms, including quite bizarre GMOs, have been filed with the US Patent Office alone, and many more abroad. Furthermore an economic war broke out to own equity in firms that legally claimed such patent rights or the means to control not only genetically modified organisms but vast reaches of human food supplies. This has been the behind-the-scenes and key factor for some of the largest and rapid agri-chemical firm mergers 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) are three prominent examples, Few consumers are aware this has been going on and is ever continuing. Yet if you recently ate soya sauce in a Chinese restaurant, munched popcorn in a movie theatre, or indulged in an occasional candy bar youve undoubtedly ingested this new type of food. You may have, at the time, known exactly how much salt, fat and carbohydrates were in each of these foods because regulations mandate their labeling for dietary purposes. But you would not know if the bulk of these foods, and literally every cell had been genetically altered! In just those three years, as much as 1/4th of all American agricultural lands or 70-80 million acres were quickly converted to raise genetically-modified (GM) food and crops. See more: Unemployment problems and solutions essay And in the race to increase GM crop production verses organics, the former is winning. For details, see our article Who is Winning The Race Between GM Global and Organic Crop Production? Core Philosophical Issues When Gandhi confronted British rule and Martin Luther King addressed those who disenfranchised Afro-Americans, each brought forth issues of morality and spirituality. They both challenged others to live up to the highest principles of humanity. With the issue of GM food technology, we should naturally do the same, and with great respect for both sides. It is not enough to list fifty or more harmful effects but we need to also address moral, spiritual and especially worldview issues. Here the stakes are incredibly huge. For an introductory discussion of the philosophical issues involving GMOs, why this technology represents the impregnation of a mechanical worldview, a death-centered vision of nature that is greatlyt accelerating the death of species on earth, see our article GMOs Philosophical Issues of a Thanoptic (Death-Delivering) Technology. FROM HYBRIDIZATION TO GMOs Another challenging phenomenon to face in our modern world is that of hybridization. It seems to have worked so very successfully in some commercial realms, and as a major application of Gregor Mendels revolutionary Gene Theory. Mendel offered a logical extension of the larger mechanical worldview. Just as we create factory assembly lines for manufacturing inanimate products, why cant we also manufacture living organisms, and using the same or similar principles? Why not take this assembly-line process to the next logical and progressive level? Whats wrong then with the advance of genetic engineering? No doubt, with hybridizations conscious life is manipulated. But living organisms continue to make some primary genetic decisions amid limited selections. We can understand this with an analogy. There is an immense difference between being a matchmaker and inviting two people to a dinner party, to meet and see if they are compatible. This differs essentially from forcing their meeting and union or a violent date rape. The former act may be divine, and the latter considered criminal. The implication is that biotechnology involves vital moral issues in regard to the whole of life in nature. With biotechnology, roses are no longer crossed with just roses. They are mated with pigs, tomatoes with oak trees, fish with asses, butterflies with worms, orchids with snakes. The technology that makes this all possible is called biolistics a gunshot-like violence that pierces the nuclear membrane of cells. This essentially violates not just the core chambers of life (physically crossing nuclear membranes) but the conscious-choice principle that is part of living natures essence. Some also compare it to the violent crossing of territorial borders of countries, subduing inhabitants against their will. What will happen if this technology is allowed to spread? Fifty years ago few predicted that chemical pollution would cause so much vast environmental harm. Now nearly 1/3rd of all species are threatened with extinction (and up to half of all plant species and half of all mammals). Few also knew that cancer rates would skyrocket during this same period. Nowadays approximately 41% on average of Americans can expect cancer in their lifetime. ALARM SIGNALS No one has a crystal ball to see future consequences of the overall GMO technology. Nevertheless, there are silent alarm signals like the early death of canaries in a mine shaft. There is, for example, growing evidence that the wholesale disappearance of bees relates directly to the appearance of ever more GM pollen. If we understand certain philosophical issues about the 17th centurys worldview, the potential harm of GMOs actually can potentially far outweigh that of chemical pollution. This is because chemistry deals mostly with things altered by fire (and then no longer alive, isolated in laboratories and not infecting living terrains in self-reproducible ways). Thus a farmer may use a chemical for many decades, and then let the land lie fallow to convert it back to organic farming. This is because the chemicals tend to break down into natural substances over time, Genetic pollution, however, can alter the oils life forever! Farmers who view their land as their primary financial asset have reason to heed this warning. They need to be alarmed by evidence that genetically-modified soil bacteria contamination can arise. This is more than just possible, given the numerous (1600 or more) distinct microorganisms that can be found in a single teaspoon of soil. If that soil contamination remains permanently, the consequences can be catastrophic. Someday the public may blacklist precisely those farms that have once planted GM crops. No one has put up any warning signs on product packaging for farmers, including those who now own 1/4 of all agricultural 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 years Tens of thousands of novel transgenic bacteria, viruses, plants and animals could be released into the Earths ecosystems Some of those releases, however, could wreak havoc with the planets biospheres. In short these processes involve unparalleled risks. Voices from many sides echo this view. Contradicting safety claims, no major insurance company has been willing to limit risks, or insure bio-engineered agricultural products. The reason given is the high level of unpredictable consequences. Over eight hundred scientists from 84 countries have signed The World Scientist open letter to all governments 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 Trade Organization and US Congress. The Union of Concerned Scientists (a 1000 plus member organization with many Nobel Laureates) has similarly expressed its scientific reservations. The prestigious medical journal, Lancet, published an article on the research of Arpad Pusztai showing potentially significant harms, and to instill debate. Britains Medical Association (the equivalent 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 gathering of political representatives from over 130 nations, drafting the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, approximately 95% insisted on new precautionary approaches. The National Academy of Science report on genetically-modified products urged greater scrutiny and assessments. Prominent FDA scientists have repeatedly expressed profound fears and reservations but their voices were muted not due to cogent scientific reasons but intense political pressure from the Bush administration in its efforts to buttress and promote the profit-potentials of a nascent biotech industry. To counterbalance this, industry-employed scientists have signed a statement in favor of genetically-modified foods. But are any of these scientists impartial? Writes the New 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 troubled 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 information 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 creation of new transgenic life forms organisms that cross unnatural gene lines (such as tomato seed genes crossed with fish genes) and that have unpredictable behavior or replicate themselves out of control in the wild. This can happen, without warning, inside of our bodies creating an unpredictable chain reaction. A four-year study 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 gut help maintain a healthy intestinal flora. These, however, can be mutated. Mutations may also be able to travel internally to other cells, tissue systems and organs throughout the human body. Not to be underestimated, the potential domino effect of internal and external genetic pollution can make the substance of science-fiction horror movies become terrible 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 farming in fact for human sustenance and survival. Without factoring in biotechnology, milder forms of controlling nature have gravitated toward restrictive monocropping. In the past 50 years, this underlies the disappearance of approximately 95% of many native grains, beans, nuts, fruits, and vegetable varieties in the United States, India, and Argentina among other nations (and on average 75% worldwide). Genetically-modified monoculture, however, can lead 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, wheat and rice. This represents a deepest misunderstanding of how seeds interact, adapt and change 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 destroyed. Had weather changes not quickly ensued, most all crops would have been laid waste because a fungus attached their cytoplasm universally. The deeper reason this happened was that approximately 80% of US corn had been standardized (devitalized/mechanized) to help farmers crossbreed and by a method akin to those used in current genetic engineering. The uniformity of plants then allowed a single fungus to spread, and within four months to destroy crops in 581 counties and 28 states in the US. According to J. Browning of Iowa State University: Such an extensive, homogeneous acreage of plants is like a tinder-dry prairie waiting for a spark to ignite it. The homogeneity is unnatural, a byproduct again of deadening natures creativity in the attempt to mechanize, to grasp absolute control, and of what ultimately 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 decided that biological 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 apply for a patent in 1971. After several years of review, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) turned down the request under the traditional doctrine that life forms are not patentable. Jeremy Rifkins organization, the Peoples Business Commission, filed the only brief in support of the ruling. GE later sued and won an overturning of the PTO ruling. This gave the go ahead to further bacterial gmo research throughout the 1970s. Then in 1983 the first genetically-modified plant, an anti-biotic resistant tobacco was introduced. Field trials then began in 1985, and the EPA approved the very first release of a GMO crop in 1986. This was a herbicide-resistant tobacco. All 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 May 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 stomach lesions and seven of the forty mice died within two 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 abandoned in 1996. This was the same year Calgene, the producer, 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 US patents on the neem tree in India. It even patented the indigenous knowledge of how to medicinally use the tree f(what has since been called biopiracy). Also by the close of the 20th century, about a dozen of the major US crops including corn, soy, potato, beets, papaya, squash, tomato and cotton were approved for genetic modification. Going a step 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 permission 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 sought monopoly rights over the use of human mammary glands to manufacture pharmaceuticals. Other attempts have been made to patent cells of indigenous peoples in Panama, the Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea, among others. Thus the groundbreaking Chakrabarty ruling evolved, and within little more than two decades from the patenting of tiny, almost invisible microbes, to allow the genetic modification of virtually all terrains of life on Earth. Certain biotech companies then quickly, again with lightening speed, moved to utilize such patenting for the control of first and primarily seed stock, including buying 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 making cottonseed oil). As a result, between 70-75% of processed grocery products, as estimated by the Grocery Manufacturers of America, soon showed 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 convince regulators (or bribe them with revolving-door employment arrangements) not to require such labeling. About the 50 Harmful 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 number of alarm signals, at least fifty hazards, problems, and dangers. also interspersed are deeper philosophical discussion of how the good science of biotechnology can turn against us as a thano-technology, grounded in a worldview that most seriously needs to be revisied. When pesticides were first introduced, they also were heralded as absolutely safe and as a miracle cure for farmers. Only decades later the technology revealed its truer lethal implications. Here the potentially lethal implications are much broader. The following list of harms is also divided into several easily referred-to sections, namely on health, environment, farming practices, economic/political/social implications, and issues of freedom of choice. There is a concluding review of means of inner activism philosophical, spiritual, worldview changing. Next there is a list of action-oriented, practical 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, subject to change whenever new and important information becomes available. The reader is thus encouraged to return to this article as a resource, explore other parts of our site, and otherwise keep in touch with us and the Websites we link to. Most importantly please sign up for our newsletter so we can exchange vital information with you. Sign up now for our Newsletter to get invaluable updates and more HEALTH Recombinant DNA technology faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on Earth. 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 order of living organisms: animal and plant breeding 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 impaired 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 paid by the manufacturer, Showa Denko, Japans third largest chemical company destroyed evidence preventing a further investigation and made a 2 billion dollar settlement. Since the very first commercially sold GM product was lab tested (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 allergic 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, thought 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 animal 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 Nestle author of Food Politics and Safe 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 serious food allergies as objectively shown by blood iImmunoglobulin E or IgE levels. In other words, there is a significant number of highly food-sensitive individuals in our general population. The percentage of young children who are seriously food-allergenic is yet higher, namely 6-8% of all children under the age of three. In addition, the incidence rates for these children has been decidedly rising. Writes Dr. Jacqueline Pongracic, head of the allergy department at Childrens Memorial Hospital in Chicago, Ive been treating children in the field of allergy immunology for 15 years, and in recent years Ive really seen the rates of food allergy skyrocket. The Center for Disease Control confirmed the spike 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 different foods ever introduced in the history of modern agriculture (and in the history of biological evolution). To say otherwise affronts the intelligence of the public and safeguarding public officials. It is a bold, if not criminal deception to but appease greed-motivated corporate 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 recipe 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 DNA Plant Technology Corporation in the 1990s), it obviously risks allergic reactions among the most highly sensitive segments of our general population. 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 hidden alien or allergenic ingredients, is completely unconscionable. The same applies to the typical GMO that has novel bacterial and viral DNA artificially inserted. Many 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 study showed genetically-modified potatoes expressing cod genes were allergenic. PEAS A decade-long study of GM peas was abandoned when it was discovered 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 before, 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 Degenerative Diseases 3. Direct Cancer and Degenerative Disease Links: GH is a protein hormone 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 growth 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 linked to a 2 1/2 to 4 times higher risk of human colorectal and breast cancer. Prostate cancer risk is considered equally serious in the 2,8. to 4 times range. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Chicago and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, this induces the malignant transformation of human breast epithelial cells. Canadian studies confirmed such a suspicion and showed active IGF-1 absorption, thyroid 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 despite boiling milk for 30 minutes when normal pasteurization is 15 seconds. Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand have banned rBGR. The UNs Codex Alimentarius, an international health standards setting body, refused to certify rBGH as safe. Yet Monsanto continued 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, Center 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 deputy Commissioner of Policy filling a position created in 1991 to promote the biotech industry and squelch 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 counsel 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 brain damage in rats. Glyphosate and POEA, the main ingredients in Roundup, Monsantos lead product are suspected carcinogens. As to other degenerative disease links, according to a study by researcher Dr. Sharyn Martin, a number of autoimmune diseases are enhanced by foreign DNA fragments that are not fully digested in the human stomach 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 Western 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 infectious 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 affected 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 thrust 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 startled that combining chemical food additives into chemical cocktails caused many times more toxic effects than the sum of the individual chemicals. More startling was the fact that some chemicals were thought to be harmless by themselves but not in such combinations. For example, two simple chemicals found in soft 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 likewise 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 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 ready 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 crippled cucumber mosaic virus that lacked a gene needed 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.

Women In Agriculture In Palestine Sociology Essay

Women In Agriculture In Palestine Sociology Essay The project has as its principal question, What are the characteristics of women and men working in agriculture in Palestine and the impact on? different agricultural patterns and effect on roles, opportunities and gender relations? Having received financial support, the project has now embarked on its next stage and the development of a research methodology to identify this data from which policy recommendations will be made. To assist the development of this project, this literature review provides an overview of the material that is available on the subject. The approach taken has been both specific and comparative, by identifying previous material written about women in agriculture in Palestine as well as in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and beyond more generally. A broader perspective to the question is valuable in highlighting what work has already been done, including the main features associated with women working in agriculture, the methods taken to examine the issue and the policy recommendations that have been introduced to date. Of particular note across the literature is a seeming paradox regarding women in agriculture. On one hand there is recognition of the previously ignored position of female agricultural labour. As a result there has been growing awareness both in scholarly literature and policy interventions to ensure that women are less marginalised in the sector. On the other hand the greater attention to women in agriculture, both in terms of research and policy recommendations, has largely failed to reduce their marginalisation. This raises key questions about the nature of those policies (such as gender mainstreaming and female participation in their formation, development and implementation) and how the same mistakes are not repeated in the current project. This literature review is divided as follows: General overview of women in agriculture Social dimension of women in agriculture Economic dimension of women in agriculture Technical dimension of women in agriculture Political (and policy) dimension of women in agriculture Suggestions and next steps General overview of women in agriculture globally and in MENA As noted above, there is an underlying paradox at the heart of the literature and analyses of women in agriculture and which appears to hold across the world. On the one hand there is a growing recognition of women and their role in the sector. Among scholars feminist attention to gender issues had tended to focus on urban women during the 1970s. It was not until the mid-1980s that increasing attention was placed on rural women and their involvement in agriculture (Maman and Tate 1996). Among policymakers there was an increasing awareness of the feminisation of agriculture, given the rise of visible female agricultural labour and the disappearance of men, through migration and AIDS for example (Sweetman 1999). On the other hand though, there has been a concurrent oversight, awareness and development of effective strategies to enhance the role of women in agriculture. In practical terms and across the globe, many women have struggled for autonomy in the agricultural sector, facing restriction on land ownership and use, access to inputs and credit and other resources like education and training (Sweetman 1999). Even in locations where women appear to have more access to ownership and control of the land, the denial of that right is arguably the greatest contributor to a gender gap and womens weaker social, economic and political status (Arun 1999, Badr 2010). The use of the term gender has meant that the issue of women in agriculture has become largely subsumed into a broader debate about gender and gender relations. Gender constitutes the socially constructed roles surrounding men and women. In other words, it is not the biological differences between men and women that affect their involvement in human activities, such as agriculture, but rather the way that societies around them shape them. Moreover, gender is seen as increasingly important in development terms. The World Bank (2009) bases it on four main grounds: economic (in terms of enhancing efficiency); equity and distributional; food security and household welfare; and as a basic human right. Globally gender differences are apparent in various ways including access to assets and services, such as land, labour, finance, water, rural infrastructure, technology and other inputs. In MENA, there appear to be two main texts which are especially relevant to the projects focus: Lamia El-Fattels 1996 Women in Agriculture in West Asia and North Africa, and the regional study, Women in Agriculture in the Middle East, edited by Pnina Mozafi-Haller and published nearly a decade later in 2005. To these publications may also be considered the gender-related studies conducted by the PCBS over the same period. El-Fattel provided conducted a broad survey of the subject, ranging across several decades and noting several key points. First, she observed that agriculture in different West Asia and North Africa (WANA) countries shared some common themes. This included the fact that agriculture was primarily rain-fed and more technically advanced compared to other developing countries. While there is a greater use of mechanisation and fertilizers, weeding is still done by hand. Farms tend to be run in a patriarchal fashion and are small; the latter which make it hard to absorb labour outside the family. Second, in reviewing the literature El-Fattal commented noted that there had been relatively little systematic or comparative work done to date (12-14). What material was available tended to focus on single cases, usually at the level of the village or a region within the country rather than at country or regional level. Much of this was reflected in the anthropological or general social science studies nature of the literature. Women in agriculture were generally not the focal point of such studies, but rather as aspect of more specific studies into social dynamics within a community. Third, she summarised the literature as follows: (1) women play important roles in food production in WANA and their involvement is increasing, and (2) the extent of their participation, over space and time, is a function of numerous forces at play. (16) Those factors are both diverse yet inter-related and include land holding size and tenancy (as well as landlessness), the type of farming, the degree of mechanisation, available male labour and a womans social and economic status on both farms and in the community more generally (El Fattel 1996, UN 2001: 10). One of the important aspects of Mozafi-Hallers edited volume was its country and region-based focus. It was the only notable result of a decision in the late 1990s by the Danish governments Regional Agricultural Program to improve agricultural planning and technical assistance between Egypt, Jordan, the PA and Israel. The difficulty of achieving much more with the project was undermined by the second Intifada which reduced the scope for collaboration. Meanwhile, gender had not been initially central to the project, but grew in importance throughout the course of the work (Mozafi-Haller 2005). Of particular relevance to the project is the chapter on Palestinian women in agriculture, which was written by Rema Hammami. It is arguably the most comprehensive study on the subject to date. Given the date of publication, Hammimi makes use of data from the 1990s and early 2000s. She cites a 2000 survey on time use, in which agriculture is not disaggregated from primary production). In addition to this report are two others that make passing reference to women and agriculture: a 1999 survey on female ownership and access to resources (specifically through attitudes regarding female ownership and inheritance) and more recent publications on men and women; the latest of which was published earlier this year and notes that 20.5% of women were employed in agriculture and fishing compared to 9.9% of men (PCBS 1999, 2000, 2010). Beyond these publications the PCBS does publish agricultural statistics on a yearly basis, although the questionnaire is primarily concerned with agricultural products, such as livestock, crops and materials rather than any breakdown of farm labour and women. The only agricultural report that it has produced that has a breakdown by sex is in its 2004/05 Farm Structure Survey, where the issue was raised in its questions concerning land holders (PCBS 2006). Social dimension of women in agriculture Women tend to be marginal actors in agriculture. While women suffer discrimination from a wide range of sources, much of this can be traced back to social and cultural attitudes. In the case of Palestinian and Arab women this is apparent in the public role of women, which has been broadly limited to those of mothers, sisters or wives, or childbearers and childrearers. This is reflected in part by the emphasis towards early and universal marriage and high levels of fertility throughout the region (Salman 1987: 8; Zurayk and Saadeh 1995: 37-38). Such attitudes have persisted, even as Arab women have entered the public sphere (UNDP 2006: 91). Indeed, today Arab women generally have three choices of identity: as a housewife and mother; as a housewife and mother with home-based work; or as a housewife and mother with outside employment. Why females may be subject to such attitudes have been explained in MENA in several ways. This begins early, both within the family home and at school. The use of text books, teachers attitudes and methods, early marriage and high fertility, male dominance in the public sphere and arguably the role of Islam have all been cited in this regard (Rubenburg 2001, UNDP 2006, Posusney and Doumato 2003; El-Mikawy 1999). At the same time, Islam as a constraint does not suffice; Moghadam (1993: 8) claims that it is neither monolithic nor intrinsically patriarchal; at time its adherents have sought to bring women into the public sphere, during times of conflict or national hardship when their participation on the front or in the labour force may be seen as an asset (e.g. Sudan and Saudi Arabia). El-Fattal (1996: 15) notes that Islam has proved an unsatisfying framework to account for the position of women: opposing conclusions have been reached as to whether Islam suppresses or liberates wome n. At the same time there have been changes within Islam, such as Islamic feminism has emerged and which rejects the traditional position of women and promotes their empowerment, including the right to religious education and the use of conservative dress as a means of entering the public sphere even as their attempts to reform family law have largely failed (Posusney and Doumato 2003: 9-11). In the case of Palestine these social attitudes are especially entrenched, with women noting particular political/economic limits, social pressure and familial expectations. This may contribute to some of the rights that women have failed to take up, including to education, work, inheritance, freedom of movement, choice of marriage partner and domestic abuse (Rubenberg 2001: 122-3). The effect if also felt in the generally patriarchal nature of the household and the three main family types that exist: the nuclear (father, mother and unmarried children), the extended or hamula (an economic unit based on several related males and their families headed by the eldest) and a transitional type (which combines elements of the nuclear and extended families) (Manasra 1993: 7), which reflect differences between Palestines modern and traditional sectors and urban, rural and camp settings. Economic dimension of women in agriculture This section considers the experience of women in the formal labour market generally and in the agricultural sector. It begins with a broader perspective on the nature of development in the region and the distinction between the traditional and modern economies. Female labour is largely associated with a modernised economy and the shift from the traditional to the modern economy has posed several obstacles to the inclusion of women in the labour market. The second part outlines those limitations this section provides an overview of the current figures and state of female labour in the Palestinian agricultural sector. However, this section ends with a rider, noting the uncertainty surrounding official figures on female agricultural labour and the steps taken to resolve this, both globally and in Palestine. First, according to Motzafi-Haller (2005), in much of the literature on development there is a strong binary tension between the traditional and the modern, whereby women are discriminated against in the former and included in the latter. In addition, this perception implies a non-efficient traditional economic model versus an efficient, sustainable, just and modern version (Motzafi-Haller 2005). Sweetman (1999) notes the emphasis on efficiency in most rural development interventions, with the result that it largely overlooks notions of justice and equality between the sexes. The focus on efficiency (and modernisation) has meant that the prevailing form of female labour (i.e. informal, domestic) has been undervalued, especially in relation to that done by men. At the same time pressure for women to work both inside and outside the home has risen, especially over the past few decades as structural adjustment has reduced income for the poor and weakened household structures. The result has been a diversification of labour and activities as a means of coping. As a result, agricultural labour is but one form of gaining income (Sweetman 1999). Second, within MENA both the proportion and absolute numbers of women in formal employment have tended to be low. In the literature, various explanations have been put forward, including historic, economic and structural. Historically, the emergence of exploitative labour regimes in the colonial period weakened the role and status of women, especially as the demands of the international economy and wage labour in agricultural and industrial sectors grew. The result was female exclusion from the formal labour force and their unpaid or low-paid work in the informal sector (Shukri 1996: xii). Economically, both globalisation and growth rates have been held to account for poorer female participation. Although MENA is classified as middle-income, it has been subject to slow growth, thereby limiting demand for jobs (which affects women more than men) (UNDP 2006: 91). Structurally, the limited nature of female participation may be attributed to various reasons. First, states ideology and de velopment strategies may affect womens opportunity for employment with more capital-intensive measures benefiting male workers while women have found increased opportunities through subcontracting and home-based work (Moghadam 1995: 18-19, 28). Second, women may experience employment disadvantage as a result of economic failures. This may include the U-shaped nature of economic development, whereby at the initial stage female labour participation decreases as that of men increases, followed by a growing demand for jobs in the sector that are filled by women. At the same time women suffer from externality and common access problems, whereby their labour (especially within the household) is unpaid, freely available and largely misallocated (Vecchio and Roy 1998: 10-13). In the case of the agricultural sector, Razavi (2007) highlights several specific factors that have limited female agricultural labour in MENA. Despite noting the advances in the political and legal rights of women to land, she observes that liberalisation policies (which make it harder for low-income women to access land through the market), the predominant form of small scale farming and its restrictions on achieving access to land mean that agricultural labour can only provide a complementary role in livelihoods alongside other income-generating measures. She also notes the use of customary and decentralised systems of land tenure which can be used by strong interest groups to work against womens rights. In Palestine, women face several social pressures that have economic consequences, both generally and in terms of their full participation in the agricultural sector. Women face greater social restrictions than men, including social stigma following divorce and a weaker right of inheritance (Manasra 1993) although differences do exist between women who pursue their inheritance, with brotherless daughters, widowed mothers and daughters of wealthy households those who most actively advance their claims (Moors 1996: 82). Generally though, Palestinian women (and female heads) face many of the challenges that others in the developing world experience, including restricted property rights and family law constraints on women that persist (Vardhan 1999; Vecchio Roy 1998). In the case of Palestine, access to land is mainly through inheritance and traditionally women tend to waive their rights in favour of their brothers who were expected to reciprocate by looking after their sisters (Hammam i 2005: 69). The rarity of womens ownership of land is apparent in the Palestinian Farm Structure Survey 2004/05, which distinguishes between male and female holders. Female holders vary between 3% in Gaza and the southern West Bank to 5.7% in the northern West Bank (PCBS 2006), although the survey does not provide any data that suggests to what extent female holders exercise control of their land in terms of key decisions. This is reflected in the three main types of female agricultural worker. The first type, male members of the household work off the farm while the women work part of the family land. The second type is women who are full-time farmers. In many cases they are entirely responsible for the farm following the death or abandonment of their husbands. The third type is agricultural labourers who work for others, including both Palestinians and Israelis (Hammami 2005: 61). In terms of figures available on Palestinian female agricultural labour, in 1996 29.1% of women in the labour force worked in agriculture compared to 9.9% of men (although in absolute terms men outnumbered women), highlighting that in terms of employment opportunities, agriculture is much more important for women than men and less connected with pressures from poverty than rising productivity even though the characteristics of such women tended to be older, less educated and lower paid than men in the same sector. The bulk of women in agriculture were based in the West Bank, opportunities being less in Gaza as a result of intensive and irrigated farming and the lack of cultivable land (Hammami 2005). However, by 2009 the same number of men worked in agriculture but the number of women employed in the sector had fallen to 20.5% (PCBS 2010). Third, these official figures need to be taken with a pinch of salt. At the global, regional and national level, numbers regarding womens involvement in the agriculture has been largely underreported. This reflects both womens greater participation at working on their family farms and assumptions by both men and women that their participation is not work (UN 2001: 8). The impact of this underreporting is not only a persistent theme in material related to women in agriculture, but is increasingly being addressed by practitioners. For example, in 2003 the FAO held an international workshop on the subject, recommending that the collection of such data would be best served through the national census in different countries. This meant that greater awareness was needed regarding the concepts associated with agriculture, including: holdings, holders (who makes the primary decisions), legal status of holdings (i.e. public, private and the variations of each), holders household (and the diff erentiated activities that exist within it) and economic activity as a permanent or occasional worker (FAO 2003). In Palestine efforts to get around the problem of underreporting including recognition of the informal nature of agricultural labour and the use of time use surveys as an alternative way of yielding data. This was last done in 1999 and 2000 in which agricultural labour was included under a heading of primary production. According to Hammimi (2005) though, this data was insufficiently disaggregated to provide sufficient data on the issue of agricultural work. Technical dimension of women in agriculture Technical advances in agriculture have created their own challenges. The green revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s involved the modernization of land cultivation and more intensive use of pesticides to increase production and since the 1990s the use of GMOs. The relationship of this development to gender has been notable in two ways. On one hand, it has been the well-off who have largely benefited rather than everyone (Sweetman 1999). Among those who have benefited are men, who largely control technical knowledge. However, such knowledge is imperfect which can lead to adverse results and the mismanagement of various resources in terms of land, water and female labour (Morvaridi 1992). On the other hand, the various factors that have marginalised women in agriculture, including a lack of access to resources, lower educational levels and lower rates of productivity are felt in their inability to manipulate more productive, technically advanced agricultural methods. This keeps them ghettoized in less capital intensive and more labour intensive activities (Hammami 2005: 70-71). At the same time it has placed women at greater risk to their health. While the ILO notes that agriculture is one of the most hazardous occupations in health terms, womens lack of technical knowledge is bound to work against them, through the potentially incorrect use of pesticides that can lead to poisoning (Cole 2006). Specifically in the case of Palestine, greater use of technology in agriculture has reduced the burden of work on women but rather increased it while maintaining inequalities in terms of power and income. In many respects it is men that have taken up the more mechanised and productive techniques, with female labour being largely focused at the more time-consuming, labour-intensive end (e.g. planting, transplanting, weeding, harvesting and packaging) (Hammimi 2005: 67). On the other hand, while women generally have been visible in environmental and consumer actions against the green revolutions globally, it is not evident that this is a gender issue rather than a politically-oriented one (Sweetman 1999, Pedersen and Kjà ¦rgà ¥rd 2004). Political (and policy) dimension of women in agriculture The literature review began with a tension at the heart of the topic: that there is growing attention given to women in agriculture but that measures to rectify the gender gap have not worked to date. However, this is not solely limited to the agricultural sector: across MENA there have been general advances in the political and legal rights for women. At the same time, social and economic pressures have worked against womens rights and been institutionalised through the creation of instruments such as personal status laws and officially sanctioned gender discrimination (Badr 2010). In Palestine, a range of political pressures have worked against women in agriculture. First and uniquely there are challenges presented by the occupation, which challenge men as much as women. These include land confiscations, movement restrictions, a lack of an external market and the administrative division and control of the land, all of which was exacerbated even further by the second Intifada, resulting in sieges, invasions, curfews and internal closures. For women, the responses to these processes have involved the search for coping strategies to help support the household (Hammami 2005: 49, 53). Second, compared to women in other MENA countries, those in Palestine appear to be in a more advantageous position relatively. Women are well represented in the education system and in the public sphere, especially through womens organisations and lobby groups. However, at the same time, female involvement in formal institutions is low. This includes both the formal (as opposed to informal) labour force and representation in formal political institutions, such as the legislature and agricultural unions (Hammami 2005: 54-55). The problems faced by Palestinian women (and women more generally) is reflected in the largely failed policy interventions that have resulted in the agricultural sector, which owe much to practitioners world view and failure to implement gender-related solutions effectively. First, Motzafi-Haller (2005: 8-9) draws attention to the concept of paternal feminism and the work of Boutheina Cheriet, an Algerian professor of comparative education. Rather than reducing gender discrimination by including women and modernising the economy, this more critical view maintains women in a submissive position. In the absence of any wider public debate concerning female roles in development, women are either imposed from above or from outside rather than treated as full equals and partners. Second, efforts that aim at gender-mainstreaming have tended to fail, largely because of what Sweetman (1999: 7) notes as a result of mechanistically integrated gender issues in planning and implementation, without [a] commitment to challenging injustice. Moreover, this means not only being gender aware, but also being prepared to tackle all forms of discrimination, from the overt and direct to the less clear and indirect (ILO 2006: 78). In part the absence of accurate data (see above) can mean that development interventions based on them will be undermined (Sweetman 1999). Much of this may be picked up through the use of statistics, surveys, cost-benefit analyses, research and gender-impact analyses (i.e. examine specific activities and their impact on men and women) (UN 2001: 4). This last point emphasises the importance of incorporating men into gender analysis, since the opportunities and constraints facing men and women will be different. El-Fattel (1996: 47) suggests asking spe cific questions of men and women, such as (1) who does what, when and where? (2) who has access to or control over resources? and (3) who benefits from each enterprise? Grace (2004) argues that understanding the roles of men and women means going beyond their sex, to consider other factors such as age, wealth, marital status and stage of their life cycle. Regionally, across MENA the UN has noted different policy measures (2001: 10, 36). In Syria the focus has been on enhancing rural womens status through rural development programmes and reforms in the educational, legal, social, health and economic sectors. In Lebanon attention has been given to income generation and vocational training for rural women and forms of protection in the informal sector. In Jordan the primary aim has been to increase female participation in the labour market. However, in the absence of strong government will to enforce these measures, the position of rural women will remain weak. Globally, awareness of these failures is reflected in the World Banks Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook (2009: 3-4), which provides tools and case studies of practical examples and best practices to incorporate gender into planning processes. The aim of this literature is to support all kinds of practitioners, from those who are aware of gender issues but do not know where to start through to others that require more training and assistance in devising such mechanisms. Specifically, it uses the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach developed by the British Department for International Development as its conceptual framework for gender-related development. Specifically this has involved drawing attention to assets, markets (for products, labour, finances, land and water), risk and vulnerability, and knowledge, information and organisation related to these issues. For Palestine, a good starting point would be that outlined by Hammami (2005: 74), who notes a current lack of sufficiently gender-specific information. She argues that good intentions and development programs alone will not guarantee an improvement in womens situation in agriculture and hence increase in farm productivity. Among the measures that would need to be addressed include: enhanced opportunities in rural areas (more resources and infrastructure), development programs to strengthen rural peoples role and their participation, more gender-related data in agriculture, adaptive and appropriate research and technologies for women, qualified and professional female extension agents, womens access to land, access to credit and other agricultural inputs, better education (to understand technical information) and more incentives to encourage greater risk and productivity (an aim that is undermined by womens general lack of ownership on the land). That Hammimi highlights these recommendations suggests the relatively unsuccessful efforts to integrate gender awareness to date, despite the formation of a Womens Division within the Palestinian Authoritys Ministry of Agriculture in 2000. Before that date, agricultural support services were largely gender-blind and overlooked the role of women as agricultural workers in their own right. Growing awareness that this needed to be addressed took place with the formation of a Womens Extension Division inside the Directorate of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development in 1998 and a general Womens Division in 2000, even as concern persisted that a specific womens unit might ghettoize gender issues as it appears to have done until now. Suggestions and next steps The review of the literature on women in agriculture generally and in Palestine specifically highlights some common themes. Politically, economically and socially, Palestinian female agricultural workers share similar experiences to those of women working in agriculture in other parts of the word. This includes their relative marginalization and lack of access to resources and inputs, such as training, credit, water, land and others. At the same time though, in contrast to previous decades, the issue of gender has become an increasingly important one in studies on agriculture; even if the status and role of women has been overlooked, there had been plenty of attention given to highlighting the situation along with recommendations to implement greater gender awareness and mainstreaming in policy terms. This is apparent in global efforts to incorporate women into the research and policy design process through participation in development planning. That the situation of women is paradoxical overlooked in practical terms yet increasingly considered in scholarly work and policy recommendations suggests a new path forward is necessary. The coordinators of the current project do not presumably want to produce another analysis and report that will result in additional data and policy recommendations that will fail to combat the discrimination that women in agriculture continue to face. Consequently, as a starting point, in the case of Palestine, this might involve the following: Develop more robust data on the state of women in agriculture This would require both quantitative and qualitative forms of data. In addition to revision of the measures to be addressed in the national census, smaller-scale surveys could be done to include disaggregated data that took account of gender and temporary/permanent labour. In addition qualitative data would include descriptive insights by men and women in the agricultural sector, through i

Food Safety in Singapore: Enforcing Hygiene Safety Standards Essay exam

Have you ever found unwanted ingredients that could be carrying harmful bacteria in your food? Hair, flies, worms or maybe even a cockroach leg? How about going in and out of the restroom repeatedly after dinner at a nearby hawker centre? According to statistics from the Ministry of Health Singapore, there were 6947 cases of food poisoning with three deaths in 1998. Also, in the same year, 9125 food premises were shut down for failing to fulfill the standard hygiene requirements. In fact, the World Health Organisation has pointed out that food-borne diseases can be effectively reduced if both commercial and domestic food handlers practice correct, hygienic food practices. Of course, all this relates back to the food poisoning cases from the Rojak Geylang Serai stall, which caused over more than 150 people to fall ill and the deaths of 2 unfortunate people. What exactly were the problems which could have caused all this damage? The first possible problem is that some greedy hawkers value money over the quality of the food they cook, thus resulting in customers going down with fo...

Physiological Responses to distance treadmill running :: essays research papers

Exercise: Distance Treadmill Running When we are challenged with any physical task, the human body responds through a series of integrated changes in function that involve most, if not all, of its physiologic systems. Movement requires activation and control of the musculoskeletal system; the cardiovascular and respiratory systems provide the ability to sustain this movement over extended periods. Physiological Responses: From experience I know that while on the treadmill before long my chest is heaving, my lungs are bursting, my heart is pounding, I get hot, sweat profusely, and the previously coordinated movement of my limbs start to falter; my muscles ache and my brain tells me to stop. Within minutes of starting this strenuous exercise the body temperature can rise by several degrees Celsius, and activation of thermoregulatory heat loss mechanisms (principally sweating and opening up of skin blood vessels) becomes essential in order to keep the body as cool as possible. Certainly, exercise is a challenge to homeostasis. Heart rate increases to pump more blood to the muscles all over the body which are working harder. Therefore, your cardiac output increases. The heart rate and the cardiac output are proportional to each other. www.medicdirectsport.com detailed that  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"The energy requirements of muscle during exercise are met not only by an alteration in intramuscular metabolism, but also by integrated activity of the cardiovascular, respiratory, endocrine and nervous systems.†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The body produces lactic acid whenever it breaks down carbohydrates for energy. We use energy when we exercise therefore lactic acid is produced when we exercise. www.cytosport.com detailed that  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"When the body makes lactic acid, it splits into lactate ion (lactate) and hydrogen ion.

Analysis of To My Dear and Loving Husband by Anne Bradstreet Essay

Analysis of To My Dear and Loving Husband by Anne Bradstreet Anne Bradstreet, the author of â€Å"To My Dear and Loving Husband† was a Puritan. This had great influence on the meaning and theme of her poem. This poem was actually not published until almost 40 years after she died. She lived in a harsh religious world where it was looked down upon for women to be courageous and smart. She lived a life that where she was unspoken and obedient to because of her religious belief. She had many concerns and doubts about her puritan beliefs and lifestyle. These doubts are presented in her poem. The main theme of Bradstreet’s poem is her undying love for her husband. In this paper I will discuss how tone and imagery help the reader to understand the theme of this poem. Tone is the manner in which a poet makes his statement; it reflects his attitude toward his subject. Tone is hard to hear in the written word so therefore the reader must make a distinction of how the poet is attempting to sound in the reader’s own mind. In this poem, Bradstreet delivers a tone that is soft and...

Film History

Have you ever wondered how the movies or videos that you watch first started? Well, you won’t stay with the doubt for long because I am about to tell you how it all began. One of the first inventions was called the zoetrope is a cylinder looking gadget which contains drawings in a strip of paper inside that appears to move according to The Museum of Childhood. This invention came out in 1834 by a great inventor called W. G. Horner. His invention is something that lots of people can enjoy by looking at the sequence.In 1867, the first device that showed movies and animated pictures was called a â€Å"zoopraxiscope† or the â€Å"wheel of life†. This starting invention was patented by a man called William Lincoln. The zoopraxiscope started by the motion of photographs and drawings. Later in 1895, a portable motion picture camera was invented by Louis Lumiere, a Frenchman. His invention became known as Cinematographe. It was a film processing unit and projector. This invention gave motion pictures the popularity. (According to the History of the Motion Picture http://inventors. about. om/library/inventors/ blmotionpictures . htm). After those two great inventions came even a better one. Thomas Edison and William Dickson, his British assistant, constructed a device for recording movement on film and another to view it in the late 1880s. (http://www. filmsite. org/pre20sintro. html). But new inventions didn’t stop here; in 1890 a new invention called Kinetograph was constructed by William Dickenson. This device gave directors a reason for motion pictures. The kinetograph was a â€Å"motor-powered camara that could photograph motion pictures† according to Film History Before 1920.It was designed so you were able to move the film through the camara by an electric motor. I think that the way that the inventions were coming was great because every time a new invention came it had better technology and it was a little bit more practical a nd easier to use than the ones from before. Film creation became greater later on, when one of the five big studios started: Warner Bros. Pictures. This is one of the world’s largest producers of film and entertainment. Warner Bros. Pictures was founded by Polish-Canadian immigrants in 1918. (According to Wikipedia)