Toxic Exposure Can Be Transmitted to Future Generations.

[Guest guest]

http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2008/ Toxic Exposure Can Be Transmitted to Future Generations on a “SecondGenetic Codeâ€Source:Rachel’s Democracy & Health News, October 12, 2006Title: “Some Chemicals are More Harmful Than Anyone Ever Suspectedâ€Author: Peter Montaguehttp://www.precaution.org/lib/06/ht061012.htmStudent Researchers: Kristen Kebler and Michael JanuleskiFaculty Evaluator: Gary Evans, M.D.Research suggests that, contrary to previous belief, our behavior and ourenvironmental conditions may program sections of our children’s DNA. Newevidence about how genes interact with the environment suggests that manyindustrial chemicals may be more ominously dangerous than

previouslythought. It is increasingly clear that the effects of toxic exposure may bepassed on through generations, in ways that are still not fully understood.“This introduces the concept of responsibility into genetics andinheritance,†said Dr. Moshe Szyf, a researcher at McGill University inMontreal, “This may revolutionize medicine. You aren’t eating andexercising just for yourself, but for your lineage.â€1The new field of genetic research, called epigenetics, involveswhat scientists are referring to as a “second genetic code†whichinfluences how genes act in the body. If DNA is the hardware ofinheritance, the epigenetic system is the software. The epigenetic systemdetermines which genes get turned “off†or “on†and how much of a certainprotein they produce.It is this switching system that allows the genetic material ineach cell to influence the creation of proteins—which

ones aremanufactured, in what sequence, and how many. Proteins are the buildingblocks of our bodies. The chemicals and hormones in our bodies areproteins. They determine, in large part, how we look, how we feel, even howwe act.1Now, it seems that this chemical switching system may also act inreverse. In most cases, epigenetic changes (changes to DNA from currentenvironmental conditions) are not passed from parents to their offspring.Scientists are still not sure how—but genes seem to be “wiped clean†aftera sperm fertilizes an egg. Based on the recent data, however, researchersare intrigued by the notion that some of the genetic changes influenced byour diet, our behaviors, or our environment, may be passed on fromgeneration to generation.On average, 1,800 new chemicals are registered with the federalgovernment each year and about 750 of these find their way into products,all with hardly

any testing for health or environmental effects. The badnews about chemical contamination is steadily mounting, while the number ofnew chemicals is steadily increasing. Many critics of the chemical andpharmaceutical industries are renewing their admonitions that governmentagencies practice the “precautionary principleâ€â€”the rule of “do no harmfirst†in the approval of new drugs and chemicals.In 2005, the European Union responded to this situation by tryingto enact a new law called Registration, Evaluation and Authorization ofChemicals (REACH), which requires that chemicals be tested before they aresold—not after. As they say in Europe, “No data, no market.†At the sametime, US and European chemical industries—and the White House—began workingovertime to subvert the European effort to enact REACH. Their effortsfailed, however, and the REACH act was adopted by the European Union

inDecember, 2006.2 Chemical companies throughout the US and Europe are stillstruggling with how they will respond to the new requirements.Citations1. Anne McIlroy, “Chemicals and Stress Cause Gene Changes That CanBe Inherited,†Globe & Mail, March 11, 2006. Seehttp://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_code_2.060311.htm.2. “European Parliament OKs World’s Toughest Law on ToxicChemicals,†San Francisco Chronicle, December 14, 2006.UPDATE BY PETER MONTAGUEBasically this story tells us that environmental influences (like ourmother’s diet and her exposure to toxic chemicals) are far more importantto us than anyone suspected just a decade ago.It turns out that environmental influences shape us from the moment ofconception onward, and the earliest months and years of life are the

mostimportant ones. It is called “fetal programming†and it means our firstenvironment (the womb) can determine what sorts of diseases will afflict uslater in life. Furthermore, some of these early influences can be inheritedby our offspring and even by their offspring. So your personal pattern ofdisease may have been set by your grandmother’s diet, or by her exposure totoxicants.These findings imply that keeping toxic industrial chemicals out of theenvironment is far more urgent than anyone has previously thought. Withmore than 1,000 chemicals presently entering commercial channels each yearwith almost no health or safety testing, this is not welcome news.In May 2007, a group of two hundred scientists from five continents issuedstrongly worded consensus statement (the “Faroes Statementâ€) saying thatearly exposure to common chemicals leaves babies more likely to developserious

diseases later in life, including diabetes, attention deficits,certain cancers, thyroid disorders, and obesity, among others.Notably, the scientists urged governments not to wait for more scientificcertainty but to take precautionary action now to protect fetuses andchildren from toxic exposures.Most of the mainstream press continued to tiptoe around this story, with afew important exceptions, until May 2007 when the Faroes statement blew thestory open. Now that it is out in the open, we’ll have to see if themainstream press has what it takes to explain the far-reachingramifications of these findings.The best source of information on this topic (and many others) ishttp://www.environmentalhealthnews.org. Search for “epigenetics,†“fetalprogramming,†or “gene expression.â€

If I came to you and said, "I'm going to perform a little sexual assault on you---a small rape---because, one day you could meet a rapist and you could be raped. But, it won't be as bad the second time as the first time." This is exactly the same thing as giving someone a vaccine, or a little bit of disease. It's nonsense! An Interview With Guylaine Lanctot, M.D. By Kenneth & Dee Burke

 

Meet people who discuss and share your passions. Join them now.