The poisoned generation

Joanna Evans — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:04:00 GMT

Perhaps the most underappreciated health scandal in modern times is the fact that, every day, we are all subjected to some 80,000 drugs—virtually all of which have not undergone a single regulatory test before their release on the market.

By ‘drugs’, in this case, I’m referring to the synthetic man-made compounds that are part of the industrial ‘chemical revolution’. Now found ubiquitously in everything—from pesticides to personal toiletries and cleaning products—these agents have made their way into our drinking water, soils, air, food and, hence, our fatty tissues—and now, as this month’s cover story discloses, even our eggs and sperm.

The latest findings on these industrial chemicals, as WDDTY deputy editor Joanna Evans reports, suggest that they could be a major source of infertility in both men and women. What’s more, some of these toxic chemicals are making their way into fetuses, affecting their fertility in turn, all the way down the generational line.

The situation today echoes the scandal of diethylstilboestrol (DES), the wonder drug in the 1950s that was supposed to prevent miscarriage. The side-effects of the drug only began showing up in the adult offspring some 30 years later in the form of reproductive problems and cancer.

Nevertheless, that was an isolated compound that was allowed to be given as a test drug before the advent of ‘informed consent’. As a 2005 study from Stanford University and the Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE) concluded: “All of us now carry in our bodily tissues and fluids a virtual stew of heavy metals and hundreds of synthetic chemicals”—some of which persist in the body for years.

The utter regulatory freedom that industrial giants now enjoy makes the DES scandal pale in comparison. As Stanford University discovered, there is no requirement for the chemical industry to test their products for effects on human health prior to their release onto the market other than in the case of certain pesticides and food additives.

The burden of safety testing falls entirely upon the shoulders of federal and state agencies—but only after the products have been made available to consumers and distributed throughout the environment— and then, only if someone raises concerns over specific health risks.

“The result,” states the Stanford report, “is that more than 85 per cent of the 80,000 synthetic chemicals registered have never been assessed for their effects on human health.” The other worrying aspect is the closing-the-barn-door-after-the-horse-has-bolted aspect of any potential crackdown. Even if organizations such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to put proper systems of regulation in place, these chemicals are now so pervasive in our waterways and foodchain that it could be many generations before we are free of them.

Forty-seven years ago, Rachel Carson wrote The Silent Spring, about the catastrophic effects of chemicals on the futures of plants and animals. Little did she know that she might be referring to the human race as well.

Beyond the blueprint

Bryan Hubbard — Tue, 05 May 2009 09:47:00 GMT

More than 50 years before Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, French zoologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck wrote Les Recherches sur L’Organisation des Corps Vivants, the first book to set out a coherent and well-developed theory of evolution.

Where Lamarck differed from Darwin was in his belief that the environment, rather than genetic coding, was responsible for changes in animals, and that these changes could be inherited.

Lamarck—who has been ridiculed for generations—has now been vindicated by recent studies showing that environmental influences cause changes in organisms that may even persist through generations. Scientists are only now beginning to understand that it is outside influences filtering through the cellular membrane that control the expression of most genes and, in turn, affects the chemical coating (methylation) of the DNA double helix, which is exquisitely sensitive to the environment, particularly during the early stages of life. In our cover story this month (May 2009), WDDTY Deputy Editor Joanna Evans has uncovered a wealth of evidence showing that environmental exposure to pollutants—pesticides, plastics, even tobacco smoke—may be responsible for widespread obesity. The most extraordinary revelation is that the damage mostly occurs through prenatal exposure.

This is especially worrying as many ‘epigenetic’ changes persist through many generations. In times of famine, for example, populations exposed to famine prenatally have lower birth weights and higher-than-normal rates of degenerative diseases such as diabetes, coronary heart disease and cancer. Yet, even when they received adequate nutrition, those whose mothers had been starved produced smaller-than-normal children and grandchildren.

The environmental conditions affected at least two generations down the line (Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol, 1992; 6: 240–5 3). This suggests that those who are overweight due to chemical overload as babies will produce several generations of fat offspring.

The only note of optimism is the evidence that a good environment can also correct illness.
A mouse study by La r ry Feig and his colleagues at Tufts University looked at whether or not a stimulating environment could override knocked-out genes (Ras-GRF), without which the animals can neither learn nor remember. Put these mice in an unpleasant situation they’ve already experienced, provide the stimulus that should trigger the unhappy memory— and they won’t have the foggiest recollection of it.

But, when the researchers exposed such 15-day-old mice to the equivalent of a indoor theme park—a large cage with play tubes, cardboard boxes, a running wheel, and toys and nesting material—that was changed or rearranged every other day. After two weeks, the mice developed a compensatory new protein pathway that helped their long-term memory and learning. Even though they were still missing the gene, a stimulating environment, in effect, turned it back on. The mice showed normal memory and fear conditioning.

Feig then took this one stage further and examined what happened to their offspring, which were given the usual environment rather than the theme park. Astonishingly, these offspring showed every evidence of normal memory and learning ability even though they had inherited the knocked-out gene and had experienced no additional stimulation.

In fact, the environmental effect of their ancestors again overrode their genetic destiny—this time to positive effect.

This means that perhaps it’s not too late for us to begin cleaning up our environment.
Certainly, we owe it to our great-grandchildren.

Lynne McTaggart

This latest blog introduces the main story in the May 2009 issue of 'What Doctors Don't Tell You'. It is available only to subscribers. To subscribe, please follow this link:

http://www.wddtyhealthshop.com/products.asp?recnumber=246

Lynne McTaggart - What Doctors Don't Tell You : pesticides

The poisoned generation

Beyond the blueprint