Environmental medicine
Carrying the modern toxic load
By Glenn Ashton

We live in a world where thousands of new chemicals are invented and introduced into the environment every year, a world where scientific analysis and public awareness of pollution are limited, and a world in which the results of living in the toxic soup become ever more disconcerting.

Rachel Carson, a seminal writer on chemical pollution, raised the alarm with her book Silent Spring. She warned of the chemical load humans were introducing into their bodies and the environment. She was pilloried by the chemical establishment, with corporations such as Monsanto mobilising extensive public relations resources to limit the damage to their businesses. She was nevertheless proved correct and her work has underpinned much of the environmental consciousness movement over the past four decades.
We are now creating new varieties of pollutants. We manufacture not only thousands of new chemicals annually, but are able to utilise genetic engineering to produce food and medicines in novel ways. We are experimenting with nanotechnology, a technology that involves developing materials produced at the microscopic or molecular level. While chemicals may involve serious risks to our personal and ecological integrity, we are now faced with a combination of factors that has deeply disturbing implications for the very systems that sustain life on this planet.

Genetic modification (GM)
Our ability to genetically engineer living organisms has given us the tools to alter life as we know it. One of the more widely accepted theories behind the emergence of the HIV/AIDS virus postulates that human interference with a fairly benign ape virus created the present variants. Recent GM experiments with mouse-pox in Australia turned a virus into a potential plague. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of experiments involving genetic engineering annually. Sooner or later something is bound to go wrong and to get out of control. ‘Genetic engineering,’ say the wags, ‘gives pollution a life all of its own’.
In another example, last year a variety of maize containing an experimental animal vaccine contaminated human food stocks causing a large amount of food to be destroyed. Several illegal GM food varieties that have had no level of assessment at all have found their way into the international food chain. The latest is a variety of maize that includes genetic information from the antibiotic ampicillin. Given the dangers of antibiotic resistance this event neatly emphasises the hazards inherent in the uncontrolled proliferation of these living pollutants.
How do we track these products, developed not for altruistic reasons, but in order to short-circuit the normal evolutionary processes for the sake of profit? The most obvious way to do so would be to enforce a labelling and tracking regimen. However, corporate interests, through regulatory interference by their lobbyists, have dictated that labelling shall not happen. No GM crops presently grown in South Africa – or elsewhere – need be labelled or identified.
However some supermarkets and suppliers are starting to provide GM-free produce, showing that it can be economically viable. We must do everything we can to encourage this. Monsanto, the main global GM producer, must be forced to take responsibility for its patented foods which have been placed in the public domain without due consent.

Nanotechnology
As if GM is not bad enough, nanotechnology is an even more worrying issue. The problem with nano-sized particles is that the properties of materials exhibit quantum changes when reduced to this scale. You can suck a lump of iron, but if you put just a match-head of iron nanoparticles into your mouth you will die – so too with numerous other nanomaterials.
Nanoparticles are already being introduced into our lives through products such as sunscreen, where nanoparticles of zinc, titanium oxide or other sunscreens are put in suspension in order to reflect UV light like a suit of armour. The only problem is that this suit of armour can readily transit the skin barrier. There have been no major studies on the use and effect of nanoparticles, but if the manufacturers of genetically modified organisms insist that their products are the same as naturally occurring plants, then there is clearly nothing to stop manufacturers of nanoparticles from saying that their products are made from ordinary elements and molecules.
If one imagines the changes that nanoparticles could wreak at the cellular level, then we begin to understand some of the ramifications. Nanoparticles have been called the new asbestos; they are small enough to enter cells readily, creating all kinds of disruption. It has already been found that carbon nanotubes, minute carbon tubes of exquisite molecular form and strength, carry far greater potential for danger than the old bugbears of glassfibre or of asbestos itself.
Given that the manufacture, disposal, distribution, waste management and use of nanoparticles remains largely unregulated, there is obviously the real potential of a serious threat emerging from this technology. Proper national and international policies should be agreed upon urgently to manage these materials. While nanotechnology has potential for good, we must equally guard against the real risks of losing control of these new technologies.

Chemical load
Against the previous two products, the chemical load seems almost familiar and bland. It is far better understood and measured than the effects of both GMOs and nanotech, yet the sheer number of chemicals and the distinct possibility of the interaction of these chemicals carries little-understood dangers.
Recent studies on the body burden have found measurable and sometimes alarming levels of chemical load in living subjects, without exception (see the body burden article in issue 10, 2003 of the Journal). Nobody is safe. The Inuits (Eskimos) consume copious amounts of high-energy fat to suit their demanding climate. They have accumulated dangerous levels of fat-soluble chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs). The breastmilk of nursing mothers contains elevated PCB levels rendering the milk too dangerous to use, especially given the fact that infants then further concentrate the PCBs and are far more susceptible to chemicals than adults. Who thought, 50 years ago, that mother’s breastmilk would be too poisonous for our offspring? This goes beyond body burden.
If this seems like rather a gloomy subject, well it is really. While chemicals are the best studied of all aspects of body pollution, we still know very little. We have the dirty dozen, mostly chlorine-based chemicals such as PCBs, that are being banned globally. But we are collectively exposed to hundreds of thousands of chemicals on a daily basis, from exhaust fumes to agricultural chemicals, from flame-retardants on furniture to chemicals in cleaning products, washing products and cosmetics.
Beside the directly toxic and carcinogenic potential of many of these chemicals, their hormonal effects are extremely worrying. So-called endocrine disrupting chemicals are becoming a widely studied aspect of how these hormonal chemicals disrupt our natural bodily communication systems (see the endocrine disrupters article in issue 7, 2002 of the Journal).
Endocrines are present in the body in exquisitely low doses at which they trigger subtle metabolic control mechanisms. Concentrations as low as the equivalent of 1 drop in 6 railway tankers of water gives you an idea of how finely tuned we are to recognise, utilise and be affected by these naturally occurring chemicals. Many widely used chemicals such as plastics, flame retardants, herbicides and pesticides carry potent potential to disrupt and damage the endocrine system.
How do we deal with such an apparently intractable problem? In reality it is impossible to remove oneself from all toxic substances – realistically our aim should be to reduce our exposure to an absolute minimum.
Be aware of what products you use in your home and which you plan to bring into your home. Buy wisely.

Buyer’s solutions
Do not purchase plastic containers and then use them for hot, fatty products, even if they say they are microwave safe. Rather use a regular ceramic or glass bowl. Plastics leach out a wide variety of substances such as phthalates and other endocrine disrupters, especially in the presence of oil and heat so this is one step we can take to reduce these potent chemicals.
Paint your walls with whitewash or other environmentally friendly paints. Many paints contain toxic chemicals and there is also the matter of heavy metals that are still allowed, for some inexplicable reason, to be present in local paint (see the how toxic is your home article in issue 7, 2002 of the Journal). New houses are particularly toxic, exuding staggeringly high levels of toxins. In many countries it is illegal to occupy a newly built house until the levels of toxins have fallen to an acceptable level.
Move away from chemical cleaners whenever possible (see the cleaning up the earth article in issue 11, 2003 of the Journal). Avoid fabric softeners. The same goes for pesticides. Buy organic food. Eat lots of fruit and vegetables to clean out your system and to increase free radical intake. Investigate supplements if you think you may be suffering from exposure to toxins. Many toxins have either antidotes or chelates that can assist recovery from over-exposure.

Conclusion
As usual, the real solution is to live consciously. If you are assailed by unexplained disease or if you are exhibiting increased allergenicity, sensitivity to light, or experience rashes or skin problems then you should deeply consider your living environment and your lifestyle. Try to change one thing at a time in order to eliminate possible sources of toxins while constantly tracking your reactions.
Given the ubiquitous nature of these novel chemicals, organisms and particles we have to remain constantly aware of our surroundings and what products we allow to enter our personal environment. We must become knowledgeable about the potential for harm from these novel and untested substances and must equally demand that their developers take full responsibility for any untoward effects that their products may cause to either humans or our environment.
The world is in our hands.

Glenn Ashton is an environmental and scientific writer and communicator. Contact safeage@iafrica.com or phone 021-789 1751.