Science of ecological limits A little boy wanted to know the sum of one plus one. First he asked a physicist, who said, If one is matter, and the other is antimatter, then the answer is zero. Unenlightened, the little boy asked a biologist. She said, Are we talking bacteria, mice or whales?
Donna Shalala, et al. I reside at [ ] Leeds, UK. I earned both a B.
I have been on Emeritus status since I am an expert in food safety issues, and my background makes me especially qualified to assess the potential risks of genetically engineered food products.
I served four years on a U. This book has been translated into Japanese and Polish. In addition, I have written over articles published in standard scientific journals and attended and spoken at numerous scientific conferences both in the U.
A list of my publications and honors is attached. InI anticipated that there could be serious health risks to the British cattle and human populations from the practice of feeding cattle rendered meat from sheep and other animals.
I published my warnings in Food Microbiology, In this article, I explained the nature of the malady that could result. This was the first prediction of what eventually became the "mad cow" epidemic in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the governmental authorities were slow to respond to my warning.
Had they properly assessed and acted upon the information I presented, much hardship would have been avoided, and the citizens would not have been subjected to as high a degree of risk.
Because of the long latency period between exposure to the infectious agent and development of symptoms, there is a potential for widespread incidence of infection within the British public over the next forty years.
It is my considered judgment that employing the process of recombinant DNA technology genetic engineering in producing new plant varieties entails a set of risks to the health of the consumer that are not ordinarily presented by traditional breeding techniques. It is also my considered judgment that food products derived from such genetically engineered organisms are not generally recognized as safe on the basis of scientific procedures within the community of experts qualified to assess their safety.
Paragraphs 6 through 10 explain why these new foods entail higher risks, and paragraphs 12 through 15 explain why none of them is generally recognized as safe.
Recombinant DNA technology is an inherently risky method for producing new foods. Its risks are in large part due to the complexity and interdependency of the parts of a living system, including its DNA. Further, whether singular or multi-faceted, the disruptive influence could well result in the presence of unexpected toxins or allergens or in the degradation of nutritional value.
Further, because of the complexity and interactivity of living systems -- and because of the extent to which our understanding of them is still quite deficient -- it is impossible to predict what specific problems could result in the case of any particular genetically engineered organism. Prediction is even more difficult because even when dealing with one variety of a food-producing organism and one particular set of foreign genetic material, each insertion event is unique and can yield deeply different results.
The mechanics and risks of recombinant DNA technology are substantially different from those of natural methods of breeding. The latter are typically based on sexual reproduction between organisms of the same or closely related species.
Normally, entire sets of genes are paired in an orderly manner that maintains a fixed sequence of genetic information.
The substances produced by the genes are those that have been within the species for a long stretch of biological time. In cases where mating is between closely related species, there is generally close correspondence between the substances produced by each.
In contrast, biotechnicians take cells that are the result of normal reproduction and randomly splice a chunk of foreign genetic material into their genome. This always disturbs the function of the region of native DNA into which the material wedges.
Further, the foreign genes will usually not express within their new environment without a big artificial boost, which is supplied by fusing them to promoters from viruses or pathogenic bacteria. Moreover, this unregulated activity produces substances that have never been in the host species before and are usually very different from any that have -- which could lead to problems even if production were at a low rather than a high level.
There are several other major differences between genetic engineering and traditional breeding, all of which could, as can the above-mentioned ones, induce the presence of unpredicted toxins or allergens or the degradation of nutritional value.
Consequently, whereas we can generally predict that food produced through conventional breeding will be safe, we cannot make a similar prediction in the case of any genetically engineered food.
Therefore, the only way even to begin to assure ourselves about the safety of a genetically engineered food-yielding organism is through carefully designed long-term feeding studies employing the whole food; and it would be necessary to test each distinct insertion of genetic material, regardless of whether the same set of genetic material in the same type of organism has previously been tested.
Even if the most rigorous types of testing were performed on each genetically engineered food, it might not be possible to establish that any is safe to a reasonable degree of certainty, as is possible in the case of most ordinary chemical additives.
However, we at least would be in a far better position than now to have greater confidence in these new foods.
I regularly attend professional conferences in my specialities and I keep abreast of the scientific literature. I also stay in communication with many life scientists and health professionals. To the best of my judgment, neither genetically engineered foods as a general class nor any genetically engineered food in particular is generally recognized as safe among those experts qualified by training and experience to evaluate their safety.
I base this judgment on two factors.Examples of historical multinational states that have since split into multiple sovereign states include Austria-Hungary, British India, Czechoslovakia, the Empire of Japan, the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia. Some analysts have described the European Union as a multinational state or a potential one.
As corporations become larger and multinational, their influence and interests go further accordingly.
Being able to influence and own most media companies, it is hard to be able to publicly debate the notions and ideals that corporations pursue. America: The Multinational Society Ishmael Reed At the annual Lower East Side Jewish Festival yesterday, a Chinese woman ate a pizza slice in front of Ty Thuan Duc’s Vietnamese grocery store.
Congratulations, your small business has grown out of its tiny office block and now has enough cash to go multinational! It's time to expand into other countries and make your brand known worldwide.
In his piece "America: The Multinational Society", Ishmael Reed satirizes the American society through his use of appeals to ethos, irony, personal encounters, and historical allusion.
He is critical of the American society for failure to view the nation as multicultural, and accept the fact that America was founded on principles adopted from. Multinational companies have a big impact on the world, not just on the economy but also on the environment and society.
From oil spills to child labor, companies’ activities – and mistakes – can impact people and the planet.