Carcinogens have plagued our society for many years. For example, radon and arsenic have been present since the Paleolithic era. According to the American Cancer Society: Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Long-term exposure to radon can lead to lung cancer. Radon gas in the air decomposes into other radioactive elements (radon progeny). Radon's offspring are tiny radioactive particles that can lodge in the lining of the lungs, where they continue to break down into other radioactive elements releasing radiation (American Cancer Society 1) Not only must we be aware of natural causes, but we must have artificially transformed cancer in daily habits. From smoking cigarettes to ingesting harmless processed ingredients like diet soda, forms of carcinogens lurk within these products. According to Tortora, Funke and Case, "X-rays and gamma rays are forms of radiation that are powerful mutagens because of their ability to ionize atoms and molecules. The penetrating rays of ionizing radiation cause electrons to break out of their usual shells" ( Tortora, Funke, case 227). X-rays can be found in medical settings used to diagnose patients with broken bones, torn ligaments, and other body abnormalities. The problem lies not in the use of these tools, but in the control and amount of concentration allowed before the chemicals inside cause mutations within the cells. Gerard Tortora, Berdell Funke and Christine Case stated: A mutation is a permanent change in the sequence of DNA bases. Such a change in the base sequence of a gene sometimes causes a change in the product encoded by that gene. For example, when an enzyme's gene mutates, the enzyme encoded by the gene may become inactive or less active because its amino acid sequence has changed. Such a change in genotype can be disadvantageous or even lethal, if the cell loses a phenotypic trait it needs (Tortora, Funke, Case 223-224) As for mutagens or mutation-causing agents present in artificial ingredients, the probability of causing a mutation increases, especially when the amount of exposure has been compromised or unknown. Carcinogens are taking over from natural foods as quickly as their chemical counterparts are being withdrawn from the market. While we recognize the problem, the profits gained from distributing certain products outweigh the long-term effects associated with them. Especially when you take into account that although chemicals like aspartame have been around since the 1960s, scientists have found lethal doses in the product, yet the FDA keeps the sugar derivative in circulation. John Casely of Nutrition and Food Science reports: The sweet taste of the compound NL-[alpha]-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine-1-methyl ester (APM) was discovered in December 1965 by the pharmaceutical company GD Searle & Co. Chemist James Schlatter He was synthesizing the tetrapeptide gastrin when the APM intermediate spilled on his hand, and because he knew the amino acid mixture wasn't toxic, he didn't bother washing it off. Later, when he licked his finger to take a piece of paper, he discovered the sugary taste of the dipeptide ester (O'Brien Nabors & Gelardi, 1985) (Caseley & Dixon 23) Considering that the compound was discovered accidentally in a laboratory There are also many health problems. For example, what was James Schlatter originally trying to achieve using these chemical components? Esters are mainlyaromatic compounds that derive from the combination of a carboxylic acid and an alcohol. Coincidentally, these chemicals also form hydration reactions, increasing fallibil- ity, nuclear activity, and toxicity. Specifically, allowing large amounts of a harmful substance into the body increases the susceptibility of immune system responses, which raises alarm bells. The safe or permissible amount to be ingested should not be in question. You wouldn't wonder how long you should be able to expose yourself to the sun until you get cancer. As far-fetched as it may seem, even a small portion of carcinogens can cause genetic mutations, altering metabolic pathways and decreasing the products needed to produce ATP. ATP or adenosine triphosphate, known for its necessity in cellular metabolism, provides energy for cells to replicate, thrive and survive harsh conditions. However, mutations cause a dramatic change in the genetic composition of the genome, not only altering transcription-translation processes, but also severely preventing protein synthesis from producing enough protein to catalyze a chemical reaction. For example, beta-galactosidase primarily breaks down lactose into glucose and galactose. Glucose works as a catalyst for metabolism, breaks down in the process known as glycolysis and, through the preparation phase, the citric acid cycle and the electron transport chain, creates 36 ATP. These numbers must be sufficient to sustain the life of a cell. In the event that beta-galactosidase cannot be produced, the amount of energy needed for cellular function is lowered to a dangerous level, causing cellular dysfunction and possibly death. Now, you may wonder why we don't take steps to prevent this from happening. However, the problem lies in the amount of counter-evidence that suggests that while these chemicals may pose a threat to the livelihood of modern society, as long as we control the amount we ingest, we need not worry about negative consequences. An assumption like this shows why proactive anti-smoking campaigns have become prevalent over the past twenty years. If someone with a shred of credibility can convince the general public that their safety need not be a concern, everyone turns a blind eye to the matter and moves on. On the other hand, what if the evidence suggests that the chemicals present in food preservatives as such? since nitrates, nitrites, aspartame and MSG pose a bigger threat than we initially believed? Scientific evidence may show that moderate exposure to mutagens causes little or no change in the sequence of DNA bases within cells, but the problems associated with the chemicals still exist. Today, scientists create artificial products with low concentrations of carcinogens found in sweeteners, diet soda, seasonings, and even bacon and hot dogs. We cannot be certain that allowing a small amount of these chemicals to enter our bodies will not harm us. We must remain proactive and conscientious instead of letting someone else do the thinking for us. Too often patients have been found in immunocompromised situations with little or no belief from their doctor that anything other than genetic inheritance and natural causes had allowed the cancer to inhabit their bodies. While I cannot suggest a viable solution other than avoiding the associated chemicals, I would like to present a credible amount of evidence from reputable sources in an attempt toraise public awareness of the situation as a whole. Instead of leaving the matter on the back burner, I want to bring the situation to light and inform those who may have been left unaware of the issue. First, we need to take a look at the overall control over the distribution of these potentially toxic chemicals in the economy. For example, in the United Kingdom, safety regulations relating to the use of aspartame in food and drink have been overseen by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) of the European Union (EU), members of the Food Advisory Committee (FAC) and the Committee on Food Toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment (COT). Similar to organizations in the United States, SCF, FAC and COT regulate specific products distributed in the United Kingdom to prevent the circulation of caustic chemicals in the economy. Caseley and Dixon stated: A new additive requiring authorization [sic] must go through a comprehensive safety assessment process. The manufacturer of the potential new additive must not only provide evidence that there is a real need for the substance, but also commission research into that substance. The research must include toxicological tests (tests to determine whether a substance is harmful), including tests to evaluate the mutagenic potential of the compound, i.e. the ability to interfere with the organism's genetic material, which could lead to the development of tumors or adverse effects effects in future generations. If there were doubts about the safety of an additive, then that substance would not be authorized for use (Caseley & Dixon 23) While we cannot say with certainty that these agencies can control every food additive in circulation, also carrying out qualitative and quantitative tests for ensure security, we at least know that the larger political bodies are keeping watch. The Food and Drug Administration in the United States oversees the distribution of potentially toxic chemicals. However, their concern about aspartame remains absent. The Tufts University Health & Nutrition Letter reported: The FDA recently rejected two citizen petitions calling for a ban on aspartame. The agency noted that it had analyzed 195 reports of alleged aspartame-related side effects over a 10-year span and had identified "no causal link between aspartame consumption and the reported adverse events" or "an established mechanism that would explain how aspartame is associated with the reported adverse events (Tufts University Health & Nutrition LetterHowever, the problem lies in the composition of the chemical. As stated previously, aspartame contains a dipeptide ester bond within its structure. In order for These chemicals can be synthesized, they undergo hydration reactions, which increase fallibilities and toxicity. Unstable compounds even in minute quantities could have catastrophic effects in the body. First, the simplest component of the compound breaks down and can be denatured or frayed , making them unstable and possibly harmful in large quantities. Examples of denaturation include a change in pH, temperature, presence of salt, reactions with heavy metals, and many other environmental changes. That said, our bodies maintain a constant body temperature and pH, depending on location and current immunological conditions. In a laboratory environment, trace amounts of aspartame have been found to be stable. However, under the current environmental conditions within the laboratory, we have no way to maintain homeostasis, let alone test for a stable pH. The human body contains variable pH levelssystemic, from the blood to the stomach. Who can say for sure that ingesting allowable amounts of this chemical into the body will be harmless? The proteins within aspartame must undergo the same chemical reactions by which we make proteins in the body. Translation, also known as protein synthesis, creates a series of amino acid chains that fold into functional proteins. However, a slight change in the sequence of the chain could cause mutations, leading to genetic diseases and even cancer. The problems lie not just in the chemical compounds, but also in how they are handled, synthesized and broken down in the body. Until we can confirm that these chemicals pose no threat, the best way to replace them in foods would be to use its original derivative, pure cane sugar. Along with aspartame, food additives such as nitrates and nitrites also pose potential threats to sustainability. of a healthy life. According to researchers at Tufts University:Both compounds contain nitrogen and oxygen; nitrate has an extra oxygen atom. Animal experiments have shown that nitrite, either directly from food, naturally converted from dietary nitrate or formed from nitric oxide can combine with other food elements to form carcinogenic nitrosamines. But the relevance of these experiments to humans remains uncertain (Tufts University Health and Nutrition Letter 1). Nitrosamines have been linked to the production of carcinogens. However, most people believe that the consumption of nitrites and nitrates does not cause any harm, since several organic foods such as vegetables contain both (Tortora, Funke, Case 197). While natural compounds contained in nitrites and nitrates have been found in natural foods, synthesized chemicals remain absent. Once again we must ask ourselves whether the risk factor matters or not. According to a study recorded by Oliver Tickell of The Ecologist, he states: At high doses it induces a state of anoxia in the blood known as "blue baby syndrome" or methemoglobinemia - a potentially fatal but fortunately rare condition. Nitrite in high doses is also linked to cancer as it can produce carcinogenic nitrosamines and N-nitroso compounds. For this reason, regulators have sought to reduce nitrite levels in foods and ensure they are used with ascorbic acid (vitamin C), which inhibits the formation of carcinogens... Hsu concludes that nitrite can stimulate the respiration of cancer cells, helping them produce energy and grow, but he thinks there must be more to it than that. For example, low levels of nitrite can act as a growth signal for cancer cells. He also wonders why the nitrite in drinking water appears to be more potent than the nitrite in foods. It could be, for example, that a consistently low level of nitrite sends a stronger cancer growth signal than short-term high levels that fluctuate from a very low base (Tickell 14-15). Given the facts, one might conclude that nitrates and nitrites pose no harm. On the other hand, cellular respiration can also be genetically modified to suit the needs of the pathogen. For example, glycolysis, the breakdown of glucose, occurs in the early steps of ATP production. When carcinogens take control of the metabolic machinery, they undergo reverse transcription, which produces proteins made of RNA or ribosomal nucleic acid. Usually, mRNA encodes specific amino acids from a DNA template. However, when we reverse the script, we cause several problems within a cell, including,.