April 2016

CRISPR co-discoverer Emmanuelle Charpentier continuing advances in gene editing

January 12, 2018April 28, 2016 by GLP Digital

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

Emmanuelle Charpentier’s office is bare, save for her computer. Her pictures, still encased in bubble wrap, are stacked in one corner, and unpacked cardboard boxes stuffed with books and papers are lined up in the adjacent room. But across the corridor, her laboratory is buzzing with activity. When Charpentier moved to Berlin six months ago, she had her science up and running within weeks, but decided that the rest could wait. “We were all determined to get the research going as fast as possible,” she says, leaning forward from her still-pristine office chair.

The itinerant lifestyle doesn’t seem to have hampered the microbiologist as she has carefully dissected the systems by which bacteria control their genomes. Charpentier is now acknowledged as one of the key inventors of the gene-editing technology known as CRISPR–Cas9, which is revolutionizing biomedical researchers’ ability to manipulate and understand genes.

The academic limelight is not a comfortable place for Charpentier, which is why she remains the least well known member of the small international group tipped for the ‘CRISPR Nobel’, if it arrives. “Jean-Paul Sartre, the French philosopher, warned that winning prizes turned you into an institution — I am just trying to keep working and keep my feet on the ground,” she says. She seems to be succeeding, recently publishing a paper in Nature that reveals the mechanism of a CRISPR system that might prove even more efficient than CRISPR–Cas9.

Read full, original post: The quiet revolutionary: How the co-discovery of CRISPR explosively changed Emmanuelle Charpentier’s life

For first time, researchers find genes that explain differences in how we each experience happiness

January 12, 2018April 28, 2016 by GLP Digital

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

For the first time in history, researchers have isolated the parts of the human genome that could explain the differences in how humans experience happiness. These are the findings of a large-scale international study in over 298,000 people, conducted by VU Amsterdam professors Meike Bartels (Genetics and Wellbeing) and Philipp Koellinger (Genoeconomics). The researchers found three genetic variants for happiness, two variants that can account for differences in symptoms of depression, and eleven locations on the human genome that could account for varying degrees of neuroticism. The genetic variants for happiness are mainly expressed in the central nervous system and the adrenal glands and pancreatic system. The results were published in the journal Nature Genetics.

Genetic influences on happiness

Prior twin and family research using information from the Netherlands Twin Register and other sources has shown that individual differences in happiness and well-being can be partially ascribed to genetic differences between people. Happiness and wellbeing are the topics of an increasing number of scientific studies in a variety of academic disciplines. Policy makers are increasingly focusing on wellbeing, drawing primarily on the growing body of evidence suggesting that wellbeing is a factor in mental and physical health.

VU Amsterdam professor Meike Bartels explains: “This study is both a milestone and a new beginning: A milestone because we are now certain that there is a genetic aspect to happiness and a new beginning because the three variants that we know are involved account for only a small fraction of the differences between human beings. We expect that many variants will play a part.” Locating these variants will also allow us to better study the interplay between nature and nurture, as the environment is certainly responsible — to some extent — for differences in the way people experience happiness.”

Read full, original post: First happiness genes have been located

Varroa mite parasite, viruses linked more closely to honey bee health, multi-year survey finds

January 12, 2018April 28, 2016 by GLP Digital

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

Honey bee colonies in the United States are in decline, due in part to the ill effects of voracious mites, fungal gut parasites and a wide variety of debilitating viruses. Researchers from the University of Maryland and the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently completed the first comprehensive, multi-year study of honey bee parasites and disease. . . .

The results, published online in the journal Apidologie on April 20, 2016, provide an important five-year baseline against which to track future trends. Key findings show that the varroa mite, a major honey bee pest, is far more abundant than previous estimates indicated and is closely linked to several damaging viruses. Also, the results show that the previously rare Chronic Bee Paralysis Virus has skyrocketed in prevalence since it was first detected by the survey in 2010.

. . . .

“. . . .[O]ur study is the first systematic survey to establish disease baselines, so that we can track changes in disease prevalence over time,” said Kirsten Traynor, a postdoctoral researcher in entomology at UMD and lead author on the study. . . .

. . . .

While parasites and disease are huge factors in declining honey bee health, there are other contributors as well. Pesticides, for example, have been implicated in the decline of bee colonies across the country.

“Our next step is to provide a similar baseline assessment for the effects of pesticides,” vanEngelsdorp said. “We have multiple years of data and as soon as we’ve finished the analyses, we’ll be ready to tell that part of the story as well.”

Read full, original post: First multi-year study of honey bee parasites and disease reveals troubling trends

Consumer attitudes towards GMOs: Concerns about who benefits, why GMOs are used

January 12, 2018April 28, 2016 by GLP Digital

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

Professor Rachel Ankeny is an associate dean of research and deputy dean in the faculty of arts at the University of Adelaide, Australia, where she leads the Food Values Research Group.

. . . .We talked to Rachel about her interdisciplinary research, GMOs, and the nature of good food.

You’ve done research on consumer attitudes toward genetically modified organisms. . . could you talk about how ethical and moral concerns are factored into consumer decision making regarding GM foods? . . .

Our research has been based in Australia which allows GM crops and foods under certain conditions, but which to date has not had a huge number of GM food products on the shelves. This makes for an excellent site for explorations of consumer attitudes toward GM . . . We find that many consumers are most concerned about why GM is being used and who will benefit—to make profit for big corporations or retailers, versus improving nutrition or lessening environmental impacts. They are less concerned about the technical and scientific details of how GM works, and in fact often collapse concerns about additives or pesticides/herbicides [when] discussing the need for better and more transparent labeling. Of course, some consumers simply reject all uses of GM,. . .because of fears about the unknown risks, or because it is what they consider to be unnatural. But people have very different understandings of what counts as a risk, and what is natural, which makes this domain ripe for exploration, with all of its complexities and even contradictions.

Read full, original post: Rachel Ankeny on GMOs, Food Ethics & Consumer Attitudes

Jayson Lusk: Polling shows consumers want FDA, not Congress or voters, to decide GMO labeling

January 12, 2018April 28, 2016 by GLP Digital

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

My research shows that when people are directly asked how they want the issue of GMO labeling to be decided, they do not defer to politicians or their fellow citizens. In a survey last May, a strong majority, 61%, preferred to put the matter to experts at the Food and Drug Administration. . . .

Lost in the politics is a deeper debate about the future of our food system. At the core of many anti-GMO arguments lies . . . a desire for food that is purportedly more in line with nature. . . .

The truth is that what we eat today differs radically from the food eaten even a few hundred years ago. . . .precisely because we did not accept only what nature provided.

Biotechnology has the potential to improve what we eat in a similar manner—if we embrace progress. What is most worrisome about Vermont’s labeling law isn’t the direct costs of labeling; it’s the advance of a food philosophy and a market environment hostile to new crop technologies.

What innovations will we forego if the risks of investing in research and development are heightened even further by activism and litigation? . . . .

. . . .

The next generation of innovation is just around the corner: apples that will not brown, potatoes that produce fewer carcinogens when fried, staple crops in the developing world fortified with micronutrients, field crops in the Midwest that require less nitrogen fertilizer.

Food manufactures today may be reluctant to label foods made using biotechnology. But one day soon, when the fad against GMOs fades, they might be clamoring to add the tag: proudly produced with genetic engineering.

Wall Street Journal subscribers can read the full, original article here: Can I Get That With Extra GMO?

Organic Consumer Association invokes chemical scares in suing organic infant formula maker

January 12, 2018April 28, 2016 by GLP Digital

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

Chemjobber put me on to this lawsuit filing, which is brought by the Organic Consumer’s Association versus The Honest Company. . . .

They’re going after the Honest people for their infant formula, which they say is falsely marketed as being “organic”. Their specific complaints are interesting on two levels. From a legal standpoint, just based on what I can see, they may well have grounds for complaint (see their paragraphs 5 through 11). . . .

. . . .

But the rest of the document. . .oh, boy. The OCA is not content to come in with a suit that says that these things have to be on this list. . . Instead, they go on, and on, and on about each substance and its horrible nonorganic nefariousness. Here, for example, is their take on . . . .

Taurine:

. . . . Even at very low doses, animal studies show the ingredient negatively impacts the brain and nervous system, metabolism, and cardiovascular system. Commercially available taurine is synthetically produced by reacting ethylene oxide with aqueous sodium bisulfate. . . .

Note the emphasis on the synthetic, unnatural routes of preparation. . . it’s an evil chemical made in a vat. But also note that taurine is, in fact, produced in the human body . . . and is also found in all sorts of other animal tissues. . . .

. . . .

The other substances the OCA objects to are in a similar vein – biotin, beta-carotene, and other well-known industrial toxins. Their problem with many of them is that they’re “synthetic”. . . But biomolecules are biomolecules. . . no matter how they’re made. So you get statements in the lawsuit such as “Phytonadione is not the same substance as phylloquinone“, when these are in fact two names for the exact same chemical substance. . .

Read full, original post: Manure Is Organic, Let’s Not Forget

Turning the potential of ‘big data’ in agriculture into farmer and consumer benefits

August 20, 2022April 28, 2016 by GLP Digital

Farmers have always relied on a variety of different ways to collect information about how to best grow their crops. They walk their fields, picking up a handful of soil to judge its moisture content, and looking closely at leaves of the plants to gauge their health.

It should come as no surprise that most farmers readily understand the value of technology to more rapidly and thoroughly collect crop data, in larger volumes, for the purpose of turning it into usable information. More than half of U.S. farmers already gather massive amounts of information through the use of “big data” technology-enabled tractors and other farm machinery.

There’s no shortage of data being collected by farmers who are keen on the idea helping them make better decisions about their crops. The question is really how to sift through that data and make sense of it to increase the efficiency of food production — like determining when to best use fertilizer or pesticides, what seeds to use, or how deep to plant the seeds. In a word, big sums up the challenge of getting beyond what has until now been only big promises of “big data” in agriculture. Farmers’ expectations are that these gathered data points will eventually lead to savings or improved yields. But so far up to 80 percent of those data points collected never end up in any form that will lead to tangible benefits, according to John Fulton, an associate professor of food, agricultural and biological engineering at Ohio State University.

For the sake of future food security and sustainability, it’s a problem that needs to be addressed. There’s actually a lot at stake if “big data” is really intended to be one of the tools necessary to feed nine billion people by 2050. Right now, small farmers are just not seeing enough value in it — and that’s regardless of how many times agricultural corporations Monsanto, John Deere or Dupont tell them that “big data” is going to be “revolutionary.”

These companies have poured billions of dollars into farming data analytics and launched “prescriptive planting” platforms, such as Monsanto’s FieldScripts and DuPont’s Encirca platform, which are intended to drive precision agriculture and greater sustainability. But so far the technology has largely failed at delivering a return on investment for farmers. The reason is that there just really hasn’t been much of an impact in terms of presenting usable information farmers can use readily for creating savings or improving yields.

Growing distrust

For farmers who’ve adopted use of “big data” technologies, there is a growing distrust of the larger organizations selling them on it. For instance, farmers worry that their information will be misused in some manner by corporations or government, such as to predict rises and falls in commodity markets. Another fear is that the data could be hacked by or sold off to competitors, or used by lawmakers to enforce new regulations. Additionally, there are other concerns such as the large investment into precision agriculture tools that might decrease the incentive for farmers to focus on other methods of reducing impact on the environment. The increased use of computerized technology in farm machinery also creates other issues for small farmers, such as the inability to fix or adjust equipment, forcing them to risk delays and expenses when reaching back to manufacturers for appropriate technical support.

But should farmers really be reluctant to adopt “big data” technologies or distrust the possibility of actual precision agriculture benefits? Up until now there has been no evidence of misuse by any of the agricultural corporations like Monsanto and Dupont and they’ve given reassurances to farmers that their data will remain private. Still those considerations don’t solve the real problem: lack of any tangible benefits to farmers. What farmers need is a real return on investment for adopting “big data” technologies in terms of increasing profits or saving on costs of production of food.

Steps “big data” can take to help farmers

The solution to what’s needed from “big data” is this: for technology developers to find ways of taking the deluge and turning it into knowledge that meets the strategic and tactical goals of farmers, according to Mark Bünger, Lux Research Director who recently co-authored a report titled, “Big Data in Precision Agriculture.” Those goals must include increasing profitability and minimizing environmental impact of crops. Tangible benefits to farmers could come in a variety of ways. In the Lux report, Bünger and other analysts identify five categories technology developers should focus on based on an analysis of 120 use cases:

Reducing input and environmental impact while maintaining output was the largest area of opportunity from where farmers could have potential gains—that includes reducing seed, water and chemical use per acre.
Managing and maintaining machinery was second largest area where big data could support the bottom line, especially for smaller farms that could benefit by reducing machine downtime and identification of ways to reduce costs of fuel, parts, and labor.
Finance and administration for small farmers can be quite the challenge with the need for making purchases, sales contracts, hiring labor, and having to deal with regulations.
Obtaining the best price possible at market is one area where big data could help farmers of all types—by informing them on when and where to sell their crops for the largest profit.
Compliance with regulationslike the Food Safety Modernization Act is an increasing need where big data technologies are going to be increasingly useful for meeting requirements of recordkeeping in regards to chemical inputs, as well as crop traceability.

The plant-prescription technologies currently used, like Monsanto’s FieldScripts, already are on their way to achieving some of these goals. In addition, the software helps farmers decide on plant spacing and depth based on a crops genetics or soil quality. And it’s difficult to really predict just how much of an impact any given feature will have on the farmers’ profits in the future.

But the most likely scenario is that not any one feature of collection or analysis of large amounts of data — or the entirety of the idea of big data by itself — will truly revolutionize agriculture. The reality is that only through a combination of big data use with other new crop technologies and methods are farmers most likely to see true results in the form of increased efficiency of food production.

David Despain, M.Sc., is a science and health journalist based in Gilbert, Ariz. Follow @daviddespain on Twitter.

For more background on the Genetic Literacy Project, read GLP on Wikipedia.

CRISPR’s new upgrade cleans up messy aftermath

January 12, 2018April 28, 2016 by GLP Digital

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

Molecule by molecule, the transformational genome-editing technology called CRISPR-Cas9 is getting so many upgrades so quickly it’s like scientists are changing a flip phone into a Galaxy S7 overnight. Scientists just unveiled two more improvements that could speed the development of drugs and increase the chance of any CRISPR-based gene therapies succeeding.

“It’s remarkable science and unquestionably spectacular work,” said Eric Kmiec, director of the gene-editing program at Delaware’s Christiana Care Health System, who was not involved in the new study. “But the field is moving so quickly, I’m concerned that we might be doing things just because they’re really cool.”

The latest advances, reported in Nature, come on the heels of the recent announcement of a hack that allows CRISPR to change a single DNA “letter” into another without wreaking collateral damage on the genome.

CRISPR-Cas9’s enthusiasm for cutting DNA has another consequence: It usually edits both copies of a gene, one from mom and one from dad. Until now, there has been no good way to edit only one copy and leave the other alone.

That might seem like a good problem to have: If CRISPR-based gene therapies ever arrive, presumably fixing both disease genes would be beneficial. But for basic research on what goes wrong in a disease, as well as on drugs to treat it, an edit that makes cells carry only one copy of a disease gene is more valuable than an edit that creates two.

Read full, original post: Scientists solve CRISPR’s ‘Energizer bunny’ problem

Crop losses due to disease cost Uganda hundreds of millions, biotech could help

August 20, 2022April 28, 2016 by GLP Digital

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

Due to climate change and other factors, Uganda faces a number of agricultural challenges. New crop diseases are threatening major food crops such as cassava, bananas, and maize. And it seems other conventional preventive measures have failed.

Due to Banana Bacterial Wilt (BBW), Uganda loses $299.6m worth of bananas annually. Uganda is Africa’s leading banana producer and will lose that position if the problem continues. Over 13 million Ugandans depend on bananas for food and income. Naro has developed BBW-resistant genetically modified (GM) banana varieties.

Cassava Brown Streak Disease (CBSD) causes an annual loss of $24.2m. More than 10 million Ugandans consume cassava as main food and 75 per cent of farmers grow it. Naro has also developed CBSD-resistant GM cassava.

Potential yield loss due to sweet potato weevil is 98 per cent. Uganda is Africa’s most important sweet potato producer but it may lose out. But adoption of GM potato could earn $16m annually.

About 86 per cent of farmers grow maize where also Maize Stem Borer contributes to about 30 per cent loss. Drought kills maize and causes a loss of $19.4m every year. Yet the economic benefits from adopting GM maize are estimated at $25.4m.

Uganda consumes 175,000 metric tonnes of rice and we save $30m by growing it ourselves. But soil-related stress has hampered production, which scientists say can be resolved if we grow low-nitrogen and drought-resistant GM rice.

Read full, original post: Should GM crops be grown in Uganda?

Large analysis finds common genetics links between depression, neuroticism, and sense of well-being

January 20, 2024April 27, 2016 by GLP Digital

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

The role of genetics in mental illness is a complex topic. On the one hand, evidence of genetic and biological causes for mental illnesses may help to fight the stigma that often accompanies them. On the other hand, certain researchers have suggested that a focus on genetics rather than traumatic life events can run the risk of ignoring the social ills that underlie or enhance many mental illnesses.

A genetic study recently published in Nature Genetics describes the results from the work of an eye-popping 190 scientists around the world. It describes an in-depth exploration of three separate traits: depression, neuroticism, and subjective well-being. They found evidence suggesting that these three traits are influenced by some of the same genes and are linked to the pancreatic, adrenal, and central nervous systems.

Psychology researcher Richard Bentall argues that genetic studies are fruitless; so many genes have been identified as playing a role in mental illness that their medical usefulness becomes diluted. And, even when the genetics are simple, it’s not always helpful. “Consider Huntington’s Disease, a terrible degenerative neurological condition that is caused by a single dominant gene with a known biological function,” he writes. “Many years after this gene was discovered there is still no sign of a medical therapy for this simplest of all the genetic conditions.”

But the medical usefulness of genetic studies doesn’t begin and end with gene therapy. Understanding more about genetic contributors to mental illness can help us to understand the disorders themselves better, shining a light on the factors that influence them.

Read full, original post: Depression neuroticism, and sense of well-being may have genetic links

Researchers suggest GMO oilseed crop led to deformed butterflies, critic questions study design

August 20, 2022April 27, 2016 by GLP Digital

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

. . .Scientists at the government-funded Rothamsted Research institute in the UK have been developing omega-3 fatty acids in the oilseed crop camelina, using genetic engineering to transfer the relevant genes into the target plant. The object is to develop a sustainable source of feed for fish farming. . . .

. . . .Would the omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA which are produced by the camelina affect insects consuming the crop? A new study published in PLOS One aimed to examine this question, using lab-reared cabbage white butterflies. . . The study, authored by Hixson et al, fed their lab-reared caterpillars artificial feed, some with the EPA and DHA fatty acids, and a control group without.

The results? Supposedly the groups fed the novel fatty acids got higher levels of wing deformities. And hence the predictable howls of outrage from the anti-GMO lobby . . . .

. . . .So let’s look at the study methodology. . . . [F]ully a third of the controls also had deformed wings, an inconvenient fact that the anti-GMO people predictably failed to note.

So why the deformed wings? The study authors admit that they got the humidity wrong when raising the insects and that high humidity atmosphere is associated with wing deformities . . . .

In any case, the entire exercise is unfortunately rather irrelevant, as Rothamsted has gently pointed out in a response statement. . . .

Rothamsted scientists have confirmed that there is no EPA and DHA expressed in the camelina leaves at all, because its expression is controlled by a seed-specific promoter. Cabbage whites don’t eat brassica seeds, so the whole experiment is rather pointless. . . .

Read full, original post: Deformed GMO Franken-butterflies? Not so fast…

Autism genes linked to gastrointestinal problems

January 12, 2018April 27, 2016 by GLP Digital

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

Gastrointestinal problems in autistic children may be linked to the same genetic mutations that cause other characteristics of autism spectrum disorder, according to a recent study with mice.

Researchers at Columbia University Medical Center found the GI issues may relate to reduced serotonin — which is as significant in the GI system as it is in the brain — caused by the genetic mutations linked to some cases of ASD.

GI issues are common in children with ASD. It has been thought the issues have to do with diets limited to foods children with autism favor, though researchers found it surprising the two could be connected.

Since 95 percent of serotonin is used in the gastrointestinal system, a genetic mutation affecting how much of it is available would have a greater effect than any element of a diet, researchers say.

“Because serotonin plays an important role in the gastrointestinal system as well as the brain, we wanted to see if there was a direct relationship between these genes and GI development and function,” Dr. Kara Margolis, an associate professor of pediatrics at Columbia University Medical Center, said in a press release.

For the study, published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation, researchers worked with mice that have a mutation increasing the activity of the serotonin reuptake transporter, or SERT, which prevents the substance from leaving neurons.

Read full, original post: Study: GI problems in autism linked to genetic mutation

GMO maize expected to be commercialized in Kenya in 2018

August 20, 2022April 27, 2016 by GLP Digital

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

Insect-resistant Genetically Modified (GM) maize will be commercialized in Kenya in 2018, researchers said on [April 24].

African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) Communications and Partnerships Manager Nancy Muchiri told Xinhua in Nairobi on [April 24] that the Biotech maize has successfully undergone the confined field trials (CFT) stage and is awaiting National Performance Trials (NPTs).

“The maize will be commercialized in 2018 after the National Performance Trials (NPTs) tests are successfully conducted over a period of two seasons,” Muchiri said.

The NPTs will be conducted by the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS).

The aim of the tests is to assess the value for cultivating the new variety of maize and will assess the crop performance against existing varieties in targeted agro-ecological zones.

The research is being conducted jointly by the AATF and the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) under the Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) Project.

. . . .

Muchiri added that the Biotech maize is resistant to the stem-borer insect pest that is responsible for the loss of approximately 400,000 tons of maize annually in Kenya.

She noted that improved maize production will increase Kenya’s food security given that the cereal is the country’s main staple food.

According to AATF, the transgenic insect-pest protected maize hybrids will reduce the amount of insecticides required to apply on the maize.

“This will lower the cost of production of maize resulting in higher income for maize farmers,” she said.

Read full, original post: Insect resistant maize to be commercialized in Kenya in 2018

Harvard’s ‘happiness center’ puts positive spin on health research

January 12, 2018April 27, 2016 by GLP Digital

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

Professor Laura Kubzansky will codirect a new Center for Health and Happiness at Harvard’s public health school. The center opened thanks to a $21 million gift from the Lee Kum Kee family of China. I (Melissa Bailey) caught up with Kubzansky in her office, just after she returned from an opening celebration in Hong Kong.

MB: Why do you need a center to study happiness?

Medicine and public health “tend to be very problem-focused,” Kubzansky said. “People are trying to fix a disease, fix a problem.” There isn’t much funding for research about optimal health. The center aims to figure out how positive factors in everyday life — such as a meaningful job, or strong family ties — affect our bodies.

MB: What’s the most surprising finding about optimism you’ve come across?

“That optimism cut people’s risk of heart disease in half.” Kubzansky published that finding in 2001 in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine. Previously, she said, “people kind of thought, as long as you’re not depressed, you’re OK.” But her study showed optimism has a protective quality — and that “the absence of something bad is not the same as the presence of something good.”

Read full, original post: Why Harvard is opening a happiness center

Editorial: Anti-GMO greens sacrifice kids in developing world in quest to ‘keep food natural’

January 12, 2018April 27, 2016 by GLP Digital

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

The left can be quite smug about its allegiance to science. And quite selective, too. That’s particularly true of the environmental movement’s relentless and often hysterical attacks on genetically modified food.

. . . .

This is a fight being waged around the country and the world. . . .

Long-standing GMO bans in Africa have blocked rice and other crops modified to combat a variety of childhood ailments associated with abject poverty. The greens have willingly sacrificed children in the false quest to keep food natural.

Any victories the anti-GMO movement achieves is a triumph of superstition over science.

. . . .

GMOs should be considered the environment’s best friend. They allow higher yields, meaning more food can be grown on a smaller footprint. This is essential to meeting the food demands of a growing worldwide population.

Crops can also be engineered to resist drought, cutting down on irrigation and the strain on water supplies in arid regions.

Many crops have been modified to require far less use of pesticides and fertilizer, so fewer harmful chemicals flow into waterways.

. . . crops can also be engineered to improve human health and nutrition.

Far from being monster food, GMOs are an example of science for the public good.

The bill under consideration in the Senate would require a national standard for labeling GMO foods. If those labels come, they should also contain the disclaimer that there are no verifiable risks associated with GMO products.

Read full, original post: Editorial: Base labeling on science, not superstition

Differences between non-GMO and organic: More profits for farmer, more costs for consumers

August 20, 2022April 27, 2016 by GLP Digital

Anyone who has been to the supermarket recently can attest to the fact that prices of organic foods at the supermarket are generally much higher than conventional (either non-GM or GM) foods, often by as much as 50 percent. Much of this increase comes from the inputs necessary to grow organic foods, including more land to grow crops, labor-intensive processes like tilling and weed removal, and using high volumes of organic-approved pesticides.

But a new player, the non-GMO Project label (not to be confused with the USDA organic label) is also beginning to change the landscape of food pricing—from organic to GMO.

Non-GMO versus Organic

The Non-GMO Project, is a non-profit that is based in Bellingham, Washington. It requires submitters to demonstrate how their food is produced without genetic modification—which is easy for, say, salt, which has no genes or genetic material to speak of but harder for living organisms like corn. The non-GMO Project has a tolerance level of GM of less than 0.9 percent (the same as European Union countries). This is rather different from the USDA’s National Organic Program, which doesn’t have as strict a threshold for GM, and also requires submitters to show that they aren’t using prohibited pesticides or fertilizers, and are using other techniques approved for organic farming. So, a product could be non-GMO, but not be organic.

Most shoppers (about 67 percent, according to a recent survey by the NPD group) say they aren’t willing to pay more for non-GMO food, about 11 percent of those surveyed said they would be willing to pay more. In a country as large as the United States, that 11 percent may be enough to profit from. For example, a search of avocado oils from AvoHaus showed a 250 ml bottle of organic non-GMO Project certified avocado oil was $15, while a conventional extra-virgin avocado oil bottle of the same size was $12.50. An 8 oz bottle of Non-GMO Project avocado oil was selling for $12.75, while a conventional bottle of avocado oil was selling for $7.35 for 17 oz—interestingly there are no GMO avocados.

Switching to macaroni and cheese, Andy Schaul, global insights manager at Monsanto, Tweeted a picture of a 6 oz box of organic mac and cheese for $2.49, next to a 5 oz box of an organic non-GMO version of the same product that cost $3.35. For other retailers, however, the price of non-GMO (but not organic) might be cheaper than organic versions.

While prices—especially retail prices—can come from a lot of sources (transportation and processing costs, marketing activity, regional differences in price and cost), the price premium of this new product helps illustrate how costs of crop development move from farm to table, no matter how the crop was farmed. Depending on general crop prices and efforts by certain manufacturers to cash on in current farm economics, the non-GMO label could outstrip “organic” on costs to consumers.

In some ways, Non-GMO already is outstripping organic. From 2013 to 2015, Non-GMO sales rose 70 percent every year, totaling about $13 billion in sales for 2015. Meanwhile, food that has the USDA Organic seal (and thus is 95 percent or more organic) totaled $11 billion by November 2015.

Farming price pressures

Farmers are becoming more attracted to non-GMO crops, even more than organic. A large reason for this is price. While inputs for organic and non-GMO maybe higher, the prices for certain crops (like corn, soy and wheat) are very, very low. These low prices, the result of improved agricultural practices (including genetic modification, reduced pesticide use and advanced machinery) are making farmers look for alternatives that pay them more per unit of crop.

Terry Daynard, a Guelph, Ontario, farmer and former associate dean at the University of Guelph, wrote in his blog that last year, he received $11 per bushel of soybean, compared to $10 per bushel in 1983. But in constant (1983) dollars, that means last year he only got $5 per bushel. “If I’d grown organic soybeans in 2015, I would have received about 2.5 times that or normal soybeans and my cost of production would have been equally high.”

A number of other farmers in Canada and the US Midwest have moved away from biotech seeds, mainly because of price. Prices for corn and soybeans have fallen 50 percent for corn and 35 percent for soybeans over the past two years, which has forced a number of growers to look to organics and non-GMO varieties for higher profits.

John Ruelle, senior vice president of SunOpta, a Toronto, Ontario-based firm that is the first to get USDA certification for operating GMO-free, says that Non-GMO has a distinct price advantage over organics, at least in the short run:

We didn’t have a ton of interest from growers to grow specialty crops when corn was at $8 a bushel. To be a certified organic producer you have to go through three crop cycles in order to get the land certified. You can do non-GMO next year.

With low food prices, the difference between $3, $8 and even $11 a bushel isn’t going to affect consumers, especially affluent ones. But, as Terry Daynard pointed out, “many Canadians aren’t affluent,” which is true in every other country on the planet. “If government and food industry actions reduce availability of lower-cost foods, many low-income families will suffer. That’s unfortunate and perhaps unethical, too.”

Andrew Porterfield is a writer, editor and communications consultant for academic institutions, companies and non-profits in the life sciences. He is based in Camarillo, California. Follow @AMPorterfield on Twitter.

Can we treat aging? Anti-aging supplements make big promises based on little science

January 12, 2018April 27, 2016 by GLP Digital

Age is the biggest risk factor for most of the deadly chronic conditions that affect us like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. But aging itself isn’t considered a disease. It’s just a fact of life… one that most of us would like to change.

A new, high profile company with several Nobel Laureates on its board is the newest player to enter the anti-aging game. Elysium Health sells its supplement Basis online and as a subscription to combat aging. The two molecules in the current Basis formula, pterostilbene and nicotinamide riboside (NR), likely work by maintaining the health of mitochondria. One theory of aging proposes that these tiny energy factories in our cells are highly susceptible explains David Stipp at Scientific American:

Mitochondria are our cells’ energy dynamos. Descended from bacteria that colonized other cells about 2 billion years, they get flaky as we age. A prominent theory of aging holds that decaying of mitochondria is a key driver of aging. While it’s not clear why our mitochondria fade as we age, evidence suggests that it leads to everything from heart failure to neurodegeneration.

The NR in Basis is a precursor to nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (aka NAD). Its other ingredient is a hyper-potent form of resveratrol, the anti-aging compound that is found in minute amounts in red wine. Both probably improve mitochondrial health (at least in mice and test tubes) through mechanisms involving sirtuins. These molecules are activated when animals go on the intensive calorie restricted diets that promote longevity. Increasing sirtuins, and their positive effects, without painful lifestyle changes has been a priority for scientists studying aging and anti-aging compounds.

Unfortunately there is not much proof in humans yet that NAD has the same metabolism-boosting and longevity enhancing effects as it does in mice. One study has shown that humans do convert NR to NAD like mice do, but the study stopped there. It was paid for by ChromaDex, another company that makes NR supplements sold under the name Niagen.

Both companies sell there products as supplements, not pharmaceutical drugs. The FDA doesn’t regulate them in the same way as drugs, (even though they probably should given safety issues). From the Boston Globe:

If Elysium Health were developing Basis as a drug, it would have to conduct clinical trials with humans to prove that it works, and the Food and Drug Administration would have to sign off on its scientific evidence before it could be sold as medicine. But as a supplement, Basis and similar products only have to be shown to be safe for humans to take, with labels that are not misleading.

Another reason these supplements don’t not fall under the legal purview of the FDA is that the agency doesn’t classify ‘aging’ as an indication for treatment. Because FDA doesn’t label aging as health condition, no one can do clinical trials to test drugs with the sole purpose of making it better.

Given the size of the multi-billion dollar supplement industry, there are already customers willing to pay thousands of dollars a year for supplements that are less researched or transparent than Basis. But if your supplement budget is lower, it might be worth waiting for more studies in humans before taking the plunge. It’s probably coming fast writes Stipp:

But the paucity of human data gives me pause. Nobel laureates notwithstanding, I plan to wait until more is known before jumping up from the supper table to run out for some NR. Besides, it probably won’t be long before more data come out given the growing buzz about NAD.

Meredith Knight is a contributor to the human genetics section for Genetic Literacy Project and a freelance science and health writer in Austin, Texas. Follow her @meremereknight.

Can GM mosquitoes move past public’s fear of gene editing and play role in eliminating Zika?

January 12, 2018April 27, 2016 by GLP Digital

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

History is filthy with stories of pest control gone terribly, terribly wrong.

Consider, for example, the infamous tale of how the mongoose got to the Hawaiian Islands. The sleek carnivore was imported in the 1880s as part of a plan by the sugar industry to subdue the rats that wouldn’t stop gnawing through stalks of sugar cane. But there was a problem: Rats are active at night, while mongoose are active during the day. So instead, the mongoose came to Hawaii and feasted on native birds and their eggs.

Today, scientists don’t need mongoose for pest control. In some cases, they can just tweak the genes of the animal or insect they’re trying to vanquish. There’s good evidence to support the idea that genetic modification of the Aedes aegypti mosquito, for example, could help dramatically reduce its population.

But the question of genetic modification remains fraught—in part because of legitimate scientific concerns, but largely because of misinformation and cultural resistance to genetic modification more broadly. A poll conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found more than one-third of Americans believed genetically modified mosquitoes were to blame for the spread of Zika. (They’re not.) Others believe that just because something is natural, it is somehow better.

“The public fears genetic engineering. Nearly all politicians don’t understand it,” said Arthur Caplan, the founding director of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU School of Medicine. “I don’t think the issue is economic. It is ignorance, distrust, fear of the unknown, fear of prior efforts to use biology to combat pests which went sour.”

Read full, original post: Genetically Modified Mosquitoes: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

CEO who took gene therapy designed to treat aging reveals promising early results

January 20, 2024April 27, 2016 by GLP Digital

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

In 2015, Elizabeth Parrish, the CEO of Seattle-based biotech firm BioViva, hopped a plane to Colombia, where she received multiple injections of two experimental gene therapies her company had developed. One is intended to lengthen the caps of her chromosomes (called telomeres) while the other aims to increase muscle mass. The idea is that together these treatments would “compress mortality,” Parrish told The Scientist, by staving off the diseases of aging—enabling people to live healthier, longer.

On its website, BioViva reported the first results of Parrish’s treatment: the telomeres of her leukocytes grew longer, from 6.71 kb in September 2015 to 7.33 kb in March 2016. The question now is: What does that mean?

Over the phone, Parrish was measured in discussing the implications of the finding, which has not yet undergone peer review. “The best-case scenario would be that we added 20 years of health onto the leukocytes, and the immune system might be more productive and catch more of the bad guys,” she said. “But we have to wait and find out. The proof will be in the data.”

Much more data are needed before claiming success against aging, said Dana Glei, a senior research investigator at Georgetown University. “We haven’t established a causal link between telomere length and health,” she told The Scientist. “If it’s like gray hair, dying your hair won’t make you live longer.”

Read full, original post: First Data from Anti-Aging Gene Therapy

Newsletter Subscription