The latest approach to making new drugs is genetically modifying members of our own microbial ecosystems.
This summer, the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based biotech company Synlogic started a clinical trial studying the safety of pills filled with genetically modified Escherichia coli, the MIT Technology Review reports. The US Food and Drug Administration thought these pills were so promising they fast-tracked them from animal to human testing.
In theory, they’d work like probiotics, which are foods or pills that help balance the trillions of bacteria that live in our digestive tract beneficially. Along with this line of thought, we could add custom bacteria strains that provide additional specific benefits.
As your body goes about its business, it rids itself of waste that builds up over time, including ammonia. Normally, we’re able to excrete this chemical in our urine. However, a handful of rare genetic disorders prevent this from happening properly, and the concentration of extra ammonia must be managed through careful dieting.
Read the full article at Quartz Media
A new study has confirmed what pollsters already knew: the public remains skeptical about genetically modified foods.
About 62 percent of respondents said GM is acceptable for use in human medicine and 68 percent said it’s OK to use the technology to protect human health, such as genetically modified mosquitoes.
“In some ways, I can understand why people may be more cautious about what they’re ingesting on an ongoing basis.”
The Purdue results are similar to polls done in Canada, looking at public perceptions of GM foods:
• A 2012 Farmers Feed Cities survey found that only 41 percent of Canadians think GM foods are safe for consumption.
• An Insights West poll in 2014 found 50 percent of people in Alberta and 56 percent in British Columbia would support a ban on genetically modified foods in Canada.
• A 2013 Consumers’ Association of Canada poll found that 88 percent of Canadians think GMO labeling should be mandatory.
More of this news at The Western Producer
The National Milk Producers Federation’s “Peel Back the Label” campaign aims to combat “deceptive food labeling” from dairy brands like Dean Foods and Dannon — which have touted Non-GMO Project certification, according to a report in Food Navigator.
The Non-GMO Project claims that retailers carrying products featuring its seal of approval report “the fastest dollar growth trend in their stores this year,” with annual sales exceeding $19.2 billion. So it’s not surprising that food companies turning out dairy-based products want to get on that bandwagon. At the same time, some of these companies say they support conventional farming methods, including the use of GMO feed.
In the Food Navigator article, a Dean Foods spokesman called the new NMPF campaign “disappointing.”
“We encourage consumers and NMPF to enjoy a glass of milk and focus on building up dairy foods, not dragging them down,” Jamaison Schuler said.
DanoneWave CEO Mariano Lozano told Food Navigator that the company was surprised to be criticized for providing choices that consumers want. Soon after Non-GMO Project, Verified products started appearing on shelves, Dannon officials told Food Dive about their reasons for going that route.
Read the full article at Food Dive
More than one-third of Americans do not know that foods with no genetically modified ingredients contain genes, according to the new nationally representative Food Literacy and Engagement Poll we recently conducted at Michigan State University. For the record, all foods contain genes, and so do all people.
The full survey revealed that much of the U.S. public remains disengaged or misinformed about food. These findings are problematic because food shapes our lives on a personal level, while consumer choices and agricultural practices set the course for our collective future in a number of ways, from food production impacts to public health.
Informing food discussions
The Food Literacy and Engagement Poll, which we plan to conduct annually, is part of Food@MSU, a new initiative based in Michigan State University’s College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Food@MSU’s mission is to listen to consumers, promote dialogue and help the public make more informed choices about food.
Meanwhile, the proliferation of online content with conflicting messages makes it hard for Americans to separate valid nutritional information from fads and fraud. Influential multinational corporations push ideas that aren’t always based on science but rather intended to promote their own products.
Continue reading at The Genetic Literacy Project
Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a federal lawsuit Sunday against the Trump administration for its failure to comply with the 2016 federal law on the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food.
Sec. of Agriculture Sonny Perdue and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are charged with implementing the new labeling rules, and part of that process is a study on “electronic and digital disclosures” (like QR codes) for GE foods, as opposed to on-package text. That study was required to be finished by July 2017, with an opportunity for public participation, but USDA never completed the study or published it for public comment.
The federal GE food law requires USDA to establish federal standards for labeling by July 2018. The withheld study will inform the agency’s ultimate decision, which is why it was required to be completed a year earlier. One of the most controversial aspects of the law is how it will require companies to label GE foods, and whether companies will be able to forgo clear, on-package labeling through the use of QR codes and other digital disclosures.
“Americans deserve nothing less than clear on-package labeling, the way food has always been labeled,” continued Kimbrell. “Allowing companies to hide genetically engineered ingredients behind a website or QR code is discriminatory and unworkable.”
Continue Reading at Ecowatch
Genetically modified crops such as sugar beets and corn have been a godsend to the farmers who grow them, an Idaho farmer and biotechnology expert told members of the Western Association of State Departments of Agriculture July 27.
To try to change consumers’ understanding and perception of GMO crops, the nation’s sugar beet industry is preparing a $4 million online campaign that will launch this fall.
Roundup Ready sugar beets, which are genetically engineered to withstand applications of the glyphosate herbicide, enjoy 100 percent adoption among Amalgamated growers and save them about $22 million per year, he said.
Because the GMO beets allow growers to use fewer herbicides, the plants are disturbed less and they face much less competition from weed pressure, which has translated into higher yields, Grant said.
Since GMO corn was introduced in the 1990s, he said, U.S. corn acres have increased from just under 60 million to 90 million, while acres of wheat, which is not genetically modified, has dropped from about 60 million to 45 million in 2017, which is the lowest acreage since records began in 1919.
Continue Reading at Capital Press
“The GM crops aim at increased quantity of the crop, but genetic modification affects the nutrients also, which is different from the naturally grown food. Bio-availability of naturally grown food is always higher than GM crops, which have a different nutritive value,” says Dr. Dharini Krishnan, Nutrition Consultant with Heinz Nutrition Foundation.
As stated by the World Health Organisation (WHO), when new crops are developed using conventional methods, the characteristics can change positively or negatively. Main issues discussed were of allergic reaction, gene transfer and outcrossing due to consumption of such food.
“As a case-by-case basis study is needed to assess the GM foods and their safety because different GM crops include different genes inserted in various ways, a definite conclusion cannot be made on its health aspects as toxins can impact people differently,” says Dr. D Janardan, a senior nutritionist.
These factors highlight the need for careful assessment and evaluation of GM foods to find out its effect on health.
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is planning a regime of labeling genetically modified (GM) foods, which do not exist in India as of now.
FSSAI, though responsible for testing food standards, is passing the buck on independent testing of the impact of GM foods on human health. Its officials said that the environment ministry should look at it.
As per Section 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, FSSAI has the responsibility to regulate GM organisms and products once they are approved by GEAC. FSSAI even submitted a status report before the Supreme Court, which is hearing a case against the commercial cultivation of GM Mustard, and stressed that no regulation is yet framed to regulate GM foods. DNA has reviewed a copy of the status report.
Continue Reading at DNA
A debate has raged around the potential risks and benefits of genetically modified (GM) foods for the last 20 years.
Friends of the Earth says that although food from 12 GM crops has been approved for sale in the EU, most UK supermarkets and food manufacturers have removed GM ingredients from their produce.
The arguments for GM
Most existing genetically modified crops have been developed to improve yield through resistance to plant pests or increased tolerance to herbicides.
Professor Jonathan Jones, a senior scientist at The Sainsbury Laboratory and an expert on how plants resist disease, was featured on the Panorama program.
“Producing enough food is hard, and currently there’s a lot of control of disease and pests by spraying agrochemicals,” he said.
“GM opponents have this idealistic notion that we can have a perfect, utterly clean way of doing things, but this idealism isn’t helpful because farming is a very pragmatic business. You’ve got to control weeds, so you need herbicides, and there are a lot of objections to them, but the question is, what’s the least bad way to do it?
“Anything that gets regulatory approval is completely safe, or at least as safe as its non-GM counterpart.”
Read more at BT.com
The CSOs including Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), Save Nigeria, Climate, Transformation and Energy Remediation Society (Climatters) and Women Environmental Programme (WEP) urged the National Assembly to outrightly ban the GMOs, stopped their field trails and transborder movement and ensure the labeling of the GM products if it has not been totally recalled
The Director of HOMEF Nnimmo Bassey and Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour who led the protest said that the activities of the GMOs are being curtailed in the United States, European and other countries and wondered why Nigeria is embracing what has been confirmed to be detrimental to Nigerians’ health.
Chairman, Senate Committee on Ecology and Climate Change Senator Bukar Abba Ibrahim and Senator Abu Ibrahim who addressed the protesters at the entrance of the National Assembly, assured that the federal lawmakers would look into the petition of the protesters and the sides of those supporting the GMOs and take appropriate action in the interest of Nigeria.