Daily Archives: January 9, 2022

As of January 1, 2022, food thats been previously known as a GMO or genetically engineered food will have a new Bioengineered (BE) label. If the term leaves you confused or searching your favorite online encyclopedia, youre not alone. Critics of the new legislation are concerned that the new GMO rebrand may cause even more confusion and less transparency than its predecessor.

The Center for Food Safety,a San Franciscobased nonprofit whose stated mission is to protect the earth from harmful impacts of industrial agriculture, has already filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to strike down this and other labeling laws instituted by the Trump administration.

Consumers have fought for decades for their right to know whats in their food and how its produced, stated Meredith Stevenson, an attorney for the center, in a press release. But instead of providing meaningful labeling, USDAs final rules will only create more uncertainty for consumers, retailers, and manufacturers.

Most consumers are familiar with the term that "bioengineered" replaced GMO, which stands for genetically modified organism. A GMO is a plant, animal, microorganism or other organism whose genetic makeup has been modified in a laboratory using genetic engineering or transgenic technology, which results in combinations of plant, animal, bacterial, and virus genes that dont occur in nature or through traditional crossbreeding methods, according to the Non-GMO Project, a nonprofit that aims to inform the public about what is in their food and how to access non-GMO choices (and whose verification seal has been one of the most prominent ways to identify non-GMO packaged foods).

The definition of a bioengineered food is quite similar. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), a bioengineered (BE) food is food that contains genetic material that has been modified through certain laboratory techniques and for which the modification could not be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature. Despite this definition, some exemptions in the BE labeling mandate mean that many foods that contain GMOs by current standards may not have to be labeled that way under the new guidelines (see items 3 and 4 below).

Keep reading to learn what a BE label means for you and your health, and how to spot foods that arent bioengineered.

RELATED: What Is a Black Box Warning for a Drug?

These labels both the Non-GMO Project label and the new Bioengineered label are marketing tools, says Peter Goldsbrough, PhD, a professor of botany and plant pathology at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, who specializes in GMOs and GMO educational practices. If you read the USDA position on this, its clear the labels are for marketing purposes, to let consumers know what theyre buying, says Dr. Goldsbrough. Unfortunately, this new terminology may confuse people. Most consumers are already unclear about what GMO means, and this will probably add to that, he says.

Still, the new labeling doesnt change anything about the composition of the food we're purchasing and eating, Goldsbrough says. Humans have been genetically modifying crops using selection and breeding since agriculture began, over 11,000 years ago. The types of food ingredients that have been genetically engineered or bioengineered are going to remain the same, he says, and there will be new foods added as the technology continues to develop.

I think one of the most important things that people need to know is that there are no health safety concerns about consuming GMO foods, says Goldsbrough. Thats the position of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA], the World Health Organization, the European Food Safety Agency all these agencies have concluded that theres no safety concerns with the genetically modified foods that are on the market today. The presence or absence of a non-BE or Non-GMO label doesnt mean that a food is healthy or unhealthy, he adds.

RELATED: Why Are Some Food Additives That Are Banned in Europe Still Used in the U.S.?

Food items that contain ingredients that are considered highly refined such as sugar and corn oil dont require bioengineering disclosure, so they'll have no BE label. For example, when genetically modified corn is processed to make oil or corn syrup, the resulting highly refined ingredient shows no detectable DNA from the bioengineered crop, and therefore is not required to bear a bioengineered label. Excluding foods that use these ingredients makes the number of foods that will have a BE label considerably smaller, says Goldsbrough. An awful lot of things contain corn or soybean oil.

Food industry and food advocacy groups are divided on the omission of these products, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, but the USDA decided that an ingredient is not a bioengineered food if the genetically modified material is undetectable, says Goldsbrough.

Advocates for disclosure claim that there is evidence that the highly refined ingredients contain genetic material, even if its not detectable. Many products made with newer GMO technologies such as CRISPR, TALEN, and RNAi are currently untestable and therefore dont require a BE label, according to the Non-GMO Project.

Even though its not required, some companies may choose to disclose that they are using those highly refined ingredients that come from genetically modified crops, according to the USDA. These foods may state Derived From Bioengineering or Ingredients Derived From a Bioengineered Source on their label.

Products made with meat, poultry, or eggs are exempt from the BE labeling law. Multi-ingredient products in which meat, poultry, or eggs are the first ingredient are also exempt, even if other ingredients in the product do have detectable levels of modified genetic material.

The USDA gives the example of a can of pork stew that also contains genetically modified sweet corn. If pork is the main ingredient and listed first on the ingredient panel, the can of stew wouldnt be required to have a BE label because meat is exempt from the labeling requirement. If the stew lists water, broth, or stock as the first ingredient and pork as the second, that would also not require a BE label because water, stock, and broth dont count. The only way the stew would earn a BE label is if there was more corn than pork in the stew.

Because the new bioengineered definition leaves out foods that contain the highly refined oils and sugars that are derived from genetically modified food as well as multi-ingredient foods (such as the pork stew example), the position of the Non-GMO Project is that the Bioengineered Food labeling law is ineffective at finding GMOs and avoiding GMOs, largely because of restrictions, loopholes, and exemptions.

Foods that have detectable modified genetic material and are considered bioengineered will be identified on their packaging or label with one or more of the following:

The Non-GMO Project label, which depicts an orange butterfly on a green blade of grass, will continue to be used on a voluntary basis by companies that wish to adhere to the groups more stringent standards.

RELATED: 10 Common Food and Medication Interactions to Avoid

Products that sport a USDA Certified Organic label must be free of GMO and bioengineered ingredients. This was decided because the organic food industry does not want to use foods that are genetically modified, and its a way of distinguishing their brand from conventional foods, says Goldsbrough. So for consumers who want to avoid bioengineered foods, seeking out certified organic foods is probably the simplest and most reliable way to do that. Although there isnt evidence that GMO foods are harmful, its consumer choice, he says. If people wish to avoid genetically modified foods, this is one way to go about that.

In general, the foods that are most likely to contain GMOs or bioengineered ingredients are those that are the most processed. If you go into the sections where foods are more processed and use corn or soybean ingredients, unless theyre organic, they are more likely to contain items that are derived from a bioengineered crop plant, says Goldsbrough. If you tend to shop for fresh produce, meats, and dairy, on the other hand, those are less likely to be genetically modified. Ultimately, it's one more reason to keep your diet as minimally processed as possible.

See the original post:
6 Things You Need to Know About the New GMO Food Label - Everyday Health

Indias transportation sector contributes about 10 per cent of total national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Out of which, road transportation contributes about 87 per cent of the total emissions. Clearly, achieving net zero emission by 2070 implies road transportation needs significant overhaul. While EV or hydrogen fuel cell based transportation may be the mainstream in the long run, biofuel is expected to play an important role in the near future. With this in mind, Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari announced on November 11, 2021, that flex-fuel engines will be made mandatory in the coming days.

The advantage of flex-fuel engines is that it can run with 100 per cent biofuel, unlike a standard engine which develops problem if blending ratio goes above 20 per cent. The flex-fuel, or flexible fuel, is basically biofuel made with a combination of gasoline, methanol or ethanol where blending ratio may shift from zero to 100 per cent.

The aim is to gradually shift to fuels which are import substitutes, cost effective, indigenous and pollution-free. The entire automobile sector in Brazil runs on flex-fuel engines. The blending varies depending on the availability of biofuel feedstock and price of global crude oil. As a result, international crude oil price does not pinch them anymore.

While the idea of pushing towards flex-fuel auto-engine is a novel one, the stark reality is that we do not have the feedstock even for 20 per cent bending ratio. Currently, the supply is enough to meet about 8.5 per cent blending ratio. The government has decided to step up domestic manufacture of biofuels by 10 per cent every year and has advanced the target of blending 20 per cent ethanol in petrol to 2025, from 2030. But there is no way that the target can be achieved by 2025.

Moreover, increasingly, India is using its large inventory of foodgrains of low quality (due to improper storage) to produce biofuel. Earlier, they were used for fodder for animals. But the tendency is now to use them for producing ethanol. Surely, this is not a sound proposition as these foodgrains were procured at higher prices.

Biodiesel production involves four distinct stages (i) cultivation of oilseeds bearing plants from which seeds would be harvested; (ii) trading of seeds which involves procurement of seeds from the individual farmers and selling them to the processing factories; (iii) oil extraction from the seeds and transforming the extracted oil to biofuel through the process of trans-esterification; and (iv) blending this biofuel with the petrol/diesel and its disposal to individual consumers through retail outlet.

Originally, Indias biofuel programme identified a few oilseeds whose cultivation was encouraged to meet feedstock supply. However, this policy is now discarded in the new biofuel policy. Increasingly, the focus is now of adopting second generation biofuel process, namely producing biofuel from used vegetable oil, crop residue.

Most of the latest plants that are now being built are capable to use crop residue, used vegetable oil or oilseed to produce biofuel.

While the policy seems to be sound on paper, very little has been achieved. Only two bio-refineries with capacity of 500,000 litres/day of ethanol from spoilt and surplus foodgrain have been constructed by Indian Oil Corporation out of the 12 new bio-refineries to be built across 11 States in the country.

To have a long-term solution to stubble burning in northern India, notably Punjab, Haryana and Western UP, the idea is to construct a bio-refinery so that the same can use crop residue to produce ethanol. However, no plant has come up so far as it may not be economically viable given the current taxes/incentives schemes.

Gathering crop residue during harvest time is a costly proposition unless the farmers are given enough incentive to bring the crop residue to the proposed plant after harvest. Also, gathering a steady supply of other feedstock during non-harvest time is also an issue that entrepreneurs worry about. Somehow, the incentive scheme is not tilted in favour of production of biofuel.

Most countries which have been successful in promoting biofuel have banked on some crops as feedstock. Most also have undertaken genetic engineering on the crops so that the yield is maximised. Take the case of Brazil. Most of its ethanol is produced from sugarcane directly for efficient extraction.

On the other hand, India uses by-products (molasses) from sugar production to produce ethanol. This is not an efficient process with low yield. Of course, the sugar producers gets better price of their by-products.

It is best that India identifies feedstock, undertakes genetic engineering on the plants if it plans to use biofuel in a big way in the transportation sector. The use of used oil and crop residue for biofuel can at best supplement biofuel production, but can never fulfil the target what India needs if it wants to replicate Brazilian experiment with biofuel.

No doubt, support for feedstock producers as well as the biofuel production value chain for a sustained 3-5 years is needed if the sector has to take off. Will the government bite the bullet in the coming Budget?

The writer is Professor, NCAER. Views are personal

Read the original post:
How India can give a boost to biofuels - BusinessLine

Dublin-based Horizon Therapeutics is expanding in Montgomery County, Md., on the heels of last years acquisition of Gaithersburg, Md.-based Viela Bio, another biotech company.

Horizon Therapeutics has signed a long-term, 192,000-square-foot lease at Alexandria Center Traville Gateway, a planned 500,000-square-foot life sciences complex being developed by Alexandria Real Estate Equities on 18 acres in Rockville, Md.

The global life sciences company will occupy an entire building, which is the first one under construction at the complex and is scheduled to be ready sometime in 2023.

The opportunity to custom build a state-of-the-art facility that suits our current and future [research and development] and technical operations needs was attractive, Geoffrey M. Curtis, an executive vice president in corporate affairs at Horizon Therapeutics, told CO.

The company has operated out of approximately 32,000 square feet in two buildings at 1 MedImmune Way in Gaithersburg since its Viela Bio acquisition in March and will be relocating when the space is available.

The new space will serve as our East Coast R&D and technical operations hub and will allow for all employees and functions to be in one building, Curtis said.

The new facility will also allow Horizon Therapeutics to quadruple its current Maryland footprint and better drive its continued efforts to develop new medicines for patients with rare, autoimmune and severe inflammatory diseases, he noted.

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan released a statement praising the news and championed the life sciences sector in the state.

It is a testament to our outstanding business climate and wealth of resources that we have seen so many life sciences companies expand and add thousands of new jobs in our state in recent years, he said.

Maryland is considered a top 4 cluster nationally by Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News annual ranking of the nations top 10 life sciences clusters, with Montgomery County responsible for a lot of the demand and growth.

Horizon Therapeutics was represented by CBRE in the transaction. The developers were represented in-house.

Requests for comment from the development team and CBRE were not immediately returned.

Keith Loria can be reached at Kloria@commercialobserver.com.

Follow this link:
Biotech Giant Horizon Therapeutics Expanding in Montgomery County - Commercial Observer