Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

LOS ANGELES (AP) Calories. Nutrients. Serving size. How about "produced with genetic engineering?"

California voters will soon decide whether to require certain raw and processed foods to carry such a label.

In a closely watched test of consumers' appetite for genetically modified foods, the special label is being pushed by organic farmers and advocates who are concerned about what people eat even though the federal government and many scientists contend such foods are safe.

More than just food packaging is at stake. The outcome could reverberate through American agriculture, which has long tinkered with the genes of plants to reduce disease, ward off insects and boost the food supply.

International food and chemical conglomerates, including Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co., have contributed about $35 million to defeat Proposition 37 on the November ballot. It also would ban labeling or advertising genetically altered food as "natural." Its supporters have raised just about one-tenth of that amount.

If voters approve the initiative, California would become the first state to require disclosure of a broad range of foods containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Food makers would have to add a label or reformulate their products to avoid it. Supermarkets would be charged with making sure their shelves are stocked with correctly labeled items.

Genetically altered plants grown from seeds engineered in the laboratory have been a mainstay for more than a decade. Much of the corn, soybean, sugar beets and cotton cultivated in the United States today have been tweaked to resist pesticides or insects. Most of the biotech crops are used for animal feed or as ingredients in processed foods including cookies, cereal, potato chips and salad dressing.

Proponents say explicit labeling gives consumers information about how a product is made and allows them to decide whether to choose foods with genetically modified ingredients.

"They're fed up. They want to know what's in their food," said Stacy Malkan, spokeswoman for the California Right to Know campaign.

Agribusiness, farmers and retailers oppose the initiative, claiming it would lead to higher grocery bills and leave the state open to frivolous lawsuits. Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman for the No on 37 campaign, said labels would be interpreted as a warning and confuse shoppers.

View original post here:
Calif. initiative will test appetite for GMO food

Public release date: 4-Oct-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Vicki Cohn vcohn@liebertpub.com 914-740-2100 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News

New Rochelle, NY, October 4, 2012Essential medications can be delivered as inhaled drugs to critically ill patients in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) who require mechanical ventilation to breathe. Aerosol drug delivery is highly complex, however, and if not done properly the medication will not reach the lungs and therapy will be ineffective. The efficacy and safety of aerosol delivery of drugs commonly used in the ICU such as antibiotics, diuretics, and anticoagulants is explored in depth in a review article published in Journal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery, a peer-reviewed journal from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers. The article is available free online on the Journal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery website.

Arzu Ari, PhD, RRT and James Fink, PhD, RRT, Georgia State University (Atlanta) and Rajiv Dhand, MD, University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine (Knoxville) state that the successful use of bronchodilator therapy in ventilator-dependent patients has led to growing interest in the delivery of other aerosolized forms of medication to improve outcomes for patients in the ICU that require mechanical ventilation. In the article "Inhalation Therapy in Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: An Update," the authors explore the complexities of aerosol therapy in this patient population and the advances in drug delivery devices that are contributing to its increasing use and success.

"Newer drugs, such as antibiotics, will require better control of dose and delivery if they are to be successful in treating the intubated patient." says Editor-in-Chief Gerald C. Smaldone, MD, PhD, Professor and Chief, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at SUNY-Stony Brook.

###

About the Journal

Journal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery is an authoritative peer-reviewed journal published bimonthly in print and online. It is the Official Publication of the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine. The Journal is the only authoritative publication delivering innovative articles on the health effects of inhaled aerosols and delivery of drugs through the pulmonary system. Topics covered include airway reactivity and asthma treatment, inhalation of particles and gases in the respiratory tract, toxic effects of inhaled agents, and aerosols as tools for studying basic physiologic phenomena. Complete tables of content and a sample issue may be viewed on the Journal of Aerosol Medicine and Pulmonary Drug Delivery website.

About the Publisher

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers is a privately held, fully integrated media company known for establishing authoritative peer-reviewed journals in many promising areas of science and biomedical research, including Pediatric Allergy, Immunology, and Pulmonology; High Altitude Medicine & Biology; and Microbial Drug Resistance. Its biotechnology trade magazine, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN), was the first in its field and is today the industry's most widely read publication worldwide. A complete list of the firm's 70 journals, books, and newsmagazines is available on the Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers website.

More here:
Are inhaled medications effective and safe in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation?

October 4, 2012 -

In November, Californians will be voting on Proposition 37: A Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative, that will require labeling of raw or processed food if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.

Gail McDonald-Tune advocates for the labeling law and believes the food-buying public is being used as guinea pigs.

Her research has shown that genetic engineering transfers genes across natural species barriers, either by shooting genes into a plate of cells or by using bacteria to invade the cell with foreign DNA. The altered cell is then cloned into a plant.

There are eight food crops that are genetically engineered and five major varieties corn, canola, cotton, soy and sugar beets have bacterial genes inserted that allow the plants to survive an otherwise deadly dose of weed killer. Farmers use considerably more herbicides on these Genetically Modified (GM) crops, so the food has higher residues. About 68 percent of GM crops are herbicide tolerant.

The second GM trait is a built-in pesticide, found in corn and cotton. A gene from the soil bacterium is inserted into the plants DNA, where it secretes the insect-killing Bt-toxin in every cell. About 19 percent of GM crops produce their own pesticide. Another 13 percent produce a pesticide and are herbicide tolerant.

FDA scientists repeatedly warned that GM foods may create unpredictable, hard to detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. and urged long-term studies, but were ignored.

For more information when selecting food, download a free non-GMO Shopping Guide: http://www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.

See the article here:
The Dangers of Genetic Engineering

There's a growing gap between what grocery shoppers think they know about their food and the reality. Those tomatoes with the evenly rich red color that look ripened to perfection? They were bred to avoid showing streaks of green, a result of genetic prodding that also stole away most of their flavor. Unless the carton says otherwise, the eggs didn't come from chickens that scratched around in barnyards but rather spent their lives in cramped battery cages that offered no room to move around. There's a good chance the meat came from animals that were given antibiotics from their youngest days, both to promote growth and to prevent disease from sweeping through their crowded pens. Pesticides were almost certainly used on the fruits and vegetables. And the sweetener in the soda, or the golden corn on the cob, probably was a product of genetic engineering.

In most cases, there is no requirement to inform consumers, via labels, about the use of pesticides, hormones or antibiotics, or about the inhumane conditions in which animals are often kept. But Proposition 37 would make an exception for genetically engineered food, requiring that it be labeled before being sold in California. Although we generally endorse people's right to know what goes into their food, this initiative is problematic on a number of levels and should be rejected.

Genetic engineering tinkering with genes in a laboratory to produce desirable qualities has dominated the production of certain crops for years. Today, somewhere between 85% and 95% of the corn and soybeans grown in this country, for example, have altered genes. Often, the alteration renders the crops "Roundup ready," which means they're able to withstand the herbicide glyphosate, marketed by Monsanto under the trade name Roundup. That allows farms to spray against weeds without killing the food plants. And because corn and soy appear in so many products in the form of high-fructose corn syrup, as just one example genetically engineered ingredients are common in processed foods.

ENDORSEMENTS: The Times' recommendations for Nov. 6

Unfortunately, the initiative to require labeling of those ingredients is sloppily written. It contains language that, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, could be construed by the courts to imply that processed foods could not be labeled as "natural" even if they weren't genetically engineered. Most of the burden for ensuring that foods are properly labeled would fall not on producers but on retailers, which would have to get written statements from their suppliers verifying that there were no bioengineered ingredients a paperwork mandate that could make it hard for mom-and-pop groceries to stay in business. Enforcement would largely occur through lawsuits brought by members of the public who suspect grocers of selling unlabeled food, a messy and potentially expensive way to bring about compliance.

These are all valid arguments for rejecting Proposition 37, but a more important reason is that there is no rationale for singling out genetic engineering, of all the agricultural practices listed above, as the only one for which labeling should be required. So far, there is little if any evidence that changing a plant's or animal's genes through bioengineering, rather than through selective breeding, is dangerous to the people who consume it. In fact, some foods have been engineered specifically to remove allergens from the original version. By contrast, there is obvious reason to be worried about the fact that three-fourths of the antibiotics in this country are used to fatten and prevent disease in livestock, not to treat disease in people. The rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria from overuse of pharmaceuticals poses a real threat to public health. So why label only the bioengineered foods? Because the group that wrote Proposition 37 happened to target them. What's needed is a consistent, rational food policy, not a piecemeal approach based on individual groups' pet concerns.

That's not to belittle consumer doubts about genetically engineered foods. The nation rushed headlong into producing them with lax federal oversight, and although many studies have been conducted over the last couple of decades, a 2009 editorial in Scientific American complained that too much of the research has been controlled by the companies that create the engineered products. The solution, though, is more independent study and, if necessary, stronger federal oversight and legislation, not a label that would almost certainly raise alarm about products that haven't been shown to cause harm.

VOTER GUIDE: 2012 California Propositions

The more substantiated issue with genetically engineered foods is their effect on the environment and possibly on other crops. The over-reliance they've encouraged on a single herbicide has contributed to the emergence of Roundup-resistant weeds. The industry is now seeking federal permission to grow corn that can withstand a different, more problematic herbicide. The Obama administration should withhold permission until agribusiness comes up with a better long-term solution than creating ever-tougher weeds.

Meanwhile, the marketplace already provides ways to inform consumers about their food. Just as some meats are labeled antibiotic-free or hormone-free, and some eggs are labeled cage-free, food producers are welcome to label their foods as GE-free. The Trader Joe's grocery chain has helped market itself to concerned consumers by announcing that its private-label foods do not contain genetically engineered ingredients. Organic foods are never genetically engineered. There are no genetically engineered versions of most fruits sold in markets.

More here:
No on Proposition 37

The Valley's edible crops are grown without genetic engineering, but farmers here still fear a ballot initiative aimed at labeling food that has been genetically modified, saying it could make it harder to sell their products.

Farmers are battling Proposition 37 because they say it hurts business and exposes them to possible lawsuits.

Supporters of the November California ballot measure argue that consumers have a right to know whether the food they are buying has been altered using genetic technology. Many crops grown nationwide, including corn, soybeans and canola, have been tinkered with to resist chemicals, bugs or drought.

But Valley farmers say the proposition has some unintended consequences that could increase costs and hurt their ability to sell even non-genetically engineered crops.

As part of Prop. 37, retailers will be required to label products that have genetically engineered ingredients. That means stickers or labels on many common grocery store items, including cereal, cake mixes and cookies.

But products that are exempt, including those that are not genetically engineered, need to be verified by either the wholesaler, food maker or farmer.

Growers believe that could mean more paperwork -- and potential lawsuits by consumer groups if they don't do it right.

"In addition to the substantial record-keeping that we already do, we will have to provide sworn statements proving that we do not have genetically engineered peaches," said Karri Hammerstrom, who farms 40 acres of peaches and plums in Kingsburg with her husband, Bill. "And if we don't do that, we could be sued."

Hammerstrom also is troubled by wording in Prop. 37 that could limit farmers or processors from using the word "natural" when selling products.

The proposition bans the use of the word "natural" or any variation of that in the labeling of genetically engineered foods. But the state's Legislative Analyst's Office said that the way the proposition is written, there is a possibility that the ban could apply to some processed foods regardless of whether they are genetically engineered.

More:
Valley farmers fear 'modified' wording in Prop. 37

A cow in New Zealand has been genetically modified to produce hypoallergenic milk.

AgResearch

Two genetically engineered farm animals reported today illustrate how far from Frankensteins stitched-together monster animal biotechnology has come. One of those animals, a cow, secretes milk that lacks an allergy-inducing protein because researchers accurately blocked its production using the technique of RNA interference1. And in pigs, scientists have used an enzyme called a TALEN2 to scramble a gene that would normally help remove cholesterol.

RNA interference (RNAi) and TALENs are more accurate at targeting the gene in question than are earlier genetic engineering techniques. For years, researchers tried to remove the allergy-inducing milk protein beta-lactoglobulin from cow's milk, which can cause diarrhea and vomiting in some toddlers. They tried replacing the gene encoding beta-lactoglobulin with a defective form, but this proved nearly impossible because the techniques available to introduce foreign genes into animal genomes were not precise, and misplaced genes failed to express themselves correctly.

In 2006, scientists at AgResearch in Hamilton, New Zealand began to experiment with molecules that interfere with the messenger RNA go-between that enables translation of a gene into protein. In mice, they discovered a short chunk of RNA, called a microRNA, that targeted beta-lactoglobulin messenger RNA directly to prevent its translation. They inserted DNA encoding a version of this microRNA into the genome to create genetically modified cow embryos that they hoped would grow into cows without the allergen in their milk. Out of 100 embryos, one calf yielded beta-globulin-free milk. This isnt a quick process, says Stefan Wagner, a molecular biologist at AgResearch. That's why it has taken so long to succeed in making an allergen-free cow, he says.

Wagner says that TALENs, which were not readily available when he began his research, might speed up the process, and that the team plans to use them to eliminate beta-lactoglobulin. RNAi cannot eliminate the protein completely because some messenger RNA slips past the blockade, but each TALEN targets a specific DNA sequence in the genome and cuts it. As the body repairs the break, mutations are often introduced that render the targeted gene non-functional. The TALEN technology is staggeringly easy, quick, and leaves no mark in the genome, says Bruce Whitelaw, a molecular biologist at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh in the United Kingdom, who contributed to the work in pigs. In essence, we are just mimicking an evolutionary process with precise, man-made editors.

His team used TALENs to disrupt genes encoding low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptors. Without these receptor proteins to remove cholesterol-containing LDLs from the blood, LDLs build-up and lead to atherosclerosis. Pigs with this condition may be reliable models of human atheroscelerosis in biomedical research.

The TALEN-modified pig is not the first model of human heart disease (see Model pigs face a messy path), but the technique makes genetic engineering less costly and more efficient. Id be exaggerating if I said that pigs and cows can now be thought of as big mice, but we are moving in that direction, says Heiner Niemann, a bioengineer at the Institute of Farm Animal Genetics in Neustadt, Germany.

The excitement surrounding these technological advances is bittersweet, however. Originally, engineered animals were produced with the aim of making food safer, healthier and more abundant. Yet despite years of investment, almost no animal has been approved by regulatory agencies around the world. Wagner says he has not tasted the milk from his special cow because hes not permitted to under New Zealand law. We must restrict our research to scientific analysis, he says. The current climate for animal biotech is not very good, and therefore, we are nowhere near getting this to the consumer."

Originally posted here:
Animals engineered with pinpoint accuracy

Public release date: 3-Oct-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: Vicki Cohn vcohn@liebertpub.com 914-740-2100 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News

New Rochelle, NY, October 3, 2012Making moral judgments is increasingly a central element of the plots of popular video games. Do players of online video games perceive the content and characters as real and thus make moral judgments to avoid feeling guilty? Or does immoral behavior such as violence and theft make the game any more or less enjoyable? The article "Mirrored Morality: An Exploration of Moral Choice in Video Games" published in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, a peer-reviewed journal from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers examines these types of questions. The article is available free online on the Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking website.

Andrew Weaver and Nicky Lewis, Indiana University, Bloomington, studied how players make moral choices in video games and what effects those choices have on their emotional responses to the games. In general, players tended to make "moral" decisions and to treat game characters as though they were actual people. Although behaving in antisocial ways was associated with greater guilt, it did not affect player enjoyment.

"Although preliminary, these results point to the utility of games as teaching and educational tools, as well as important tools for the assessment of behavior," says Brenda K. Wiederhold, PhD, MBA, BCIA, Editor-in-Chief of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, from the Interactive Media Institute, San Diego, CA. "These findings indicate how real the virtual world can become when one suspends disbelief and immerses oneself in the scenario."

###

About the Journal

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking is an authoritative peer-reviewed journal published monthly in print and online that explores the psychological and social issues surrounding the Internet and interactive technologies. Complete tables of content and a sample issue may be viewed online on the Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking website.

About the Publisher

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers is a privately held, fully integrated media company known for establishing authoritative peer-reviewed journals in many promising areas of science and biomedical research, including Games for Health Journal, Telemedicine and e-Health, and Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology. Its biotechnology trade magazine, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (GEN), was the first in its field and is today the industry's most widely read publication worldwide. A complete list of the firm's 70 journals, books, and newsmagazines is available on the Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers website.

Read more from the original source:
Does moral decision-making in video games mirror the real world?

PARIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Regulatory News:

Cellectis (ALCLS.PA), the French genome engineering specialist, announces in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, one of the most respected scientific journals in the world, the publication of a new approach regarding the targeted modification of DNA2. The manuscript unmasks novel perspectives and broadens the scope of TALENsTM technology to new therapeutic approaches to fight against cancer and genetic diseases. Until now, TALENsTM, the molecular scissors created by Cellectis Group, were only able to target certain parts of the genome. A team of the Groups researchers, led by Julien Valton and Philippe Duchateau, was able to overcome this constraint, opening the way to a wider range of applications, especially in the therapeutic field.

This study, the first to be published on TALENsTM, was awarded by the selection committee of the JBC as Paper of the Week.

Since their identification in 2009, TALEs have quickly emerged as the new generation of DNA-binding domain with programmable specificity and have been successfully used to generate the molecular scissors known as TALENsTM. However, their sensitivity to methylation, a ubiquitous modification of DNA, represents a major bottleneck for their widespread utilization in the genome engineering and therapeutic fields. Using a combination of biochemical, structural and cellular approaches, the R&D department of Cellectis was able to identify the basis of such sensitivity and more importantly, to propose an efficient and universal method to overcome it.

These results are proof of the scientific creativity and quality of our research teams, as well as the power of our genome engineering tools. This new publication strengthens the relevance of our investment in TALEstechnology, and confirms our strategy within the therapeutic field, declared Andr Choulika, Chief Executive Officer of Cellectis Group.

2) Overcoming TALE DNA Binding Domain Sensitivity to Cytosine Methylation Julien Valton, Aurelie Dupuy, Fayza Daboussi, Severine Thomas, Alan Marechal, Rachel Macmaster, Kevin Melliand, Alexandre Juillerat and Philippe Duchateau J. Biol. Chem. jbc.C112.408864. First Published on September 26, 2012, doi:10.1074/jbc.C112.408864

About Cellectis

Founded in France in 1999, the Cellectis Group is based on a highly specific DNA engineering technology. Its application sectors are human health, agriculture and bio-energies. Co-created by Andr Choulika, its Chief Executive Officer, Cellectis is today one of the world leading companies in the field of genome engineering. The Group has a workforce of 230 employees working on 5 sites worldwide: Paris & Evry in France, Gothenburg in Sweden, St Paul (Minnesota) & Cambridge (Massachusetts) in the United States. Cellectis achieved in 2011 16M revenues and has signed more than 80 industrial agreements with pharmaceutical laboratories, agrochemical and biotechnology companies since its inception. AFM, Dupont, BASF, Bayer, Total, Limagrain, Novo Nordisk are some of the Groups clients and partners.

Since 2007, Cellectis has been listed on NYSE-Euronext Alternext market (ALCLS.PA) in Paris.

See the original post:
Cellectis Publishes Results Paving the Way for New Therapeutic Approaches against Cancer and Genetic Diseases

According to UC Berkeley professor Ignacio Chapela, the passage of Proposition 37 will not only restore the right to choose what foods we put in our bodies, but it may restore scientific process to its rightful placesomething the bioengineering industry, with full assistance from the White House, removed.

"The promises made by genetic engineering have not been fulfilled," explains Chapela, a microbial biologist who was first to exposed the fact that genetically engineered corn was contaminating ancient strains of Mexican maize via cross-pollinating. "Genetic engineering has proven to be wishful thinking, a dream that has failed."

Chapela considers himself fortunate to be able to speak out freely about GMO failings, since so many other scientists have been attacked or threatened or have lost employment for approaching genetic engineering with a critical eye. "I would like to speak for those scientists," says Chapela, "because they cannot." When the first Bush administration instructed federal regulatory bodies to step aside and give the GE industry free reign, Chapela explains, there was no scientific scrutiny allowed.

"It has been very hard to survive as a scientist who is a critical thinker now," Chapela says. "The central dogma embedded in K-12 science textbooks indoctrinates young people to accept that genetic engineering is an inevitable part of life. It says all living things are driven by genes encoded in DNA, and that by manipulating that DNA we can create life, and mix, match and alter it the way we want it." But this isn't the way it actually plays out, says Chapela. "The reality is that genetic engineering is not working, any way you look at it."

What Proposition 37 offers consumers is the promise that all GMO foods will be labeled in California. What it offers scientists is a chance to scrutinize an industry that has intimidated themsometimes to the point of ruining their careersfor questioning the validity of genetic engineering. "The Bush administration decided in the 1980s that genetic engineering was the next wave of economic development for the U.S. and for the world," says Chapela. "We were instructed to look the other way."

Labeling GE foods may help science, which at present cannot investigate whether GE food consumption is related to rises in disease. "We have been sitting here in the dark, forbidden from looking," says Chapela, who believes a GMO-labeling law will give us "the simple capacity to know and to do the science for the first time. I think we deserve it."

More here:
Free Engine

Allergen-free cows milk and pigs with hardened arteries illustrate how the accuracy of genetic engineering has improved.

Two unsuspecting farm animals have helped to demonstrate the increasing accuracy of genetic engineering techniques. The first is a cow that produced hypoallergenic milk after researchers used RNA interference to block the production of an allergy-inducing protein, as reported this week (October 2) in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The second, reported in another paper in the same issue, is a pig that could be a model for atherosclerosis after researchers used an enzyme called a TALEN to silence a gene that helps to remove cholesterol.

Researchers have long struggled to remove cow milks allergy-inducing protein, beta-lactoglobulin, which can cause diarrhea and vomiting in children. They were previously unable to introduce foreign genes precisely enough, however, so they could never quite successfully replace the gene that codes for beta-lactoglobulin with a defective form.

But scientists at AgResearch in Hamilton, New Zealand, worked with molecules that interfere with messenger RNA (mRNA), which helps translate genes into proteins. They found microRNA (miRNA) in mice that targeted beta-lactoglobulin mRNA, so they inserted DNA encoding a version of this miRNA into the genomes of cow embryos. Out of 100 embryos, one calf produced beta-globulin-free milk. This isnt a quick process, Stefan Wagner, a molecular biologist at AgResearch, told Nature. One problem is that RNA interference cant eliminate the protein completely because some mRNA slips through.

Another technique could speed up the process. TALENs are enzymes that target and cut out a specific DNA sequence from the genome. As the break is repaired, mutations are introduced that scramble the targeted gene, leaving it unable to function.

The TALEN technology is staggeringly easy, quick, and leaves no mark in the genome, researcher Bruce Whitelaw, told Nature. Whitelaw, a molecular biologist at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh, United Kingdom, used TALENs to disrupt genes encoding low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptors in pigs. Without those receptors, which remove LDL from the blood, Whitelaws pigs develop atherosclerotic arteries. Such pigs could be reliable models for biomedical researchers studying human atherosclerosis.

Go here to read the rest:
The GM Barnyard