Tag Archives: gmos

This Florida Community May Unleash Genetically Modified Mosquitoes to Fight Zika and Dengue

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Genetically engineered mosquitoes may sound like a sci-fi superbug out of a Stephen Spielberg film, but these are the real deal. The altered insects are the latest approach to quell the spread of mosquito-borne diseases that claim an estimated 725,000 lives globally each year, not to mention Zika virus, which has spread rapidly in the Americas and causes alarming birth defects—and could turn out to affect the adult brain, too—but seldom kills.

Earlier this month, the FDA approved the first proposed US field trial of genetically modified mosquitoes. The trial is planned to launch in Key Haven, Florida, 161 miles south of the Miami-Dade neighborhood where the nation’s first locally transmitted Zika cases have been detected—and five miles from the the heart of Florida’s 2009-2010 outbreak of dengue, a potentially deadly virus that can be spread by the same mosquito. Local opposition has stalled the release of the altered bugs, even as the Zika virus continues to spread in South Florida. Now residents in this island community will get to weigh in on the fate of the trial via a nonbinding local referendum this November. A majority of the mosquito control commissioners for the Keys, who have final say in the matter, have vowed to side with the locals. If a trial is approved, the mosquitoes could be let loose as early as December.

Whether it happens this time or not, the interest in fighting mosquitoes with high-tech methods is only growing. In science labs across the globe, researchers are studying parasitic microbes, various types of genetic modifications, and even new techniques that, in theory, could nearly eradicate local mosquito populations or make it impossible for the mosquitoes to transmit a given disease. In the meantime, here’s what you should know about the proposed release in South Florida.

How are these mosquitoes modified?
Scientists at Oxitec, a UK-based company that has spent years honing its techniques in the lab and in the field, have altered Aedes aegypti—the primary mosquito conduit for Zika, dengue, yellow fever, and chikungunya—with a gene that causes its progeny to die in the larval stage. The researchers sort the altered mosquitoes by sex and release only the males, which then go out and mate with wild females, dooming their offspring. The modified mosquitoes, which can only survive a few days outside the climate-controlled comforts of a laboratory, also carry a gene for a fluorescent protein that lets researchers distinguish modified mosquitoes from wild ones. Both of the inserted genes are non-toxic and non-allergenic.

What if one of these mosquitoes were to bite me?
Assuming just males are released, they won’t—only females bite, because they need your blood to nourish their eggs. A few females get past the screening, but they comprise less than 0.2 percent of the insects released, and the chance of getting bit by one of these rare females is lower still. In the unlikely event that you are bitten by a modified mosquito, the result will be no different than with an ordinary one, according to Matthew DeGennero, a mosquito neurogeneticist at Florida International University. Mosquitoes have been around for 210 million years, he points out, yet we have no evidence that they’ve ever been able to transfer their DNA to any other organisms, including the ones they feed on.

But can’t releasing one organism to control another one mess with the natural balance?
Sure. Humans have made plenty of such blunders trying to control pests. Hawaii’s mongoose infestation, Australia’s poisonous cane toads, and Canada’s thistle-eating weevils are just a few examples of “biocontrol” gone awry. The difference with the Oxitec mosquitoes is that, unlike the introduced species of the past, they are engineered to disappear quickly. It’s actually a great business model, because the mosquito control boards will have to keep purchasing from Oxitec to keep local mosquito populations suppressed. But it also makes it easier to deal with unintended consequences—which the FDA deems unlikely in any case.

One valid concern is that reducing the numbers of Aedes aegypti may allow its cousin Aedes albopictus—which is capable of transmitting the same viruses—to move in. But in addition to being a less-efficient disease carrier, albopictus can have somewhat different habits and meal preferences. Aegypti feed almost exclusively on human blood, and tend to live alongside people in densely populated areas. Albopictus is just as prone to feeding on wildlife and livestock, and tends to stay in more rural settings, where they are less likely to spread disease. But they also show up in places like Los Angeles. In short, it’s complicated.

How will the GM mosquitoes affect other animals that feed on mosquitoes?
Most insect eaters have broad diets, so there’s no evidence that eliminating a specific mosquito will leave anyone without food. Nor will snacking on GM mosquitoes harm the birds, bats, and other fauna that eat the bloodsuckers. On the contrary, DeGennaro says, releasing modified mosquitos is a lot less harmful to the environment than spraying nasty chemicals. Each year 15 million acres across the US are doused in Naled, a neurotoxic insecticide used to keep mosquito populations in check. “Insecticides are very problematic for the environment,” DeGennaro says. “They disturb the ecosystem and affect insects other than the one you’re targeting.” Banned in Europe, Naled is known to kill bees, butterflies, birds, and fish indiscriminately. For this reason, Puerto Rico refused to accept Naled shipments from the US government to combat its Zika epidemic, even though a 20-25 percent infection rate is expected there by summer’s end. The United States, however, deploys tens of thousands of gallons of Naled annually to control Aedes aegypti. The FDA has concluded that the risk GM mosquitos pose for humans and other species is extremely low: “I can’t think of a potential problem with this,” DeGennaro says. “But I can think of a million potential problems with insecticides.”

What if I don’t want to be a guinea pig?
You won’t be, really. Oxitec has already released modified mosquitoes in several countries, including Malaysia, Brazil, and Panama—and more than three million altered skeeters lived out their short lives in the Cayman Islands in 2009 during the company’s first field trial. The proposed trial in the Keys isn’t intended to test the mosquitoes’ safety or environmental impacts—Oxitec has spent 14 years on such studies already. Rather, the purpose is to determine whether the altered mosquitoes can reduce Aedes aegypti populations in this environment the way they’ve done so elsewhere. Oxitec reports that wild aegypti populations have been slashed by more than 90 percent in areas where its mosquitoes were released. Given that aegypti puts more than 40 percent of the world’s population at risk for various diseases, those figures could prove convincing to many health and safety officials—at least until an effective vaccines becomes available.

Genetic tinkering is hardly new, of course. “Humans have been genetically modifying organisms since the dawn of civilization,” DeGennero says. “That’s why we have crops and domestic animals.” For nearly three decades, diabetics have been injecting themselves with insulin produced by genetically modified bacteria. In 2015, 444 million acres of genetically modified seed was planted across the globe, and genetically engineered salmon may be on the menu as early as next year. “This technology has potential to save people’s lives,” DeGennero says. “I would happily have these mosquitos where I live.”

View post: 

This Florida Community May Unleash Genetically Modified Mosquitoes to Fight Zika and Dengue

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Smith's, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Florida Community May Unleash Genetically Modified Mosquitoes to Fight Zika and Dengue

Senate moves closer to blocking state GMO labeling

Senate moves closer to blocking state GMO labeling

By on 1 Mar 2016commentsShare

The Senate may soon scuttle state laws that force food companies to put GMO labels on their packages. The Senate Agriculture Committee just voted 14-6 to move a bill blocking state labeling laws to the full Senate. A similar bill has already passed in the House.

Three of the nine Democrats on the Senate committee and all of the Republicans voted in favor of the bill. When the situation was reversed in 2013 and the Senate was voting on an amendment to make GMO labeling mandatory, all the Republicans and 28 Democrats voted against it. If most of those Republicans and a few of those Democrats vote against labeling now, the bill would pass. If this bill becomes a law it would quash a slew of local initiatives, including a labeling law in Vermont which kicks in July 1.

For years, anti-GMO advocates have been using the voter initiative process to put labeling on state ballots. The result has been the same every time: Food and farming companies spend loads of money campaigning against them and the initiatives fail. So activists in Vermont took a different route. In 2014, instead of using the initiative process, Vermont passed its law through the legislature. The food industry promptly sued the state and, while that case is still in the works, the judge decided not to put the law on hold. As a result, nearly every processed food item sold in Vermont will have to be labeled before July 1 (specifically, ingredients derived from mainstream corn, soy, papaya, sugar beets, or canola). That prospect is bumming out the food industry, because they would have to put cover-your-ass “may contain” labels on all their products, just on the chance that they end up in Vermont.

Advertisement

In an effort to broker a national compromise over labeling rules, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has been meeting with leaders of opposing factions over the past month. But Vilsack wasn’t able to find common ground. Pro-labeling forces want a mandatory, front-of-the-box labels, while anti-labeling forces want a voluntary standard. Faced with this stalemate, Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts (R) charged ahead with the current bill.

Roberts may have abandoned negotiations because the clock is ticking on Vermont’s July 1 deadline. Last week, he told the Topeka Rotary Club last that the Vermont law would cause chaos. “We have to have the USDA have a label that is standard for everybody or we’re going to have the food industry crashing and a big wrecking ball coming down,” he said.

I haven’t been able to get anyone to explain exactly why that apocalypse would occur. When I asked Roger Lowe at the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association he sent me this video of Vilsack’s explanation. Essentially, Vilsack is saying that if every state has own labeling rules, interstate food commerce would grind to a halt. But at this point there’s just one state with labeling rules, and companies could comply with a simple (if dumb) “may contain genetically modified ingredients” label on everything. The Corn Refiner’s Association estimates that simply changing the packaging design for these CYA labels would cost companies $3.8 billion, which sounds like a lot but nets out to just $50 per family of eaters (and keep in mind that this organization has an incentive to inflate its estimate).

Roberts’ bill could garner bipartisan support because GMOs don’t divide people along the usual party lines. That may seem like a bold assertion, because, among media pundits at least, the anti-GMO position is certainly associated with the left. Yet liberal stalwarts perplex those pundits by voting against GMO labeling. Why? Well, there’s abundant evidence showing that politics don’t predict the average American’s position on GMOs. When a study confirmed this lack of a partisan divide, Dan Kahan, a Yale professor who studies the way tribal affiliation affects thinking, blogged that it shows:

[for] the 10^7 time that there is no political division over GM food risk in the general public, despite the constant din in the media and even some academic commentary to this effect …

Ordinary Americans — the ones who don’t spend all day reading and debating politics — just don’t give GM food any thought. They don’t know what GM technology is, that it has been a staple of U.S. agricultural production for decades, and that it is in 80 percent of the foodstuffs they buy at the market.

Kahan goes on to predict that Congress will pass a bill blocking state labeling laws, that Obama will sign it and that less than 1 percent of the U.S. population will notice.

But what about those polls showing that big majorities of Americans want GMO labels? Won’t that scare senators straight? The problem with those polls is that, if you ask people whether they want any kind of label they generally say, sure, why not! You are proposing a positive, without discussing the negatives. It’s like offering people free newspapers — hey, want more information? Big majorities of survey respondents also say, nonsensically, that they’d like mandatory labels for food containing DNA.

Pro-GMO advocates worry that a label will become the mark of Cain. People might see labels, and think, I don’t know what this is, but it must be bad!  And it won’t matter if the GMOs in question are ones that primarily lined the pockets of big agribusiness or primarily helped small farmers grow food more sustainably.

Many anti-GMO advocates agree that it would be the mark of Cain, and want labels expressly for the purpose of campaigning against GMOs.

In the middle are people like me, who think that labels will normalize, rather than stigmatize, GMOs. Also in the middle is Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the ranking Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, who voted against this bill. She supports a federal standard that would block state labeling laws, but she also wants to honor the desire for transparency. So she wants a federal law that would make GMO labeling mandatory but unobtrusive. For instance, companies could put GMO information on their website, rather than slapping a skull and cross-bones warning sign on the front of every box.

Stabenow could be the key to this whole thing, because she is a key wrangler of Democratic grain-belt votes. I’m inclined to think that Roberts needs to compromise with Stabenow to get this passed. On the other hand, if most Republicans and a few more Democrats sign on, this could sail through the Senate, even without her help.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Originally posted here:

Senate moves closer to blocking state GMO labeling

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Senate moves closer to blocking state GMO labeling

How microbes can make plastic from sunshine, carbon, and a little bit of love

How microbes can make plastic from sunshine, carbon, and a little bit of love

By on 17 Aug 2015commentsShare

We build with it, eat from it, wear it, let our kids play on it, drive around in it, and decorate our houses with it. It fills our landfills, pollutes our oceans, occasionally leaches toxic chemicals into the environment, and makes your neighbor’s lawn look like toy purgatory. It’s plastic, and like it or not, it’s everywhere. Plastic is as much a part of our identity as humans as that one sweatshirt was a part of your identity as a middle schooler (that sweatshirt, by the way, probably also contained plastic). Unfortunately, a lot of plastic contains ethylene — a chemical made from petroleum and natural gas in a CO2-emitting process.

But fear not! Scientists are working on a greener way to make ethylene using genetically modified algae. Here’s the scoop from Scientific American:

The researchers were able to accomplish this by introducing a gene that coded for an ethylene-producing enzyme—effectively altering the cyanobacteria’s metabolism. This allows the organisms to convert some of the carbon dioxide normally used to make sugars and starches during photosynthesis into ethylene. Because ethylene is a gas, it can easily be collected.

Making ethylene doesn’t require many inputs, either. The basic requirements for cyanobacteria are water, some minerals and light, and a carbon source. In a commercial setting, CO2 could come from a point source like a power plant, Yu said.

But before you go toasting to the wonders of algae with your high fives and your plastic cups (seriously, would it kill you to use a glass?), you should know that taking a something like this from the lab to the market is a long process. And it could very well turn out that using algae to produce plastic will prove untenable on a large scale. Regardless, this is a cool example of scientists trying to use synthetic biology to address environmental concerns.

What’s synthetic biology, you ask? Here — let me explain it to you using legos and skateboards.

Source:
Genetically Modified Algae Could Replace Oil for Plastic

, Scientific American.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

A Grist Special Series

Oceans 15


How much plastic is in our oceans? Ask the woman trying to clean it upCarolynn Box, environmental program director of 5 Gyres, talks about what it’s like to sail across the ocean, pulling up plastic in the middle of nowhere.


How catching big waves helped turn this pro surfer into a conservationistRamon Navarro first came to the sea with his fisherman rather, found his own place on it as a surfer, and now fights to protect the coastline he loves.


What seafood is OK to eat, anyway? Ask an expertWhen it comes to sustainable seafood, you could say director of Seafood Watch Jennifer Dianto Kemmerly is the ultimate arbiter of taste.

Get Grist in your inbox

Advertisement

Visit site: 

How microbes can make plastic from sunshine, carbon, and a little bit of love

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How microbes can make plastic from sunshine, carbon, and a little bit of love

What Exactly are ‘Agent Orange’ GMOs?

Visit link – 

What Exactly are ‘Agent Orange’ GMOs?

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Exactly are ‘Agent Orange’ GMOs?

15 Genetically Modified Foods To Look Out For

Taken from – 

15 Genetically Modified Foods To Look Out For

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 15 Genetically Modified Foods To Look Out For

5 Actions To Take During Non-GMO Month

Continue reading – 

5 Actions To Take During Non-GMO Month

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 5 Actions To Take During Non-GMO Month

GMO Companies Launch Website to Explain Frankenfood

Link:  

GMO Companies Launch Website to Explain Frankenfood

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on GMO Companies Launch Website to Explain Frankenfood

First GMO Flu Vaccine Approved for U.S. Patients

Wendy M.

on

Why Shock Collars Do Not Work

9 minutes ago

customize your newsletter

causes & news
animal welfare
global warming
environment & wildlife
human rights
women’s rights
news
submit news story
healthy living
food & recipes
health & wellness
healthy home
family life
true beauty
pets
shopping
take action
browse petitions
create a petition
daily action
volunteer
jobfinder
click to donate
community & sharing
people
groups
singles
photos
blogs
polls
ecards
my care2
my account
my groups
my page
my friends
my petitionsite
my messages
join care2
about us
advertise
partnerships
careers
press
contact us
terms of service
privacy
subscription center
help
rss feeds

Copyright © 2013 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved

healthy living
food
health
love + sex
nature
pets
spirit
home
life
family
green
do good
all recipes
appetizers & snacks
basics
desserts
drinks
eating for health
entrees
green kitchen tips
raw
side dishes
soups & salads
vegan
vegetarian
videos
ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES
AYURVEDA
CONDITIONS
DIET & NUTRITION
FITNESS
GENERAL HEALTH
HEALTHY AGING
Mental Wellness
MEN’S HEALTH
NATURAL REMEDIES
WOMEN’S HEALTH
VIDEOS
dating
friendship
relationships
sex
videos
environment
lawns & gardens
natural pest control
outdoor activities
wildlife
videos
Adoptable Pets
Animal Rights
Behavior & Communication
Cats
Dogs
Everyday Pet Care
Humor & Inspiration
Less Common Pets
Pet Health
Cute Pet Photos
Safety
Wildlife
Remedies and Treatments
Videos
Biorhythms
Deepak Chopra’s Tips
Exercises
Global Healing
Guidance
Inspiration
Peace
Self-Help
Spirituality & Technology
Videos
home
life
family
beauty
green
do good
crafts & designs
news
videos
conscious consumer
blogs
astrology
my favorites
my Care2 main
my account
my butterfly rewards
my click to donate
my eCards
my friends
my groups
my kudos
my messages
my news
my page
my petitionsite
my photos
my sharebook
my subscriptions

Link to original:  

First GMO Flu Vaccine Approved for U.S. Patients

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on First GMO Flu Vaccine Approved for U.S. Patients