Berkeley Lab Researchers Develop New Tool for Making Genetic Engineering of Microbial Circuits Reliably Predictable

Synthetic biology is the latest and most advanced phase of genetic engineering, holding great promise for helping to solve some of the world's most intractable problems, including the sustainable production of energy fuels and critical medical drugs, and the safe removal of toxic and radioactive waste from the environment. However, for synthetic biology to reach its promise, the design and construction of biological systems must be as predictable as the assembly of computer hardware.

An important step towards attaining a higher degree of predictability in synthetic biology has been taken by a group of researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) under the leadership of computational biologist Adam Arkin. Arkin and his team have developed an "adaptor" that makes the genetic engineering of microbial components substantially easier and more predictable by converting regulators of translation into regulators of transcription in Escherichia coli. Transcription and translation make up the two-step process by which the coded instructions of genes are used to synthesize proteins.

"Application of our adaptor should produce large collections of transcriptional regulators whose inherent composability can facilitate the predictable engineering of complex biological circuits in microorganisms," Arkin says. "This in turn should allow for safer and more efficient constructions of increasingly complex functions in microorganisms."

Arkin is the director of Berkeley Lab's Physical Biosciences Division and the corresponding author of a paper describing this work in Nature Methods. The paper is titled "An adaptor from translational to transcriptional control enables predictable assembly of complex regulation. Co-authoring this paper were Chang Liu, Lei Qi, Julius Lucks, Thomas Segall-Shapiro, Denise Wang and Vivek Mutalik.

Synthetic biology combines modern principles of science and engineering to develop novel biological functions and systems that can tackle problems natural systems cannot. The focus is on bacteria and other microbes that can metabolize a wide variety of valuable chemicals and molecules, and play a critical role in the global cycles of carbon and other important elements. One of the keys to success in synthetic biology is the design and construction of customized genetic switches in microbes that can control the expression of both coding and non-coding RNA, act on operons (small groups of genes with related functions that are co-transcribed in a single strand of messenger RNA), and be tethered to higher-order regulatory functions (a property called composability).

"Much of the regulatory potential of a bacterium is contained in the five-prime untranslated regions (UTRs), which control the expression of physically adjacent downstream genes and have become attractive platforms for a parts-based approach to synthetic biology," Arkin says. "This approach, in which integrated engineered regulatory parts respond to custom inputs by changing the expression of desired genes, must satisfy two criteria if it is to have long-term success. First, the regulatory parts must be easily engineered in a way that yields large homogenous sets of variants that respond to different custom inputs, and second, the parts must be composable such that they can be easily and predictably assembled into useful higher-order functions."

In the five prime UTRs of bacteria, two primary types of regulators can serve as starting points for designing new parts - those that regulate transcriptional elongation, in which cellular inputs are linked to the process by which a sequence of DNA nucleotides is transcribed into a complementary sequence of RNA; and those that regulate translation, in which a ribosome translates the RNA message into a protein. Transcriptional elongation regulators meet the second criterion by featuring versatility and composability that makes them ideal for building custom regulatory functions. Translational regulators meet the first criterion by being easier to engineer and relatively common to all bacteria.

"Our solution for meeting both criteria was to develop an adaptor based on tryptophanase, the catabolic operon for tryptophan that converts regulators of translational initiation into regulators of transcriptional elongation," Arkin says. "Because our adaptor strategy bypasses the otherwise restrictive tradeoff between criterion one and criterion two, we believe it will have a crucial role in the long-term development of five prime UTRs as platforms for the design and integration of custom regulatory parts."

When an E.coli translational regulator was fused to the adaptor created by Arkin and his colleagues, it was also able to control transcriptional elongation. The team applied their adaptor to the construction of several transcriptional elongation regulators that respond to RNA and small-molecule inputs. Included were five mutually orthogonal RNA-triggered attenuators (meaning they can terminate transcription), which the team assembled into logic gates driven by two, three or four RNA inputs that linked to ribosome binding sites. Because their adaptor is so easily linked to ribosome binding sites, a common mechanism in bacteria, the team believes the adaptor will be widely applicable.

Read the original here:

A Welcome Predictability

Fluorescence microscopy images of cells containing various plasmid pairs which were constructed with the help of a tna element adaptor and logic gates driven by two, three or four RNA inputs that linked to ribosome binding sites.

(Phys.org)Synthetic biology is the latest and most advanced phase of genetic engineering, holding great promise for helping to solve some of the world's most intractable problems, including the sustainable production of energy fuels and critical medical drugs, and the safe removal of toxic and radioactive waste from the environment. However, for synthetic biology to reach its promise, the design and construction of biological systems must be as predictable as the assembly of computer hardware.

An important step towards attaining a higher degree of predictability in synthetic biology has been taken by a group of researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) under the leadership of computational biologist Adam Arkin. Arkin and his team have developed an "adaptor" that makes the genetic engineering of microbial components substantially easier and more predictable by converting regulators of translation into regulators of transcription in Escherichia coli. Transcription and translation make up the two-step process by which the coded instructions of genes are used to synthesize proteins.

"Application of our adaptor should produce large collections of transcriptional regulators whose inherent composability can facilitate the predictable engineering of complex biological circuits in microorganisms," Arkin says. "This in turn should allow for safer and more efficient constructions of increasingly complex functions in microorganisms."

Arkin is the director of Berkeley Lab's Physical Biosciences Division and the corresponding author of a paper describing this work in Nature Methods. The paper is titled "An adaptor from translational to transcriptional control enables predictable assembly of complex regulation. Co-authoring this paper were Chang Liu, Lei Qi, Julius Lucks, Thomas Segall-Shapiro, Denise Wang and Vivek Mutalik.

Enlarge

When a bacterial translational regulator is fused to a tna element adaptor, it is able to also regulate transcriptional elongation.

"Much of the regulatory potential of a bacterium is contained in the five-prime untranslated regions (UTRs), which control the expression of physically adjacent downstream genes and have become attractive platforms for a parts-based approach to synthetic biology," Arkin says. "This approach, in which integrated engineered regulatory parts respond to custom inputs by changing the expression of desired genes, must satisfy two criteria if it is to have long-term success. First, the regulatory parts must be easily engineered in a way that yields large homogenous sets of variants that respond to different custom inputs, and second, the parts must be composable such that they can be easily and predictably assembled into useful higher-order functions."

In the five prime UTRs of bacteria, two primary types of regulators can serve as starting points for designing new parts those that regulate transcriptional elongation, in which cellular inputs are linked to the process by which a sequence of DNA nucleotides is transcribed into a complementary sequence of RNA; and those that regulate translation, in which a ribosome translates the RNA message into a protein. Transcriptional elongation regulators meet the second criterion by featuring versatility and composability that makes them ideal for building custom regulatory functions. Translational regulators meet the first criterion by being easier to engineer and relatively common to all bacteria.

"Our solution for meeting both criteria was to develop an adaptor based on tryptophanase, the catabolic operon for tryptophan that converts regulators of translational initiation into regulators of transcriptional elongation," Arkin says. "Because our adaptor strategy bypasses the otherwise restrictive tradeoff between criterion one and criterion two, we believe it will have a crucial role in the long-term development of five prime UTRs as platforms for the design and integration of custom regulatory parts."

Visit link:

Researchers develop new tool for making genetic engineering of microbial circuits reliably predictable

ScienceDaily (Oct. 8, 2012) Synthetic biology is the latest and most advanced phase of genetic engineering, holding great promise for helping to solve some of the world's most intractable problems, including the sustainable production of energy fuels and critical medical drugs, and the safe removal of toxic and radioactive waste from the environment. However, for synthetic biology to reach its promise, the design and construction of biological systems must be as predictable as the assembly of computer hardware.

An important step towards attaining a higher degree of predictability in synthetic biology has been taken by a group of researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) under the leadership of computational biologist Adam Arkin. Arkin and his team have developed an "adaptor" that makes the genetic engineering of microbial components substantially easier and more predictable by converting regulators of translation into regulators of transcription in Escherichia coli. Transcription and translation make up the two-step process by which the coded instructions of genes are used to synthesize proteins.

"Application of our adaptor should produce large collections of transcriptional regulators whose inherent composability can facilitate the predictable engineering of complex biological circuits in microorganisms," Arkin says. "This in turn should allow for safer and more efficient constructions of increasingly complex functions in microorganisms."

Arkin is the director of Berkeley Lab's Physical Biosciences Division and the corresponding author of a paper describing this work in Nature Methods. The paper is titled "An adaptor from translational to transcriptional control enables predictable assembly of complex regulation. Co-authoring this paper were Chang Liu, Lei Qi, Julius Lucks, Thomas Segall-Shapiro, Denise Wang and Vivek Mutalik.

Synthetic biology combines modern principles of science and engineering to develop novel biological functions and systems that can tackle problems natural systems cannot. The focus is on bacteria and other microbes that can metabolize a wide variety of valuable chemicals and molecules, and play a critical role in the global cycles of carbon and other important elements. One of the keys to success in synthetic biology is the design and construction of customized genetic switches in microbes that can control the expression of both coding and non-coding RNA, act on operons (small groups of genes with related functions that are co-transcribed in a single strand of messenger RNA), and be tethered to higher-order regulatory functions (a property called composability).

"Much of the regulatory potential of a bacterium is contained in the five-prime untranslated regions (UTRs), which control the expression of physically adjacent downstream genes and have become attractive platforms for a parts-based approach to synthetic biology," Arkin says. "This approach, in which integrated engineered regulatory parts respond to custom inputs by changing the expression of desired genes, must satisfy two criteria if it is to have long-term success. First, the regulatory parts must be easily engineered in a way that yields large homogenous sets of variants that respond to different custom inputs, and second, the parts must be composable such that they can be easily and predictably assembled into useful higher-order functions."

In the five prime UTRs of bacteria, two primary types of regulators can serve as starting points for designing new parts -- those that regulate transcriptional elongation, in which cellular inputs are linked to the process by which a sequence of DNA nucleotides is transcribed into a complementary sequence of RNA; and those that regulate translation, in which a ribosome translates the RNA message into a protein. Transcriptional elongation regulators meet the second criterion by featuring versatility and composability that makes them ideal for building custom regulatory functions. Translational regulators meet the first criterion by being easier to engineer and relatively common to all bacteria.

"Our solution for meeting both criteria was to develop an adaptor based on tryptophanase, the catabolic operon for tryptophan that converts regulators of translational initiation into regulators of transcriptional elongation," Arkin says. "Because our adaptor strategy bypasses the otherwise restrictive tradeoff between criterion one and criterion two, we believe it will have a crucial role in the long-term development of five prime UTRs as platforms for the design and integration of custom regulatory parts."

When an E.coli translational regulator was fused to the adaptor created by Arkin and his colleagues, it was also able to control transcriptional elongation. The team applied their adaptor to the construction of several transcriptional elongation regulators that respond to RNA and small-molecule inputs. Included were five mutually orthogonal RNA-triggered attenuators (meaning they can terminate transcription), which the team assembled into logic gates driven by two, three or four RNA inputs that linked to ribosome binding sites. Because their adaptor is so easily linked to ribosome binding sites, a common mechanism in bacteria, the team believes the adaptor will be widely applicable.

"Continued application of our adaptor should produce large collections of transcriptional regulators whose inherent composability can facilitate the predictable engineering of complex synthetic circuits," Arkin says.

Read the original:

New tool for making genetic engineering of microbial circuits reliably predictable

The Associated Press Published Sunday, Oct. 7, 2012 10:03AM EDT

LOS ANGELES -- 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.

See the rest here:
California initiative to test appetite for 'genetically engineered' food

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

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.

See original here:

California initiative will test appetite for genetically modified foods

The Associated Press Published Sunday, Oct. 7, 2012 10:03AM EDT

LOS ANGELES -- 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.

Read the original post:

California initiative to test appetite for 'genetically engineered' food

By Alicia Chang

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 and DuPont, have contributed about US$35 million to defeat Proposition 37 on the November ballot. It also would ban labelling 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 labelled 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 labelling 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.

Read the original here:

Genetic labelling mooted in California

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.

See the article here:

State initiative will test appetite for GMO food

1:00 AM A highly contested California vote over specialized labeling could have implications for U.S. agribusinesses.

By ALICIA CHANG/The Associated Press

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

click image to enlarge

A corn-based food product carrying a label identifying it as not containing genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is sold at the Lassens Natural Foods & Vitamins store in the Los Feliz district of Los Angeles on Friday.

The Associated Press

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.

The rest is here:

Do we have an appetite for genetically modified food?

LOS ANGELES -- 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.

Theyre fed up. They want to know whats 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.

Continued here:

California to vote on 'genetically modified' labels

October 6, 2012 in Nation/World

Alicia Chang Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) Calories. Nutrients. Serving size. How about produced with geneticengineering?

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

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 aresafe.

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 foodsupply.

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 thatamount.

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 labeleditems.

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 saladdressing.

Original post:

Calif. initiative will test appetite for GMO food - Sat, 06 Oct 2012 PST

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.

Link:

Calif. initiative will test appetite for GMO food

LOS ANGELES -- 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.

Theyre fed up. They want to know whats 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.

See more here:
California to vote on 'genetically modified' labels

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.

Read more:

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

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.

Read more:
Valley farmers fear 'modified' wording in Prop. 37

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

Critics’ viewThe argument against genetic engineering of seeds and food is that food companies are playing roulette with public health by introducing new genetic combinations into food with unknown consequences for future generations.

Read more from the original source:

Companies, activists gear up for biotech food battle

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.

The rest is here:

The Dangers of Genetic Engineering

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.

Visit link:

Valley farmers fear 'modified' wording in Prop. 37

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."

Read the original here:
Free Engine