Daily Archives: September 18, 2014

Disadvantages Of Genetic Engineering In Humans

By: College Courses

Read more from the original source:
Disadvantages Of Genetic Engineering In Humans - Video

PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:

17-Sep-2014

Contact: Kathryn Ryan kryan@liebertpub.com 914-740-2100 Mary Ann Liebert, Inc./Genetic Engineering News @LiebertOnline

New Rochelle, NY, September 17, 2014Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI), a specialized magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique that detects microstructural changes in brain tissue, can help physicians better predict the likelihood for poor clinical outcomes following mild traumatic brain injury compared to conventional imaging techniques such as computed tomography (CT), according to a new study published in Journal of Neurotrauma, a peer-reviewed journal from Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers. The article is available free on the Journal of Neurotrauma website until October 17, 2014.

The ability to predict which patients who experience an acute head injury such as mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) are likely to suffer ongoing dysfunction 3 or 6 months post-injury is important for providing optimal care. Esther Yuh and coauthors from University of California, San Francisco, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center (Rotterdam, The Netherlands), Mount Sinai School of Medicine (New York, NY), Seton Brain and Spine Institute (Austin, TX), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (PA), University of Texas (Austin), Antwerp University Hospital (Edegem, Belgium), and University of Cambridge Addenbrooke's Hospital (Cambridge, UK), present the results of the first published study that compares DTI to conventional imaging and clinical factors for outcome prediction in individual patients with mTBI. DTI showed significant differences between the white matter of mTBI patients who had positive versus negative findings on CT and MRI evaluation, as described in the article "Diffusion Tensor Imaging for Outcome Prediction in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A TRACK-TBI Study."

John T. Povlishock, PhD, Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Neurotrauma and Professor, Medical College of Virginia Campus of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, notes that "this exceptionally well done study addresses an issue of continuing controversy and confusion. The authors make an extremely important observation that MRI studies, including DTI parameters, are integral in informing prognosis after mild TBI. When taken together with the other publications from the TRACK-TBI Study Group, these findings should prove invaluable in assessing the occurrence of mild TBI and informing patient outcome."

###

About the Journal

Journal of Neurotrauma is an authoritative peer-reviewed journal published 24 times per year in print and online that focuses on the latest advances in the clinical and laboratory investigation of traumatic brain and spinal cord injury. Emphasis is on the basic pathobiology of injury to the nervous system, and the papers and reviews evaluate preclinical and clinical trials targeted at improving the early management and long-term care and recovery of patients with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neurotrauma is the official journal of the National Neurotrauma Society and the International Neurotrauma Society. Complete tables of content and a sample issue may be viewed on the Journal of Neurotrauma website.

About the Publisher

Read more:
New MRI technique helps clinicians better predict outcomes following mild traumatic brain injury

Products containing genetically modified ingredients would have to disclose that information on the back of the package near the nutritional facts under Vermont s bill. (Photo by John Herrick/VTDigger)

BRATTLEBORO -- Contending Vermont's GMO labeling law is meant "to pacify a vocal segment of the population that opposes genetic engineering," the Grocery Manufacturers Association is asking a federal court to prevent the state from implementing Act 120 until its lawsuit against Vermont "has run its course."

Act 120, which establishes labeling requirements for what it calls genetically engineered foods, was passed by the Legislature earlier this year and signed into law in May by Gov. Peter Shumlin.

According to the motion for an injunction, because GE varieties of corn and soybean account for 90 percent of those types of plantings in the United States, Act 120 will affect most of the grocery products sold in Vermont.

"Federal law does not require food labeling to also include plant labeling because there is no rational justification for such a regime," wrote attorneys for the GMA, the Snack Food Association, the International Dairy Association and the National Association of Manufacturers. "Act 120, however, is not concerned with rational justification. It caters to beliefs and biases that a government has no business endorsing."

Not only does Act 120 not serve any legitimate governmental interests, wrote the attorneys, it violates the First Amendment and intrudes upon federal labeling requirements, and is thus preempted by the Supremacy Clause.

In addition, they wrote, the members of the associations bringing suit against the state "will suffer irreparable injury" without an injunction because they have no way "to reliably distinguish ingredients derived from genetically engineered plant varieties from those that are not."

"The changes manufacturers would need to demand from their suppliers and initiate in their own facilities to segregate ingredients require money and time -- much more time than the Act's July 1, 2016, effective date allows," wrote the attorneys.

And then there are the costs related to building out Vermont-specific supply and distribution chains that do not currently exist.

"Plaintiff's members will not be able to recoup the cost of those efforts from the State if they prevail, nor could they easily return their business to the status quo ante."

Read more:
Food manufacturers seek GMO labeling injunction

BRATTLEBORO -- Contending Vermont's GMO labeling law is meant "to pacify a vocal segment of the population that opposes genetic engineering," the Grocery Manufacturers Association is asking a federal court to prevent the state from implementing Act 120 until its lawsuit against Vermont "has run its course."

Act 120, which establishes labeling requirements for what it calls genetically engineered foods, was passed by the Legislature earlier this year and signed into law in May by Gov. Peter Shumlin.

According to the motion for an injunction, because GE varieties of corn and soybean account for 90 percent of those types of plantings in the United States, Act 120 will affect most of the grocery products sold in Vermont.

"Federal law does not require food labeling to also include plant labeling because there is no rational justification for such a regime," wrote attorneys for the GMA, the Snack Food Association, the International Dairy Association and the National Association of Manufacturers. "Act 120, however, is not concerned with rational justification. It caters to beliefs and biases that a government has no business endorsing."

Not only does Act 120 not serve any legitimate governmental interests, wrote the attorneys, it violates the First Amendment and intrudes upon federal labeling requirements, and is thus preempted by the Supremacy Clause.

In addition, they wrote, the members of the associations bringing suit against the state "will suffer irreparable injury" without an injunction because they have no way "to reliably distinguish ingredients derived from genetically engineered plant varieties from those that are not."

"The changes manufacturers would need to demand from their suppliers and initiate in their own facilities to segregate ingredients require money and time -- much more time than the Act's July 1, 2016, effective date allows," wrote the attorneys.

And then there are the costs related to building out Vermont-specific supply and distribution chains that do not currently exist.

"Plaintiff's members will not be able to recoup the cost of those efforts from the State if they prevail, nor could they easily return their business to the status quo ante."

Even though the plaintiff's plan to present evidence that food produced from genetically engineered crops is safe, "vehement opposition to genetic engineering persists," wrote the attorneys. Much of that opposition is based in philosophical or religiousbeliefs, concerns about large-scale agricultural operations, or biases against certain companies, maintain the attorneys.

Read the original:
Food manufacturers seek GMO labeling injuction