Monthly Archives: January 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED: 10 Common Food and Medication Interactions to Avoid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The writer is Professor, NCAER. Views are personal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Science and politics intersect on many levels. Many scientists depend on public funding to conduct their research an inherently political process and political leaders depend on scientists to inform their policy decisions. As well, the ethical ramifications of scientific research bear directly on ordinary citizens, who depend on governments to determine what lines of scientific inquiry are supported.

Politics and Expertise: How to Use Science in a Democratic Society, by Zeynep Pamuk (Princeton University Press, 256 pages).

But Zeynep Pamuk, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, feels the interplay between these two worlds science and politics has only begun to be properly explored. Pamuks interest in this relationship began early in her career, when she started to examine the discourse surrounding climate change. I realized that there was great scholarship on climate change, but it didnt get a lot of uptake, Pamuk told Undark. So I became interested in why that was the case. What is it about the intersection about science and politics thats become so pathological? She eventually saw that there wasnt as much scholarship on that question, especially from within political science.

In her new book, Politics and Expertise: How to Use Science in a Democratic Society, Pamuk outlines new directions that she believes the relationship between science and politics might take, rooted in the understanding that scientific knowledge is tentative and uncertain. Among her proposals is the resurrection of the idea of a science court, an idea first put forward in the 1960s.

The interview was conducted over Zoom and has been edited for length and clarity.

Undark: Much has been written on the importance of scientific literacy, and, especially in the last few years, on the problem of science denial and on the trust, or lack thereof, in science and scientists. But you frame your investigation very differently. What was your starting point?

Zeynep Pamuk: Theres a lot of discussion about denial of science, why citizens are so ignorant, why they dont understand science. And I wanted to change the conversation, by understanding how the way science is done, how scientific research is conducted, how the choices that scientists and science administrators make at far earlier stages of the research process shaped the uptake and framing of the debate. So I think the contours of the debate were too narrow.

UD: In your book, you talk about the idea of scientists taking responsibility for their research. Thats an idea with a long history one thinks of the atomic bomb, for example, and genetic engineering. How do you see this issue of responsibility for scientists?

ZP: Im interested in the question from the perspective of how a democratic society deals with the presence within it of this knowledge-producing but fairly autonomous community of scientists. So when I say that scientists need to take responsibility, I dont mean it in the way that a lot of people said about the atomic scientists that they could be held morally responsible.

Sure, I dont disagree with that. But I was more interested in what society could do to regulate these kinds of high-risk scientific endeavors. And I didnt think that the answer that scientists have to be morally responsible, to examine themselves and restrain themselves the idea that they self-monitor, that they can be trusted to do that was a sufficient answer.

UD: Are you saying that science requires more regulation or oversight?

ZP: In certain kinds of very high-risk scientific research, these decisions should be made collectively, or at least by authorized political representatives. They should have more public debate around them. The Obama administration at one point put a moratorium on lethal pathogen research. Theres some coverage, not a huge amount of discussion; and then it reversed its decision three years later. Its very difficult to find any paper trail about what happened. What was the discussion? What was the reasoning? Did they decide it was now safe?

Its very hard to know what happened. And it seems like this is hugely consequential on a global, planetary level. So there has to be more discussion around it. This kind just kind of risk decision should not be left purely to scientists. We can assign them responsibility but it doesnt mean that they should they alone should be responsible for making this very consequential decision.

UD: Should governments be able to tell scientists that certain lines of inquiry are off-limits?

ZP: I think the answer is yes. Im not going to say this area should be restricted or that area I think this is a collective decision. My opinions are my personal opinions as a citizen of a democratic society. But I think more debate is appropriate. And in certain cases, there might be a lot of support for undertaking risky research, because people imagine that it will bring a better world but in other cases, there are no conceivable benefits. Im thinking maybe of killer robots, as one example. Or maybe that the benefits dont justify the risks. So its something that would come out of debate. But I think there can certainly be areas where limits should be placed on research.

UD: One very interesting idea in your book is the notion of a science court. What exactly is a science court? How would it work, and what would its purpose be?

ZP: I stumbled upon this idea as I was looking at debates around science in the 1970s. This was a period where there was a lot of debate, because scientists were very influential; the glow of the World War II victory was around them. They had direct influence over politics. And but of course, they disagreed among themselves. And a scientist called Arthur Kantrowitz suggested a science court, basically to adjudicate between disagreeing scientists, so that the public confusion that this caused would just come to a stop.

But he had a strict division of facts and values: This would be the factual stage, and then the values would be discussed later. And for the reasons I just mentioned, I didnt think that that would make sense. You cant debate the science independently from the context of policy context or the context of use. And also, I thought this was a fairly elitist institution, with only scientists participating.

UD: But you feel there was something of value in Kantrowitzs idea?

ZP: I wanted to reimagine it. I took his structure, with different, disagreeing scientists making a case for their own views; but I wanted to have citizens there, and I want it to be a more overtly policy-oriented institution. So the way I imagine it, there would be a scientifically-informed policy debate like, for example, should we have strict lockdowns, or a less strict Covid-19 policy?

So it would have two clear sides and then scientists for both sides would defend their views. They would ask each other questions that would help reveal the uncertainty of their views, the evidence that theyre marshalling. And then the citizen jury would be randomly selected. They would bring their own political beliefs, they would listen to the scientists, and they would make a policy proposal, selecting one of the two positions.

UD: But scientists and politicians already argue a great deal. How would a science court be an improvement on the current system, in which theres already a lot of debate?

ZP: Its true that scientists constantly argue among themselves, but Im not sure the scientists have unmediated arguments in front of a public audience. I think that is discouraged within current advisory systems. Maybe the climate experience led to this. But even before that, in the 70s and 80s, there was this norm that scientists argue behind closed doors within scientific advisory committees, but then they present a united front when they give advice.

So theres one authoritative scientific advisory body, and that basically gives a consensus recommendation. So publicly-oriented scientific disagreement is seen to be something that undermines trust in science that emphasizing the uncertainty will mean anything goes, that scientists dont know anything. And I wanted to push back against that. I thought a properly organized institution, where scientists are facing one another directly, and not necessarily mediated by politicians who have their own agenda, and who just want to cherry-pick the science that serves it that could have healthy effects for clarifying the factual basis of this political decision making for the citizenry.

UD: When we think of scientists struggling to present a united front on a topic of great public interest, the current coronavirus pandemic certainly comes to mind. But you argue that a lot of those disagreements were hidden from view?

ZP: We saw this during the Covid-19 pandemic, with the masking advice in the U.S. It was initially presented as, This is our position: masks do not help; do not wear them. Fauci said this, the Surgeon General said this, [former White House adviser] Deborah Birx said this they were unanimous in this. And we did not hear from anybody within the scientific community.

And of course, debates were happening within the scientific community about the evidence for the benefits of masks, but we did not hear the opposing side: people saying Oh, masks are probably very effective, or at least, We dont know that masks are effective, and this is our level of uncertainty. We didnt hear the opposing view at all.

And I think that hurt the case, because it made the reversal very difficult; it made people not trust the masking advisory when it came in, in April 2020. So that was a good example of the kind of thing where a science court would have helped.

UD: But on the other hand, if the public had a greater window onto scientific arguments as they unfolded, maybe they just wouldnt listen to scientists at all. As you suggested, they might think, Oh, look they cant even agree among themselves.

ZP: Yeah, I think thats true. Thats the risk. If people see disagreement, they might think scientists cant agree. But that usually is the case. But the one thing I will say is, that when you see scientists disagreeing, you also see the scope of disagreement. For example, you dont see scientists saying vaccines are ineffective, or vaccines are hugely dangerous. So you see what sorts of things theyre disagreeing on, and that gives you a sense of where the debate is at.

If you overstate what scientists know, where the consensus lies, then there is a chance and this happens all the time that it will turn out to be wrong. And I think that undermines public trust even more than a candid admission that, at this point in time, scientists are disagreeing on a certain point.

UD: But, wouldnt having ordinary citizens act as arbiters in scientific disagreements bring us back to the issue of scientific literacy? For example, if some members of the public dont understand the difference between a virus and bacteria, then theyre in a very poor position to evaluate strategies for fighting infectious disease right?

ZP: Yes, I agree with that completely. I think improvements in scientific literacy would be critical for an institution like this to succeed. Then the question is, how much literacy? I think we can have a citizenry that is more literate about the scientific method, about the difference between viruses and bacteria. But that still wouldnt mean that theyd become experts, or that they would need to have a Ph.D. to participate in the science court.

Link:
Interview: Zeynep Pamuk on the Case for Creating Science Courts - Undark Magazine

It is understood the display contained a hula girl figurine - an object that has recently been criticised for presenting a stereotypical view of Polynesian people - and genetic studies relating to the San people in South Africa, who in 2017 devised a code of ethics for scientists studying them.

A spokesman for the museum said: The How did I get here? display in the Who Am I? gallery is currently covered while curators review content that is more than a decade old relating to migration, race and genetics which no longer reflects current scientific thinking.

We are planning to update the Who Am I? gallery on a rolling basis, where resource allows, to reflect areas where there has been fresh research or a shift in scientific understanding.

The changes follow the earmarking of the Who Am I? gallery for updates, with The Telegraph previously revealing that a cabinet on gender differences titled Boy Or Girl? was also up for review following complaints about a lack of mention of transgender.

The proposals were criticised by Maya Forstater, executive director of campaign group Sex Matters and winner of a prominent employment tribunal relating to her gender-critical views, who said: It is concerning that a place dedicated to science is being swayed by cultural trends in this way.

Sir Gregory Winter, the Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist, said that influence from cultural trends was in some ways inevitable for scientific organisations

He told The Telegraph: Science is driven mainly by scientists seeking an understanding of ourselves, our world, and our past, our present and our future. It is also driven by scientists seeking to use this information for practical and - often commercial - purposes.

Inevitably scientists have had to engage with the public and with the zeitgeist.

For example, science has been shaped by the zeitgeist, as in the regulations relating to embryo research and the genetic engineering of organisms. Scientists have also shaped the zeitgeist - spectacularly with climate change.

As for museum curators, they also have to engage with the public and the zeitgeist. It is entirely possible to explain the same science in different ways to the public, and it is not unreasonable for curators to review their efforts in the light of new research or other considerations.

As far as I am concerned, the key test for a museum exhibit is whether it represents the underlying scientific consensus in a clear and engaging manner to a wide constituency.

I would have liked to use the word truth rather than consensus - but sometimes, as in evolutionary studies with sparse data, it may be impossible to establish a truth.

Of course, organisations should not pander too much, but they should engage.

Read the original post:
Science Museum boards up display on early human migration because it is 'non-inclusive' - Telegraph.co.uk