#sure genetic engineering to make crops more disease resistant is good

[eldritch-bf]

Finished my rewatch of the Jurassic Park films as an adult and I just got the novels as well and wow. Kid me was like oooh cool dinosaurs scary action scenes will they survive? And as an adult I’m like oh this is explicitly a critique of modern scientists working not to benefit humanity or to understand the natural world but to make money for companies (amongst other things). Also the wonder and awe and love for dinosaurs displayed by Doctors Grant, Sattler, (and Malcolm a bit) in the first movie + Dr. Harding, Eddie, Nick, (and Kelly a bit as well) in the second movie just. destroys me.

[alexsmitposts]

Are Gene Edited Cows or Humans What We Really Need? Scientists using the “second generation” of genetic manipulation technology have used gene-editing to alter the DNA of breed of cattle so that they supposedly do not grow horns. At around the same time another group of scientists claim to have injected human cells into monkeys to create chimeras, as in the ancient Greek myths of beings part lion, part snake. Earlier this year a group of Chinese researchers claimed to have deliberately gene-edited monkey clones with a mental disturbance. What few realize is that all this is taking place almost entirely without any serious health and safety regulation. Is this what mankind really needs at this juncture? Gene-edited hornless cows Scientists at the biotech company Recombinetics have filed a patent on cattle it has genetically engineered to not grow horns using gene-editing methods. They claimed the process to be safe and effective. However tests by scientists at the US Food and Drug Administration revealed that the CRISPR gene-editing process resulted in “unexpected alterations” of the genome, including “complex genomic rearrangements at or near the target site in 34 mammalian genome editing experiments.” The FDA researchers found gene-editing errors in the genome of the animals that were being overlooked. They identified major unintended effects. The gene scissors used, known as TALENs, are often described as highly precise. However, the FDA research showed that apart from the desired gene sequences being inserted into the genome, DNA originating from genetically engineered bacteria used in the process was also inserted. Specifically, they found presence of unintended antibiotic resistance genes in the gene-edited cattle. Recombinetics reports that it is also developing a precision gene-editing breeding method to eliminate the need to castrate pigs. Unintended effects? Human Monkey Brain? In another recent application of the gene-editing technology, an international group of scientists working in China have used gene-editing to produce human-monkey chimeras. According to the Spanish paper, El Pais, a team of researchers led by Prof Juan Carlos Izpisúa Belmonte from the Salk Institute in the USA have produced monkey-human chimeras. The report says that the research was conducted in China “to avoid legal issues.” That should give pause. Belmonte’s team states that the research is aimed at solving the problem of lack of organ donors as well as organ transplant rejection. Belmonte apparently has managed to produce both pig embryos and sheep embryos which contain human cells. They took cells from an adult human and reprogrammed them to become stem cells, which can give rise to any type of cell in the body. They are then introduced into the embryo of another species, such as the monkey or sheep or pigs. Commenting on the implications of using gene-editing to produce human-animal chimeras, Prof Robin Lovell-Badge, a biologist from London’s Francis Crick Institute admits potential problems: “How do you restrict the contribution of the human cells just to the organ that you want to make?” he said. “If that is a pancreas or a heart or something, or kidney, then that is fine, if you manage to do that. [But] if you allow these animals to go all the way through and be born, if you have a big contribution to the central nervous system from the human cells, then that obviously becomes a concern.” Other controversial China CRISPR gene-editing experiments have involved adding human brain genes, MCPH1, or microcephalin to monkeys. The gene-editing scientist, Bing Su, claimed, based on very small test results, that the monkeys seemed to be “smarter.” Bing Su and collaborators at the Yunnan Key Laboratory of Primate Biomedical Research exposed monkey embryos to a virus carrying the human version of microcephalin. They generated 11 monkeys, five of which survived to take part in a battery of brain measurements. The monkeys each have between two and nine copies of the human gene in their bodies. University of Colorado geneticist, James Sikela is critical: “The use of transgenic monkeys to study human genes linked to brain evolution is a very risky road to take.” These are only several of the more alarming recent experiments using gene-editing CRISPR. The significant problem is that there is no scientific neutral oversight as to what experiments are being done. Because CRISPR requires very little relative investment in technology, it can be widely used even by irresponsible experimenters. CRISPR Dangers CRISPR is defined as a “RNA-guided gene-editing platform that makes use of a bacterially-derived protein (Cas9) and a synthetic guide RNA to introduce a double strand break at a specific location within the genome.” The widespread experimenting with CRISPR-CAs9, the currently most widely used, has only been around since about 2015. Geneticists back in the 1970’s were restricted to costly labs using highly trained scientists and strict controls. With CRISPR gene editing, the process is extraordinarily cheap and seemingly easy to use. As one critic described it, “anyone can buy some CAS9 for a few hundred bucks, any halfway decent lab can use it to alter the DNA of anything…We might be able to wipe out entire species on a whim…” Potentially CRISPR gene-editing technology might enable positive change as well, such as treatments for genetic diseases; altering the germline of humans, animals, and other organisms; and modifying the genes of food crops for positive traits. We don’t know at this point. Yet the degree of unbiased scientific and government oversight over use of CRISPR is appalling. Lack of Regulatory Oversight In 2018 European Court of Justice ruled that organisms that arise from a new technique called directed mutagenesis (gene-editing) are GMOs as defined by the EU GMO Directive. As such they should be regulated in the same strict way as GMOs produced in the EU using older techniques. The ruling was greeted as a sane, rational step to insure the health and safety of people and the planet is priority. The interests backing CRISPR and other gene-editing, were not pleased. However, immediately the ECJ ruling was attacked as a departure from “science based decision making” and “backward looking and hostile to progress,” even though the judges carefully consulted a variety of expert scientists. The powerful GMO industry lobby has organized an effort to have the new EU Commission create “a new legal regulatory framework for these new techniques,” one that is far less restrictive we can be sure. In the US where Monsanto and the GMO industry has succeeded in creating effectively no government regulation of GMO plants such as corn or soybeans or cotton, the biotech industry has been more successful. The USDA recently proposed excluding the new gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR from in effect any regulation. This ignores the purpose of such regulation which is to hold the health and safety of the individual and of the environment paramount to any potential marketing gains from easy regulation. It is the well-established Precautionary Principle. That principle holds that government has a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. The onus of proof is on the GMO industry not the public. Just because they call their work “biotech” does not axiomatically mean that it is good for us. That we must carefully evaluate, most especially in a field such as gene-editing with the potential to “wipe out entire species on a whim …”

[ablepestcontrol]

Insect Control - How to Effectively Control Insects

Insects are considered pests as they destroy important plants and crops. Some of these insects are also carriers of diseases. Mosquitoes, for example, can transmit diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. Therefore, a good insect control in Belmore strategy must not only prevent insects from harming humans, but also protect the environment from their harmful effects. There are many effective ways to control insects. Here are a few of them:

Biological insecticides - These products contain a specific bacterium known as Bacillus thuringiensis that works by paralyzing the gut of insects. They are effective on various types of insect larvae. Many of these products do not contain bacterial spores, and therefore do not spread disease. This makes them a good choice for pest control. However, you should carefully read labels before using these products to make sure they do not harm the environment.

Natural enemies - There are various ways to reduce the impact of pesticides on natural enemies. Careful placement and timing of applications can minimize contact. Selecting less persistent pesticides will reduce contact, but it is still recommended to know the biology of natural enemies. It is also helpful to limit the area treated and use selective insecticides to avoid inadvertently killing natural enemies. But even the best insecticides are not without risks.

Natural predators - Some insects are more resistant to chemical pesticides than others. According to the Pesticide Action Network, about 500 to 1,000 insect species are resistant to pesticides. In addition to these, some weed species are also resistant to the chemicals. To counter these problems, you can use natural predators such as flies and wasps. If you're lucky enough, neighbors may be willing to help you with the cost of these beneficial insects.

Biological control - Natural methods of pest control have a long history. In the late nineteenth century, entomologists Riley and Howard were tasked with controlling pest insects. Their method of extermination was based on observations and their expertise. The early successes of the practice were often unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, it proved to be an effective method for exterminating pests. With these methods, we can now control many types of insects and protect our surroundings.

Integrated pest management - Insect pest management involves various methods that are meant to reduce the risk of insects adapting to human life. Insects are sensitive to temperature, and higher temperatures increase the development rate of many pests. Therefore, temperature can be an important factor in determining when to use insecticides. Moreover, degree-day models can help determine the correct temperature for insecticide applications. Other factors can also influence pest populations, including host availability and quality.

Biological control - Insects are natural enemies of each other. These natural enemies are predators, parasitoids, and pathogens. They play an important role in limiting pest densities. Biological control methods include conservation of existing predators, introduction of new ones, and mass rearing of natural enemies. Additionally, periodic releases of these predators are an effective way of controlling pest insects. These methods are effective and environmentally friendly.

Genetically modified insects - A variety of genetically modified insects can be used to reduce pest populations. Genetically engineered plants can also be used to control pests. These methods are environmentally-friendly and species-specific. Genetically modified organisms are known to reduce pest population size by biasing the sex ratio toward males. This technique is based on the use of mutations, which can occur when insects are introduced into their natural environment.

Natural and organic pesticides - Insecticides are made of compounds that are commercially available and have many uses. The commercially available toxins have been developed for virtually every insect pest. The cost and predictable use of chemical controls has led to the widespread use of chemical-based pest control products in industrialized countries. Chemical insecticides have allowed farmers to control a larger area with less labor. They have also proven important in the fight against disease-carrying insects.

[udyanafarmands]

What is modern farming technology | Udyana Farmlands

Farmers can use GIS software to map weather, rainfall, crop yields, and other variables throughout their land. By researching the past conditions of their various industries, this data can assist business owners in planning for the future. These technologies, when combined with GPS, allow autonomous vehicles, seeders, and combine harvesters to operate the fields according to a specific strategy. GIS software is also at the heart of the agricultural usage of drones and satellites, allowing for airborne assessments of agricultural residues and height, weed presence, topography, and weather.

Agriculture Farmlands isn't the only industry that uses Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology. Farmers are discovering that adding RFID to AgTech might help them better track their crops. RFID works in a similar way to a barcode, except it can be scanned from a distance of many feet, even through the soil. RFID tags can store up to 2 KB of data, making them ideal for labeling crop names, planting locations, and dates.

RFID will also make it easier to track farm items as they are transported. A simple scan can show the product's origin, as well as the date and time of production. By securely storing data on the product, RFID technology helps decrease human mistakes. When food goods are RFID-tagged, retailers and consumers may be sure of their origin farm, and manufacturing date.

In the past, if a foodborne disease was discovered on produce from a particular region, the entire region would be subjected to a profit-draining recall to safeguard the public. By correctly tracing the supply chain journey of all items inside our food system, blockchain technology seeks to lessen the widespread effects of such concerns. Food contamination might be traced back to its source using blockchain technology.

Genetically modified crops are the result of research. Scientists are employing genetic engineering to improve food's nutritional content and crop-resistant features, starting with a very small amount of genetic material (minichromosomes). Because this innovative approach preserves the plant's native chromosomes, it is a more socially acceptable method of crop enhancement than other genetic alteration techniques.

[foodblogss]

Arsenic in Rice from Pakistan Organic Farms

If you opt for organic rice, or other organic food items it is more than just helping yourself. Farmers, processors of organic basmati rice, and exporters of organic basmati rice will benefit by your help. They're committed to sustainable growth, quality as well as good health and sustainability. It's a major gesture that shows preemptive kindness.

What exactly does organic mean?

Organically grown crops are those that are produced without the use of toxic pesticides or use for a long time. Pesticides that are harmful to your health can be found in your food and also in your soil and even your water.

USDA describes best organic rice suppliers farming as the application of a mix of cultural, biological and mechanical methods which promote biodiversity, preserve the balance of nature and promote the rotation of farm resources. These include the maintenance or improvement of water quality as well as wildlife and soil; and avoid the use of genetic engineering as well as synthetic fertiliser.

Organic Rice Farming Methods for Growing Rice

Soil Fertility

A healthy soil is vital for plants to flourish during droughts and resist diseases. Basmati rice grown organically can include green or animal manures.

Seed planting

Organic rice farmers utilize organic seeds to safeguard their crop. USDA National Organic Program states top organic rice farmers are able to utilize conventionally grown seeds if the same variety isn't readily available commercially. However, they should not be modified genetically or treated with banned substances.

Organic rice production: Management of pests

The USDA suggests four pest control methods to organic rice farmers. These strategies include prevention of avoidance, monitoring and prevention and suspension. Prevention and avoidance is the first option to defend against diseases and pests. When pest control becomes more essential farmers will often use both technological and physical techniques like placing mulch in order to limit the growth of weeds. Natural pesticides approved by USDA can be utilized if everything other methods fail.

Integrity of organic rice crop

Organic farmers and exporters of basmati rice must ensure there isn't any contact between basmati grown organically and another varieties of rice. To avoid accidental spraying of chemical compounds buffer zones such as hedgerows must be part of organic farms.

Processors of organic basmati rice from Pakistan and exporters

USDA Organic standards and norms demand that organic rice millers and exporters in Pakistan make use of at least 95 percent organically certified ingredients. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and GMOs aren't permitted in any of the ingredients.

Mixing

Exporters and processors of organic Basmati rice are required to safeguard the authenticity of organic components. They include:

When processing, be sure to avoid mixing traditional and long-grain basmati rice. For export or local markets, it is not recommended to choose conventional rice at the processing facilities for organic basmati rice.

If you are switching from organic best srp rice pakistan, wash and disinfect rice processing equipment with approved materials according to the instructions of certifying agencies.

Control the pests

Processing facilities for organic basmati rice should focus on prevention and not treatment, as does pest control for organic farmers of basmati rice.

[condensed-theorem-shop]

Federation Worldbuilding: Medical

(Worldbuilding for my dystopian Star Trek AU, Federation.)

In Federation, medical science has progressed in leaps and bounds since the twenty-first century; by 2166, they have made a number of significant medical breakthroughs.

(Cut for length.)

Communicable Disease

The vast majority of communicable diseases have been eradicated. Some serious diseases still survive, but they're rare, and can almost universally be cured once diagnosed.

The single world government and improved transportation technology make vaccination campaigns much easier; hyposprays can be re-used safely (unlike needles), don't require training to administer, and stand up to transportation much better than the vaccines we know.

For the most part, diseases which remain widespread do so because they're so mild that people don't bother getting vaccinated or treated or even staying home from work while sick with them; people still get colds, but malaria is long gone.

New diseases crop up occasionally, but cures and vaccines are usually developed promptly. It's not unusual for visitors to a new planet to accidentally bring back some disease, despite measures against this, and such epidemics can be serious, since the human population doesn't have any established resistance; but they're almost always contained promptly.

Dermal Regenerators

Dermal regenerators are small handheld devices that can be used to cause rapid skin growth, healing minor cuts and scrapes in seconds. They have a range of intensities, from a low setting appropriate for cat scratches/minor burns from cooking, to a high setting used for burn victims in hospitals.

Regenerators built only to function at the low end of the range are a common component of home first aid kits. Regenerators which can treat more serious injuries, however, are only supposed to be used by trained medical professionals, because of potential health risks. A regenerator used for too long or at too high a setting for the injury in question can cause painful blistering; used much too long or at much too high a setting, they can cause cancer (which, while treatable in Federation, is still not pleasant to have.) Doctors are trained to assess what setting is called for, use the regenerator as little as possible while still achieving the desired effect, and reduce the risk of side effects when extensive treatment is needed by spacing it out over multiple days or regenerating the skin partway and then allowing it to finish healing naturally.

A rare genetic condition can cause extreme sensitivity to dermal regenerators, such that any use at all raises large painful blisters, and even small amounts of use at low settings can cause cancer. (This is colloquially referred to as an "allergy" to dermal regenerators, even though medically speaking it's no such thing.) This isn't usually a serious issue for the sufferers; they just have to make sure it's in their medical file, and heal from injuries the old-fashioned way.

Sunbeds

Sunbeds look roughly like high-tech tanning beds with none of the cancer risk. They use  a combination of light and fancy 22nd-century technology to manually adjust the user's circadian rhythm; as such, they're the technology of choice for travelers wanting to avoid jet lag. Five or six hours in a sunbed will set your sleep cycle to match whatever time zone you're in (or some other time zone, if you want to do that for some reason).

Sunbeds are universally present on spaceships, because of the need for multiple (alpha/beta/gamma) shifts covering the entire day/night cycle of the ship; crewmembers transferred between shifts can visit Medical and spend a night in a sunbed, rather than trying to suffer through an eight-hour adjustment in their sleep cycle the old-fashioned way.

Transplants

Replicators should in theory be capable of producing human organs for transplant; in practice, however, regulations and social pressures associated with the taboo on genetic engineering also interfere severely with the research needed to program them appropriately. As a result, they're currently limited to producing blood (which can of course be of any blood type as needed); and only human blood, Vulcan blood not having yet been figured out sufficiently.

Prosthetics

The prosthetics in Federation aren't much more advanced than the best ones available in our world; Geordi's visor is still two hundred years away. Artificial limbs can respond to the user's muscle signals, and send sensory feedback in return, but still clumsily and unreliably. The big difference is that, with replicators, everyone who needs a prosthetic can have the best available -- can in fact have a different one for every day of the week, if they like different kinds for different purposes, or even just for aesthetics.

Tricorders

Everyone is probably familiar with these from canon. They're little devices that you can use to scan someone or something and get information on its condition. Different models are optimized for different purposes: you get tricorders that are best at analyzing the composition of rocks, or of the atmosphere, or general-purpose tricorders that will do a decent job of analyzing whatever you run into on a new planet, or of course medical tricorders which are best at scanning someone and figuring out what's wrong with them.

Tricorders are limited in their use, but very good within their range of competence. They're excellent at diagnosing problems like "dehydration" or "iodine deficiency" or "mercury poisoning" or even "some kind of flu-like virus." They're much less good at precise identification of diseases -- they'd have to have seen the exact same one before -- or figuring out the root cause of multiple symptoms when this is more complicated than a database look-up, or so forth. And they're prone to very silly errors, especially when used in ways they're not designed for; if you use a tricorder on someone with nonstandard biology, it will diagnose them with all sorts of absurd things.

Non-communicable diseases

Lots of non-communicable diseases are also treatable! Diabetes, kidney failure, cancer, and so on and so forth. Genetic conditions are generally not, because of the taboo on research in that area; there's often but not always decent palliative care available.

Old age, broadly, has not been solved, but people do live longer due to the improved medical technology; it's ordinary for a human to make 100, and 120 isn't unheard of.

Genetic engineering

Super super super illegal. Crime against humanity. Incredibly taboo.

This, of course, doesn't stop people from doing it.

The research on how to genetically engineer improvements along almost all axes has existed for some time; it's heavily censored, of course, and illegal to research, but people still get ahold of it one way or another. If you know what you're doing, and have the right price to offer, you can find someone to genetically engineer you a designer baby.

Of course, the kind of people who are willing to do that are often very sketchy indeed. Some of them are just philanthropic doctors who have principled disagreements with the Federation. But you're just as likely to get someone who's actually doing their own incredibly unethical human experimentation, and promises to engineer you a smart baby but actually produces one with two heads, or who charges you an outrageous fee and then doesn't actually do anything at all. And that's if you don't just get someone incompetent, or a government plant who'll handcuff you on the spot.

People seek out genetic engineering for a wide range of reasons. Sometimes they just want to make sure their child doesn't inherit some condition. Sometimes they want to have a biological child with their same-sex partner. (Human-Vulcan hybrid children aren't yet possible, but they will be eventually.) Sometimes they want a designer baby: smarter, prettier, stronger, healthier. Sometimes they want a clone, of themselves or of someone else, which falls under the relevant legal umbrella. Sometimes they don't want a child at all, they want a supersoldier or a superspy or some other custom-built tool.

Other reasons people can count as genetically engineered: gene therapy exists, though it's risky and unpleasant and just as illegal as any other kind of genetic engineering; someone who's had gene therapy is legally considered genetically engineered. The child of two genetically engineered people is legally considered genetically engineered. (Someone who has only one genetically engineered parent, or less heritage than that, is in a dubious legal situation which hasn't yet been settled to anyone's satisfaction.)

It's not just illegal to genetically engineer people, it's illegal for genetically engineered people to exist; there's plenty of legal precedent for this to cash out to a death sentence, although someone sufficiently sympathetic/with a sufficiently good lawyer/who makes a plea deal/who sells other people out may well be able to bargain that down to life imprisonment. Genetically engineered people aren't considered to have any legal rights, although the Federation would probably still get complaints if it actually flat-out tortured them.

There's case law establishing that genetically engineered people are legally the property of whoever did the genetic engineering. This is based on a fairly stretched interpretation of intellectual property law, and was essentially just courts coming up with an excuse to hold people responsible for the actions of their genetically engineered supersoldiers during the Eugenics Wars. It's basically never actually used in the obvious horrible way, because in order for someone to claim those legal rights over someone they genetically engineered, they'd have to confess to genetic engineering, which would be unutterably stupid.

The legal penalty for genetic engineering isn't death -- the Federation doesn't do the death penalty, genetically engineered people just get shuffled in under the cover of "they're not allowed to exist in the first place, we're just fixing that" -- but it's subject to whatever are the most stringent legal penalties that are available; certainly life imprisonment without parole, possibly other things if they come up with anything (e.g. dumping them on a half-terraformed asteroid somewhere). And this can also apply to people who assist with it, or help cover it up, or harbor people they know to be genetically engineered, or otherwise make themselves accomplices.

In addition to all the legal strictures, genetic engineering (or anything associated with it in the general consciousness) is incredibly socially taboo. ("Eugenics" is a decent proxy, when comparing to our world, though it doesn't have the same stigma attached to the people who are the result of it.) Prisoners charged with anything associated with genetic engineering are routinely abused and maltreated by the guards and other prisoners; suggesting that someone is genetically engineered is fighting words; suspicion of being genetically engineered gets you ostracized at minimum, likely refused basic services and/or beat up in the streets. This is not a popular cause; bringing it up socially doesn't get you "ooo, cool and edgy," it gets horrified silence and being invited to leave.

[climatecrisiscooking]

All American “Chocolate Chip” Cookies

Posted November 12th 2050

Prep time: 30 min-7+ years, Cook time: 20 min, Servings: 15-20 cookies

Ingredients: 1 cup salted butter 1 cup white sugar 1 cup light brown sugar 2 teaspoon vanilla extra 2 large eggs 3 cups all-purpose flour 1 teaspoon baking soda 1 teaspoon salt Optional: 2 cups chocolate chips/coal/?

Whether you prefer your chocolate in chip form or chunk form, we can almost all agree that chocolate chip cookies are the height of cookie technology. So simple and yet so effective, the chocolate chip cookie has continued to reign supreme as the cookie to beat all other cookies, a truly all-American treat. Sugar cookies, snickerdoodles, and oatmeal raisin know that they simply don’t stand a chance when compared to this absolute pastry behemoth. What makes the chocolate chip cookie so special is its sheer versatility. A simple classic on its own, the vanilla-y brown sugar base also offers room for excitement in the form of add-ons like caramel, nuts, or dried fruit. This versatility comes in extra handy considering climate impacts on the ever important ingredient, cocoa! Cocoa is the main ingredient in chocolate. As temperatures continue to rise, and severe weather threatens existing crops, cocoa farms in Latin American, Indonesia, and West Africa are suffering.  With extended dry seasons, and less rainfall and water in general, our beautiful little cocoa crops have become ugly and skimpy.  Unless something changes, chocolate is expected to become extinct by the end of this year.  Oh no! But what is a chocolate chip cookie without chocolate!? Well, I guess in that case it is just a cookie…but we can work with that! Your first option is to just make the classic, vanilla chocolate base without any chocolate. Simply make the recipe as described, excluding the optional 2 cups of chocolate. I won’t judge you if you choose this route, but know that in choosing this option, you are accepting failure and I’m not sure why you clicked on a recipe for chocolate (?) chip cookies in the first place! For all the real chocolate chip fans out there, we have some more options! First, though it will be difficult to get the flavor of chocolate without our precious little cocoa beans, there are a few ways to give your cookies the appearance of containing chocolate. Given that coal Is still abundant ever since our government decided to ignore the impending climate crisis and continue to produce coal in mass quantities, you should be able to find some coal fairly easily. Take a hunk of coal, and your favorite kitchen hammer and chisel, and work on that coal until you form a nice collection of little, imitation chocolate chips. The coal, though not edible, will give your cookies the perfect authentic chocolate chip look once incorporated into the batter and baked. If this option still does not satiate your need for the perfect chocolate chip cookie, there is one more option…to genetically modify your own cocoa trees in an effort to heighten their resistance to disease, and reduce their need for water. Though a good option, and one that will ensure that you have real, edible chocolate for your cookies, this is perhaps the most time consuming option as it requires you to obtain a degree in genetic engineering, and to discover how to genetically manipulate coca plants to survive our changing world. However, if you have the time, this is certainly the best option for obtaining the most authentic taste. Be sure to adjust your prep time accordingly!

Instructions:   1. Preheat oven to 375 degrees F. Line a baking pan with parchment paper and set aside. 2. In a separate bowl mix flour, baking soda, salt, baking powder. Set aside. 3. Cream together butter and both brown and white sugar until combined. 4. Beat in eggs and vanilla until fluffy. 5. Mix in the dry ingredients until combined. 6. Optional step: a. Chisel coal to form “chocolate chips” or “chocolate chunks” depending on preference OR b. Cover mixed ingredients and refrigerate for the next 7+ years, enroll in genetic engineering programs and prevent impending cocoa extinction. 7. Incorporate chocolate(?) chips 8. Roll 2-3 tablespoons of dough at a time into balls and place them evenly spaced on your prepared cookie sheets. 9. Bake in preheated oven for approximately 8-10 minutes. 10. Let them sit on the baking pan for 2 minutes before removing to cooling racks.

Recipe adapted from: JoyFoodSunshine

[montclarelab]

Are GMOs That Scary? by Jacob Kronenberg

Jacob Kronenberg kayaking with his mom, Heidi.

           Working with genetic engineering means I have to field a lot of questions when I’m home for the holidays. My health-conscious mother always makes sure to buy organic, free-range, “chemical-free” products, so when food labeled GMO-free started popping up, she made sure to get that too. In the produce section at Whole Foods I’d hear, “Jake, can you believe what those scientists do, with all this unnatural, genetically-modified Frankenstein crap they’re trying to feed us? When I was little, we just had regular strawberries and regular corn, none of these humongous GMO plants. Not to mention how Big Pharma is making mutant drugs to put in people’s bodies… C’mon, you’re a scientist now, what do you think of it?”

           This is a loaded question. All scientists are ambassadors to the community, and it’s important to dispel myths about our fields, especially when it comes to widely misunderstood topics. From zombie movies to GATTACA, genetic engineering has always been painted in a dystopic light. It also doesn’t help that agricultural use of GMOs doesn’t exactly have a clean record. Chemical-resistant crops have encouraged the use of harmful pesticides, most famously Roundup, and many large ag-tech companies have aggressive policies gatekeeping access to their designer crops. With information and misinformation obscuring knowledge of science, it can be tough to know what to say.

           I tell people who ask my thoughts on genetic engineering not to write off a whole discipline because of a few groups. GMO crops like golden rice can improve access to nutrition in developing countries and don’t pose much harm as long as they’re well managed. Besides, genetic engineering has always been about more than just crops. My favorite example of genetic engineering to bring up is the breakthrough discovery that allowed insulin to be mass-produced in bioreactors. Insulin is a life-saving drug for millions of people and it’s thanks to a team of genetic engineers who spliced insulin genes into E. coli and S. cerevisiae that it’s so accessible. I hear people criticize bioengineering as being unnatural and unhuman, but most of our research focuses on treating diseases and improving people’s quality of life. What’s more human than that?

           It’s important for scientists as well as the public to remember that every scientific discovery can have a good side and a bad side. While a lot of non-scientists are overly pessimistic about unfamili advances in genetic engineering, some scientists are overly optimistic. We tend to think that science is just the pursuit of truth, but it’s not that simple.. Along with reminding others that science is a force for good, we need to remind ourselves to think ethically so we can keep it that way. It’s important to reflect at every step of the way about how advances can affect the world at large. I think we all have a lot to learn from conversations like these.

—Jacob Kronenberg

@jbkronenberg

[howtoloseweightfastsafely]

Choosing High Quality Foods

How To Choose High Quality Meat/Fish

It's important to know that wild-caught and grass-fed are the most important qualifications, and that ORGANIC by itself doesn't count!

Animals can be eating organic corn and soy, which does nothing for their health (and ultimately ours). You see, for thousands of years, the natural diets for cattle and wild game, included grass, green and leafy plants, herbs, shrubs and more. And the natural diets of wild chicken and other fowl included grass, seeds, fruits, insects, and pretty much whatever they could peck at in the wild (How exciting!)

The story is much different now. Cattle, game, and fowl are more often than not force-fed with corn, soy and other foods (likely genetically modified at that) that their digestive and immune systems can't handle. On top of that, they are stuffed into dark, tight quarters with no room to move around or take in sunlight to create Vitamin D, and overall a healthier nutritional profile. This is not to mention that they may be eating other animal parts, as has been seeing in many CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations).

The sickness and diseases that result make for an inferior, harmful product that we end up eating.

Here's the solution:

1. Beef/Lamb/Goat: Buy GRASS-FED (very important); if not grass-fed, buy organic

a. These "ruminants" have digestive systems that are intended to eat grass

b. You don't want to be the person eating meat from an animal sickened by an unnatural grain/corn/soy-based diet.

2. Fowl (Chicken/Turkey, Duck, etc.): Buy pasture-raised, organically-fed chicken, turkey, duck, etc (look for meat that is NOT fed soy)

a. Free-Range is the next best option, but please understand that the "free-range" is often poorly defined

b. For example, it's recommended that about 1500 hens should be in an area of about 2.5 acres. Unfortunately, this is often pushed up to 10,000+ hens in the same 2.5 acre area. Not exactly "free-range" if you ask me.

c. Your best bet is finding a local market and speaking with the farmer's directly, or sticking with the pasture-raised/organic meats.

3. Other Game Meats: Make sure they are grass-fed or pasture-raised (in my experience, if you find these in stores, chances are you'll find the healthy versions)

a. Examples of Game Meats:

i. Bison, Buffalo, Elk, Moose, Caribou, etc.

4. Fish: Buy wild caught (farm raised might sound good, but think about, since when are fish found anywhere remotely near a farm??)

a. Stick to low-mercury fish

b. Examples: Salmon, Flounder, Tilapia, Sardines, Haddock

If you can't find naturally-raised meats/fish as listed above, choose organic. In this case, at least the corn, soy, etc in the feed will not include genetically modified organisms (GMO).

Another good thing is that organic feed cannot be made with GMOs by law, so even if corn or soy is in the feed, at least it won't be a completely fake food!

In any case, the best part about eating this way is that naturally raised foods have a much better nutritional profile vs. conventionally-raised fish/meats. They are higher in vitamins, minerals, lower in cholesterol, lower in Omega 6 fats and higher in Omega 3 fats, and devoid of hormones and antibiotics.

It's also important to know that over 95% of studies showing that meats (especially fatty meats) cause cancer, heart disease, etc. were NOT conducted on natural pasture-raised animals, that are free of antibiotics and hormones.

Food for thought if you ask me, especially with the well-documented history of thousands of traditional cultures who have thrived on natural meats.

How to Choose High Quality Eggs

The #1 best type of eggs to eat are organically-fed eggs from pasture-raised, local chickens.

(Bonus points if you have visited the farm and seen how the eggs are treated/raised)

These eggs are the "cream of the crop" because the chickens laying them should be getting proper exercise, sunlight for Vitamin D, natural protein from insects, grubs, etc, and organically-grown chicken feed.

The 2nd best: Locally raised, non-organically fed chickens. As long as they are getting adequate exercise and sunlight they are better off than the rest (and better for your body)

The 3rd best: Store bought, organically-raised eggs (with Omega 3's for added benefit)

The 4th best: Eggs from chicken fed an Omega-3 enhanced diet.

Note: If you're dealing with local farmers, make sure the feed does not include soy which is not good for us (and of course not part of a chicken's natural diet.)

How to Choose Organic Vegetables and Fruit

The vast majority of conventionally raised crops are sprayed with herbicides, insecticides and much more.

This also includes pesticides, fungicides, organophosphates and more...which have various effects that most of us don't even realize.

1. Fungicides used on crops have been shown to increase insulin resistance, thereby setting us up fat accumulation and chronic disease

2. Organophosphates, while essential in some instances for humans, are also highly toxic via the herbicides and insecticides they are used in.

a. Even at very low levels, they are hazardous to human health.b. Studies have pointed to an increased Alzheimer's risk, and brain and nervous system damage even at low levels.3. Pesticides act on brain chemicals closely related to ADHD development.a. In one study a tenfold increase in urinary organophosphate content in children 8 to 15 years old directly correlated with a 55 to 72% increased prevalence of ADHD

b. The EPA banned residential use of organophosphates in 2001, but agricultural use is still widespread4. Herbicides/insecticides containing organophosphates in them have been sprayed on...a. Apples, walnuts, almonds, peaches, blueberries, celery, and broccoli....to say the least!

So I can just wash and peel my produce right?

No way Jose.

It just doesn't cut it! [no pun intended]

The truth is: washing veggies/fruits can reduce some of the pesticides, but definitely will not reduce all. And with peeling, you will still be unable to remove all the pesticides and you'll lose the vital nutrients that are in the skin.

Here's how to do it correctly:

Choosing Vegetables/Fruit Part 1: My rule of thumb is, if we eat the skin, BUY ORGANIC

Bananas - Organic NOT necessary

Apples - Organic NECESSARY

Peaches - Organic NECESSARY

Celery - Organic NECESSARY

Mangoes - Organic NOT necessary

You get the idea. Do the quick "skin or no skin" test before buying any fruits/veggies.

Choosing Vegetables/Fruit Part 2: Get more scientific and choose based on toxin levels (not a bad idea if you ask me).

Keep an eye out for:

Pesticide levels

Chemical Levels

Antibiotic counts

Yes, antibiotics have been found in soil, which goes directly to the veggies/fruits growing in it!

The following have the highest toxin levels (in descending order) and should definitely be purchased organic:

Fruit: Peaches, Apples, Strawberries, Nectarines, Pears

Veggies: Spinach, Bell Peppers, Celery, Hot Peppers

To learn more, check out the chart below, adapted from research done by the Environmental Working Group (EWG):

High in Pesticides

(Buy Organic)

Lower in Pesticides (Buy Organic Only If Budget Permits)

Apples, Onions

Celery, Sweet Potatoes

Sweet Bell Peppers, Pineapple

Peaches, Avocado

Strawberries, Cabbage

Nectarines,  (Imported)Mushrooms

Grapes, Asparagus

Spinach, Mangoes

Lettuce, Cantaloupe (Domestic)

Cucumbers, Eggplant

And remember, if you can't eat organic 90+ of the time (that is, for the foods which you must buy organic), make sure you are taking high-quality herbs + vitamins to counteract the damage.

I am biased, of course, but I highly recommend the anti-inflammatory, liver cleansing InvigorateNOW blend. It's a foolproof way to protect your body from the toxin overload + chronic inflammatory that would result from the dangerous toxins hiding in non-organic food. (These hidden compounds include: bleach-like ingredients, insect killers, lab-made chemicals, genetically engineered crops, and much more.)

With that outta the way, let's move on to Chapter 17 -- where we'll continue this with a discussion on hundreds of sneaky age-accelerating compounds hiding in your food.

Interested in losing weight? Then click below to see the exact steps I took to lose weight and keep it off for good...

Read the previous article about "The Truth About Buying Organic: Secrets The Health Food Industry Doesn't Want You To Know"

Read the next article about "A Recipe For Rapid Aging: The "Hidden" Compounds Stealing Your Youth, Minute by Minute"

Moving forward, there are several other articles/topics I'll share so you can lose weight even faster, and feel great doing it.

Below is a list of these topics and you can use this Table of Contents to jump to the part that interests you the most.

Topic 1: How I Lost 30 Pounds In 90 Days - And How You Can Too

Topic 2: How I Lost Weight By Not Following The Mainstream Media And Health Guru's Advice - Why The Health Industry Is Broken And How We Can Fix It

Topic 3: The #1 Ridiculous Diet Myth Pushed By 95% Of Doctors And "experts" That Is Keeping You From The Body Of Your Dreams

Topic 4: The Dangers of Low-Carb and Other "No Calorie Counting" Diets

Topic 5: Why Red Meat May Be Good For You And Eggs Won't Kill You

Topic 6: Two Critical Hormones That Are Quietly Making Americans Sicker and Heavier Than Ever Before

Topic 7: Everything Popular Is Wrong: The Real Key To Long-Term Weight Loss

Topic 8: Why That New Miracle Diet Isn't So Much of a Miracle After All (And Why You're Guaranteed To Hate Yourself On It Sooner or Later)

Topic 9: A Nutrition Crash Course To Build A Healthy Body and Happy Mind

Topic 10: How Much You Really Need To Eat For Steady Fat Loss (The Truth About Calories and Macronutrients)

Topic 11: The Easy Way To Determining Your Calorie Intake

Topic 12: Calculating A Weight Loss Deficit

Topic 13: How To Determine Your Optimal "Macros" (And How The Skinny On The 3-Phase Extreme Fat Loss Formula)

Topic 14: Two Dangerous "Invisible Thorn" Foods Masquerading as "Heart Healthy Super Nutrients"

Topic 15: The Truth About Whole Grains And Beans: What Traditional Cultures Know About These So-called "Healthy Foods" That Most Americans Don't

Topic 16: The Inflammation-Reducing, Immune-Fortifying Secret of All Long-Living Cultures (This 3-Step Process Can Reduce Chronic Pain and Heal Your Gut in Less Than 24 Hours)

Topic 17: The Foolproof Immune-enhancing Plan That Cleanses And Purifies Your Body, While "patching Up" Holes, Gaps, And Inefficiencies In Your Digestive System (And How To Do It Without Wasting $10+ Per "meal" On Ridiculous Juice Cleanses)

Topic 18: The Great Soy Myth (and The Truth About Soy in Eastern Asia)

Topic 19: How Chemicals In Food Make Us Fat (Plus 10 Banned Chemicals Still in the U.S. Food Supply)

Topic 20: 10 Banned Chemicals Still in the U.S. Food Supply

Topic 21: How To Protect Yourself Against Chronic Inflammation (What Time Magazine Calls A "Secret Killer")

Topic 22: The Truth About Buying Organic: Secrets The Health Food Industry Doesn't Want You To Know

Topic 23: Choosing High Quality Foods

Topic 24: A Recipe For Rapid Aging: The "Hidden" Compounds Stealing Your Youth, Minute by Minute

Topic 25: 7 Steps To Reduce AGEs and Slow Aging

Topic 26: The 10-second Trick That Can Slash Your Risk Of Cardiovascular Mortality By 37% (Most Traditional Cultures Have Done This For Centuries, But The Pharmaceutical Industry Would Be Up In Arms If More Modern-day Americans Knew About It)

Topic 27: How To Clean Up Your Liver and Vital Organs

Topic 28: The Simple Detox 'Cheat Sheet': How To Easily and Properly Cleanse, Nourish, and Rid Your Body of Dangerous Toxins (and Build a Lean Well-Oiled "Machine" in the Process)

Topic 29: How To Deal With the "Stress Hormone" Before It Deals With You

Topic 30: 7 Common Sense Ways to Have Uncommon Peace of Mind (or How To Stop Your "Stress Hormone" In Its Tracks)

Topic 31: How To Sleep Like A Baby (And Wake Up Feeling Like A Boss)

Topic 32: The 8-step Formula That Finally "fixes" Years Of Poor Sleep, Including Trouble Falling Asleep, Staying Asleep, And Waking Up Rested (If You Ever Find Yourself Hitting The Snooze Every Morning Or Dozing Off At Work, These Steps Will Change Your Life Forever)

Topic 33: For Even Better Leg Up And/or See Faster Results In Fixing Years Of Poor Sleep, Including Trouble Falling Asleep, Staying Asleep, And Waking Up Rested, Do The Following:

Topic 34: Solution To Overcoming Your Mental Barriers and Cultivating A Winner's Mentality

Topic 35: Part 1 of 4: Solution To Overcoming Your Mental Barriers and Cultivating A Winner's Mentality

Topic 36: Part 2 of 4: Solution To Overcoming Your Mental Barriers and Cultivating A Winner's Mentality

Topic 37: Part 3 of 4: Solution To Overcoming Your Mental Barriers and Cultivating A Winner's Mentality

Topic 38: Part 4 of 4: Solution To Overcoming Your Mental Barriers and Cultivating A Winner's Mentality

Topic 39: How To Beat Your Mental Roadblocks And Why It Can Be The Difference Between A Happy, Satisfying Life And A Sad, Fearful Existence (These Strategies Will Reduce Stress, Increase Productivity And Show You How To Fulfill All Your Dreams)

Topic 40: Maximum Fat Loss in Minimum Time: The Body Type Solution To Quick, Lasting Results

Topic 41: If You Want Maximum Results In Minimum Time You're Going To Have To Work Out (And Workout Hard, At That)

Topic 42: Food Planning For Maximum Fat Loss In Minimum Time

Topic 43: How To Lose Weight Fast If You're in Chronic Pain

Topic 44: Nutrition Basics for Fast Pain Relief (and Weight Loss)

Topic 45: How To Track Results (And Not Fall Into the Trap That Ruins 95% of Well-Thought Out Diets)

Topic 46: Advanced Fat Loss - Calorie Cycling, Carb Cycling and Intermittent Fasting

Topic 47: Advanced Fat Loss - Part I: Calorie Cycling

Topic 48: Advanced Fat Loss - Part II: Carb Cycling

Topic 49: Advanced Fat Loss - Part III: Intermittent Fasting

Topic 50: Putting It All Together

Learn more by visiting our website here: invigoratenow.com

[growlink]

NEXT GENERATION OF BIOTECH FOOD HEADING FOR GROCERY STORES IN THE UNITED STATES

The Associated Press Health & Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content in this story . — The next generation of biotech food is headed for the grocery aisles, & first up may be salad dressings or granola bars made with soybean oil genetically tweaked to be good for your heart. By early next year, the first foods from plants or animals that had their DNA "edited" are expected to begin selling. It's a different technology than today's controversial "genetically modified" foods, more like faster breeding that promises to boost nutrition, spur crop growth, & make farm animals hardier & fruits & vegetables last longer. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has declared gene editing one of the breakthroughs needed to improve food production so the world can feed billions more people amid a changing climate. Yet governments are wrestling with how to regulate this powerful new tool. After years of confusion & rancor, will shoppers accept gene-edited foods or view them as GMOs in disguise? "If the consumer sees the benefit, I think they'll embrace the products & worry less about the technology," said Dan Voytas, a University of Minnesota professor & chief science officer for Calyxt Inc., which edited soybeans to make the oil heart-healthy. Researchers are pursuing more ambitious changes: Wheat with triple the usual fiber, or that's low in gluten. Mushrooms that don't brown, & better-producing tomatoes. Drought-tolerant corn, & rice that no longer absorbs soil pollution as it grows. Dairy cows that don't need to undergo painful de-horning, & pigs immune to a dangerous virus that can sweep through herds. Scientists even hope gene editing eventually could save species from being wiped out by devastating diseases like citrus greening, a so far unstoppable infection that's destroying Florida's famed oranges. First they must find genes that could make a new generation of trees immune. "If we can go in & edit the gene, change the DNA sequence ever so slightly by one or two letters, potentially we'd have a way to defeat this disease," said Fred Gmitter, a geneticist at the University of Florida Citrus Research & Education Center, as he examined diseased trees in a grove near Fort Meade. GENETICALLY MODIFIED OR EDITED, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? Farmers have long genetically manipulated crops & animals by selectively breeding to get offspring with certain traits. It's time-consuming & can bring trade-offs. Modern tomatoes, for example, are larger than their pea-sized wild ancestor, but the generations of cross-breeding made them more fragile & altered their nutrients. GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, are plants or animals that were mixed with another species' DNA to introduce a specific trait — meaning they're "transgenic." Best known are corn & soybeans mixed with bacterial genes for built-in resistance to pests or weed killers. Despite international scientific consensus that GMOs are safe to eat, some people remain wary & there is concern they could spur herbicide-resistant weeds. Now gene-editing tools, with names like CRISPR and TALENs, promise to alter foods more precisely, & at less cost, without necessarily adding foreign DNA. Instead, they act like molecular scissors to alter the letters of an organism's own genetic alphabet. The technology can insert new DNA, but most products in development so far switch off a gene, according to University of Missouri professor Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes. Those new Calyxt soybeans? Voytas' team inactivated two genes so the beans produce oil with no heart-damaging trans fat & that shares the famed health profile of olive oil without its distinct taste. The hornless calves? Most dairy Holsteins grow horns that are removed for the safety of farmers & other cows. Recombinetics Inc. swapped part of the gene that makes dairy cows grow horns with the DNA instructions from naturally hornless Angus beef cattle. "Precision breeding," is how animal geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam of the University of California, Davis, explains it. "This isn't going to replace traditional breeding," but make it easier to add one more trait. RULES AREN'T CLEAR The Agriculture Department says extra rules aren't needed for "plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding," clearing the way for development of about two dozen gene-edited crops so far. In contrast, the Food & Drug Administration in 2017 proposed tighter, drug-like restrictions on gene-edited animals. It promises guidance sometime next year on exactly how it will proceed. Because of trade, international regulations are "the most important factor in whether genome editing technologies are commercialized," USDA's Paul Spencer told a meeting of agriculture economists. Europe's highest court ruled last summer that existing European curbs on the sale of transgenic GMOs should apply to gene-edited foods, too. But at the World Trade Organization this month, the U.S. joined 12 nations including Australia, Canada, Argentina & Brazil in urging other countries to adopt internationally consistent, science-based rules for gene-edited agriculture. ARE THESE FOODS SAFE? The biggest concern is what are called off-target edits, unintended changes to DNA that could affect a crop's nutritional value or an animal's health, said Jennifer Kuzma of the Genetic Engineering & Society Center at North Carolina State University. Scientists are looking for any signs of problems. Take the hornless calves munching in a UC-Davis field. One is female & once it begins producing milk, Van Eenennaam will test how similar that milk's fat & protein composition is to milk from unaltered cows. "We're kind of being overly cautious," she said, noting that if eating beef from naturally hornless Angus cattle is fine, milk from edited Holsteins should be, too. But to Kuzma, companies will have to be up-front about how these new foods were made & the evidence that they're healthy. She wants regulators to decide case-by-case which changes are no big deal, & which might need more scrutiny. "Most gene-edited plants & animals are probably going to be just fine to eat. But you're only going to do yourself a disservice in the long run if you hide behind the terminology," Kuzma said. AVOIDING A BACKLASH Uncertainty about regulatory & consumer reaction is creating some strange bedfellows. An industry-backed group of food makers & farmers asked university researchers & consumer advocates to help craft guidelines for "responsible use" of gene editing in the food supply. "Clearly this coalition is in existence because of some of the battle scars from the GMO debates, there's no question about that," said Greg Jaffe of the food-safety watchdog Center for Science in the Public Interest, who agreed to join the Center for Food Integrity's guidelines group. "There's clearly going to be questions raised about this technology." SUSTAINABILITY OR HYPE? Gene-editing can't do everything, cautioned Calyxt's Voytas. There are limitations to how much foods could be changed. Sure, scientists made wheat containing less gluten, but it's unlikely to ever be totally gluten-free for people who can't digest that protein, for example — or to make, say, allergy-free peanuts. Nor is it clear how easily companies will be able to edit different kinds of food, key to their profit. Despite her concerns about adequate regulation, Kuzma expects about 20 gene-edited crops to hit the U.S. market over five years — & she notes that scientists also are exploring changes to crops, like cassava, that are important in the poorest countries. "We think it's going to really revolutionize the industry," she said.

[kansascityhappenings]

Next generation of biotech food heading for grocery stores

WASHINGTON — The next generation of biotech food is headed for the grocery aisles, and first up may be salad dressings or granola bars made with soybean oil genetically tweaked to be good for your heart.

By early next year, the first foods from plants or animals that had their DNA “edited” are expected to begin selling. It’s a different technology than today’s controversial “genetically modified” foods, more like faster breeding that promises to boost nutrition, spur crop growth, and make farm animals hardier and fruits and vegetables last longer.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has declared gene editing one of the breakthroughs needed to improve food production so the world can feed billions more people amid a changing climate. Yet governments are wrestling with how to regulate this powerful new tool. And after years of confusion and rancor, will shoppers accept gene-edited foods or view them as GMOs in disguise?

“If the consumer sees the benefit, I think they’ll embrace the products and worry less about the technology,” said Dan Voytas, a University of Minnesota professor and chief science officer for Calyxt Inc., which edited soybeans to make the oil heart-healthy.

Researchers are pursuing more ambitious changes: Wheat with triple the usual fiber, or that’s low in gluten. Mushrooms that don’t brown, and better-producing tomatoes. Drought-tolerant corn, and rice that no longer absorbs soil pollution as it grows. Dairy cows that don’t need to undergo painful de-horning, and pigs immune to a dangerous virus that can sweep through herds.

Scientists even hope gene editing eventually could save species from being wiped out by devastating diseases like citrus greening, a so far unstoppable infection that’s destroying Florida’s famed oranges.

First they must find genes that could make a new generation of trees immune.

“If we can go in and edit the gene, change the DNA sequence ever so slightly by one or two letters, potentially we’d have a way to defeat this disease,” said Fred Gmitter, a geneticist at the University of Florida Citrus Research and Education Center, as he examined diseased trees in a grove near Fort Meade.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED OR EDITED, WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

Farmers have long genetically manipulated crops and animals by selectively breeding to get offspring with certain traits. It’s time-consuming and can bring trade-offs. Modern tomatoes, for example, are larger than their pea-sized wild ancestor, but the generations of cross-breeding made them more fragile and altered their nutrients.

GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, are plants or animals that were mixed with another species’ DNA to introduce a specific trait — meaning they’re “transgenic.” Best known are corn and soybeans mixed with bacterial genes for built-in resistance to pests or weed killers.

Despite international scientific consensus that GMOs are safe to eat, some people remain wary and there is concern they could spur herbicide-resistant weeds.

Now gene-editing tools, with names like CRISPR and TALENs, promise to alter foods more precisely, and at less cost, without necessarily adding foreign DNA. Instead, they act like molecular scissors to alter the letters of an organism’s own genetic alphabet.

The technology can insert new DNA, but most products in development so far switch off a gene, according to University of Missouri professor Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes.

Those new Calyxt soybeans? Voytas’ team inactivated two genes so the beans produce oil with no heart-damaging trans fat and that shares the famed health profile of olive oil without its distinct taste.

The hornless calves? Most dairy Holsteins grow horns that are removed for the safety of farmers and other cows. Recombinetics Inc. swapped part of the gene that makes dairy cows grow horns with the DNA instructions from naturally hornless Angus beef cattle.

“Precision breeding,” is how animal geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam of the University of California, Davis, explains it. “This isn’t going to replace traditional breeding,” but make it easier to add one more trait.

RULES AREN’T CLEAR

The Agriculture Department says extra rules aren’t needed for “plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding,” clearing the way for development of about two dozen gene-edited crops so far.

In contrast, the Food and Drug Administration in 2017 proposed tighter, drug-like restrictions on gene-edited animals. It promises guidance sometime next year on exactly how it will proceed.

Because of trade, international regulations are “the most important factor in whether genome editing technologies are commercialized,” USDA’s Paul Spencer told a meeting of agriculture economists.

Europe’s highest court ruled last summer that existing European curbs on the sale of transgenic GMOs should apply to gene-edited foods, too.

But at the World Trade Organization this month, the U.S. joined 12 nations including Australia, Canada, Argentina and Brazil in urging other countries to adopt internationally consistent, science-based rules for gene-edited agriculture.

ARE THESE FOODS SAFE?

The biggest concern is what are called off-target edits, unintended changes to DNA that could affect a crop’s nutritional value or an animal’s health, said Jennifer Kuzma of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University.

Scientists are looking for any signs of problems. Take the hornless calves munching in a UC-Davis field. One is female and once it begins producing milk, Van Eenennaam will test how similar that milk’s fat and protein composition is to milk from unaltered cows.

“We’re kind of being overly cautious,” she said, noting that if eating beef from naturally hornless Angus cattle is fine, milk from edited Holsteins should be, too.

But to Kuzma, companies will have to be up-front about how these new foods were made and the evidence that they’re healthy. She wants regulators to decide case-by-case which changes are no big deal, and which might need more scrutiny.

“Most gene-edited plants and animals are probably going to be just fine to eat. But you’re only going to do yourself a disservice in the long run if you hide behind the terminology,” Kuzma said.

AVOIDING A BACKLASH

Uncertainty about regulatory and consumer reaction is creating some strange bedfellows. An industry-backed group of food makers and farmers asked university researchers and consumer advocates to help craft guidelines for “responsible use” of gene editing in the food supply.

“Clearly this coalition is in existence because of some of the battle scars from the GMO debates, there’s no question about that,” said Greg Jaffe of the food-safety watchdog Center for Science in the Public Interest, who agreed to join the Center for Food Integrity’s guidelines group. “There’s clearly going to be questions raised about this technology.”

SUSTAINABILITY OR HYPE?

Gene-editing can’t do everything, cautioned Calyxt’s Voytas. There are limitations to how much foods could be changed. Sure, scientists made wheat containing less gluten, but it’s unlikely to ever be totally gluten-free for people who can’t digest that protein, for example — or to make, say, allergy-free peanuts.

Nor is it clear how easily companies will be able to edit different kinds of food, key to their profit.

Despite her concerns about adequate regulation, Kuzma expects about 20 gene-edited crops to hit the U.S. market over five years — and she notes that scientists also are exploring changes to crops, like cassava, that are important in the poorest countries.

“We think it’s going to really revolutionize the industry,” she said.

from FOX 4 Kansas City WDAF-TV | News, Weather, Sports https://fox4kc.com/2018/11/14/next-generation-of-biotech-food-heading-for-grocery-stores/

from Kansas City Happenings https://kansascityhappenings.wordpress.com/2018/11/14/next-generation-of-biotech-food-heading-for-grocery-stores/

[marketerarena-blog]

What 6 Food Buzzwords Really Mean

You’ve likely read about the controversies surrounding GMOs and scanned the new gluten-free aisles in your supermarket, but do you know what those terms mean? More important, do you know whether they mean anything to you and your health? Here’s a run-down of some of the most common food buzzwords in the media—or on food labels—in 2016:

1. GMO The initials stand for “genetically modified organism.” These are foods that have genes from another plant or animal inserted into their genetic codes. Food is genetically modified for a variety of purposes, including improving crop yield, reducing the need for pesticides, pest, disease and drought resistance, and even better nutrition. One of the more controversial uses of genetic engineering is to create tolerance to herbicides and insecticides—commonly in crops such as corn and soybeans—so applications of toxic chemicals don’t affect crops while they wipe out weeds and pests.

Some of the combos may sound Frankensteinian—like injecting strawberries and tomatoes with fish genes to protect them from freezing—but many experts say GMO foods are safe. Not everyone agrees. A 2003 commentary in the journal Nature Biotechnology raised a number of potential unintended consequences of GMO foods—including the possibility that they could create molecules that are toxic or allergenic to humans—but there have been no valid scientific studies that have conclusively ruled GMOs safe or unsafe.

25 Weight Loss Terms You Have to Know

Read More

2. Organic To be considered “organic” in the US, any food product must be grown without the use of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, GMOs or ionizing radiation to kill insects and microorganisms (irradiated milk, which has an extended shelf life, is a commonly sold product exposed to ionizing radiation), according to the United States Department of Agriculture, the organic regulating agency. Organic livestock, including cows, pigs and hens, must not be given antibiotics or growth hormones, both stock-in-trade for conventionally raised meat and dairy animals.

If a product is labeled “certified organic,” a government certifier has visited the farm to make sure the food meets USDA organic standards (which also includes protecting crops and animals from contamination from nearby conventional farms).

There are three terms you need to know when you’re scanning labels in the supermarket. That’s because there are three types of organic products, according to the USDA:

100% Organic, which is made entirely of organic ingredients

Organic, which means it has at least 95% organic ingredients

Made with Organic Ingredients, which contains at least 70% organic ingredients with strict restrictions on the other 30%, including no GMOs; and foods that contain fewer than 70% organic ingredients that can’t make the “organic” claim on the label but which can list those ingredients with others on the side panel.

Studies have been inconclusive about whether organic is healthier than conventionally grown or raised food products. One benefit, especially for kids, is a reduced exposure to toxic chemicals. There has been some research evidence that organic produce also may have higher antioxidant levels, largely because antioxidants are a plant’s weapon of fighting off pests itself. One study, a 214 multi-nation review of more than 340 research papers published in the British Medical Journal, found that organic fruits and veggies may be 20 to 40 percent higher in these beneficial plant chemicals.

How to Shop Organic without Breaking the Bank

Read More

3. Gluten-free What is gluten and what’s so bad about it? The first question is easier to answer. Gluten is a protein mix found in grains including wheat, barley, rye, oats and hybrids such as tritcale and others. And there’s nothing inherently bad about it unless you have something called celiac disease, an autoimmune disorder in which gluten can damage the small intestine by mounting an immune response against it. It can cause nutritional deficiencies, other autoimmune disorders (type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis, for example), neurological problems including migraine and epilepsy, and intestinal cancer. Celiac disease is detected by a simple blood test. Despite the mass hype about it, there’s no good scientific evidence that anyone other than those with celiac disease benefit from a gluten-free diet.

How to Know if You Should Go Gluten-Free

Read More

4. Vegan You know that vegetarians don’t eat meat, fish, or poultry. Vegans take it one step further: They avoid all animal products, including dairy, honey, eggs, and many won’t wear leather, fur, silk or wool. Some believe that it’s tougher to be a vegan than a vegetarian, particularly when it comes to getting enough protein, but there are plenty of plant sources, including soy, beans, nuts, nut butters, even veggies such as potatoes, broccoli, kale and spinach. And there are major benefits. Large studies, such as the EPIC-Oxford research project, have found that vegans, like vegetarians, have about a 30 percent reduced risk of heart disease and may live longer than meat-eaters.

Pass the Plants! 8 Surprising Sources of Protein

Read More

5. Grass-fed You’ve seen this term on labels in the meat section of the supermarket. It simply means that the animals who provided the meat you’re buying—beef, bison, lamb, bison, goat or sheep—grazed on grass and whatever they could forage. Unlike conventionally raised animals, they’re not sent to feedlots to be fattened up on corn. They’re also not given antibiotics and hormones. The American Grassfed Association and the USDA both have strict certification requirements before the “grass-fed” label is affixed to the cello-wrap on your lamb chops or ground bison. There’s a health benefit to paying a few extra dollars for grass-fed meat. Studies on grass-fed beef , for example, suggest that it may be lower in saturated fat and higher in good fats such as omega-3 fatty acids, which can protect your heart. Some studies have found it’s higher in vitamins A and E, as well as antioxidants, too.

The Egg-Cholesterol Connection Explained

Read More

6. Locally sourced/grown More and more people have become focused on where their food comes from, and there’s a good reason for that. Produce, for example, can be depleted of its vital nutrients if it’s shipped long distances. According to one study from the University of California at Davis, travel time for fresh fruits and vegetables can be anywhere from five days to several weeks, depending on how they’re shipped. Vitamin C tends to degrade shortly after harvest, so the California orange you eat in Maine may not have very much by the time it gets to you. But even “locally grown” food may travel 100 to 200 miles to get to you. To get really local food, your best bet is to buy from nearby farm stands, markets or farm trucks that come to urban areas from nearby agricultural land. Or, grow your own!

    The post What 6 Food Buzzwords Really Mean appeared first on The Leaf.

https://askfitness.today/what-6-food-buzzwords-really-mean/

[sherristockman]

New Report Makes Dairy Shopping Easy Dr. Mercola By Dr. Mercola When it comes to choosing high-quality dairy, you can’t always judge a book by its cover. Many dairy cartons depict idyllic scenes of black and white cows grazing on rolling hills, when in reality the milk comes from cows raised on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Even many organic dairy brands are guilty of this type of deceit. Where your milk and other dairy products come from matters, as how the cows are raised affects the nutritional quality, not to mention the taste, of the milk. There are environmental, ethical and public health implications, too, with dairy CAFOs representing some of the biggest polluters on the planet. So, even though most dairy brands would have you believe that their products are made with milk from cows that spend their days enjoying the sun and grass, most of the milk comes from corporate farms with more than 1,000 cows (and some with 15,000 or more). In fact, more than half of U.S. milk is produced by just 3 percent of U.S. dairies.1 The Cornucopia Institute, a public interest group supporting sustainable and organic agriculture, has made it easier to shop for high-quality dairy with the release of their 2018 Organic Dairy Report and Scorecard.2 It represents an update from their 2008 version and will help you choose dairy from organic sources using only the best organic farming practices and ethics. Many Organic Dairies Are CAFOs in Disguise In their report, “The Industrialization of Organic Dairy,” the Cornucopia Institute details the steady progression of organic dairy into factory farms that use suspect practices to produce their milk. Despite federal organic regulations that require, for instance, pasturing ruminants, there’s a wide range of interpretation that goes on in the industry. Whereas some organic producers go way beyond the requirement by allowing their cows to graze on pasture most of the time, and feeding no grain at all, others use typical CAFO practices, like feeding large amounts of genetically engineered (GE) grain and keeping cows in confinement. How can a farm that raises cows on pasture, and one that rarely does, both qualify for the same organic seal? The problem lies with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which delegates the interpretation of the standards to certification agencies that are hired by individual farms. “Many of the largest certifiers (California Certified Organic Farmers, Quality Assurance International, Oregon Tilth and others) have adopted the most liberal interpretations of the organic standards. Some of these lax interpretations have been challenged as illegal,” according to Cornucopia.3 It’s revealing that, according to the report, Texas produces 1.4 times more organic milk than Wisconsin (America’s Dairyland), even though there are only six organic producers in the state — compared to the 453 in Wisconsin. The organic industry is valued at about $47 billion in the U.S., and industrial organic dairies are eager to gain their share. Organic milk sales have more than tripled from 2007 to 2015, even as sales of conventional milk declined. Meanwhile, the number of organic cows rose by 13 percent from 2008 to 2015, but the amount of organic milk products produced rose by 35 percent.4 The Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (NODPA) attributed some of the increase to “better practices,” but others, including an investigation by The Washington Post, suggest skimping on organic practices may be a better description.5 Even NODPA noted the reason behind the large jump is “the increase in those mostly larger herds where the cows are fed in the barn instead of going out to pasture as the organic regulations require.”6 The increased demand hasn’t been the panacea for organic family farms as you might suspect, because it’s created an organic milk surplus that has actually reduced prices. According to the Cornucopia Institute:7 “[A] current surplus of organic milk, primarily driven by industrial sources, is now putting dramatic downward pressure on farm-gate prices. This downward pressure is also, in some cases, placing farmers on quotas that can create profound economic stress. This industrial organic milk not only undermines the livelihoods of family-scale farms, it also damages authentic organic producers by sowing the seeds of distrust among consumers. If consumers are unable to trust the organic label, the market security that has allowed ethical farmers to bring in a living wage could disappear.” USDA Not Doing Enough to Protect the Integrity of the Organic Label Because farmers hire their own inspection agencies to comply with USDA rules, it’s a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse. Even when violations are found, they typically amount to only a slap on the wrist in terms of punishment. In 2007, for instance, while the USDA sanctioned Aurora Organic Dairy for willfully violating organic standards, the farm was allowed to continue operating after a settlement was reached.8 In 2017, when The Washington Post visited Aurora Organic Dairy, a massive industrial farm with 15,000 cows that has provided organic store brands to corporations like Walmart, Target and Costco, a few problems were evident right off the bat. The cows are supposed to have access to pasture for the entire grazing season, but the investigation revealed 90 percent were kept on feedlots, not pasture, at any given time. The Post even had samples of Aurora’s organic milk tested for “a key indicator of grass-feeding” (its fatty acid profile), which revealed the milk matched conventional, not organic milk. Inspectors had visited the farm, but in November, a time outside of the grazing season, which means they had no way of knowing whether the dairy’s grazing habits met the organic requirement. Inspecting during this time represents a breach to the USDA’s inspection policy. However, in September 2017, the USDA closed the investigation into the dairy, stating it was in compliance with organic rules.9 “Unfortunately, the federal agency [USDA] is largely silent on the subject [of the industrialization of organic dairy],” Cornucopia noted. “Most serious allegations of improprieties are redirected by the USDA for investigation to the organic certifiers that, in some cases, appear to be co-conspirators in violations of the organic standards. In other cases, the USDA and certifiers suggest that serious violations are an aberration in the industry.”10 Why Choose Real Grass Fed Organic Dairy? There’s good reason to seek out organic dairy that is truly grass fed and raised according to the highest standards. Milk from cows raised primarily on pasture has been shown to be higher in many nutrients, including vitamin E, beta-carotene and the healthy fats omega-3 and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA).11 The improved fatty acid profile in grass fed organic milk and dairy products brings the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio to a near 1-to-1, compared to 5.7-to-1 in conventional whole milk. This is important, since the majority of Americans eat 10 to 15 times the amount of omega-6s compared to what they eat in omega-3s.12 “Because of often high per‐capita dairy consumption relative to most other sources of omega‐3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid, these differences in grassmilk [grass fed milk] can help restore a historical balance of fatty acids and potentially reduce the risk of cardiovascular and other metabolic diseases,” researchers noted.13 On an environmental level, while CAFOs contribute to the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease and produce massive amounts of waste that is polluting waterways around the globe, raising animals on pasture using rotational or regenerative grazing approaches can increase soil organic matter, soil fertility and water-holding capacity, while naturally reducing erosion and encouraging crop diversity. Unfortunately, as farmers increasingly plant mostly wheat, rice, soy and corn (including for CAFO animal feed), more than 75 percent of crop genetic diversity has disappeared since the 1900s, leaving fields increasingly vulnerable to pests, disease and drought.14 The Union of Concerned Scientists, which was among the first to compare fat levels in conventional beef and dairy with grass fed varieties, also touted the merits of grass fed foods:15 “Raising cattle on pasture lessens environmental damage, improves animal health and reduces antibiotic use. Over the past decade, numerous scientific studies have shown that the meat and milk from pasture-raised animals are higher in fats that may confer health benefits on humans.” The Cornucopia Institute’s Organic Dairy Scorecard There are a few ways to determine the quality of your organic dairy, one being to develop a relationship with a trusted farmer producing grass fed milk. If you don’t know any farmers in your area, or live in an urban location, farmers markets can be a close second. Beyond that, if you’ll be buying your dairy in a grocery store, be sure to consult with the Cornucopia Institute’s Organic Dairy Scorecard before you buy. The scorecard rates more than 160 dairies based on practices such as: The percentage of grass in a cow’s diet How much pasture is available for grazing The level of control a brand has over its milk supply How the farmer suppliers expand their milk herd (do they bring in conventional or organic cows?) The dairies are then given a ranking of one to five cows, with five being the best (there are also zero-cow rated companies, which were not willing to participate in Cornucopia’s research): Five cows are the “gold standard” in dairy production, representing small-to-medium scale family farms in which pasture and forage make up the majority, and sometimes 100 percent of the animals’ feed. Most of these brands go beyond organic standards and are sold through farmers markets, food coops and independently owned food stores. Four cows are rated “excellent” with a commitment to grazing and may also get certified organic feed from outside sources. If the brand gets milk from multiple farms, management maintains close oversight and control over the farming practices. Three cows are still rated “very good,” and they comply with minimum USDA standards, including the minimum pasture requirement. If replacement animals are purchased, they may come from conventional sources where they were fed antibiotics and/or GE grains. Two cows means the brand is “fair” with unclear compliance to federal organic standards. “Private-label dairy products often fall into this category because they may be getting all, or some, of their milk from factory-farm sources. These brands may have a lack of control over their milk supply due to reduced oversight at the farms that supply their milk,” according to Cornucopia. One cow ratings are given to industrial-scale dairy operations that “universally skirt or misrepresent the pasture requirements” and often have thousands of cows on the farm. “Generally, private-label products fall into this category because of their lack of transparency and the fact that most get some of their milk from factory-farm sources,” Cornucopia stated. The Yogurt Scorecard Reveals the Truth About ‘Healthy’ Yogurt You may recognize many of the same brands from Cornucopia’s Organic Dairy Scorecard on their also highly-recommended Yogurt Scorecard. Updated in July 2018, in addition to assessing milk quality, the yogurts are ranked based on total sugar and whether they have additives like preservatives, stabilizers, thickeners, artificial colors and flavors, and carrageenan. As you’ll see if you peruse the scorecard, most commercial yogurts are so full of sugar and other additives that they’re far from health foods. However, it’s easy to make your own healthy homemade yogurt; all you need is raw, organic grass fed milk and a yogurt starter culture. In addition to consulting with the Cornucopia Institute’s dairy scorecards, you can also identify high-quality dairy by looking for the American Grassfed Association (AGA) logo. The standard allows for greater transparency and conformity16 and is intended to ensure the humane treatment of animals and meet consumer expectations about grass fed dairy, while being feasible for small farmers to achieve. An AGA logo on a product lets you know the animals were fed a lifetime diet of 100 percent forage, were raised on pasture (not in confinement) and were not treated with hormones or antibiotics.17 I strongly encourage you to seek out AGA-certified dairy products as they become available and avoid supporting industrial organic brands masquerading as the real thing.

[redabiz2]

Benefits People Would Derive From Biotechnologies

By Steven Scott

Biotechnology is an application of various technological principles using biological systems and components to manufacture a product. The reason why scientists emphasize the use of biotechnologies is because they can improve the quality of people's life. Some of the ways human beings would greatly benefit from the application have been listed here. The use of science and technology in many industries has encouraged the production of many vaccines. These vaccines are used in treating deadly diseases that can cause serious health issues or result in death. Some DNA vaccines, Recombinant vector, Toxoid vaccines, and the Conjugate types can help treat patients suffering from measles, rabies, tetanus, chicken pox and others. Pests can greatly reduce the quality and quantity of the food crops you plant in the farm. Your plants can be modified using science and technology. Genetically modified plants have the ability to withstand many pests and diseases, thus allowing the farmer to record larger amounts of crops during harvest periods. With the advancement of science and technology, people can now request for the nutrients they desire from the crops that grow around their locality. Some genetic engineers can directly transfer the required nutrients into these crops while others may design the plants and make them contain some desirable traits that would make them yield healthy ones. For instance, a new strain of rice has been worked upon by genetic engineers to produce beta-carotene which can be converted to vitamin A for an improved eyesight, a brighter skin, and many other amazing functions. Food crops that are designed to be resistant to pests and diseases would be so beneficial to both the farmers and the community members. For instance, it allows the farmers to spend less in purchasing pesticides or herbicides that would be used to drive pests away or slow down the activities of weeds. The environment would also become friendly as a result of the less harmful chemicals released into the atmosphere. There would also be less consumption of foods that contain toxins which can cause serious health issues. Biotechnology can be applied in food industries to prevent perishable goods from decay. Hence, there is no doubt that the use of genetic engineering can prolong the shelf life of the fruits, and vegetables by slowing down the activities of microbes. For instance, studies have revealed that some doses of biopolymers such as Chitosan can be used to prevent tomatoes and fruits from microbial decay. Your plants can be designed to withstand drought and other harsh conditions that are likely to slow down their growth. You can also make use of the infertile places around you to cultivate your crops and be sure to harvest healthy ones if they contain some desirable traits. Smart people can utilize this opportunity and make use of many less growing areas to their advantage. Students who have a good knowledge of biotechnology can work in various food technology industries, healthcare sectors and so on. Their problem-solving skills can also be improved through a proper education in higher institutions. They can use the skills acquired to improve humanity and make lives to become more meaningful to others.

About the Author:

Discover the concept of biotechnologies by reading our published blogs. To know more about the topic, visit the relevant website right now at http://www.cellmig.com.

Benefits People Would Derive From Biotechnologies via Lose weight with REDA https://ift.tt/2JxQJdo

[conversci]

CSN Event Report - Ethics of Genome Editing

The Science and Ethics of Genome Editing [CN1] event held by the Convergence Science Network (CSN) in February ignited thought-provoking discussion about the prospects of future gene-editing technologies, and in particular, the revolutionary CRISPR-Cas9 system. We are currently in a booming age for genetics, largely due to advances in high-throughput DNA sequencing and genome editing. With the emergence of CRISPR as a powerful, precise gene-editing tool that can modify the DNA of essentially any organism, comes many possible applications, and the impacts of these advances have been felt broadly, from work on model organisms in laboratory settings, to improvement of food crops, to medical applications.  CSN hosted a second event to continue the conversation, offering a view into the future of this technology and to discuss some of the societal issues evoked by the rapid adoption of genome editing tools into the research community and commercial sector.

Who will have access to this technology and its benefits? How will it be used and distributed, and who will have a say?

ABC Radio National presenter, Natasha Mitchell, mediated a discussion of the “ethical landscape” that technologies such as CRISPR pose with Dr Christopher Gyngell, Research Fellow in Biomedical Ethics at The University of Melbourne, Louise Sales, coordinator of Friends of the Earth’s Emerging Tech Project, and Professor Philip Batterham, Professor in Genetics at The University of Melbourne and president of the International Genetics Federation.

The evening began with a presentation from Dr Gyngell, whose expertise is in biomedical ethics. When he was young, he first was introduced to genome editing with images of “glow in the dark” mice – the green florescent protein (GFP) gene was originally harnessed from the jellyfish Aequorea victoria and is now inserted into the genome of various organisms to be paired with genes of choice as a tracking method (cells producing GFP will appear bright green under light in the blue to ultraviolet range), and hence can be used to make animals “glow” under certain lighting.  Following the “glow in the dark” mice, a “super mouse” was created – a mouse with a modified metabolism receptor (PEPCK-C[CN2] )[i] that could run for up to 5 km (as opposed to the usual 200m limit), lived longer, and had minimal fat deposition despite eating more than control mice. The techniques used to produce these genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were inefficient and imprecise, but in the last six years, genome editing has been revolutionised by the use of the CRISPR-Cas9 system, which allows the precise alteration of any DNA sequence.

Gene editing has been used as a tool for decades in plants and non-human animals for agriculture and research purposes. GMO crops can provide resistance to pests, weeds, and other threats, thus reducing farmers’ use of pesticides and herbicides. They also provide food security, with crop yields becoming more consistent and productive (especially important with the threat of drought in Australia). Professor Batterham also emphasised the importance of genetic manipulation of animal models in fundamental research to study genetic principles and human disease. Animal models have greatly enhanced our understanding of the cause and progression of human genetic diseases, and have been vital in developing targets for therapeutic drugs over the past several decades – many a Nobel Prize have been awarded for work performed in animal models. Work using such organisms, as the Batterham group at Bio21 does with vinegar fly models to study insecticide resistance, is strictly regulated, and Professor Batterham “want[s] to see the public comfortable with what [he does]”. All genetic modification work performed in Australia must be certified by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) under the Gene Technology Act 2000[CN3] [ii]. The OGTR monitors all generation, transport, storage and disposal of GMOs to ensure that any risk to the health and safety of people and/or the environment is properly managed.

In a research setting, GMOs are under strict codes of practice, however, genome editing of animals potentially poses more risks in conservation biology and in the environment. Gene drives, genetic engineering technology that can propagate a particular gene(s) throughout successive generations, have been proposed to provide an effective means of genetically modifying specific populations and even entire species. There are many potential local and international applications for gene drives in public health (particularly with regards to limiting transmission of pathogens such as malaria by targeting mosquitos), environmental conservation, and agriculture. For example, New Zealand has launched a campaign, Predator-Free 2050[CN4] [iii], to protect its natural fauna by rendering invasive predators (e.g. rats, possums, and stoats) infertile and thus eradicating them. Unlike in a laboratory, however, gene drives are “inherently risky”, as containment would be more difficult to enforce and track. Ms Sales is concerned that a Freedom of Information request[iv] [CN5] revealed that CSIRO and University of Adelaide are planning a gene drive to be released on islands in Western Australia to drive local mice populations to extinction. As there is a possibility of mice, and in turn, the gene drive, spreading to the mainland (as mice are notorious for stowing away on boats), this case illustrates the need for strict regulation the use of genome-editing techniques, particularly as different nations may have differing policies regarding their use while gene drives may not be confined within country borders.  

 An entirely different set of ethical questions is raised when it comes to manipulating DNA in humans, particularly any DNA that will be passed on to descendants (germ line). Germ line gene editing can be important in biomedical research to ask vital questions (e.g. studying the basis of diseases, and early development – how we progress from a single cell zygote to a complex multicellular organism). As stem cell therapies are developed, genome editing is a natural adjunct. Some somatic (non-germ line) therapies that utilise genome editing have been approved for Phase I clinical trials that involve editing patient cells in a laboratory and transfer back into the patient. CRISPR allows the precise targeting of any gene, and therefore has been adopted for treatments in monogenic diseases (caused by single genes), such as muscular dystrophy and sickle cell anaemia. The World Health Organization[v] [CN6] estimates that over 10,000 human diseases are monogenic, and these could all be prevented using genome editing – so long as it is proven safe. There is concern that there may be off-target effects using genome editing, and while Professor Batterham has never seen any additional mutations or changes when using CRISPR in animal models, there still may be other unpredicted effects. The aforementioned PEPCK-C “super mouse” with greater metabolism was also more aggressive, highlighting the fact that there are risks associated with using genome editing and it must be used with precaution.

 The greatest concern is whether germ line genome-editing technologies will not be confined to research and therapies and lead to reproductive applications. The reproductive use of germ line gene modification has been criticised for a number of biomedical and bioethical reasons, including the transgressions of the natural and divine laws, irreversible risks imposed on offspring and future generations, and the societal harms that eugenics and genetic enhancement represent. In addition to using CRISPR as somatic therapies to treat genetic disorders, an eventual possibility is to “correct” the gene at the embryo stage in a germ line modification. While Dr Gyngell acknowledged that people have concerns about an unborn baby not providing consent (the non-interference principle), he believes that “parenting is all about interference…making sure your child grows up happy and healthy”. We may see germ line editing in clinics in conjunction with preimplantation genetic diagnoses, which are currently commonplace to help identify genetic defects in embryos, however there remains great apprehension due to its potential for human enhancement and the “slippery slope” into eugenics.  Previously, there appeared to be a de facto global consensus that human germ line genetic modification should be prohibited for reproductive purposes, however, the ease at which DNA modifications can now be performed has increased the possibility that they will inevitably be practiced in a clinical setting. Moreover, prohibitive polices vary across regulatory systems, with some countries enforcing legal prohibition, others with prohibition by guidelines, some restrictive rather than prohibitive, and others remain ambiguous[vi][CN7] . Current research is directed towards developing treatments that utilise genomic editing, but before they can be brought into a clinical setting, both safety and efficacy must be demonstrated, and the extent to which we use this technology discussed in depth.

 As a population, we need to “avoid sweeping statements”, and rather than thinking of genome-editing tools as either good or bad, each application should be assessed individually. All three panellists agreed that these technologies require regulation and a universal licensing system to make informed decisions by evaluating benefits and risks, but their enthusiasm for the great potential for therapeutic, agricultural, and research applications was evident. Things are moving fast in genome editing, and in the midst of this excitement, we need to consider what are the best uses of the technology, and how we can ensure that it is safe and effective.

Catriona Nguyen-Robertson | Science Communication Officer

(This article represents an overview of the opinions shared during the event and are not my personal views.)

[i] Hanson, RW, Hakimi, P 2008, “Born to run; the story of the PEPCK-Cmus mouse”, Biochimie, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 838-842

[ii] Australian Government Department of Health Office of the Gene Technology Regulator 2016, “About the Regulator”, viewed 26th May 2018, http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/about-regulator-1

[iii] New Zealand Department of Conservation, “Predator Free 2050”, viewed 26th May 2018, https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/predator-free-2050/

[iv] Government of Western Australia Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions 2017, “Freedom of Information Application”, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bS_UWa92PJzMaeAwMOrDSfN22JIZUqQz/view

[v] World Health Organization, “Genes and human disease”, viewed 26th May 2018, http://www.who.int/genomics/public/geneticdiseases/en/index2.html

[vi] Ishii, T 2017, “Germ line genome editing in clinics: the approaches, objectives and global society”, Briefings in Functional Genomics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 44-56

 [CN1]See the post, CSN Event Report: The Science and Ethics of Genome Editing

 [CN2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2491496/

 [CN3]http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/about-regulator-1

 [CN4]https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/predator-free-2050/

 [CN5]https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bS_UWa92PJzMaeAwMOrDSfN22JIZUqQz/view

 [CN6]http://www.who.int/genomics/public/geneticdiseases/en/index2.html

 [CN7]https://academic.oup.com/bfg/article/16/1/46/2962382

[roxysbeachlife]

10 PROCESSED FOODS TO NEVER FEED YOUR KIDS

It may be easy to reach for one of these foods when your child is hungry, but have you ever really thought about what’s inside those processed foods targeted at kids? Flip those colorful cartooned packages over and you’ll find almost as many artificial colors lurking in the ingredients. That list of ingredients is a long and confusing jumble of chemicals and carcinogens, like what you’ll find in these 10 cancer causing foods. Let’s take a closer look at what effects these processed foods are having on your child’s health, along with alternative choices you can make to safeguard their future.

Disclosure: Bookieboo LLC has an affiliate relationship with Thrive Market and works with a large number of brands in the organic and natural foods sector, including Stonyfield, Organic Valley, Nature’s Path, and Applegate.

1. Pepperidge Farm’s Goldfish

These fishies are a pantry staple in many homes with kids. I admit, I grew up on them myself. They appear healthy, with a label that totes whole grain, real cheddar, and no artificial preservatives. However, a look at the ingredient list shows just why these unnaturally orange snack crackers should stay off of your child’s plate.

Enriched wheat flour might sound good, but it means so many natural nutrients were stripped away in the processed flour, that things have to be added back in. The iron added is a metallic form that our bodies just can’t absorb fully. As for the folic acid, research now shows that the fortification of foods with folic acid is linked to cancer.

Moving on to the cheddar cheese – it’s not organic. That means the cows were fed a diet of genetically modified grains and then produced milk for the cheese. We’ve already discussed the dangers of GMOs and the importance of organic dairy. Conventional dairy may also contain rbST, another Monsanto product. The cows are injected with this genetically engineered hormone to stimulate milk production. It’s already banned in Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and Australia. The use of rbST, in turn, causes other health problems, such as mastitis, that need further treatment with antibiotics. This increases antibiotic resistance, a dangerous problem which is then passed on to humans. These are all reasons enough to flush these fish, and this is only the third ingredient. That cheese also contains annatto as a coloring agent. Although it’s from a natural source, the seeds of the achiote bush, annatto has been linked to irritable bowel syndrome.

Finally, the vegetable oils. Unlike olive or coconut oils that are extracted from pressing, vegetable oils are made in a very unnatural way. The oils are heated to unsafe temperatures, oxidized and then treated with petroleum solvents. Then the oil is treated with chemicals to make its color and odor more pleasant. On top of that, they are also made from GMO crops like corn and soy.

Better Alternative – Annie’s Organic Cheddar Bunnies

These certified organic and Non-GMO project verified snacks are an easy swap out to the familiar fish. Annie’s Organic Cheddar Bunnies do contain organic annatto extract. Annatto is actually found in most crackers, but you won’t find any of the other ingredients of concern mentioned above.

Best Alternative – Mary’s Gone Crackers

One of my favorite crackers, these are free of all the ingredients of concern listed above. They too are certified organic and Non-GMO project verified. Mary’s Gone Crackers are made from organic brown rice, quinoa, and seeds, so they are also gluten free.

2. Kellogg’s Pop-Tarts

“Baked with real fruit” catches your eye on the front of the package, but turn it over and you’ll see a different story. The filling is about 10% fruit. So what’s in the other 90%? More enriched flour, soybean and palm oil, GMO after GMO, artificial colors, and so much sugar!

These processed pastries have dextrose, sugar, and both corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup. All made with GMOs, like the Goldfish above. If you see “sugar” on the label, it comes from genetically modified sugar beets, not cane sugar like you may think. Refined sugars spike insulin levels and feed cancer cells.

Even that “real fruit” is still a cause for concern. The dried apples, strawberries, and pear are sprayed with pesticides. In fact, apples are the most contaminated item on the EWG’s dirty dozen list.

A common ingredient in processed foods marketed towards kids and teens is artificial dyes and colors. These vibrant and fun looking colors are actually toxic chemicals that cause allergies and hyperactivity in children. This particular flavor of pop-tart contains Red 40, Yellow 6, and Blue 1. Yellow 6 might sound familiar, as it’s the dye that many petitioned to remove from Kraft Mac ‘n Cheese. The toxins in these dyes, all common in processed foods, are known to cause cancer, hyperactivity in children, asthma, skin rashes, migraines and even affect your child’s learning ability. Most are already banned in other countries too. Caramel color, which has shown to cause lung cancer in mice with long term exposure, also made it into this breakfast food.

Although this label doesn’t list monosodium glutamate, also know as MSG, it does list gelatin. This is used in the icing of the product and commonly contains MSG. MSG is linked to obesity, intestinal issues, migraines, skin rashes and brain damage.

Better Alternative – Nature’s Path Frosted Maple Brown Sugar Toaster Pastries

These breakfast pastries won’t contain any GMOs or persistent pesticides. Nature’s Path Frosted Maple Toaster Pastries are certified organic and Non-GMO project verified as well. They are also trans fat free. Although you will find caramel color, it’s organic class I. It’s the only caramel color that can be certified organic, and is minimally processed with limited additional ingredients.

Best Alternative – Homemade

This may not be as quick of an option, but it’s the best option if you want to avoid artificial colors. These Whole-Wheat Toaster Pastries pictured are from 100 Days of Real Food. Be sure to use only organic ingredients. You can make them ahead in a large batch and freeze for convenience. If that’s still more work than you want, opt for some organic toast and jam.

3. Nestle Nesquik Chocolate Milk

Seemingly a healthier choice than soda and energy drinks, this is a deceptive beverage. It’s even a staple in school lunches. Aside from the aforementioned dangers of conventional dairy, this Nesquik is loaded with sugar. One bottle (listed as two servings) has a whopping 48 grams! Even if a child were to only consume half the bottle, that’s still double the recommended daily amount of 12 grams (3 teaspoons) of sugar. Research shows excess sugar consumption leads to heart disease, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, obesity, liver problems, and reduced brain power.

Natural and artificial flavors are towards the end of the ingredient list in this Nestle Nesquik Chocolate Milk. Don’t be fooled by the term “natural”, because it has little bearing on whether something is healthy. As for artificial flavors, they can contain hundreds of chemicals with side effects ranging from allergies to behavioral issues in children.

Carrageenan is a thickening agent used in many types and brands of milk, and is especially common in processed foods. It has recently become controversial because studies on animals have shown gastrointestinal inflammation, intestinal lesions, ulcers, and malignant tumors. If you see carrageenan on the label, it’s also a possibility that it contains MSG.

Better Alternative – Organic Valley Chocolate Milk

Not only is this milk certified organic, it’s also fair trade. In the refrigerated version you’ll find no carrageenan or artificial colors and flavors. It is still a chocolate milk, so there is a high amount of sugar in this beverage. It’s easier to limit serving size with Organic Valley Chocolate Milk because it isn’t in a single serving size container. You can also cut it with plain milk.

Best Alternative – Homemade Organic Strawberry Milk

Of course, plain organic milk is the best alternative, but if your child still wants a sweeter, more flavorful option, try this. Simply blend up a few organic strawberries into the milk for a sweet and subtle flavor addition.

4. Soda

Just like the Nesquik chocolate milk above, soda is loaded with sugar, like most processed foods. However, most kids will probably only have one Nesquik – they’ll probably have multiple sodas. Luckily, many schools and fast food chains have eliminated soda from the children’s menu. It’s one of the cancer causing foods that should be eliminated from your diet.

The coloring of soda is toxic as well. Caramel color, like in the strawberry pop-tart, is a carcinogen. Choosing an orange soda instead of a brown cola isn’t any better. You’ll see this Fanta has both Yellow 6 and Red 40 on it’s ingredient list. The vague “natural flavors” aren’t reassuring either. It’s more of the same offenders as the processed foods we’ve already revealed.

Better Alternative – Live Kombucha Soda

These sodas come in a variety of familiar flavors, but they are made with raw, organic kombucha. Not only do you avoid the nasty colors, flavors, and carcinogens in soda, this option aids in digestion. Kombucha is made from fermented tea, so it’s not recommended for children under 4, although Live Kombucha Soda say that their fermentation process does not allow the kombucha to become alcoholic.

Best Alternative – Skip the Soda

It may seem obvious, but stick with water or milk for the healthiest options. You can add fruit to water to infuse it with flavor if your child wants something different.

5. Fast Food Kids Meals

The majority of kid’s meals are made up of a hamburger and fries, which we have already identified as cancer causing foods. Burger King still offers soda with their kids meal, even though other chains have eliminated it. Have you seen the ingredient list in these meals? A cheeseburger contains 70 ingredients! That Happy Meal being marketed to your child is not something you should be happy about. To go line by line with every ingredient in a Happy Meal would take a long time, but you can review all of their ingredients on their website. What I found in my research was non-organic meat, dairy, fruits, and vegetables. All of these items contain harmful GMOs and pesticides. In a typical Happy Meal you will find 540 calories, 18 grams of fat, 0.5 gram of trans fat, 790 mg of sodium, and 32 grams of sugar.

What about skipping the burger and fries and choosing chicken? Well, Chick-fil-A’s chicken contains MSG in their seasoning and breading. It’s also filled with GMOs, pesticides, and enriched flour, like nearly all of the foods on our list so far. McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets also contain the same things, although they don’t just come right out and say MSG. The natural flavors and seasoning are common ingredients where hidden MSG lies.

Better Alternative – Chipotle

This fast food chain’s motto is “food with integrity” and they are working to stand by this. Although their full menu is not organic or GMO free yet, they do have a detailed ingredient list which labels what items on their menu are organic or contain GMOs.

Best Alternative – Skip the Fast Food

It may seem obvious, but because over 80% of the commercial feed for animals is GMO, it’s difficult to eat out and avoid GMOs. Fast food is usually higher in fat, calories, and sodium than food prepared in our homes. You have complete control over what foods go into your home cooking, unlike what is prepared at a fast food chain.

6. Yoplait Go-Gurt

These yogurt tubes may seem like a healthier snack option when it comes to processed foods. A look at the ingredients shows the typical culprit of conventional dairy. Animal products are the number one products you should be buying organic. Along with the genetically modified dairy, you’ll find modified corn starch, which is also GMO. Go-Gurt also contains 2/3 of the daily recommended amount of sugar for children in just one tube. The thickener carrageenan, shown to cause intestinal problems in animals, is also used.

An ingredient common in processed foods which we haven’t yet discussed is potassium sorbate. This preservative can cause allergic reactions, nausea, diarrhea, and even DNA damage. The convenience of a squeezable yogurt isn’t really worth all of those risks.

Better Alternative – Stonyfield YoKids Pouches

These yogurt squeeze pouches are an organic alternative to the above version. Since the dairy cows are fed an all organic diet, you don’t have to worry about contamination from harmful pesticides and GMOs. Another thing you won’t worry about with Stonyfield YoKids Pouches is artificial flavors or the preservative potassium sorbate. Flavored yogurts do have higher levels of sugar than their plain counterparts though, so keep that in mind.

Best Alternative – Stonyfield Greek Plain Yogurt

This is yogurt at it’s purest and finest. It’s certified organic, high in protein, and low in sugar in relation to other yogurts. It might not be as exciting as squeezable flavored yogurt, but you can add excitement. Try blending it with fresh organic fruit to add sweetness and flavor. You can even freeze the blended mixture to create a healthy Greek yogurt popsicle.

7. Kid Cuisine

You’ve seen these frozen TV dinners at the grocery store. They’re adorned with cartoon characters and bright colors to catch your kids’ eye. After looking at the long list of ingredients on the package, I found a number of concerning components to this meal. Almost too many to name. Everything you see on the front of the package is GMO – all of it! It’s one of the worst processed foods marketed directly to kids.

You’ll find trans fats in the mono- and diglycerides and partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. The package isn’t the only place you’ll find colors either. This Kid Cuisine has Red 40, Yellow 6, Blue 1,and Blue 2 Lake, and annatto. There is also MSG hidden in the whey protein concentrate, spice blend, natural flavors, soy protein concentrate, and carrageenan.

It might save some time to make this microwave meal, but processed foods like this will cause more headaches than cooking – literally. In addition to headaches, it can also cause nausea, allergies, hyperactivity, chest pains, heart palpitations, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and more.

Best Alternative – Homemade

TV dinners just aren’t an easy thing to find when it comes to healthier eating. You can find organic components though. Applegate offers organic chicken strips – pair those with a side of organic veggies and a fruit for dessert, you’ve got a meal to please.

8. Kellogg’s Froot Loops (and other cereals)

You may have heard that Kellogg’s Froot Loops contain weedkiller. That’s because of the GMO sugar, corn and soy that are prevalent in this breakfast cereal and other processed foods. The partially hydrogenated vegetable oil is GMO and contains trans fats, which are considered to be the worst kind of fat and are linked to serious health risks.

The unique spelling of “froot” is probably because you won’t find any real fruit in this cereal. What you will find is a vibrant array of colors. Froot Loops also has 6 artificial and natural colors on the ingredients list. So by starting your child’s day with a bowl full of colored cereal, you’re setting them up for hyperactivity and increased ADD or ADHD symptoms for the day.

Best Alternative – EnviroKidz Cereal

These all-organic cereals come in a variety of flavors to keep your child and his or her taste buds happy. The ingredients list for their Gorilla Munch cereal is comprised of just 3 ingredients. You won’t find GMOs or artificial colors in this option.

9. Hostess Twinkies

Hopefully this is not a surprise to you on a list like this. The Twinkie has never really gotten a reputation as a health food. The ingredients include partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, shortening, and beef fat – all trans fats. It also has the usual offenders of enriched bleached white flour, high fructose corn syrup, dextrose, MSG, and artificial colors. That means over fortified flour, dangerous GMOS, and toxic food additives and colors.

Better Alternative – Arrowhead Mills Organic Vanilla Cake

If you have a child with a sweet tooth and need a twinkie alternative, try this cake mix from Arrowhead Mills. I recommend swapping the eggs and oil for organic applesauce to get a moist cake with fewer calories and fat. Bake into cupcakes and top with fresh organic whipped cream  for more of a twinkie flavor.

Best Alternative – Skip the Cakes

Dessert doesn’t have to be part of every meal, but if your child wants something sweet, opt for organic fruit instead. It’s the ultimate convenience food, perfectly prepared by nature. The best part is, it only has one ingredient.

10. Kraft Oscar Meyer Lunchables

There is a wide array of Lunchables products at the grocery store. These processed foods are made to save time when packing a lunch for your child. A closer look at the ingredients and you’ll see a long list of reasons to steer clear of this processed lunch pack. It’s counter productive to your kids’ school day to send them off with this in their bag. The artificial coloring and flavors elicit behavioral reactions and a difficulty in staying focused.

It’s so processed that even the cheese isn’t really cheese, but rather a “cheese product“. You’ll find GMOs, trans fat, and even nitrites. These are potentially cancerous and can elicit an allergic reaction.

Best Alternative-Homemade

There isn’t an all organic alternative to Lunchables yet. I’ve easily cut squares of organic lunch meat and cheese and packed them up in a food container with a some organic crackers. It might take 5 minutes more, but it will save you the trouble of those nasty side-effects from the Lunchables ingredients.

Next time you’re off to the grocery store, be sure to cross these processed foods off the list for good. Opt for homemade foods, organic options, and foods without the colors, additives, and chemicals mentioned above. You can find more tips on how to feed your children a healthy lunch here.

by Mamavation

Filed under: Essential Oils, Health Tagged: alternative choices, artificial, Cancer, Children, dangerous, diabetes, dye, Food, GMO's, Health, heart disease, Illness, Monsanto, obesity, pesticidies, Sugar, Toxic from WordPress http://ift.tt/2wQC1b3 via IFTTT