Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

23Sep

(Beyond Pesticides, September 23-26, 2022) Comments are due 11:59 pm EDT September 29. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is receiving written comments from the public through September. This precedes the upcoming public comment webinar on October 18 and 20 and deliberative hearing October 25-27concerning how organic food is produced. Sign up to speak at the webinar by September 29. Written comments must be submitted through Regulations.gov by 11:59 pm EDT September 29. Links to the virtual comment webinars and the public meeting will be posted on this webpage in early October.

For a complete discussion, see Keeping Organic Strong and the Fall 2022 issues page. In the spirit of continuous improvement, we urge you to submit comments (please feel free to use our comments on the KOS page) that contribute to an increasingly improved organic production system. Here are some high priority issues for us:

> The NOSB must take a precautionary approach in view of the unknown. Peroxylactic acid (POLA) is petitioned as an antimicrobial agent to be used in processing meat. While a comprehensive review of the needs for sanitizers and disinfectants in organic processing may reveal a need for additional materials, the existing data concerning POLA is incomplete, depending mainly on patents rather than peer-reviewed research. The petition should not be allowed.

> Genetic engineering is considered an excluded method according to organic regulations. The NOSB should continue to catalog excluded methods, and their use should be excluded at all levels of productionfrom crop production through inputs in processing.

> Organic Agriculture is Climate-Smart Agriculture. The NOSB draft letter to Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack is an excellent primer on how organic agriculture responds to the climate emergency. However, the letter needs to stress the need for USDA to promote conversion to organic farming. More important to addressing the climate crisis than the questions posed by NOP are questions concerning how USDA programs can assist organic producers and those seeking to convert to organic. The draft letter addresses these as well. It also points out the resiliency of organic agriculture: Organic is the solution to mitigating climate change and responding to it.In view of the climate benefits of organic and the incentives inherent in organic marketing, the real question is whether USDA will abandon its promotion of chemical-intensive agriculture supported by the biotech/chemical industry in favor of whole-hearted support for organic agriculturebecause despite the astronomical growth in organic consumption in the U.S., conversion to organic agriculture lags behind demand. USDA could and should make adoption of organic/climate-smart practices a prerequisite for receiving the benefits of its programs.

> Biodegradable Biobased (Bioplastic) Mulch Film (BBMF) is under consideration for sunset this year. This is part of a larger issue of the use of plastic in organic production and handling. Awareness is growing about the impacts of plasticand the microplastic particles to which it degradeson human health and the environment. BBMF should not be relisted. Moreover, the NOSB should initiate action to eliminate all uses of plastic in organic production and handlingincluding packaging.

> The NOSB should use the sunset process to eliminate non-organic ingredients in processed organic foods. Materials listed in 205.606 in the organic regulations are nonorganic agricultural ingredients that are allowed to be used as ingredients as part of the 5% of organic processed foods that is not required to be organic. Materials should not remain on 205.606 if they can be supplied organically, and anything that can be grown can be grown organically. The Handling Subcommittee needs to ask the question of potential suppliers, Could you supply the need if the organic form is required? Two materials on 205.606 are up for sunset this yearpectin and casings. Both are made from agricultural products that can be supplied organically and thus should be sunsetted.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Go here to see the original:
Last Chance This Fall to Tell the NOSB To Uphold Organic Integrity - Beyond Pesticides

Hun Sen, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia, has continued his overseas mission to the Republic of Cuba, at the invitation of Miguel Daz-Canel Bermudez, President of Cuba.

The Cambodian Premier arrived at Jos Marti International Airport in Havana on September 23 evening (time in Cuba) after attending the 77th Session of the General Debate of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

In a message on his social media network early this morning (time in Cambodia), Hun Sen wrote that he has contributed 2/3 or 43 years (1979-2022) to the whole process of Cambodia-Cuba relations in the past 62 years.

My last visit [to Cuba] took place in 2000. Twenty-two years later, I visited [the country] again in order to strengthen the existing ties of friendship, he wrote. Thanks, the Cuban people for assisting the Cambodian people when we faced the hardest time after the fall of the Pol Pot genocidal regime.

According to a press release of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, during his stay in Cuba from Sept. 23 to 25, Prime Minister will hold a bilateral meeting with President Miguel Daz-Canel Bermudez to discuss ways to further strengthen bonds of friendly relations between Cambodia and Cuba and expand areas of their cooperation.

After the meeting, the two leaders will witness the signing of five important documents, namely: 1. Programme of Cooperation and Cultural Exchange, 2. MoU on Cooperation between the two Diplomatic Academies, 3. MoU on Cooperation in Sports Development, 4. Cooperation Plan between the two Ministries of Foreign Affairs, and 5. MoU on Health Cooperation.

Prime Minister will pay a courtesy call on Esteban Lazo Hernndez, President of the National Assembly of Peoples Power of Cuba. He is also expected to pay a courtesy call on Ral Castro, former President of Cuba.

In Havana, the Prime Minister will visit the Fidel Castro Centre and the Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, and lay a wreath at the Jos Mart Memorial. The Prime Minister will also meet with the Cambodian students, who are currently living and studying in the Republic of Cuba. AKP-C.Nika

See the rest here:
Cambodian PM begins official visit to Cuba - Khmer Times

JERUSALEM, Sept. 20 (Xinhua) -- An Israeli-led study has found a way to prevent melanoma cancer from metastasizing to the brain, Tel Aviv University (TAU) in central Israel said on Tuesday.

In the study, published in the journal JCI Insight, TAU researchers and their colleagues from the United States and Portugal deciphered the mechanism that enables melanoma to spread to the brain and managed to delay the spread by 60 to 80 percent using existing treatments.

Up to 90 percent of advanced-stage melanoma patients develop brain metastases despite the blood-brain barrier that protects the brain. Such a phenomenon baffles researchers, but the TAU-led study said it offered an answer to the problem.

They found that the cancer cells can hijack a group of cells called astrocytes, which are located in the spinal cord and brain, to create local inflammation that increases the permeability through the blood-brain barrier.

Using an antibody, a synthetic molecule, and genetic engineering in lab models, the team was able to change the interaction process between the cancer cells and astrocytes and thus inhibited the spread of metastases.

Both the antibody and the molecule used by the team are primarily intended to treat sclerosis, diabetes, liver fibrosis, and cardiovascular diseases, as well as serve as a biomarker for other cancer types.

Therefore, these treatments are considered safe, and may be repurposed for melanoma, the researchers concluded.

Melanoma is the most serious type of skin cancer. When diagnosed and treated quickly, melanoma is usually curable. However, it becomes very difficult to cure and can even be fatal once it has spread deeper into the skin or other parts of the body.

Excerpt from:
Researchers develop method to prevent spread of melanoma to brain - Xinhua

Sneezing, runny nose, itchy eyes and throat, maybe even difficulty breathing. It happens all year round and is worse when I'm at home...especially when I'm near my cat. I didn't use to notice it so much but over the past few months it has become worse. What should I do?

Well, if this applies to you, the first thing you need to do is: make an appointment to see an allergy specialist.

Where does the allergy come from?

About nine per cent of adults in Europe are sensitised to animal hair and fur and the figure increases to 27 per cent if the person suffers from some type of respiratory allergy according to a book on allergic illnesses written by the Spanish Allergology and Clinical Immunology Society and published by the BBVA Foundation.

"Contrary to what most people think, the fur itself is not the cause of the allergy. It is caused by proteins found in the saliva, urine and flakes of the animal's skin which disperse into the atmosphere. These are responsible for symptoms such as rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma, rashes and even anaphylaxis," Manuel De Las Heras Gonzalo, an allergy specialist at the Jimnez Daz Foundation explains.

The hypoallergenic myth

So could hypoallergenic breeds be the answer for someone suffering from this problem?

"That is a commercial myth more than anything else because to create breeds like that we would have to resort to genetic engineering to eliminate the protein that causes the allergy from the animal's DNA," says Nacho Sierra, a psychologist who specialises in animal behaviour. However, as a guideline, he says that "animals with short hair have fewer elements for the protein to travel in a volatile way, just like those with woolly or curly hair like water dogs. With those types, the possibility of an allergic reaction is reduced".

Four out of ten homes in Spain have a pet

Dogs and cats, the most habitual domestic pets in households - there are five million dogs and three million cats in Spanish homes - are a common cause of respiratory allergic illness, and it is something which appears to be increasing all over the world.

"Obviously, the more pets there are in a home - 40 per cent households in Spain have one - the greater the exposure to them and therefore the higher the probability of developing an allergy," explains Manuel Lzaro of the College of Veterinary Surgeons in Madrid.

He also points out, however, that a review of recently published articles suggests that early exposure to cats and dogs is likely to protect against developing an allergy to them later in life.

Blood test

How is an allergy to household pets diagnosed by a specialist?

"The same way as with other types of allergy; there are different methods such as skin tests or determining the IgE antibodies in the patient's blood compared with the allergens of the animals who could be causing the problem," says lvaro Amo Vzquez de la Torre, an allergy specialist at the Clnica Amo Salud and member of Top Doctors.

Hygiene measures or immunotherapy?

"If it turns out that I am allergic to my pet, do I have to get rid of it?"

Well, the most effective option is not to have an animal, obviously, but if you want to keep it - bearing in mind the emotional factor involved - strict hygiene measures should be taken such as giving the pet regular baths, not letting it sleep in your bedroom, or installing air purifiers with Hepa filters, Vzquez de la Torre recommends.

"You could also have an anti-allergy vaccination. These last for three to five years and what they do is teach the immune system that the allergen in the animals is not harmful, so it does not provoke an allergic response (which would be an erroneous response)," he says.

This specialist does not recommend changing to a different type of pet, because if someone is sensitised to one species it is quite likely that they will end up sensitised to others as well.

"Although there would be no problem with changing to reptiles, amphibians or fishes," he says.

Immunotherapy with animal allergens should be considered for allergic people where exposure to animals is inevitable.

Topical products can also be a solution - those applied to surfaces of the body - for pets. "By reducing skin flaking and compacting it to stop it becoming so volatile, they can be a lot of help in avoiding allergens," Manuel Lzaro says.

Hypersensitivity to birds

There are 22 million pets in Spain. Apart from dogs and cats, do other animals cause allergies?

"Yes, there are allergies to birds which can cause respiratory problems and, to a lesser extent, to amphibians or reptiles like iguanas and lizards, but those cases are more exceptional," says Vzquez de la Torre.

Rodents and horses can be a problem too, in some cases, as Manuel Lzaro points out.

Read the original:
I'm allergic to the cat, what can I do? - Surinenglish.com

When it comes to regulating genetically engineered crops, the process is far from streamlined.

A new study published in Science and led by North Carolina State University suggests the current system for regulating the safety of the crops lacks consistency and, therefore, scientific merit.

Genetically engineered crops are created using technology that allows scientists to tweak crops at the genetic level, altering the plants DNA. This process is often used to create crops with more desirable qualities such as drought or pest resistance, increased size or flavor of fruits or vegetables and larger overall yields.

According to the study, the process of regulating engineered crops varies wildly across the world. Some regions, such as the European Union, regulate all varieties of crops produced through genetic engineering technology known as CRISPR. Other governments base the decision of what crops need to be regulated based on the size and amount of genetic changes made, as well as where the added genetic material originates from.

But Fred Gould, co-director of NC States Genetic Engineering and Society Center and the corresponding author of the article, says that, in this case, size doesnt always matter.

The approaches used right now, which differ among governments, lack scientific rigor, he said in the study. The size of the change made to a product and the origin of the DNA have little relationship with the results of that change; changing one base pair of DNA in a crop with 2.5 billion base pairs, like corn, can make a substantial difference.

Instead, he argues, regulation should be based on the question: Does the new crop variety have unfamiliar characteristics?

In an effort to create a more effective framework for monitoring genetically modified crops, which continue to grow in prominence, as well as avoid unnecessary safety testing, researchers propose taking an approach that takes a harder look at the final crops themselves, focusing less on the process in which the crops were created. For example, this new method uses what the researchers call the -omics approaches, meaning the crops are examined for new characteristics in a similar way biomedical techniques can use genomics to test for problematic mutations in human genomes.

The methodssuch as transcriptomics, proteomics, epigenomics and metabolomicscan test the plants and crops for changes in their molecular composition and compare that to the nature of a commercial variety of the same crop.

If the -omics testing concludes that the new engineered variety of the crop shows no troublesome differences from existing varieties of the crop and shows no markers of health or environmental risks, then there would be no need for safety testing. On the other hand, if the testing shows a potential red flag in new crop varieties, a safety test would be recommended.

The new approach would not add cost to the process, according to researchers, as most of the new crop varieties would not trigger safety testing.

In order to streamline the process and actually develop this new framework, Gould recommends creating an international committee composed of crop breeders, chemists and molecular biologists to establish the details, costs and options of the -omics testing approach. National and international governing bodies should sponsor these committees and workshops as well as innovative research to get the ball rolling and ensure that assessments are accessible and accurate, he said.

Original post:
Researchers Propose a New Way of Regulating Engineered Crops - Modern Farmer

On September 7, 2022, the United States Department of Agricultures Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) announced the completion of the first Regulatory Status Review (RSR) of a genetically engineered plant under the SECURE rule. APHIS concluded that a new genetically engineered tomato produced by Norfolk Plant Sciences is unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk compared to a conventional tomato, and is therefore not subject to regulation under the SECURE rule. This means that these tomato plants, which have been engineered to produce deep purple tomatoes with enhanced nutritional quality, may be legally imported, moved interstate, or released into the environment (including, for example, in a field trial) in the United States without a permit from APHIS.

Notably, this finding also means that subsequent genetic transformation events involving the same combination of plant species, trait, and mechanism of action (PTMOA) as Norfolk Plant Sciences purple tomatoes are also no longer regulated under the SECURE rule. Thus, other subspecies and varieties of Solanum lycopersicum that have been modified to produce the same trait by the same mechanism of actioneven if by different transgenic eventsare now exempt under 340.1(c) of the SECURE rule. More information on this so-called PTMOA exemption is available in APHISs Guide for Requesting a Confirmation of Exemption from Regulations under 7 CFR part 340 (published August 31, 2022; document ID BRS-GD-2020-0001). This approach is different from the event-by-event regulation that was previously required, and represents the first time that APHIS has made an RSR determination under its new rules.

Additional information about the contours of the SECURE rule and the genetic engineering that Norfolk Plant Sciences used to produce their purple tomato is provided below.

About the SECURE Rule

The SECURE rule (7 CFR part 340) governs how APHIS regulates certain organisms developed using genetic engineering, with the goal of protecting U.S. agriculture from plant pest risks under the Plant Protection Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). It replaced the previous version of 7 CFR part 340, which had been in place largely unchanged since APHISs biotechnology regulations were established in 1987, in phases between May 18, 2020 and October 1, 2021.

The new regulations completely overhauled and streamlined the regulatory process for assessing the plant pest risk of organisms developed using genetic engineering, taking into account advances in scientific understanding, and focusing more on the properties of the engineered organism and less on the method(s) used to produce it.

The revised regulations exempt certain types of modifications from regulation; such exemptions are self-determined, though developers may voluntarily request confirmation from APHIS that a given exemption applies. This exemption/confirmation process replaced the previous Am I Regulated? process on June 17, 2020, and APHIS has since issued 15 confirmation letters as of this writing, with the earliest in April 2021.

However, no plant had made it through the new RSR process until now. The RSR process is an option for instances in which no SECURE rule exemptions apply to a given engineered plant, but the developer feels that the plant nonetheless does not pose an increased plant pest risk and should therefore not be regulated by the SECURE rule. The RSR process replaced the previous petition process for requesting deregulation from 7 CFR part 340 due to low likelihood of posing a plant pest risk.

The RSR process became available for corn, soybean, cotton, potato, tomato, and alfalfa on April 5, 2021, and for all other plant species on October 1, 2021. APHIS received Norfolk Plant Sciences RSR request on August 4, 2021 and responded on September 6, 2022 (both the request and the response documents are available here, under RSR number 21-166-01rsr). As of this writing, Norfolk Plant Sciences tomato is the only RSR request publicly available on APHISs website.

Under the RSR process, APHIS reviews the biological properties of the plant; and the trait (or new characteristic); and the mechanism of action (or how the genetic modification causes the new trait to occur) in order to evaluate plant pest risk. There are two potential steps to this process, depending on what APHIS determines during the first step. In Step 1, APHIS identifies whether the engineered plant poses a plausible pathway to increased plant pest risk compared to a comparator plant. If APHIS finds no such pathway, the RSR process concludes, and APHIS notifies the requestor that the plant in question is not subject to regulation under the SECURE rule. This was the outcome for Norfolk Plant Sciences tomato.

On the other hand, if APHIS does determine that the engineered plant may plausibly pose an increased plant pest risk, there are several potential next steps. First, the developer may accept that the plant is regulated under the SECURE rule, and then either request a permit before moving or releasing the plant, or take no further action and not move or release the plant. Alternatively or additionally, the developer may request that APHIS proceed to Step 2 of the RSR process, which entails a more involved review, subsequent publication in the Federal Register, and solicitation and review of public comments before a final determination. As of this writing, no plant has gone through this second step of the RSR process.

About the Purple Tomato

As described in its RSR request, Norfolk Plant Sciences created its purple tomato plant by Agrobacterium-mediated insertional mutagenesis of the MicroTom tomato variety, and subsequent crossing into other tomato varieties. The plants are engineered to increase expression of their natural anthocyanin pigments, which is what causes the fruits to have a deep purple color and also enhances their nutritional value.

Specifically, the inserted DNA contains two transcription factors from the snapdragon plant (Antirrhinum majus), which serve to activate production of the tomatos native anthocyanin biosynthesis pathway, causing increased anthocyanin production. Each of these two transcription factor genes, called Del and Ros1, is expressed from the T-DNA under a native tomato promotor that causes fruit-specific expression. The T-DNA also includes the nptII selectable marker with a promotor and terminator from Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which have a decades-long history of safe use and consumption.

Complete genome sequencing revealed that the T-DNA was inserted at a single site in chromosome 4, accompanied by several small deletions. Phenotypic evaluation of the transformed plants revealed that they grew effectively the same as non-transgenic tomatoes, except that they produce deep purple fruit with significantly higher anthocyanin content. Photos of the plants and fruit are available in the published RSR request.

APHIS considered the information disclosed in Norfolk Plant Sciences RSR request, alongside publicly available resources, and APHIS familiarity with tomato and knowledge of the trait, phenotype, and mechanism of action and did not identify any plausible pathway by which [the] modified tomato, or any of its sexually compatible relatives, would pose an increased plant pest risk relative to a comparator tomato (21-116-01 RSR Response, page 1). As such, APHIS concluded that these purple tomatoes are not subject to regulation under the SECURE rule.

Other Regulatory Agencies

It is important to note that deregulation from APHISs SECURE rule does not mean that the plant is wholly removed from U.S. federal regulatory oversight. For example, regulations implemented by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and/or other arms of USDA (such as Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) import and export regulations, and/or Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) labeling requirements) may still apply. Along those lines, Norfolk Plant Sciences RSR request states that Norfolk Plant Sciences submitted a food and feed safety and nutritional assessment of the Purple Tomato to FDA under the voluntary Biotechnology Notification Consultation program, which was received as BNF number 178. As of this writing, FDA has not yet published a completed consultation for Norfolk Plant Sciences purple tomato.

Conclusion

This regulatory review is an important milestone for regulation of genetically engineered plants in the United States. It is the first public test of the SECURE rules RSR process since its implementation more than a year ago, when it became one of the most scientifically progressive such review processes in the world, at least on paper. The deregulation of Norfolk Plant Sciences purple tomatoes shows that USDA-APHIS is embracing its new product-focused regulations. Although the review took more than a yearsignificantly longer than the 180 days promised by APHIS for Step 1the process will likely become more efficient as the agency and developers become more familiar and comfortable with the new system. It will be interesting to see how the exemption and review processes grow and possibly become more streamlined with additional use.

Read more from the original source:
Purple Tomato is first genetically engineered plant to be deregulated through USDA's new regulatory status review process - Lexology

Some of the major players operating in the genetically modified feed industry are DuPont, Dow, BASF, Bayer, Syngenta, and Monsanto.

SELBYVILLE, Del., Sept. 15, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- According to a new research report by Global Market Insights Inc., the genetically modified feed market is slated to surpass USD 135 billion by 2030.

Genetically Modified Feed Market (PRNewsfoto/Global Market Insights Inc.)

Constantly increasing food demand across the globe will accelerate the genetically modified feed industry trends. International affairs to aid poverty-stricken nations, along with developments in food solutions, will boost the demand for genetically modified feeds. For instance, according to FDA, GMO crops offer several benefits, mainly making food more affordable and accessible for consumers. The USAID works with partner nations to use genetic engineering for improving staple crops.

Request for a sample of this research report @ https://www.gminsights.com/request-sample/detail/5331

Government safety norms to use non-GMO crops may emerge as a major restraining factor. Nevertheless, continuous advancements and consumer demand for meat products may encourage growers to adopt GMO feeds for better food availability.

Growing awareness regarding stereotypes to push the demand for GMO vegetables

Based on source, the report classifies the genetically modified feed market into crops (canola, corn, cottonseed, soybean, alfalfa) and fruits & vegetables (potatoes, papaya, eggplant). The fruits & vegetables segment will depict substantial demand through 2030 due to the increasing penetration of GMO feeds in vegetable cultivation as a result of mounting consumer awareness and clarification of false misconceptions associated with GMO-based products, such as them being hazardous upon consumption. Moreover, GMO vegetables are extensively fed to equine and cattle because of their low cost and easy availability, which will further improve the market outlook.

Crumbles form segment to depict significant CAGR

The report identifies that genetically modified feed in crumbles form will showcase considerable demand through 2030. The segment growth is attributed to the ease in the digestion of these feeds by animals post-consumption at a global level. The GMO feed market size from crumbles form was more than 60 million tons in 2021 and is expected to surpass 80 million tons by the end of the forecast period.

Story continues

High nutrition and reasonable cost to accelerate concentrates feed type market expansion

Concentrates will account for a significant revenue share in the genetically modified feed market by 2030 owing to their quality of providing nutrients that forage lacks. Also, they have proven themselves to be highly economical as compared to any other feed type. As a result of its cost-effectiveness, consumers, especially in the dairy industry, opt for concentrates feed type that allows them to increase the nutrient content of milk at a reasonable rate, thereby boosting its sales.

Browse key industry insights spread across 400 pages with 387 market data tables & 8 figures & charts from the report, "Genetically Modified Feed Market Size By Type (Crop, Fruits & Vegetables), Form (Pellets, Crumble, Mash, Meal/cake), Feed Type(Roughages and Concentrates), End use (Poultry, Swine, Cattle, Aquaculture, Pet Foods, Equine), Industry Analysis Report, Regional Outlook, Traits Potential, Covid-19 Impact Analysis, Price Trend, Competitive Market 2022- 2030" in detail along with the table of contents:

https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/genetically-modified-feed-market

Increasing demand for dairy products to push cattle application segment demand

The market size from cattle application will exceed USD 28 billion in revenue by 2030. The growing consumer inclination towards dairy products is attributed to the rich calcium content for infants and children for initial development, the dairy application will contribute heavily to the overall market expansion. In the western region, cattle are also a popular source of meat and are preferred largely in local cuisines, which has promoted cattle rearing demand. Moreover, the majority of cattle feed contains GMO crops as the base, driving the GMO feed market growth.

Europe to become a leading regional ground

Europe genetically modified feed market will be valued at over USD 23 billion by 2030. Consumer preference for animal-based sources of protein promotes animal rearing practices, generating feed demand. In addition, the presence of advanced feed manufacturers in the region will further accelerate the market progress.

Latin America genetically modified feed market is broadly spread across countries such as Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina. The region supports foreign direct investments as well as certain trade policies that are favorable for feed manufacturing industries and advancements in the agricultural sector. As per the report, the LATAM GMO feed market size will exhibit considerable growth through 2030.

Request for customization of this research report @ https://www.gminsights.com/roc/5331

Acquisitions to remain a pivotal growth strategy

The competitive landscape of the genetically modified feed industry is inclusive of Dow, Bayer, BASF, Syngenta, DuPont, and Monsanto. These companies engage mainly in product innovation and strategic acquisitions & collaboration to strengthen their market position in the coming years.

About Global Market Insights

Global Market Insights Inc., headquartered in Delaware, U.S., is a global market research and consulting service provider, offering syndicated and custom research reports along with growth consulting services. Our business intelligence and industry research reports offer clients with penetrative insights and actionable market data specially designed and presented to aid strategic decision making. These exhaustive reports are designed via a proprietary research methodology and are available for key industries such as chemicals, advanced materials, technology, renewable energy, and biotechnology.

Contact Us:

Aashit TiwariCorporate Sales, USAGlobal Market Insights Inc.Toll Free: +1-888-689-0688USA: +1-302-846-7766Europe: +44-742-759-8484APAC: +65-3129-7718Email: sales@gminsights.com

Photo: https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/1899576/Genetically_Modified_Feed_Market.jpgLogo: https://mma.prnewswire.com/media/661916/GMI.jpg

Global Market Insights, Inc. Logo (PRNewsfoto/Global Market Insights, Inc.)

Cision

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/genetically-modified-feed-market-to-hit-135-billion-by-2030-says-global-market-insights-inc-301625055.html

SOURCE Global Market Insights Inc.

See original here:
Genetically Modified Feed Market to Hit $135 billion by 2030, says Global Market Insights Inc. - Yahoo Finance

They argue that genetically modified plants and animals can provide a miracle solution to two of the continents biggest problems: hunger and malaria.

Among the movement's champions is Bill Gates, one of the wealthiest men in the world and founder of the most influential charitable foundation in history. The documentary shows how the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has become one of the most important promoters of genetic engineering experiments in Africa.

Operating under the radar and ignoring critics, researchers are tinkering with the genetic make-up of crops like cassavas, as well as malaria-carrying mosquitoes.The EUs position is ambiguous: The bloc was originally skeptical about genetic engineering amid concerns about potential risks to health and the environment. But now it is collaborating with the Microsoft founder's foundation, carrying out experiments that would be prohibited in Europe.

Critics say that by financing genetic engineering experiments on the African continent, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is playing into the hands of large Western agricultural corporations.

The documentary lays bare the new world of philanthrocapitalism, where charity and profit are no longer mutually exclusive, where genetic engineering is sold as humanitarian hunger relief, and where public investments serve private interests.

Broadcasting Hours:

DW English

FRI 14.10.2022 01:15 UTCFRI 14.10.2022 04:15 UTCFRI 14.10.2022 18:15 UTCSAT 15.10.2022 12:15 UTCSAT 15.10.2022 15:15 UTCSUN 16.10.2022 19:15 UTCMON 17.10.2022 09:15 UTC

Lagos UTC +1 | Cape Town UTC +2 I Nairobi UTC +3Delhi UTC +5,5 I Bangkok UTC +7 | Hong Kong UTC +8London UTC +1 | Berlin UTC +2 | Moscow UTC +3San Francisco UTC -7 | Edmonton UTC -6 | New York UTC -4

DW Deutsch+

MON 17.10.2022 09:15 UTC

Vancouver UTC -7 | New York UTC -4 | Sao Paulo UTC -3

Follow this link:
Africa, GMOs and Western Interests - DW (English)

We havent seen Matthew Fox in a TV series since Lost ended in 2010. Now, Fox has returned as the protagonist of Last Light, a show developed from Alex Scarrows novel of the same name. Last Light is now streaming on Peacock. Minor spoilers below.

The story opens on chemist Andy Yeats played by Fox as hes called away to handle an oil emergency just before his son is set to undergo experimental eye surgery. Yeats arrives at the refinery site where he discovers something is wrong with the oil. At the same time, the world is pockmarked by blackouts. Its soon revealed that the worlds oil supplies have been corrupted as part of a coordinated attack.

The world immediately falls into a state of progressive chaos. With supply chain issues, climate change, and the ongoing transition to alternative renewable fuel sources, we cant help but wonder what might actually happen of the oil supply chains were severed.

In the show, the effects of oil supply disruption are felt right away. Planes fall out of the sky and ships flounder in the water. Its clear, whatever the source of the attack, it isnt happening only at the source. All of the worlds oil is contaminated, even the oil youre currently using. Where that to happen, wed all know pretty quickly. Its hard to power almost anything these days without a working supply of oil, for better or for worse.

Electric vehicles would keep working, but probably only as long as their batteries lasted. Thats because power plants largely use fossil fuels to generate power. Even those which dont are pretty reliant on the rest of the global supply chain, which would break down if oil were immediately withheld.

The good news is that likely wouldnt happen. If the worlds oil deposits suddenly dried up today, wed be in trouble, but wed have at least some cushion. Although, not much of one. At present, its estimated that the United States has something like 700 million barrels of oil stockpiled in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a series of underground caves in Texas and Louisiana.

The bad news is the United States oil consumption sits at around 20 million barrels per day. At current consumption levels, wed tap out our strategic reserves in a little over a month. Of course, most of that would probably be routed to strategic destinations and most of us would experience severe oil rations in an attempt to extend the reserves lifespan.

Countries around the world have similar stockpile programs which could stem the bleeding in the event of a supply breakdown. The fact remains, however, that wed have to find a solution quickly or risk the machinery which keeps our society functioning shutting down.

Unless we take concerted steps toward transitioning to a more diverse energy profile, even a best-case scenario would cause our societies to stumble once global oil supplies are cut off.

Its unlikely. Most oil is held in deposits underground and discretely separated from other oil reserves. Any intentional attack would require a level of coordination never before seen. The antagonists of such a story would need to introduce a contaminant at every reserve all at the same time. Manually introducing a contaminant that would render oil unusable probably isnt feasible. Unless, of course, its an act of nature.

Nature is very good at exploiting resources and by tapping into underground oil deposits we have exposed vast stores of material that are definitionally highly energetic. Theyd make an ample food supply for the right organism.

In the show, Yeats learns early on that the characteristics of the oil samples arent right. Among other things, the viscosity is out of normal ranges. Importantly, the viscosity of oil is important to its proper functioning as either a lubricant or a propellant. If you could introduce an organism that somehow changes the properties of the oil, its possible that organism could spread across the globe and impact the entire supply. Although, getting the timing right would be a challenge.

Theres some evidence this sort of strategy might actually work. A study published in the journal Energy Sourcesinvestigated the results of introducing various microorganisms including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Bacillus subtilis, and Klebsiella spp to crude oil. After introduction, scientists measured the viscosity of the intentionally contaminated oil compared to a control sample.

After only three minutes, the viscosity of the crude oil was reduced by more than 50 percent. In the wake of genetic engineering, one can imagine a situation in which an organism is engineered to chew through oil wherever it is found, changing it so substantially that it becomes unusable. Once it came into contact with oil anywhere, whether in the ground or in your car, it might be able to multiply rapidly, on timescales shorter than what it takes to run your errands.

An uncontrolled organism would be incredibly difficult to get our arms around quickly enough to prevent the worst effects. Theres no single point of failure, its a war wed have to fight on all fronts, perhaps through the engineering of another organism to prey on or outcompete the threat.

Of course, the likelihood of any of this occurring is slim, better suited for the screen than the streets. Still, it might be worth putting a little extra emphasis on transitioning away from fuels susceptible to biological attack.

It's a fan thing

Join SYFY Insider to get access to exclusive videos and interviews, breaking news, sweepstakes, and more!

Sign Up for Free

See more here:
The science behind the oil supply breakdown in 'Last Light' - Syfy

Around 2,000 BC about the time the Egyptian pharaoh Mentuhotep was forming the Middle Kingdom a woolly mammoth died on a remote island in what is now Siberia.

This was no ordinary mammoth, however: this was the very last mammoth to ever live. With its death, the species would descend the irreversible River Styx of extinction, never again to be seen outside of the underworld.

Or maybe not.

A team of scientists with the biotechnology company Colossal, founded in part by Harvard geneticist George Church and backed by investors like the Winklevoss twins and actor Chris Hemsworth, now claim that they can resurrect the woolly mammoth, bringing the giants back to the tundra for the first time in 4,000 years.

The mammoth isnt alone, either. Colossal has also announced plans to revive the thylacine, an extinct Australian carnivore and other scientists are attempting to bring back species like the passenger pigeon, a once-legendary North American bird, in a process some are calling de-extinction.

Proponents claim that de-extinction can restore long-lost species to their rightful and important places in the ecosystem, and maybe undo some of the harm extinction has inflicted on the natural world.

But sceptics of de-extinction question what kind of animals this technology might really create and whether species resurrection could create new problems for the worlds still-living wildlife.

Im not convinced its a good idea, de-extinction, Tom Gilbert, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Copenhagen, tells The Independent.

But Im very fascinated by, at least, what could be done.

In Jurassic Park, scientists sequenced dinosaur DNA gathered from long-dead mosquitos, using that reconstructed genetic code to hatch a Tyrannosaurus rex.

There are some plot holes in that version of de-extinction mainly that DNA breaks down pretty quickly, so theres not much to sequence from 65-million-year-old fossils.

With something like a woolly mammoth, however, that concept is somewhat less far-fetched. Since mammoths lived relatively recently and in the cold, frozen north some specimens have been preserved, buried underground in the depths of the tundra, keeping parts of the species DNA intact.

As a result, scientists can sequence a good amount, if not all, of the mammoths genome. Colossal CEO Ben Lamm tells The Independent that the company expects to have about 90 per cent of the woolly mammoths genome.

The company plans to use cells from living Asian Elephants, the mammoths closest living relative, as a base template to try and recreate some of the mammoths quintessential traits, like shaggy hair and small ears, Mr Lamm says.

Turning a cell into a mammoth would require a lot more than just editing some genes, however youd need to turn that cell into a living, breathing, multi-tonne animal. So Mr Lamm says that the companys scientists are researching everything from stem cells and cellular engineering to embryo development and animal husbandry.

But why create a mammoth in the first place? One reason, according to the company, is the climate crisis.

Permafrost (permanently frozen ground) in the far northern tundra contains a ton of carbon. But as the world warms up from all the carbon that humans have dumped into the atmosphere, that permafrost is melting potentially releasing even more carbon into the atmosphere and creating a dangerous warming feedback loop.

Colossal says that if mammoths were re-introduced to the landscape, all their trampling could transform the tundra from forests and wetlands to grasslands. Since grasslands are lighter-coloured than forests and wetlands, the theory is that the ground would absorb less sunlight helping to keep the permafrost cold and all that stored carbon buried underground.

Colossal also has plans to resurrect the thylacine, also known as the Tasmanian tiger, an extinct carnivore seen here in captivity around 1930

(Getty Images)

Ecological restoration is also the goal for Revive and Restore, a non-profit organization aiming to bring back the passenger pigeon, a North American bird hunted to extinction in the early 20th century.

The passenger pigeon was the chief ecosystem engineer of eastern North American woodlands, Ben Novak, Revive and Restores lead scientist, tells The Independent.

The group says that the passenger pigeon which once congregated in flocks of hundreds of thousands of birds, dominating eastern North American landscapes in deafening and endless hordes used to disturb forests enough that they needed to regrow over time. In every stage of that regrowth were niches for wildlife like insects, mammals and other birds.

There are a lot of steps that need to go right for these plans to work. For one, these scientists would need to successfully create a viable, healthy animal that resembles a passenger pigeon or a mammoth using gene editing and cloning. Then, theyd need to successfully release enough of them into the wild and the animals would have to act as expected to get the ecological benefits the teams are hoping for.

But there are more conceptual questions about de-extinction, too. Since scientists will likely never fully sequence the mammoths genome parts of it will likely be forever lost to history these animals may never be exact replicas of the ancient beasts, no matter how well the gene editing and cloning might go.

Mr Lamm acknowledges that the company isnt trying to create duplicates of extinct animals. Were not cloning mammoths, were not creating exact copies of mammoths or exact copies of thylacines, he says. Instead, he says, theyre creating functional mammoths animals that will occupy the same ecological space that mammoths once did.

Success depends on your definition of de-extinction, Dr Gilbert says.

If your definition is to make a hairy elephant and keep it in a zoo, and thats what youre doing, and thats what you do, thats a success, right? Dr Gilbert says. But thats not the same as making a fully functional mammoth.

Dr Gilbert says that for him, the most interesting part of de-extinction is the research its based on. By taking elephant cells and trying to create a mammoth, the scientists are essentially trying to turn one animal into another animal, he notes itself a wild concept.

Some de-extinction projects arent even using genetic engineering at all. A project in South Africa, for example, is trying to recreate the quagga a type of zebra hunted to oblivion in the 19th century by selectively breeding other zebras to create an animal that looks like the quagga.

If it looks like a passenger pigeon, behaves like a passenger pigeon, you know its a passenger pigeon, Mr Novak says, referencing the old saw about ducks.

The passenger pigeon used to gather in massive flocks, dominating the North American skies before being hunted to extinction

(Getty Images)

But, of course, there are 300 types of ducks in the world. And geese look like ducks, and theyre not ducks, Mr Novak adds. We know theres subtlety to that, we will always know that the new passenger pigeons are not the original passenger pigeons.

Yet from an ecological perspective, that distinction doesnt matter, he says.

If it functions and does well in the ecosystem, Im happy to say that weve recreated the passenger pigeon, Mr Novak says.

Dr Gilbert also points out that if the public believes extinct species can simply be resurrected, that could create problems for currently endangered but not yet extinct species.

Suppose some mining company wanted to dig up a huge section of the Amazon rainforest, he suggests. Companies are often barred from ripping apart an ecosystem like that because people understand that many species will go extinct if we destroy their habitats, he adds.

If people think we can flip a switch and bring animals back from the dead, they might be less motivated by these concerns, Dr Gilbert surmises.

That could be especially true if people dont understand that de-extinction at least in its current form is massively time- and money-intensive and has yet to be truly successful for any singular species, let alone the thousands of species you might lose by cutting down the rainforest.

Mr Lamm said this was more of an education problem. He also notes that some of Colossals research including on things like in vitro fertilization and disease treatments in elephants could be applied to modern-day animals.

And the same argument about public perception could be made for animals kept in captivity, Mr Novak argues. Its literally the most negligible concern over all this, he says.

In another sense, Mr Novak says, that argument is just the continuation of the challenge wildlife conservationists have been facing for decades.

De-extinction is the extension of something that conservation has been doing for nearly 200 years, he says.

In ecosystems around the world, conservationists have restored long-lost wildlife to the ecosystem like wolves in Yellowstone National Park or beavers in Europe. The only difference is that none of these species had been entirely extinct and whether we can make that leap remains to be seen.

For me, its always been a conservation-, ecological restoration-driven discipline, he says. And will remain that way the rest of my life.

More here:
Inside the controversial plan to bring extinct animals back from the dead - The Independent