"GENE DRIVE" TECHNOLOGY IS UNCONTROLLABLE GMO MUTANT FRENZY

'Gene drive': Scientists sound alarm over supercharged GM organisms which could spread in the wild and cause environmental disasters
Steve Connor Science Editor Sunday 02 August 2015

A powerful new technique for generating “supercharged” genetically modified organisms that can spread rapidly in the wild has caused alarm among scientists who fear that it may be misused, accidentally or deliberately, and cause a health emergency or environmental disaster.
The development of so-called “gene drive” technology promises to revolutionise medicine and agriculture because it can in theory stop the spread of mosquito-borne illnesses, such as malaria and yellow fever, as well as eliminate crop pests and invasive species such as rats and cane toads.
However, scientists at the forefront of the development believe that in the wrong hands gene-drive technology poses a serious threat to the environment and human health if accidentally or deliberately released from a laboratory without adequate safeguards. Some believe it could even be used as a terrorist bio-weapon directed against people or livestock because gene drives – which enable GM genes to spread rapidly like a viral infection within a population – will eventually be easy and cheap to generate.
“Just as gene drives can make mosquitoes unfit for hosting and spreading the malaria parasite, they could conceivably be designed with gene drives carrying cargo for delivering lethal bacterial toxins to humans,” said David Gurwitz, a geneticist at Tel Aviv University in Israel.
A group of senior geneticists have called for international safeguards to apply to researchers who want to develop gene drives, with strict security measures placed on laboratories to prevent the accidental escape of “supercharged” GM organisms that are able to spread rapidly in the wild.
“They have tremendous potential to address global problems in health, agriculture and conservation but their capacity to alter wild populations outside the laboratory demands caution,” the scientists say.
The researchers have drawn up a minimum set of safety rules to protect against laboratory escapes and have called for a public debate on the potential benefits as well as risks of a technology that allows geneticists to rapidly accelerate the inheritance of GM traits throughout an animal population within just a few generations.
Researchers have likened gene-drive technology to a nuclear chain reaction because it allows GM genes to be amplified within a breeding population of insects or other animals without any further intervention once the trait has been initially introduced. This is the case even if the trait is non-beneficial to the organism.
Laboratory experiments on fruit flies have shown that a modified gene introduced into one individual fly can take just a few generations to “infect” practically every other fly in the breeding population, in defiance of the normal rules of genetics which dictate a far slower spread.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Esfeldt, a gene-drive expert at the Wyss Institute at Harvard Medical School in Boston, said the technology was developed theoretically about 10 years ago but it has only been made possible in the lab in the past two years with the discovery of the sophisticated gene-editing tool Crispr/Cas9.

Dr Esfeldt explained that gene drives relied on a “cassette” of genetic elements that allowed a genetically modified gene to jump from one chromosome to another within the same individual so that eventually all of the sperm or eggs of the animal carried the GM trait, rather than half. This means that virtually none of the offspring is eventually free of an introduced GM trait.

Gene drives could benefit human health by altering insect populations that spread human diseases, such as mosquitoes that transmit malaria, dengue, chikungunya and Lyme disease, so that they were no longer a threat, he said.

Debate still rages over genetically modified food after nearly 20 years (Getty)

They could also be used to reverse the mutations that make crop pests resistant to agricultural pesticides, or they might be used to spread genetic traits within a population of an invasive species to help kill it off, such as making the skin of cane toads introduced into Australia non-toxic to indigenous predators.

“If we’re right about this, it’s a powerful advance that could make the world a much better place, but only if we use it wisely,” Dr Esfeldt said.

However, some scientists fear that the ease with which gene drives can be generated will make them a target for any malign individual or organisation with access to modern laboratory equipment.

Dr Gurwitz said the precise instructions for making gene drives should be classified, just like the technology for making nuclear weapons. However, Dr Esfeldt and the other 26 scientists who have written to Science disagreed, arguing that complete openness and transparency was the best defence against the use of gene drives as a bio-weapon because classifying the information would be technically ineffective and politically counterproductive.

Source:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-sound-alarm-over-supercharged-gm-organisms-which-could-spread-in-the-wild-and-cause-environmental-disasters-10434010.html

GMO RoundUP AUGUST 3, 2015

Center for Research on Globalization

Monsanto Herbicide in GMO Crops is Carcinogenic: World Health Organization's ...

Center for Research on Globalization

- ‎1 hour ago‎

While the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is not a regulatory agency, their release of a full report on glyphosate's ability to cause cancer is making waves throughout the world.

 

Stuff.co.nz

Protest over plans to end regions right to be GMO free

Stuff.co.nz

- ‎20 hours ago‎

But some believe this is now threatened by a draft regulation which would end councils' right to ban GMO trees from their patch.

 

U.S. News & World Report

Don't Stop States From Passing GMO Labeling Laws

U.S. News & World Report

- ‎Jul 30, 2015‎

In politics you often hear people call for "states' rights" as a way to justify certain positions. This argument sounds like recourse to a high Constitutional principle, but really, it's anything but that.

 

 

Genetic Literacy Project

Will Hollywood anti-GMO/pro-labeling activists Lena Dunham and Gwyneth Paltrow ...

Genetic Literacy Project

- ‎2 hours ago‎

Many anti-GMO advocates fight for labeling based on the opinion that labeling is not about food safety: rather it is about their “right to know”.

 

Bill could gut GMO ordinance, group says

Ashland Daily Tidings

- ‎Jul 23, 2015‎

A summary of HB 1599, known as the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, on the congressional website reads, “This bill preempts state and local restrictions on GMOs or GMO food and labeling requirements for GMOs, GMO food, non-GMO food, ...

 

Poughkeepsie Journal

Pesticide resistance, potentially greatest risk of GMO use

Poughkeepsie Journal

- ‎Jul 30, 2015‎

What are the potential health and environmental impacts of so many genetically engineered organisms in our food supply?

 

 

GMOs: Where Does Science Begin and Lobbying End?

CounterPunch

- ‎Jul 31, 2015‎

Just ask Arpad Pusztai, P. M. Bhargava, Judy Carman, Terje Traavik, Andrés Carrasco, Ignacio Chapela, Allison Snow, Marc Lappé, Britt Bailey, Bela Darvas, and G. E. Seralini. These scientists have all either been threatened, smeared, or hindered in ...

 

Brager: Scientists may be sure of GMOs' safety, but I'm not

Roanoke Times

- ‎12 hours ago‎

Many other studies contend that while volume of herbicide may have been reduced, the actual toxicity of the herbicides used may have been higher than that used in the past (see Forbes July 2, 2013, article "GMO Crops Mean More Herbicide, Not Less").

 

Why Nigeria Must Never Accept GMOs, By Expert

AllAfrica.com

- ‎Aug 1, 2015‎

Abuja - An international environmentalist and agriculturist, Dr. Vandana Shiva, has raised the alarm over proposed introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) into Nigeria and other African countries, with the signing of the Biosafety law, ...

 

Panel targets pesticides, GMOs

Thegardenisland.com

- ‎Aug 1, 2015‎

The event, organized by the local anti-GMO movement, included talks from Judy Carman, director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Adelaide, Australia, and Stephanie Seneff, senior research scientist at MIT's computer science and ...

 

Center for Research on Globalization

Vandana Shiva: 'We Must End Monsanto's Colonization, Its Enslavement of Farmers'

Center for Research on Globalization

- ‎Jul 28, 2015‎

Citizens of the U.S. are being denied the right to know what they are feeding their families. Despite the fact that 90 percent of American citizens want GMO labeling on their food, big business is doing everything it can to prevent people from ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

KEEP STATES RIGHTS AND UPHOLD GMO LABELING LAWS

Don't Leave GMOs in the Dark

There's no reason to prevent states from passing GMO labeling laws.

Yes, let it happen.

By David Brodwin July 30, 2015 | 2:00 p.m. EDT + More

In politics you often hear people call for "states' rights" as a way to justify certain positions. This argument sounds like recourse to a high Constitutional principle, but really, it's anything but that. Regardless of the issue, both liberals and conservatives respect states' rights when they don't have enough power to win in Washington. And both sides conveniently forget about states' rights when they can prevail at the federal level. It's just a flag of convenience.
For example, Southern conservatives waved the banner of states' rights when they fought the civil rights battles of the 1960s and beyond. And liberals implicitly wave the states' rights banner when fighting over state or local regulations (like minimum wage or engine emissions or marriage equality) where they lack sufficient power to win at the federal level.
Allowing states to set their own higher (or lower) standards makes sense in many cases. It respects the will of the voters, which may vary from state to state. And it lets the U.S. run a 50 state experiment to see what does work and what doesn't work. Then, after the experiment has run its course, we can federalize the approaches that work the best.
[READ: Are GMOs Really That Harmful to Eat?]
But sometimes it's important to allow the federal government to overrule individual state policies, a doctrine called "federal preemption." If there is an overriding moral principle at stake, it may not be just to allow a few states to ignore it. And if complying with a patchwork of individual requirements is prohibitively expensive it may be necessary to find some way to set common standards.
The cost argument gets overplayed though: For example, in California you can't buy certain kinds of chain saws because the small gas engines that power them emit too much pollution for California air quality standards. But alternatives have emerged. California doesn't seem to be suffering for lack of stinky two-stroke engines.
Right now this contest between state and federal power is playing out in regard to labeling of foods containing Genetically Modified Organisms or GMOs.


The use of GMOs is controversial. There is debate in the scientific community as to whether the consumption of GMO foods hurts people directly. But there is no denying that GMOs result in vastly more herbicide (such as Roundup, a top weed killer) being dumped on food crops, and that glyphosphate (the active ingredient in Roundup) probably causes cancer in the quantities used. Other Roundup ingredients are suspect as well.
[READ: GMOs – From a Farmer’s Perspective]
Those who oppose GMOs don't have the upper hand in Congress and so they are not proposing an outright ban. Instead, they seek to establish a uniform labeling system so that food producers clearly identify whether their products have GMOs or not. Labeling is very popular among American consumers: In multiple polls conducted over the years by many different firms, about 90 percent of Americans consistently support mandatory labeling.
Mandatory labeling initiatives are in play in many states, and have passed in three (Maine, Vermont and Connecticut). But Big Ag (including Monsanto, which makes Roundup and Roundup-ready seed) is spending heavily to block these efforts as they come up. For example, in Oregon, companies spent over $18 million in opposition, while supporters spent about half that. The bill lost by three-tenths of 1 percent. Three years ago, California voters defeated Prop 37, a mandatory GMO labeling bill, by a narrow 3 percent margin after more than $44 million was spent by industry to oppose it.
[SEE: Political Cartoons on the Economy]
Right now, the House and Senate are listening to Big Ag rather than to American consumers. The House recently passed a bill that gives the appearance of supporting GMO disclosure while doing the opposite. The bill, H.R. 1599, carries a brilliantly deceptive name that would make George Orwell proud. Called the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014" the bill would reinforce the current voluntary disclosure system but would prohibit individual states and counties from enacting more stringent legislation. Not to be outmaneuvered in the naming department, the detractors have branded this bill the "DARK Act" as in "Deny Americans the Right to Know" or "Keep Americans in the DARK".
The real reason for the act has nothing to do with Constitutional principle or the practical cost of compliance. It doesn't cost much to phase in a new label with the words "Contains GMO food" or "No GMOs inside." The real reason for the act is that Big Ag is afraid that if consumers know what's in the food, they won't buy it. So let's run the experiment and find out. If a state requires GMO labeling, then consumers will be able to choose. Those consumers who want to pay more for GMO-free food will have that option. Those consumers who want to pay as little as possible and don't care about GMO's will have that option. Isn't that the way markets are supposed to work?
After a few years we'll have enough information to know whether state-level GMO labeling laws help the economy or hurt it. And we'll know whether GMO labeling helps or hurts public health. Then we can make a sound decision about whether to require labeling at a national level.

Source:  http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/07/30/dont-stop-states-from-passing-gmo-labeling-laws

NANOTECH HERBICIDE COCKTAIL "MIRACLES" JUST DON'T WORK

Scientists say supposedly miraculous ingredients in weedkillers don't work

Companies are promoting nanotech adjuvant products as a miracle cure for herbicide-resistant weeds

EXCERPT: An adjuvant called ChemXcel, from a Minnesota-based company called C&R Enterprises, claims to "kill herbicide-resistant weeds" when mixed with common herbicides like glyphosate. It works its magic through "patented, proprietary nano-drivers" that "alter the glyphosate chemistry" by "coating the individual DNA gene-sequencing molecules internally," the company claims. — Scientists say supposedly miraculous ingredients in weed killers don't actually work By Tom Philpott Mother Jones, 29 July 2015 http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/07/are-farmers-using-nanotech-fight-superweeds [excerpts only; links to sources at URL above] Before pesticides go from the laboratory to the farm field, they have to first be vetted by the Environmental Protection Agency. But they're commonly mixed—sometimes by the pesticide manufacturers, sometimes by the farmers themselves—with substances called adjuvants that boost their effectiveness (to spread more evenly on a plant's leaf in the case of insecticides, or to penetrate a plant's outer layer, allowing herbicides to effectively kill weeds). Despite their ubiquity, adjuvants aren't vetted by the EPA at all; they're considered "inert" ingredients. I first wrote about them last year, when adjuvants mixed with fungicides came under suspicion of triggering a large bee die-off during California's almond bloom. Recently, an eye-popping article by Purdue weed scientists in the trade journal Ag Professional brought them to my attention again. The piece illustrates the unregulated, Wild West nature of these additives. In the article, the authors note that two companies are hotly promoting adjuvant products as a kind of miracle cure for the ever-increasing scourge of herbicide-resistant weeds. That's a bold claim, given that resistant weeds now plague more than 60 million acres of farmland. Odder still, both companies attribute their products' effectiveness to nanotechnology, a controversial, lightly regulated engineering tool that leverages the fact that when you break common substances into tiny particles, they behave in radically different ways than they do at normal sizes. Nanoparticles are so tiny, their size is measured in nanometers—a billionth of a meter. (A human hair is about 80,000 nanometers thick; nanoparticles typically measure in at less than 100 nanometers.) An adjuvant called ChemXcel, from a Minnesota-based company called C&R Enterprises, claims to "kill herbicide-resistant weeds" when mixed with common herbicides like glyphosate. It works its magic through "patented, proprietary nano-drivers" that "alter the glyphosate chemistry" by "coating the individual DNA gene-sequencing molecules internally," the company claims. Then there's NanoRevolution 2.0, marketed by a company called Max Systems. When goosed with a bit of NanoRevolution 2.0, the company states, "the herbicide 'piggybacks' onto the nano particles as they penetrate the leaf structure, carrying the herbicide directly to the root system for a faster enhanced plant absorption of herbicides even on hard-to-control weeds." Taken aback by the claims and the use of nanotech, I contacted the EPA to see what, if anything, the agency had to say. "While we are not familiar with those particular products, EPA has jurisdiction over substances that meet the definition of pesticides, that is, claims are made for them that they kill, repel, prevent, or otherwise control pests," an Environmental Protection Agency spokesperson wrote in an email. "As long as pesticide adjuvant products don’t make pesticidal claims, they are not pesticides and the components of adjuvants are therefore not pesticide ingredients (either active or inert)"—and thus not subject to EPA vetting. Manufacturers aren't even required to list ingredients in adjuvants…. Purdue weed scientist Bill Johnson, who co-authored the Ag Professional piece, says he and his team found that neither of these "nano" products work as advertised. "I began getting calls about reports that these things were being pushed in northern Indiana, and I thought, we need to prove or disprove the claims." So he and colleagues tested the products on a weed patch known to be glyphosate resistant, mixing them with glyphosate at levels recommended by the manufactures. The results, published in the trade journal Ag Professional, were underwhelming. On its own, Roundup (Monsanto's version of the glyphosate herbicide) killed just 13.8 percent of weeds. Mixed with ChemXcel, it killed 15 percent of weeds, while the called NanoRevolution 2.0/Roundup mix killed 18 percent of weeds. Johnson explained that herbicides are always mixed with adjuvants—they're typically needed to help the herbicide penetrate a weed's outer layer. But these particular ones perform no better or worse than conventional adjuvants on the market. But they don't come anywhere near to solving the herbicide-resistance problem, as the companies claim to do. C.J. Mannenga, co owner of C&R Enterprises, pushed back strongly on Johnson's assessment and challenged his results. "We know our product works," he said. "We've shown it in Georgia, we've shown in Ohio, we've shown it in Missouri, we've shown it in Iowa," he said. When we spoke Tuesday afternoon, Mannenga told me that he was in Osborne, Kansas, about to "meet with a major [agrichemical] distributor" who is "extremely interested in the product ... I'm going to do a demonstration to show them indeed it does work." While the product's information sheet doesn't list its active ingredients, he readily revealed it to me: "it's just carbon nanotubes." Carbon nanotubes  are one of the most controversial nanoparticles—often compared to asbestos for their ability to lodge into the lungs and cause trouble when they're breathed in. This 2014 assessment by researchers at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell is hardly comforting: “Though ecosystem impacts remain understudied across the CNT [carbon nanotube] lifecycle, evidence suggests that some aquatic organisms may be at risk. While there have been significant advances in the regulation of CNTs in recent years, the lack of attention to the potential carcinogenic effects of these nanomaterials means that current efforts may provide a false sense of security.” Meanwhile, no one employed by NanoRevolution 2.0 maker Max Systems returned my request for comment. __________________________________________________________ Website: http://www.gmwatch.org Profiles: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GM_Watch:_Portal Twitter: http://twitter.com/GMWatch Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/GMWatch/276951472985?ref=nf