I've decided to put this blog on hold for a while. Other things need attention right now, and, while I've had a good number of page views for the amount of time that this blog has been online, I'm not really getting comments and email messages asking questions or wanting to discuss a particular subject more.
I will continue to check the email account that is attached to this blog ( nutrigenomicsandhumannutrition@gmail.com ), and if I hear from some of you, perhaps we will get it going again.
In case you don't know yet, the basis of this blog is Dr. Ray Kurzweil's prediction for the future of human nutrition and how reality is playing out in relation to the prediction. If you haven't read the prediction yet then scroll down to the Feb 1, 2012 posts and take a look.
According to Population Reference Bureau ( www.prb.org/Educators/TeachersGuides/HumanPopulation/PopulationGrowth.aspx ) the world today is made up of 1billion people in the developed countries (North America, Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) and 6 billion in the less developed countries including Asia and Africa. They also say that the population in the developed countries will remain at 1 billion all the way to 2050 when the total is expected to reach 9 billion. Therefore, all of the increase from 7 billion to 9 billion will be in the less developed countries where most of the hunger and starvation is today.
Because of this I have to believe that something along the lines of Dr. Kurzweil's prediction will happen as entrepreneurs take their high-tech solutions to the people who need it the most. From there it will spread to the rest of the world because of nutrition costs and competition in the world.
Because of this totally new paradigm I believe that traditional ag's days are numbered. China can't keep up with food demands today because of increasing population, and it will only get worse. There is no way traditional ag can keep up, especially with the current free enterprise, profit-oriented system (necessary in the current paradigm). Agriculture has never been challenged by the kind of paradigm that is rapidly developing today (computers, genetics, nanotechnology, robotics, medical science, nutrigenomics, etc.).
I believe that most of today's ag producers and supporters will follow the herd off the cliff and never know what drove them to do that because they have no interest in what is happening outside of their property and association. It's business as usual if you can believe the social media, and I believe you can.
So, where do you fit in the picture? What do you think about my comments? I'll be watching to see if you wish to have your views known.
Ray Stanford
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
Monsanto's Great Expectations (and Not-So-Great Results)
"With apologies to Charles Dickens, whose 200th birthday was this week, it's the best of times and the worst of times for Monsanto, the agribusiness giant that is aggressively marketing genetically engineered crops -- and millions of tons of pesticides -- worldwide.
It's the best of times because its stock is soaring. Sure, the St. Louis-based leviathan has been up before -- and down. In 2009, Forbes magazine proclaimed it company of the year. The next year its stock tanked, and Mad Money TV host Jim Cramer proclaimed it the worst of 2010. Now its up again, and last month Forbes was hyperventilating over the fact Monsanto has outperformed most high-tech stocks over the last five years.
But just like the plot in Dickens' Great Expectations, Forbes' rosy scenario is not the whole story.
You may vaguely remember the 19th century novel from high school English. According to a column in last Sunday's Washington Post, its main lesson is: 'You will never fully comprehend the most important events in your life while they are happening. Any plans you make will not work out -- and you may grow up to be a jerk. If you are lucky, however, a series of traumatic events will wake you up and show you how insufferable you have become.'
If you replace the book's protagonist Pip with Monsanto and look at the company through the prism of science instead of its stock profile, my tortured analogy makes sense. Despite more than 20 years of research and 15 years of marketing, Monsanto's great expectation that genetic engineering would dramatically increase food production and reduce pesticide use has been dashed. Unlike Pip, however, the company has not yet woken up to the fact that its products don't perform as advertised.
That's why it's also the worst of times.
Doug Gurian-Sherman, a molecular biologist with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), has spent quite a bit of time investigating Monsanto's track record. In April 2009, he published 'Failure to Yield,' the only comprehensive study to date that separates genetic engineering's contribution from other factors that can increase yields. After reviewing two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans -- the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops in the United States -- he found that genetically engineered traits in herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn have not increased yields, and insect-resistant traits have improved corn yields only marginally. The substantial increase in yields for both crops over the previous 13 years was largely due to traditional breeding and better agricultural practices, not genetically engineered traits.
More recently -- just a few days ago, in fact -- Gurian-Sherman and his colleagues in UCS's Food and Environment Program posted a web feature, 'Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture,' documenting how Monsanto has broadly failed to deliver on its promise to increase yields, safeguard the environment, and protect farmers' livelihoods over the long run. ---------------
Besides the fact that Monsanto's genetically engineered traits have failed to substantially increase yields, its heavy promotion of crops designed to be impervious to the company's RoundUp herbicide has inadvertently created resistant 'super' weeds, UCS experts report. That not only can make farming more difficult and costly, it forces farmers to use even more herbicides, which threatens the environment and public health.
UCS also found that Monsanto's focus on genetic engineering and chemical fixes thwarts research and development of cheaper, more effective solutions, including public sector classical crop breeding and environmentally friendly farming methods.
Given the unvarnished facts, how has Monsanto been able to convince anyone that it is, according to its latest PR effort, 'improving agriculture and improving lives'? In large part by spending tens of millions of dollars annually on advertising, lobbying and campaign contributions.
In the fall of 2008, Monsanto launched an advertising campaign that continues to this day. An outgrowth of the company's 'sustainable yield initiative,' it has targeted opinion leaders and federal policymakers with full-page ads in the Atlantic Monthly, New Yorker, New Republic and other elite publications, as well as with posters in subway stations, on bus shelters, and on the sides of metro buses here in Washington.
Last year, Monsanto spent $100 million on the ad campaign, down slightly from the $120 million it spent in 2010, according to Securities and Exchange Commission figures. The company also spent $6.37 million on lobbying--more than any other agricultural company or trade group--and so far has contributed more than $170,000 to political campaigns in the 2011-2012 election cycle, the third highest in the agricultural sector.
Monsanto's claims in earlier ads were more explicit than ones circulating now. For example, an ad on the New Yorker's back cover that ran the same week Gurian-Sherman released his 'Failure to Yield' report back in 2009 stated: 'Providing abundant and accessible food means putting the latest science-based tools in farmers' hands, including advanced hybrid and biotech seeds. Monsanto's advanced seeds not only significantly increase crop yields, they use fewer key resources -- like land and fuel -- to do it. That's a win-win for people, and the earth itself.'
The company's latest print ads, which all feature the headline 'Improving agriculture, improving lives,' are toned down by comparison. They insinuate that Monsanto is accomplishing something grand and noble instead of making demonstrably false claims. For example, one ad states: 'In the hands of farmers, better seeds can help protect resources and promote biodiversity.' Another one states: 'In the hands of farmers, better seeds can help meet the needs of our rapidly growing population, while protecting the earth's natural resources.' They all wrap up with: 'That's improving agriculture. That's improving lives. And that's what Monsanto is all about.'
The best response to Monsanto's misleading ad campaign? A well-worn quote from Great Expectations: 'Take nothing on its looks; take everything on evidence. There's no better rule.'
Elliott Negin is the director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists. For information on how to get involved with UCS's effort to set the record straight on Monsanto, click here.
Follow Elliott Negin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ElliottNegin"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/monsantos-great-expectati_b_1267494.html?ref=food
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
It's the best of times because its stock is soaring. Sure, the St. Louis-based leviathan has been up before -- and down. In 2009, Forbes magazine proclaimed it company of the year. The next year its stock tanked, and Mad Money TV host Jim Cramer proclaimed it the worst of 2010. Now its up again, and last month Forbes was hyperventilating over the fact Monsanto has outperformed most high-tech stocks over the last five years.
But just like the plot in Dickens' Great Expectations, Forbes' rosy scenario is not the whole story.
You may vaguely remember the 19th century novel from high school English. According to a column in last Sunday's Washington Post, its main lesson is: 'You will never fully comprehend the most important events in your life while they are happening. Any plans you make will not work out -- and you may grow up to be a jerk. If you are lucky, however, a series of traumatic events will wake you up and show you how insufferable you have become.'
If you replace the book's protagonist Pip with Monsanto and look at the company through the prism of science instead of its stock profile, my tortured analogy makes sense. Despite more than 20 years of research and 15 years of marketing, Monsanto's great expectation that genetic engineering would dramatically increase food production and reduce pesticide use has been dashed. Unlike Pip, however, the company has not yet woken up to the fact that its products don't perform as advertised.
That's why it's also the worst of times.
Doug Gurian-Sherman, a molecular biologist with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), has spent quite a bit of time investigating Monsanto's track record. In April 2009, he published 'Failure to Yield,' the only comprehensive study to date that separates genetic engineering's contribution from other factors that can increase yields. After reviewing two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans -- the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops in the United States -- he found that genetically engineered traits in herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn have not increased yields, and insect-resistant traits have improved corn yields only marginally. The substantial increase in yields for both crops over the previous 13 years was largely due to traditional breeding and better agricultural practices, not genetically engineered traits.
More recently -- just a few days ago, in fact -- Gurian-Sherman and his colleagues in UCS's Food and Environment Program posted a web feature, 'Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture,' documenting how Monsanto has broadly failed to deliver on its promise to increase yields, safeguard the environment, and protect farmers' livelihoods over the long run. ---------------
Besides the fact that Monsanto's genetically engineered traits have failed to substantially increase yields, its heavy promotion of crops designed to be impervious to the company's RoundUp herbicide has inadvertently created resistant 'super' weeds, UCS experts report. That not only can make farming more difficult and costly, it forces farmers to use even more herbicides, which threatens the environment and public health.
UCS also found that Monsanto's focus on genetic engineering and chemical fixes thwarts research and development of cheaper, more effective solutions, including public sector classical crop breeding and environmentally friendly farming methods.
Given the unvarnished facts, how has Monsanto been able to convince anyone that it is, according to its latest PR effort, 'improving agriculture and improving lives'? In large part by spending tens of millions of dollars annually on advertising, lobbying and campaign contributions.
In the fall of 2008, Monsanto launched an advertising campaign that continues to this day. An outgrowth of the company's 'sustainable yield initiative,' it has targeted opinion leaders and federal policymakers with full-page ads in the Atlantic Monthly, New Yorker, New Republic and other elite publications, as well as with posters in subway stations, on bus shelters, and on the sides of metro buses here in Washington.
Last year, Monsanto spent $100 million on the ad campaign, down slightly from the $120 million it spent in 2010, according to Securities and Exchange Commission figures. The company also spent $6.37 million on lobbying--more than any other agricultural company or trade group--and so far has contributed more than $170,000 to political campaigns in the 2011-2012 election cycle, the third highest in the agricultural sector.
Monsanto's claims in earlier ads were more explicit than ones circulating now. For example, an ad on the New Yorker's back cover that ran the same week Gurian-Sherman released his 'Failure to Yield' report back in 2009 stated: 'Providing abundant and accessible food means putting the latest science-based tools in farmers' hands, including advanced hybrid and biotech seeds. Monsanto's advanced seeds not only significantly increase crop yields, they use fewer key resources -- like land and fuel -- to do it. That's a win-win for people, and the earth itself.'
The company's latest print ads, which all feature the headline 'Improving agriculture, improving lives,' are toned down by comparison. They insinuate that Monsanto is accomplishing something grand and noble instead of making demonstrably false claims. For example, one ad states: 'In the hands of farmers, better seeds can help protect resources and promote biodiversity.' Another one states: 'In the hands of farmers, better seeds can help meet the needs of our rapidly growing population, while protecting the earth's natural resources.' They all wrap up with: 'That's improving agriculture. That's improving lives. And that's what Monsanto is all about.'
The best response to Monsanto's misleading ad campaign? A well-worn quote from Great Expectations: 'Take nothing on its looks; take everything on evidence. There's no better rule.'
Elliott Negin is the director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists. For information on how to get involved with UCS's effort to set the record straight on Monsanto, click here.
Follow Elliott Negin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ElliottNegin"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/monsantos-great-expectati_b_1267494.html?ref=food
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Groups Petition To Ban GE Salmon As An Unsafe Food Additive
"Consumer groups submitted a formal petition on Tuesday asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to classify and evaluate AquaBounty’s 'AquAdvantage' genetically engineered (GE) salmon and all of its components as a food additive. Currently FDA’s review process classifies the GE salmon as a new animal drug, which the petitioners find insufficient to protect public health. The groups, Center for Food Safety, Food & Water Watch, and Consumers Union say that the agency is required by law to review the GE salmon under a more rigorous process for food additives which offers greater protection. The AquAdvantage salmon would be the first GE animal meant for human consumption.
'The data FDA has on GE salmon, which were supplied by Aquabounty, are incomplete, biased, and cannot be relied upon to show that the GE salmon is safe to consume,' said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. 'Aquabounty’s own study showed that GE salmon may contain increased levels of IGF-1, a hormone that helps accelerate the growth of the transgenic fish and is linked to breast, colon, prostate, and lung cancer.'
The potential health risks of GE salmon, the groups warn, are no different from a number of food additives that FDA has banned in the past, including those that are cancer causing.
'FDA’s choice to allow the first proposed transgenic animal for food to somehow only be review as a drug is contrary to law, science and common sense,' said George Kimbrell, Senior Attorney for the Center for Food Safety. 'Public health and transparency should be championed, not skirted, particularly when contemplating such an unprecedented approval.'
In order to create the transgenic fish, Aquabounty genetically engineered an Atlantic salmon by inserting a Chinook salmon growth-hormone gene, as well as a gene sequence from an ocean pout. The company claims this engineering causes the GE salmon to undergo an increase in growth rate that allows the fish to reach market size in half the normal time.
Aquabounty has submitted an application to FDA for approval of the transgenic salmon under the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Members of the FDA’s own advisory committee have described the agency’s review of the GE salmon under this process as lacking in rigor.
The consumer groups’ petition asserts that the process used to create the GE salmon substantially alters its composition—including its nutrition value—and demand that the fish and its components be treated as a food additive pursuant to FDA’s guidelines. As a food additive, AquaBounty’s GE salmon would be considered unsafe for consumption unless the company’s data overwhelmingly proved otherwise.
'If FDA actually evaluated GE salmon as a food additive, including allergy-causing potential, they would not likely be able to approve it because of the health risks that have can already be seen in an incomplete set of data.' said Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist with Consumers Union.
The groups assert that a proper review process would require GE salmon to undergo comprehensive toxicological studies, specifically those developed to ensure that foods entering the market are safe to consume and are properly labeled."
Sources: Center for Food Safety Press Release, beyondpesticides.org
http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science-a-environmental/30776-groups-petition-to-ban-ge-salmon-as-an-unsafe-food-additive.html
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
'The data FDA has on GE salmon, which were supplied by Aquabounty, are incomplete, biased, and cannot be relied upon to show that the GE salmon is safe to consume,' said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. 'Aquabounty’s own study showed that GE salmon may contain increased levels of IGF-1, a hormone that helps accelerate the growth of the transgenic fish and is linked to breast, colon, prostate, and lung cancer.'
The potential health risks of GE salmon, the groups warn, are no different from a number of food additives that FDA has banned in the past, including those that are cancer causing.
'FDA’s choice to allow the first proposed transgenic animal for food to somehow only be review as a drug is contrary to law, science and common sense,' said George Kimbrell, Senior Attorney for the Center for Food Safety. 'Public health and transparency should be championed, not skirted, particularly when contemplating such an unprecedented approval.'
In order to create the transgenic fish, Aquabounty genetically engineered an Atlantic salmon by inserting a Chinook salmon growth-hormone gene, as well as a gene sequence from an ocean pout. The company claims this engineering causes the GE salmon to undergo an increase in growth rate that allows the fish to reach market size in half the normal time.
Aquabounty has submitted an application to FDA for approval of the transgenic salmon under the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Members of the FDA’s own advisory committee have described the agency’s review of the GE salmon under this process as lacking in rigor.
The consumer groups’ petition asserts that the process used to create the GE salmon substantially alters its composition—including its nutrition value—and demand that the fish and its components be treated as a food additive pursuant to FDA’s guidelines. As a food additive, AquaBounty’s GE salmon would be considered unsafe for consumption unless the company’s data overwhelmingly proved otherwise.
'If FDA actually evaluated GE salmon as a food additive, including allergy-causing potential, they would not likely be able to approve it because of the health risks that have can already be seen in an incomplete set of data.' said Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist with Consumers Union.
The groups assert that a proper review process would require GE salmon to undergo comprehensive toxicological studies, specifically those developed to ensure that foods entering the market are safe to consume and are properly labeled."
Sources: Center for Food Safety Press Release, beyondpesticides.org
http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science-a-environmental/30776-groups-petition-to-ban-ge-salmon-as-an-unsafe-food-additive.html
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Ohio State Genetics Expert Cautions About Direct-to-Consumer Tests
"COLUMBUS, Ohio – Amy Sturm, assistant professor of clinical internal medicine in the division of human genetics and certified genetic counselor at The Ohio State University Medical Center and Ohio State’s Center for Personalized Health Care, says personal genomic testing doesn’t give a complete picture of a person’s disease risk. Her case study has published in the Journal of Genetic Counseling.
Appearing in a special issue devoted to direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, 'Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing: A Case Study and Practical Recommendations for “Genomic Counseling,” ' is available online ahead of the April 2, 2012 print edition of the official journal of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC).
Sturm and her colleague Dr. Kandamurugu Manickam, a geneticist at Ohio State Medical Center and a member of its Center for Personalized Health Care, present a case study of a genomic counseling session with results atypical to assumptions of early adopters of DTC genetic testing. A major limitation of DTC testing is the incomplete view it gives consumers of their lifetime risks for common, complex diseases, as the vast majority of tests analyze only one or two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and do not examine medical or family histories necessary for risk assessment, according to Sturm.
'Based on our experience, we developed practical recommendations for genomic counseling including novel approaches to case preparation, utilization of technology during counseling sessions, and a major focus on genomics education. The knowledge regarding genomic testing we provide to our patients is crucial to their complete understanding and interpretation of results,' Sturm adds.
Sturm received NSGC’s 2011 Outstanding Volunteer Award in recognition for leadership, dedication and significant contributions to the organization. NSGC promotes professional interests of genetic counselors and provides networking and continuing education opportunities related to human genetics.
Contact: Sherri Kirk, Center for Personalized Health Care Public Relations, 614.366.3277, or Sherri.Kirk@osumc.edu "
http://www.healthcanal.com/genetics-birth-defects/26442-Ohio-State-Genetics-Expert-Cautions-About-Direct--Consumer-Tests.html
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Appearing in a special issue devoted to direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing, 'Direct-to-Consumer Personal Genomic Testing: A Case Study and Practical Recommendations for “Genomic Counseling,” ' is available online ahead of the April 2, 2012 print edition of the official journal of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC).
Sturm and her colleague Dr. Kandamurugu Manickam, a geneticist at Ohio State Medical Center and a member of its Center for Personalized Health Care, present a case study of a genomic counseling session with results atypical to assumptions of early adopters of DTC genetic testing. A major limitation of DTC testing is the incomplete view it gives consumers of their lifetime risks for common, complex diseases, as the vast majority of tests analyze only one or two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and do not examine medical or family histories necessary for risk assessment, according to Sturm.
'Based on our experience, we developed practical recommendations for genomic counseling including novel approaches to case preparation, utilization of technology during counseling sessions, and a major focus on genomics education. The knowledge regarding genomic testing we provide to our patients is crucial to their complete understanding and interpretation of results,' Sturm adds.
Sturm received NSGC’s 2011 Outstanding Volunteer Award in recognition for leadership, dedication and significant contributions to the organization. NSGC promotes professional interests of genetic counselors and provides networking and continuing education opportunities related to human genetics.
Contact: Sherri Kirk, Center for Personalized Health Care Public Relations, 614.366.3277, or Sherri.Kirk@osumc.edu "
http://www.healthcanal.com/genetics-birth-defects/26442-Ohio-State-Genetics-Expert-Cautions-About-Direct--Consumer-Tests.html
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Origin expects to grow China's first GMO corn in 2013
"Origin Agritech Ltd said it expects the Chinese government to approve its genetically modified organism (GMO) corn for production in 2013, China's first GMO strain in commercial production, its chairman Han Gengchen said on Friday.
China gave the phytase corn biosafety approval in November 2009 and at the time scientists had expected large-scale production could happen as early as 2012, but a complicated approval process for use as seed has delayed the expectation.
'We have bred the gene on local hybrid seeds which are popularly used and generate high yields. The safety approval process (for seed use) would be faster and likely be this year and we will start production next year,' Han told Reuters.
Once approved, the U.S-listed firm expects the acreage for its phytase corn to account for 10 percent of the country's total corn acreage within 10 years, said Han.
The Beijing-based company is working on the biosafety approval for the other two strains of GMO corn, the glyphosate tolerance and insect-resistant, and did not give any schedule as when these two can be approved by the government.
Phytase corn can help pigs digest more phosphorous, enhancing growth and reducing pollution from animal waste. China is the world's largest pig breeder and also the top consumer of pork.
GMO CORN FIRST
China, the world's second-largest corn consumer, planted about 33 million hectares of corn last year, but rising consumption from animal feed production in response to more meat demand as well as industrial use has exceeded the growth of its production.
China's rising needs could lead Beijing to give priority to corn for commercial production first before Bt rice, which Beijing also offered biosafety approval for in 2009, said Clive James, founder and chair of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
'What I hear is that they (the government) gives priority to corn... The government is very cognizant to the fact that corn imports increase yearly...if you want to antidote that, it must be commercialization,' he told Reuters.
China has turned into a net corn importer since 2010. The rise of imports of genetically-modified corn last year, all from the United States, for state reserves has sparked concerns that the country's imports could surge in future as it did for soybeans.
The expected commercial approval of biotech Golden Rice in the Philippines in 2013/14 will be of significance to China in commercial production of its own GMO rice, he said.
'China's agriculture trade deficit increased by 41 percent (last year)... which shows the need is increasing very fast, the speed of action in making decisions is crucial,' said James.
China ranks 6th worldwide in the area of biotech crops in 2011, with a record 3.9 million hectares of Bt cotton during the year at the highest adoption rate of 71.5 percent, according to ISAAA.
China is the world's largest importer of GMO soybean, with annual imports accounting for about 60 percent of global traded soybean."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/10/us-china-origin-idUSTRE8190JV20120210
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
China gave the phytase corn biosafety approval in November 2009 and at the time scientists had expected large-scale production could happen as early as 2012, but a complicated approval process for use as seed has delayed the expectation.
'We have bred the gene on local hybrid seeds which are popularly used and generate high yields. The safety approval process (for seed use) would be faster and likely be this year and we will start production next year,' Han told Reuters.
Once approved, the U.S-listed firm expects the acreage for its phytase corn to account for 10 percent of the country's total corn acreage within 10 years, said Han.
The Beijing-based company is working on the biosafety approval for the other two strains of GMO corn, the glyphosate tolerance and insect-resistant, and did not give any schedule as when these two can be approved by the government.
Phytase corn can help pigs digest more phosphorous, enhancing growth and reducing pollution from animal waste. China is the world's largest pig breeder and also the top consumer of pork.
GMO CORN FIRST
China, the world's second-largest corn consumer, planted about 33 million hectares of corn last year, but rising consumption from animal feed production in response to more meat demand as well as industrial use has exceeded the growth of its production.
China's rising needs could lead Beijing to give priority to corn for commercial production first before Bt rice, which Beijing also offered biosafety approval for in 2009, said Clive James, founder and chair of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
'What I hear is that they (the government) gives priority to corn... The government is very cognizant to the fact that corn imports increase yearly...if you want to antidote that, it must be commercialization,' he told Reuters.
China has turned into a net corn importer since 2010. The rise of imports of genetically-modified corn last year, all from the United States, for state reserves has sparked concerns that the country's imports could surge in future as it did for soybeans.
The expected commercial approval of biotech Golden Rice in the Philippines in 2013/14 will be of significance to China in commercial production of its own GMO rice, he said.
'China's agriculture trade deficit increased by 41 percent (last year)... which shows the need is increasing very fast, the speed of action in making decisions is crucial,' said James.
China ranks 6th worldwide in the area of biotech crops in 2011, with a record 3.9 million hectares of Bt cotton during the year at the highest adoption rate of 71.5 percent, according to ISAAA.
China is the world's largest importer of GMO soybean, with annual imports accounting for about 60 percent of global traded soybean."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/10/us-china-origin-idUSTRE8190JV20120210
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Biostatistics: Revealing analysis
"As the challenges of analysing genomic data evolve, statistical expertise has become more valuable than ever.
David Alexander's job didn't exist ten years ago. He works for Pacific Biosciences in Menlo Park, California, writing software that can analyse the data generated by DNA polymerase enzymes, which sequence DNA in real time. A decade ago, it took scientists weeks to sequence DNA, one base at a time, using a seemingly endless series of reactions. Back then, they also thought that they would be able to find the roots of major diseases just by identifying the common genetic variants shared by affected individuals.
Both the technology and the hypotheses have changed greatly since then. In the mid- to late-2000s, while Alexander was working towards his PhD, scientists were using genome-wide association studies (GWAS) — searching genomes for known genetic variants that are shared by people with a particular disease or trait. But by the time he graduated, last June, GWAS had mostly been superseded by techniques that sequence entire genomes. The machines designed to do this sequencing are pouring out huge amounts of data, thereby creating a huge need for mathematics and statistics experts. So Alexander, and many others working on statistical genetics, now have many more opportunities. 'Scientifically, there are much richer questions to ask, and there are still a lot of deep discoveries to be made; it's an interesting time,' he says. His career track reveals just how much opportunities in the field have changed.
Career variation
It was not for a lack of trying that GWAS didn't pan out. The completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 spurred major funders from around the world to invest millions of dollars to build an international haplotype map, a catalogue of all the common human variants at single bases, called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), to be used in GWAS. The SNP map should have helped researchers to identify genes that are associated with disease. But instead, it showed that SNPs don't account for much of the heritability of disease. --------------
Researchers now think that many rare variants play a part in causing disease, but rare variants are much harder to find than the common SNPs. As a result, statistical geneticists are now mining sequence data for directly causative mutations, rather than for SNPs. And geneticists are starting to combine data from different types of studies, using a method called integrative genomics — for instance, studying combinations of SNPs, the protein-coding genes surveyed in exome studies, epigenetic factors (heritable information not found in the DNA sequence), gene-expression factors and environmental interactions. 'This field has ballooned and changed to a ridiculous degree in the past ten years, because there have been multiple waves of technological revolution,' says Gilean McVean, a statistical geneticist at the University of Oxford, UK. 'As genomics becomes a much more integrated part of health care, things are going to change again and new opportunities will open up, so it's a good time to be a statistical geneticist.'
Bag of tricks
Statisticians will be kept busy for years by the problems raised by analysing these huge data sets. They will need to find the best ways to grapple with studies that combine multiple methods, each of which yield millions of data points. The challenge is to find true associations within the huge volumes of data without getting duped by the errors that tend to affect data sets of this magnitude, says Lucia Hindorff, an epidemiologist at the US National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in Bethesda, Maryland. 'The answers aren't straightforward,' she says. 'That's one of the reasons why statisticians have a lot of work to do.' And statistical geneticists are needed at universities, at genome centres and in industry alike.
However, a survey of statistical geneticists by a working group from US National Institutes of Health in Bethesda has suggested that trainers are having difficulty recruiting enough qualified trainees into their programmes. Alexander Wilson, head of genometrics at the NHGRI, who organized the survey, says that although the number of genetic variants available to be analysed has grown significantly since the 1980s, the number of people available to analyse them has remained relatively constant. According to Suzanne Leal, a genetic epidemiologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, many biologists eschew significant statistics training. And because only a handful of statistical geneticists are trained each year, 'these positions are difficult to fill', says Michael Boehnke of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. So, although job demand outstrips supply in many fields, the market remains promising for statistics specialists, not least because they can help funding agencies to make good on their research investments.
And unlike other fields, many academic jobs in statistical genetics require only a doctoral degree, so PhD holders don't tend to find themselves stuck on an extended treadmill of multiple postdoc positions. 'You're going to have many job opportunities; it's not like with other biological sciences where you do six or seven years of postdocs,' Leal says. 'You can do a two-year postdoc and then go on to a faculty position if you're any good.'
With the plummeting cost of equipment, sequencing is becoming more feasible for many labs. However, the analytical problems are becoming so complex and expensive that disease-focused centres are starting to create joint analysis positions with larger hubs of genome expertise.
'Biology is now a science in which large data sets are central, but bioinformatics and statistical genetics are getting to a point where there are many specialized roles — data handling, processing, quality control, interpreting — that cannot all be done well by one person,' says McVean. Analysts working on moving genomics technologies into health care at the University of Oxford's Biomedical Research Centre, for instance, are made honorary members of a bioinformatics and statistical genetics core at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics in Oxford, run by McVean. They have access to the pipelines for sequencing data as well as to bioinformatics and statistical genetics expertise, but are funded separately from the centre.
Although statisticians in these positions can expect to have their own students and develop new methods, the roles are more inherently collaborative than many academic jobs, says McVean. 'It's not the traditional academic route of going off to form your own little group and working in isolation, but rather going off to support diverse groups in a centre,' he says. He is preparing to recruit for similar positions at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research and the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, both in Oxford. Both institutions, says McVean, would find it difficult to amass the personnel needed for independent, dedicated bioinformatics support. -------------
Gilean McVean: 'This field has ballooned and changed to a ridiculous degree in the past ten years.'
Increased competition between new sequencing technologies — and companies hoping to make sense of the data — also means opportunities for computational and statistical experts in genetics in industry. Companies such as Pacific Biosciences, Illumina in San Diego, California, and Life Technologies in Carlsbad, California, are developing new methods for sequencing and need people who can come up with ways to analyse the new forms of data that will be produced.
Another track, which might be called clinical genomics, is relatively small, but growing. Companies in this field are developing ways to interpret individuals' genomic data for either medical or drug-discovery purposes, and are looking for individuals with a suite of talents. For instance, Omicia, based in the San Francisco Bay area of California, is developing a platform to help physicians and clinical labs to interpret genomic data. In just the past few months, it has hired three people: a Silicon Valley engineer who specializes in quick analyses of large data sets; an application engineer to help the company develop interfaces that are fast and easy for customers to use; and a medical researcher who has a bachelor's degree in genetics and hopes to attend medical school. Omicia's chief executive and co-founder, Martin Reese, says that the company is looking to hire more people in these specialities, especially analysts.
Rowan Chapman, a partner at Mohr Davidow, a venture-capital firm in Menlo Park that funds companies such as Pacific Biosciences, says that the firms are always looking for analysis experts. 'There's a massive amount of data being generated, particularly by next-generation sequencing platforms, and the cost of the analysis is now greater than the cost of the data generation,' she says. 'Finding the right people to analyse those data is a challenge.'
Strong background
Succeeding in statistical genetics requires a good grounding in both statistics and genetics, which can be gained through academic work as part of any doctoral programme that allows students to take classes in both disciplines. But two other skills are increasingly necessary: expertise in computer-programming languages designed to aid manipulation of large data sets, such as R, Perl or Python, and the ability to use these languages to analyse large amounts of data quickly. Expertise in distributed computing and writing code for various operating systems is particularly desirable.
Most researchers say that these skills can be gained through hands-on experience working with large data sets, or during doctoral or postdoctoral work on a specific project. And that work doesn't have to be in biology. Stefano Lise, an analyst recently hired by the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, did his undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral work in physics before switching to bioinformatics and next-generation sequencing; and McVean sees many recruits enter the field from banking and finance.
Yun Li: 'A typical genetic study nowadays will need to analyse millions of variants.'
Statistician Yun Li joined the faculty of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill after earning her doctoral degree in biostatistics at the University of Michigan in 2009. In her undergraduate degree, Li had minored in computer science; she then earned a master's in statistics before starting her doctorate. While working on her PhD, Li developed data-analysis methods for the 1000 Genomes Project, a multinational study in which more than 1,000 individuals' genomes are being sequenced. She says that the hands-on experience working with what she calls 'dirty' data — raw data whose characteristics and limitations have not been fully explored by researchers — has been invaluable in her current position.
'A typical genetic study nowadays will need to analyse millions or tens of millions of variants in tens of thousands of individuals,' says Li, who is now developing ways to work with large data sets and applying these and other methods to disease-focused studies. 'This entails skills both to identify problems — which is important because many issues are typically not defined for data from cutting-edge research — and to solve problems.'
Whether trainees are interested in an academic or industrial job, it is computer-science skills that will help them to secure it. By far the most successful candidates are those who can not only write software, but also work with distributed computing systems, and computer operating systems such as Linux and Unix, say those in the field. 'The more you understand software and computer science, the better off you are; writing software is 90% of what we're doing,' says Alexander.
For a field that is likely to continue its rapid change, the only sure thing is that data sets will continue to get bigger, and those who know how to handle them will be in high demand."
http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7384-263a
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
David Alexander's job didn't exist ten years ago. He works for Pacific Biosciences in Menlo Park, California, writing software that can analyse the data generated by DNA polymerase enzymes, which sequence DNA in real time. A decade ago, it took scientists weeks to sequence DNA, one base at a time, using a seemingly endless series of reactions. Back then, they also thought that they would be able to find the roots of major diseases just by identifying the common genetic variants shared by affected individuals.
Both the technology and the hypotheses have changed greatly since then. In the mid- to late-2000s, while Alexander was working towards his PhD, scientists were using genome-wide association studies (GWAS) — searching genomes for known genetic variants that are shared by people with a particular disease or trait. But by the time he graduated, last June, GWAS had mostly been superseded by techniques that sequence entire genomes. The machines designed to do this sequencing are pouring out huge amounts of data, thereby creating a huge need for mathematics and statistics experts. So Alexander, and many others working on statistical genetics, now have many more opportunities. 'Scientifically, there are much richer questions to ask, and there are still a lot of deep discoveries to be made; it's an interesting time,' he says. His career track reveals just how much opportunities in the field have changed.
Career variation
It was not for a lack of trying that GWAS didn't pan out. The completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003 spurred major funders from around the world to invest millions of dollars to build an international haplotype map, a catalogue of all the common human variants at single bases, called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), to be used in GWAS. The SNP map should have helped researchers to identify genes that are associated with disease. But instead, it showed that SNPs don't account for much of the heritability of disease. --------------
Researchers now think that many rare variants play a part in causing disease, but rare variants are much harder to find than the common SNPs. As a result, statistical geneticists are now mining sequence data for directly causative mutations, rather than for SNPs. And geneticists are starting to combine data from different types of studies, using a method called integrative genomics — for instance, studying combinations of SNPs, the protein-coding genes surveyed in exome studies, epigenetic factors (heritable information not found in the DNA sequence), gene-expression factors and environmental interactions. 'This field has ballooned and changed to a ridiculous degree in the past ten years, because there have been multiple waves of technological revolution,' says Gilean McVean, a statistical geneticist at the University of Oxford, UK. 'As genomics becomes a much more integrated part of health care, things are going to change again and new opportunities will open up, so it's a good time to be a statistical geneticist.'
Bag of tricks
Statisticians will be kept busy for years by the problems raised by analysing these huge data sets. They will need to find the best ways to grapple with studies that combine multiple methods, each of which yield millions of data points. The challenge is to find true associations within the huge volumes of data without getting duped by the errors that tend to affect data sets of this magnitude, says Lucia Hindorff, an epidemiologist at the US National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in Bethesda, Maryland. 'The answers aren't straightforward,' she says. 'That's one of the reasons why statisticians have a lot of work to do.' And statistical geneticists are needed at universities, at genome centres and in industry alike.
However, a survey of statistical geneticists by a working group from US National Institutes of Health in Bethesda has suggested that trainers are having difficulty recruiting enough qualified trainees into their programmes. Alexander Wilson, head of genometrics at the NHGRI, who organized the survey, says that although the number of genetic variants available to be analysed has grown significantly since the 1980s, the number of people available to analyse them has remained relatively constant. According to Suzanne Leal, a genetic epidemiologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, many biologists eschew significant statistics training. And because only a handful of statistical geneticists are trained each year, 'these positions are difficult to fill', says Michael Boehnke of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. So, although job demand outstrips supply in many fields, the market remains promising for statistics specialists, not least because they can help funding agencies to make good on their research investments.
And unlike other fields, many academic jobs in statistical genetics require only a doctoral degree, so PhD holders don't tend to find themselves stuck on an extended treadmill of multiple postdoc positions. 'You're going to have many job opportunities; it's not like with other biological sciences where you do six or seven years of postdocs,' Leal says. 'You can do a two-year postdoc and then go on to a faculty position if you're any good.'
With the plummeting cost of equipment, sequencing is becoming more feasible for many labs. However, the analytical problems are becoming so complex and expensive that disease-focused centres are starting to create joint analysis positions with larger hubs of genome expertise.
'Biology is now a science in which large data sets are central, but bioinformatics and statistical genetics are getting to a point where there are many specialized roles — data handling, processing, quality control, interpreting — that cannot all be done well by one person,' says McVean. Analysts working on moving genomics technologies into health care at the University of Oxford's Biomedical Research Centre, for instance, are made honorary members of a bioinformatics and statistical genetics core at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics in Oxford, run by McVean. They have access to the pipelines for sequencing data as well as to bioinformatics and statistical genetics expertise, but are funded separately from the centre.
Although statisticians in these positions can expect to have their own students and develop new methods, the roles are more inherently collaborative than many academic jobs, says McVean. 'It's not the traditional academic route of going off to form your own little group and working in isolation, but rather going off to support diverse groups in a centre,' he says. He is preparing to recruit for similar positions at the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research and the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, both in Oxford. Both institutions, says McVean, would find it difficult to amass the personnel needed for independent, dedicated bioinformatics support. -------------
Gilean McVean: 'This field has ballooned and changed to a ridiculous degree in the past ten years.'
Increased competition between new sequencing technologies — and companies hoping to make sense of the data — also means opportunities for computational and statistical experts in genetics in industry. Companies such as Pacific Biosciences, Illumina in San Diego, California, and Life Technologies in Carlsbad, California, are developing new methods for sequencing and need people who can come up with ways to analyse the new forms of data that will be produced.
Another track, which might be called clinical genomics, is relatively small, but growing. Companies in this field are developing ways to interpret individuals' genomic data for either medical or drug-discovery purposes, and are looking for individuals with a suite of talents. For instance, Omicia, based in the San Francisco Bay area of California, is developing a platform to help physicians and clinical labs to interpret genomic data. In just the past few months, it has hired three people: a Silicon Valley engineer who specializes in quick analyses of large data sets; an application engineer to help the company develop interfaces that are fast and easy for customers to use; and a medical researcher who has a bachelor's degree in genetics and hopes to attend medical school. Omicia's chief executive and co-founder, Martin Reese, says that the company is looking to hire more people in these specialities, especially analysts.
Rowan Chapman, a partner at Mohr Davidow, a venture-capital firm in Menlo Park that funds companies such as Pacific Biosciences, says that the firms are always looking for analysis experts. 'There's a massive amount of data being generated, particularly by next-generation sequencing platforms, and the cost of the analysis is now greater than the cost of the data generation,' she says. 'Finding the right people to analyse those data is a challenge.'
Strong background
Succeeding in statistical genetics requires a good grounding in both statistics and genetics, which can be gained through academic work as part of any doctoral programme that allows students to take classes in both disciplines. But two other skills are increasingly necessary: expertise in computer-programming languages designed to aid manipulation of large data sets, such as R, Perl or Python, and the ability to use these languages to analyse large amounts of data quickly. Expertise in distributed computing and writing code for various operating systems is particularly desirable.
Most researchers say that these skills can be gained through hands-on experience working with large data sets, or during doctoral or postdoctoral work on a specific project. And that work doesn't have to be in biology. Stefano Lise, an analyst recently hired by the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, did his undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral work in physics before switching to bioinformatics and next-generation sequencing; and McVean sees many recruits enter the field from banking and finance.
Yun Li: 'A typical genetic study nowadays will need to analyse millions of variants.'
Statistician Yun Li joined the faculty of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill after earning her doctoral degree in biostatistics at the University of Michigan in 2009. In her undergraduate degree, Li had minored in computer science; she then earned a master's in statistics before starting her doctorate. While working on her PhD, Li developed data-analysis methods for the 1000 Genomes Project, a multinational study in which more than 1,000 individuals' genomes are being sequenced. She says that the hands-on experience working with what she calls 'dirty' data — raw data whose characteristics and limitations have not been fully explored by researchers — has been invaluable in her current position.
'A typical genetic study nowadays will need to analyse millions or tens of millions of variants in tens of thousands of individuals,' says Li, who is now developing ways to work with large data sets and applying these and other methods to disease-focused studies. 'This entails skills both to identify problems — which is important because many issues are typically not defined for data from cutting-edge research — and to solve problems.'
Whether trainees are interested in an academic or industrial job, it is computer-science skills that will help them to secure it. By far the most successful candidates are those who can not only write software, but also work with distributed computing systems, and computer operating systems such as Linux and Unix, say those in the field. 'The more you understand software and computer science, the better off you are; writing software is 90% of what we're doing,' says Alexander.
For a field that is likely to continue its rapid change, the only sure thing is that data sets will continue to get bigger, and those who know how to handle them will be in high demand."
http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/science/articles/10.1038/nj7384-263a
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Metagenics' One-of-a-Kind PhytoMulti(TM) Supplement Now Available with Iron
"Metagenics, Inc., a nutrigenomics and lifestyle medicine company focused on improving health, today released PhytoMulti(TM) with Iron, an enhanced modification that adds iron to the original PhytoMulti supplement. PhytoMulti is known as the 'Smart Multi' for its ability to target cellular health by nourishing cells, recharging cellular communication and defending against free radical damage. The PhytoMulti with Iron supplement supports Metagenics' 2012 'Year of You' campaign providing simple, healthy resolutions and nutritional protocols to improve health.
'PhytoMulti with Iron delivers the same tested cellular support and health benefits found in the original PhytoMulti supplement with the addition of iron, a mineral necessary for proper blood cell function that helps protect against chronic diseases like anemia and fatigue,' said Joseph Lamb, M.D., Director of Intramural Clinical Research for Metagenics. 'Like PhytoMulti, PhytoMulti with Iron is the only professional brand daily supplement that undergoes an unparalleled, sophisticated level of scientific validation. Now, people who need the added benefits of supplemental iron can receive the recommended dose from PhytoMulti with Iron.'
PhytoMulti with Iron is particularly beneficial for women from 18 to peri-menopause who need to consume additional iron in their diet, as well as individuals that may not receive enough iron in their normal diets, such as vegetarians.
PhytoMulti and PhytoMulti with Iron are specifically designed to activate health potential with a science-based combination of phytonutrients, vitamins and minerals. An independent laboratory evaluated PhytoMulti's proprietary blend and the entire combination of active ingredients with the new total functional oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORACFN) assay that measures against five major free radicals. Unlike a conventional ORAC, which tests against only one radical, this expanded in vitro assay provides a better sense of antioxidant protection against a variety of potentially damaging free radicals and other reactive oxygen species. An analysis of PhytoMulti's active ingredients (equivalent to the contents in one tablet) showed a total ORACFN value of 12,600 trolox, demonstrating exceptional antioxidant capacity.*
The potential of the phytonutrient blend to help maintain DNA stability was validated using the COMET assay, a complex in vitro test using human immune cells. This assay demonstrated a 52% increase in DNA stability when cells pretreated with the phytonutrient blend were compared to control cells introduced to the same oxidative medium (peroxides).*
PhytoMulti with Iron contains a combination of plant extracts with complex phytonutrients and additional phytonutrients that were selected for their targeted support for cellular health and function, as well as for their positive influence in multiple pathways and health systems. In addition to iron and the phytonutrient blend, PhytoMulti with Iron also delivers a concentrated daily dose of:
1) Clinically effective levels of select plant bioactives--resveratrol, lutein, zeaxanthin and lycopene--to support health of the eyes, liver, heart, and more*
2) An optimized blend of essential minerals and vitamins, including vitamin forms designed for greater bioavailability: vitamin D3, L-5-methyltetrahydrofolate (folate) and methylcobalamin (B12)
In the 'Year of You' program, PhytoMulti with Iron is an option to complement a variety of personalized protocols to promote wellness and vitality. The goal of this year-long program is to introduce patients to science-based products that support long-term health. Other featured components include the Identi-T(TM) stress management protocols and the Wellness Essentials(R) line of daily packet products that provide a personalized combination of Metagenics formulas, including PhytoMulti and PhytoMulti with Iron.*
For additional information please visit www.metagenics.com or call 1-800-692-9400.
About Metagenics, Inc.
Metagenics, Inc. ( www.metagenics.com ) is a nutrigenomics and lifestyle medicine company focused on improving health. Founded in 1983, Metagenics serves more than 75,000 healthcare providers worldwide through premium quality, science-based medical foods, nutritional formulas, and lifestyle therapy programs to help their patients achieve a lifetime of good health. Metagenics' scientific staff--among the largest in the nutrigenomics industry--has published more than 80 articles in peer-reviewed journals and has been awarded more than 50 international or domestic patents. The company's educational arm, Metagenics University, collaborates with renowned medical experts to annually deliver more than 200 events designed to help healthcare professionals stay on the leading edge of lifestyle medicine and incorporate nutrition into their clinical practice.
Metagenics maintains its corporate headquarters in San Clemente, CA; R&D headquarters in Gig Harbor, WA; and operating subsidiaries in Brussels, Belgium and Brisbane, Australia.
*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food & Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, cure or prevent any disease.
SOURCE: Metagenics, Inc."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/metagenics-one-of-a-kind-phytomultitm-supplement-now-available-with-iron-2012-02-08
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
'PhytoMulti with Iron delivers the same tested cellular support and health benefits found in the original PhytoMulti supplement with the addition of iron, a mineral necessary for proper blood cell function that helps protect against chronic diseases like anemia and fatigue,' said Joseph Lamb, M.D., Director of Intramural Clinical Research for Metagenics. 'Like PhytoMulti, PhytoMulti with Iron is the only professional brand daily supplement that undergoes an unparalleled, sophisticated level of scientific validation. Now, people who need the added benefits of supplemental iron can receive the recommended dose from PhytoMulti with Iron.'
PhytoMulti with Iron is particularly beneficial for women from 18 to peri-menopause who need to consume additional iron in their diet, as well as individuals that may not receive enough iron in their normal diets, such as vegetarians.
PhytoMulti and PhytoMulti with Iron are specifically designed to activate health potential with a science-based combination of phytonutrients, vitamins and minerals. An independent laboratory evaluated PhytoMulti's proprietary blend and the entire combination of active ingredients with the new total functional oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORACFN) assay that measures against five major free radicals. Unlike a conventional ORAC, which tests against only one radical, this expanded in vitro assay provides a better sense of antioxidant protection against a variety of potentially damaging free radicals and other reactive oxygen species. An analysis of PhytoMulti's active ingredients (equivalent to the contents in one tablet) showed a total ORACFN value of 12,600 trolox, demonstrating exceptional antioxidant capacity.*
The potential of the phytonutrient blend to help maintain DNA stability was validated using the COMET assay, a complex in vitro test using human immune cells. This assay demonstrated a 52% increase in DNA stability when cells pretreated with the phytonutrient blend were compared to control cells introduced to the same oxidative medium (peroxides).*
PhytoMulti with Iron contains a combination of plant extracts with complex phytonutrients and additional phytonutrients that were selected for their targeted support for cellular health and function, as well as for their positive influence in multiple pathways and health systems. In addition to iron and the phytonutrient blend, PhytoMulti with Iron also delivers a concentrated daily dose of:
1) Clinically effective levels of select plant bioactives--resveratrol, lutein, zeaxanthin and lycopene--to support health of the eyes, liver, heart, and more*
2) An optimized blend of essential minerals and vitamins, including vitamin forms designed for greater bioavailability: vitamin D3, L-5-methyltetrahydrofolate (folate) and methylcobalamin (B12)
In the 'Year of You' program, PhytoMulti with Iron is an option to complement a variety of personalized protocols to promote wellness and vitality. The goal of this year-long program is to introduce patients to science-based products that support long-term health. Other featured components include the Identi-T(TM) stress management protocols and the Wellness Essentials(R) line of daily packet products that provide a personalized combination of Metagenics formulas, including PhytoMulti and PhytoMulti with Iron.*
For additional information please visit www.metagenics.com or call 1-800-692-9400.
About Metagenics, Inc.
Metagenics, Inc. ( www.metagenics.com ) is a nutrigenomics and lifestyle medicine company focused on improving health. Founded in 1983, Metagenics serves more than 75,000 healthcare providers worldwide through premium quality, science-based medical foods, nutritional formulas, and lifestyle therapy programs to help their patients achieve a lifetime of good health. Metagenics' scientific staff--among the largest in the nutrigenomics industry--has published more than 80 articles in peer-reviewed journals and has been awarded more than 50 international or domestic patents. The company's educational arm, Metagenics University, collaborates with renowned medical experts to annually deliver more than 200 events designed to help healthcare professionals stay on the leading edge of lifestyle medicine and incorporate nutrition into their clinical practice.
Metagenics maintains its corporate headquarters in San Clemente, CA; R&D headquarters in Gig Harbor, WA; and operating subsidiaries in Brussels, Belgium and Brisbane, Australia.
*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food & Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, cure or prevent any disease.
SOURCE: Metagenics, Inc."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/metagenics-one-of-a-kind-phytomultitm-supplement-now-available-with-iron-2012-02-08
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Why Bad Immunity Genes Survive
"Biologists have found new evidence of why mice, people and other vertebrate animals carry thousands of varieties of genes to make immune-system proteins named MHCs--even though some of those genes make vertebrate animals susceptible to infections and to autoimmune diseases.
'Major histocompatibility complex' (MHC) proteins are found on the surfaces of most cells in vertebrate animals. They distinguish proteins like themselves from foreign proteins, and trigger an immune response against these foreign invaders.
MHCs recognize invading germs, reject or accept transplanted organs and play a role in helping vertebrates smell compatible mates.
'Results of this study explain why there are so many versions of the MHC genes, and why the ones that cause susceptibility to diseases are being maintained and not eliminated,' says biologist Wayne Potts of the University of Utah.
'They are involved in a never-ending "arms race" that causes them, at any point in time, to be good against some infections but bad against other infections and autoimmune diseases.'
By allowing a disease virus to evolve rapidly in mice, Potts, Jason Kubinak and other University of Utah scientists produced new experimental evidence for the arms race between genes and germs--known technically as 'antagonistic co-evolution.'
The findings are published online this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
In addition to Potts and Kubinak, the paper's lead author, the paper's co-authors are James Ruff, Cornelius Whitney Hyzer, and Patricia Slev, all of the University of Utah. --------------------
Scientists have proposed three theories for why so many MHC gene variants exist in vertebrate animal populations (invertebrates don't have MHCs), and say all three likely are involved in maintaining the tremendous diversity of MHCs: ------------------
'The experiments demonstrate the first step in the antagonistic co-evolutionary dance between a virus and MHC genes,' Potts says.
The findings have important implications, say the scientists.
The use of antibiotics to boost productivity in dairy herds and other livestock is a major reason human diseases increasingly resist antibiotics. Selective breeding for more milk and beef has reduced genetic diversity in livestock, including their MHCs. So breeding more MHCs back into herds could enhance their resistance to disease and thus reduce the need for antibiotics.
Because their populations are diminished, endangered species have less genetic diversity, making them an easier target for germs. Potts says it would be desirable to breed protective MHCs back into endangered species to bolster their disease defenses.
Genetic variation of MHCs in people and other organisms is important for limiting the evolution and spread of emerging infectious diseases. In effect, the researchers created emerging diseases by making a virus evolve in mice. 'It's a model to identify what things change in viruses to make them more virulent,' says Potts, 'and thus emerging diseases.' "
(My note: This is an excellent article. Please use the link to read about the "theories" and a lot more.)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120208133029.htm
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
'Major histocompatibility complex' (MHC) proteins are found on the surfaces of most cells in vertebrate animals. They distinguish proteins like themselves from foreign proteins, and trigger an immune response against these foreign invaders.
MHCs recognize invading germs, reject or accept transplanted organs and play a role in helping vertebrates smell compatible mates.
'Results of this study explain why there are so many versions of the MHC genes, and why the ones that cause susceptibility to diseases are being maintained and not eliminated,' says biologist Wayne Potts of the University of Utah.
'They are involved in a never-ending "arms race" that causes them, at any point in time, to be good against some infections but bad against other infections and autoimmune diseases.'
By allowing a disease virus to evolve rapidly in mice, Potts, Jason Kubinak and other University of Utah scientists produced new experimental evidence for the arms race between genes and germs--known technically as 'antagonistic co-evolution.'
The findings are published online this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
In addition to Potts and Kubinak, the paper's lead author, the paper's co-authors are James Ruff, Cornelius Whitney Hyzer, and Patricia Slev, all of the University of Utah. --------------------
Scientists have proposed three theories for why so many MHC gene variants exist in vertebrate animal populations (invertebrates don't have MHCs), and say all three likely are involved in maintaining the tremendous diversity of MHCs: ------------------
'The experiments demonstrate the first step in the antagonistic co-evolutionary dance between a virus and MHC genes,' Potts says.
The findings have important implications, say the scientists.
The use of antibiotics to boost productivity in dairy herds and other livestock is a major reason human diseases increasingly resist antibiotics. Selective breeding for more milk and beef has reduced genetic diversity in livestock, including their MHCs. So breeding more MHCs back into herds could enhance their resistance to disease and thus reduce the need for antibiotics.
Because their populations are diminished, endangered species have less genetic diversity, making them an easier target for germs. Potts says it would be desirable to breed protective MHCs back into endangered species to bolster their disease defenses.
Genetic variation of MHCs in people and other organisms is important for limiting the evolution and spread of emerging infectious diseases. In effect, the researchers created emerging diseases by making a virus evolve in mice. 'It's a model to identify what things change in viruses to make them more virulent,' says Potts, 'and thus emerging diseases.' "
(My note: This is an excellent article. Please use the link to read about the "theories" and a lot more.)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120208133029.htm
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Nutrigenetics, Nutrigenomics and the Global Obesity Crisis
"Although nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics hold immense promise for the prevention of chronic disease and obesity, we are advised not to put away our running shoes. An expert in the field provided Decoded Science with her private opinion that '…a nutrigenomic "pill" instead of physical activity is a fantasy.'
Decoded Science recently interviewed Professor Maria Koziolkiewicz, PhD, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Services and lecturer on genetics and microbiology at the Technical University of Lodz (Poland). Professor Koziolkiewicz presented 'Nutrigenomics and Nutrigenetics – are they the keys for healthy nutrition?' at the conference on 'Food and nutrition in the 21st century,' in Warsaw, Poland, September 8-9, 2011.
Can Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics Resolve the Global Obesity Crisis?
Decoded Science asked Professor Koziolkiewicz for her opinion on this topic, and she responded:
'In my opinion, in the case of adult persons suffering from obesity, it is too late to apply results of nutrigenomic studies and to help them. We have to remember that nutrigenomic studies are in the preliminary step of their development and there is still a long way to go before dietary recommendations based on results of these studies will be elaborated. But I do hope that in the case of children or young people who will have their own children in the future, studies in nutrigenomics will give some positive effects.'
With regard to the day in which nutrigenetics will begin producing the 'personalized diet,' Decoded Science asked Professor Koziolkiewicz to comment on the role of functional nutrigenetics in maintaining a normal life span as the human race becomes ever more sedentary. Ms Koziolkiewicz expressed her views on the subject:
'I think that a development in the field of nutrigenomics will give at some point in [the] future a chance for some of the population of "sedentary human beings " to maintain [a] normal healthy life span. But because of genetic diversity, a lot of people will not [have] been “diagnosed" properly in terms of their nutritional requirements which will have to be fulfilled for “normal” life of these people. On the other hand, physical activity should be considered as a kind of therapy for many people, not only now but also in the future.'
Nutrigenetics and Obesity
Nutrigenetics focuses on genes and genetic variants of dietary requirements, many of which also are also biomarkers for chronic diseases. Science has found these genetic differences, referred to as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP’s), among ethnic groups and populations, as well as within individuals. Nutrigenetics seeks to match the diet to a person’s or a population group’s genetic makeup.
Even prior to the study of nutrigenetics, common sense dictated that nutritional requirements vary by age and sex. Dietary guidelines, or Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA’s), were developed based on the most recent scientific knowledge. However, the obesity epidemic brings their validity into question.
Significant progress has been made by the 'Mypyramid' program, in which the individual inputs additional data, such as activity levels, to determine his or her own optimal diet.
Nutrigenetics Can Clarify Conflicting Information on Diet
There is no question that nutrigenetics has the potential to send your RDA a massive step forward. Variations in genetic composition of individuals may account for the plethora of conflicting studies on specific nutrients that confuse the public. For example:
Is moderate alcohol consumption good for you or bad for you?
Is milk good for you or bad for you?
Is a vegetarian diet good for you or bad for you?
Nutrigenetics in Epidemiological Studies
Recently, Michael Fenech discussed the benefits of epidemiological studies including genetic variations in his article, “Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics: Viewpoints on the Current Status and Applications in Nutrition Research and Practice,” published in the Journal of Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics in July 2011. He explains that studies that do not take genetic variation into consideration may have conclusive results, only to be confounded later by conflicting evidence. Coffee is a good example. Fenech also states:
'Caffeinated-coffee was found to increase the risk of a heart attack among individuals who carry a version of a gene that makes them "slow" caffeine metabolisers, but has no effect among individuals who are "fast" caffeine metabolisers.'
Obesity Studies and the Nutrigenetic Diet
As of 2007, six hundred genes, chromosomes and genetic markers were identified as being linked to obesity or were found to be biomarkers for disease, and the number has continued to increase. This research offers fertile ground for nutrigenetic studies on obesity. Fenech’s 2011 review provides examples of two recent studies in obesity:
A personalized, calorie-based diet was developed that considered 24 variants in 19 genes that control metabolism. One-half of participants were given a calorie-restricted diet that took into account the genetic differences in each individual. The second group was given the same diet for all participants.
The group with the genetically-tailored diet lost more weight than the second group and had greater success in maintaining weight loss.
A second study mentioned by Fenech focused on the gene variant FTO (fat mass and obesity-related gene), which is a fairly common SNP. Children with the variant show greater propensity for obesity and type 2 diabetes. In this study, when presented with unlimited access to food, children with the FTO variant consumed more calories. Interestingly, increased physical activity counteracted the effect.
Nutrigenomics and Obesity
David M. Mutch, in his 2005 article 'Nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics: the emerging faces of nutrition,' Published in The Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, this article said that it was once believed that '…one gene leads to one protein leads to one metabolite.' Nutrigenomics studies the diverse effects of bioactive nutrients on the body as a whole. It explores how nutrients impact the genome, resulting in different phenotypes (bodily reactions) and leave a 'dietary signature' (Koziolkiewicz 2011). This process has several phases that have grown into corresponding new fields within nutrigenomics:
Transcriptomics: Tracks RNA, the molecule that transfers DNA to the part of the cells that manufacture protein. This information is ideal for the study of metabolic syndrome and inflammatory symptoms associated with obesity and chronic disease.
Proteinomics: Encompasses the study of the infinite variety of proteins manufactured; and is capable of detecting patterns that can identify biomarkers of risk for obesity related disorders.
Metabolomics: Considers all metabolites in a human cell or organ; is capable of generating large amounts of data at low cost that detects subtle differences in metabolism that contribute to obesity as well as fluctuations in weight.
Challenges Presented by Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics
Fenech ends his article with a note similar to Koziolkiewicz’s conclusion to her presentation: the real hurdle is human motivation. Both scientists both note the following:
The 'personally tailored diet' may be perfect in theory, but will people be motivated to follow it? Personal motivation is fast becoming recognized as the single most important factor in weight loss and exercise – and the most difficult to influence.
Will specific information created by the study of nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics overshadow public understanding of general healthy diets by focusing on specific micronutrients?
Will the cost of tailored diets be too high?
Mark McCarthy, of the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK, in a report entitled, 'Research for food and health in Europe: themes, needs and proposals.' (2011), states his concern about spending money on micronutrient content:
'Research should now address how macro-diets, rather than micro-nutritional content, can be improved for beneficial impacts on health, and should evaluate the impact of market changes and policy interventions, including regulation, to improve public health.'
Later in his article, he observes,
'The focus has therefore shifted away from micronutrients towards whole diets/whole foods, for example macronutrients and different dietary patterns such as Mediterranean and Nordic diets.'
Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics and the Obesity Crisis
The obesity crisis is so imminent and prevalent that even leaders in the field do not hold hopes for a solution through nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics. However, both nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics represent the future of nutritional studies, and the personalized diet is our greatest hope for the eradication of chronic disease. Even when the principles of functional nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics come to fruition, with the ideal diet provided for every individual, only the motivation to eat right combined with vigorous exercise can assure that human beings have a future that promises a long and healthy lifespan. ----------------- "
http://www.decodedscience.com/nutrigenetics-nutrigenomics-and-the-global-obesity-crisis/10136
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Decoded Science recently interviewed Professor Maria Koziolkiewicz, PhD, Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Services and lecturer on genetics and microbiology at the Technical University of Lodz (Poland). Professor Koziolkiewicz presented 'Nutrigenomics and Nutrigenetics – are they the keys for healthy nutrition?' at the conference on 'Food and nutrition in the 21st century,' in Warsaw, Poland, September 8-9, 2011.
Can Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics Resolve the Global Obesity Crisis?
Decoded Science asked Professor Koziolkiewicz for her opinion on this topic, and she responded:
'In my opinion, in the case of adult persons suffering from obesity, it is too late to apply results of nutrigenomic studies and to help them. We have to remember that nutrigenomic studies are in the preliminary step of their development and there is still a long way to go before dietary recommendations based on results of these studies will be elaborated. But I do hope that in the case of children or young people who will have their own children in the future, studies in nutrigenomics will give some positive effects.'
With regard to the day in which nutrigenetics will begin producing the 'personalized diet,' Decoded Science asked Professor Koziolkiewicz to comment on the role of functional nutrigenetics in maintaining a normal life span as the human race becomes ever more sedentary. Ms Koziolkiewicz expressed her views on the subject:
'I think that a development in the field of nutrigenomics will give at some point in [the] future a chance for some of the population of "sedentary human beings " to maintain [a] normal healthy life span. But because of genetic diversity, a lot of people will not [have] been “diagnosed" properly in terms of their nutritional requirements which will have to be fulfilled for “normal” life of these people. On the other hand, physical activity should be considered as a kind of therapy for many people, not only now but also in the future.'
Nutrigenetics and Obesity
Nutrigenetics focuses on genes and genetic variants of dietary requirements, many of which also are also biomarkers for chronic diseases. Science has found these genetic differences, referred to as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP’s), among ethnic groups and populations, as well as within individuals. Nutrigenetics seeks to match the diet to a person’s or a population group’s genetic makeup.
Even prior to the study of nutrigenetics, common sense dictated that nutritional requirements vary by age and sex. Dietary guidelines, or Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA’s), were developed based on the most recent scientific knowledge. However, the obesity epidemic brings their validity into question.
Significant progress has been made by the 'Mypyramid' program, in which the individual inputs additional data, such as activity levels, to determine his or her own optimal diet.
Nutrigenetics Can Clarify Conflicting Information on Diet
There is no question that nutrigenetics has the potential to send your RDA a massive step forward. Variations in genetic composition of individuals may account for the plethora of conflicting studies on specific nutrients that confuse the public. For example:
Is moderate alcohol consumption good for you or bad for you?
Is milk good for you or bad for you?
Is a vegetarian diet good for you or bad for you?
Nutrigenetics in Epidemiological Studies
Recently, Michael Fenech discussed the benefits of epidemiological studies including genetic variations in his article, “Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics: Viewpoints on the Current Status and Applications in Nutrition Research and Practice,” published in the Journal of Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics in July 2011. He explains that studies that do not take genetic variation into consideration may have conclusive results, only to be confounded later by conflicting evidence. Coffee is a good example. Fenech also states:
'Caffeinated-coffee was found to increase the risk of a heart attack among individuals who carry a version of a gene that makes them "slow" caffeine metabolisers, but has no effect among individuals who are "fast" caffeine metabolisers.'
Obesity Studies and the Nutrigenetic Diet
As of 2007, six hundred genes, chromosomes and genetic markers were identified as being linked to obesity or were found to be biomarkers for disease, and the number has continued to increase. This research offers fertile ground for nutrigenetic studies on obesity. Fenech’s 2011 review provides examples of two recent studies in obesity:
A personalized, calorie-based diet was developed that considered 24 variants in 19 genes that control metabolism. One-half of participants were given a calorie-restricted diet that took into account the genetic differences in each individual. The second group was given the same diet for all participants.
The group with the genetically-tailored diet lost more weight than the second group and had greater success in maintaining weight loss.
A second study mentioned by Fenech focused on the gene variant FTO (fat mass and obesity-related gene), which is a fairly common SNP. Children with the variant show greater propensity for obesity and type 2 diabetes. In this study, when presented with unlimited access to food, children with the FTO variant consumed more calories. Interestingly, increased physical activity counteracted the effect.
Nutrigenomics and Obesity
David M. Mutch, in his 2005 article 'Nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics: the emerging faces of nutrition,' Published in The Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, this article said that it was once believed that '…one gene leads to one protein leads to one metabolite.' Nutrigenomics studies the diverse effects of bioactive nutrients on the body as a whole. It explores how nutrients impact the genome, resulting in different phenotypes (bodily reactions) and leave a 'dietary signature' (Koziolkiewicz 2011). This process has several phases that have grown into corresponding new fields within nutrigenomics:
Transcriptomics: Tracks RNA, the molecule that transfers DNA to the part of the cells that manufacture protein. This information is ideal for the study of metabolic syndrome and inflammatory symptoms associated with obesity and chronic disease.
Proteinomics: Encompasses the study of the infinite variety of proteins manufactured; and is capable of detecting patterns that can identify biomarkers of risk for obesity related disorders.
Metabolomics: Considers all metabolites in a human cell or organ; is capable of generating large amounts of data at low cost that detects subtle differences in metabolism that contribute to obesity as well as fluctuations in weight.
Challenges Presented by Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics
Fenech ends his article with a note similar to Koziolkiewicz’s conclusion to her presentation: the real hurdle is human motivation. Both scientists both note the following:
The 'personally tailored diet' may be perfect in theory, but will people be motivated to follow it? Personal motivation is fast becoming recognized as the single most important factor in weight loss and exercise – and the most difficult to influence.
Will specific information created by the study of nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics overshadow public understanding of general healthy diets by focusing on specific micronutrients?
Will the cost of tailored diets be too high?
Mark McCarthy, of the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK, in a report entitled, 'Research for food and health in Europe: themes, needs and proposals.' (2011), states his concern about spending money on micronutrient content:
'Research should now address how macro-diets, rather than micro-nutritional content, can be improved for beneficial impacts on health, and should evaluate the impact of market changes and policy interventions, including regulation, to improve public health.'
Later in his article, he observes,
'The focus has therefore shifted away from micronutrients towards whole diets/whole foods, for example macronutrients and different dietary patterns such as Mediterranean and Nordic diets.'
Nutrigenetics and Nutrigenomics and the Obesity Crisis
The obesity crisis is so imminent and prevalent that even leaders in the field do not hold hopes for a solution through nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics. However, both nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics represent the future of nutritional studies, and the personalized diet is our greatest hope for the eradication of chronic disease. Even when the principles of functional nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics come to fruition, with the ideal diet provided for every individual, only the motivation to eat right combined with vigorous exercise can assure that human beings have a future that promises a long and healthy lifespan. ----------------- "
http://www.decodedscience.com/nutrigenetics-nutrigenomics-and-the-global-obesity-crisis/10136
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Adding a New Farm Term (nutrigenomics) to the Feed List
"Sit down and listen to a nutrition expert from a leading company and you'll probably end up adding to your glossary of terms. That's what happened to me last week when I joined a group of folks attending the Alltech Lecture Tour. I was able to sit in on the Mankato, Minn., stop - one of 24 on this year's schedule.
The folks at Alltech are serious about the future of food production and their role in it with natural supplements and feeding technology. They have their hand in a lot of areas, from gene chips to Haitian coffee, and are making great strides in a lot of areas. One that caught my attention is the term 'nutrigenomics.'
While it's not a new term it's one I haven't hear much about, until Kate Jacques, Alltech's director of nutrition, gave a talk during the tour. The word sums up what it's about - providing nutrition built around gene expression. In essence, you would feed an animal with a 'programmed nutrition' diet aimed at bringing out the best in the animal.
It's a science that's in its infancy, but work is being done around the world on the topic. 'It's so important, that at Alltech we've decided to take all our research on the topic into the company,' Jacques told the group.
Alltech already has expertise in microarray technology - often called a 'gene chip' - that allows them to determine how genes are expressing in an animal at any given time. It's a kind of rapid test for gene expression, or gene suppression. In essence, they're learning how different dietary components are taken in by an animal and put to use.
Jacques explains that in the past the food revolution was about boosting production of meat, milk and eggs. With this technology, the next step is enhancing the quality of the finished product while also boosting output. 'How does nutrient A impact product B?' she asks.
So how might it work? Jacques gave two examples - one for poultry and the other for beef.
In the poultry example, Alltech has looked at the diets of hatched chickens, which is often a three stage diet based upon age. 'But what about the first 90 hours of the chicken's life? We looked at that, and came up with a hatchling ration,' Jacques says.
This special diet for very young birds is aimed at getting off to a better start. The resulting mature chicken produces improved quality meat with measurable differences in meat quality for moisture retention and other factors that key customers - like KFC - are seeking. Jacques notes that this is preliminary work, but there are measurable differences in meat quality for those birds.
The main idea is making sure that animal nutrition keeps up with the enhanced genetics of breeding programs where farmers and companies are making investments.
In the case of that poultry diet, Jacques notes that key customers are looking for key components including sensory, flavor, olfactory and shelf-life qualities. In addition, over time, the effort will be aimed at improving the nutritional value of the meat itself through targeted dietary programs.
For beef, Alltech is fine-tuning cattle diets with its own Alltech Angus brand of beef. Tweaking formulations along with ration changes matched to life stages (just as with chickens) in an effort to improve the finished product.
'We took the risk with our own branded product,' Jacques says. 'There was an opportunity that we would get it wrong.'
Apparently they got it right, because Alltech Angus beef is now served in more than 150 Kentucky restaurants and in some the product is actually branded on the menu. Jacques says with this new feeding program - again still under trial - the company has achieved meat that is pretty tender. 'In fact this is meat that you can cut with a spoon,' she says.
And the payoff - beyond product quality - is that average daily gains are up as much as 20% which reduces time to market. That helps cover for the potentially higher cost of the ration. With nutrigenomics, Alltech is also working to target beef cholesterol and fat content - again seeking a more nutritional finished product.
Someday, livestock and poultry producers will be looking at dietary issues for those animals in new ways - with an eye toward maximizing their genetic pool and boosting the nutritional value and quality of the finished product in new ways. It's an interesting tech thought. We'll keep you posted."
http://farmfutures.com/blogs.aspx?fcb=22&fcbp=2994&fcbpc=0&s=1/07/2012&e=3/07/2012
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
The folks at Alltech are serious about the future of food production and their role in it with natural supplements and feeding technology. They have their hand in a lot of areas, from gene chips to Haitian coffee, and are making great strides in a lot of areas. One that caught my attention is the term 'nutrigenomics.'
While it's not a new term it's one I haven't hear much about, until Kate Jacques, Alltech's director of nutrition, gave a talk during the tour. The word sums up what it's about - providing nutrition built around gene expression. In essence, you would feed an animal with a 'programmed nutrition' diet aimed at bringing out the best in the animal.
It's a science that's in its infancy, but work is being done around the world on the topic. 'It's so important, that at Alltech we've decided to take all our research on the topic into the company,' Jacques told the group.
Alltech already has expertise in microarray technology - often called a 'gene chip' - that allows them to determine how genes are expressing in an animal at any given time. It's a kind of rapid test for gene expression, or gene suppression. In essence, they're learning how different dietary components are taken in by an animal and put to use.
Jacques explains that in the past the food revolution was about boosting production of meat, milk and eggs. With this technology, the next step is enhancing the quality of the finished product while also boosting output. 'How does nutrient A impact product B?' she asks.
So how might it work? Jacques gave two examples - one for poultry and the other for beef.
In the poultry example, Alltech has looked at the diets of hatched chickens, which is often a three stage diet based upon age. 'But what about the first 90 hours of the chicken's life? We looked at that, and came up with a hatchling ration,' Jacques says.
This special diet for very young birds is aimed at getting off to a better start. The resulting mature chicken produces improved quality meat with measurable differences in meat quality for moisture retention and other factors that key customers - like KFC - are seeking. Jacques notes that this is preliminary work, but there are measurable differences in meat quality for those birds.
The main idea is making sure that animal nutrition keeps up with the enhanced genetics of breeding programs where farmers and companies are making investments.
In the case of that poultry diet, Jacques notes that key customers are looking for key components including sensory, flavor, olfactory and shelf-life qualities. In addition, over time, the effort will be aimed at improving the nutritional value of the meat itself through targeted dietary programs.
For beef, Alltech is fine-tuning cattle diets with its own Alltech Angus brand of beef. Tweaking formulations along with ration changes matched to life stages (just as with chickens) in an effort to improve the finished product.
'We took the risk with our own branded product,' Jacques says. 'There was an opportunity that we would get it wrong.'
Apparently they got it right, because Alltech Angus beef is now served in more than 150 Kentucky restaurants and in some the product is actually branded on the menu. Jacques says with this new feeding program - again still under trial - the company has achieved meat that is pretty tender. 'In fact this is meat that you can cut with a spoon,' she says.
And the payoff - beyond product quality - is that average daily gains are up as much as 20% which reduces time to market. That helps cover for the potentially higher cost of the ration. With nutrigenomics, Alltech is also working to target beef cholesterol and fat content - again seeking a more nutritional finished product.
Someday, livestock and poultry producers will be looking at dietary issues for those animals in new ways - with an eye toward maximizing their genetic pool and boosting the nutritional value and quality of the finished product in new ways. It's an interesting tech thought. We'll keep you posted."
http://farmfutures.com/blogs.aspx?fcb=22&fcbp=2994&fcbpc=0&s=1/07/2012&e=3/07/2012
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Genetic Jobs
"New Study on the Genetic Testing Industry Shows How Public Research Created Over 100,000 Jobs
Vickie Chaplin loads patient samples into a machine for testing at Myriad Genetics in Salt Lake City. A new report shows the rapidly expanding genetic and genomic clinical laboratory testing industry in the United States currently supports 116,000 jobs and $16.5 billion in national economic output.
The era of medical genetic testing is upon us. At least that’s the impression one would get after reading this new Battelle report commissioned by The American Clinical Laboratory Association. The ACLA report shows the rapidly expanding genetic and genomic clinical laboratory testing industry in the United States currently supports 116,000 jobs and $16.5 billion in national economic output.
This report builds on earlier research from Battelle that looked more broadly at the economic impact and return on the federal investment in the Human Genome Project. The study of the HGP found that the public investment of $3.8 billion spread between 1988 and 2003 yielded $796 billion in economic output, and created nearly 4 million years of full-time employment, or job-years, between 1988 and 2010. This farsighted, bipartisan investment in genomics research helped seed new biotech industries, which in 2010 alone added $67 billion to U.S. gross domestic product—the largest measure of growth in our economy—created $20 billion in personal income for American families, and sustained 310,000 public- and private-sector jobs.
This $3.8 billion public investment in basic research yielded a 14,000 percent return for the economy, so it is no wonder that the ACLA is revisiting the investigation into public investment in biomedical research—it pays. The new study focused more narrowly on the economic impact of genetic and genomic clinical tests developed by the biomedical industry. Battelle’s new report brings to light figures about the benefits of genomic science and research that are just as impressive as the HGP results. According to the report:
Built upon U.S. investment in basic science and translational biomedical research, U.S. industry has produced a broad range of high-value biomedical technologies and products that create high-paying jobs and sustain America’s leadership in the modern innovation economy.
Spawned by the Human Genome Project itself, Battelle found that the genetic and genomic testing industry is currently contributing 'more than 116,000 U.S. jobs; nearly $6 billion in personal income for U.S. workers; $9.2 billion in value-added activity; and $16.5 billion in national economic output.' The state and federal taxes collected from this young industry have states competing for the high-tech jobs and revenue generated by the highly profitable sector.
Battelle cites the states’ implementation of strategic planning to attract new biotech firms by 'creating tax and regulatory environments to support and expand growing companies' and 'supplying capital for facilities funding.' This 2008 report goes on to discuss the close working relationship states are developing with the firms to 'develop and create a skilled workforce.' Now here is a jobs plan in action.
But looking beyond the numbers, the genetic testing industry is helping usher in a new era of biotechnology, personalized medicine, and forensics. According to the study, the genetic testing industry is already leading to positive outcomes in diverse fields such as:
Predicting risk of disease, screening newborns, directing clinical management, identifying carriers, and establishing prenatal or clinical diagnoses or prognoses in individuals, families, or population, as well as use for forensic and identity purposes.
The growth of this industry is paving the way for precision diagnoses and targeted therapies that improve health care outcomes. Oak Ridge National Laboratory says using genetic testing can give medical professionals a host of new tools to 'clarify diagnoses' and make treatment more effective. One case in point: One study of genetic versus conventional diagnosis for retinoblastoma, a form of eye cancer, found the ability to act on 'predictive' genetic tests 'can help to save the vision and avoid unnecessary (and invasive) eye examinations for [patients] and their close relatives.' In conclusion the study found genetic diagnosis to be 'cheaper' than conventional methods.
Treatments for diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, and cancer—all diseases thought to have hereditary indicators—comprise 75 percent of U.S. health care costs, according to the Centers for Disease Control. So the ability to detect these diseases through genetic testing long before the symptoms set in may reduce costs associated with costly emergency treatments, and improve the lives of many, though such knowledge comes with its own set of ethical questions, particularly in the case of Alzheimer’s.
But the promise of genetic testing and personalized medicine can only be attained if we continue to invest in publicly funded research, and if we are willing to make some tricky ethical choices, whether they mean choosing to know what’s in our genes, or allowing our genetic information to be used in large longitudinal data sets.
Even Craig Venter, a renowned NIH researcher and biotech CEO who famously competed with the federal government to help unravel the human genome, advocated for the need for federal investment in a hearing before the House Commerce Committee in 2003. 'To enjoy the promise of personalized and preventative genomic medicine, we must compare the genomes of tens of thousands of people to better understand the genetic causes of complex diseases,' he said. 'Going forward, it is critical that both the NIH and DOE continue to support innovative projects that constantly encourage technological innovation and drive down the costs of sequencing.'
The sequencing of the entire human has decreased '100 fold' since the first human genetic tests became available. The U.S. National Library of Medicine has found 'The cost of genetic testing can range from under $100 to more than $2,000, depending on the nature and complexity of the test.' As of 2011, it cost just under $10,000 to sequence a person’s entire genome. That cost reflects a significant 'outpacing of Moore’s Law' considering that the first genomes cost nearly $100 million to sequence. (see table)
The cost decrease of whole genome sequencing to $1,000 has long been the point at which it is considered cost effective enough to have as a standard medical test. According to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 2012 is likely to be 'the year that the cost of whole genome sequencing will reach approximately $1,000.' And beyond the economics, the commission is also helping to sort through some of the ethics and privacy questions to genomic research, such as how whole-person genomic information is collected and stored, and what constitutes informed consent.
From the medical march toward increasing efficiency and accuracy in health care services, to the need to drive down costs, public investment in genetic medicine has provided new avenues for lawmakers and medical professionals to achieve their goals. The fact that such investment creates new industries and jobs is a silver lining that should make for easy legislative budgeting. As the debate rages on over whether or not government spending can create jobs or not, we need to continue to distinguish between spending and smart investments with positive economic and public health returns. As Battelle has once again demonstrated, federal funding for science, research, and development are some of the smartest investments we can make in our long-term economic future."
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/genetic_jobs.html
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Vickie Chaplin loads patient samples into a machine for testing at Myriad Genetics in Salt Lake City. A new report shows the rapidly expanding genetic and genomic clinical laboratory testing industry in the United States currently supports 116,000 jobs and $16.5 billion in national economic output.
The era of medical genetic testing is upon us. At least that’s the impression one would get after reading this new Battelle report commissioned by The American Clinical Laboratory Association. The ACLA report shows the rapidly expanding genetic and genomic clinical laboratory testing industry in the United States currently supports 116,000 jobs and $16.5 billion in national economic output.
This report builds on earlier research from Battelle that looked more broadly at the economic impact and return on the federal investment in the Human Genome Project. The study of the HGP found that the public investment of $3.8 billion spread between 1988 and 2003 yielded $796 billion in economic output, and created nearly 4 million years of full-time employment, or job-years, between 1988 and 2010. This farsighted, bipartisan investment in genomics research helped seed new biotech industries, which in 2010 alone added $67 billion to U.S. gross domestic product—the largest measure of growth in our economy—created $20 billion in personal income for American families, and sustained 310,000 public- and private-sector jobs.
This $3.8 billion public investment in basic research yielded a 14,000 percent return for the economy, so it is no wonder that the ACLA is revisiting the investigation into public investment in biomedical research—it pays. The new study focused more narrowly on the economic impact of genetic and genomic clinical tests developed by the biomedical industry. Battelle’s new report brings to light figures about the benefits of genomic science and research that are just as impressive as the HGP results. According to the report:
Built upon U.S. investment in basic science and translational biomedical research, U.S. industry has produced a broad range of high-value biomedical technologies and products that create high-paying jobs and sustain America’s leadership in the modern innovation economy.
Spawned by the Human Genome Project itself, Battelle found that the genetic and genomic testing industry is currently contributing 'more than 116,000 U.S. jobs; nearly $6 billion in personal income for U.S. workers; $9.2 billion in value-added activity; and $16.5 billion in national economic output.' The state and federal taxes collected from this young industry have states competing for the high-tech jobs and revenue generated by the highly profitable sector.
Battelle cites the states’ implementation of strategic planning to attract new biotech firms by 'creating tax and regulatory environments to support and expand growing companies' and 'supplying capital for facilities funding.' This 2008 report goes on to discuss the close working relationship states are developing with the firms to 'develop and create a skilled workforce.' Now here is a jobs plan in action.
But looking beyond the numbers, the genetic testing industry is helping usher in a new era of biotechnology, personalized medicine, and forensics. According to the study, the genetic testing industry is already leading to positive outcomes in diverse fields such as:
Predicting risk of disease, screening newborns, directing clinical management, identifying carriers, and establishing prenatal or clinical diagnoses or prognoses in individuals, families, or population, as well as use for forensic and identity purposes.
The growth of this industry is paving the way for precision diagnoses and targeted therapies that improve health care outcomes. Oak Ridge National Laboratory says using genetic testing can give medical professionals a host of new tools to 'clarify diagnoses' and make treatment more effective. One case in point: One study of genetic versus conventional diagnosis for retinoblastoma, a form of eye cancer, found the ability to act on 'predictive' genetic tests 'can help to save the vision and avoid unnecessary (and invasive) eye examinations for [patients] and their close relatives.' In conclusion the study found genetic diagnosis to be 'cheaper' than conventional methods.
Treatments for diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, and cancer—all diseases thought to have hereditary indicators—comprise 75 percent of U.S. health care costs, according to the Centers for Disease Control. So the ability to detect these diseases through genetic testing long before the symptoms set in may reduce costs associated with costly emergency treatments, and improve the lives of many, though such knowledge comes with its own set of ethical questions, particularly in the case of Alzheimer’s.
But the promise of genetic testing and personalized medicine can only be attained if we continue to invest in publicly funded research, and if we are willing to make some tricky ethical choices, whether they mean choosing to know what’s in our genes, or allowing our genetic information to be used in large longitudinal data sets.
Even Craig Venter, a renowned NIH researcher and biotech CEO who famously competed with the federal government to help unravel the human genome, advocated for the need for federal investment in a hearing before the House Commerce Committee in 2003. 'To enjoy the promise of personalized and preventative genomic medicine, we must compare the genomes of tens of thousands of people to better understand the genetic causes of complex diseases,' he said. 'Going forward, it is critical that both the NIH and DOE continue to support innovative projects that constantly encourage technological innovation and drive down the costs of sequencing.'
The sequencing of the entire human has decreased '100 fold' since the first human genetic tests became available. The U.S. National Library of Medicine has found 'The cost of genetic testing can range from under $100 to more than $2,000, depending on the nature and complexity of the test.' As of 2011, it cost just under $10,000 to sequence a person’s entire genome. That cost reflects a significant 'outpacing of Moore’s Law' considering that the first genomes cost nearly $100 million to sequence. (see table)
The cost decrease of whole genome sequencing to $1,000 has long been the point at which it is considered cost effective enough to have as a standard medical test. According to the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 2012 is likely to be 'the year that the cost of whole genome sequencing will reach approximately $1,000.' And beyond the economics, the commission is also helping to sort through some of the ethics and privacy questions to genomic research, such as how whole-person genomic information is collected and stored, and what constitutes informed consent.
From the medical march toward increasing efficiency and accuracy in health care services, to the need to drive down costs, public investment in genetic medicine has provided new avenues for lawmakers and medical professionals to achieve their goals. The fact that such investment creates new industries and jobs is a silver lining that should make for easy legislative budgeting. As the debate rages on over whether or not government spending can create jobs or not, we need to continue to distinguish between spending and smart investments with positive economic and public health returns. As Battelle has once again demonstrated, federal funding for science, research, and development are some of the smartest investments we can make in our long-term economic future."
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/genetic_jobs.html
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Genetic Engineering Debate: Are There Lines We Shouldn't Cross?
"The relationship between ethics and science has had a long, complicated history. Although the atrocious Nazi experiments performed in the name of science are 70 years behind us, science continues to cross new boundaries. An advancing science that is currently forcing society to re-evaluate ethical boundaries is genetic engineering.
Genetic engineering (also called genetic modification) is the direct manipulation of an organism’s genome using modern DNA technology. So far, the study and application of genetic engineering has been much slower, more complex, and less effective in humans than in plants and animals. Whereas animal cloning has been somewhat successful since Dolly’s famed birth in 1996 (and more recently the capacity to clone your beloved dog for $100,000), the ability to successfully clone humans has proved difficult scientifically and highly controversial ethically.
Genetically modified plants and animals have led to significant benefits, such as herbicide resistant crops and fast-growing animals. At the same time, this technology has created major ethical concerns relating to the perceived 'unnaturalness' of changing a living organism and a fear that scientists are 'playing God' through their alterations of an original being. In humans, researchers have predicted that gene therapy will not only allow us to treat and prevent debilitating diseases (an elusive goal for scientists over the past 20 years), but also enhance or improve normal human traits.
Should we have the right to enhance our muscles, memory and moods through genetic modification? At what point should genetic engineering be forced to draw a line? The answer to this is tricky.
Although still mainly limited to science fiction, genetic enhancement in humans is a controversial issue. The largely publicized topic of 'designer babies,' for example, leads to debates over whether it is significantly worse for parents to try and give their children the best opportunities by selecting certain genes using in vitro fertilization (IVF) and pre-implantation diagnosis (PGD), versus hiring sperm and egg donors with coveted genetic traits. Personally, I find it easier to agree that disease prevention and treatment are beneficial goals of genetic engineering in humans, than for me to accept human enhancement as a morally acceptable goal.
However, we do not yet grasp the full extent of what genetic engineering means for human development. What we deem 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable' in the world we currently inhabit with our presently available science and technology could easily change as scientific capacity advances. Our notion of what is right or wrong and even our fundamental understanding of what it means to be a 'normal' human being have continually changed through scientific progress. Once, the only option for biologically influencing a person’s development was through mate selection. Today, scientific advancements such as prenatal screening technologies, in vitro fertilization, and pharmaceuticals targeting cognitive and emotional functioning allow parents to avoid certain birth defects, select for sex, and improve their child’s cognitive ability and moods.
Instead of drawing an imaginary 'do not cross' line or moral boundary for genetic engineering in humans, we should emphasize the need for continuous negotiation with moral notions and beliefs with the purpose of directing and influencing policy as a result of this mutual interaction. Organizations such as the Stanford Center for Integration of Research on Genetics and Ethics (CIRGE) are examples of this approach. CIRGE is one of six interdisciplinary Centers of Excellence in Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) Research (CEERs) created by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) 'to proactively identify and deliberate ethical, legal and social issues in current and emerging genetic research.'
This strategy of anticipatory ethics advocates that 'ethics' should accompany and monitor advancing technology rather than simply react to it. Instead of demanding immediate draconian controls, a vigorous concurrent moral debate should occur to provide a framework within which genetic engineering can progress. Good research-based policy decisions should result from the continuous and simultaneous review of advancements in genetic engineering as studied from an analysis of their ethical and social consequences. Science should raise ethical issues and ethical issues should influence science, thus creating a healthy tension between genetic engineering research and ethical checks and boundaries, and hopefully avoiding potential harmful consequences of unmonitored science through this balanced approach."
http://www.policymic.com/articles/3971/genetic-engineering-debate-are-there-lines-we-shouldn-t-cross
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Genetic engineering (also called genetic modification) is the direct manipulation of an organism’s genome using modern DNA technology. So far, the study and application of genetic engineering has been much slower, more complex, and less effective in humans than in plants and animals. Whereas animal cloning has been somewhat successful since Dolly’s famed birth in 1996 (and more recently the capacity to clone your beloved dog for $100,000), the ability to successfully clone humans has proved difficult scientifically and highly controversial ethically.
Genetically modified plants and animals have led to significant benefits, such as herbicide resistant crops and fast-growing animals. At the same time, this technology has created major ethical concerns relating to the perceived 'unnaturalness' of changing a living organism and a fear that scientists are 'playing God' through their alterations of an original being. In humans, researchers have predicted that gene therapy will not only allow us to treat and prevent debilitating diseases (an elusive goal for scientists over the past 20 years), but also enhance or improve normal human traits.
Should we have the right to enhance our muscles, memory and moods through genetic modification? At what point should genetic engineering be forced to draw a line? The answer to this is tricky.
Although still mainly limited to science fiction, genetic enhancement in humans is a controversial issue. The largely publicized topic of 'designer babies,' for example, leads to debates over whether it is significantly worse for parents to try and give their children the best opportunities by selecting certain genes using in vitro fertilization (IVF) and pre-implantation diagnosis (PGD), versus hiring sperm and egg donors with coveted genetic traits. Personally, I find it easier to agree that disease prevention and treatment are beneficial goals of genetic engineering in humans, than for me to accept human enhancement as a morally acceptable goal.
However, we do not yet grasp the full extent of what genetic engineering means for human development. What we deem 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable' in the world we currently inhabit with our presently available science and technology could easily change as scientific capacity advances. Our notion of what is right or wrong and even our fundamental understanding of what it means to be a 'normal' human being have continually changed through scientific progress. Once, the only option for biologically influencing a person’s development was through mate selection. Today, scientific advancements such as prenatal screening technologies, in vitro fertilization, and pharmaceuticals targeting cognitive and emotional functioning allow parents to avoid certain birth defects, select for sex, and improve their child’s cognitive ability and moods.
Instead of drawing an imaginary 'do not cross' line or moral boundary for genetic engineering in humans, we should emphasize the need for continuous negotiation with moral notions and beliefs with the purpose of directing and influencing policy as a result of this mutual interaction. Organizations such as the Stanford Center for Integration of Research on Genetics and Ethics (CIRGE) are examples of this approach. CIRGE is one of six interdisciplinary Centers of Excellence in Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) Research (CEERs) created by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) 'to proactively identify and deliberate ethical, legal and social issues in current and emerging genetic research.'
This strategy of anticipatory ethics advocates that 'ethics' should accompany and monitor advancing technology rather than simply react to it. Instead of demanding immediate draconian controls, a vigorous concurrent moral debate should occur to provide a framework within which genetic engineering can progress. Good research-based policy decisions should result from the continuous and simultaneous review of advancements in genetic engineering as studied from an analysis of their ethical and social consequences. Science should raise ethical issues and ethical issues should influence science, thus creating a healthy tension between genetic engineering research and ethical checks and boundaries, and hopefully avoiding potential harmful consequences of unmonitored science through this balanced approach."
http://www.policymic.com/articles/3971/genetic-engineering-debate-are-there-lines-we-shouldn-t-cross
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Union of Concerned Scientists Gives Monsanto an ‘F’ in Sustainable Agriculture
"Science Group’s New Web Feature Documents Eight Ways Monsanto is Taking Agriculture in the Wrong Direction
(February 7, 2012) – The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today published a new web feature documenting how agribusiness giant Monsanto Company is failing to deliver on its promise to make the U.S. agriculture system more sustainable.
A sustainable system would produce an adequate supply of food, safeguard the environment, and protect farmers’ bottom lines at the same time. Monsanto, UCS says, fails this three-pronged test.
'Monsanto talks about "producing more, conserving more, improving lives," but its products are largely not living up to those aspirations,' said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with UCS’s Food and Environment Program. 'In reality, the company is producing more engineered seeds and herbicide and improving its bottom line, but at the expense of conservation and long-term sustainability.'
Monsanto’s public relations campaigns trumpet that its products, such as its genetically engineered Roundup Ready seed and herbicide system, will lead to an agricultural future that minimizes environmental pollution, addresses global warming, and feeds the world. The truth is decidedly less impressive, according to UCS.
UCS explores eight ways that Monsanto has failed to deliver on its sustainability claims. The company is undermining efforts to promote sustainability by:
1. Fostering weed and insect resistance. Monsanto’s RoundupReady and Bt technologies lead to resistant weeds and insects that can make farming more difficult and reduce sustainability.
2. Increasing herbicide use. Roundup resistance has led farmers to use more herbicides, which threatens biodiversity, sustainability and human health.
3. Spreading gene contamination. Engineered genes have a bad habit of turning up in non-genetically engineered crops. When that happens, sustainable farmers—and their customers—pay a high price.
4. Expanding monocultures. Monsanto’s focus on a few commodity crops contributes to reduced biodiversity and, as a consequence, to more pesticide use and fertilizer pollution.
5. Marginalizing alternatives. Monsanto single-minded focus on genetic engineering fixes may come at the expense of cheaper, more effective solutions, such as classical crop breeding and ecological farming methods.
6. Lobbying and advertising: Monsanto spends more than other agribusiness companies to persuade Congress and the general public to support the industrial agriculture status quo.
7. Suppressing research. Monsanto thwarts independent research on its products, making it more difficult for farmers and policymakers to make informed decisions that could foster more sustainable agriculture.
8. Falling short on feeding the world. Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops have done little to increase crop yields. Regardless, the company stands in the way of proven, scientifically defensible solutions.
'Crop breeding is cheaper and more productive than the genetic engineering that Monsanto aggressively pushes. And proven ecological farming methods, ignored by Monsanto, rely on fewer pesticides and fossil-fuel-based fertilizers,' noted Gurian-Sherman. 'But some of these practices conflict with the agricultural model that generates the company’s profits.'
How has Monsanto been able to burnish its undeserved reputation as a sustainability leader? In large part, by spending tens of millions of dollars annually to influence the public and policymakers.
Monsanto spent $8 million lobbying members of Congress and federal officials in 2010, for example, and more than $400,000 more in political contributions in that year’s election cycle. At the same time, it spent $120 million in advertising.
'The undue influence of companies like Monsanto result in food policies that encourage less diversity, and an over-reliance on herbicides and insecticides,' said Karen Perry Stillerman, senior analyst with the UCS Food and Environment Program. 'As the farm bill is currently being debated in Congress, now is the time to prioritize sustainable agriculture alternatives to genetically engineered crops in our food policies.' "
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/monsanto-fails-sustainable-ag-1368.html
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
(February 7, 2012) – The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today published a new web feature documenting how agribusiness giant Monsanto Company is failing to deliver on its promise to make the U.S. agriculture system more sustainable.
A sustainable system would produce an adequate supply of food, safeguard the environment, and protect farmers’ bottom lines at the same time. Monsanto, UCS says, fails this three-pronged test.
'Monsanto talks about "producing more, conserving more, improving lives," but its products are largely not living up to those aspirations,' said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with UCS’s Food and Environment Program. 'In reality, the company is producing more engineered seeds and herbicide and improving its bottom line, but at the expense of conservation and long-term sustainability.'
Monsanto’s public relations campaigns trumpet that its products, such as its genetically engineered Roundup Ready seed and herbicide system, will lead to an agricultural future that minimizes environmental pollution, addresses global warming, and feeds the world. The truth is decidedly less impressive, according to UCS.
UCS explores eight ways that Monsanto has failed to deliver on its sustainability claims. The company is undermining efforts to promote sustainability by:
1. Fostering weed and insect resistance. Monsanto’s RoundupReady and Bt technologies lead to resistant weeds and insects that can make farming more difficult and reduce sustainability.
2. Increasing herbicide use. Roundup resistance has led farmers to use more herbicides, which threatens biodiversity, sustainability and human health.
3. Spreading gene contamination. Engineered genes have a bad habit of turning up in non-genetically engineered crops. When that happens, sustainable farmers—and their customers—pay a high price.
4. Expanding monocultures. Monsanto’s focus on a few commodity crops contributes to reduced biodiversity and, as a consequence, to more pesticide use and fertilizer pollution.
5. Marginalizing alternatives. Monsanto single-minded focus on genetic engineering fixes may come at the expense of cheaper, more effective solutions, such as classical crop breeding and ecological farming methods.
6. Lobbying and advertising: Monsanto spends more than other agribusiness companies to persuade Congress and the general public to support the industrial agriculture status quo.
7. Suppressing research. Monsanto thwarts independent research on its products, making it more difficult for farmers and policymakers to make informed decisions that could foster more sustainable agriculture.
8. Falling short on feeding the world. Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops have done little to increase crop yields. Regardless, the company stands in the way of proven, scientifically defensible solutions.
'Crop breeding is cheaper and more productive than the genetic engineering that Monsanto aggressively pushes. And proven ecological farming methods, ignored by Monsanto, rely on fewer pesticides and fossil-fuel-based fertilizers,' noted Gurian-Sherman. 'But some of these practices conflict with the agricultural model that generates the company’s profits.'
How has Monsanto been able to burnish its undeserved reputation as a sustainability leader? In large part, by spending tens of millions of dollars annually to influence the public and policymakers.
Monsanto spent $8 million lobbying members of Congress and federal officials in 2010, for example, and more than $400,000 more in political contributions in that year’s election cycle. At the same time, it spent $120 million in advertising.
'The undue influence of companies like Monsanto result in food policies that encourage less diversity, and an over-reliance on herbicides and insecticides,' said Karen Perry Stillerman, senior analyst with the UCS Food and Environment Program. 'As the farm bill is currently being debated in Congress, now is the time to prioritize sustainable agriculture alternatives to genetically engineered crops in our food policies.' "
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/monsanto-fails-sustainable-ag-1368.html
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Bread ranks No. 1 and potato chips No. 10 on CDC ranking of dietary sources of salt
"Bread and rolls are the No. 1 source of salt in the American diet, accounting for more than twice as much sodium as snacks like potato chips and pretzels.
That surprising finding comes in a government report released Tuesday that includes a list of the top 10 sources of sodium. Salty snacks actually came in at the bottom of the list compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Breads and rolls aren’t really saltier than many of the other foods, but people tend to eat a lot of them, said Mary Cogswell, a CDC senior scientists who co-authored the report.
Salt is the main source of sodium for most people, and sodium increases the risk of high blood pressure, a major cause of heart disease and stroke. Health officials say most Americans get too much salt, mostly from processed and restaurant foods — not added from the salt shaker.
Experts have known that the sodium in breads and certain other foods can add up, but even CDC officials were amazed that just 10 foods are responsible for 44 percent of the sodium consumed.
'It’s possible to eat a whole bunch of sodium without it seeming salty,' noted John Hayes, an assistant professor of food science at Penn State, who was not involved in the report.
According to the CDC, breads and rolls account for about 7 percent of the salt that the average American eats in a day. Next on the list: cold cuts and cured meats; pizza; fresh and processed poultry; soups; fast-food hamburgers and sandwiches and cheese.
Rounding out the list — and accounting for about 3 percent each — are spaghetti and other pasta dishes; meatloaf and other meat dishes and snacks like potato chips and pretzels.
Health officials say no one should eat more than 2,300 milligrams of sodium a day, equal to about a teaspoon of salt. Certain people, such as those with high blood pressure, should eat even less. But average sodium consumption in the U.S. is around 3,300 milligrams, the CDC study found. Only 1 in 10 Americans meet the teaspoon guideline.
The amount of sodium in food types can vary. For example, a slice of white bread can have between 80 and 230 milligrams of sodium. One cup of canned chicken noodle soup has between 100 and 940 milligrams. And 3 ounces of luncheon meat has between 450 and 1,050 milligrams.
The new CDC report is based on surveys of more than 7,200 people in 2007 and 2008, including nearly 3,000 children. Participants were surveyed twice, each time answering detailed questions about what they had eaten over the previous day. Researchers then broke down what they ate into categories, and assigned sodium amounts.
Salt reduction has become a recent focus of public health campaigns, and some major food makers have taken steps or announced plans to gradually reduce sodium in their products.
CDC officials — who have long encouraged people to eat more fruits and vegetables — stopped short of advising people to lay off the bread. But they are encouraging consumers to read labels and, for example, buy brands of bread that have lower sodium.
Online: CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/Features/VitalSigns/Sodium/ "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/bread-ranks-no-1-and-potato-chips-no-10-on-cdc-ranking-of-dietary-sources-of-salt/2012/02/07/gIQAnxAfwQ_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
That surprising finding comes in a government report released Tuesday that includes a list of the top 10 sources of sodium. Salty snacks actually came in at the bottom of the list compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Breads and rolls aren’t really saltier than many of the other foods, but people tend to eat a lot of them, said Mary Cogswell, a CDC senior scientists who co-authored the report.
Salt is the main source of sodium for most people, and sodium increases the risk of high blood pressure, a major cause of heart disease and stroke. Health officials say most Americans get too much salt, mostly from processed and restaurant foods — not added from the salt shaker.
Experts have known that the sodium in breads and certain other foods can add up, but even CDC officials were amazed that just 10 foods are responsible for 44 percent of the sodium consumed.
'It’s possible to eat a whole bunch of sodium without it seeming salty,' noted John Hayes, an assistant professor of food science at Penn State, who was not involved in the report.
According to the CDC, breads and rolls account for about 7 percent of the salt that the average American eats in a day. Next on the list: cold cuts and cured meats; pizza; fresh and processed poultry; soups; fast-food hamburgers and sandwiches and cheese.
Rounding out the list — and accounting for about 3 percent each — are spaghetti and other pasta dishes; meatloaf and other meat dishes and snacks like potato chips and pretzels.
Health officials say no one should eat more than 2,300 milligrams of sodium a day, equal to about a teaspoon of salt. Certain people, such as those with high blood pressure, should eat even less. But average sodium consumption in the U.S. is around 3,300 milligrams, the CDC study found. Only 1 in 10 Americans meet the teaspoon guideline.
The amount of sodium in food types can vary. For example, a slice of white bread can have between 80 and 230 milligrams of sodium. One cup of canned chicken noodle soup has between 100 and 940 milligrams. And 3 ounces of luncheon meat has between 450 and 1,050 milligrams.
The new CDC report is based on surveys of more than 7,200 people in 2007 and 2008, including nearly 3,000 children. Participants were surveyed twice, each time answering detailed questions about what they had eaten over the previous day. Researchers then broke down what they ate into categories, and assigned sodium amounts.
Salt reduction has become a recent focus of public health campaigns, and some major food makers have taken steps or announced plans to gradually reduce sodium in their products.
CDC officials — who have long encouraged people to eat more fruits and vegetables — stopped short of advising people to lay off the bread. But they are encouraging consumers to read labels and, for example, buy brands of bread that have lower sodium.
Online: CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/Features/VitalSigns/Sodium/ "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/bread-ranks-no-1-and-potato-chips-no-10-on-cdc-ranking-of-dietary-sources-of-salt/2012/02/07/gIQAnxAfwQ_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Terabytes Of Data Recorded In Seconds In Magnetic Breakthrough, Achieved Using Only Heat, Previously Unimaginable
"An international team of scientists has demonstrated a revolutionary new way of magnetic recording which will allow information to be processed hundreds of times faster than by current hard drive technology.
The researchers found they could record information using only heat - a previously unimaginable scenario. They believe this discovery will not only make future magnetic recording devices faster, but more energy-efficient too.
Experimental images showing the repeated deterministic switching of nano islands. Initially the two nano islands have different magnetic orientation (black and white respectively). After the application of a single pulse, the magnetic direction of both islands changes. Further pulses repeat the process, switching the magnetic state back and forth.
Credit: Johan Mentink and Alexey Kimel, Radboud University Nijmegen; Richard Evans, University of York
The results of the research, which was led by the University of York's Department of Physics, are reported in the February edition of Nature Communications.
York physicist Thomas Ostler said: 'Instead of using a magnetic field to record information on a magnetic medium, we harnessed much stronger internal forces and recorded information using only heat. This revolutionary method allows the recording of Terabytes (thousands of Gigabytes) of information per second, hundreds of times faster than present hard drive technology. As there is no need for a magnetic field, there is also less energy consumption.'
Visualisation of ultrafast heat-induced magnetic switching. Before the laser pulse, the two components of the ferrimagnetic material Fe (Blue) and Gd (Red) are aligned anti-parallel to each other. The 60 femtosecond duration laser pulse rapidly heats the material and this alone induces a transient ferromagnetic-like state, where the Fe and Gd moments are aligned in parallel. After the laser pulse the moments relax to their usual state completing a single switching event in less than 5 picoseconds.
Credit: Richard Evans, University of York
The multinational team of scientists included researchers from Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, Russia, Japan and the Netherlands. Experimental work was carried out at the Paul Scherrer Institut in Switzerland, the Ioffe Physical Technical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Dr Alexey Kimel, from the Institute of Molecules and Materials, Radboud University Nijmegen, said: 'For centuries it has been believed that heat can only destroy the magnetic order. Now we have successfully demonstrated that it can, in fact, be a sufficient stimulus for recording information on a magnetic medium.'
The ultimate magnetic storage medium, consisting of many individual nanometre sized magnetic grains with a density of 10 petabytes/m^2. The data is written to the device using an ultrafast heating process to drive the reversal at a data rate of 200Gb/s. Compared to today's hard drive technology this would allow 10 times the amount of storage capacity and 300 times the performance.
Credit: Richard Evans, University of York
Modern magnetic recording technology employs the principle that the North pole of a magnet is attracted to the South pole of another and two like poles repulse. Until now it has been believed that in order to record one bit of information – by inverting the poles of a magnet – there was a need to apply an external magnetic field. The stronger the applied field, the faster the recording of a magnetic bit of information.
However, the team of scientists has demonstrated that the positions of both the North and South poles of a magnet can be inverted by an ultrashort heat pulse, harnessing the power of much stronger internal forces of magnetic media.
Citation: 'Ultrafast heating as a sufficient stimulus for magnetization reversal in a ferrimagnet' is published in Nature Communications on Tuesday, 7 February.http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1666"
http://nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.com/2012/02/terabytes-of-data-recorded-in-seconds.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NanoPatentsAndInnovations+%28Nano+Patents+and+Innovations%29
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
The researchers found they could record information using only heat - a previously unimaginable scenario. They believe this discovery will not only make future magnetic recording devices faster, but more energy-efficient too.
Experimental images showing the repeated deterministic switching of nano islands. Initially the two nano islands have different magnetic orientation (black and white respectively). After the application of a single pulse, the magnetic direction of both islands changes. Further pulses repeat the process, switching the magnetic state back and forth.
Credit: Johan Mentink and Alexey Kimel, Radboud University Nijmegen; Richard Evans, University of York
The results of the research, which was led by the University of York's Department of Physics, are reported in the February edition of Nature Communications.
York physicist Thomas Ostler said: 'Instead of using a magnetic field to record information on a magnetic medium, we harnessed much stronger internal forces and recorded information using only heat. This revolutionary method allows the recording of Terabytes (thousands of Gigabytes) of information per second, hundreds of times faster than present hard drive technology. As there is no need for a magnetic field, there is also less energy consumption.'
Visualisation of ultrafast heat-induced magnetic switching. Before the laser pulse, the two components of the ferrimagnetic material Fe (Blue) and Gd (Red) are aligned anti-parallel to each other. The 60 femtosecond duration laser pulse rapidly heats the material and this alone induces a transient ferromagnetic-like state, where the Fe and Gd moments are aligned in parallel. After the laser pulse the moments relax to their usual state completing a single switching event in less than 5 picoseconds.
Credit: Richard Evans, University of York
The multinational team of scientists included researchers from Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, Russia, Japan and the Netherlands. Experimental work was carried out at the Paul Scherrer Institut in Switzerland, the Ioffe Physical Technical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Dr Alexey Kimel, from the Institute of Molecules and Materials, Radboud University Nijmegen, said: 'For centuries it has been believed that heat can only destroy the magnetic order. Now we have successfully demonstrated that it can, in fact, be a sufficient stimulus for recording information on a magnetic medium.'
The ultimate magnetic storage medium, consisting of many individual nanometre sized magnetic grains with a density of 10 petabytes/m^2. The data is written to the device using an ultrafast heating process to drive the reversal at a data rate of 200Gb/s. Compared to today's hard drive technology this would allow 10 times the amount of storage capacity and 300 times the performance.
Credit: Richard Evans, University of York
Modern magnetic recording technology employs the principle that the North pole of a magnet is attracted to the South pole of another and two like poles repulse. Until now it has been believed that in order to record one bit of information – by inverting the poles of a magnet – there was a need to apply an external magnetic field. The stronger the applied field, the faster the recording of a magnetic bit of information.
However, the team of scientists has demonstrated that the positions of both the North and South poles of a magnet can be inverted by an ultrashort heat pulse, harnessing the power of much stronger internal forces of magnetic media.
Citation: 'Ultrafast heating as a sufficient stimulus for magnetization reversal in a ferrimagnet' is published in Nature Communications on Tuesday, 7 February.http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1666"
http://nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.com/2012/02/terabytes-of-data-recorded-in-seconds.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NanoPatentsAndInnovations+%28Nano+Patents+and+Innovations%29
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Timor-Leste: Malnutrition among world’s highest as families struggle to survive
"Pacific Scoop: Report – By a special correspondent in Dili
Julieta Soares, 26, a Timorese mother of six, says her family eat what they can grow or afford in the fishing village of Tibar, 5km outside the Timor-Leste capital of Dili.
'We never think about our food each day,' she says. 'The important thing for us is to find something that can fill our stomachs, whether it is rice, cassava, corn, or bananas.'
Her family’s diet rarely contains meat, eggs or dairy products, because of the cost, but her priority is to avoid hunger: 'Just as long as we do not starve.'
Only 5 percent of 4,691 mothers questioned in a 2009-2010 government survey reported drinking milk the day before the interview. Lucinda Baptista, 39, a mother of six, said milk was unaffordable, while Soares says: 'Milk is a rare item for us.'
When asked if she had ever heard of malnutrition, Baptista replies: 'I don’t know this word or its meaning and have never received information about it.'
While a government nutrition strategy has been in place since 2004, only in 2008 did the country develop nutrition interventions, including monthly community malnutrition screenings and door-to-door community outreach by nutrition workers.
Neither mother had taken their children recently to “puskemas” community health centres.
For the past eight years, the same three nations have topped a United Nations ranking of the countries with the highest percentage of chronically malnourished children – Afghanistan (59 percent), Yemen (58 percent), and Timor-Leste (54 percent).
The figures have changed little over the past decade, according to the last year’s State of the World’s Children report issued by the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
'Chronic malnutrition [stunting] is an inter-generational problem that does not have quick fixes, meaning it cannot change within a few years… Stunting is a slow burning crisis that evolves over time,' said Monjur Hossain, UNICEF’s head of health and nutrition in Timor-Leste.
While there were 'quick fixes with low hanging fruits like immunisation, oral rehydration solution [ORS] and vitamin A supplementation' that can reduce child mortality, these do not address the perennial challenge of improving nutrition, Hossain said.
Silent epidemic
'To be thin and small is perceived to be the norm; it [chronic malnutrition] is not perceived as a problem … We are talking about an inter-generational chronic and silent epidemic of malnutrition [stunting] as well as [a 2009-2010 national average of] 18.6 percent acute malnutrition [wasting],' Hossain added.
Lack of life-saving micronutrients is the top cause of preventable mental disability, and chronic malnutrition – most commonly measured by a child’s height in relation to age – increases the risk of premature death and irreversible mental and physical disability, according to the World Health Organisation.
In a 2009-2010 survey conducted by World Vision, only 4 percent of surveyed households in Alieu district bordering Dili regularly consumed a variety of food that included protein, dairy, vegetables and fruit, breads and cereals as well as fat and sugar.
In the western border district of Bobonaro, 18.8 percent managed to consume as many food groups, but another 66 percent of the population reported difficulties obtaining any food in the previous 30 days.
This district also had the country’s highest rate of stunting, 73 percent, according to the government’s 2009-2010 Demographic and Health Survey.
Neighbouring Ermera district reported 68 percent stunting and 20 percent acutely malnourished children (underweight for their height), which can be explained by the district’s lack of access to food and residents’ beliefs, said Hossain.
'There are some food taboos, [such as] they don’t prefer to eat nutritious foods like eggs and [have] a low intake of food during pregnancy [for fear of dying in childbirth due to large babies].'
Interventions
Local NGO Alola Foundation has established volunteer mother support groups in at least nine of 13 districts nationwide to promote exclusive breastfeeding for at least six months of a baby’s life.
The Health Ministry, international NGO Helen Keller International and UNICEF are introducing micronutrient powder supplementation for children younger than two in Alieu district, with plans for a nationwide roll-out based on results in Alieu.
The Health Ministry offers community-based treatments for acute malnutrition in all 13 districts, including social mobilization, out-patient management, supplementary feedings and in-patient care.
The ministry conducts monthly nutrition screenings at designated sites.
But any interventions would take time to bear results, said Hossain.
'[This] can require up to a generation, such as improving adolescents’ and women’s nutrition in order to improve her baby’s chances of not being stunted.' "
http://pacific.scoop.co.nz/2012/02/timor-leste-malnutrition-among-worlds-highest-as-families-struggle-to-survive/
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Julieta Soares, 26, a Timorese mother of six, says her family eat what they can grow or afford in the fishing village of Tibar, 5km outside the Timor-Leste capital of Dili.
'We never think about our food each day,' she says. 'The important thing for us is to find something that can fill our stomachs, whether it is rice, cassava, corn, or bananas.'
Her family’s diet rarely contains meat, eggs or dairy products, because of the cost, but her priority is to avoid hunger: 'Just as long as we do not starve.'
Only 5 percent of 4,691 mothers questioned in a 2009-2010 government survey reported drinking milk the day before the interview. Lucinda Baptista, 39, a mother of six, said milk was unaffordable, while Soares says: 'Milk is a rare item for us.'
When asked if she had ever heard of malnutrition, Baptista replies: 'I don’t know this word or its meaning and have never received information about it.'
While a government nutrition strategy has been in place since 2004, only in 2008 did the country develop nutrition interventions, including monthly community malnutrition screenings and door-to-door community outreach by nutrition workers.
Neither mother had taken their children recently to “puskemas” community health centres.
For the past eight years, the same three nations have topped a United Nations ranking of the countries with the highest percentage of chronically malnourished children – Afghanistan (59 percent), Yemen (58 percent), and Timor-Leste (54 percent).
The figures have changed little over the past decade, according to the last year’s State of the World’s Children report issued by the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF).
'Chronic malnutrition [stunting] is an inter-generational problem that does not have quick fixes, meaning it cannot change within a few years… Stunting is a slow burning crisis that evolves over time,' said Monjur Hossain, UNICEF’s head of health and nutrition in Timor-Leste.
While there were 'quick fixes with low hanging fruits like immunisation, oral rehydration solution [ORS] and vitamin A supplementation' that can reduce child mortality, these do not address the perennial challenge of improving nutrition, Hossain said.
Silent epidemic
'To be thin and small is perceived to be the norm; it [chronic malnutrition] is not perceived as a problem … We are talking about an inter-generational chronic and silent epidemic of malnutrition [stunting] as well as [a 2009-2010 national average of] 18.6 percent acute malnutrition [wasting],' Hossain added.
Lack of life-saving micronutrients is the top cause of preventable mental disability, and chronic malnutrition – most commonly measured by a child’s height in relation to age – increases the risk of premature death and irreversible mental and physical disability, according to the World Health Organisation.
In a 2009-2010 survey conducted by World Vision, only 4 percent of surveyed households in Alieu district bordering Dili regularly consumed a variety of food that included protein, dairy, vegetables and fruit, breads and cereals as well as fat and sugar.
In the western border district of Bobonaro, 18.8 percent managed to consume as many food groups, but another 66 percent of the population reported difficulties obtaining any food in the previous 30 days.
This district also had the country’s highest rate of stunting, 73 percent, according to the government’s 2009-2010 Demographic and Health Survey.
Neighbouring Ermera district reported 68 percent stunting and 20 percent acutely malnourished children (underweight for their height), which can be explained by the district’s lack of access to food and residents’ beliefs, said Hossain.
'There are some food taboos, [such as] they don’t prefer to eat nutritious foods like eggs and [have] a low intake of food during pregnancy [for fear of dying in childbirth due to large babies].'
Interventions
Local NGO Alola Foundation has established volunteer mother support groups in at least nine of 13 districts nationwide to promote exclusive breastfeeding for at least six months of a baby’s life.
The Health Ministry, international NGO Helen Keller International and UNICEF are introducing micronutrient powder supplementation for children younger than two in Alieu district, with plans for a nationwide roll-out based on results in Alieu.
The Health Ministry offers community-based treatments for acute malnutrition in all 13 districts, including social mobilization, out-patient management, supplementary feedings and in-patient care.
The ministry conducts monthly nutrition screenings at designated sites.
But any interventions would take time to bear results, said Hossain.
'[This] can require up to a generation, such as improving adolescents’ and women’s nutrition in order to improve her baby’s chances of not being stunted.' "
http://pacific.scoop.co.nz/2012/02/timor-leste-malnutrition-among-worlds-highest-as-families-struggle-to-survive/
tags:
nutrigenomics human nutrition food safety food wars hunger malnutrition poverty genetics nanotechnology robotics kurzweil monsanto dupont pioneer corn genetically modified usda fda eggs beef poultry pork turkey fish shellfish fruits vegetables food borne illness wheat rice oats barley sorghum soybeans alfalfa protein vitamins minerals amino acids fats unidentified growth factors fatty acids genetic engineering climate change food security agribusiness fresh produce desertification nanoliposomes solid lipid nanoparticles nanoemulsions
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)