Currently viewing the category: "genetically modified"

You’ve heard of genetically modified foods? How about genetically modified pathogens? H5N1 to be exact–bird flu, made in the lab. Anybody else get the heebie jeebies from that notion?

The World Health Organization (WHO) released a strongly worded statement today warning against the dangers of the U.S. government-funded pathogenetic engineering information getting into the wrong hands and exposing the world to a potential bioterrorism threat. WHO said it was “deeply concerned about the potential negative consequences” of the study.

“This is not the kind of research that you would want to have out there,” WHO’s top influenza expert, Dr. Keiji Fukuda, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

On the flip side, WHO concerned that all credible scientists should have access to the information. Huh? The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) last week asked scientists at Erasmus University Medical Center in the Netherlands and the University of Wisconsin-Madison to refrain from publishing full details of their work on how to make the H5N1 virus more easily transmissible between humans.

H5N1 rarely infects humans and usually only those who come into close contact with poultry. But among those infected, up to 60% die, and scientists are closely watching the virus for any signs it is becoming more easily transmissible from human to human.

The WHO and the scientific community are concerned about the steps the NIH has taken toward censorship. Many are concerned that this move will keep important information out of the hands of those who may need it, particularly in Asia where preventing a pandemic is of the utmost importance.

Dr. Fukuda reports that WHO has not yet received copies of either group’s research, and he states wisely if not ironically, “I’m hoping that we are privy to as much of the details as possible, but like anybody else one of the questions for us is what kind of information do we need to know.”

Exactly–conundrum 101. It’s a dangerous venture designing pathogens in the lab, but the information gathered, I am certain, will be valuable if need arises to thwart a pandemic. However, there is always an inherent risk when you play with fire; we should know this in the post-Cold War nuclear era. So with plus comes minus, and our need for knowledge can create the very thing we fear–a bird flu pandemic, in this case, but caused by accident or through malicious intent.

If I told you, though, that we can’t escape conflict, would it have meaning? Listen, I’ve got no problem with the scenario as it exists. The U.S. government funding research to understand H5N1 seems as reasonable as doing so for HIV. Naturally, because of the sensitive nature of the information, it must be classified. It would be a fantasy to think that while we have this powerful knowledge and technique called genetic engineering that we wouldn’t use it. I’ve said time and again, genetic engineering is here to stay. What is important is using it wisely.

Somebody is going to try genetically engineering whatever can be imagined–may as well be under the system that’s based in checks and balances (and before you start with the conspiracy stuff, please think of which nation or organization you’d rather have the information). In that regard, I think the U.S. government and NIH have done right by censoring this information. Can’t get nuke building info easily–it shouldn’t be any different for sensitive pathogenic information. Good job U.S.A.

Pregnant?  Boy or Girl?  Don’t know?  Throw some spaghetti on the wall; if it sticks…  Or better yet, see how low your belly hangs, that’ll tell ya.  Or if your nails are growing fast and strong, you’re having a…

Okay, okay, these old wives tales may not offer much, but I’ve got something surprising for you–gender-detecting blood tests being sold online.  That’s right, you can find out whether it’s a boy or girl with surprising accuracy by simply purchasing a testing kit online.  And this kit’s no slouch–it accurately determines gender at seven weeks, a full three weeks earlier than conventional gender testing.

Researchers recently analyzed 57 published studies of gender determining blood tests done in rigorous research or academic settings–though not necessarily the same methods or conditions used by direct-to-consumer firms.  The blood tests analyzed use the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to determine the presence or absence of the Y chromosome, which would signify a male (XY) or female (XX) gender respectively.  The test is approximately 95% accurate

The analyzed test can detect fetal DNA in mothers’ blood. It’s about 95 percent accurate at identifying gender when women are at least seven weeks’ pregnant–more than one month before conventional methods. Accuracy of the testing increases as pregnancy advances, the researchers concluded.  Conventional procedures, typically done for medical reasons, can detect gender starting at about 10 weeks.

The researchers pointed out the need to question couples purchasing the tests to determine what the results will be used for.  Although the benefits of the tests are as screens for genetic illnesses, particularly gender specific ones, there is some concern about couples using such tests for gender selection and abortion.

No tests sold directly to consumers, online or otherwise, were actually analyzed; and some doctors interviewed disclosed that they will not provide gender identifying tests, including amniocentesis, for anything other than genetic disease screening.  Companies like Consumer Genetics Inc., based in Santa Clara, CA, sells an “early gender” blood test called Pink or Blue online for $25 plus $265 or more for laboratory testing.

These tests are not available to customers in India–where the costs of marrying off girls has contributed to a cultural preference for boys–or China, which has limits on one child per couple and a traditional preference for male heirs, contributing to abortions.  Consumer Genetics Inc. also won’t test blood samples unless women sign a consent form agreeing not to use the results for gender selection.

Without a doubt, every new breakthrough has a plus and minus associated with it.  As genetic testing becomes more prevalent, we will see more people designing the perfect child for them.  Yes, it will almost always start out as a simple ‘screening’ for genetic diseases, but seriously…how many couples will avoid the temptation of choosing gender, eye color, hair color, skin tone or sexual orientation?  Will some traits be genetically modified out of the species?

Makes me wonder what undesirable…’scuse me, challenging, conditions or traits will be consciously selected out of the gene pool.  Hmmm…could be yours.  Think about it.

Well it’s about time.  The government is finally putting its foot down and proposing that food companies be required to label meat products appropriately.  That is, any meat having added ingredients–like chicken broth, teriaki sauce, salt or water–should say exactly what it contains.  As you might expect, the proposed plan has meat industry execs fuming.

Most consumers are unaware of these practices and assume that all meat is just that–all meat.  But according to the USDA, about one-third of poultry, 15% of beef and 90% of pork may have added ingredients, which comes out to about 40% of all raw, whole cuts of meat.  The rule will not apply to ground beef, which will be allowed (and does) have added ingredients.

As it stands now, meat is only labeled as “enhanced” or that it contains “added solutions,” which the government rightly believes might be misleading, or not understandable, to the average consumer.  Some of the labeling is also likely not visible.  If the rules are finalized, the label would now have to be part of the product title. An example of the new labels would be “chicken breast–40% added solution of water and teriyaki sauce,” according to USDA.

A National Chicken Council spokesperson says that the industry is now split as some chicken contains added ingredients, while others don’t.  For those that do add ingredients to poultry, the level of additives is generally 15-18% of the piece of meat.

Red meat producers initially objected to the proposed rules.  The American Meat Institute called it “wasteful” and “unnecessary” and said it would cause prices to go up for consumers.  But consumer groups have been lobbying for years to have the truth in labeling rule enacted, as they say some additives are unhealthy.

I’m sure that some of the additives used to ‘beef’ up meats is harmless, but why shouldn’t the buying public know exactly what they are purchasing?  If you are going to buy food, don’t you want to know exactly what’s in it?  I do.  Let me make the decision as to what I want to put in my body.  Further, if I’m paying for a food item by the pound, why do I want to pay more for added water?  Duh!

I like this rule, and I hope it passes.  I pointed out the same in my book, The Six Keys to Optimal Health, regarding the “cage free” label, and I haven’t been shy about my thoughts on the use of the term “natural” used on other food items.  Yes, buyer beware, but also make food companies disclose everything on a label including whether something is genetically modified.  I do not belong to the camp that wants to do away with these foods entirely, as I beleive they serve a purpose, but it should be our choice as to whether we want to buy them or not.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.