Pet Fish That Glow Under Black Light

Electric Green Tetras - a genetically-modified Blackskirt Tetra. Photo courtesy: Somethingsphishy.com

Who wouldn’t want a glow-in-the-dark pet fish? That’s exactly what Yorktown Technologies thought when they brought a genetically-modified pet fish called the GloFish to market in 2003.

The fluorescent fish, a modified version of the zebra fish, was undoubtedly popular, and as a result, this February Yorktown introduced the Electric Green Tetra fish, an altered version of the blackskirt Tetra fish. It’s a small freshwater fish that with the help of glowing coral genetic material, turns neon in black light, according to The Washington Post.

But environmentalists fear that these two fish (the GloFish [zebra fish] and the Electric Green Tetra [blackskirt tetras]) are actually much different than they seem because the Electric Green Tetra can survive in US waterways, particularly those in South Florida, while the GloFish (zebra fish) can only survive in southern Asia waters.

A Blackskirt tetra as they occur in nature. Photo courtesy: animal-world.com

“My worry is that they’ll be such a novelty that they will be imported back to [South America] and kids will let them go and they’ll start interbreeding with fish whose genomes are very similar,’’ said Barry Chernoff, a freshwater fish biologist and chair of the environmental studies program at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn on The Washington Post. “We would see the spreading of the fluorescent coral gene in the native fish.’’

Once people tire of their pets, many decide to set them free, which creates a huge problem in the wild, like in the case of the Burmese python in the South Florida. Yorktown’s CEO claims that the fish in question isn’t aggressive and rather vulnerable, so it’s not likely to become an invasive species. But researchers aren’t so sure.

“The neotropical region contains the most diverse freshwater fish fauna and complex freshwater ecosystem in the world, with some 6,025 fish species so far recognized,’’ Gordon McGregor Reid, chair of the Wetlands International Freshwater Fish Specialist Group of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, said in an e-mail to The Washington Post. “We meddle with this at our peril.”

Genetically-Modified Rice Tested on Chinese Children

Chinese farmers work at hybrid rice planting field on June 20, 2006 in Changsha city, Hunan Province. Headlines in the Chinese media have been screaming about an American university conducting experiments on Chinese children using genetically modified rice. Photo courtesy: Guang Niu/Getty Images

Genetically-modified foods are extremely high on my list of things I love to hate. I am one of those aging hippies that never quite made the transition to a technological lifestyle. I still believe that the best food for me is fresh from the garden or orchard full of natural goodness and bursting with the stored energy of the sun. Just the way God intended it to be.

I also like to get dirt under my nails and in my cuticles from tending my balcony garden. At least, I know what I'm eating when I eat a tomato or berry fresh from my balcony. My response to genetically-modified foods is "If it's so beneficial for us consumers, why is genetically-modified food not labelled as such." Are they afraid consumers won't buy the GMO produce? There is no way I would GM produce if it were labelled as such.

It’s not often that news about a scientific study is the top item on China’s main search engine. But for the last few days, headlines in the Chinese media have been screaming about an American university conducting experiments on Chinese children using genetically-modified rice.

Genetically-engineered foods are generally viewed with suspicion in China (as they should be everywhere), and the idea that government officials would allow foreigners — and Americans at that — to experiment on Chinese children would be very bad PR for communist officials.

The controversy came to light after Greenpeace posted on its blog a strongly-worded attack on the project, describing it as turning children into “guinea pigs.” And rightfully so. There is never a reason (altruistic or otherwise) that justifies experimentation on children.

These experiments should not have happened and I have to wonder why the question wasn't asked why the testing was being done on Chinese children and not American children or both. That alone should have been a dead giveaway that something was not right. The product tested was Golden Rice.

The experiments were part of an unbelievable decade-long project involving a variety of international organizations to see whether the genetically-modified rice would provide more vitamin A to children.

But they are both scientifically controversial and in China politically dangerous.

Perhaps sensing the explosive nature of the story, the Hengyang City administration in south-central China’s Hunan Province, where the experiments took place, responded immediately, denying that genetically-modified rice was used in the study.

On Sept. 5, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, a central state agency, also refuted the claim that genetically-modified rice was used. Such a common and wearisome tactic - when caught, deny, deny, deny.

They made another statement later the same day saying that Shi-an Yin, a China-based researcher, was involved in the project, but said he did not know whether Golden Rice was used in the study.

This assertion conflicts with the language in the clinical trial registration and in the study itself, which refers explicitly to Golden Rice, which is genetically-modified.

The rice was given to 24 children aged 6 to 8 at an elementary school in Hengyang from July 2008 to January 2009. The results of the study were published on Aug. 1, this year, in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN).

The AJCN study says that ethical review took place in both the United States and at the Zhejiang Academy of Medical Sciences in China. “Both parents and pupils consented to participate in the study,” it said.

Each child was given a 60-gram (2.1 ounce) serving of Golden Rice each day at lunch for 21 days, with the conclusion that Golden Rice is “as effective as pure beta-carotene in oil and better than that in spinach at providing vitamin A to children.”

Critics like Dave R. Schubert, an expert in cellular neurobiology at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, in California, say feeding genetically-modified rice to children is unwise.

“We do not know if this product of genetic engineering can harm people, there has been no work to test its potential toxicity,” he wrote via email.

He indicates that it is possible that retinoids, which can be “exceptionally toxic” molecules, could be produced by the rice. “Since there has been no animal or human safety testing of the Golden Rice, I believe that it was exceptionally foolish to feed this Golden Rice to children,” he wrote.

The experiment was conducted in China, he surmised, “most likely because they could not pass the review process required for doing this type of clinical trial in the U.S.”

Children may be especially sensitive to potential health risks involved in GM rice. A report by the London-based Royal Society said that 6 to 8 percent of children have had food allergies, and an unknown allergen in GM food would pose the highest risk to children.

Dr. Guangwen Tang at Tufts University in Boston, the principal author of the study, and her co-author Gerard E. Dallal, also at Tufts, did not respond to emails or voice mail messages requesting comment.

Jennifer Kritz, a spokesperson at the University, forwarded a statement saying the university was “deeply concerned” about the matter.

“The purpose of the 2008 China trial was to test Golden Rice as part of the solution to a very serious health problem in developing countries — blindness of a quarter of a million children, and the deaths of half of them, caused by vitamin A deficiency.”

The statement did not provide further particulars on the research. It indicated that a “thorough review” was underway and that “it would be inappropriate to speculate further on the matter at this time.”

Chinese media and netizens were incensed primarily at Chinese officials for allowing the research to take place, and then denying that it had.

The Jinghua Times on Sept. 3 said, “The United States already admitted to using Hunan children for the experiment, but the Hunan government only said, ‘We have no direct association.’ If both are telling the truth, the only plausible explanation is that the experiment was carried out by an intermediary association.”

Commentators on the Chinese Greenpeace website (site is written in Chinese - translation may be needed) said they thought the regime was trying to cover up the matter. “I feel that the experiment was conducted in secret. Genetically-modified foods are still met with strong resistance in China; I don’t believe the parents had agreed to the experiment,” one user wrote.

China Daily, the regime’s primary media outlet for external propaganda, questioned the evasive response from regime officials. “Central authorities’ first and foremost priority should be to find out the truth and dispel the doubts people have about this matter,” it wrote in an editorial.

Genetically-Modified Camel Milk Being Explored For Pharmaceutical Benefits

Camels. Photo courtesy: jasejc/CC BY-SA 2.0

My sympathies go out to Dr. Frank N. Stein's horse. The poor thing must be completely knackered constantly transporting the doctor's genetically-modified experiments from one country to another, one government to another.

This time Dr. Stein and his horse are in the United Arab Emirates to clone (of all things) camels.

Pretty scary stuff here (on a number of levels): SciDec.net reports that researchers in Dubai are working on developing genetically-modified camels. The project aims to slash the prices of life-saving drugs — including insulin, and clotting factors for treating haemophilia — in the Middle East and North Africa, according to Nisar Wani, head of the Reproductive Biology Laboratory at Dubai's Camel Reproduction Center, in the United Arab Emirates.

"We are establishing camel cells modified with exogenous [foreign] DNA, for use in producing transgenic cloned animals, or GM camels," Wani told SciDev.Net. "Hopefully we will transfer camel transgenic embryos to surrogate mothers for the first time later this year."

Wani went on to say he was unable to pinpoint when the first transgenic animal would be born, as the calving rate for cloned embryos was only 5%, and "this rate gets even smaller when transgenic cells are used".

Why camels? Cows would be a better option from the standpoint of milk production; but, camels have been chosen for this research as they are better suited for the arid environment of the United Arab Emirates and surrounding nations where the work will actually take place.

The Reproductive Biology Laboratory was established in Dubai in 2003, to study the reproductive techniques in species from the region, particularly camels.

"[Previously] there was little or no literature available on assisted reproductive techniques in camels, so we had to standardise all the basic techniques one by one," explained Wani. "Finally, in 2009, we produced the first cloned camel calf — named Injaz — and thereafter produced many more."

The lab's researchers have established a cell bank from 'elite' camels, which excel in milk production and adapting to drought and hot weather, and now plan to clone these animals.

Once again, the question of ethics rears its head. What right do we, as humans, have to alter the genetics of a species without even knowing what the long-term effects could be to the animals forced to participate; especially when any benefits reaped are solely for the good of humans not the species altered.

Threats Made to Disrupt Tests of GM Crops

I could happily live in a beautiful, tranquil spot like this. Calm prevails in the prosperous town of Harpenden in Hertforshire, which faces being overrun by anti-GM activists on 27 May. Photo courtesy: Richard Saker for the Observer

It must seem sometimes that I rabbit on about anything GM (genetically-modified)! However, in my own defense, I am a firm believer in "leave well enough alone". It seems to me that every time man has gotten involved in genetically-modifying an organism for one reason, another (usually larger) problem rears its ugly head.

I especially do not want the food I eat tinkered with by well-meaning (really?) scientists altering the genetic material of my dinner.

Call me a zealot; but, I believe that if God wanted my body to derive life from these "new and improved" crops, HE would have planted them here in the first place. There may those among my readers who feel that I may be of simple (and; perhaps, unstable) mind to believe that life was better before someone else decided what was in my best interests; and, then proved themselves too cowardly to even label their totally harmless "new and improved" crops as GMOs. If they are totally harmless as claimed, why not label them?

Personally, I wish the activists every success in the world. Now, on with the story...

For a town that faces being overrun by activists this May, Harpenden was in a surprisingly calm mood last week. Windows in the prosperous Hertfordshire town were unboarded, while sandbags were noticeable by their absence. Townsfolk were also displaying a distinct insouciance to pledges by green activists to hold a day of protest there and trash a field of GM crops at the town's Rothamsted research station.

Most locals had heard of the activists' threat, but few approved of the call to destroy an agricultural experiment which scientists say could have profound consequences for food production and environmental protection.

"I live close to the site and the presence of GM crops there does not worry me a bit," said Pauline Cheema. "It strikes me this is a carefully controlled experiment that should be allowed to continue."

In the local Oxfam shop, Claire was equally supportive. "Activists say pollen from GM crops in the field pose a threat to the environment. If so, surely the worst thing you could do is break down the fences and release the stuff inside. It makes no sense."

Even biologist John Pickett – who has played a key role in creating the GM wheat at the centre of the controversy – was putting on a brave face, although he has been working on the now threatened project for 25 years. "Our wheat is the vanguard of a new generation of crops that will use natural signalling systems to protect crops. It will get used one day, if not in wheat in Britain; then, in other crops in other countries."

The wheat devised by the team at Rothamsted – the world's longest-running agricultural research centre – is unusual because it is the first crop to be designed to mimic insect signalling systems in order to protect crops, in this case against aphids.

Pickett, an ebullient and unexpectedly cheerful figure in a black leather jacket and striped shirt, describes it as a second-generation, eco-friendly GM crop. It will not be patented and it will not be owned by any private companies, he added.

"Aphids cause more than £100m ($161m US) of damage to crops in this country," he said. "However, instead of killing them off with insecticides, which wash off the soil into rivers and streams and cause pollution, we have persuaded the wheat to emit a chemical called E-beta-farnasene, which is emitted by aphids when they are threatened. It tells other aphids to fly away. It also attracts aphid predators such as ladybirds and wasps."

The chemical therefore delivers a double whammy. It scares off aphids and attracts predators that will kill off the aphids that didn't heed the first warning. However, the chemical – which smells of Granny Smith apples, according to Pickett – quickly dissipates when sprayed on crops, limiting its effectiveness.

"We had to get the wheat to manufacture the chemical," he added. After years of research, his team succeeded in creating a GM variety that did this by inserting into the wheat's DNA a gene that makes organisms manufacture E-beta-farnasene.

"It worked perfectly in the laboratory," added Pickett. "Aphid numbers dropped, predator numbers rose and wheat yields increased. After that we had to show it worked in the wild and could withstand hailstorms and the like." So they sought approval from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to hold outdoor trials. Permission was granted – to the outrage of activists.

The centre's wheat was "a clear risk to British farming", claimed the group Take the Flour Back, set up to block the trials. "We don't need to boost wheat production in this country," said Nicola Gomez, a member. "Its production is perfectly satisfactory and does not need boosting by planting genetically-modified crops."

The group also says the crops threaten Rothamsted's existing trials of standard crops which could be "polluted" with GM wheat pollen. It argues the centre's research methodology is outdated and questions claims that GM crops use fewer pesticides than normal plants. In fact, they need more, says the group. Hence its decision to launch a day of action on 27 May which is described on its website as "a nice day out, with picnics, music… and a decontamination".

The prospect of this "decontamination" so dismayed Rothamsted scientists that they issued an appeal for the group to halt its action and called for it to debate the issues with researchers in public.

"We have made that offer several times now, but we are still waiting for a reply," said Professor Maurice Maloney, Rothamsted's director. "To judge from the rhetoric, they are going to go ahead and try to trash the field. And if they are absolutely determined, it will be hard to stop them. Yet there is no risk of pollen escaping, and even if it did it could do no harm to wild plants. Yet we face the destruction of a technology that could not just help wheat production in Britain but boost yields of crops elsewhere in the world."

Certainly, the wheat trial site is exposed. Legislation stipulates its exact map reference has to be published. In addition, a 2.5-metre mesh fence has been erected around it, in part to keep animals from disturbing the crops within. You wouldn't mistake this for an average inner-city allotment. Yet urban allotments have far better chances of remaining intact and of not being vandalised than Rothamsted's GM crop trial, despite its global importance. The irony is not lost on Maloney: "I sometimes feel we are heading back into the dark ages."

Europe to go GMO Free

Image courtesy: GMO-Free Europe

News broke this week that Monsanto has threatened to sue Vermont if it passes a law requiring labeling of genetically-modified foods.

I think the question here remains: IF there is nothing shameful or harmful with genetically-modified foods; then, why is Monsanto so eager to avoid labelling them as such?

But look outside the U.S., and opposition to the company and the biotech model it represents gets a lot stronger — and more effective. We saw that in a new report showing how much people around the world hate Monsanto. And now, following anti-Monsanto activism in other countries, Poland has announced plans to completely ban the growth of Monsanto’s genetically-modified strain MON810. Kudos to Poland for refusing to allow Monsanto's GM corn in their country.

Natural Society has more:

The announcement, made by Agriculture Minister, Marek Sawicki, sets yet another international standard against Monsanto’s genetically modified creations.

In addition to being linked to a plethora of health ailments, Sawicki says that the pollen originating from this GM strain may actually be devastating the already dwindling bee population.

And AFP explains more about recent news on GMOs in Europe:

On March 9, seven European countries — Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Ireland and Slovakia — blocked a proposal by the Danish EU presidency to allow the cultivation of genetically-modified plants on the continent.

Seven days after that, France imposed a temporary ban on the MON810 strain.

USDA Approves Genetically-Modified Corn

Photo courtesy: Lana_aka_BADGRL/CC BY 2.0

Follow the money. If you want to find the evil, follow the money. Another genetically-modified crop has been approved by the United States Department of Agriculture. The potentially organ-damaging corn is being brought to you by the fine folks at Monsanto who stop at nothing to keep the money rolling in.

Just in time for the New Year, the USDA has approved MON 87460, drought resistant corn. Approval discussions began last May upon fears that droughts could cripple the U.S. crop in a country where 40 percent of crop loss insurance is collected as a result of moderate to major drought.

Monsanto sees a high demand looming and dollar signs as a result, especially considering that corn growing regions lose 15 percent of their crops worldwide each year due to drought. Monsanto will begin crop trials in the Great Plains region of the U.S.

But tests have found Monsanto’s new genetically modified breed ineffective at its intended purpose. In fact, the USDA found that the crop didn’t perform well according to an article in The New York Times, which said that "[t]he reduced yield [trait] does not exceed the natural variation observed in regionally-adapted varieties of conventional corn."

But it’s not just an ineffective crop that creates a problem. It’s that the USDA is missing the ball entirely by deregulating another GM seed variety. Rather than continuing to approve monoculture crops for large scale production, we need to head back to our roots. The only way that farmers can adapt to drought conditions, which could occur more frequently as global warming looms, is by moving away from monoculture crops entirely. Just as you vary your investment portfolio, the same holds true for farming. Farmers are gambling on one or a few crops to remain intact even as our climate begins to change.

Depending on seeds of one or a few seed companies to feed the world is bad business and what’s more, these drought resistant seeds take farming out of the hands of the farmer entirely. Farmers can't even replant them because the seeds are patented. What happened to the intricacies of farming a wide variety of food crops?

Not to mention that this drought resistant corn has not been tested on humans. And while the crops are not entirely the same, other forms of GM corn have been shown to cause organ damage in mice.

This quick move toward deregulation isn’t just bad for our farming system, it’s also unclear what the health repercussions will be. And currently, the USDA has no standard for labeling GM crops, so you likely don’t even know when you’re eating them.

Genetically-Modified Trout: Bricks or Bouquets?

Do these genes make me look big? The modified rainbow trout boast more flesh per fish. Photograph courtesy: Terry Bradley

Once again mankind has decided to play God and tinker with the building blocks of life. This time, the victims are some very unlucky rainbow trout.

Scientists have created hundreds of mutant fish with "six-pack abs" and bulging "shoulders" by beefing them up (literally) with new genes. (These fish look like they are riddled with gigantic cancerous tumours under their skin, if you ask me.)

Obviously, these fish are not going to make it in the marketplace if good looks is any criteria. Researchers are counting on the fact that these fish will each provide approximately 15% - 20% more flesh than the average, non-tampered with trout to be a huge selling point.

Developed with fish farming in mind, the genetically-modified trout are the result of ten years of experimentation. The team that conducted this experimentation was led by Terry Bradley of the University of Rhode Island's Department of Fisheries, Animal, and Veterinary Sciences.

Twenty thousand rainbow trout eggs were injected with different types of DNA from other species. Animals that have had foreign DNA inserted into them are known as transgenic. The added DNA was intended to suppress a protein called myostatin. Myostatin suppresses muscle growth so the world isn't populated by muscle-bound Green Hulks. They got the results they were looking for in about 300 of the eggs.

Photo courtesy: Wikipedia

These transgenic trout now contain genes modelled on the myostatin-inhibiting proteins in the massive, powerfully-built Belgian Blue cattle. What makes the Belgian Blue so unique is that the amazing muscle structure gives the animal a "double-muscled" appearance. (Note the cesarean scars on the heifer. Sometimes, the intense muscling can interfere with other natural functions, such as birthing.)

Myostatin is what is what prevents all cows from looking like a Belgian Blue. Researchers are now looking at the ability to control myostatin as a possible way to reverse muscle-wasting diseases in humans.

Mutant trout (left) vs. unmodified trout. Photographs courtesy: Terry Bradle

For better or worse, this test is the first piece of evidence researchers have that myostatin inhibition has a similar effect on both fish and mammals.

"Our findings are quite stunning," Bradley said in a statement. "The results have significant implications for commercial aquaculture."

If these fish are given the green light, the modifications could mean cheaper trout for consumers as farmers could grow larger fish on the same amount of food. Sounds good on the surface (if you can get past the unhealthy, lumpy look of the fish). However, danger could loom...

Some trout with altered genes have been approved for release; but, trout with DNA added from another species have not been approved for commercial use yet, says Fredrik Sundström, zoologist with the University of Gothenburg in Sweden.

Other genetically-modified trout soon to make an appearance on a dinner plate near you have been engineered for faster growth; disease resistance; or, survival in frigid waters (the "antifreeze" gene).

Sundström, who has investigated the potential risks of transgenic trout escaping into the wild, said studies suggest not only that the fish can breed in rivers; but, are capable of passing on their lab-altered genes into the natural populations. (Read about threats to freshwater fish.)

"Under certain conditions the transgenic fish do better than the wild types; but, under other conditions we see the opposite," he added.

"If they have a lot of food, transgenic fish can use that food to a greater extent; but, if you have predators nearby they also seem to be more susceptible to predation," Sundström said.

Sundström states that he doubts that this latest transgenic trout would find enough food in the wild to support it's larger body size. (Just a minute...wasn't the whole allure of these trout that you got a bigger fish for the same amount of food?) He also states he wonders whether the bulky fish would be able to maneuver swiftly enough to escape predators. (But wasn't their larger size supposed to reduce predators?)

However, he does go on to admit that if these fish did survive in the wild, they could overturn their ecosystems by out-competing their unaltered cousins leaving them with little food and an uncertain future.

Via National Geographic