Monday, July 30, 2007
2 Small 2 Regulate
In an unsurprising move, the
US FDA has ruled that products made with nanotechnology do not need special labeling. Just as in their decisions on genetically modified foods, the US government seems to think industry is better served if
citizens consumers don't know what they are putting into and on their bodies and their surroundings.
Here is the FDA's official response to health and environmental concerns:
We believe we do not have scientific evidence about nano-sized materials posing safety questions that merit being mentioned on the label. (Dr. Randall Lutter, FDA's associate commissioner for policy and planning)
They
believe? Do they have scientific evidence otherwise, that it does
not pose safety questions?
The FDA is making a pretty good case for
citizen review boards I must say. A little discussion around this flared up earlier in the month on a
discussion list devoted to synthetic biology where a
European study on implementing "participatory technology assessment" was referenced.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Welcome Guest Bloggers!
We are lucky to have two new contributors, Jennifer Rutledge and Lisa Tucker.
Jennifer Rutledge is currently a PhD candidate and instructor in Political Science at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cites. Her research interests are Food politics, Politics of Children, International Development, Socio-political Change, International Organizations, Human Rights and International Law.
Lisa Tucker is an artist and organizer in Southern California. Lisa most recently organized a multidisciplinary series of events at the University of California, Irvine titled
Food Bioneering: Hybrid Investigations of Food.
Thanks Jennifer and Lisa, and welcome!
Monday, July 16, 2007
Ethanol and GMOs
Much of the criticism of ethanol has focused on the exorbitant amount of water and oil needed to produce ethanol, the continued mono-cropping of US farmland, and the subsequent rising cost of food. What has been less widely criticized is the rise in genetically modified corn that ethanol production will create. Currently 61 percent of the US corn crop is genetically modified and that number grows every year. The increase in corn production demanded by ethanol production will result in an automatic increase in genetically modified corn being planted.
In addition, companies are working to create genetically modified strains of corn that will be most readily converted into ethanol, largely by increasing the starch content of the corn. For instance, Monsanto and Cargill are working together and have formed Renessen, a biotechnology and processing company. Renessen has created MAVERA corn, a corn high in starch, that can only be processed in a specific processing plant, owned by Renessen. In addition, if a farmer wishes to sell corn to Renessen, she/he will have to purchase the seed from Renessen since the Renessen processing plant can only process Renessen corn. Thus, the closed loop of corporate control that GM food creates is yet again on display.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Science Jury Duty?
Wired recently ran an
opinion piece on the notion of public hearings on scientific research, which of course received some very critical comments from scientists and others referring to "ignorant masses." A short and unsurprising discussion, but worth a read anyway.
DNA and the Ethics of Ownership
The
Genetics and Public Policy Center, has organized a
panel on the topic of genomics and patent law where experts will address such questions as:
Should elements of the human genome be patentable?
Who really owns DNA patents? And what, exactly, do they give ownership of?
Do gene patents foster or stifle innovation?
How might patent reform affect DNA patents?
2:00 p.m. EDT Tuesday, July 10, 2007
National Press Club
529 14th Street, N.W. -- 13th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20045
The Center is based at Johns Hopkins and is supported by the
The Pew Charitable Trusts and by research funding from the National Human Genome Research Institute. The panel is also co-sponsored by the Duke University Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy.
While the questions posed and goals stated seem promising and certainly worthy of debate and discussion, the last 3 questions kind of assume the answer to the first, key question.
If anyone reading this attends, please let us know or post a comment as to reactions.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Monsanto's Profit Round Up
Much as in the 2001 case of
Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian federal court has ruled that a farmer must pay Monsanto for damages incurred through the "illegal" use of their patented Round-Up Ready Soybean, i.e. not paying the licensing fees required by the company. In
this case, the farmer is Ontario farmer Edward Wouters, of Northspruce Farms Ltd. The judgment was for $107,000.
In a
not-unrelated story, Monsanto reported a 71% rise in profits, mostly due to an increase in corn planted in the US - claimed to be the most corn planted since WWII. And with Monsanto reportedly holding 33% of the US corn seed market and their 25% increase in prices for Round Up Ready Corn.
Adam Zaretsky, on video

You can see bio-artist and educator
Adam Zaretsky on video leading workshops, giving lectures and discussing genetics, ethics and art
on Google video.
Synthia v Dolly in a race for the border
This week (July 2 - 6) in Paris, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity's scientific subcommittee is meeting to discuss climate change and the role synthetic biology might play in potential solutions for renewable energy. This meeting follows closely on the heels of the
announcement, in a report, by J. Craig Venter and co from
Synthetic Genomics Inc, that they had replaced the DNA of one bacterium into another - effectively creating an entirely new species. One, not-so-obvious question for those non-specialists among us following these developments is how synthetic organisms will fit into the current legal and regulatory framework. The ETC Group for example asks if the global movements of such organisms will be governed by the
Cartagena Protocol - the treaty on transboundary movements of GMOs.
Oh, and Synthia was the oh-so-clever name given to the synthetic microbe being developed by Synthetic Genomics.
You can hear
Venter discuss this research on NPR's Science Friday.
Archives
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
syndicate [atom]
preBlog archives
