Month: January 2017

Treating Genetically Modified Animals Like New Drugs? It Could Be in the Works

Last week, the FDA proposed a new way to handle genetically modified animals: monitoring their safety the way new drugs are monitored.

The proposed regulation, one of three proposed last week before President Trump’s inauguration, would have immense consequences on the treatment of genome editing in regulations—as well as how companies go about bringing genetically modified foods to the market.

It’s worth emphasizing that this is merely a proposed regulation. And although food is indeed grouped together with drugs as something that can change the way your body functions—it’s called the Food and Drug Administration, after all—this proposal is raising some eyebrows in the world of genetics and bioethics.

Understanding the Genetically Modified Regulatory Environment

Nature.com points to the case of genetically modified salmon, which took twenty years of safety testing to approve. It’s still not available for sale as the FDA is yet to rule on how the fish should be labeled.

The ethics here are complicated. For nutrition enthusiasts, genetic modification is something that should be closely monitored and watched. But Nature also reports that a firm producing hornless dairy cattle is worried that these proposed regulations could make it difficult to do what they do, which reduces the need for “surgical dehorning”—which animals lovers aren’t crazy about, either.

If all genetic modifications are treated with the same hard-line skepticism from regulators, they argue that the consequences could result in red tape for any steps forward in the quality treatment of animals. That might push money out of the GMO world and into other controversial areas of animal treatment. According to Allison van Eenennaam, as quoted by Nature,

Because of measures like this, almost everything in genetic engineering will have to be done by huge multinational companies.”

Treating all gene modifications the same way makes for healthy skepticism, but is it enough to ensure that research resources are allocated the best way?

What’s the Alternative?

A subtle distinction must be made. Animals with genomes edited by specific tools are different than animals bred from more general DNA splicing. The proposed regulation would see no distinction between the two, which could prohibit smaller innovations under the guise of regulating the larger changes.

Currently, the FDA does not regulate these foods as drugs. And though in general terms, any food can alter the body’s chemistry, that has not always meant that the same regulatory environment existed for both.

For more information on this FDA proposal and to see what it would really mean in the world of genetic modification, you can go straight to the source with a release at the FDA’s website.

Recommended Reading:

Hens That Lay Our Organic Eggs Just Got a Lot More Room

It’s simple nutritional logic: the healthier the hen, the healthier the egg. But the term “organic eggs” and what it means for the chickens laying them has always been, for lack of a better term, flexible.

New rules passed by the USDA this month include new “minimum indoor and outdoor space requirements for poultry” to attain the “organic” label. Previously, rules only required that hens have some sort of outdoors access to be labeled organic. That left a lot of wiggle room for egg producers.

According to NPR, some producers would simply construct large chicken houses and give them a small, enclosed porch for “roaming.” While customers might picture chickens with plenty of pasture for free roaming, the reality was closer to the typical, high-density chicken house you might expect from a non-organic label.

The new rules will require approximately one acre for every 20,000 chickens, or one square foot for every 2 and a quarter pounds of chickens. But buyer beware: farmers are being given a five-year transition period to rise to the new standard. That means that some organic eggs will not meet these new standards when you buy them now.

Understanding What “Organic Eggs” Really Means

The terms “free range” and “organic” are thrown around so often that some customers forget they mean two different things. While “free range” chickens are allowed the space to roam—as the name would suggest—freely, “organic” chickens are under no such requirements.

In fact, organic eggs simply come from chickens that are not kept in cages and are fed organic feed. Under old USDA rules, simple access to outdoor areas—no matter how inadequate—meant there was a lot of flexibility for farmers looking to save a buck.

The new standards, while not ambitious, ensure that the amount of space these organic chickens are given at least adheres to a simple formula. While it doesn’t quite bring the chickens up to “free range” status, it does mean a healthier lifestyle for the hens laying the eggs.

What Does This Mean About Your Organic Eggs?

The Los Angeles Times cited a poll of farmers suggesting that as many as a quarter of organic chicken farmers don’t currently meet this new standard. That suggests a modest change in regulations, since the majority of chicken farmers may already meet the new standards. And with a five-year grace period for bringing a farm up to date, customers shouldn’t expect drastic changes overnight.

The good news is that the “organic” label still means something. Even inadequate access to pasture areas is better than no access at all. And these hens are uncaged, according to USDA regulations, which allows free roaming within their confines. Their diet is also organic, without the pesticides or fertilizers that can ultimately affect egg quality.

The new regulation is drawing some criticism from both sides, with organic enthusiasts calling it “too little” and others believing that the small change will have an effect on prices, but not on quality. As for the hens, they were unavailable for comment.

Recommended Reading:

Legalized Marijuana States See Reduced Traffic Fatalities

One of the first arguments against legalizing marijuana was the concern of motorists driving under the influence. Since marijuana stays in the system so long, there is no simple test like a breathalyzer to catch a driver who is high.

Those familiar with the effects were quick to point out that marijuana users are far less impaired than those under the influence of alcohol, but the naysayers were not convinced. Perhaps the news reported by Reuters will change their minds. It seems the traffic death tolls have fallen in the states that have legalized marijuana.

Two studies have ben completed. The previous study, published in 2013, showed traffic fatalities dropped 8-11% in the first full year after legalization. (This study included 19 states). The latest study shows an 11% drop in average after analyzing data from 1985 through 2014 from 28 states.

They are quick to remind us that correlation does not confirm cause and effect. There could be many explanations. They suggest the possibility that marijuana users are more aware of being impaired (when they are) and might choose not to drive. Perhaps they stay home and get high rather than going to the bars. Maybe the police presence has increased. The point is, they don’t know why. All they know is that the data shows legalizing marijuana for medical use has benefitted the public rather than harming it as many feared it would.

This study does contradict some earlier reports such as a 2014 news release from Colorado stating a 100% increase over 5 years in “marijuana-related traffic deaths”. This claim is derived from comparing 39 traffic deaths in 2007 to 78 traffic deaths in 2012. They claim the drivers tested positive for marijuana. But again, if someone smokes or ingests marijuana it can take up to 40 days to clear the system. So calling these deaths marijuana-related was questionable and obvious fear mongering, especially when the overall traffic death rate fell 14.8% during that period.

Further studies will have to be conducted to determine exactly why the data shows a decrease in fatalities and whether the trend will continue as some states are beginning to show a small rise occurring as time goes by. It will also be interesting to see the results of recreation legalization.

But in the meantime, one can’t help but wonder if at least some of the change is due to a decrease in road rage. Is it possible that marijuana use is mellowing out American drivers?  If an attitude of “don’t worry, be happy” keeps us safe on the road, who’s to say that’s a bad thing?

Recommended Reading:
Sources: