Scientists from Australia and China recently released a study examining the effectiveness of CRISPR gene editing in rice plants. The developers involved in the project attempted to approve the yield of already high-yield rice by disrupting a semi-dwarfing gene in the plant (SD1). While the scientists used small gene inserts and deletions in the genome to accomplish this, analysis in the study published in the Journal of Genetics and Genomics found large insertions, deletions, and rearrangements in the rice’s DNA.

Given these findings, the likelihood of unpredictable changes in multiple gene functions leading to altered biochemistry in gene-edited food plants, with consequent health risks (toxicity, allergenicity) is very real.”

Dr. Michael Antoniou, molecular geneticist at King’s College London

In addition to the large and unpredicted insertions and deletions, the CRISPR rice did not show an increased yield. The plants were reduced in height, but scientists were not able to achieve their second goal.

Recommended: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut

Police in Portland have been using tear gas on protestors since May, and officials are worried about the effect of the gas on the health of the protestors and the water in the area, especially the Willamette River. Since July 24th, the state has received 160 complaints about tear gas, in addition to comments on social media.

While aren’t many studies on the long-term effects of tear gas exposure, which authorities have sprayed over protestors since George Floyd’s death on May 25th, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says that prolonged exposure to riot control agents like CS gas can cause eye problems like scarring, glaucoma, and cataracts, and may possibly cause breathing problems such as asthma. A small sample of protestors has reported that frequent exposure to tear gas has altered their menstrual cycles. The Oregon Health & Science University released a statement on tear gas and COVID-19.

Recommended: How To Heal Your Gut

While large gatherings in general provide increased opportunities for the transmission of COVID-19, the use of tear gas could significantly exacerbate the spread. Tear gas is a chemical that attacks the mucous membranes of the eyes, nose, throat and lungs and causes severe pain and irritation; exposure to tear gas can result in blindness, bleeding, crying and coughing. The release of airborne droplets through tear gas-induced coughing could accelerate the spread of COVID-19 and lead to a surge in new cases. Damage to the respiratory tract can put individuals at greater risk of adverse outcomes if they become infected with COVID-19.”

Danny Jacobs, President of OHSU

In addition to human health, environmental regulators are also concerned about the nightly applications of tear gas. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has asked the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services to respond to that.

Due to the unprecedented amount of tear gas products used within the downtown area over the last 90 days, DEQ is requiring the City to conduct additional water quality monitoring…” 

Christine Svetkovich, DEQ Water Quality Manager

The DEQ has also asked the city to report on the collections of lead, copper, barium, zinc, perchlorate, total chromium, and hexavalent chromium in the water supply.

Scientists may have to change the way they conduct COVID-19 studies, as the United States is facing a monkey shortage. Non-human primates are usually the last step before products go into human trials, but with over 100 new COVID-19 vaccines, therapies, and drugs in development, there aren’t enough monkeys to go around.

The reasons for the shortage are threefold. First, COVID-19 has created extraordinary demand for monkeys. Second, this coincided with a massive drop in supply from China, which provided 60 percent of the nearly 35,000 monkeys imported to the U.S. last year and which shut off exports after COVID-19 hit. And third, these pandemic-related events are exacerbating preexisting monkey shortfalls. A 2018 National Institutes of Health report had found that NIH-funded national primate centers would be unable to meet future demand and specifically discussed a “strategic monkey reserve” to provide “surge capability for unpredictable disease outbreaks.” A disease outbreak is upon us; the strategic monkey reserve was never created.”

The Atlantic

Related: Coronavirus Supplement Review

Monkeys infected with COVID-19 are also required to be put in special labs, called Animal Biosafety Level 3 labs. There are a limited number of these labs in the United States.

Recommended: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut 

In an attempt to manage the monkey demand, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has formed a public-private initiative, Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV), designed to control which products and which companies get to use the limited supply of testing monkeys. This initiative has the potential to save time and move scientists closer to vaccines, treatments, and therapies for COVID-19, but it could also make it difficult for those who aren’t affiliated with the project to gain access to non-human primate trials. A quick look at the leadership organizations involved in ACTIV show names like Merck, Johnson & Johson, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In light of that, the decision to control access to the final stages of animal testing feels less like an efficiency or safety measure, and more like a way for those who already have the power to keep it.

Researchers tracking immune responses to COVID-19 say they’re seeing the signs of lasting immunity months after coronavirus infections have resolved. T cells and B cells capable of recognizing the virus and virus-fighting antibodies are present in people exposed to COVID-19, even in people who experienced mild infections. These studies provide hope that the second wave of coronavirus cases will be met with a natural immune response.

This is exactly what you would hope for…All the pieces are there to have a totally protective immune response.”

Marion Pepper, University of Washington

Related: Coronavirus Supplement Review

Scientists have not yet found definitive proof that individuals who have experienced the virus will have immunity against reinfection. On the other hand, there has been no unambiguous evidence that reinfection is happening. Much of the research and media coverage has focused on the presence of antibodies, but immune responses also include B cells and T cells. In addition to that, low levels of antibodies remain in the blood months after COVID-19 recovery.

The antibodies decline, but they settle in what looks like a stable nadir…The response looks perfectly durable.”

Deepta Bhattacharya, University of Arizona

Recommended: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut

Studies out of Sweden could have the potential to further this research and the public’s understanding of COVID-19 and herd immunity. The country famously did not impose lockdown or mask restrictions, instead asking citizens to voluntarily socially distance. Healthcare officials in the country have indicated that they hope widespread exposure to the virus will lead to herd immunity in the country.

The Florida Keys Mosquito Control District (FKMCD) has approved the trial release of genetically modified mosquitos. Oxitec, the company responsible for developing the mosquitos, has received approval to release 750 million modified mosquitoes in Monroe County, Florida over a two year period. The release could begin as early as 2021, although exact times and locations have not been announced to the public.

The public was also not able to vote on this approval, as the Florida Keys Mosquito Control Board members rejected a referendum that would have given Monroe County voters the ability to reject the GM mosquito trial. like they did in 2016. Control Board members have reported over 2,000 complaints from Florida residents in regards to the mosquitos. One point of contention is Oxitec’s failure to provide a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

With all the urgent crises facing our nation and the State of Florida — the Covid-19 pandemic, racial injustice, climate change — the administration has used tax dollars and government resources for a Jurassic Park experiment. Now the Monroe County Mosquito Control District has given the final permission needed. What could possibly go wrong? We don’t know, because EPA unlawfully refused to seriously analyze environmental risks, now without further review of the risks, the experiment can proceed…”

Jaydee Hanson, Policy Director for the International Center for Technology Assessment and Center for Food Safety

Recommended: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut

The company has genetically modified male mosquitos so that their offspring do not make it to adulthood. But a team of independent researchers discovered that some of the offspring do survive, leading to wild female mosquitos giving birth to mosquitos that reached sexual maturity. Early lab tests at Oxitec revealed that 3% of mosquito offspring survived. It’s unclear if the company continued tested the sexual viability of the survived offspring, but it’s unclear if slowly replacing the current mosquito population with a genetically modified alternative is a good idea for anyone other than the people profiting off of it.

The Food and Drug Administration approved biotechnology company AquaBounty’s application to make and sell genetically engineered salmon in 2015, and now a federal judge is on the verge of ordering the government agency to take another look. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria is presiding over a case filed by the Center for Food Safety against the salmon’s approval, and he expressed concerns on Tuesday that the FDA’s approval of the salmon could inspire AquaBounty to expand their AquaAdvantage salmon program without fully considering the ecological impacts of it.

I’m not saying it opens the floodgates or sets the standards, but perhaps it pushes us in a direction and future agency action will likely be informed by this agency action…Shouldn’t the FDA in this case have considered the fact that this was the first such facility and future decisions would be building on this facility?”

Judge Vince Chhabria

The AquaAdvantage salmon is the first genetically engineered food animal that the FDA has approved for raising and selling. The fish is a genetic mix of an ocean pout and Pacific Chinook salmon, a combination that leads to higher growth hormone in the blood. The company plans to breed the salmon at a hatchery on Prince Edward Island in Canada before moving the eggs to their facility in Indiana.

When the agency completed their assessment of the salmon, they listed the salmon as having “no significant impact,” and Department of Justice attorney Marissa Piropato said that…

AquaBounty has no guarantee that the FDA is going to accept whatever comes down the pike…”

Marissa Piropato

Environmental groups have a different take on the approval and current impact status of the modified salmon that echoed Judge Chhabria sentiments. The treatment and regulation of the AquaBounty salmon sets the precedent for the future of gentically engineered food animals.

Whatever they do here is going to inform the approval for those other applications and is going to inform what the FDA does for all GE animals going forward…If the analysis they are doing here is inadequate that means it’s never going to be enough. It’s not going to get better.”

Earthjustice attorney Brettny Hardy

We don’t really think about PLU stickers outside of the checkout line at the grocery store and the annoyance of peeling them off fruits and vegetables before we eat them. Even so, PLU stickers have managed to inspire confusion, prevent compost from being all it can be, and stay on top of the produce labeling game in spite of other, much more environmentally friendly options. There may be some things about these little labels that you haven’t thought of yet.

They Are Not Edible

The FDA has categorized both the stickers and the adhesive they use as safe to ingest. That categorization has led several articles saying it’s fine if you get a bite of sticker when you eat your food. But eating the stickers is like eating plastic wrap. In addition, the glues holding the stickers to the fruit are made of turpentine, petroleum, and urea-formaldehyde resins. The stickers won’t kill you if you eat them, but they definitely aren’t good for you.

Recommended: Detox Cheap and Easy Without Fasting – Recipes Included

Stop Looking for 8s

For a while, there were rumors going around that PLU codes that began with an 8 indicated that the item labeled was a GMO. It turns out that there is a kernel of truth to that rumor…but that particular hack is not helpful for consumers.

Though the ‘8’ prefix (83000-84999) was once reserved for GMO produce items, the prefix was never used at retail.”

Independent Federation for Produce Standards

While this news is disappointing for those of us who were hoping to for an easy way to avoid GMOs, it make sense that most businesses wouldn’t make it that easy.

Composting Facilities Hate Them

PLU stickers are usually made of vinyl or another plastic film. These plastics are not biodegradable, and they’re not affected by the heat of compost piles. The small size of the stickers also enables them to escape most shredders and sifters, allowing the stickers to make it into finished compost. Sometimes facilities will have to purchase specialized equipment or even pay a picker to go through and find PLU stickers. Often times composting facilities will turn away massive loads of stickered, spoiled produce due to contamination issues.

PLU Stickers Are Voluntary

The federal government does not require PLU stickers. PLU sticker usage is driven by businesses. If it was cheaper or more effective to use another, more sustainable labeling system, PLU stickers would likely disappear quickly.

No, the PLU system is voluntary and based on business needs. It is not regulated by a governmental agency. Specifically, no regulatory body requires a PLU sticker on loose produce. Labeling produce with PLU codes are typically required by the retail industry to assist with point-of-sale (POS) identification.”

Independent Federation for Produce Standards

Lasers!

One solution to the problems of produce stickers involves lasering the label into the skin of produce. Laser labeling machines require more upfront investment than purchasing stickers, but once that initial investment is met, the process is actually cheaper. Dutch produce supplier and Swedish supermarket ICA ran a joint program that used laser technology to label avocados and sweet potatoes.

The calculations are that it costs the same, but sustainability for our consumers and ourselves is the biggest gain. I hope it will take off with more products and also non-organic. I can only imagine what a bigger retailer would be able to save. I really hope it spreads.”

Peter Hagg, ICA business unit manager

There is still work to be done on laser labels, as labels etched on citrus fruit are unreadable due to citrus peels’ regenerative qualities.

Recommended: How to Eliminate IBS, IBD, Leaky Gut 

Wash it Off

If you’ve ever wanted stickers to wash away, as opposed to cling forever, check out FruitWash. FruitWash is a solution posed by New York City engineer Scott Amron, and it consists of a label sticker that turns into an organic produce wash when washed in water.

Biodegradable and Compostable Options

In considering the issue of PLU stickers, there is the inevitable question…why not make these stickers biodegradable or compostable? Great news! These options already exist. Sinclair International, the largest fruit sticker company in the world offers a compostable option. Other companies also offer eco-friendly stickers. Businesses could eliminate massive quantities of food waste by switching to a biodegradable option, but they haven’t because compostable stickers are more expensive for them.

There are overall cheaper and more environmentally friendly fruit-labeling options than the one we are currently choosing. But these options require a larger initial investment, cost more money overall, or would necessitate the work of adapting a system that’s already in place. As a consumer, I find myself searching for stickerless options and fighting to peel off stickers before I put them in the compost bin while I wait for business to come to the realization that there are better ways to identify fruit.

Sources:

• The Truth about Fruit Stickers – Dirt Mag
• How Produce Stickers Contribute to Climate Change – CBC
• Those Little Produce Stickers? They’re a Big Waste Problem – Modern Farmer