Author: Gmo-safety

THE CONTROVERSY WITH TRANSGENIC CORN CONTINUES

THE CONTROVERSY WITH TRANSGENIC CORN CONTINUES
Although Mexico grows its own white corn, it is the leading importer of US corn.

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s controversial ban on transgenic corn has Mexico and the United States on the brink of confrontation. The measure, approved at the end of 2020, can cause great economic losses for both countries, and is viewed with suspicion by farmers on both sides of the border.

The decree against transgenic corn, that is, genetically modified, is intended to supposedly protect the population against agrochemicals, as well as preserve native corn. While environmental organizations have congratulated the measure, it could have big repercussions not only for the increase in production costs, but also for relations between the United States and Mexico.

Although Mexico grows its own white corn (destined for human consumption), the Aztec country is the main importer of US corn, especially yellow corn destined for animal fodder to cover at least three quarters. In 2021, it bought 16.8 million tons from the US. However, if the measure only includes corn for human consumption, what is the controversy?

 

THE UNITED STATES COULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST MEXICO

The problem is that the legislation is vague, and it is not clear whether or not it will affect imports from the United States. President López Obrador held a meeting with US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and is expected to send a proposal to clarify the matter.

However, the secretary assured that if an agreement is not reached, the US could explore going to trade consultations under the Treaty between Mexico, the United States and Canada (TMEC), since it perceives a violation of the treaty. Among the consequences that this could bring is the imposition of tariffs on Mexican exports, in the event of ruling against it.

Although Mexico is willing to soften the measure, environmental organizations ask the government not to give in to pressure from the White House. For their part, in the United States they assure that this prohibition does not comply with the requirement that health regulations be made under relevant scientific principles.

 

ARE GMO FOODS DANGEROUS OR NOT?

ARE GMO FOODS DANGEROUS OR NOT?
The United States could lose up to 3.560 million in the first year alone, while affecting thousands of jobs

Generally speaking, there is no convincing scientific evidence that GM foods are harmful to human health. The vast majority of scientific studies suggest that genetically modified foods are safe, and organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) do not oppose them.

However, some people have concerns about the potential long-term effects of consuming GM foods, especially in terms of allergies and antibiotic resistance xxx gratuit. In addition, some groups argue that GM crops can have negative effects on the environment and biodiversity, such as increased resistance to pesticides, cross-pollination between species, or negatively impact soil quality.

According to the National Agricultural Council of Mexico, the use of transgenic corn has not registered any negative effect. For now, the economic consequences of a ban are more certain.

Among them is an increase in the price of non-transgenic corn by almost 50%, according to a study by the consultancy World Perspectives. Likewise, the production of meat and chicken would also be affected by the increase in the cost of fodder, which would lead to more inflation in Mexico.

For its part, the United States could lose up to 3,560 million in the first year alone, while it would affect thousands of jobs and the economy of the grain-producing states, especially Iowa. Even so, associations such as Greenpeace consider that this could encourage the creation of a market for non-transgenic corn.

 

 

 

RELATED POST

 

 

THE ADVANCE OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD IS INCREASING

THE ADVANCE OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD IS INCREASING

Alarms about a global food crisis are growing by the day. In a context of wars, especially Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, coupled with the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the expectation of an economic recession, many countries have been forced to review their policies on GM foods.

According to UN estimates, 1.7 billion people in 100 countries will be affected by Ukraine’s dwindling grain supply this year, as the country is considered the “breadbasket” of Europe. However, this goes beyond the old continent as, post-pandemic, the number of food insecure people has risen to 276 million.

This, coupled with impending climate change that also puts crops at risk, has put GM foods at the centre of the conversation. These, also known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), can be an alternative to secure food amidst adverse conditions.

 

What are GM foods and why are they controversial?

GM foods are foods whose genetic material has been deliberately altered, and which are not one that is likely to be produced naturally through breeding or selection. These modifications are usually obtained by introducing genetic material from one species into the genome of another xnxx.

There are different foods that have been modified, one of the best known of which is Bt maize. To achieve this, the gene of a bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, is introduced, with the aim of making it resistant to certain types of pests, and therefore, it lasts longer. This maize is marketed in the United States.

What are GM foods and why are they controversial?

The controversy surrounding GM foods lies in their environmental impact. Once genetically modified seeds are used on a field, they cannot be used again without modification. And it is possible that, if these areas are not controlled, the planting of GM food will cause soil disturbance.

As most GM foods are intended to withstand heavy herbicide use, their use can have undesirable effects. For example, new “superweeds,” which are extremely resistant to herbicides, have been found in the United States and have impacted millions of acres in 22 states.

On the other hand, there are concerns that such foods may increase allergies or the risk of cancer or other diseases. On this issue, it can be said that research has been inconclusive, while voices within biotechnology defend its effectiveness in helping crops grow faster and even safer.

 

Why might the EU change its position on GM food?

In several countries the use of GMO foods is widespread, such as in the US, Brazil, Canada and India. Others are also beginning to lift regulations, such as Kenya and Colombia. However, the European Union is very wary of GM foods and their use is regulated by the European Regulation 1829/2003 on genetically modified foods.

In most EU member states, GM crops are banned, but pro-biotech voices claim that these bans are made for non-scientific reasons or under dubious research. Even so, the EU’s stance on GM crops is taking a turn.

In March, the EU approved the use of GM soy, rapeseed and cotton crops for the food and feed sectors, prompted by uncertainty over the invasion of Ukraine. Another country that could also change its position is the United Kingdom, especially after its independence following Brexit.

Although this position on GMOs is “transitional,” and only for grain exports in the context of the war, it may be the first step towards greater tolerance of this technology. After all, the climate crisis could also pose an obstacle to food security.

 

 

RELATED POST

 

7 Differences between Radical Feminism and Liberal Feminism

7 Differences between Radical Feminism and Liberal Feminism

Liberal feminism and radical feminism are the two main forms of feminism. While both advocate for equal rights to women, they differ in their ideologies, views on root of gender inequality and more. The major difference between them being that radical feminism advocates a radical shakeup of the system while liberal feminism does not campaign for a complete reorganization of the system. Here are more ways in which the two ideologies differ.

  • The Root Cause of Inequality

Radical feminism views patriarchy or male supremacy as the cause of gender inequality. They see society and its institutions as innately patriarchal, with men as the ruling class and women are the subject class. Liberal feminism believes that gender inequality stems from society and legal constructs. Liberals do not believe that society is innately patriarchal and that both genders are gradually becoming equal and this trend will continue over time porno français.

  • Core Beliefs

Liberals believe that all humans are equal and deserve equal rights. According to them, patriarchy ties down both women and men. On the other hand, radicals believe that patriarchy is oppressive towards women and that the male gender benefits from the subordination of women. Radical feminism believes that the domination of women by men is the oldest and worst form of oppression in the world. For example, Liberal feminism views paid labor as liberating for women and a progressive step toward gender equality. Radicals do not view paid labor as liberating. For them, women endure dual labor of salaried work and unpaid housework. The family remains patriarchal, and men benefit from the paid earnings of women and the domestic labor they provide.

  • Approach to Solution

7 Differences between Radical Feminism and Liberal Feminism

According to radical feminism, gender equality is possible through a radical restructuring of society to eradicate patriarchy. On the other hand, liberal feminism does not seek to restructure society. The liberals’ approach aims to work within the system to integrate women into the social structure and make society more responsive to women’s rights.

  • Individualism versus Sisterhood

Liberal feminism bases its philosophy on the principle of individualism, where all humans have equal moral worth with entitlement to equal treatment despite their sex, color, age, race, or religion. Therefore, it focuses on individuals’ right to fight for their rights instead of fighting collectively as women. Radical feminists claim that stress mounted on “personhood’ makes it more challenging for females to reason and collaborate as brought together by their gender identity – “sisterhood.” They fear that individualism allows the male gender to impose their attributes and aspirations onto females.

  • Militant versus Reformist

Radical feminism exhibits a more militant approach toward attaining gender equality. It aims to eradicate patriarchy or male supremacy from every sphere of society. Furthermore, radicals do not believe that changes in the law can bring equality because the system is innately skewed favor of men. Liberal feminism does not aim to obliterate the distinction between political and personal. It pursues a reformist approach. Liberals believe that opening public life to equal competition between both genders is crucial – it ensures equal political rights, the right to education, to vote and pursue a career, and more.

  • Biological Determinism

Liberal feminists believe in biological determinism – women and men exhibit biological differences. Women are naturally suitable for specific responsibilities like childbearing, taking care of the home, and more. Radicals believe that biological roles such as childbearing cause women to skip work (maternity leave), so women fail to attain promotions as fast as men.

  • Focus on Cause of Gender Inequality

Radical feminism tends to focus on the root cause of gender inequality and gender-based issues, which is patriarchy. Radicals are angry against patriarchy and the system and want a total overhaul of the political, legal, societal, and social organization associated with patriarchy. Liberals do not focus on the cause of gender inequality and believe that patriarchy is oppressive to both genders. They recognize the problem of patriarchy but believe there is a need to change that through political, legal, and social organizations.

 

 

 

All about the Vegetable Vaccine against Covid

All about the Vegetable Vaccine against Covid

Researchers at Medicago (a biotechnology company) in Quebec, collaborating with GlaxoSmithKline (a leading drug manufacturer), have developed a plant-based vaccine for Covid-19. The vaccine branded Covifenz is quite promising, with trial participants exhibiting a robust antibody response after getting the jab. The immune response is about ten times above that observed in individuals recuperating from the natural disease. The antibody levels are also higher than are those induced by other current vaccines. 

 

How it Works

Researchers must identify a method to produce antigens to develop a vaccine. Antigens are the molecular particles that induce an immune reaction in the body. In plant-based vaccines, plants serve as bioreactors for the production of antigens. A suitable plant candidate for vaccine development must exhibit susceptibility to infections by an array of pathogens porno. For the development of covifenz, Nicotiana benthamonia, a plant related to the tobacco plant, was the ideal plant. Researchers modify the plant to produce virus-like particles (VPLs), which serve as the antigen.

The process begins by inserting the genetic code for making the VLPs into the plant. The code is like an instruction manual to the plant. Next, The plant cells read the code and use the information to produce large amounts of VLPs. The VLPs are very complex molecular structures that closely resemble the virus that causes the covid-19; they mimic the organization and size of the virus. However, VLPs lack genetic information and are therefore not virulent – unlike the virus, VLPs cannot replicate or cause disease. Once injected into the body system, the VLPs trick the body’s immune defenses into action. The next step involves the purification of the VLPs.

Vegetable Vaccine against Covid

Aside from VLPs, the covifenz vaccine contains another key ingredient, an adjuvant produced by GSK GlaxoSmithKline. Adjuvants are essential in some but not all vaccines, and they strengthen the immune response. The inclusion of adjuvants is necessary, especially during a pandemic, because it boosts the immune response and reduces the quantity of antigen needed in a dose. This allows for the production of more vaccine doses to protect a larger population.

 

The Effectiveness of Plant-Based Vaccines

During its third phase of trials, covifenz (currently the only plant-based vaccine against covid-19) showed a general efficacy rate of 71 percent. According to researchers, virus-like proteins retain their structure as the blood transports them through the body. Other vaccines’ active molecules – spike proteins – quickly disperse in the bloodstream. Since VLP’s are delivered as a whole – resembling the virus – they elicit a more robust immune reaction. This could explain the excellent performance of the vaccine in different environments. The plant-based vaccine is 75.3 percent effective against the current dominant Delta strain and about 89 percent effective against the Gamma strain.

 

Advantages of Plants for Vaccine Production

Advantages of Plants for Vaccine Production

Plants are ideal for vaccine development because they yield high amounts of VLPs. It is also cheaper to produce vaccines using plants than other methods. Plant-based vaccines take a shorter time to make than conventional vaccine production methods. For example, the production of plant-based flu vaccine takes between five and six weeks. The same vaccine takes five to six months using the egg-based vaccine production method.