NEW YORK (AP) — Inside an Indiana aquafarming complex, thousands of salmon eggs genetically modified to grow faster than normal are hatching into tiny fish. After growing to roughly 10 pounds (4.5 kilograms) in indoor tanks, they could be served in restaurants by late next year.
The salmon produced by AquaBounty are the first genetically modified animals approved for human consumption in the U.S. They represent one way companies are pushing to transform the plants and animals we eat, even as consumer advocacy groups call for greater caution.
AquaBounty hasn’t sold any fish in the U.S. yet, but it says its salmon may first turn up in places like restaurants or university cafeterias, which would decide whether to tell diners that the fish are genetically modified.
“It’s their customer, not ours,” said Sylvia Wulf, AquaBounty’s CEO.
AquaBounty will be producing the first genetically modified animals approved for human food in the U.S. and one way companies are pushing to transform plants and animals, as consumer advocacy groups call for greater caution.
To produce its fish, Aquabounty injected Atlantic salmon with DNA from other fish species that make them grow to full size in about 18 months, which could be about twice as fast as regular salmon. The company says that’s more efficient since less feed is required. The eggs were shipped to the U.S. from the company’s Canadian location last month after clearing final regulatory hurdles.
As AquaBounty worked through years of government approvals, several grocers including Kroger and Whole Foods responded to a campaign by consumer groups with a vow to not sell the fish.
Already, most corn and soy in the U.S. is genetically modified to be more resistant to pests and herbicides. But as genetically modified salmon make their way to dinner plates, the pace of change to the food supply could accelerate.
This month, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to simplify regulations for genetically engineered plants and animals. The move comes as companies are turning to a newer gene-editing technology that makes it easier to tinker with plant and animal DNA.
That’s blurring the lines around what should be considered a genetically modified organism, and how such foods are perceived. In 2015, an Associated Press-GfK poll found two-thirds of Americans supported labeling of genetically modified ingredients on food packages. The following year, Congress directed regulators to establish national standards for disclosing the presence of bioengineered foods.
But foods made with the newer gene-editing technique wouldn’t necessarily be subject to the regulation, since companies say the resulting plants and animals could theoretically be produced with conventional breeding. And while AquaBounty’s salmon was produced with an older technique, it may not always be obvious when people are buying the fish either.
The disclosure regulation will start being implemented next year, but mandatory compliance doesn’t start until 2022. And under the rules , companies can provide the disclosures through codes people scan with their phones. The disclosure also would note that products have “bioengineered” ingredients, which advocacy groups say could be confusing.
“Nobody uses that term,” said Amy van Saun of the Center for Food Safety, who noted “genetically engineered” or “genetically modified” are more common.
The center is suing over the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of AquaBounty’s salmon, and it is among the groups that asked grocers to pledge they wouldn’t sell the fish.
The disclosure rules also do not apply to restaurants and similar food service establishments. Greg Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest noted that AquaBounty’s fish will represent a tiny fraction of the U.S. salmon supply, and that many people may not care whether they’re eating genetically modified food. Still, he said restaurants could make the information available to customers who ask about it.
“The information should not be hidden,” Jaffe said.
AquaBounty’s Wulf noted its salmon has already been sold in Canada, where disclosure is not required. She said the company believes in transparency but questioned why people would want to know whether the fish are genetically modified.
“It’s identical to Atlantic salmon, with the exception of one gene,” she said.
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
We have been lied to: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an alleged ‘well-mixed gas’ also alleged to reside in sufficient quantities high in the atmosphere to cause global warming (via the so-called greenhouse gas effect).
The first damaging fact to the theory: CO2 is actually a heavy gas. It is not ‘well mixed’ in the air as per the glib claim. Just check out the NASA image (below) showing widely varying carbon dioxide concentrations. Indeed, schoolchildren are shown just how heavy CO2 is by way of a simple school lab experiment.
This heavy gas thus struggles to rise and soon falls back to earth due to its Specific Gravity (SG). Real scientists rely on the SG measure which gives standard air a value of 1.0 where the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). Thus, in the real world the warming theory barely gets off the ground.
Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon. It then rapidly cools and falls. Once it falls it loses any claimed climate impact.
You see, so much of what we have been told about the greenhouse gas mechanism is false. James Moodey wrote an excellent debunk of CO2 pseudo-science. He tells us:
“Proponents [of the greenhouse gas theory] point to scientist John Tyndall for postulating what we now call global warming in his 1861 paper published in “Philosophical Transactions.”
Tyndall’s experiments methodically measured with an electronic galvanometer, the relative heat absorption of various gases, gas vapors and even a few solids. He proved that they absorb heat in the order listed.
Generally, the larger the gas molecule (compound gases), the more heat they absorb with the most heat absorbed by olefiant gas (ethylene).
Although he does not mention carbon dioxide, it might absorb about a third of that amount. He discovered that that these gases absorb less heat as their pressure rises, so he measured at extreme low pressures.
At one point, he generalizes that gas vapors, such as aqueous vapor, absorb roughly 13 times more than dry gases. Solids absorb even more heat. He notes that gases cool in proportion to the absorption with large molecule gases taking longer to cool.
Tyndall leaps a bit with this concept when he hypothesizes the affect on our atmosphere by stating, “to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times” – which we attribute to global warming.”
There is no doubt what he measured exists, but nowhere in John Tyndall’s paper does he add the element of time. Yes, some gases absorb heat, but for how long?
If you ask any climate ‘scientist’ how long CO2 traps heat they are unable to tell you. They certainly can’t claim Tyndall “settled” it. Instead you will find airy-fairy, hand-waving pronouncements like this peach:
“As humans emit greenhouse gases like CO2, the air warms and holds more water vapor, which then traps more heat and accelerates warming.”
You see, they want to convince you that CO2 is trapping heat (like a greenhouse) but then don’t tell you how much and for how long.
In fact, the only scientist to test CO2 absorption / emission in the open atmosphere is Professor Nasif Nahle (Monterrey, Mexico) in his peer-reviewed paper, ‘Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands.’ [1]
By performing his experiments in the open atmosphere Professor Nahle found:
“Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.” [emphasis added]
So much for that ‘greenhouse effect’!
Alexander: numerous scientists (most are climate scientists, or climatologists) below who disagree that humans are to blame for global warming (please click the links and read or listen to what they have to say, then make up your own mind), and some go as far as calling it “pseudoscience” or outright a “scam”:
I would also like to add that none of the predictions made by Al Gore in his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, have come true. His predictions/claims were based on the scientific predictions about “global warming” made by what some call “climate alarmists“, and “exaggerated” computer models.Unlike academics playing with computers, applied scientists like Nahle and measurement engineers, who must be correct or buildings would catch fire, use four aspects of physics to measure gases: Pressure (Boyles Law), Temperature (Charles Law), Super-compressibility and Specific Gravity. Charles Law and Specific Gravity should be at the center of any analysis of Global Warming.
But take a look at any climate ‘science’ publication explaining how they quantify and explain their mechanism of carbon dioxide’s ‘heat trapping’ in the climate and you will only read about radiation effects, nothing at all on those essential laws that chemical science experts rely on. Anyway, a greenhouse works by blocking out cooling convection, not by trapping radiation.
And the greenhouse gas theory is all about radiation. But radiation is not the principle method of heat transport in a gaseous environment like earth’s atmosphere. Here. it is convection and conduction that carry heat around the system. No wonder climate computer models fail.
So, does carbon dioxide trap and retain heat? No, although it cools more slowly than some other gases, it absorbs some amount of heat and quickly cools the same amount when the heat source is removed. Does it rise up in the atmosphere? No, it does the opposite. It sinks.
It is well known that CO2 pools in the lower atmosphere – it is heavy and sinks to the ground where it forms large concentrations (e.g as carboniferous limestone).
Geologists know this all too well. They can point us to innumerable examples e.g. those prehistoric limestone deposits on ocean beds which gave the south coast of Britain its marvellous white cliffs of Dover (see image).
As Moodey goes on to tell us:
Charles Law precisely quantifies the volume expansion of gas when heated at each degree of temperature. Likewise, as gas cools its volume shrinks precisely the same.
Our modern instruments measure instantaneous changes in volume and temperature. This does the same as John Tyndall’s instrument, except we can measure a slight change in volume with each degree of temperature.
By my experience with this, I estimate that gases lose the absorbed temperature very rapidly when the heat source is removed.
Specific gravity is the weight of a gas compared with air. Carbon Dioxide has a specific gravity of 1.52. It is about one and a half times heavier than air.
It is the same weight as propane and anyone who uses propane knows it to be very heavy. Carbon dioxide sinks into our storm drains and into the ground like a puddle of water.
Now back to some Geology:
And we know carbon dioxide forms into insoluble carbonates that will eventually be washed into the ocean and settle on the ocean floor. Just as well it does. A high carbonate content in the ocean has been a godsend to life.
Dissolved carbonates in seawater provide an efficient chemical buffer to various processes that change the properties of seawater.
For instance, the addition of a strong acid such as hydrochloric acid (naturally added to the ocean by volcanism), is strongly buffered by the seawater carbonate system.
Marine biologists and oceanographers, unlike most climate ‘scientists’, know that Phytoplankton have always sucked CO2 out of the sky, then dumps to ocean floor. [2]
This is the carbon cycle in operation – heavier organic carbon settling down to intermediate and deep waters.
Earth’s oceans and rains serve as a go-between to transport the carbon back… and free the CO2 gas which makes its way back up to the surface through volcanoes. [3]
It is sensible to see dispersion of CO2 via volcanic eruptions (and the very tiny human emissions of CO2) as fertilization of the land fauna and flora.
The inconvenient truth for global warming alarmists is that NASA finds that the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 35 years “represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.” [4]
If NASA is correct, then we need more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not less. Check the graph below and follow the blue line to see that life on earth has thrived on CO2 concentrations at 3,000 ppm, far higher than today’s levels of about 400 ppm (circled):
And if you think like a geologist and not like a climate ‘scientists’ and look back in the history of time you see the atmosphere had very large amounts of carbon dioxide in it. Today we have got less than 0.4%.
So where did that carbon dioxide go to?
It went into limestone, chalk, shells and life. All land-based lifeforms have been sequestering carbon for ONLY two and a half billion years. And all that CO2 that is supposed to turn the oceans more acidic?
If only those self-absorbed climate ‘scientists’ would speak to chemical scientists. All that Calcium Carbonate comes from the precipitation reaction of Calcium Hydroxide in the ocean with CO2 using the reaction Ca(OH)2 + CO2 -> CaCO3 + H20.
For example, shellfish need CO2 from the ocean to make their shells and control the conditions for PH, Temperature and Ion Concentration and they bind the crystals that form in a protein matrix for strength.
Shellfish are utterly unaffected by the piddling change in the ocean from being a base of 8.3 to being a base of PH 8.29 that might happen due to manmade CO2.
Our planet has been degassing carbon dioxide since it first formed four and a half billion years ago and now we are at a dangerously low level. The dumbest thing nations can do is permit scrubbing CO2 from the air (carbon sequestration).
As Professor Nahle found with his open air experiments:
“The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity / absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber / emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity / absorptivity of the mixture of gases decreases.
In consequence, the carbon dioxide and the oxygen at the overlapping absorption spectral bands act as mitigating factors of the warming of the atmosphere, not as intensifier factors of the total absorptivity / emissivity of the atmosphere.”
Indeed, even with some slight cooling observed, the affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is not even measurable as the content is so tiny. Note that during our most dramatic industrial growth from 1950 to 1980, our atmosphere cooled.
In fact putting co2 into the air is saving the planet. If the industrial age did not occur for another 100 million years, what would the co2 ppm in air be then? The danger is without humans taking steps to put more carbon dioxide into the air then life as we know it could end.
Source: Principia-Scientific.org / Reference: [1] Nahle, N., ‘Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands,’ Biocab.org [.pdf] [2] Lionel Guidi, et al x 64 names (2015) Plankton networks driving carbon export in the oligotrophic ocean. Nature, 2016; DOI: 10.1038/nature16942 [3] ‘Marine barite: Recorder of variations in ocean export productivity‘ page 698, Fig 6). [4] Samson Reiny, ‘Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds,’ NASA.gov (accessed online: January 30, 2017)
(Natural News) Many people see eggs as the villains of the grocery cooler. One moment nutritionists are touting them for their health benefits, and the next they’re saying they’re bad for us. This controversy comes from the general belief that eggs raise cholesterol which may lead to a heart disease.
Previous research has linked regular egg consumption to heart attacks, high blood pressure, and weight gain. Conditions that cause damage to the heart, arteries, or blood circulation are also known to increase the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.
According to the American Heart Association, healthy adults should not consume more than 300 milligrams of cholesterol a day. One large egg has around 186 milligrams of cholesterol and a small egg around 141 milligrams. A new study from the University of Eastern Finland now shows that a relatively high intake of dietary cholesterol is not associated with a heightened risk of coronary heart disease — the world’s number one killer.
Many people believe eggs increase the risk of dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. The Finnish researchers, however, discovered that eating eggs on a daily basis may help boost brain functions.
Of the 2,500 men, 337 developed a neurological condition at some point – with the majority suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. The authors of the study found that neither cholesterol nor egg intake was linked to a higher risk of developing dementia or Alzheimer’s.
Despite the general belief that dietary cholesterol has a modest impact on blood cholesterol levels, Professor Jyrki Virtanen, adjunct professor in nutritional epidemiology at the University of Eastern Finland Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition in Kuopio, said cholesterol and egg intake have not been associated with higher risk of heart disease.
He also added that it is assumed that dietary cholesterol has a greater impact on blood cholesterol levels among carriers of the APOE4 gene. However, Virtanen and his colleagues reported that even carriers of the APOE4 gene don’t seem to have anything to fear when it comes to eating eggs or any other form of dietary cholesterol.
Furthermore, the data also showed that regular consumption of eggs does not increase the risk of a memory disorder, not even in individuals who are predisposed. On the contrary, the researchers found that egg intake improved performance on neuropsychological tests of the frontal lobe and executive functioning.
The study was funded by the University of Eastern Finland, and Virtanen added that there was no funding from the egg industry.
Have no fear
While eggs have gained a bad reputation over the recent years, they are making their comeback to the health food aisle. As reported by the Daily Mail Online, one large egg packs around six grams of high-quality protein and decent levels of the antioxidants lutein and zeaxanthin as well as vitamins E, D, and A.
While lutein may help prevent clogged arteries, vitamin E has been shown to reduce the risk of future heart attacks in people with an existing cardiovascular disease. Previously, U.S. scientists reported that there is no clear link between egg consumption and coronary heart disease. Also, recently published research found consuming just one egg a day may reduce the risk of stroke by 12 percent.
The Millennial Kiwi 