Search This Blog

Monday, August 4, 2014

Genetically modified food from Wiki

Genetically modified food

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
 
Genetically modified foods (or GM foods) are foods produced from organisms that have had specific changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering. These techniques have allowed for the introduction of new traits as well as a far greater control over a food's genetic structure than previously afforded by methods such as selective breeding and mutation breeding.[1]

Commercial sale of genetically modified crops began in 1994, when Calgene first marketed its Flavr Savr delayed ripening tomato.[2] To date, most genetic modification of foods have primarily focused on cash crops in high demand by farmers such as soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil. These have been engineered for resistance to pathogens and herbicides and better nutrient profiles. GM livestock have also been experimentally developed, although as of November 2013 none are currently on the market.[3]

There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food.[4][5][6][7][8][9] However, opponents have objected to GM foods on several grounds, including safety issues, environmental concerns, and economic concerns raised by the fact that GM seeds (and potentially animals) that are food sources are subject to intellectual property rights owned by multinational corporations.

History

Food biotechnology is a branch of food science in which modern biotechnological techniques are applied to improve food production or food itself.[10] Different biotechnological processes used to create and improve new food and beverage products include industrial fermentation, plant cultures, and genetic engineering.[11]

The use of food biotechnology dates back to thousands of years ago to the time of the Sumerians and Babylonians. These groups of people used yeast to make fermented beverages such as beer.[12] The use of plant enzymes such as malts were also used millennia ago, before there was even an understanding of enzymes.[13] Further advancement in food biotechnology occurred with the invention of the microscope by Anton van Leeuwenhoek, which allowed for humans to discover microorganisms which would then be used in food production.[13] Food biotechnology was advanced in 1871 when Louis Pasteur discovered that heating juices to a certain temperature would kill off bad bacteria which would affect wine and fermentation. This process was then applied to milk production, heating milk to a certain temperature to improve food hygiene.[13]

Food science and food biotechnology was then progressed to include the discovery of enzymes and their role in fermentation and digestion of foods. With this discovery, further technological development of enzymes emerged. Typical industrial enzymes used plant and animal extracts, but this was later substituted by microbial enzymes. An example of this would be the use of chymosin in the production of cheese; cheese was typically made using the enzyme rennet which would be extracted from the stomach lining of the cow. Scientists then started using a recombinant chymosin in order for milk clotting, resulting in cheese curds.[13] Food enzyme production using microbial enzymes was the first application of Genetically modified organisms in food production.[14] Food
Biotechnology has grown to include cloning of plants and animals, as well as more development in genetically modified foods in more recent years.

Scientists first discovered that DNA can transfer between organisms in 1946.[15] The first genetically modified plant was produced in 1983, using an antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant. In 1994, the transgenic Flavr Savr tomato was approved by the FDA for marketing in the US - the modification allowed the tomato to delay ripening after picking.[2] In the early 1990s, recombinant chymosin was approved for use in several countries, replacing rennet in cheese-making.[16][14] In the US in 1995, the following transgenic crops received marketing approval: canola with modified oil composition (Calgene), Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn/maize (Ciba-Geigy), cotton resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil (Calgene), Bt cotton (Monsanto), Bt potatoes (Monsanto), soybeans resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (Monsanto), virus-resistant squash (Monsanto-Asgrow), and additional delayed ripening tomatoes (DNAP, Zeneca/Peto, and Monsanto).[2] In 2000, with the creation of golden rice, scientists genetically modified food to increase its nutrient value for the first time. As of 2011, the U.S. leads a list of multiple countries in the production of GM crops, and 25 GM crops had received regulatory approval to be grown commercially.[17] As of 2013, roughly 85% of corn, 91% of soybeans, and 88% of cotton produced in the United States are genetically modified.[18]

Method of production

Genetically engineered plants are generated in a laboratory by altering their genetic makeup and are tested in the laboratory for desired qualities. This is usually done by adding one or more genes to a plant's genome using genetic engineering techniques. Most genetically modified plants can be modified in a directed way by gene addition (cloning) or gene subtraction (genes are removed or inactivated). Plants are now engineered for insect resistance, fungal resistance, viral resistance, herbicide resistance, changed nutritional content, improved taste, and improved storage.

Once satisfactory plants are produced, sufficient seeds are gathered, and the companies producing the seed need to apply for regulatory approval to field-test the seeds. If these field tests are successful, the company must seek regulatory approval for the crop to be marketed (see Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms). Once that approval is obtained, the seeds are mass-produced, and sold to farmers. The farmers produce genetically modified crops, which also contain the inserted gene and its protein product. The farmers then sell their crops as commodities into the food supply market, in countries where such sales are permitted.

Foods with protein or DNA remaining from GMOs

As of 2013 there are several GM crops that are food sources and there are no genetically modified animals used for food production. In some cases, the plant product is directly consumed as food, but In most cases, crops that have been genetically modified are sold as commodities, which are further processed into food ingredients.

Fruits and vegetables

3 views of the Sunset papaya cultivar, which was genetically modified to create the SunUp cultivar, resistant to PRSV.[19]

Papaya has been genetically modified to resist the ringspot virus. 'SunUp' is a transgenic red-fleshed Sunset cultivar that is homozygous for the coat protein gene of PRSV; 'Rainbow' is a yellow-fleshed F1 hybrid developed by crossing 'SunUp' and nontransgenic yellow-fleshed 'Kapoho'.[19] The New York Times stated that "in the early 1990s, Hawaii’s papaya industry was facing disaster because of the deadly papaya ringspot virus. Its single-handed savior was a breed engineered to be resistant to the virus. Without it, the state’s papaya industry would have collapsed. Today, 80% of Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered, and there is still no conventional or organic method to control ringspot virus."[20]

The New Leaf potato, brought to market by Monsanto in the late 1990s, was developed for the fast food market, but was withdrawn from the market in 2001 after fast food retailers did not pick it up and food processors ran into export problems.[21] There are currently no transgenic potatoes marketed for human consumption.[21] In October 2011 BASF requested cultivation and marketing approval as a feed and food from the EFSA for its Fortuna potato, which was made resistant to late blight by adding two resistance genes, blb1 and blb2, which originate from the Mexican wild potato Solanum bulbocastanum.[22][23] However in February 2013 BASF withdrew its application.[24] In May 2013, the J.R. Simplot Company sought USDA approval for their "Innate" potatoes, which contain 10 genetic modifications that prevent bruising and produce less acrylamide when fried than conventional potatoes; the inserted genetic material comes from cultivated or wild potatoes, and leads to RNA interference, which prevents certain proteins from being formed.[25][26][27]

As of 2005, about 13% of the zucchini grown in the US was genetically modified to resist three viruses; the zucchini is also grown in Canada.[28]

As of 2012, an apple that has been genetically modified to resist browning, known as the Nonbrowning Arctic apple produced by Okanagan Specialty Fruits, was awaiting regulatory approval in the US and Canada. A gene in the fruit has been modified such that the apple produces less polyphenol oxidase, a chemical that manifests the browning.[29]

Milled corn products

Corn used for food has been genetically modified to be resistant to various herbicides and to express a protein from Bacillus thuringiensis that kills certain insects.[30] About 90% of the corn grown in the US has been genetically modified.[31]

Human-grade corn can be processed into grits, meal, and flour.

Grits are the coarsest product from the corn dry milling process. Grits vary in texture and are generally used in corn flakes, breakfast cereals, and snack foods. Brewers’ grits are used in the beer manufacturing process.

Corn meal is an ingredient in several products including cornbread, muffins, fritters, cereals, bakery mixes, pancake mixes, and snacks. The finest grade corn meal is often used to coat English muffins and pizzas. Cornmeal is also sold as a packaged good.

Corn flour is one of the finest textured corn products generated in the dry milling process. Some of the products containing corn flour include mixes for pancakes, muffins, doughnuts, breadings, and batters, as well as baby foods, meat products, cereals, and some fermented products. Masa flour is another finely textured corn product. It is produced using the alkaline-cooked process. A related product, masa dough, can be made using corn flour and water. Masa flour and masa dough are used in the production of taco shells, corn chips, and tortillas.[32]

Milled soy products

About 90% of the planted area of soybeans in the US are genetically modified varieties.[33][31]
Soybean seeds contain about 20% oil. To extract soybean oil from the seeds, the soybeans are cracked, adjusted for moisture content, rolled into flakes and solvent-extracted with commercial hexane. The remaining soybean meal has a 50% soy protein content. The meal is 'toasted' (a misnomer because the heat treatment is with moist steam) and ground in a hammer mill. Ninety-eight percent of the U.S. soybean crop is used for livestock feed. Part of the remaining 2% of soybean meal is processed further into high protein soy products that are used in a variety of foods, such as salad dressings, soups, meat analogues, beverage powders, cheeses, nondairy creamer, frozen desserts, whipped topping, infant formulas, breads, breakfast cereals, pastas, and pet foods.[34][35] Processed soy protein appears in foods mainly in three forms: soy flour, soy protein isolates, and soy protein concentrates.[35][36]

Soy protein isolates

Food-grade soy protein isolate first became available on October 2, 1959 with the dedication of Central Soya's edible soy isolate, Promine D, production facility on the Glidden Company industrial site in Chicago.[37]:227–28 Soy protein isolate is a highly refined or purified form of soy protein with a minimum protein content of 90% on a moisture-free basis. It is made from soybean meal which has had most of the nonprotein components, fats and carbohydrates removed. Soy isolates are mainly used to improve the texture of processed meat products, but are also used to increase protein content, to enhance moisture retention, and are used as an emulsifier.[38][39]

Soy protein concentrates

Soy protein concentrate is about 70% soy protein and is basically soybean meal without the water-soluble carbohydrates. Soy protein concentrate retains most of the fiber of the original soybean. It is widely used as a functional or nutritional ingredient in a wide variety of food products, mainly in baked foods, breakfast cereals, and in some meat products. Soy protein concentrate is used in meat and poultry products to increase water and fat retention and to improve nutritional values (more protein, less fat).[38][40]

Flours

Soy flour is made by grinding soybeans into a fine powder. It comes in three forms: natural or full-fat (contains natural oils); defatted (oils removed) with 50% protein content and with either high water solubility or low water solubility; and lecithinated (lecithin added). As soy flour is gluten-free, yeast-raised breads made with soy flour are dense in texture. Soy grits are similar to soy flour except the soybeans have been toasted and cracked into coarse pieces. Kinako is a soy flour used in Japanese cuisine.[38][41]

Textured soy protein

Textured soy protein (TSP) is made by forming a dough from soybean meal with water in a screw-type extruder, and heating with or without steam. The dough is extruded through a die into various possible shapes and dried in an oven. The extrusion technology changes the structure of the soy protein, resulting in a fibrous, spongy matrix similar in texture to meat. TSP is used as a low-cost substitute in meat and poultry products.[38][42]

Highly processed derivatives containing little to no DNA or protein

Lecithin

An example of a phosphatidylcholine, a type of phospholipid in lecithin. Red - choline and phosphate group; Black - glycerol; Green - unsaturated fatty acid; Blue - saturated fatty acid

Corn oil and soy oil, already free of protein and DNA, are sources of lecithin, which is widely used in processed food as an emulsifier.[43][44] Lecithin is highly processed. Therefore, GM protein or DNA from the original GM crop from which it is derived is often undetectable with standard testing practices - in other words, it is not substantially different from lecithin derived from non-GM crops.[45][46] Nonetheless, consumer concerns about genetically modified food have extended to highly purified derivatives from GM food, like lecithin.[47] This concern led to policy and regulatory changes in Europe in 2000, when Regulation (EC) 50/2000 was passed[48] which required labelling of food containing additives derived from GMOs, including lecithin. Because it is nearly impossible to detect the origin of derivatives like lecithin with current testing practices, the European regulations require those who wish to sell lecithin in Europe to use a meticulous system of Identity preservation (IP).[46][49]

Vegetable oil

Most vegetable oil used in the US is produced from several crops, including the GM crops canola,[50] corn,[43][51] cotton,[52] and soybeans.[53] Vegetable oil is sold directly to consumers as cooking oil, shortening, and margarine,[54] and is used in prepared foods.

There is no, or a vanishingly small amount of, protein or DNA from the original GM crop in vegetable oil.[45][55] Vegetable oil is made of triglycerides extracted from plants or seeds and then refined, and may be further processed via hydrogenation to turn liquid oils into solids. The refining process[56] removes all, or nearly all non-triglyceride ingredients.[57]

Corn starch and starch sugars, including syrups

Structure of the amylose molecule
Structure of the amylopectin molecule

Starch or amylum is a carbohydrate consisting of a large number of glucose units joined by glycosidic bonds. This polysaccharide is produced by all green plants as an energy store. Pure starch is a white, tasteless and odourless powder that is insoluble in cold water or alcohol. It consists of two types of molecules: the linear and helical amylose and the branched amylopectin. Depending on the plant, starch generally contains 20 to 25% amylose and 75 to 80% amylopectin by weight.

To make corn starch, corn is steeped for 30 to 48 hours, which ferments it slightly. The germ is separated from the endosperm and those two components are ground separately (still soaked). Next the starch is removed from each by washing. The starch is separated from the corn steep liquor, the cereal germ, the fibers and the corn gluten mostly in hydrocyclones and centrifuges, and then dried. This process is called wet milling and results in pure starch. The products of that pure starch contain no GM DNA or protein.[45]

Starch can be further modified to create modified starch for specific purposes,[58] including creation of many of the sugars in processed foods. They include:
  • Maltodextrin, a lightly hydrolyzed starch product used as a bland-tasting filler and thickener.
  • Various glucose syrups, also called corn syrups in the US, viscous solutions used as sweeteners and thickeners in many kinds of processed foods.
  • Dextrose, commercial glucose, prepared by the complete hydrolysis of starch.
  • High fructose syrup, made by treating dextrose solutions with the enzyme glucose isomerase, until a substantial fraction of the glucose has been converted to fructose. In the United States, high fructose corn syrup is the principal sweetener used in sweetened beverages because fructose has better handling characteristics, such as microbiological stability, and more consistent sweetness/flavor. One kind of high fructose corn syrup, HFCS-55, is typically sweeter than regular sucrose because it is made with more fructose, while the sweetness of HFCS-42 is on par with sucrose.[59][60]
  • Sugar alcohols, such as maltitol, erythritol, sorbitol, mannitol and hydrogenated starch hydrolysate, are sweeteners made by reducing sugars.

Sugar

Structure of sucrose

The United States imports 10% of its sugar from other countries, while the remaining 90% is extracted from domestically grown sugar beet and sugarcane. Of the domestically grown sugar crops, half of the extracted sugar is derived from sugar beet, and the other half is from sugarcane.
After deregulation in 2005, glyphosate-resistant sugar beet was extensively adopted in the United States. 95% of sugar beet acres in the US were planted with glyphosate-resistant seed in 2011.[17] Sugar beets that are herbicide-tolerant have been approved in Australia, Canada, Colombia, EU, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Russian Federation, Singapore, and USA.[61]

The food products of sugar beets are refined sugar and molasses. Pulp remaining from the refining process is used as animal feed. The sugar produced from GM sugarbeets is highly refined and contains no DNA or protein—it is just sucrose, the same as sugar produced from non-GM sugarbeets.[45][62]

Foods processed using genetically engineered products

Cheese

Rennet is a mixture of enzymes used to coagulate cheese. Originally it was available only from the fourth stomach of calves, and was scarce and expensive, or was available from microbial sources, which often suffered from bad tastes. With the development of genetic engineering, it became possible to extract rennet-producing genes from animal stomach and insert them into certain bacteria, fungi or yeasts to make them produce chymosin, the key enzyme in rennet.[63][64] The genetically modified microorganism is killed after fermentation and chymosin isolated from the fermentation broth, so that the Fermentation-Produced Chymosin (FPC) used by cheese producers is identical in amino acid sequence to the animal source.[65] The majority of the applied chymosin is retained in the whey and some may remain in cheese in trace quantities and in ripe cheese, the type and provenance of chymosin used in production cannot be determined.[65]

FPC was the first artificially produced enzyme to be registered and allowed by the US Food and Drug Administration.[16][14] FPC products have been on the market since 1990 and have been considered in the last 20 years the ideal milk-clotting enzyme.[66] In 1999, about 60% of US hard cheese was made with FPC[67] and it has up to 80% of the global market share for rennet.[68] By 2008, approximately 80% to 90% of commercially made cheeses in the US and Britain were made using FPC.[65] Today, the most widely used Fermentation-Produced Chymosin (FPC) is produced either by the fungus Aspergillus niger and commercialized under the trademark CHY-MAX®[69] by the Danish company Chr. Hansen, or produced by Kluyveromyces lactis and commercialized under the trademark MAXIREN®[70] by the Dutch company DSM.

Foods made from animals fed with GM crops or treated with bovine growth hormone

Livestock and poultry are raised on animal feed, much of which is composed of the leftovers from processing crops, including GM crops. For example, approximately 43% of a canola seed is oil. What remains is a canola meal that is used as an ingredient in animal feed and contains protein from the canola.[71] Likewise, the bulk of the soybean crop is grown for oil production and soy meal, with the high-protein defatted and toasted soy meal used as livestock feed and dog food. 98% of the U.S. soybean crop is used for livestock feed.[72][73] As for corn, in 2011, 49% of the total maize harvest was used for livestock feed (including the percentage of waste from distillers grains).[74] "Despite methods that are becoming more and more sensitive, tests have not yet been able to establish a difference in the meat, milk, or eggs of animals depending on the type of feed they are fed. It is impossible to tell if an animal was fed GM soy just by looking at the resulting meat, dairy, or egg products. The only way to verify the presence of GMOs in animal feed is to analyze the origin of the feed itself."[75]

In some countries, recombinant bovine somatotropin (also called rBST, or bovine growth hormone or BGH) is approved for administration to dairy cows in order to increase milk production. rBST may be present in milk from rBST treated cows, but it is destroyed in the digestive system and even if directly injected, has no direct effect on humans.[76][77] The Food and Drug Administration, World Health Organization, American Medical Association, American Dietetic Association, and the National Institute of Health have independently stated that dairy products and meat from BST treated cows are safe for human consumption.[78] However, on 30 September 2010, the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, analyzing evidence submitted in briefs, found that there is a "compositional difference" between milk from rBGH-treated cows and milk from untreated cows.[79][80] The court stated that milk from rBGH-treated cows has: increased levels of the hormone Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1); higher fat content and lower protein content when produced at certain points in the cow's lactation cycle; and more somatic cell counts, which may "make the milk turn sour more quickly."[80]

Foods made from GM animals

As of November 2013 there were no genetically modified animals approved for use as food, but a GM salmon was awaiting regulatory approval at that time.[81][82][83]

Animals (e.g. goat,) usually used for food production (e.g. milk,) have already been genetically modified and approved by the FDA and EMA to produce non-food products (for example, recombinant antithrombin, an anticoagulant protein drug.)[84][85]

One of the biggest obstacles for GM animals to enter the food market is the social acceptance of it. There is currently in huge debate as the first GM animal, salmon is approaching commercial market. The possibility of modifying other animals as food has also been discussed but not yet under way. Research and experiments have gone into adding promoter genes into animals to increase growth speed, and increasing resistance of disease. (e.g. injection of a-lactalbumin gene into pigs to increase the size)

Controversies

The genetically modified foods controversy is a dispute over the use of food and other goods derived from genetically modified crops instead of from conventional crops, and other uses of genetic engineering in food production. The dispute involves consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to GMO food are whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the objectivity of scientific research and publication, the effect of GM crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of GM crops for farmers, and the role of GM crops in feeding the world population.

There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.[4][86][87] No reports of ill effects have been documented in the human population from GM food.[5][7][88] The starting point for assessing the safety of all GM food is to evaluate its substantial equivalence to the non-modified version. Further testing is then done on a case-by-case basis to ensure that concerns over potential toxicity and allergenicity are addressed prior to a GM food being marketed. Although labeling of genetically modified organism (GMO) products in the marketplace is required in 64 countries,[89] in the United States, there is no general requirement that GMO foods must be labelled as such. The FDA's policy is to require a specific label if there are significant differences in composition or differences that are material to health, but it has not found any such differences in any GMO food currently approved for sale.[90]

Opponents of genetically modified food such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Greenpeace claim risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities.
Some health groups say there are unanswered questions regarding the potential long-term impact on human health from food derived from GMOs, and propose mandatory labeling[91][92] or a moratorium on such products.[93][94][95] Concerns include contamination of the non-genetically modified food supply,[96] effects of GMOs on the environment and nature,[93][95] the rigor of the regulatory process,[94][97] and consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs.[93]

Regulation[edit]

Governments have taken different approaches to assess and manage the risks associated with the use of genetic engineering technology and the development and release of genetically modified organisms (GMO), including genetically modified crops and genetically modified fish. There are differences in the regulation of GMOs between countries, with some of the most marked differences occurring between the USA and Europe. Regulation varies in a given country depending on the intended use of the products of the genetic engineering. For example, a crop not intended for food use is generally not reviewed by authorities responsible for food safety.[21]

One of the key issues concerning regulators is whether GM products should be labeled. Labeling can be mandatory up to a threshold GM content level (which varies between countries) or voluntary. A study investigating voluntary labeling in South Africa found that 31% of products labeled as GMO-free had a GM content above 1.0%.[98] In Canada and the USA labeling of GM food is voluntary,[99] while in Europe all food (including processed food) or feed which contains greater than 0.9% of approved GMOs must be labelled.[100]

As of 2013, 64 countries require GMO labeling; more than a third of these under a single EU ruling.[101]

Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Result of CO2 Decrease, Not Continental Breakup

Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Result of CO2 Decrease, Not Continental Breakup

DURHAM, N.H. – Climate modelers from the University of New Hampshire have shown that the most likely explanation for the initiation of Antarctic glaciation during a major climate shift 34 million years ago was decreased carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. The finding counters a 40-year-old theory suggesting massive rearrangements of Earth’s continents caused global cooling and the abrupt formation of the Antarctic ice sheet. It will provide scientists insight into the climate change implications of current rising global CO2 levels.

In a paper published today in Nature, Matthew Huber of the UNH Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space and department of Earth sciences provides evidence that the long-held, prevailing theory known as “Southern Ocean gateway opening” is not the best explanation for the climate shift that occurred during the Eocene-Oligocene transition when Earth’s polar regions were ice-free.

“The Eocene-Oligocene transition was a major event in the history of the planet and our results really flip the whole story on its head,” says Huber. “The textbook version has been that gateway opening, in which Australia pulled away from Antarctica, isolated the polar continent from warm tropical currents, and changed temperature gradients and circulation patterns in the ocean around Antarctica, which in turn began to generate the ice sheet. We’ve shown that, instead, CO2-driven cooling initiated the ice sheet and that this altered ocean circulation.”

Huber adds that the gateway theory has been supported by a specific, unique piece of evidence—a “fingerprint” gleaned from oxygen isotope records derived from deep-sea sediments. These sedimentary records have been used to map out gradient changes associated with ocean circulation shifts that were thought to bear the imprint of changes in ocean gateways.

Although declining atmospheric levels of CO2 has been the other main hypothesis used to explain the Eocene-Oligocene transition, previous modeling efforts were unsuccessful at bearing this out because the CO2 drawdown does not by itself match the isotopic fingerprint. It occurred to Huber’s team that the fingerprint might not be so unique and that it might also have been caused indirectly from CO2 drawdown through feedbacks between the growing Antarctic ice sheet and the ocean.

Says Huber, “One of the things we were always missing with our CO2 studies, and it had been missing in everybody’s work, is if conditions are such to make an ice sheet form, perhaps the ice sheet itself is affecting ocean currents and the climate system—that once you start getting an ice sheet to form, maybe it becomes a really active part of the climate system and not just a passive player.”

For their study, Huber and colleagues used brute force to generate results: they simply modeled the Eocene-Oligocene world as if it contained an Antarctic ice sheet of near-modern size and shape and explored the results within the same kind of coupled ocean-atmosphere model used to project future climate change and across a range of CO2 values that are likely to occur in the next 100 years (560 to 1200 parts per million).

“It should be clear that resolving these two very different conceptual models for what caused this huge transformation of the Earth’s surface is really important because today as a global society we are, as I refer to it, dialing up the big red knob of carbon dioxide but we’re not moving continents around.”

Just what caused the sharp drawdown of CO2 is unknown, but Huber points out that having now resolved whether gateway opening or CO2 decline initiated glaciation, more pointed scientific inquiry can be focused on answering that question.

Huber notes that despite his team’s finding, the gateway opening theory won’t now be shelved, for that massive continental reorganization may have contributed to the CO2 drawdown by changing ocean circulation patterns that created huge upwellings of nutrient-rich waters containing plankton that, upon dying and sinking, took vast loads of carbon with them to the bottomof the sea.

The article is available to download here: www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7511/full/nature13597.html.

The National Science Foundation provided funding for the project and the computing was carried out using clusters at Purdue University’s Rosen Center for Advanced Computing.

The University of New Hampshire, founded in 1866, is a world-class public research university with the feel of a New England liberal arts college. A land, sea, and space-grant university, UNH is the state's flagship public institution, enrolling 12,300 undergraduate and 2,200 graduate students.

Media Contact: David Sims | 603-862-5369 | Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space


Read more: http://www.unh.edu/news/releases/2014/07/ds30climate.cfm#ixzz39PanOpXq

GOP House Intel Committee Report – No Obama Benghazi Wrongdoing

Updated: GOP House Intel Committee Report – No Obama Benghazi Wrongdoing

The House Intelligence Committee just concluded an investigation on the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, and finds no wrongdoing by the Obama Administration -- destroying all claims by Tea Party and conservative activists.
In a stunning rebuke to its base, the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence voted to declassify on Thursday the results of its nearly two-year, $3.3 million taxpayer-paid investigation on the September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, finding no intentional wrongdoing by President Barack Obama, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, or by the Obama administration.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that U.S. Congressman Mike Thompson, a Democrat, "said the report 'confirms that no one was deliberately misled, no military assets were withheld and no stand-down order (to U.S. forces) was given.'"
Among the Intelligence Committee's findings, according to Thompson:
-- Intelligence agencies were "warned about an increased threat environment, but did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened."
-- "A mixed group of individuals, including those associated with al Qaeda, (Moammar) Khadafy loyalists and other Libyan militias, participated in the attack."
-- "There was no 'stand-down order' given to American personnel attempting to offer assistance that evening, no illegal activity or illegal arms transfers occurring by U.S. personnel in Benghazi, and no American was left behind."
-- The administration's process for developing "talking points" was "flawed, but the talking points reflected the conflicting intelligence assessments in the days immediately following the crisis."
Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died during the attacks.

The Tea Party, Republicans, and conservatives have spent nearly two years claiming the Obama administration committed treason, were at the center of a massive cover-up, and have propagated many other falsehoods and conspiracy theories that have been officially rebuked by this report and several other official government investigations, most led, ironically, by Republicans.

Meanwhile, Republicans will start yet another series of hearings, led by GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy, trying g once again to prove that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were somehow to blame for the deaths of four Americans.

For a look at Tea Party memes of Benghazi, including Obama hang nooses, see our compilation on Storify.

UPDATE: Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, in a statement said, "I took part in the extensive, exhaustive investigation that led to this report. I believe its conclusions should lay to rest all the baseless charges surrounding this tragedy that resulted in killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans."

"The bipartisan report is definitive – there was no intelligence failure surrounding the attacks, no cover up, no illegal activity, and no evidence that the Intelligence Community’s assessments were politically motivated in any way."

Sunday, August 3, 2014

Russians in revolt: Annexing Crimea but losing your soul

Russians in revolt: Annexing Crimea but losing your soul

Orthodox Fascism

The conduct of Russian president Vladimir Putin has been generating international opprobrium for many months, ever since his forcible annexation of Crimea and egregious attempts to destabilize eastern Ukraine.

As I pointed out in Blundering in Ukraine: Putin's strategic debacle, even viewed from the Kremlin's own perspective:
"Putin's short-term tactical successes … are virtually irrelevant in light of short- and long-term strategic blunders that have not only undone much of what Putin hoped to achieve with his Ukrainian gambit, but have actually significantly eroded Putin's political support and harmed Russia's position. Indeed, that the whole venture appears to be a top-to-bottom [disaster].
"The results of Putin's "Ukrainian campaign" have ranged from calamitous to disastrous. Almost every salient aspect of the Putin doctrine has been substantially undermined by what can already be seen as a Ukrainian debacle."
Not apparently, that this has changed Putin's determination to forge ahead with this tragic approach that is shredding Russia's credibility and reputation throughout the world.

Russian extremists: From über-fascists to neo-Stalinists 

Orthodox Fascists

One might assume that Putin's folly is a shared characteristic of Russians who are consumed with an imperialistic thirst to swallow their neighbours and return to a Czarist-era authoritarian, totalitarian, imperialistic, and monotheistic Orthodox state -- and indeed there are some who aspire to precisely that. In Ukrainian aspirations: Material, moral, and spiritual dignity I highlighted extreme ultra-fascists such as Alexander Dugin with his National Bolshevik Front, and neo-Stalinists like Sergei Kurginian and his paramilitary Kurginian Army. There are no shortage of others. There is even the profoundly shocking Russian Orthodox Fascist movement. The documentary, Orthodox Fascism in Russia by Mikhail Baranov is in Russian with no subtitles, but even for those who do not speak the language, the message is crystal clear. "Orthodoxy or Death" is one of their slogans.
 
Orthodox Fascists
Russians march for peace
Russians March for Peace

However, there are many Russians who do not share these convictions or this vision. In Faces of war and peace on Moscow streets, my collaborative article with Russian photojournalist, Ilya Varlamov, we profiled some of these with striking images taken by Varlamov at a massive "March for Peace" in Moscow in which more than 50,000 people participated.  These were Muscovites, who in an atmosphere of increasing tension and intimidation, took to the streets to demonstrate solidarity with their Ukrainian friends, relatives, and neighbours. "No to Intervention! Yes to Revolution!", "The Occupation of Crimea is a Disgrace for Russia!", and "Freedom to the People! Death to Imperialism!" were some of the banners they marched under.

Russians march for peace
Russian intellectuals: Defying the propaganda on Ukraine 

During the height of the annexation of Crimea, an Anti-war Congress of Russian writers, thinkers, artists, politicians, historians, political scientists, and human rights activists was convened in Moscow. The Congress issued an appeal that said [translations by C.G. Majka]:
"Our country has been plunged into a dangerous adventure. Under the slogan "Protect Russians in Crimea, as well as Ukrainians from the illegitimate fascist Government in Ukraine!" the de facto annexation of the Crimea has already come about. This is a gross violation of international law, and a destruction of the principles of European security and stability. Russia is rapidly sliding to a new Cold War with the West, the terrible consequences of which cannot be predicted."
Irina ProkhorovaThe statement issued by the Congress [moderated by Irina Prohorova, a writer, literary critic, and co-founder of the philanthropic Mikhail Prohorov Foundation]  noted that all state-owned media in Russia, "are creating a turbulent stream of lies and misinformation, and a deafening propaganda campaign against anyone who tries to question the legality of the actions of the authorities." They point out the devastating consequences of this for the country and for the people saying
"All dissenting beliefs are indiscriminately called "fifth columnist and fascist." And there are many who do not agree. Just read the uncensored reports through SMI [a website networking service] or numerous evaluations on social networks, to see what political scientists, economists, foreign policy experts, and simply ordinary people with a social conscience are saying. They are warning that disaster is looming for Russia -- economically, politically, and from a humanitarian perspective." 
Those who signed the statement included many leading Russian intellectuals including human rights activists Lyudmila Alekseeva, Svetlana Gannushkina and Sergei Kovalev, writers Boris Akunin, Andrey Bitov, Vladimir Voynovich and Viktor Yerofeyev, actors Liya Ahedzhakova, Mikhail Efremov, Lev Prygunov and Aleksandr Filippenko, singer and rock musician Andrei Makarevich, directors Pavel Bardin and Eldar Ryazanov, mathematician Viktor Vasilyev and more than 90 others.

Do not cave-in. Do not yield to lies
Russian PEN

At the same time the Russian Center of PEN issued a declaration signed by 850 leading Russian writers, journalists, philologists, publishers, directors, jurists, doctors, poets, teachers, musicians, engineers, pastors, translators, psychologists, geographers, painters, photographers, mathematicians, curators, bankers, critics, economists, sociologists, aviation engineers, ecologists, archeologists, physicists, biologists, teachers … the list goes on and on and on … entitled Do not cave-in. Do not yield to lies. I've taken the liberty of translating the manifesto.
The anti-war statement of the Russian intelligentsia
Not for the first time in the history of the Russian people, those who don't agree with an aggressive imperial policy, are labeled defeatists and enemies of the people. Not for the first time is loyalty valued above civic responsibility. Events in Crimea are rapidly evolving and are fraught with the serious possibility of bloodshed, shame for Russia, and misery for the people of the two countries. Hopes to stop this by reason are diminishing. But it is shameful to stay silent and passively stand by. We are not calling ourselves "leaders" in culture or science, but simply Russian intellectuals, each working in their respective fields, and we declare:
• We are against the invasion of the territory of another state;
• We are against the war with Ukraine and enmity with the world community;
• We stand in solidarity with all those who do not bow down to lies.
Losing Crimea or losing your soul?
In understanding Russia what's vitally important to bear in mind is, as the placard carried by the young woman marching in Moscow says, "We are Russia – Not Putin."

We are Russia - Not Putin.

The ever-perceptive Doug Saunders in his excellent article Putin's war of ideas cuts to the heart of Europe in the Globe and Mail writes:
Vladimir Putin"Mr. Putin’s assault on the idea of Europe is three-pronged. First, as he told his country’s parliament in a March speech justifying the takeover of Crimea, he is waging this war in the name of ethnic nationalism -- he is doing so, he said, in order to “defend the interests” of “millions of [ethnic] Russians and Russian-speaking people.”
"Second, Mr. Putin is doing this in the name of something very similar to imperialism, albeit without the means or ability to really carry it out: An expressed desire to control any territories where Russian is spoken and secession can be engineered (including not just Crimea and eastern Ukraine but also the periphery of Georgia). And third, as a leader who has effectively ended democracy in his own country, he is attacking Ukraine in opposition to the democratic desires expressed freely and fairly by its people.
"In other words, Mr. Putin is challenging the three core ideas of the postwar peace. The Brussels-based institutions of modern Europe were built in order to prevent authoritarianism, imperialism and ethnic nationalism from ever again taking root in the continent and leading it to war. It has worked well."
Orthodox Fascists

The "new war" unleashed by Vladimir Putin is not about ethnicity, nor language, nor even territory. It is a war on the very concept of contemporary liberal democracy. A war on the idea of a modern democratic state. A war on pluralism, tolerance, secularism, the rule of law, and of negotiated solutions to disputes. A war on freedom of expression, freedom of the press, democratic institutions, meaningful elections, and an independent judiciary.

This is what the conspiracy theorists Putin-apologists and useful idiots utterly fail to grasp. All the silly pretexts, the purported defense of "Russian-speakers", the longing and destiny of Crimea to return to the fold of "Mother Russia," the Ukrainian "fascist" government; the behind-the-scenes CIA manipulation of the Euromaidan movement, the absurd "false flag" operation theories (Nudge, nudge - hint, hint: It was really the Ukrainian army who shot down the Malaysia Airlines plane masquerading as Russian insurgents. Clever, eh what?), the claims that MH-17 was lured to site or was already filled with dead bodies (In order to then blame the Russian-backed insurgents for killing the passengers. Fiendishly clever!) -- all the increasingly absurd and flimsy propaganda and disinformation -- all these are completely beside the point.

Malaysia Airlines MH-15 air crash

They are, as Saunders points out, part of Vladimir Putin's, "attempt to manufacture a civilizational showdown." Threatened by democracy, pluralism, tolerance, and modernism, it is an attempt to substitute an autocratic, authoritarian, totalitarian, and imperialistic vision instead. However, as Saunders points out, "Russia is not acting out of projected strength, as it did in Soviet times, but out of internal political and economic weakness of a profound degree."
Bust of Andrei SakharovIt's a great credit that a wide swath of educated Russians recognize this for exactly what it is -- an attempt to return to an "aggressive imperial policy" with dissidents labeled as "fifth columnists, defeatists, and fascists."
Lead by courageous visionaries such as Andrei Sakharov, Russian dissidents struggled for decades to rid the country of such reactionary attitudes and governments. When Mikhail Gorbachev's policies of perestroika and glasnost finally took root, it seemed like a new page in Russian history was being turned. Vladimir Putin is attempting to lead Russia back to a future combining some of the worst elements of Czarism and Bolshevism.
How is it that Putin's forcible annexation of Crimea (purportedly to defend the rights of Russian speakers) differs from Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland (purportedly to defend the rights of German speakers)? How are Putin's imperial designs over Ukraine different from Stalin's imperial designs over all of Eastern Europe? As a society we need to be able to recognize authoritarianism, imperialism, and neo-fascism when they "whack us upside the head." Like the many courageous Russian citizens who write, speak, and march (at far greater risk than us) we must not stay silent and stand passively by.

Hitler in Sudetenland
Russia has as much at stake in this conflict as does Ukraine -- perhaps more. Ukraine may have lost Crimea, but Russia is in danger of losing its soul.

This is Part VII of a series on the political situation of Ukraine. Part VI is Ukrainian aspirations: Material, moral, and spiritual dignity.

Christopher Majka is an ecologist environmentalist, and policy analyst. He has a Russian Studies degree from Dalhousie University and the Pushkin Institute in Moscow. He is a research associate of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives-NS and a member of the Project Democracy team.

Inhalant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/w...