Last summer, F1000 celebrated ten years highlighting the top literature in biology and medical research. Faculty of 1000 (F1000) is a unique online services that selects, rates, and evaluates important articles based on the opinions of global leaders in biology and medicine. Articles are selected by a peer-nominated global ‘Faculty’ of the world’s leading scientists and clinicians who then rate them and explain their importance.

Rather than a traditional journal, F1000 Research is a publishing program, which will offer immediate publication after an in-house editorial check similar to what is done by other publishers such as PLoS One before anything is sent for referee. Peer review will occur openly, post publication, with open revisioning of work including ongoing updates. Review will be a simple formal check by invited reviewers confirming that the work is scientifically sound, with commenting optional. An “approved” or “not approved” stamp with the invited reviewers’ name(s) and comments will then accompany the article. Following review, any registered reader can comment on the work and authors can respond.

F1000 Research will also encourage raw data deposition and publication. Standardized templates are being developed to permit the data and associated information to be indexed and mined, potentially for further publication credit.

The new publishing program will accept a broad range of article formats and will encourage content types that are now routinely rejected (or not even regarded as publishable by other science publishers) such as negative results, case studies, thought experiments, preliminary analyses, and incomplete datasets. Publication fees (i.e. author costs for submission) have not been announced.

The move by F1000 is timely. Recently, researchers have been boycotting one traditional publisher, Elsevier, who has been actively supporting a bill in Congress, the Research Works Act (RWA), which seeks to roll back legislation passed less than five years ago that expanded public access to taxpayer funded research by requiring all research funded by the NIH to be freely available to the public within 12 months of publication.

Commenting on the launch of F1000 Research, Vitek Tracz, Chairman and Founder of Faculty of 1000 said [2]:

The Open Access model has addressed effectively the issue of inadequate access to research findings. It did not address the major issues around communicating the research finding: the delays in access, the inadequacies of peer review, and the complexities of data publishing. It is up to collaboration between researchers and publishers to come up with a solution, and we are determined to be a part of it.

Many questions remain as F1000 Research is readied for launch. Rebecca Lawrence, F1000 Director of New Product Development, invites those working in the bioresearch community, institutions, funders, data centres and repositories, and data mining and informatics groups to join in open discussion and debate about the outstanding issues via the F1000 Resarch RSS feed or Twitter @F1000Research.

References

1. F1000 Research – join us and shape the future of scholarly communication. F1000 Research. 2012 Jan 30.
2. Faculty of 1000 introduces a novel Open Access publishing venture: F1000 Research. F1000 press release. 2012 Jan 31.

Hand on the floor with syringe image via Shutterstock

“Bath salts” are a relatively new recreational drug. Unlike LSD or heroin, the “bath salt” drug isn’t a single compound. Instead, it consists of a mixture of amphetamine-like substances, including compounds similar to MDMA (ecstasy) and cocaine, explains the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Until relatively recently, the drug — marketed under names like “Red Dove” and “Bloom” — was legally sold online and in stores. Components of “bath salts” are dangerous because they’re highly addictive; they also carry a significant potential for overdose. Additionally, because there’s very little information currently available on the chemicals used in the drug, there is little known about short- and long-term effects of use. The NIDA warns that “bath salts” have been responsible for a large number of ER visits, and in October of 2011, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) acted to control the drug pending further investigation.

While necrotizing fasciitis is rare in the general population, the risk of infection increases astronomically with injection of a recreational substance under non-sterile conditions. That, combined with the potential for serious adverse effects and the ever-present risk of overdose, is good reason to steer clear of “bath salts.”

This case underscores the significant danger of recreational compounds that are sold legally; just because the DEA hasn’t yet banned a substance isn’t testament to its safety. In fact, recreational drug designers work hard to stay ahead of the DEA, meaning that dangerous compounds will often be available for months before they’re declared illegal. Many consumers assume that if something is available for purchase — particularly if it’s available in a physical store — it’s safe to use (or is at least a safer alternative to street drugs). Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, the drugs that are so young they haven’t yet been declared illegal are extremely dangerous, both intrinsically and because they’re new and are poorly understood.

References

1. Russo et al. Life-threatening Necrotizing Fasciitis Due to ‘Bath Salts’ Injection. Orthopedics. 2012 Jan 16;35(1):e124-7. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20111122-36.
   View abstract

The campaign, launched in August 2011, features provocative television and outdoor advertisements around metro Atlanta seeking to raise public awareness of the childhood obesity crisis [1]. The hospital justifies the harsh nature of the ads by citing the many serious health issues associated with childhood obesity. These include heart disease, high blood pressure, and type 2 diabetes. Linda Matzigkeit, a senior vice president at Children’s Healthcare who leads the system’s wellness projects, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the campaign’s harsh tone was necessary [2]:

We felt like we needed a very arresting, abrupt campaign that said: “Hey, Georgia! Wake up. This is a problem.”

The obesity epidemic in the United States isn’t limited to Georgia — or to children — but it’s more severe in the South than in other parts of the country. Further, while Americans are becoming fatter across age brackets, obesity in children is particularly problematic because it sets children up for a lifetime of health problems. According to the CDC, childhood obesity rates have been skyrocketing over the past two decades. In 1996, just over 20% of public school children in sixth grade were overweight. By 2003, this number had risen to 43%, half of whom were obese [3]. The report goes on to state that in the last five years, obesity rates have actually fallen a bit among school children, but that this trend is strongly associated with income and race. Minority children and those from poorest families have experienced the smallest drop in obesity.

Opponents of the Georgia ad campaign object to the ad’s negativity, claiming that they could impact the already low self-esteem of an overweight or obese child. However, proponents of the ads counter with the logic that a blow to the self-esteem is minor compared to the significant health consequences of childhood obesity. Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta explains that their targeted research shows children don’t see the ads as “bullying,” and want to be talked to directly about the problem.

References

1. Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Launches Provocative Awareness Campaign to Combat Childhood Obesity. Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta. 2011 Aug 23.
2. Grim childhood obesity ads stir critics. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 2012 Jan 1.
3. CDC. Obesity in K–8 Students — New York City, 2006–07 to 2010–11 School Years. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011 Dec 16;60:1673-8.
   View abstract

The recall affects select bottle packaging configurations from retailers of Excedrin and NoDoz products with expiration dates of December 20, 2014 or earlier and Bufferin and Gas-X Prevention products with expiration dates of December 20, 2013 or earlier, in the United States.

The issue arises from manufacturing problems at the company’s Lincoln, Nebraska facility. Novartis voluntarily halted production at the plant on December 19th, 2011. The FDA has cited the Novartis plant for quality control problems over the summer 2011 [2]. Among the 13 FDA inspector observations, Novartis officials have failed to adequately investigate 166 complaints of foreign tablets in bottles since 2009. On Monday, January 9th, FDA officials warned that some of Novartis’ over-the-counter medications may have accidentally been packaged with opiate products manufactured and packaged for Endo Pharmaceuticals, which are made at the same facility [3].

No related adverse events have been reported as a result of these issues. U.S. Consumers are being asked to either destroy or return unused product identified in the recall to Novartis Consumer Health Inc. Information on the affected bottle sizes, and related expiration dates are available at www.novartisOTC.com.

The Novartis recalls come just over six months after Johnson & Johnson recalled over 40 products due to what was believed to have been contaminating breakdown products from a fungicide used to treat wooden pallets on which empty product containers were stored.

References

1. Novartis Consumer Health Inc. voluntarily recalls certain over-the- counter products in the US while Novartis Group strengthens quality standards across all manufacturing sites. Novartis media release. 2012 Jan 8.
2. Novartis Consumer Health, Lincoln, NE 483 issued 7/8/2011. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Accessed 2012 Jan 9.
3. Endo Pharmaceuticals Opiate Products by Novartis Consumer Health: Public Health Advisory – Potential Safety Risk. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2012 Jan 9.

However, there have been two neti pot-associated deaths in Louisiana recently, both of which were caused by infection with the “brain-eating amoeba,” Naegleria fowleri. Naegleria itself isn’t particularly rare, but infections are, because the amoeba doesn’t cause harm if it’s ingested through contaminated drinking water, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [3]. Instead, most Naegleria infections result from swimming in warm water — generally in the Southern or Southwestern U.S. states — which allows the amoeba to enter the nose. From there, Naegleria makes its way into the brain. Symptoms of Naegleria infection begin anywhere from a day to a week after exposure, and are similar to meningitis. They include nausea, headache, and vomiting. The symptoms progress into seizures and hallucinations, and the resulting meningoencephalitis, or inflammation of the brain and its membranes, causes death within days.

Drinking water (i.e. tap water), generally speaking, shouldn’t contain Naegleria, as it’s killed by chlorination. However, small quantities of Naegleria may survive the chlorination process, meaning that tap water in Southern and Southwestern U.S. states could potentially contain the amoeba. While this doesn’t make the water unsafe to drink, it does pose a small risk if tap water is used in a nasal irrigation device.

The CDC acknowledges that there’s a risk, albeit a very small one, of Naegleria infection associated with neti pot use, though there is no risk at all if sterile water is used for irrigation purposes. The State of Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals warns that it’s best to use distilled water in neti pots, or to boil (sterilize) tap water before use.

The neti pot originated in India, though when it was first used is a matter of debate. A neti pot looks a bit like a teapot or genie’s lamp, with a reservoir and long spout. It is filled with warm saline (water and table salt). The spout is put up against one nostril, and by tipping the neti pot, the user pours water into the nostril. The solution flows through the sinuses and back out the other nostril. This procedure is repeated on the other side. This flushes excess mucus, dust, and allergy-causing particles from the nasal passages and sinuses.

Nasal irrigation can help to reduce sinus congestion. Although saline sprays are also available, a recent study found that saline nasal irrigation is more effective thn spray for chronic sinus symptoms.

References

1. Tomooka et al. Clinical Study and Literature Review of Nasal Irrigation. Laryngoscope. 2000 Jul;110(7):1189-93.
   View abstract
2. Rabago et al. Saline Nasal Irrigation for Upper Respiratory Conditions. Am Fam Physician. 2009 Nov 15;80(10):1117-9.
   View abstract
3. Naeglieria – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed 2011 Dec 22.

Bone marrow contains hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), which multiply and generate the many different cells of the blood. Individuals with certain diseases and cancer, including leukemia, require donations of healthy bone marrow in order to recover from their disease. Because bone marrow is a body organ, donated marrow must match the “type” of the recipient to prevent rejection of the marrow. According to the NMDP’s FAQs, only about 30% of patients requiring bone marrow can find a match among family members; the rest have to rely upon registered bone marrow donors. Because race and ethnicity affect a patient’s marrow type, minorities may have a particularly hard time finding an appropriate donor.

Historically, bone marrow donation has involved an invasive procedure under general anesthetic in which marrow is drawn out of the hip bone of the donor through a long, large-bore needle. The discomfort associated with the donation site after the procedure can be significant, and side effects include fatigue and aching. A newer process, called peripheral blood cell donation, involves several days worth of injections of the drug filgrastim, a granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) analog that stimulates the body to release HSCs from the marrow into the bloodstream. The HSCs are then collected through a simple blood draw. This process, while much less invasive for the donor, is still under investigation, and may not be appropriate as a source of HSCs for all recipients.

The Ninth Circuit Court ruled on donation of peripheral blood cells, stating that because the donation process involves nothing more than collection of blood — a process for which the precedent of providing compensation is well in place — it isn’t properly classified as an organ donation and donors may receive compensation [1]. The NMDP, however, strongly opposes this ruling, on the grounds that it could make it even more difficult for recipients without financial means to pay for donation to receive life-saving marrow. The case was brought about by the non-profit organization MoreMarrowDonors.org, which hoped to encourage more donations, especially by minorities, through offering compensation of $3,000 USD (in the form of scholarships, housing, and other indirect payments) to donors.

References

1. Federal appeals court allows payment for some bone marrow donations. Jurist. 2011 Dec 2.
2. NMDP Opposes Ninth Circuit Court Ruling on PBSC Donor Compensation. National Marrow Donor Program press release. 2011 Dec 5.

Regardless of the intention of the FDA, scientific studies show that graphic images on cigarette packages are effective deterrents to smoking. An article in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization reports on the importance of pictorial warnings on the grounds that they replace positive associations and advertisements placed by cigarette manufacturers with negative associations and advertisements [1]. Further, they allow communication of the risks of smoking to illiterate tobacco users. A study published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine suggests that graphic picture-based warnings are much more effective than text-only warnings [2], noting that the picture-based ads both educate and deter.

In the end, the case may go to the Supreme Court for a final ruling, and there is more at stake than simply the fate of cigarette packaging. One of Judge Leon’s concerns regarding the FDA’s intended packaging mandate is the precedent that would be set; that the government might one day require similar graphic imagery on the packaging of other products that negatively impact health, including junk food. While the financial interests of companies that manufacture such products would be negatively impacted by such imagery, however, the stated mission of the FDA is to protect public health. In this, they’re fighting an uphill battle against product manufacturers, who have massive advertising budgets, cast wide-reaching nets through a variety of media outlets, and take advantage of human psychology to shape behavior. So far, however, the FDA is required to fight such threats to public health through nothing more than arming the public with scientifically based information free from any sort of emotional appeal. In the end, the FDA is sent out to fight against Goliath virtually unarmed. Furthermore, if the FDA loses that fight (which, to at least some extent, they surely will), it’s important to remember that the real losers will be the American people.

References

1. Fong et al. The impact of pictures on the effectiveness of tobacco warnings. Bull World Health Organ. 2009 Aug;87(8):640-3.
   View abstract
2. Hammond et al. Text and graphic warnings on cigarette packages: findings from the international tobacco control four country study. Am J Prev Med. 2007 Mar;32(3):202-9.
   View abstract

Breast cancer accounts for nearly 1 in 3 cancers diagnosed in U.S. women [2]. In October 2010, the National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC) called for a vaccine for breast cancer with a deadline of 2020. Almost a year later, GE’s healthymagination initiative has also focused on breast cancer with a target of 2020.

Modeled after GE’s ecomagination challenge, which resulted in over 5,000 submitted ideas and $134 million in investments and partnerships by GE, the new healthymagination challenge focuses on improving early detection of breast cancer at the molecular level. GE’s first healthymagination Challenge is an open call to action for oncology researchers, businesses, students, and healthcare innovators. Through the Challenge, GE and its venture capital partners will award up to $100 million to fund the best ideas to improve breast cancer diagnostics. The are several goals to the Challenge:

1. Improve early breast cancer detection and allow for more accurate diagnosis
2. Better understand tumors associated with triple negative breast cancer, which is less responsive to standard treatments and is typically more aggressive
3. Better understand the molecular similarities between breast cancer and other solid tumors

Jeff Immelt, CEO and Chairman, GE, said [3]:

We envision a day when cancer is no longer a deadly disease. When you add our cutting edge cancer detection technologies to the innovative ideas of our new partners, it’s a powerful formula for tackling cancer and helping doctors and researchers improve care.

In partnership with O’Reilly Media, the effort will also feature a special focus on data (CEO and founder, Tim O’Reilly, is an advocate for using data science to spur innovation). A series of code-a-thons or “data challenges” will be held to engage the data science community in finding new applications for breast cancer data.

To enable analysis and further accelerate innovation, GE is also investing in the development of a first-in-kind “super database” that will consolidate clinical, pathology, therapy and outcomes data. The database will be available in collaboration with leading cancer research organizations, as well as NGO and government groups, starting with relevant cancer data from GE’s Medical Quality Improvement Consortium (MQIC); Clarient, a cancer diagnostics and GE Healthcare Company; The Premier healthcare alliance; and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

In addition, Immelt also said that GE will invest $1 billion over the next five years on research and development programs to expand its suite of advanced technologies and solutions for cancer detection and treatment. At the September event, GE presented several new technologies:

1. GE SenoCase, a new concept in mobile mammography that will deliver breast cancer screening capabilities to millions of women around the world who lack access to existing screening options
2. GE PET Tracer, a new Positron Emission Tomography (PET) tracer technology in development that will inform doctors if cancer treatments are working, very early in the course of treatment, by measuring new blood vessel formation in tumors
3. GE SenoBright Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM), a technique that helps radiologists localize a known or suspected breast cancer lesion

Lastly, GE announced a three-year partnership with Susan. G Komen for the Cure to forge first-in-kind programs that bring the latest breast cancer technologies to more women in the United States and around the world. Initially, these programs will run in Wyoming (one of the most rural states in the U.S.), Saudi Arabia and China.

GE will publicly track progress against this cancer initiative at healthymagination.com.

References

1. GE Launches New Commitment to Accelerate Cancer Fight: Integrated Tech Portfolio and Collaboration with Doctors and Researchers to Deliver Better Care to 10M Patients by 2020. GE reports. 2011 Sep 15.
2. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2011-2012. American Cancer Society. Accessed 2011 Nov 17.
3. GE and Partners Aim to Speed Fight Against Cancer, Starting with Breast Cancer. Healthymagniation press release. 2011 Sep 15.

What is an Accountable Care Organization (ACO)?

An Accountable Care Organization (ACO) is a group of health care providers (doctors, hospitals, etc.) that work together to arrange all medical care for their patients. The general idea behind ACOs is that by establishing a continuum of care among providers who have incentives to focus on primary and preventive care, costs can be contained.

By allowing for care coordination and evidence-based care, healthcare systems and health professional performance will achieve significant quality improvements. Promoting preventive medicine in order to avoid costly acute episodes, especially as they relate to chronic disease, elder care, and within health disparity communities, will lead to better health outcomes for patients.

What’s wrong with healthcare today?

The problem with healthcare today is that patients are getting each part of their healthcare separately. Patients see primary care physicians for basic treatment, specialists for specific care, hospitals for tests, etc. An ACO brings all the components in the healthcare chain together. Imagine the Cleveland Clinic or the Mayo Clinic where care is highly coordinated. In an ACO, if you need a specialist, lab work or medication, it all comes from the same treatment team. An ACO also gives patients more time with doctors and less shuffling between offices filling out forms. By design, an ACO provides more efficient healthcare, is less prone to errors, and controls costs better than the traditional system.

And there is definitely an emphasis on cost control. ACOs will fundamentally change how doctors and hospitals get paid. ACOs will make providers jointly accountable for the health of their patients, giving them strong incentives to cooperate and save money by avoiding unnecessary tests and procedures.

For some, however, the picture isn’t all rosy. In a policy paper published by the Heritage Foundation, Why Accountable Care Organizations Won’t Deliver Better Health Care — and Market Innovation Will, Rita Numerof, Ph.D. argues that ACOs will most likely exacerbate the very problems they set out to fix, concentrating power in just a few organizations, allowing them to become “too large to fail” [2]:

Such a system undermines competition and entrepreneurship—the bedrock of innovation and job growth in this country. There is no evidence that supports the use of untested, complex organizational structures to improve quality of care and reduce costs. Creating incentives that focus on achieving higher quality of care, not quantity of medical procedures; providing choices to patients; and allowing real competition among health insurance providers is what will truly transform the health care system.

Judy Feder and David M. Cutler, senior fellows at the Center for American Progress, see things differently. In their report Achieving Accountable and Affordable Care, Key Health Policy Choices to Move the Health Care System Forward, they discuss how to deliver better healthcare quality at lower costs by promoting physician-led organizations [3]:

The Affordable Care Act highlights the potential role that physician-led organizations can play in reducing the unnecessary and costly use of the hospital through better primary care and care management. By mobilizing their skills and taking charge, physicians can call the shots in distributing the substantial savings that can result. Physicians can also encourage hospitals to compete for, rather than count on, their referrals, and thereby promote better quality at lower costs.

In markets with a single dominant hospital, however, it may be difficult to foster this competition. But forming ACOs should not become an excuse for promoting hospital consolidation by encouraging hospitals to capture physicians and foreclose rival hospitals. If physicians are able to take the lead in establishing care management organizations, then they will be far better positioned to capture savings than if hospitals are in control.

To encourage physicians to actually take the lead, ACO quality performance benchmarks and rewards for good care should emphasize health care delivery changes that depend on physician engagement in better care. Reducing preventable hospital admissions or readmissions should be a key quality metric, emphasizing the avoidance of ambulatory-care-sensitive use of hospitals in emergency settings or as an inpatient.

Will new ACO regulations help with healthcare costs?

Although some people believe that bringing doctors and hospitals together economically will make them too powerful, ACOs stand to dramatically reduce the number of tests that patients have to take, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars in savings.

Medicare’s traditional fee-for-service payment system pays doctors and hospitals by the test and procedure. ACOs wouldn’t do away with fee-for-service but would create savings incentives by offering bonuses when providers keep costs down and meet specific quality benchmarks. The focus will be on prevention and careful management of patients with chronic diseases.

If patients show they like this new system, we could see a fundamental change in the American healthcare system.

References

1. Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program: Accountable Care Organizations. Office of the Federal Register. Accessed 2011 Oct 25.
2. Numerof, R. Why Accountable Care Organizations Won’t Deliver Better Health Care—and Market Innovation Will. The Heritage Foundation. 2011 Apr 18.
3. Feder J and Cutler D. Achieving Accountable and Affordable CareKey Health Policy Choices to Move the Health Care System Forward. Center for American Progress. 2010 Dec.

GMOs aren’t the same as clones, and they’re not plants or animals whose traits have been “directed” through selective breeding. Such breeding to produce or enhance desired characteristics has taken place in animal and crop species for thousands of years. Cloning, on the other hand, is the process of creating identical copies of a species, but does not introduce new genes into an organism. GMOs have had specific genes — generally from bacteria, other plants, or other animals — added into their genome to produce traits that the organisms can’t produce on their own. The resulting transgenic organisms therefore express both their own normal proteins and those of other organisms.

Concerns with plant GMOs

While proponents of GMO crops and food tout the benefits, including faster growing times, increased yields, and crop resistance to pests and pesticides, opponents cite a number of concerns. Among these is concern for the environment. Some of the most widespread of the GMO crops are “Roundup Ready,” meaning they’re resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which is commonly used on crop fields to prevent weeds. Glyphosate kills plants by interfering with the synthesis of three amino acids: phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan. Glyposate resistance comes from a modified gene — 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), isolated from a bacterial strain resistant to glyphosate — that is inserted into the crop genome.

From an agricultural standpoint, a Roundup Ready crop seems like a wonderful thing, since it allows the farmer to spray crops with Roundup herbicide, thus reducing weeds and increasing crop yields, without risking the crops themselves. There are a number of problems with the technology, however. The first of these is that glyphosate is toxic (especially in the quantities currently being used), and is also very affordable. The assurance of a glyphosate-resistant crop plant means that the easiest way to ensure a weed-free crop is to use very large amounts of glyphosate. The excess herbicide then sinks into the ground and may percolate into the groundwater, or washes out of the field with irrigation, and ends up in the waterways. Both cases represent a risk to the environment and to humans. Further, it’s possible for plants to transfer genes between species. This means that glyphosate-resistant crops can confer resistance to weeds — such glyphosate-resistant “superweeds” have already been identified — which necessitates the use of larger and larger quantities of glyphosate and/or other, more toxic herbicides to control weed propagation. This amplifies the environmental threat.

Furthermore, humans are exposed to glyphosate residue on glyphosate-resistant GMO crops that are consumed as food, which represents an additional route of exposure to the toxin. An article in the International Journal of Biological Science reports finding significant health effects associated with mammalian consumption of GMO corn [2]. One of the three varieties tested was a glyphosate-resistant species. The other two were so-called “Bt corn,” which contains a gene from the bacterial species Bacillus thuringiensis. The inserted gene codes for production of a pesticide inside the corn plant itself, which helps to protect the crop from insect predation. Humans or animals eating the crop, then, consume the pesticide. All three GMOs included in the study resulted in negative health effects on rats over a period of 90 days, though the effects of glyphosate-resistant corn were the most significant. These effects included damage to the liver, kidneys, adrenal glands, heart, spleen, and blood-forming tissues and cells.

Another issue is that GMOs express proteins — and therefore potential allergens — that aren’t native to the non-modified organism. With allergies on the rise in industrialized nations, this is a serious concern. Researchers reported finding an allergen from the Brazil nut in certain GMO soy [2]. The Brazil nut gene was introduced into the soy in order to cause the beans to produce more methionine, an amino acid in which they are otherwise quite low. The idea was to increase the nutrient value of the soy.

The problem here is that if a GMO (such as the methionine-enriched soy) expresses allergens from other organisms (such as the Brazil nut), it increases the likelihood of serious allergic reactions to the GMO. While the Brazil nut/soy GMO was abandoned and is not being grown, it nevertheless exemplifies the potential for increased allergic potential of GMOs as compared to non-GMO food. This problem is amplified by the fact that currently, the FDA does not require labeling of GMOs and GMO-containing products, though there is a campaign to change that policy.

Animal GMOs possess additional concerns

Some of the concerns associated with GMO crops, such as herbicide use and pesticide production, don’t apply to animal GMO species such as the AquAdvantage salmon. However, animal GMOs raise additional issues. The AquAdvantage salmon is an Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) with inserted genes from the Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and another fish called a pout (Macrozoarces americanus). The inserted genes help the AquAdvantage salmon to produce growth hormone year-round, resulting in much faster growth. Farmed AquAdvantage salmon would reach market weight faster and could provide an abundant food source. The genetics of the AquAdvantage salmon render them all female, and most (approximately 98%) are sterile. They’re intended for farming, not for release into the wild. However, one of the concerns expressed by environmental organizations is whether they could escape into the wild, and whether the small percentage of non-sterile individuals could breed with wild salmon. There is very little existing information on what impact that could have upon the environment. Further, salmon farming has a significant and negative environmental impact in its own right, and farmed Atlantic salmon are listed by the Environmental Defense Fund as a “Worst [Food] Choice” with regard to environmental concerns. The farming process also means farmed salmon are high in polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are toxic industrial compounds. As such, the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch suggests avoiding farmed Atlantic salmon. Furthermore, the diet farmed salmon are fed changes their nutritional profile. While wild salmon are high in heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids, farmed salmon have lower levels of these, and instead have high levels of omega-6 fatty acids, which are much less healthy. The environmental and health impact of a transgenic Atlantic salmon would, at the very least, be as detrimental as that of a non-GMO Atlantic salmon, with the additional concern that GMOs are developed to be produced in great abundance, multiplying the environmental and health impact.

Known environmental and health effects of farmed Atlantic salmon aside, perhaps the most major consideration with regard to the AquAdvantage salmon is simply that there’s very little information available on the long-term ramifications and effects of a transgenic food animal. As the potential first such animal, the AquAdvantage salmon is in a position to set precedent that other GMOs will surely follow. The Union of Concerned Scientists has expressed that the FDA is poised to set the bar quite low.

References

1. Genetically Modified Crops: Soybean, Maize, Rapeseed, Cotton. GMO Compass. Accessed 2011 Oct 23.
2. Spiroux de Vendomois et al. A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci. 2009 Dec 10;5(7):706-26.
   View abstract
3. Nordlee et al. Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans. N Engl J Med. 1996 Mar 14;334(11):688-92.
   View abstract