#HSNO

[tractort33th]

Should I have been paying attention during my chemical spill and management training? Yes.

Was I? No.

Was the minute the HSNO Classes mentioned and described the minute I started planning drawing the purple turtle in outfits for each? Yes.

Am I a good lab technician? Eehhhhh

[ashleyfableblack]

"Ooooh-Ho... Hsno gnat's owhya hwannit, eh?"

"Ngn-hnn."

Always good to be direct with your partner, ya li'l freak. You gotta communicate those needs when you're lovin'em Eternal Courtship style, Big Mama Bughorse, Pony Queen or whatever ya got. 👭💜💚💜👭

[testinoevents]

Repost by the World Trade Center. When we came up with the idea to custom build a see-through step&repeat with the midtown skyline behind it in the distance. #testinoevents #catering #production #staffing #nyc #hamptons #custombuild #stepandrepeat #wtc #worldtradecenter #freedomtower #observationtower #aspireat #redcarpet #nycevents #luxuryliving #nycrealestate #luxurylifestyle #hsno #celebratelife (at One World Trade Center)

[earthstory]

Totten Glacier – East Antarctica’s Achilles Heel

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) has generally been considered very stable, with little concern for its disintegration compared to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). This is because the vast majority of the bedrock underneath the WAIS is well below sea level which is not a dominant feature of the EAIS. A recent study published in Nature Geoscience has removed this false sense of security in the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

The team of scientists led by a researcher from the University of Texas, undertook multiple research flights over the Totten Glacier, the fastest thinning section of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. Totten glacier has been one of the few East Antarctic glaciers that has been shown to be retreating rapidly, however scientists were unsure why. The study found that the retreat is due to warm water making its way underneath, just like many of the West Antarctic.

The Totten glacier is currently losing an amount of ice equivalent to 100 times the volume of Sydney Harbour every year, which is quite problematic as the Totten Glacier is holding back an immense amount of ice in the Aurora Basin that feeds it. (For more on the buttressing effect of ice shelves, see our previous post: http://on.fb.me/1GhocUq)

The scientists used three types of measurements in their flights, including gravitational measurements, radar measurements and laser altimetry. They measured the ice thickness and the pull of Earth’s gravity to determine how far below the ice the seafloor was. They discovered two troughs in the seafloor beneath the Totten Glacier's floating ice shelf which allow warmer water to flow underneath the ice. It seems counter intuitive, but in Antarctica it is common that warmer water is in fact deeper than colder water as the surfaces are covered by fresh water produced by melting ice. This fresh water, although super cooled, is less dense than the salty, warmer waters, and therefore the cold water floats on top.

The potential sea level rise associated with the melting of the Aurora Basin/Totten Glacier Catchment is approximately 3.5m. Parts of the Northen Hemisphere will feel this more, which will be explained in a future post.

-MJA

Image Credit: Calving front of ice shelf: T. van Ommen, Australian Antarctic Division Map: Jamin Greenbaum, Australian Antarctic Division

Further reading: http://bit.ly/1y43SyW

http://wapo.st/1AwqSY2

Reference: Greenbaum, J. S., Blankenship, D. D., Young, D. A., Richter, T. G., Roberts, J. L., Aitken, A. R. A., ... & Siegert, M. J. (2015). Ocean access to a cavity beneath Totten Glacier in East Antarctica. Nature Geoscience.

[evoldir]

Fwd: Job: BotanyMuseumNewZealand.CollectionManager

Begin forwarded message: > From: evoldir@web.rhpcs.mcmaster.ca > Subject: Job: BotanyMuseumNewZealand.CollectionManager > Date: 4 March 2022 at 05:19:10 GMT > To: rdmpage@gmail.com > > > > Job vacancy: Kaitiaki Taonga Collection Manager, Botany > Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Wellington > > The Natural History Team currently has a vacancy for a permanent full time > Kaitiaki Taonga Collection Manager to work with the Botany Collections. > > We are looking for applications from candidates who have: > - A tertiary qualification in a relevant subject related to >  biological sciences > - Knowledge of plant systematics is desirable > - Previous experience in a collection management or registration role, >  with a sound working knowledge of collection management practices > - Demonstrated ability to work effectively both independently and as >  part of a team > - Ability to spend significant time working in the collections and >  remain motivated when undertaking very repetitive tasks > - Extensive experience working with a Collection Information Systems and >  good working knowledge of MS Office Suite and database applications > - Knowledge and experience in meeting applicable regulatory and >  compliance requirements including attaining permits, licenses and >  certifications e.g. CITES, HSNO and PC1 containment facilities > - Demonstrated ability to build and maintain robust working >  relationships with internal colleagues and external stakeholders > - Proven time management capability and can deliver within tight >  timeframes. > > The starting salary range will be between $66,761 to $83,451. Offers will > be made within the range to reflect the skills and experience offered by > the candidate and those required of the role, and internal relativities > with other employees. > > To apply for this opportunity please send an expression of interest setting > out your skills and relevant experience in a cover letter and Curriculum > vitae to* recruitment@tepapa.govt.nz* by > C.O.B *Thursday > March 10 2022.* > > salvador.rodrigo.b@gmail.com > via IFTTT

[wellingtonpestmanagement-blog]

Ant Control in Wellington

Ant Control Wellington are one of the most successful groups of insects with over 3000 known species. They are social insects that live in large colonies which are located in the ground or walls, basements and ceilings of buildings.Ants can be a major nuisance in households and businesses, getting into foodstuffs and running around bench-tops and other areas. In some instances they can cause electrical and mechanical problems around wall sockets and hot water cylinders.

Wellington Pest Management is the leading name in effective pest control for both domestic and commercial premises in the Wellington, Hutt Valley and Porirua areas. We are committed to responsible environmental and safety performance, offer excellent customer service and deliver effective communication practices.

Darren Labrum (Owner/Operator) has spent over 25 years in the pest control industry, after graduating from Victoria University Wellington with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Zoology. He is a HSNO Approved Handler and a PMANZ Registered Technician.

Our team of Terry Washington (Assistant Manager), Shannon Scott & Robert Quan (Service Technicians) & Rosemary Blake (Office Administrator) are appropriately licensed and qualified, continually updated on new products and procedures, consistently exceed customer expectations (see internet review sites below), and are compliant with industry requirements and health and safety regulations.

Recognised by the media as experts in their field, Wellington Pest Management has been invited to appear on such programmes as Seven Sharp, TV2’s ‘The Inspectors’ and National Radio’s ‘Spectrum’, as well as contributing to various newspaper and magazine articles.

Based in Wellington, we are a 100% locally owned company and a full member of the Pest Management Association of New Zealand.

[hammadrasha]

الاطفال و هما بينادوا علي مامتهم طول اليوم في البيت https://www.instagram.com/p/B4cG6N-hSno/?igshid=i2mi79cx76y8

[rightbiotech]

Editing gene editing out of the definition of genetic engineering

The Royal Society kickstarted the national conversation on the use of gene editing. It says that it is “important that New Zealand develop its own view”, but it is using language that better constructs its desired outcome: that “it’s time for an overhaul of the regulations”.

In New Zealand, the European Union and Australia, gene/genome editing techniques are processes that trigger regulations of the products. In all these jurisdictions industry and some public sector scientists are campaigning to either remove this trigger or exempt some processes. The campaign has worked in Australia to deregulate some, but far from all, gene editing processes.

I’ve written before about the different forms of regulation. In this article, I’m going to focus on the push to define genome editing as out of scope of our Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act, the legislation that is specific to evaluating the living things we make using gene technology. The arguments being used in New Zealand are common everywhere. One whopper I’ll address is that genome editing techniques are not in vitro techniques, those that define genetic engineering.

Manipulation of the in vivo/in vitro distinction that qualifies some techniques for regulation is catching out vulnerable science journalists, leading to little critical coverage of the argument on regulation. Here is an example from New Zealand media:

As part of a series on gene editing, The Royal Society Te Apārangi’s Gene Editing Panel has produced a paper looking at whether New Zealand’s regulatory framework is still fit for purpose…To be genetically modified the genes need to have been modified or derived from something made “in vitro” – a laboratory vessel. Science has advanced to the point where CRISPR can be applied in living cells, not in a laboratory vessel. The current definition in the main piece of legislation created to regulate gene technology doesn’t reflect where science is at. Other legislation could also come into play when making decisions around the release of a genetically-edited organism, but because much of the legislation was written before the science, it’s a bit like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.

CRISPR in the above quote is shorthand for one site-directed gene/genome editing technique using a guide RNA (CRISPR) and a nuclease (Cas9). It doesn’t matter that the reporter only mentions this special case because her argument applies to all site-directed techniques including ZFN, TALENs and oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis.

There are so many things wrong in this short text that it is hard to know where to start to unravel it. I’ll start with the biggest and most misleading statement: “Science has advanced to the point where CRISPR can be applied in living cells, not in a laboratory vessel.” This little gem is also tripping up many of my colleagues and regulators.

In vivo The reason that it is important is that the use of ‘in vitro techniques’ is a key trigger for regulation in countries with “process-based” regulations. The term is not identical in all jurisdictions but it is the touchstone in New Zealand’s legislation. A High Court decision in 2014 confirmed that it was. It may seem surprising at first, but the same Court rejected the notion that modifying genes or other genetic material in vivo - within the cell – did not make them in vitro techniques.

That might sound strange at first, but the Court had solid grounds for doing so. If we were to say that gene modifying techniques must only modify genes or other genetic material in vitro, there would be no genetically modified organisms. This is because all the techniques used since the late 1970s have an in vivo stage where the genes or genetic material of a living organism are modified (see Figure). To deny that genetically modified organisms exist would be obvious nonsense and out of step with intellectual property rights law and the global consensus expressed through many international agreements from Codex Alimentarius through TRIPS on to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The poster-child technique of genetic engineering is to insert a recombinant DNA molecule into a living cell (Figure). Alone in a test tube, a recombinant DNA molecule is neither an organism nor is it alive or able to reproduce. Putting it into a living cell is a different matter. The recombinant DNA molecule modifies the genetic material by integration into or recombination with another DNA molecule (modifying genes) or by self-directed replication (modifying genetic material). This all happens in vivo.

I’ve adapted a nice cartoon made by Rebecca Mackelprang to illustrate the steps that techniques which everyone agrees are genetic engineering have in common with the steps of the techniques called genome editing (Figure). (Note, that was not Dr Mackelprang’s use of the cartoon.) When you align the procedures you see pretty much the same use of in vitro techniques too. The change in the living cell in all cases is due to enzyme-mediated reactions that result in a change to genes or other genetic material. The ingredients are different, as they would be for a chocolate or vanilla cake, but both are cakes after baking. The exception may be chemical and radiation mutagenesis which are defined as creating genetically modified organisms (but usually exempted from regulations).

Figure of a common depiction of genetic engineering and genome editing techniques, adapted to show the respective in vitro (highlighted in red) and in vivo stages resulting in modified genes or other genetic material. Modified from https://theconversation.com/organic-farming-with-gene-editing-an-oxymoron-or-a-tool-for-sustainable-agriculture-101585. Rebecca Mackelprang, CC BY-SA

Genetic material The term ‘genetic material’ used in legislation may be contributing to the misunderstandings of place – either in vivo or vitro - where genes or other genetic material are modified. For a large proportion of my molecular biology trained colleagues, genetic material means essentially the same thing as genes, and genes for them mean DNA. In the phrase ‘genes or other genetic material’ used in the HSNO Act, I imagine that they think that the genetic material is both DNA and RNA. However, the legislation written as ‘genes or other genetic material’ was not as trivial in meaning as “DNA or RNA”.

Beginning with the 22nd Session of the Conference of FAO (held in 1983) it was decided that the “‘base collection of plant genetic resources’ [genetic resources are defined as genetic material with value] means a collection of seed stock or vegetative propagating material (ranging from tissue cultures to whole plants)…” (emphasis added to UNFAO 1983). Therefore, and for some considerable time1,  genetic material has been a term to mean organisms, seeds, zygotes and cuttings, not just DNA or chromosomes. Treatments that modify organisms, seeds, zygotes and cuttings using in vitro techniques create genetically modified organisms. All of these treatments have at least a final in vivo step.

The reactions that modify genes or other genetic material using older techniques also happen in vivo but rely on critical in vitro steps including making the mutagen (e.g. a recombinant DNA molecule) and penetrating a living cell to cause the mutagen to change genes or other genetic material. The EU directives describe it similarly as “the formation of new combinations of genetic material by the insertion of nucleic acid molecules produced by whatever means outside an organism, into any virus, bacterial plasmid or other vector system and their incorporation into a host organism in which they do not naturally occur but in which they are capable of continued propagation.” You see they carefully separate the “nucleic acid molecules” from the “genetic material”; only the latter is modified.

This is the same for all the newer editing methods too. They require penetrating a living cell with the mutagen (e.g. an editing protein or its mRNA). Recombinant DNA molecules (“nucleic acid molecules”) are made using in vitro techniques, but so are the editing proteins and in the case of CRISPR/Cas9, also the guide RNA (a nucleic acid molecule). 

Journalist beware! Beware science journalists when you are told that genome editing is “new” and “different” from genetic engineering. Editing is not new because the ability to use site-directed techniques in vivo predates the discovery of the current editing proteins such as ZFNs, TALENs and Cas9 (of CRISPR/Cas9). Site-directed techniques such as oligo-nucleotide mutagenesis were being used as early as the 1980s in some organisms. What is different now is that the editing proteins work in just about all organisms and they are in some cases even more efficient and flexible than the older techniques. However, it is misleading to say that the laws in Australia, the European Union and New Zealand, among many other countries, were written when such techniques were not even imagined. They were written well after such techniques were in use (for review see Heinemann 2015).

The conversations happening in many countries simultaneously around the world on regulating genome editing has disproportionately privileged certain voices that have forgotten the roots of their science. I would also fail the test as a bona fide science historian! Therefore, my purpose here is not a history lesson but to add another dimension to the conversation that I don’t see from our scientific organisations such as the Royal Society. Sadly, I’ve also not seen much effort from our New Zealand science media to challenge the scientific institutions’ roles in this conversation.

1(A) “Referring to genetic material as “any material of plant origin, including reproductive and vegetative propagating material, containing functional units of heredity” has a long tradition in management of GRFA [genetic resources for food and agriculture], and is consistent with classical applied genetics because the predominant tool is breeding. The agricultural genetics literature from the 1940s explicitly equated ‘genetic material’ with that which could recreate the plant (seeds or propagules) (Weiss, 1943)” (Heinemann et al. 2018). (B) “(a) ‘plant genetic resources’ means the reproductive or vegetative propagating material of the following categories of plants: • (i) cultivated varieties (cultivars) in current use and newly developed varieties; (ii) obsolete cultivars; (iii) primitive cultivars (land races); (iv) wild and weed species, near relatives of cultivated varieties; (v) special genetic stocks (including elite and current breeders' lines and mutants);” (UNFAO 1983). (C) “Genetic resources (GRs) refer to genetic material of actual or potential value. Genetic material is any material of plant, animal, microbial or other origin containing functional units of heredity. Examples include material of plant, animal, or microbial origin, such as medicinal plants, agricultural crops and animal breeds” (emphasis added). Source: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) https://www.wipo.int/tk/en/genetic/

References

Heinemann, J.A. 2015. Expert scientific opinion on the status of certain new techniques of genetic modification under Directive 2001/18/EC. Commissioned by Greenpeace International.

Heinemann, J.A.; Coray, D.S.; Thaler, D.S. Exploratory fact-finding scoping study on “Digital Sequence Information” on genetic resources for food and agriculture. Background Study Paper NO. 68. Background Study Papers: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation; 2018. 

UNFAO. Resolution 8/83 International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. The Conference; 1983. 

[extraordinarygs]

@_thepregame w/ @avo_1994 @confindentgina & MUSIC by @dj3rdd_ AT 10pm TUNE IN TONIGHT www.1051LIVE.com #fashion #artists #indiemusic #greensboro #nightlife #newmusic #music #talkradio #industry #djs #hiphop #radiostation #interviews #105LIVE #NCMusic #radio #live #entertainment #ThePregameShow #beats #newmusic #talkradio #podcasts #105Live #raleigh #charlotte #topics (at 105.1 LIVE) https://www.instagram.com/dmaejor/p/By8oe5-Hsno/?igshid=4v898xtq4r0t

[acmremovalsnz-blog]

asbestos testing christchurch

Acmremovals is an autonomous supplier of word related cleanliness, unsafe substance the executives, systematic and natural administrations to industry.

 Our accomplished experts become some portion of your group, working with you to give a viable and effective answer for your circumstance. We can furnish you with specialized skill to explore the accompanying regions;

 Asbestos

 We give a scope of asbestos the executive’s arrangements, including asbestos testing Christchurch reviews and registers in a wide range of structures to either an administration or destruction level, asbestos the executive's plans, freedom examinations during asbestos expulsion, and asbestos mindfulness preparing. We keep up our autonomy by not undertaking asbestos evacuation. We have a group of surveyors and authorized asbestos assessors prepared to help.

 Word related to Hygiene

 Word related Hygiene perceives, assessing and controlling wellbeing perils in the working environment to ensure individuals' wellbeing, both present moment and long haul. This is embraced by utilizing estimation and evaluation methods to decide the introduction hazard and give fitting healing activities to decrease the hazard. Acmremovals word related hygienists can ensure your group is remained careful and solid.

 Dangerous Substances

 Our group of HSNO specialists can help you to explore the Hazardous Substance Regulations by giving area accreditation, confirmed handers and consistence reviews to guarantee you are meeting your commitments. We ensure we offer you the guidance you have to deal with your chemical chances securely and for all intents and purposes.

 Preparing

 We run normal instructional courses in asbestos mindfulness and HSNO ensured handlers. We give nearby compound mindfulness preparing which incorporates pragmatic exercises to strengthen the learning. Get in touch with us for redid preparing in asbestos removal control plan related work, HSNO for Managers, security information sheet comprehension, or whatever else you may require.

 Substance Consultancy

 Acmremovals group of science graduates can share their broad involvement with modern science to assist you with dealing with your chemical forms. We can get ready redid arrangements and attempt or help encourage non-standard compound examination in our on-location research center. If you have an obscure compound or need to comprehend the chemical make-up of an item we can help recognizes the mixes present.

 Condition

 We can survey nature and measure the air quality in your office, working environment, or living arrangement to let you know whether the air you are breathing is protected. Basic issues are shape development because of water spills, or off-gassing of solvents or formaldehyde from remodels or new forms, or insufficient cooling frameworks. If you feel there is something noticeable all around which isn't right and making your group feel un well call acmremovals to help

[smartphone-science]

Recently more than 150 post-graduate students and young scientists presented an open letter to the Green Party via The Spinoff, encouraging them to reconsider their position on genetic modification. Their target is tackling climate change issues.[1]

Can any party continue to be dismissive about genetic modification (GM) contributing to better agriculture?

We all want safe food, and the environment and climate change are important issues to tackle. New varieties can contribute, including those developed using GM.

All political parties have quietly let the GM legislation slide, not just the Green Party. It is unimpressive no party has moved the temporary legislation on. (Such outstanding timidity! Such an excellence of hand-sitting![2])

It’s an issue politicians avoid, I believe, because the core of opposition to GMOs is about some people’s beliefs, not science, and politicians are reluctant to deal with beliefs.

Among the conceptual points often missed or avoided are:

Treat things based on beliefs or ideals as secular issues are. (‘Each to their own’, not one or the other.)

Understand risk properly. (Seeking perfection is often about avoidance.[3])

Insist on proper use of the ‘precautionary principle’ (It’s too often misused: it’s a temporary hold while waiting for evidence.)

Agricultural issues are generally better mitigated through management plans.

Labels stigmatise. They’re an inherently bad thing to build legislation around.

GM is a big topic. This will only look at a few concepts, and leave examples and the legislation for another time. Some of the ground is familiar from four years ago – recommended reading! The footnotes contain some additional thoughts.

Greens tread water

In response to the ESCA’s letter, the Green Party science and technology spokesperson opted to tread water. The party offers that they (paraphrasing) “follow the science”, but in my experience—across many different issues—is they only seem to “follow” chosen subsets of science that fit an ideology appealing to their members. That’s not how following science works.

My impression is their leaders recognise the GMO issue is divisive amongst their supporters, and they try avoid it or take ‘immobile’ stances as much as possible.

Similarly, my impression is their leaders recognise opposing GM limits the party’s ability to grow. (Of course, if they want to be a fringe player, that’s fine.)

Ultimately the Greens’ position on this issue isn’t centred on science, or the proposed economic risks they also point at, but an ‘organic’ ideal a fraction of their members like.[4] It’s that they ask others to make accomodations for their ideal that’s an issue, not the ideal itself. We all have things like that, but usually we respects others’ wish to think differently.

That’s not about science, but secular governance. In my opinion it’s a core reason why leadership and governance on this issue is not working. The legislation, governance and leadership all conflate these two issues.

The ESCA’s letter is pitched in terms of tackling climate change, a policy the Green Party support. To be consistent with that they need to include the contributions that GM can make.

Those signing the letter have backgrounds in biology or environmental science. Emerging Scientists for Climate Action (ESCA) can be found on Twitter (@EmergingEsca).

Not just the Green Party

Let’s not forget that none of the current political parties have moved this on.

Let’s also not forget avoiding it is making this legislation “temporarily permanent”.[3]

When the NZ Environmental Protection Agency presented options to use during the last tweak to this legislation, the “softest” of them was selected, the one that involved the least effort by cabinet.

That option came with the advice that it was,

“a bare minimum and is not considered a long term solution.”

All the suggested actions were intended to be temporary.[5] It’s now four years later, and no party has moved this to a long(er)-term solution. So this isn’t just about the Green Party.

The recommended long-term suggestion at the time was, “Review the rules on new organisms in the HSNO Act”.

(My own thoughts[6] are that it’d be better to remove the GMO clauses from the Act, use sensible comparison of risks for new organisms, with a focus on management (and remove the ‘magic date’). Individual organisms can still be upheld if called for, but based on identified risks. Identified risks can then be tackled across all new crops (or animals), however they were first developed, and applied where actual need arises not across the board ultimately founded on ideals and branding.)

Political fear

Desires, fears, and ideologies are great tools for politicians to work with. (Or abuse.)

New technologies have for centuries spawned irrational worries and whataboutism. Our past worries look stupid when we look back on them.[7]

To a biologist, the worry-warting about GMOs is often badly misplaced. It’s forgivable and understandable that people worry about things they don’t understand and projects ideals on them, but that doesn’t make it right. In this opposition to GMOs is like opposition to vaccines, 1080, water fluoridation and more.

Today we have a large problem to solve: to keep our way of life on this planet. (The planet will live on, but how we live on it is another matter.) Pre-emptively throwing away useful options is a lousy idea.

Yet that is exactly what the Green Party’s science and technology spokesperson suggested in reply to ESCA’s letter, dismissing GM-based options as hypothetical and future-based,[8]

There are emissions reduction practices available right now without needing hypothetical, future GE-based technologies. We believe regenerative and organic agriculture is a better future for New Zealand and our environment.

All new things are hypothetical and future-based at their onset. If we were to dismiss what is “hypothetical” and “future-based”, we’d very stuck-in-the-mud! (Besides, genetic modification of crops has been around for over 25 years, with a longer backstory.)

Many applications are being held up through politics; these are not so much “future” as an on-going thing that is repeatedly being delayed.

Recently parliament passed the Zero Carbon bill.

A non-partisan part of this initiative is the Climate Change Commission, intended to, “provide expert advice and hold the Government to account”. This commission should be able to recommend efforts that contribute to climate change mitigation that use genetic engineering.

Talk about it

Many people discussing all sorts of issues—vaccines, water fluoridation, etc—act as if only if their issue is presented in terms of science, it’ll have credibility. In my opinion if their position is really founded on a belief, they’re better to just say that.

It’d be better to encourage people to say what really bugs them.

When I’ve had discussions with those opposed to GMOs, they often (usually) boil down to “I have no idea about this science stuff, eh, it just doesn’t feel right”. That’s fine – but that’s not a science issue. And it’s honest and fair and right to say that.

It’s better people had the space to say that from the get-go. If nothing else, it avoids have to “tear down” a facade of “science-y” claims.

It also shifts the focus to education. People hate that word, of course, but it’s what “I have no idea about this science stuff” comes down to. (If it makes you feel like a mug, consider that scientists spend their entire lives learning!)

One recommendation of the Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, now more than 18 years ago, was (my emphasis added),

it will be important that a single, independent institution undertakes the general auditing of biotechnological applications, and promotes public education about the new technologies

The Royal Society has a useful website for gene editing, one of the newer approaches to genetic engineering.[9] (I’m an independent voice in this, so feel free to ask questions in the comments.)

Ideals and secular governance

In a secular nation differing religious ideals are respected.

You can apply the same approach to anything that’s based on ideals. Individual players are allowed to act according to their ideals provided they don’t harm others or prevent other’s freedom to choose their own path.

Each to their own, and respect others.

Organic farming encourages the idea that natural things are inherently better.[4] Others beg to differ.

The important thing here is you should allow others to have their beliefs. Farmers should be able to pursue what they believe is best for their farm.

If growing crops organically is your thing, please just go ahead. But don’t impose your beliefs on others! It’s not the way to do things. Likewise for those with other ideals about farming. Even if you think organic farming is inefficient and that the produce isn’t really any different, let them be.

There’s no need to be combative about it. In practice there are scenarios for both, even growing GMOs using using organic methods.[10]

The Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification wrote,

The different production systems should not be seen as being in opposition to each other, but rather as contributing in their own ways to the overall benefit of New Zealand.

To not enable this fails secular governance principles. Asking that one way “must” rule over others is imposing an ideal on others.

We could be firmer about this, disallowing organic farming to rule over other approaches. For example, efforts to declare areas “GE Free” through local councils could be considered in breach of secular governance. They block others from living and working to their own choices.

All approaches should be allowed equally, and regulated equally too.

Don’t use that slogan

In 2015 I wrote,

In an interview, Nick Smith referred to references to GMOs as slogans. Indeed a key recommendation by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee to the British parliament was to stop talking about GM. […]

Essentially the slogans encourage people to not look at the real issues, but carry the emotion-laden arguments attached to the ‘GMO’ slogan.

I’d challenge politicians to avoid the term.

It makes you to talk about real issues, rather than emotional baggage, and to deal with actual risks rather than imaginary ones.

(Labels are a real evil that can brand things in unhealthy ways. It’s a key element of racism, for example. Talk about the things they do, not mark them out as a group arbitrarily in a sweeping way.)

In 2016 I wrote about Green Party GM policy, suggesting:

[…] focus on each application in turn, and the traits of that application. You’ll find this one suggestion covers many of the more detailed suggestions:

Remember that genetic engineering (GE) has applications far wider than just crops, and more than just herbicide-tolerant crops.

If your concern is food safety or environmental issues, talking about ‘GMOs’ is a distraction away from issues (if any). It is the traits of each crop or animal variety that determine if there might be risk, not how the crop or animal was first bred.

If your concern is over transgenic organisms, say ‘transgenic organisms’ not ‘GMOs’.

If your concern relates to business aspects, make sure those concerns are real, related to GMOs and avoid straw-man arguments.

If your concern relates to international trade, give examples of it being an issue (rather than ‘what if’-style claims).

Be aware of misapplied or inappropriate cultural memes, or conflation with separable things.

Aim for discussion, not ‘debate’ or argument.

Let it good things happen

Scientists would like to use newer techniques because they’re more accurate, and open up opportunities to create new and beneficial things. David Eccles described it succinctly,

“My understanding is that the existing legislation permits an untargeted form of genetic modification that has a good chance of failure and/or undesirable consequences (which researchers don’t want to use), while prohibiting targeted methods which produce better/faster results.”

In addition to this there appears to be a general lack of understanding of the wider uses of genetic modification (i.e. not just amongst the Green Party).

The relationship of applications to climate change efforts might not be immediately obvious. As just one example, the mustard plants in the feature image were developed to help Indian farmers to be less reliant on importing edible plant oils. Transporting the imported oils contributes to climate change emissions (ships are polluters). While originally developed for economic reasons, there is a climate change related contribution. It might be a modest contribution in the big scheme of things, but can we ignore these opportunities?

There are applications well outside of food. These also can relate to climate change, too. Here’s just two areas:

Climate change alters medical demands.[11] The current long slow process to develop medicines will struggle in the face a fast-changing demands, and the likely the rise of new illnesses.

Biosynthesis offers the hope we can make rather than take from the planet.

These may need to be grown at scale to be beneficial (or to yield sufficient return investors will back them). Our legislation disallows growth at scale, locking us out of these and other non-food markets.

Biosynthesis: make, not take

Before closing out let’s add a shout-out for biosynthesis.

I’m very surprised political parties, especially the Green Party, are not right behind this.

‘Make not take’ is a great target. (Surely it’s an easy sell?)

A core long-term problem with us humans is that we keep taking things from the planet that take geological time to form, and expect no consequences. We need to get to making (synthesising) things from to stuff that’s made on a shorter, renewable cycle than geological time scales (steel, oil, etc).

The broad idea is to make the things we need using what micro-organisms or plants need to grow. You can think of it as a mix of basic biology (how to grow stuff), genetics, chemistry and the power of enzymes. Enzymes catalyse chemical reactions that would be otherwise hard to achieve.

We have a scientific workforce suitable to tackling this. One thing in the way—aside from that ever-present issue of funding!—is “that” law. To biosynthetise we need to make modified organisms and grow them in a large enough scale to get useful yields. Who wants to invest if they know they can’t get to the production stage?

Biofuels, bioplastics and more

We had a NZ company focused on part of this market – LanzaTech. They left NZ a few years ago. They’re diplomatic about why they left—good on them—but you’ve got to guess in the mix of many things will be NZ’s GMO legislation. They’re getting to be a big company now. Their blurb on Twitter reads, “LanzaTech recycles carbon emissions to make fuels and chemicals, improving air quality and promoting a circular economy.” One of their products using bacteria to turn industrial emissions into fuel recently featured on CNN.

Beyond biofuels there are many other examples. One we’ll be needing are new vaccines as diseases shift with the climate. GM plants can grow antigens for vaccines; Australia is already on to this.

We can move on biosynthesis quicker than many might think. It’d need more progressive legislation, and substantial government funding for research labs, etc. (companies are generally wary of investing in the early stage explorative work, financially it’s risky for most of them).

Some bioplastics examples are discussed in Bioplastics—a major opportunity for New Zealand. Not all bioplastics use GM, but it’s an area GM can be applied. These include compostable coffee cups, vineyard nets clips that biodegrade where they fall, and polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) alternatives to fossil fuel-derived plastics.[12] As Elspeth MacRae wrote,

I think New Zealand has a real opportunity here. We could manufacture PHA here and be able to control the whole lifetime of the plastic. Given this plastic’s biodegradable credentials, I think it fits well with the country’s ‘clean, green’ export image. We just need investment and backing to make it happen.

These things fit our mission, too. We just have to get obstructions out of the way, get the financial support, and get onto them.

Be leaders

There’s a need to lead rather than just acquiesce.

As David Slack concluded in a recent opinion piece, “Telling people what they want to hear is one thing. Telling them what they need to hear is an altogether bigger job.”[12]

The Green Party’s science and technology spokesperson says they’re (paraphrasing) “listening to our members”, but you’re serving them badly if you leave them stuck in the mud.

This could be said of all political parties (and all leaders, in any job).

Imagine if they’d done the same for vaccines?

Smaller parties like the NZ Green Party may have a survival problem related to this.

I see frequent remarks like “I support the Green Party and environmental issues, but I don’t like their GMO policy, and I’m not sure if I should continue to support them”.

If smaller parties do not accomodate GM these people they’ll eventually find a party that better balances their interests in environmental issues, and their recognition of what good new crop varieties can bring.

While writing this piece, the Sustainable NZ Party was announced. They support environmental issues, including using “gene technologies”,

“The latest techniques can be likened to accelerated selective breeding. They show huge promise in the control of introduced predators and in reducing livestock emissions.”

He said gene technology was still in its infancy “yet these powerful tools are denied us based on an ideological position formed in the 1970s, before current technologies were developed.

(Genetic engineering as a whole has been around decades. Some gene editing techniques are new, but they’re seen as better than older approaches.)

Can any party continue to be dismissive about genetic modification?

Other articles in Code for life

If you’re looking for writing about something other than GMOs, try my previous post, my 1000th. It’s got lists with lots of things you could read!

Regulating GMOs: time to move forward An attempt at a condensed list of things you might think about GMOs.

Kumara are transgenic (Transgenes occur in nature too.)

Genetic modification now accepted by most New Zealanders (A survey indicates New Zealanders now accept GM food as safe.)

GMOs and the plants we eat: neither are “natural” (An essay on food.)

Green Party GM policy and discussion about GE or GMOs (The Green Party should revise their stance on GM.)

In a demon-haunted world (Not about GM, but unfortunately relevant. A tribute to Sagan, sorely needed in these times.)

Is GM corn really different to non-GM corn? (Reporting other’s objections to one controversy.)

Séralini GMO maize and Roundup study republished with no scientific peer review (One of the ‘unorthodox’ researchers opposing GMOs re-publishes a retracted paper with no fresh peer-review.)

Christmas trees weedy and not (The proposed project that the court case shut down – despite EPA approval, and that it didn’t involve introducing new genes. Wilding pines are a curse in New Zealand.)

Carrots for my neighbour (A short story of sorts.)

New Zealand political spokesperson for GE and more endorses homeopathy for Ebola (What can we say. Some people are… interesting. He re-asserted this claim in his valedictory speech.)

Changing the GMO regulations – the ministry options (The options that set the current legislation.)

Gene editing and GMOs in NZ, part one (A short series; parts two and three are linked at the start.)

GMOs and legislation: useful suggestions for New Zealand in British report (A summary of a large UK report. Not a short read!)

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on GMO legislation (Lighter take on the previous article.)

Footnotes

1. There are many earlier calls for the regulations to be updated. The ISAAA reported in August that, New Zealand Scientific Body Pushes for GE Regulation Update; the Royal Society. In May, UC [University of Canterbury] Professor Emerita Emphasizes on Gene Editing to Achieve Sustainability Needs. And so on. I’ve written a few of my own (some are listed in the previous section, Other articles in Code for life).

2. This is plainly unfair (and I mean that sincerely). Many politicians work hard, for long hours. But we have to some fun, no? And there is certainly an element of truth: these regulations were advised to be temporary, and have not been moved on.

3. This also occurs in denial as mentioned in The thinking error at the root of science denial.

4. The idea or belief that “natural is better” is one that the ‘organic’ industry encourages. It dates back to an earlier time, at least to that of the so-called ‘Green revolution’. My reading suggests the ‘natural’ ideation leverages or is, in the end, a corruption of what I think of as ‘quasi-religious’ ideals from Western culture with roots in some religious morals about modifying life, revamped to something appealing to hippy-style thinking. In truth, nothing we grow to eat (or how we grow them) are “natural”. Everything we do changes life, including to us humans. (re Western culture: I increasingly believe Western lobbies or scientists ought not advise non-Western cultures how to act (advising the results of studies is different matter).)

There are arguments that GMOs grown using organic processes be regarded as organic plants (e.g. Time to Redefine Organic Agriculture: Can’t GM Crops Be Certified as Organics?) Beyond being philosophically interesting, these arguments perhaps show how arbitrary this all is. Just let farmers grow what they think is best for them, managed with sensible plans.

5. I’m not a lawyer but I’ve often wondered if this points at temporary rulings needing explicit “drop-dead” dates to ensure they aren’t “forgotten”, or dragged out at to suit political interests.

6. I have some ideas for legislation that might work for all parties; more on this one day, I hope. You have to accommodate different world views at some point, and offer ways of dealing with this. I think there are ways to tackle this, that even if a little slower than ideal, will at least let things move things forward.

7. I’d like to have pointed at examples from blood transfusions and breeding experiments in monasteries. They’re helpful to thinking how we might move forward, but Google hasn’t been kind to me. Maybe another time.

8. The reference to “future-based” looks similar to the “too-late-ism” that Michael Mann recently referred to (see penultimate paragraph).

9. I’d like to have been involved if I’d had opportunity, but the call-outs for these sorts of things seem to only travel in academic circles.

10. I’m not advocating this, just saying it could be done if that’s your thing. Also, as well as growing GMOs organically, there’s using both organic and GMO products by the same company, for example as Kellogg does.

11. This applies to the Pacific region, too, for example in this lecture.

12. Hat tip to Nicola Gaston for sharing the quote on Twitter. Ironically, in David’s piece, although the direct reference is to cycling campaigner Barb Cuthbert, the Green Party’s James Shaw is implied with leadership in this way too. On GMO issue it’s his party that is not leading on this issue, but pandering to “what they want to hear” in the guise of “listening to our members”. (Bear in mind we haven’t seen active movement from other parties.)

13. Other GM applications can be tailored to NZ’s circumstances and market. One of the opportunities of GM techniques is that it enables smaller players to develop products.

Featured image

“Mustards are several plant species in the genera Brassica and Sinapis whose small mustard seeds are used as a spice and, by grinding and mixing them with water, vinegar or other liquids, are turned into a condiment also known as mustard.”

Source: Wikimedia. Artist: Amit Kaushal. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic.

via Science Blogs

[diarynz]

NZ genetic engineering laws 'old and tired', top scientist says

New Post has been published on https://diary.nz/nz-genetic-engineering-laws-old-and-tired-top-scientist-says/

NZ genetic engineering laws 'old and tired', top scientist says

New Zealand’s top scientist has acknowledged our laws around genetic engineering are “old and tired”, amid renewed calls for a fresh look at the contentious topic.

Prime Minister’s chief science advisor Professor Juliet Gerrard said the country’s working legal and regulatory frameworks were struggling to cope with technologies that hadn’t been invented when the laws were written two decades ago.

“We need a framework that is future proof and enables us to focus on the issues, not the loopholes,” she told the Herald.

“Such a framework needs to facilitate a broad public conversation.”

Strict regulations under the HSNO Act have tightly controlled the use of genetic engineering (GE) and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand since 2003.

Over that time, calls for a review – or at least a national discussion – have been mounting.

Today, Gerrard’s predecessor in the top role, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, also weighed in on the issue.

In a keynote speech to Horticulture NZ’s conference at Hamilton’s Mystery Creek, he said the new technologies could offer “enormous potential” for a country that was, and likely always would be, a biological-based economy.

“If our country does not periodically consider how to use or not use evolving technologies, we run the risk of becoming a backwater with a declining competitive position,” he said.

“However, it is not for science to decide on technologies, but at the same time it is doubtful that the traditional political processes are the appropriate way to deal with the complexities of the interplay between science, values and world views.”

Gluckman said New Zealand needed a way to consider all fast-changing technologies – whether digital or life science or any other – on an adaptive basis, but still maintaining “rational precaution and pragmatic realism”.

“New models of adaptive regulatory oversight are needed globally. Similarly, new models of bringing science and citizens together to discuss these issues of post-normal science are needed.

“We must to find a way to have ongoing conversations about such fast moving and evolving technologies; burying our heads in the sands of short-termism can have serious long-term costs.”

BiotechNZ chief executive Dr Zahra Champion echoed those comments, pointing out that New Zealand was “built on innovation” and needed to be part of cutting-edge science.

Tools like gene editing could complement other technologies to tackle global issues, she said.

One such issue was climate change. This month, the Government’s Interim Climate Change Committee raised concerns that GM laws could be a barrier to lowering farming emissions.

It gave the example of a genetically modified ryegrass developed by AgResearch that may potentially reduce both methane and nitrous oxide emissions from grazing animals, but that was having to be tested in the United States and would not be able to be used in New Zealand under current laws.

Professor Juliet Gerrard says the country’s regulatory frameworks were struggling to cope with technologies that hadn’t been invented two decades ago when the laws were written. Photo / NZ Herald

Another area was conservation.

On the back of one recent scientific review that found current approaches wouldn’t be enough to reach the country’s goal of clearing all rats, stoats and possums from the mainland by 2050, conservation heavyweight Sir Rob Fenwick said it was time Kiwis talked about what new technology might be needed.

Gerrard said the debate around GE was taking place around the world, and the questions that needed addressing were broad.

The Royal Society Te Apārangi was soon due to release a comprehensive report – much of which was already available on its website – and Gerrard would be writing an accompanying commentary for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

However, the Government has so far signalled little movement on GE.

Although Cabinet had agreed to look at broader legislative framework – including genetic engineering – the minister in charge of the HSNO Act, Environment Minister David Parker, said there was no current work going on to review it.

“There is an issue that’s coming at New Zealand, which is whether some of the new GMO techniques are not properly catered for in the HSNO legislation, which was drafted before new techniques were developed,” Parker told Parliament’s latest environment select committee meeting.

“There are mixed views in society as to whether those new techniques do have an effect to modify the genome of an existing organism, and we are seeking advice on those issues before we move forward.”

“If our country does not periodically consider how to use or not use evolving technologies, we run the risk of becoming a backwater,” Professor Sir Peter Gluckman says. Photo / NZ Herald

Two of his Cabinet colleagues, Forestry Minister Shane Jones and Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor, have both suggested that it was time to talk about GE.

“Let’s push the waka out and find out whether or not what we are taking as gospel is indeed still, in this new climate change environment, the gospel we want to believe in,” Jones told the Herald this month.

Yesterday, O’Connor said a “sensible, mature conversation” was needed.

He added that GE was not going to be a silver bullet for any of the country’s challenges, but “one of the tools in our toolbox over time and we have to look at that very carefully”.

O’Connor highlighted worries around the potential risks that opening New Zealand to genetic modification could have for access to overseas markets increasingly concerned with organic products.

“New Zealand does have an advantage in the marketplace being GMO free, so those who are selling our products have to weigh up what the introduction of genetic engineering in whatever form may mean to their marketing opportunities.

“But genetic engineering around the world is opening up some opportunities and we have to be mindful of those and be prepared to open the door where we see net advantage over time.”

The National Party has taken a similar stance, arguing that, although environmental credentials were an increasing part of what consumers worried about, the conversation was worth having.

The worry about the brand has also been raised by Climate Change Minister James Shaw, whose Green Party remained opposed to genetic engineering, and lobby group GE Free New Zealand.

“If New Zealand had the strongest GMO regulations in the world, that would be appealing to a large section of the premium market globally,” GE Free spokesman Jon Carapiet said.

– Additional reporting: Boris Jancic

Source link

[neonfeathers-blog1]

Hazardous Substances

Hazardous Classes: Each hazardous substance gets ranked by the degree of hazard and the hazardous classes (properties) that it has.

1.) explosives 2.)flammable gasses 3.)flammable liquids 4.)flammable solids 

5.) oxidising substances 6.)substances toxic to people 8.) Corrosive substances 9.) substances that are toxic to the environment.

6.2)Infectious Substances 7.)Radioactive Materials are not regulated under HSNO, but must be managed under the Health and Safety in employment Act (HSE) when used and stored in the workplace. In an animal facility, radioactive waste is used for radiographs and in animal treatments.

Each class is broken down into further subclasses according to the degree of hazard. For example Class 6.) has nine subclasses underneath ranging from fatal to mildly irritating skin.

Most hazardous substances will have more than one hazardous property and therefore more than one classification. For example, petrol is classified as: 3.1A)highly flammable liquid  6.1E)acutely toxic  6.3B)mildly irritating to the skin 6.7B) expected human carcinogen 9.1B)toxic to the environment. We can use this information to use, store and dispose of the chemical safely.

[thejudahite]

Working from the Beach Today. Visit JudahFootwear.com for fashion footwear & more. #israelites #surfcity #beachlife https://www.instagram.com/p/Bw-NRt-HsNO/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=16sq6nn5xuyfb

[growlink]

OUR GENE TECH LAWS LACK CLARITY

By Richard Rennie

Gaps, ambiguities & complexities in legislation need clarity for researchers & companies before they can come to grips with opportunities presented by new gene-editing technology, Otago University expert Dr Julie Everett-Hincks says.

Everett-Hincks, a legal & scientific researcher at Otago University & legal adviser to the Royal Society gene editing panel outlined at a seminar last week in Hamilton some of the pitfalls facing GE research.

The series of seminars is being hosted by the society after its third report on GE, the latest examining its role in the primary sector.

The report outlined some advantages the technology could deliver, including removing an allergen from cows’ milk & producing disease-resistant manuka, faster apple breeding & sterile wilding pines.

Everett-Hincks said apple example is a challenge to existing legislation because the technique involves inserting gene-editing machinery into a cell in containment to enable the apple to flower more often so new varieties can be developed more quickly.

The machinery can then be removed before the new variety is commercialised & released, effectively making it a traditional apple plant, free of GE technology.

“But according to the Hazardous Substances & New Organisms (HSNO) Act it is likely to be defined as a genetically modified organism.”

In light of such modern techniques, the most contentious aspect of HSNO’s GM regulations allows modification using radiation and chemical mutations that were in use on or before July 29 1998.

“Simplistically, any technique used after that date, that is not covered by the Act or its regulations, is genetic modification.”

Researchers had hoped Scion’s GM pine trial in 2011 would provide a legal path to allowing newer techniques when the Environmental Protection Authority approved a variation of the older gene-editing methods to be used in trial pines.

But the High Court ruled against such an interpretation.

When modification is applied to animals, such as the removal of the allergen from cows’ milk, the issues become even more complex.

“With animals you have to consider the Animal Welfare Act.

“Manipulation of the animal includes exposing it to a biological product & this includes using genetic modification that may result in the birth or production of an animal more susceptible or at greater risk of pain or distress as a result.”

However, she noted the Animal Welfare Act does not define genetic modification & researchers in general cannot refer to other Acts when seeking clarity and definition.

“And there is also a challenge on all animal products that come from the dairy cow, including meat, hides, not just its progeny.”

Similarly, the Agricultural Compounds & Veterinary Medicines Act also fails to define biological compounds used for the direct management of plants & animals, leaving some ambiguity about how gene-editing fits within that.

Everett-Hincks said the five examples the society chose in its latest report are all regarded as GM and thus new organisms under existing regulations.

New Zealand is also likely to face some ambiguities about the Cartagena Protocol, an international agreement NZ is a signatory to that ensures the safe transfer & handling of living modified organisms across borders.

“But not every country is a signatory to this agreement. Canada & Australia are a party to it but not signed to it while the United States has no interest in it.

“This is something we need to think about in relation to future trade of products that could be genetically edited or modified.”

Not only are international border issues likely to become contentious, the Resource Management Act means councils can prohibit GM crops.

“But how do you determine what is a crop – does it include forests & ryegrasses. Crop demands better definition & there will be boundary issues within NZ between councils also.

“And if these issues were not complicated enough, there are many acts & regulatory authorities engaged around GM, making its application for approval & release highly complex.”

Australia has a dedicated gene technology law that is subject to five yearly reviews, with one under way now.

Some countries are also more product than process focused when it comes to application of gene-editing technology.

The United States, for example, has recently approved gene-editing technology for some foods, focusing solely on the safety of the food it produces, rather than the process to produce that food.

“These are all areas of genetic editing that demand we have an open, honest, inclusive & rigorous debate about what is genetic editing & genetic modification in NZ.”

[neonfeathers-blog1]

Safe Handling of Hazardous Substances (9/05/2019)

Most of the hazardous substances we use are harmless, but others may have harmful properties which can cause harm to us and the environment, either directly or indirectly.These substances need to be managed to minimise harm.

An example of a hazard is a disinfectant. In animal workplaces,chemicals have many uses: cleaning and disinfection, sterilisation, preservation of samples, development of radiographs etc. Most chemicals contain detailed instructions on the packaging. Make sure you take heed of them when disposing the chemical you are using.

In New Zealand, chemicals have been divided into classes and subclasses under the HSNO Act. This system is based on the United Nations (UN) dangerous goods classification system for transport and the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. (GHS) The GHS was agreed to by the UN to ensure national consistency when it comes to toxic chemical information. All hazardous materials are classified to GHS criteria. It also includes things like pesticides and pharmaceuticals.

SDS-Safety Data Sheets. 16 points of reference for every chemical: 1.) Identification. 2.) Hazard(s) identification 3.)Composition/information on ingredients 4.)First Aid measures 5.)Fire-fighting measures 6.)Accidental Release measures 7.)Handling/storage 8.)Exposure controls/personal protection 9.)Physical and Chemical Properties. 10.)Stability and reactivity 11.)Toxicological information 12.)Ecological information 13.)Disposal considerations 14.)Transport information 15.)Regulatory information 16.)Other information

Employees should be provided specialist training when dealing with a new hazardous substance and must be provided with the appropriate PPE. This ensures that everyone in the work place stays safe. Everyone is responsible for health and safety in the workplace.