A look at the shareholders of Unity Biotechnology, Inc. (NASDAQ:UBX) can tell us which group is most powerful. Generally speaking, as a company …

Seeking answers about the origins of our solar system, NASA’s intrepid robotic explorer surveys the most distant world ever explored.
[Read More …]

It’s like a how-to guide for spoiling the very, very dark interactive movie.
[Read More …]

Belpointe Asset Management LLC boosted its position in iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (NASDAQ:IBB) by 37.0% in the third quarter, according …

Starting in 2019, shoppers will be able to buy products such as salad dressings and granola bars that are healthier thanks to gene-editing.

In an article for the Associated Press, reporter Lauren Neergaard dives into the promising potential of gene-editing as it is used in both plants and animals to make better products for human consumption.

“By early next year, the first foods from plants or animals that had their DNA ‘edited’ are expected to begin selling. It’s a different technology than today’s controversial ‘genetically modified’ foods, more like faster breeding that promises to boost nutrition, spur crop growth, and make farm animals hardier and fruits and vegetables last longer.”

As Neergaard also notes (and as we’ve covered here and here), gene-editing also holds the potential to save industries that have been ravaged by plant diseases, such as the orange industry in Florida.

The fate of gene-editing to solve these type of challenges, however, will ultimately be decided by consumers’ acceptance of the technology. It’s important to note though, that the products set to hit grocery stores next year are the result of making edits to an organism’s own DNA.

One such product comes from biotech firm Calyxt, led by chief science officer Dan Voytas, who has edited the genes of soybeans so that the versatile crop contains higher levels of healthier oils.

“Those new Calyxt soybeans? [Dan] Voytas’ team inactivated two genes so the beans produce oil with no heart-damaging trans fat and that shares the famed health profile of olive oil without its distinct taste.”

Another food category that could hit stores soon as a result of enhancements made through gene-editing is milk that has been produced by cows without horns.

The hornless calves? Most dairy Holsteins grow horns that are removed for the safety of farmers and other cows. Recombinetics Inc. swapped part of the gene that makes dairy cows grow horns with the DNA instructions from naturally hornless Angus beef cattle.

“Precision breeding,” is how animal geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam of the University of California, Davis, explains it. “This isn’t going to replace traditional breeding,” but make it easier to add one more trait.

How these products are then traded with other countries, or regulated here in the U.S., is a work in progress, however.

The Agriculture Department says extra rules aren’t needed for “plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding,” clearing the way for development of about two dozen gene-edited crops so far.

In contrast, the Food and Drug Administration in 2017 proposed tighter, drug-like restrictions on gene-edited animals. It promises guidance sometime next year on exactly how it will proceed.

Because of trade, international regulations are “the most important factor in whether genome editing technologies are commercialized,” USDA’s Paul Spencer told a meeting of agriculture economists.

Europe’s highest court ruled last summer that existing European curbs on the sale of transgenic GMOs should apply to gene-edited foods, too.

But at the World Trade Organization this month, the U.S. joined 12 nations including Australia, Canada, Argentina and Brazil in urging other countries to adopt internationally consistent, science-based rules for gene-edited agriculture.

BIO has noted its support for the U.S. in joining the 12 other nations to encourage science-based regulations for gene-edited agriculture – which includes both plants and animals. Currently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is the lead agency in following this guidance as it has stated it will not regulate gene-edited plants that could otherwise be created through conventional breeding. Though USDA still retains the authority to regulate many of these products once in the market if any problems should arise.

BIO knows that consumers may still have concerns about gene-edited products even if proper oversight exists. After all, new technologies are inherently met with skepticism. Just ask the creator of the microwave. But we also know that researchers working with this burgeoning technology are taken every precaution possible. As Van Eenennaam attests to when speaking with the Associated Press:

Scientists are looking for any signs of problems. Take the hornless calves munching in a UC-Davis field. One is female and once it begins producing milk, Van Eenennaam will test how similar that milk’s fat and protein composition is to milk from unaltered cows.

“We’re kind of being overly cautious,” she said, noting that if eating beef from naturally hornless Angus cattle is fine, milk from edited Holsteins should be, too.

Gene-edited products should not be met with skepticism but instead with optimism. Aside from the handful of products that will hit stores in 2019, researchers are determined to enhance other crops for the greater good. This includes enhancements to critical crops in poor countries, such as cassava (potato). As Jennifer Kuzman of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University sums it up best, “We think it’s [gene-editing] going to really revolutionize the industry.”

Starting in 2019, shoppers will be able to buy products such as salad dressings and granola bars that are healthier thanks to gene-editing.

In an article for the Associated Press, reporter Lauren Neergaard dives into the promising potential of gene-editing as it is used in both plants and animals to make better products for human consumption.

“By early next year, the first foods from plants or animals that had their DNA ‘edited’ are expected to begin selling. It’s a different technology than today’s controversial ‘genetically modified’ foods, more like faster breeding that promises to boost nutrition, spur crop growth, and make farm animals hardier and fruits and vegetables last longer.”

As Neergaard also notes (and as we’ve covered here and here), gene-editing also holds the potential to save industries that have been ravaged by plant diseases, such as the orange industry in Florida.

The fate of gene-editing to solve these type of challenges, however, will ultimately be decided by consumers’ acceptance of the technology. It’s important to note though, that the products set to hit grocery stores next year are the result of making edits to an organism’s own DNA.

One such product comes from biotech firm Calyxt, led by chief science officer Dan Voytas, who has edited the genes of soybeans so that the versatile crop contains higher levels of healthier oils.

“Those new Calyxt soybeans? [Dan] Voytas’ team inactivated two genes so the beans produce oil with no heart-damaging trans fat and that shares the famed health profile of olive oil without its distinct taste.”

Another food category that could hit stores soon as a result of enhancements made through gene-editing is milk that has been produced by cows without horns.

The hornless calves? Most dairy Holsteins grow horns that are removed for the safety of farmers and other cows. Recombinetics Inc. swapped part of the gene that makes dairy cows grow horns with the DNA instructions from naturally hornless Angus beef cattle.

“Precision breeding,” is how animal geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam of the University of California, Davis, explains it. “This isn’t going to replace traditional breeding,” but make it easier to add one more trait.

How these products are then traded with other countries, or regulated here in the U.S., is a work in progress, however.

The Agriculture Department says extra rules aren’t needed for “plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding,” clearing the way for development of about two dozen gene-edited crops so far.

In contrast, the Food and Drug Administration in 2017 proposed tighter, drug-like restrictions on gene-edited animals. It promises guidance sometime next year on exactly how it will proceed.

Because of trade, international regulations are “the most important factor in whether genome editing technologies are commercialized,” USDA’s Paul Spencer told a meeting of agriculture economists.

Europe’s highest court ruled last summer that existing European curbs on the sale of transgenic GMOs should apply to gene-edited foods, too.

But at the World Trade Organization this month, the U.S. joined 12 nations including Australia, Canada, Argentina and Brazil in urging other countries to adopt internationally consistent, science-based rules for gene-edited agriculture.

BIO has noted its support for the U.S. in joining the 12 other nations to encourage science-based regulations for gene-edited agriculture – which includes both plants and animals. Currently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is the lead agency in following this guidance as it has stated it will not regulate gene-edited plants that could otherwise be created through conventional breeding. Though USDA still retains the authority to regulate many of these products once in the market if any problems should arise.

BIO knows that consumers may still have concerns about gene-edited products even if proper oversight exists. After all, new technologies are inherently met with skepticism. Just ask the creator of the microwave. But we also know that researchers working with this burgeoning technology are taken every precaution possible. As Van Eenennaam attests to when speaking with the Associated Press:

Scientists are looking for any signs of problems. Take the hornless calves munching in a UC-Davis field. One is female and once it begins producing milk, Van Eenennaam will test how similar that milk’s fat and protein composition is to milk from unaltered cows.

“We’re kind of being overly cautious,” she said, noting that if eating beef from naturally hornless Angus cattle is fine, milk from edited Holsteins should be, too.

Gene-edited products should not be met with skepticism but instead with optimism. Aside from the handful of products that will hit stores in 2019, researchers are determined to enhance other crops for the greater good. This includes enhancements to critical crops in poor countries, such as cassava (potato). As Jennifer Kuzman of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University sums it up best, “We think it’s [gene-editing] going to really revolutionize the industry.”

Once again, Blue Cross Blue Shield is out with a report attempting to stoke fear and confusion about prescription drug costs. And once again (because we’ve chronicled it before) what the major insurance company has to say is contradicted by its own pharmacy benefits manager.

These drug cost middlemen, also known as PBMs, manage prescription drug benefits on behalf of health plans. It just so happens that Blue Cross Blue Shield plans own one of the largest PBMs in the country – Prime Therapeutics. One should expect that the report released by Blue Cross Blue Shield would be reflected in the data put forward by its own PBM. But it’s not.

Here is what Prime Therapeutics has said this year about the trend of prescription drug costs:

• In February, Prime announced “the second consecutive year of outstanding trend results.” What made them so outstanding? Prime’s “numerous management tools” led to a 0.2 percent drop in the drug trend for commercial health plans.
• Prime also noted a drop a -0.8 percent and -5.4 percent drop for Medicare and Medicaid, respectively.
• Prime’s chief clinical officer said they were “thrilled drug expenditures for our clients declined in 2017.”

It’s always important to note that what PBMs report reflects what health plans are actually paying. The same can’t be said for the Blue Cross Blue Shield report. As even they have to admit – in a note buried on page 11 of its report – the prices they point to “do not include the impact of drug rebates.” That’s unfortunate because the impact is significant. Drugmakers negotiate rebates to help lower costs and expand access. In 2017, these rebates totaled more than $150 billion. Is there any wonder why Blue Cross Blue Shield failed to include them?

As Dr. Adam Fein – one of the nation’s top experts on pharmaceutical economics – has noted before:

“Clearly, drug spending is not spinning out of control. Pharmacy benefit costs are growing much more slowly than is growth in other part of the U.S. healthcare system, such as hospital spending and physician salaries.”

That’s the reality reflected in most of the data put out by a wide range of health care stakeholders. Of course, that’s never the reality insurance companies want the public to see. Prime’s President’s and CEO Jim DuCharme noted earlier this year:

“Our close alignment with 22 Blue plan clients – 18 of whom are owners – allows us to see the complete pharmacy and medical drug picture to help us drive total cost of care outcomes.”

Such a close alignment should ensure both Blue Cross Blue Shield and its PBM are singing from the same song sheet when it comes to the facts about prescription drug costs. But apparently not.

Writing for The Hill, Dr. Cynthia Sears, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), discussed the looming threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and highlighted new survey data revealing that Americans are counting on Congress to step in and support efforts to combat against it.

The survey, commissioned by Research!America in collaboration with the IDSA and supported in part by Pfizer, shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans (65%) say antibiotic resistance is a threat to public health. What’s more, a strong majority (81%) are concerned that antibiotic resistance will make more infections difficult, or even impossible, to treat.

As Dr. Sears writes:

“Americans are right to be concerned that the antibiotic treatments that ushered in the era of modern medicine are losing their power to stop infections. These life-saving medications are essential, for example, to allow patients to get through cancer treatments and transplants that were not possible before.”

The survey also indicates that efforts to educate the general public about appropriate antibiotic usage is needed. For example, more than a third (37%) of survey respondents wrongly identify antibiotics as effective for treating viral infections.

“The survey answers demonstrate substantial gaps in public knowledge. Thus, the survey answers should be taken as a call-to-action to strengthen public health efforts countering antibiotic resistance,” Sears noted.

As of 2017, the pipeline to tackle priority pathogens like AMR included roughly 50 products. That number pales in comparison to the more than 1,100 medicines and vaccines for cancer are currently in development. But as the survey finds, nearly three quarters (73%) agree that the federal government should provide incentives to encourage increased private sector investment in the development of new antibiotics, which is a big step in the right direction

“I’m encouraged that more than three-quarters of respondents agreed the federal government should increase funding for research as well as public health initiatives to address antibiotic resistance, while nearly three-quarters agreed that the federal government should provide incentives to encourage increased private sector investment in the development of new antibiotics,” Dr. Sears added.

For more, read the full op-ed here.

Samuel Bacharach writes how stuck or sluggish organizations can end up as clunky or myopic.

You’ve got a friend in…Chucky?!

View Entire Post ›