Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Its supporters dream of heat-resistant cows. But gene editing is making others nervous

News Feed
Tuesday, September 10, 2024

Its supporters dream of heat-resistant cows. But gene editing is making others nervousBBCThere’s nothing new about genetic engineering. By cross-breeding plants and animals, our Stone Age ancestors realised they could boost the amount of food they produced.Modern genetics has enabled scientists to do much more: to make precise, targeted changes to the DNA of organisms in a lab. And that, they claim, will lead to new, more productive, disease-resistant crops and animals.The science is still in its infancy, but gene-edited foods are already on the shelves in Japan: tomatoes rich in a chemical that supposedly promotes calmness; red sea bream with extra edible flesh; and puffer fish that grow more quickly.In the US, too, firms are developing heat-resistant cattle, pit-less cherries and seedless blackberries.Supporters of the technology say it could reduce animal diseases and suffering and lead to the use of fewer antibiotics. They also believe it could tackle climate change by lowering emissions of the greenhouse gas methane - produced by livestock such as cows, goats and deer when their stomachs are breaking down hard fibres like grass for digestion.But opponents say gene editing is still not proven to be safe and that they remain concerned about the implications for animal welfare.Now a law permitting gene-edited food to be sold in the UK has been paused and some British scientists warn they could be overtaken by other countries.The new Labour government has pledged closer alignment with the European Union, particularly on regulations that might affect trade. And currently, the EU has much stricter rules around the commercial sale of gene-edited and genetically modified crops.The EU set stringent regulations on genetically modified (GM) crops decades ago because of safety concerns and public opposition to the technology. Gene-edited crops are covered by the same regulations.But to scientists, the terms “gene editing” and “GM” refer to different things. GM, a much older technology, involves adding new genes to plants and animals to make them more productive or disease-resistant. Sometimes these new genes were from entirely different species - for example, a cotton plant with a scorpion gene to make it taste unpleasant to insects. By contrast, gene editing involves making more precise changes to the plant or the animal’s DNA. These changes are often quite small ones, which involve editing sections of the DNA into a form that, its advocates say, could be produced through natural means like traditional cross-breeding, only much faster.Dashed hopesAlong with the US and China, the UK is among the countries that lead the world in gene editing. Last year the previous government passed the Precision Breeding Act, which paved the way for the commercial sale of gene-edited food in England.At the time, many scientists working in the field were overjoyed.“I thought: ‘Great, this is going to uncork a whole area of activity in the public and private sector’ and we could build an entrepreneurial community for gene editing in the UK,” says Prof Jonathan Napier of Rothamsted Research, a government agricultural research institute in Harpenden.But he says his hopes were soon dashed.For the law to come into effect, secondary legislation was required, and this was due to be passed by Parliament this July. But the earlier-than-expected election meant that it was not voted on by MPs and the Act is currently in limbo.Prof Napier was among 50 leading scientists to write to the newly appointed ministers at the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) at the end of July asking them to act “quickly and decisively” to pass the secondary legislation.The Defra minister responsible, Daniel Zeichner, responded to the scientists’ plea last week by stating that the government was “now considering how to take forward the regulatory framework outlined in the Act and will share our plans with key interested parties soon”.One of the prime movers behind the scientists’ letter, leading expert Prof Tina Barsby, described the minister’s response as a “encouraging” but said that his promise of clarity “soon” had to mean really soon.Other countries, she said, were pressing ahead with their plans for gene edited-crops at great speed. Thailand recently joined Canada, Australia, Japan, Brazil, Argentina and the USA in adopting regulations around gene editing.Even New Zealand, which according to Prof Barsby “has historically taken a more cautious regulatory approach to genetic technologies”, has announced that it will also introduce new legislation.Prof Barsby added: “With our world-leading science base in genetic research, we cannot afford to be left behind.”But Defra ministers also have to consider the views of environmental campaigners, such as Dr Helen Wallace of Genewatch UK, who have concerns about the “unwanted consequences” of the Precision Breeding Act.“If you remove these plants and animals from GM regulations then you don’t have the same degree of risk assessment, you don’t have labelling and you risk markets because many of them regulate them as GMOs,” she says.Getty ImagesSceptics of gene editing worry about what it will mean for the welfare of animalsDr Peter Stevenson, who is the chief policy advisor to UK-based Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), also fears that the technology will further add to the intensification of animal farming - with negative consequences.“The use of selective breeding over the past 50 years has brought a huge number of animal welfare problems,” he says.“Chickens have been bred to grow so quickly that their legs and hearts can’t properly support the rapidly developing body and as a result millions of animals are suffering from painful leg disorders, while others succumb to heart disease.“Do we really want to accelerate this process with gene editing?”CIWF’s biggest fear is that gene-editing animals to make them more resistant to diseases will mean that the industry will not be motivated to deal with the conditions that lead to the animals getting ill in the first place - such as crowded, unsanitary conditions.The intensity of the production of milk, meat, and eggs currently leaves many animals “exhausted and broken”, Mr Stevenson told BBC News.Any genetic alteration to an animal has the potential to have negative effects. But advocates say that for any commercial application, firms have to demonstrate to the regulator that their changes do not harm the animal and back this up with data.Indeed, many of those who argue for the use of gene-editing technology do so partly on animal welfare grounds - because it could make farm animals more resistant to disease and, since fewer would die as a result, fewer would be needed in the first place.Another of the letter’s signatories is Prof Helen Sang, who has laid the foundations for using gene editing to develop bird flu resistance in chickens.“With a virulent strain of (the pig disease) PRRS wiping out pig herds in Spain, African Swine Fever on the march north through Europe, and bird flu virus detected in both dairy cattle and their milk in the US, the importance of enabling all possible solutions, including precision breeding, cannot be overstated,” she said in response to Mr Zeichner.Some of the solutions to the problems Prof Sang mentions are already waiting in the wings. She works at the Roslin Institute, where Dolly the Sheep was cloned nearly 30 years ago. It now leads the world in developing gene-edited animals.Getty ImagesIn July 1996, scientists at the Roslin Institute cloned Dolly the sheepProf Sang’s colleagues at Roslin developed a strain of pig that is resistant to the PRRS pig disease six years ago.They can’t yet be commercially sold to UK pig farmers - but Genus, a British company that has commercialised the PRRS-resistant pigs, has received regulatory approval for their use in Colombia.The firm also has an application for permission to introduce the pigs to the US market which, if given the green light, could be approved as early as next spring. Genus is also planning to seek approval for the commercial use of their gene-edited pigs in Canada, Mexico and Japan.Despite the strong opinions on both sides, there appears to be scope for consensus around some applications of the technology.For instance, Mr Stevenson of CIWF does think it’s at least possible that gene editing could be applied in an ethical way.To do so, he says, it would need to meet three criteria: that any change it brings about is unlikely to cause animal welfare problems; that its objectives cannot be met by any less intensive means; and that it will not have the effect of entrenching industrialised livestock production.The PRRS-resistant pigs may tick all three boxes in specific circumstances, according to Mr Stevenson, as do efforts to use gene editing to enable the egg-production industry to produce female-only chicks to avoid the need for billions of male chicks being killed each year when they are just a day old.Likewise, Prof Mizeck Chagunda, who is the director of the Centre for Tropical Genetics and Health, which is also based at the Roslin Institute, believes both in the positive potential of gene editing and that it needs to be carefully overseen.He says the technology could improve the lives of the poorest farmers in the world: “70% to 80% of farmers are smallholding farms with two to three animals.” A devastating disease can leave a farmer and their family with nothing.“So, giving them animals that have been prepared with these technologies would help to protect them from this huge risk to their livelihoods,” says Prof Chagunda.However, Prof Chagunda warns that there needs to be good, strong regulations in place if this technology is to be accepted by the public.“Some changes can be too experimental, and we should not be doing them,” he says.“Scientists should be working with the regulatory authorities to achieve the good products that the farmers and consumers are looking for. We should be doing science that is ethical and at the same time helping humanity.”The gene editing work at Roslin is led by its director, Prof Bruce Whitelaw, who was a scientist at the institute when Dolly the sheep was cloned. In the past he has been through the process of explaining the potential benefits of seemingly alarming technological developments and he believes there is an urgent need to do so again now.“We are world leaders in the technology and sitting at top table in terms of developing it,” he says. “If we don’t have the legislation to do that, then our credentials to sit there will slowly wither away and we will lose investment, scientific talent and the boost to our economy to other countries.”There are lessons here from the past. Genetic modification was rejected by many consumers in the UK, the European Union and other countries 30 years ago because of its perceived unnaturalness. GM crops were publicly trampled by protestors who saw this as a technology that they didn’t need, want or consider safe.At the same time, scientists were angry and upset that what they believed to be their world-saving technology was being destroyed by, in their view, a wave of anti-scientific hysteria fuelled by the media.Gene editing seems to be a more palatable version of GM to some, arriving at a time when the debate is less polarised, the need for environmental solutions is even more urgent and there seems to be a greater readiness for some scientists and campaigners to see each other’s perspectives.Mr Stevenson of CWIF believes that in the long run, there has to be “huge reductions” in global livestock production to deal with climate change, but pragmatically, the fact that climate change is already destroying so many lives, the use of gene editing could be “legitimate”. But he is wary.“It is hard for me to trust that part of the scientific world who say: ‘Hey now, we have a new way to alter animals.’“The danger is of animals being thought of as things, units of production, more so than they are now, because we can modify them to make them more amenable to our uses and taking us away from this notion of animals as sentient beings.”What happens next, not just in the UK, but the rest of the world, depends on whether the advocates of gene editing can convince the open-minded, but wary, such as Mr Stevenson, that they can act safely, ethically and in a way that makes lives better, not worse - for people and animals alike.BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we’ll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we’ll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We’re starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think - you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.

A UK law allowing gene-edited food has been paused and some British scientists fear being overtaken.

Its supporters dream of heat-resistant cows. But gene editing is making others nervous

BBC Montage image showing a cow wearing sunglasses and DNA strandsBBC

There’s nothing new about genetic engineering. By cross-breeding plants and animals, our Stone Age ancestors realised they could boost the amount of food they produced.

Modern genetics has enabled scientists to do much more: to make precise, targeted changes to the DNA of organisms in a lab. And that, they claim, will lead to new, more productive, disease-resistant crops and animals.

The science is still in its infancy, but gene-edited foods are already on the shelves in Japan: tomatoes rich in a chemical that supposedly promotes calmness; red sea bream with extra edible flesh; and puffer fish that grow more quickly.

In the US, too, firms are developing heat-resistant cattle, pit-less cherries and seedless blackberries.

Supporters of the technology say it could reduce animal diseases and suffering and lead to the use of fewer antibiotics. They also believe it could tackle climate change by lowering emissions of the greenhouse gas methane - produced by livestock such as cows, goats and deer when their stomachs are breaking down hard fibres like grass for digestion.

But opponents say gene editing is still not proven to be safe and that they remain concerned about the implications for animal welfare.

Now a law permitting gene-edited food to be sold in the UK has been paused and some British scientists warn they could be overtaken by other countries.

The new Labour government has pledged closer alignment with the European Union, particularly on regulations that might affect trade. And currently, the EU has much stricter rules around the commercial sale of gene-edited and genetically modified crops.

The EU set stringent regulations on genetically modified (GM) crops decades ago because of safety concerns and public opposition to the technology. Gene-edited crops are covered by the same regulations.

But to scientists, the terms “gene editing” and “GM” refer to different things.

GM, a much older technology, involves adding new genes to plants and animals to make them more productive or disease-resistant. Sometimes these new genes were from entirely different species - for example, a cotton plant with a scorpion gene to make it taste unpleasant to insects.

By contrast, gene editing involves making more precise changes to the plant or the animal’s DNA. These changes are often quite small ones, which involve editing sections of the DNA into a form that, its advocates say, could be produced through natural means like traditional cross-breeding, only much faster.

Dashed hopes

Along with the US and China, the UK is among the countries that lead the world in gene editing. Last year the previous government passed the Precision Breeding Act, which paved the way for the commercial sale of gene-edited food in England.

At the time, many scientists working in the field were overjoyed.

“I thought: ‘Great, this is going to uncork a whole area of activity in the public and private sector’ and we could build an entrepreneurial community for gene editing in the UK,” says Prof Jonathan Napier of Rothamsted Research, a government agricultural research institute in Harpenden.

But he says his hopes were soon dashed.

For the law to come into effect, secondary legislation was required, and this was due to be passed by Parliament this July. But the earlier-than-expected election meant that it was not voted on by MPs and the Act is currently in limbo.

Prof Napier was among 50 leading scientists to write to the newly appointed ministers at the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) at the end of July asking them to act “quickly and decisively” to pass the secondary legislation.

The Defra minister responsible, Daniel Zeichner, responded to the scientists’ plea last week by stating that the government was “now considering how to take forward the regulatory framework outlined in the Act and will share our plans with key interested parties soon”.

One of the prime movers behind the scientists’ letter, leading expert Prof Tina Barsby, described the minister’s response as a “encouraging” but said that his promise of clarity “soon” had to mean really soon.

Other countries, she said, were pressing ahead with their plans for gene edited-crops at great speed. Thailand recently joined Canada, Australia, Japan, Brazil, Argentina and the USA in adopting regulations around gene editing.

Even New Zealand, which according to Prof Barsby “has historically taken a more cautious regulatory approach to genetic technologies”, has announced that it will also introduce new legislation.

Prof Barsby added: “With our world-leading science base in genetic research, we cannot afford to be left behind.”

But Defra ministers also have to consider the views of environmental campaigners, such as Dr Helen Wallace of Genewatch UK, who have concerns about the “unwanted consequences” of the Precision Breeding Act.

“If you remove these plants and animals from GM regulations then you don’t have the same degree of risk assessment, you don’t have labelling and you risk markets because many of them regulate them as GMOs,” she says.

Getty Images Chickens in a barn in SuffolkGetty Images

Sceptics of gene editing worry about what it will mean for the welfare of animals

Dr Peter Stevenson, who is the chief policy advisor to UK-based Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), also fears that the technology will further add to the intensification of animal farming - with negative consequences.

“The use of selective breeding over the past 50 years has brought a huge number of animal welfare problems,” he says.

“Chickens have been bred to grow so quickly that their legs and hearts can’t properly support the rapidly developing body and as a result millions of animals are suffering from painful leg disorders, while others succumb to heart disease.

“Do we really want to accelerate this process with gene editing?”

CIWF’s biggest fear is that gene-editing animals to make them more resistant to diseases will mean that the industry will not be motivated to deal with the conditions that lead to the animals getting ill in the first place - such as crowded, unsanitary conditions.

The intensity of the production of milk, meat, and eggs currently leaves many animals “exhausted and broken”, Mr Stevenson told BBC News.

Any genetic alteration to an animal has the potential to have negative effects. But advocates say that for any commercial application, firms have to demonstrate to the regulator that their changes do not harm the animal and back this up with data.

Indeed, many of those who argue for the use of gene-editing technology do so partly on animal welfare grounds - because it could make farm animals more resistant to disease and, since fewer would die as a result, fewer would be needed in the first place.

Another of the letter’s signatories is Prof Helen Sang, who has laid the foundations for using gene editing to develop bird flu resistance in chickens.

“With a virulent strain of (the pig disease) PRRS wiping out pig herds in Spain, African Swine Fever on the march north through Europe, and bird flu virus detected in both dairy cattle and their milk in the US, the importance of enabling all possible solutions, including precision breeding, cannot be overstated,” she said in response to Mr Zeichner.

Some of the solutions to the problems Prof Sang mentions are already waiting in the wings. She works at the Roslin Institute, where Dolly the Sheep was cloned nearly 30 years ago. It now leads the world in developing gene-edited animals.

Getty Images Dolly the sheepGetty Images

In July 1996, scientists at the Roslin Institute cloned Dolly the sheep

Prof Sang’s colleagues at Roslin developed a strain of pig that is resistant to the PRRS pig disease six years ago.

They can’t yet be commercially sold to UK pig farmers - but Genus, a British company that has commercialised the PRRS-resistant pigs, has received regulatory approval for their use in Colombia.

The firm also has an application for permission to introduce the pigs to the US market which, if given the green light, could be approved as early as next spring. Genus is also planning to seek approval for the commercial use of their gene-edited pigs in Canada, Mexico and Japan.

Despite the strong opinions on both sides, there appears to be scope for consensus around some applications of the technology.

For instance, Mr Stevenson of CIWF does think it’s at least possible that gene editing could be applied in an ethical way.

To do so, he says, it would need to meet three criteria: that any change it brings about is unlikely to cause animal welfare problems; that its objectives cannot be met by any less intensive means; and that it will not have the effect of entrenching industrialised livestock production.

The PRRS-resistant pigs may tick all three boxes in specific circumstances, according to Mr Stevenson, as do efforts to use gene editing to enable the egg-production industry to produce female-only chicks to avoid the need for billions of male chicks being killed each year when they are just a day old.

Likewise, Prof Mizeck Chagunda, who is the director of the Centre for Tropical Genetics and Health, which is also based at the Roslin Institute, believes both in the positive potential of gene editing and that it needs to be carefully overseen.

He says the technology could improve the lives of the poorest farmers in the world: “70% to 80% of farmers are smallholding farms with two to three animals.” A devastating disease can leave a farmer and their family with nothing.

“So, giving them animals that have been prepared with these technologies would help to protect them from this huge risk to their livelihoods,” says Prof Chagunda.

However, Prof Chagunda warns that there needs to be good, strong regulations in place if this technology is to be accepted by the public.

“Some changes can be too experimental, and we should not be doing them,” he says.

“Scientists should be working with the regulatory authorities to achieve the good products that the farmers and consumers are looking for. We should be doing science that is ethical and at the same time helping humanity.”

The gene editing work at Roslin is led by its director, Prof Bruce Whitelaw, who was a scientist at the institute when Dolly the sheep was cloned. In the past he has been through the process of explaining the potential benefits of seemingly alarming technological developments and he believes there is an urgent need to do so again now.

“We are world leaders in the technology and sitting at top table in terms of developing it,” he says. “If we don’t have the legislation to do that, then our credentials to sit there will slowly wither away and we will lose investment, scientific talent and the boost to our economy to other countries.”

There are lessons here from the past. Genetic modification was rejected by many consumers in the UK, the European Union and other countries 30 years ago because of its perceived unnaturalness. GM crops were publicly trampled by protestors who saw this as a technology that they didn’t need, want or consider safe.

At the same time, scientists were angry and upset that what they believed to be their world-saving technology was being destroyed by, in their view, a wave of anti-scientific hysteria fuelled by the media.

Gene editing seems to be a more palatable version of GM to some, arriving at a time when the debate is less polarised, the need for environmental solutions is even more urgent and there seems to be a greater readiness for some scientists and campaigners to see each other’s perspectives.

Mr Stevenson of CWIF believes that in the long run, there has to be “huge reductions” in global livestock production to deal with climate change, but pragmatically, the fact that climate change is already destroying so many lives, the use of gene editing could be “legitimate”. But he is wary.

“It is hard for me to trust that part of the scientific world who say: ‘Hey now, we have a new way to alter animals.’

“The danger is of animals being thought of as things, units of production, more so than they are now, because we can modify them to make them more amenable to our uses and taking us away from this notion of animals as sentient beings.”

What happens next, not just in the UK, but the rest of the world, depends on whether the advocates of gene editing can convince the open-minded, but wary, such as Mr Stevenson, that they can act safely, ethically and in a way that makes lives better, not worse - for people and animals alike.

BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we’ll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we’ll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We’re starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think - you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

The Dark Matter of Food: Why Most of Nutrition Remains a Mystery

What we eat is packed with hidden chemistry that may hold the key to both disease and health. When the human genome was first sequenced in 2003, many believed this breakthrough would reveal the full origins of disease. Yet, genetics accounts for only about 10% of overall risk. The remaining 90% is shaped by environmental [...]

Food is far more than calories and nutrients, it’s a chemical universe we’ve barely begun to map. Unlocking this “nutritional dark matter” could transform our understanding of health and disease. Credit: ShutterstockWhat we eat is packed with hidden chemistry that may hold the key to both disease and health. When the human genome was first sequenced in 2003, many believed this breakthrough would reveal the full origins of disease. Yet, genetics accounts for only about 10% of overall risk. The remaining 90% is shaped by environmental factors, with diet playing a particularly significant role. Globally, poor nutrition is estimated to contribute to roughly one in five deaths among adults over the age of 25. In Europe, dietary factors alone are responsible for nearly half of all cardiovascular fatalities. Despite decades of public health campaigns urging people to reduce fat, salt, and sugar, obesity rates and diet-related diseases have continued to climb. Clearly, something is missing from the way we think about food. Beyond calories and nutrients For much of modern history, nutrition has been described in simplified terms, viewing food primarily as fuel and nutrients as the building blocks of the body. Attention has focused on about 150 well-known chemicals such as proteins, fats, carbohydrates, and vitamins. However, researchers now believe that the human diet actually contains more than 26,000 distinct compounds, the majority of which remain largely unexplored. Here is where astronomy provides a useful comparison. Astronomers know that dark matter makes up about 27% of the universe. It doesn’t emit or reflect light, and so it cannot be seen directly but its gravitational effects reveal that it must exist. Nutrition science faces something similar. The vast majority of chemicals in food are invisible to us in terms of research. We consume them every day, but we have little idea what they do. Some experts refer to these unknown molecules as “nutritional dark matter.” It’s a reminder that just as the cosmos is filled with hidden forces, our diet is packed with hidden chemistry. When researchers analyze disease, they look at a vast array of foods, although any association often cannot be matched to known molecules. This is the dark matter of nutrition – the compounds we ingest daily but haven’t been mapped or studied. Some may encourage health, but others may increase the risk of disease. The challenge is finding out which do what. Foodomics as a new approach The field of foodomics aims to do exactly that. It brings together genomics (the role of genes), proteomics (proteins), metabolomics (cell activity) and nutrigenomics (the interaction of genes and diet). These approaches are starting to reveal how diet interacts with the body in ways far beyond calories and vitamins. Take the Mediterranean diet (filled with fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, olive oil, and fish, with limited red meat and sweets), for example, which is known to reduce the risk of heart disease. But why does it work? One clue lies in a molecule called TMAO (trimethylamine N-oxide), produced when gut bacteria metabolize compounds in red meat and eggs. High levels of TMAO increase the risk of heart disease. But garlic, for example, contains substances that block its production. This is one example of how diet can tip the balance between health and harm. Gut microbes and food chemistry Gut bacteria also play a major role. When compounds reach the colon, microbes transform them into new chemicals that can affect inflammation, immunity and metabolism. For example, ellagic acid – found in various fruits and nuts – is converted by gut bacteria into urolithins. These are a group of natural compounds that help keep our mitochondria (the body’s energy factories) healthy. This shows how food is a complex web of interacting chemicals. One compound can influence many biological mechanisms, which in turn can affect many others. Diet can even switch genes on or off through epigenetics – changes in gene activity that don’t alter DNA itself. History has provided stark examples of this. For example, children born to mothers who endured famine in the Netherlands during the Second World War were more likely to develop heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and schizophrenia later in life. Decades on, scientists found their gene activity had been altered by what their mothers ate – or didn’t eat – while pregnant. Mapping the hidden food universe Projects such as the Foodome Project are now attempting to catalogue this hidden chemical universe. More than 130,000 molecules have already been listed, linking food compounds to human proteins, gut microbes and disease processes. The aim is to build an atlas of how diet interacts with the body, and to pinpoint which molecules really matter for health. The hope is that by understanding nutritional dark matter, we can answer questions that have long frustrated nutrition science. Why do certain diets work for some people but not others? Why do foods sometimes prevent, and sometimes promote, disease? Which food molecules could be harnessed to develop new drugs, or new foods? We are still at the beginning. But the message is clear – the food on our plate is not just calories and nutrients, but a vast chemical landscape we are only starting to chart. Just as mapping cosmic dark matter is transforming our view of the universe, uncovering nutritional dark matter could transform how we eat, how we treat disease and how we understand health itself. Adapted from an article originally published in The Conversation. Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

Microplastics May Trigger Alzheimer’s-Like Brain Damage

College of Pharmacy Professor Jaime Ross has discovered that cognitive decline occurs in a sex-dependent manner, mirroring patterns observed in humans. Tiny fragments of plastic, known as microplastics and nanoplastics, are now so widespread in the environment that they regularly make their way into our bodies through the food we eat, the water we drink, [...]

A University of Rhode Island study suggests micro- and nanoplastics can accumulate in the brain, potentially accelerating Alzheimer’s symptoms in genetically at-risk individuals. Credit: StockCollege of Pharmacy Professor Jaime Ross has discovered that cognitive decline occurs in a sex-dependent manner, mirroring patterns observed in humans. Tiny fragments of plastic, known as microplastics and nanoplastics, are now so widespread in the environment that they regularly make their way into our bodies through the food we eat, the water we drink, and even the air we breathe. A new study from the University of Rhode Island’s College of Pharmacy reports that these particles can travel throughout the body, reaching organs such as the brain, where they may build up and contribute to conditions resembling Alzheimer’s disease. This research builds on earlier work showing that microplastics are capable of passing through the blood-brain barrier, a natural defense system that usually shields the brain from harmful agents as tiny as viruses and bacteria. Assistant Professor Jaime Ross extended the investigation to explore how these plastics affect brain function. Her team’s results suggest that the accumulation of micro- and nanoplastics in the brain may play a role in memory loss and cognitive decline, particularly in people with certain genetic risk factors for Alzheimer’s. Testing Microplastic Exposure in Mice Ross’ latest study, published recently in the journal Environmental Research Communications, examined mice that had been genetically modified to include the naturally occurring gene APOE4, a strong indicator of Alzheimer’s risk, making people 3.5 times more likely to develop the disease than those who carry the APOE3 variant of the gene that is passed from parents to offspring. URI College of Pharmacy Assistant Professor Jaime Ross has found links between micro- and nanoplastics and Alzheimer’s Disease in mice. Credit: URI Communications“In these mice, like in people, it’s not a guarantee that you’re going to see any changes in cognition. You could have identical twins both carrying APOE4, one totally cognitively healthy, and the other could develop Alzheimer’s disease,” Ross said. “So that tells us there’s something about lifestyle, something about the environment going on. There are modifiable factors we’re studying related to Alzheimer’s–diet, exercise, vitamins, and especially environmental toxins like microplastics. If you carry the APOE4, and you happen to consume a lot of microplastics, will this contribute to Alzheimer’s disease?” To find out, Ross and her team exposed two groups of mice—one with the APOE4 variant and one with APOE3—to micro- and nanoplastics in their drinking water over a period of three weeks. The tiny particles from polystyrene—among the most abundant plastics in the world, found in Styrofoam take-out containers, plastic cups, and more—infiltrated the mice’ organs, including the brain, as expected. The research included a control group from each APOE designation did not receive microplastic exposure. Ross’ team then ran the mice through a series of tests to examine their cognitive ability, beginning with an open-field test, in which researchers put a mouse in a chamber and allow it to explore at will for 90 minutes. Ordinarily, a mouse will hug the walls, naturally attempting to hide from potential predators. However, after microplastic exposure, the APOE4 mice—especially the male mice—tended to wander more in the middle of the chamber and spend time in open space, leaving themselves vulnerable to predators. Behavioral and Memory Changes To test their ability to recognize novel objects, Ross placed mice in an open chamber with two distinct objects. After having time to explore the objects, the mice were removed and returned later, this time with one of the objects replaced with a different shape. The female mice with APOE4 and microplastic exposure were slow to recognize the novel objects, if they did at all, a sign of cognitive decline affecting memory. “In the first test, you can see the males are spending more time and resting more in the center of the arena. In females, we saw changes in novel object recognition,” Ross said. “In human Alzheimer’s patients, men tend to experience more changes in apathy; they care less. Women experience more changes in memory. So the memory and the apathy connection are pretty clear: When you expose animals that are carrying the largest known risk factor in humans for developing Alzheimer’s disease to micro- and nanopastics, lo and behold, their behavior changes in a sex-dependent manner similar to the sex-dependent differences we see with Alzheimer’s patients.” A Growing Environmental and Health Crisis The results are concerning enough to warrant further study into the cognitive decline caused by exposure to micro- and nanoplastics, which are among the most prominent environmental toxins to which people are routinely exposed. (A separate URI study released in 2023 revealed of the extent to which microplastics accumulate in the environment, shockingly finding that the top two inches of the floor of Narragansett Bay contain more than 1,000 tons of microplastics.) Ross is continuing to expand her research into the topic and encourages others to do so, in the hope of leading to better regulation of the toxins. The Microplastics Safety Act, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in July, would direct the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to study the human health impacts of microplastics in food and water, specifically focusing on vulnerabilities for children, the endocrine and reproductive systems, and links to cancer and chronic illnesses. “There has not been a lot of money spent on the human health impacts of microplastics,” Ross said, noting she is in regular discussion with the Rhode Island Congressional delegation about the need for regulation. “It’s interesting that what we’re seeing in mice is similar to what we’re seeing in the real world. We want to encourage further research into the scourge of micro- and nanoplastics.” Reference: “Short-term exposure to polystyrene microplastics alters cognition, immune, and metabolic markers in an apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype and sex-dependent manner” by Lauren Gaspar, Sydney Bartman, Hannah Tobias-Wallingford, Giuseppe Coppotelli and Jaime M Ross, 20 August 2025, Environmental Research Communications.DOI: 10.1088/2515-7620/adf8ae Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

New Hope in Alzheimer’s Research: A Special Report

Breakthrough therapies, new diagnostics and preventive measures for fighting a devastating disease

September 16, 20252 min readNew Hope in Alzheimer’s Research: A Special ReportBreakthrough therapies, new diagnostics and preventive measures for fighting a devastating diseaseBy Lauren Gravitz This article is part of “Innovations In: Alzheimer's Disease” an editorially independent special report that was produced with financial support from Eisai.A diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease is typically followed by years of uncertainty, grief and a painful decline into oblivion. But although there is so much researchers still don’t understand about the disease and what drives it, scientists are making progress faster than ever before and providing patients and their families with options for both diagnosis and treatment.Over the past few decades researchers have begun to realize that Alzheimer’s is more than the tangles of tau proteins and clusters of amyloid plaque that are the defining biological signs of the disease. Today, as Esther Landhuis describes, with the help of detailed graphics, there are more than 100 ongoing trials aimed at slowing or even stopping disease progression, and they target a variety of underlying mechanisms. The first therapies that specifically home in on and break up amyloid plaques have already been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In clinical trials, they slowed decline for some people with early Alzheimer’s, but, as Liz Seegert reports, the drugs also come with substantial risk and are not a one-size-fits-all solution.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Changes to daily habits, such as increased exercise and social interaction, better nutrition, and supplements, are another option to consider. Sara Harrison notes that although the results from studies are mixed, researchers hope that focusing on someone’s day-to-day health can delay onset of the worst symptoms of dementia. Such improvements aren’t available to everyone, however. Black Americans are twice as likely as white Americans to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s or other dementias. Jyoti Madhusoodanan analyzes the substantial evidence that this higher rate is a direct result of systemic racism, environmental pollution, and other experiences related to discrimination.The earlier someone is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, the sooner they can begin interventions and start to plan for the future. Blood tests can finally make this early detection easier. They’re not infallible, however. Cassandra Willyard explains that the currently available blood tests are less a screening tool and more part of a confirmatory approach, best for people already experiencing dementia symptoms.The global incidence of Alzheimer’s is increasing at a rapid rate. In the U.S., more people than ever are being diagnosed even as the number of care options dwindles. Tara Haelle explores the reasons for that and profiles one program aiming to help states coordinate and improve care for dementia patients and their caregivers.Alzheimer’s is a devastating diagnosis. But for the first time since the condition’s initial description in 1906, scientists and clinicians are providing both dementia patients and their family members with glimmers of hope.It’s Time to Stand Up for ScienceIf you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Amid state inaction, California chef sues to block sales of foam food containers

The suit claims Atlanta-based WinCup continues to sell, distribute and market foam products in California despite a state law that was supposed to ban such sales starting Jan. 1.

Redwood City — Fed up with the state’s refusal to enforce a law banning the sale of polystyrene foam cups, plates and bowls, a San Diego County resident has taken matters into his own hands.Jeffrey Heavey, a chef and owner of Convivial Catering, a San Diego-area catering service, is suing WinCup, an Atlanta-based foam foodware product manufacturing company, claiming that it continues to sell, distribute and market foam products in California despite a state law that was supposed to ban such sales starting Jan. 1. He is suing on behalf of himself, not his business.The suit, filed in the San Diego County Superior Court in March, seeks class action status on behalf of all Californians. Heavey’s attorney, William Sullivan of the Sullivan & Yaeckel Law Group, said his client is seeking an injunction to stop WinCup from selling these banned products in California and to remove the products’ “chasing arrows” recycling label, which Heavey and his attorney describe as false and deceptive advertising.They are also seeking damages for every California-based customer who paid the company for these products in the last three years, and $5,000 to every senior citizen or “disabled” person who may have purchased the products during this time period.WinCup didn’t respond to requests for comments, but in a court filing described the allegations as vague, unspecific and without merit, according to the company’s attorney, Nathan Dooley. Jeffrey Heavey is suing foodware maker WinCup, claiming that it continues to sell, distribute and market foam products in California despite a state law that was supposed to ban such sales starting Jan. 1. (Luke Johnson / Los Angeles Times) At issue is a California ban on the environmentally destructive plastic material, which went into effect on Jan. 1, as well as the definition of “recyclable” and the use of such a label on products sold in the state.Senate Bill 54, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021, targeted single-use plastic in the state’s waste stream. The law included a provision that banned the sale and distribution of expanded polystyrene food service ware — such as foam cups, plates and takeout containers — on Jan. 1, unless producers could show they had achieved a 25% recycling rate.“I’m glad a person in my district has taken this up and is holding these companies accountable,” said Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas). “But CalRecycle is the enforcement authority for this legislation, and they should be the ones doing this.”The intent of the law was to put the financial onus of responsible waste management onto the producers of these products, and away from California’s taxpayers and cities that would otherwise have to dispose of these products or deal with their waste on beaches, in rivers and on roadways.Expanded polystyrene is a particularly pernicious form of plastic pollution that does not biodegrade, has a tendency to break down into microplastics, leaches toxic chemicals and persists in the environment.There are no expanded polystyrene recycling plants in California, and recycling rates nationally for the material hover around 1%. A Mallard duck swims in water with Styrofoam polluting the beach on Lake Washington, Kirkland, Wash. (Wolfgang Kaehler / LightRocket via Getty Images) However, despite CalRecycle’s delayed announcement of the ban, companies such as WinCup not only continue to sell these banned products in California, but Heavey and his lawyers allege the products are deceptively labeled as “recyclable.” In his suit, Heavey includes a March 15 receipt from a Smart & Final store in the San Diego County town of National City, indicating a purchase of “WinCup 16 oz. Foam” cups. Similar polystyrene foam products could be seen on the shelves this week at a Redwood City Smart & Final, including a 1,000-count box of 12-ounce WinCup foam cups selling for $36.99. Across the aisle, the shelves were packed with bags of Simply Value and First Street (both Smart & Final brands) foam plates and bowls.There were “chasing arrow” recycling labels on the boxes containing cup lids. The symbol included a No. 6 in the center, indicating the material is polystyrene. There were none on the cardboard boxes containing cups, and it couldn’t be determined if the individual foam products were tagged with recycling labels. They were either obstructed from view inside cardboard boxes or stacked in bags which obscured observation.Smart & Final, which is owned by Chedraui USA, a subsidiary of Mexico City-based Grupo Comercial Chedraui, didn’t respond to requests for comment.Heavey’s suit alleges the plastic product manufacturer is “greenwashing” its products by labeling them as recyclable and in so doing, trying to skirt the law.According to the suit, recycling claims are widely disseminated on products and via other written publications. The company’s website includes an “Environmental” tab, which includes a page entitled: “Foam versus Paper Disposable Cups: A closer look.”The page includes a one-sentence argument highlighting the environmental superiority of foam over paper, noting that “foam products have a reputation for environmental harm, but if we examine the scientific research, in many ways Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) foam is greener than paper.”Heavey’s suit claims that he believed he was purchasing recyclable materials based on the products’ labeling, and he would not have bought the items had they not been advertised as such. WinCup, which is owned by Atar Capital, a Los Angeles-based global private investment firm sought to have the case moved to the U.S. District Court in San Diego, but a judge there remanded the case back to the San Diego Superior Court or jurisdiction grounds. Susan Keefe, the Southern California Director of Beyond Plastics, an anti-plastic environmental group based in Bennington, Vt., said that as of June, the agency had not yet enforced the ban, despite news stories and evidence that the product was still being sold in the state.“It’s really frustrating. CalRecycle’s disregard for enforcement just permits a lack of respect for our laws. It results in these violators who think they can freely pollute in our state with no trepidation that California will exercise its right to penalize them,” she said. Melanie Turner, a spokesoman for CalRecycle, said in a statement that expanded polystyrene producers “should no longer be selling or distributing expanded polystyrene food service ware to California businesses.” “CalRecycle has been identifying and notifying businesses that may be impacted by SB 54, including expanded polystyrene requirements, and communicating their responsibilities with mailed notices, emailed announcements, public meetings, and workshops,” she said. The waste agency “is prioritizing compliance assistance for producers regulated by this law, prior to potential enforcement action,” she said.Keefe filed a public records request with the agency regarding communications with companies selling the banned material and said she found the agency had not made any attempts to warn or stop the violators from selling banned products.Blakespear said it’s concerning the law has been in effect for more than six months and CalRecycle has yet to clamp down on violators. Enforcement is critical, she said, for setting the tone as SB 54 is implemented.According to Senate Bill 54, companies that produce banned products that are then sold in California can be fined up to $50,000 per day, per violation.According to a report issued by the waste agency last week, approximately 47,000 tons of expanded polystyrene foam was disposed in California landfills last year.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.