Biotechnology

By  STEPHANIE STROM JUNE 30, 2016 Continue reading the main story Share This Page Photo In Vermont, a new law requires products with genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled. Nearly all food labels in Vermont are now required to disclose when products include genetically engineered ingredients. The requirement, passed two years ago, became effective on Friday. The rule is the first of its kind in the United States, and although it applies only within the tiny state, it is having national impact. Most major food and beverage companies have already added language to their labels to meet the new rule, rather than deal with the logistical hassle of having separate labels for different states. Campbell Soup was the first big company to say it would label all of its products, and General Mills, ConAgra, Mars and Kellogg’s followed. But  not all the same products will definitely be on shelves . Coca-Cola said some of its less popular brands may not b...

By  THE EDITORIAL BOARD JULY 6, 2016 Continue reading the main story Share This Page The Senate is expected to vote as early as Thursday on a bill that would require businesses to label  genetically modified foods . Unfortunately, it would allow companies to use confusing electronic codes for scanning instead of simple, clear labels. This bill, a bipartisan compromise negotiated by  Senator Pat Roberts , Republican of Kansas, and  Senator Debbie Stabenow , Democrat of Michigan, is being pushed through Congress because some lawmakers from farm states want to  pre-empt a Vermont law that requires labeling  for some genetically modified foods that went into effect on July 1 (Vermont is giving companies six months to comply) and to prevent other states from enacting similar laws. The Senate bill follows an failed effort in March to block state labeling laws. The House  passed a bill  last year that would pre-empt states from enforcing ...

Trilobites By  JOANNA KLEIN   JULY 13, 2016 Continue reading the main story Share This Page Photo The “Cheerios effect” explains why solid objects clump together when floating in a liquid. Scientists recently described an “inverted Cheerios effect” to show how liquids can sometimes repel one another. Credit David Duprey/Associated Press Is it polite to discuss the fundamental forces of the universe at the breakfast table? The  Cheerios effect  — which described why those little O’s clump together on the surface of milk in your bowl — brought physics to morning mealtimes when it was identified more than 10 years ago. Now, scientists are extending that conversation over breakfast with “the inverted Cheerios effect.” But for this one, you should swap your bowl of cereal for a pan full of Jell-O. Here’s why: The Cheerios effect isn’t really about cereal, it’s about how solids come together atop liquids. The lessons you can learn from playing with yo...

Trilobites By  STEPH YIN   JULY 11, 2016 Continue reading the main story Share This Page Photo An international team of scientists designed a robotic stingray that they detailed in the journal Science on Thursday.   Credit Karaghen Hudson and Michael Rosnach If a robot is made of living cells, can respond to external stimuli and has the ability to compute and coordinate movement, is it alive? This question can be posed of a new, tiny stingray-inspired robot that is able to follow pulses of light to swim through an obstacle course. “It’s not an organism per se, but it’s certainly alive,” said  Kevin Kit Parker , a professor of bioengineering at Harvard University and one of the authors of a  paper  detailing the robot, published in Science on Thursday. To create the robot, which measures 16 millimeters in length, Dr. Parker’s team layered heart cells from rats onto a gold and silicone scaffold that they designed to resemble a stingr...

By  ANDREW POLLACK JULY 15, 2016 Continue reading the main story Share This Page The best-selling drugs Humira and Enbrel have a lot in common. They both use biotechnology to treat rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis and other autoimmune diseases. And they come with giant price tags approaching $50,000 a year. Now the two companies behind the competing drugs have found common ground in keeping those prices so high: They are deploying new patents to prevent patients and insurers from getting two essentially generic versions of the drugs for less money. This week, advisers to the Food and Drug Administration recommended approval of the near generic versions. But the patents could delay introduction. And even if the drugs get to market, some patient groups say they will resist efforts by insurers to force them to use the less expensive drugs. The various developments show that six years after the Affordable Care Act cleared the way for biosimilars, as the generic versi...