Sugar. 20 Things You Didn't Know About

We eat it, we love it, and it may have been a chemical precursor to life on Earth.

1 The average American eats 61 pounds of refined sugar each year, including 25 pounds of candy. Halloween accounts for at least two pounds of that.

2 Trick: Sugar may give you wrinkles via a process called glycation, in which excess blood sugar binds to collagen in the skin, making it less elastic.

3 Or treat: Cutting back on sugar may help your skin retain its flexibility. So actually, no treats.

4 People in India have been crystallizing cane sugar for at least 2,000 years. When Alexander the Great’s companions arrived there, they marveled at the production of honey without bees.

5 In 1747 German chemist Andreas Marggraf discovered that the sugar in a sugar beet is identical to that in sugarcane. In 1802 the first beet-sugar refinery began operations, bringing cheap sweets to northern climes.

6 More than half the 8.4 million metric tons of sugar produced annually in the United States comes from beets.

7 Can you imagine eating 8 sugar cubes (8 spoons of sugar) at one sitting? You probably have. That’s a little less than what is contained in a coke or Pepsi (~ 300 ml).

8 Soft drinks with artificial sweeteners may actually help make you fat. In a Purdue University study, rats drinking liquids with artificial sweeteners consumed more calories overall than rats whose drinks were sweetened with sugar.

9 The artificial sweeteners saccharin and aspartame were found accidentally when lab workers doing research that had nothing to do with sweetening put a bit of the test compounds in their mouths and liked what they tasted.

10 What kind of researcher sticks an experiment in his mouth?

11 At least he had an excuse. The scientists who discovered sucralose (now sold as Splenda) were originally trying to create an insecticide. An assistant thought he had been instructed to “taste” a compound he’d only been asked to “test.”

12 A compound called lugduname is the sweetest compound known—more than 200,000 times as sweet as table sugar.

13 Sugars are molecules of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. The simplest include glucose, fructose, and galactose. Table sugar is crystallized sucrose, a fusion of one fructose and one glucose molecule.

14 Can’t escape them: Sugars are the building blocks of carbohydrates, the most abundant type of organic molecules in living things.

15 Glycolaldehyde, an eight-atom sugar, has even been found in an interstellar gas cloud near the center of the Milky Way.

16 Glycolaldehyde can react with a three-carbon sugar to form ribose, the basis for both RNA and DNA, so the glycol­aldehyde found in deep space may be a chemical precursor to life on Earth.

17 That cloud also contains ethylene glycol, a sweet relative of glycol­aldehyde and the main ingredient in antifreeze. Either complex sugars can be synthesized between the stars or there is a truck stop at the end of the universe.

18 Sugar can help get you there to find out. Burn sucrose with a dose of corn syrup and saltpeter and you get “sugar propellant,” a popular amateur rocket fuel.

19 How do you spell relief? “Obecalp,” a sugar pill manufactured to FDA standards, is marketed as a treatment for children’s mild complaints. (Try reading the name backward.)

20 It’s not all mind games. The sugar glucosamine works as an immunosuppressant in mice, and xylitol (a sugar alcohol) can prevent ear infections in kids. Sweet!

Courtesy : Discover Magazine

Plant Grows at high Temperatures with help of Fungi/Virus

Let us talk about three new things I didn't know till now. Hope it will be informative or useful for your entrance exams.

1. Dichanthelium lanuginosum is grass plant known as Panic grass* and was able to survive intermittent high temperatures in geothermal soils (up to 65 °C.) of Yellowstone National Park, USA.

2. In 2007 it was found that the heat tolerance is conferred to the grass due to its association with an endophytic fungus, Curvularia protuberata.

3. "Thermal Tolerance" trait conferred by the endophytic fungus is actually due to a specific RNA virus onboard. This dsRNA virus is aptly named "Curvularia thermal tolerance virus" (CThTV). Infected fungal mycelia contain two viral dsRNA molecules: a 2.2 kb dsRNA molecule that encodes two ORFs related to viral replication and a 1.8 kb dsRNA molecule with two ORFs with no similarity to any protein of known function.

As we all know virus is pathogenic. CThTV is Symbiotic.

This is an example of a tritrophic interaction, as three organisms are interacting.

Work is continuing to determine the mechanism by which the uncharacterized ORFs within the 1.8 dsRNA of CThTV confer the thermal tolerance in this fungal-plant mutualism.

*Panic grass, incidentally, has nothing to do with botanical phobias; instead, the name derives from the Latin panicum, referring to foxtail millet.

Further Study

Biotech firm eyes algae as growth area

The simple marine organism that causes pond scum will someday be used to make people healthier.

A research team at Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd. in Dartmouth has found algae along the coast of Nova Scotia capable of providing essential nutrients in quantities sufficient to support commercialization.

Chief executive officer Robert Orr said Friday the fish-oil manufacturer is keeping the lid on most details for competitive reasons.

"There is a lot of research underway in this field around the world. We’ve made significant progress here in Nova Scotia but haven’t been overly public about it," he said.

Ocean Nutrition is preparing a fish-powder plant worth an estimated $23 million in Burnside Park. It is expected to open in a few months, but production will be linked to the health of the food industry."We will see more new food products launched as the economy improves," said Mr. Orr.

When the plant opens, operations will focus on turning oil from anchovies and sardines into fish oil and an omega-3 powder to be used as nutritional supplements to food.

The capacity to produce nutrients would increase significantly if a micro-fermentation process could be used to culture algae.

"We would be going directly to the same algae consumed by the fish to obtain omega-3 fatty acids and other nutritional compounds," Mr. Orr said.

Omega-3 fatty acids from fish are linked to reduced risk of heart disease and improved brain function.

Extracting essential nutrients from fish like anchovies or sardines is a costly process, and the ability to use large volumes of marine algae as a raw product has huge implications for this emerging industry.

Mr. Orr said there is a large body of evidence supporting the health benefits of nutrients found in high proportions in fish, and North Americans eat very little fish, so the future of the industry looks good.

"Omega-3 is to the cells what calcium is to the bones," he said.

Source

Biotechnology's potential barely exploited

The promising potential of biotechnology remains largely unused, especially in such crucial areas as healthcare and production of environmentally friendly fuels, scientists said.

The experts gathered here at an annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science predicted that biotechnology was likely to experience a boom in coming years.

"What you have seen over the last 35 years of biotech are tremendous applications, immediate applications of biotech starting with recombinant therapeutics all the way through," said Drew Endy, assistant professor of bioengineering at Stanford University.

He said the phenomenon can be explained by the fact that no one thus far has even "scratched the surface" of the promising science.

Click here!



But Endy argued that science was moving forward fast. In only six years, he said, the gene sequencing project went from reading a bacteria genome to reading a human genome.

Last year, researchers at the Venter Institute built a bacteria genome from scratch, he noted.

"I bet we will be able to construct a human chromosome, and the yeast genome," Endy said, offering a six-year forecast.

"It sounds a little bit crazy because it's an exponential improvement in the tools."

He said there were lots of opportunities to take those tools forward.

"We are advocating now a national initiative in synthetic biology that would include in part a route map for getting better in building genetic material, constructing DNA from scratch and assembling it into genes and genomes," the scientist pointed out.

Jay Keasling, professor of biochemical engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, said his project was using a microbe in order to produce a drug while significantly reducing its cost.

"We anticipate in one or two years that the optimization process will be completed and that production of the drug will commence and have it in the hands of people in Africa shortly thereafter," Keasling said.

Meanwhile, Christina Smolke, assistant professor of bioengineering at Stanford University spoke about her efforts to design molecules that go into the cell and analyse the cellular state before delivering a therapeutic effect.

"Our goal is to make more effective therapies by taking advantage of the natural capabilities of our immune system and introducing slight modifications in cases where it is not doing what we would like it to do," she said.

Smolke said she hoped to translate her technologies into intelligent cellular therapeutics for glioma cancer patients in the next five years.

"That's a very optimistic view... but so far things are moving quickly," she pointed out.

Source

Despite slow economy, biotech industry is booming

Despite our economic slowdown, biotech is booming led by Silicon Valley companies giving a big boost to both their patients and their investors.

At the end of 2008, MAP Pharmaceuticals was struggling with a stock price around 2 dollars a share.

Then, lightning struck...twice.

First, MAP made progress on a new way to treat migraine headaches. Then, it signed a billion dollar deal with Pharma giant Astra-Zeneca to co-develop a drug to fight childhood asthma.

Now, the Silicon Valley biotech company is a genuine up and comer, money in the bank, stock price up about 500 percent.

And it's hiring.

"We're taking medicines that are well-established, and trying to make them better," said MAP Pharma CEO Tim Nelson.

Nelson's company is poised for growth, but it's far from alone.

His Silicon Valley biotech neighbors like Varian Systems, which makes this device to fight cancerous tumors and Gilead Sciences, battling aids have rewarded both patients and investors lately bucking the recession, and growing by the day.

"The aging of the population, the need for medical care, and a lot of real good science by a lot of smart people can hopefully provide for better outcomes for all of us," said Nelson.

For MAP, the recent stream of success means more attention, better recruiting, and a way to shake things up for millions of potential patients.

"Asthma and migraine are significant underserved medical needs. So it's a focus of trying to find an underserved medical need, and seeing if we can provide better medicine," Nelson said.

Fighting through the recession with companies like MAP showing the way.

Since the therapies are still in development, it's too early to even guess when they'll be on the market.

Fresh from the farm, a biotech 'milestone'

A Framingham biotech company yesterday became the first to win federal approval to manufacture a drug by using genetically modified animals, an approach that could eventually be used to produce many drugs using farm animals.

The US Food and Drug Administration yesterday approved GTC Biotherapeutics Inc.'s ATryn, an anticlotting drug made using genetically modified goats that live on a farm in Charlton. GTC engineered the herd to secrete a special therapeutic protein in their milk.

"It's really a milestone event," said Eric Overstrom, chairman of biology and biotechnology at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, who collaborated with GTC on some of its early research using goats. "This adds to the toolbox for the pharmaceutical industry."

Though ATryn is likely to have limited marketing potential because it would serve a relatively small pool of patients, the drug's approval could clear the way to produce many more drugs with genetically modified animals, an approach nicknamed "pharming."

European regulators approved the drug - and the novel production technique - in 2006.

In addition to goats, Overstrom said, drug companies could potentially use other animals, such as cows or rabbits, to produce drugs in their milk, blood, or even urine. Overstrom said animals could be particularly helpful in cultivating enzymes and other large molecules that are more difficult to produce using bacteria or individual cells.

Still, some activists are wary about the use of genetically engineered animals. The Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit group, complained that the animals could pose unforeseen health and environmental risks.

"The creation of GE animals is a very slippery slope," Jaydee Hanson, the center's policy analyst on cloning and genetics, said in a statement. "All it takes is one mating between an escaped specimen and a natural animal to set off a chain of events that could lead to contamination or extinction."

Some investors are also uncertain how much GTC will benefit from its achievement. The company's stock closed at 70 cents yesterday, down 12 cents, far from its peak of more than $44 per share in early 2000.

Thomas Newberry, GTC's vice president of corporate communications, acknowledged the drug's revenue potential is modest. And like many small biotech companies, Newberry said the firm only has a limited amount of cash, which could cause some investors to worry about its future.

But he said GTC's technology could eventually produce billions of dollars in revenue.

"It's still tough times for development-stage companies," Newberry said. "But the upper bounds for the company are virtually limitless."

Source

Next Biotech Opportunity Could Be in Hospital Acquired Infections

Hospital acquired infections (HAI) are exacting a significant toll on human life, ranking among the top ten leading causes of death in the United States. With an estimated 5%-10% hospital patients acquiring an infection, about two million cases each year and about 90,000 deaths, there is a huge associated financial burden which a new report from Kalorama Information, "Nosocomial Infections: Market Assessment for Diagnostics and Therapeutics," estimates at between $4.5 billion and $5.78 billion annually.

Though some progress has been made in combating HAIs, more and more infections are proving resistant to antibiotics that are currently on the market. Another threat is beginning to appear in the form of global bugs that are hitching a ride on the backs of travelers. Bugs such as hepatitis C, the West Nile Virus, multi-drug resistant TB and yellow fever could be the next pandemic with the ability to severely cripple our healthcare system.

Just as infections can enter the hospital environment from abroad, so they can leave the hospital and enter our communities, often after swapping gene components with other bacteria and becoming even more drug resistant. For example, MRSA is increasingly present in schools and sports teams.

One thing is clear -- there is a strong need for new treatments to combat HAIs. But where will they come from? In 2007, the FDA approved 74 new drugs, of which only two were antibiotics. Also, of over 2,700 compounds currently in development, only about 50 are being developed as bacterial antibiotics.

"HAIs, especially the foreign bugs, are a considerable problem and the healthcare community needs help," said Bruce Carlson, publisher of Kalorama Information. "Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry has practically abandoned developing treatments. It will fall to the biotechnology community, and biotech companies have a market opportunity here that could provide them a major revenue stream."

Kalorama Information's new report "Nosocomial Infections: Market Assessment for Diagnostics and Therapeutics," focuses primarily on the more common bacterial infections, with some mention of viral infections. The report discusses the diagnostic and therapeutic technologies that are currently available and projects trends in these product areas. For further information visit: www.kaloramainformation.com/redirect.asp?progid=66469&productid=2065254

About Kalorama Information

Kalorama Information supplies the latest in independent market research in the life sciences, as well as a full range of custom research services. We routinely assist the media with healthcare topics.

Is there any sector hotter than biotechnology today?

The number of biotech companies in Canada has soared more than 75% in the past 20 years, and they are spread out across the country. In fact, Canada has become a training ground for leaders, exporting talent to the rest of the world. What's more, it leads the world in the opportunities available to women.


Here are two women on top of their game:

Dr. Kathleen Pritchard, senior scientist in the Division of Medical Oncology and professor at the University of Toronto and clinical director of the Ontario Clinical Oncology group.

Ms. Pritchard credits her career in health sciences to her home town.

She grew up in Deep River, Ontario a stone's throw from Chalk River, home to Atomic Energy Research. Dr. Pritchard describes it fondly as being "in the middle of nowhere with between 2,000 and 5,000 people and had more PhDs per square inch than anywhere in the universe."

She's only half kidding. "There were lots of people who walked down the street thinking so hard they ran into telephone polls. We regarded them as eccentric scientists."

While neither of her parents were scientists, Dr. Pritchard says she and her friends were introduced to science by the time they could walk.

"Science was everywhere; particularly physics. We were all told science was the most interesting thing to do. I had a high school graduating class of 33 kids and seven of them enrolled in nuclear physics."

That was in 1964. Dr. Pritchard went on to honors science at Queens University before moving on to medicine. "I like working with patients and applying new treatments but I was also very interested in how you proved things."

It was in a third-year autopsy conference where she had to do an autopsy on a patient whose breast cancer had recurred after 15 years that she became interested in the disease.

Since then, Dr. Pritchard has gone on to play a key role in clinical breast cancer research and has advanced the standard of care for breast cancer patients worldwide.

"Breast cancer has turned into a disease with all kinds of targeted therapy and I'm interested in going into big clinical trials and picking out either retrospectively or by doing special studies in advance the groups of patients that will benefit most from therapy. That's a lot of what I do now," she says.

"I fell backwards into medicine but it was perfect for me because it's very practical and yet there is a lot of science. Even when you see patients, you can observe something that leads you to go back and ask a question and talk to scientists or pathologists and say 'how can we study this better?' "

Lyndal Walker, head of the Canadian commercialization organization for Abraxis Bioscience.

Ms. Walker's father steered her toward a career in nursing 20 years ago in Australia. A move to Canada, and the realization she was bored with her work led her to the University of Windsor where she took a degree in science, knowing she would pursue a career in the pharmaceutical industry.

"I was ready for a career change, and I wanted to set myself up for a career that would allow me to take a leadership role," says Ms. Walker.

"I was a prefect at my school. I was that personality that wanted to step up to the plate and so I targeted a career in the pharmaceutical industry. I started in a very junior level, but I was willing to take an opportunity and work hard."

Today, as head of the Canadian commercialization organization for Abraxis Bioscience Ms. Walker's role takes her around the globe to open up new markets for the company.

"We are providing a practice change drug in the treatment of breast cancer," Ms. Walker says.

"We launched the product 18 months ago. Within 12 months of having the drug approved in Canada we've had it reimbursed. We are getting the word out and explaining how it works, that's part of the biotech process. You are educating people about the new technology and what the impact is."

"I still wake up everyday loving what I do," Ms. Walker says. "The biotech industry is a very fast paced, evolving sometimes volatile business but you learn so much about yourself, about people and the process. It's a very exciting place to be. I don't think people should be fearful of it. It is a growing market."

Source

College launches program to train people for biotech jobs

Barry felt a special bond with the room full of strangers whom she was addressing.

Like them, she knows what it means to change careers.

“I was once where you’re sitting right now,” Ms. Barry said at a recent orientation for 19 students who will participate in a new 15-week program to train people for jobs in biomanufacturing.


The program, which begins Monday at the Mount Wachusett Community College facility in Devens, is funded through a $1.6 million U.S. Department of Labor Grant. All the sessions will be held there.

Ms. Barry, director of quality control for Bionostics’ Devens facility, explained that she was once a teacher. “During Prop 2-1/2 my job was eliminated. I decided to go back to school. I had a background in biology. So I did it, and here I am today.

“I know you’re probably nervous, a little uncertain,” the Mount Wachusett alumna said during the orientation. “The fact that you’re here, I think, is commendable. You’re taking the first steps and that’s great.”

Classroom instruction and practical laboratory sessions will be combined to give students skills and knowledge for manufacturing and quality-control positions in biotech.

“The economy is going to turn around and when it does, the region of the country that has the best educated work force will come out of this recession sooner than other parts of the country,” said MWCC president Daniel M. Asquino.

Mr. Asquino told the students of the large investment the college has made in the physical plant. “All of this is new,” he said pointing to the laboratory the students will be working in. “And in many cases you’re going to be the first students who will be using this equipment.”

“The investment was made because we realize the role our college plays in providing an educated work force for the region,” Mr. Asquino said.

Lara Dowland, chairwoman of the college’s Biotechnology, Biomanufacturing Department, noted the tremendous potential for growth in the industry. “This industry is not at full realization yet, so the job opportunities will continue to grow for graduates.”

Recruitment will begin March 15 for the second work force training program session, scheduled to begin in August.

Recent high school graduates as well as career-changers with a strong background in mathematics, biology and chemistry are eligible to apply for the program.

Classes will be three days a week, seven hours a day, at the Devens campus.

The program will be repeated the next three years for six 15-week sessions. The grant covers student tuition, fees, equipment and supplies. Students will buy their own textbook, which they retain as reference.

Information sessions on the program will be Feb. 9 and March 9 at 5:30 p.m. at the Devens campus, 27 Jackson Road.

Prospective students interested in obtaining information about the Biomanufacturing Workforce Training Program should contact Tami Morin at (978) 630-9578 or tmorin@mwcc.mass.edu.

Source

Skilled workers needed for biotech jobs

Biotechnology remains a job creation engine for California despite the financial gridlock that threatens to starve smaller biotech companies of the capital they need to turn lab discoveries into new treatments, the industry's Northern California trade association said.

But the group, BayBio, said many biomedical jobs may go unfilled because the state's programs in science education aren't meeting the demand.

That conclusion was part of the annual report BayBio issued Wednesday showcasing the accomplishments of California life sciences companies. It was certainly the most poignant message in the report, given the U.S. environment of layoffs and climbing unemployment rates.

BayBio released its Impact 2009 study in San Francisco, drawing a spin-off crowd from the thousands of executives and investors gathered nearby for the industry's big J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference at the Westin St. Francis.

The trade group recited its usual inventory of noteworthy accomplishments from the Northern California life sciences cluster - the oldest, largest and most productive in the nation. BayBio uses the data to lobby Sacramento and Washington legislators for tax breaks and other policies to foster the growth of the industry. Such measures are more important than ever as the credit crunch continues to hamper biotech innovation, said BayBio president Matt Gardner.

But a concern in California is a category of positions that remain open because the state can't train people fast enough.

Biomedical companies and hospitals need licensed clinical laboratory scientists to carry out diagnostic tests and other lab tasks to support medical treatment and research. If the state quadrupled its output of such workers, Gardner said, it wouldn't meet the need in hospitals alone. And more such workers are being sought by companies that are steadily developing an array of gene-based tests to match each patient with the best treatment, part of a biotech approach called "personalized medicine."

"The biotech industry is ready, willing and able to add new jobs," Gardner said.

But Gardner said California's budget crisis may make it difficult to beef up educational programs in science, one of the core recommendations of the trade group. "Alarmingly, the U.S. Department of Education ranked California student achievement 48 out of 50 states in eighth-grade science education in 2007," BayBio said in its report.

Budget constraints could force more biotech companies to focus their waning resources on a smaller number of scientific projects if the flow of capital doesn't improve, Gardner said. To help struggling companies that have not yet achieved profitability, the state and federal governments should allow those firms greater flexibility to convert their operating losses into tax rebates or offsets on future profit, BayBio said.

Biotech, medical device and diagnostic test developers contribute more than $22 billion to the state payroll with about 264,000 jobs in the sector, the trade group said. California companies have 1,294 treatments on the market, and another 738 in later-stage clinical testing.

Northern California has about 4,083 life sciences companies, compared with about 4,646 in Southern California. But the Northern cluster has 463 experimental treatments in late-stage testing, while Southern California has 275, BayBio said.

Source

Lower-cost drugs predicted under Obama administration

Cheaper drugs could be on the way to U.S. consumers under the Barack Obama administration.

"We are likely to see some movements with prescription drugs and pricing," said David Dranove, professor of health industry management for Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management.

The reason: President George W. Bush blocked, or allowed Republican leaders to stall, several bills that would have resulted in lower drug prices. In doing so, he sided with the pharmaceutical industry, which cited safety concerns about cheaper imported drugs and worried about threats to drug company research budgets if the federal government interfered with pricing.

Now, initiatives that could lead to lower prices, which Obama supported as a Democratic senator from Illinois, are expected to gain traction with him in the Oval Office, especially since he will be backed by stronger Democratic majorities in Congress. They include proposals that would allow for cheaper copies of expensive drugs derived from biotechnology, unleashing the government's Medicare program to negotiate drug prices directly with drug companies and making it legal for pharmaceuticals to be imported into the U.S.

The larger Obama push aimed at providing health benefits to more than 45 million uninsured Americans is seen as too costly, complicated and difficult to achieve in the first year of his administration, particularly given the country's financial crisis and massive deficits run up in part by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congressional proposals have been emerging, but it is unclear how far they will go.

"There are many other demands on the federal purse strings, and [health-care reform] requires a lot of new bureaucracy that will be tough to accomplish," Dranove said. "But there is low-hanging fruit, and they have been hanging there [in Congress] for some time and will be easy sells and easy to get through."

Lowering drug prices could hurt profits and stocks of companies such as North Chicago-based Abbott Laboratories and Deerfield-based Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, analysts say.

In particular, both companies could be weakened if import restrictions are lifted on some commonly used drugs that they manufacture outside the U.S. Examples include Abbott's Tricor cholesterol pills and Takeda's Prevacid for severe heartburn. Some experts believe that imported brand-name drugs could be priced more like generics, which are generally 50 percent to 80 percent cheaper.

Supporters of importation say it makes no sense for U.S. consumers to pay more for the same pills made in countries where U.S. companies have foreign-based manufacturing plants that meet Food and Drug Administration standards. The difference in pricing can reflect lower wages paid in countries such as Ireland and India.

But the drug industry's trade group, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, contends that imports could undermine drugmakers' ability to fund expensive research and development.

So far, the FDA under Bush has blocked importation, and Congress has not changed the law to allow drugs to be legally moved across U.S. borders, with the effort largely bogged down in the Senate, where Democrats had held a one-vote majority.

Since the Democrats gained more congressional seats in the election, the pharmaceutical industry is preparing for battle.

"Clearly, we are getting prepared for anything and everything next year," said Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the industry trade group, which has opposed allowing Medicare to negotiate directly with drug firms.

"The government does not negotiate prices, it dictates prices, and that impairs our companies' ability to be innovative with the ability to develop life-saving medicines. In the end, the real losers are patients."

One area where Congress and the Bush administration had been making progress was legislation to allow competition from lower-price versions of biotech drugs.

Such a move would open the door to innovations for cancer and anemia and other treatments that are derived from human or animal cells and can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. In the absence of legislation, biotech companies would enjoy longer patent protection because there is no regulatory pathway within the FDA to bring generic versions of biotech drugs, known as biogenerics or biosimilars, to market.

Biotech drugs were not part of the landmark 1984 Hatch-Waxman law that allowed for cheaper generics. That law largely covers products derived from chemicals, such as the cholesterol drugs Zocor and the popular antidepressant Zoloft. Many biotechnology drugs, first created in the 1980s when technology cleared the way for genetic engineering on DNA, are only now beginning to face patent expirations.

Take Epogen, which was launched in 1989 as one of the "first biologically derived human therapeutics," according to its maker, California-based Amgen Inc. Its U.S. patents are expected to expire within the next four years. Lake Forest-based Hospira Inc., a maker of generic injectable drugs and hospital products, has begun selling a biosimilar equivalent in Europe, where the regulatory process allows for generic versions of biotech drugs.

"We know that biogenerics will improve lives while saving the federal government and American consumers billions of dollars," said Hospira Chief Executive Christopher Begley.

Makers of brand-name biotech drugs, however, say they support the European regulations and want U.S. regulators to ensure safeguards and quality standards before biosimilar drugs are approved here.

"Substantial clinical trials need to be done that are based on science," said Audrey Phillips, executive director of biopharmaceutical public policy at New Brunswick, N.J.-based Johnson & Johnson.

Source

Tortilla chips going biotech as limits change on seeds

White corn, the variety that's milled into chips, taco shells and tortillas, has for years been free of genetic engineering. Millers and companies such as snack-food giant Frito-Lay bought only conventional, biotech-free varieties of the specialty corn from farmers.

But that's changing. Farmers in Iowa, Nebraska and other states started growing a small amount of genetically modified white corn this year after word came down from processors they would start accepting it.

"Our domestic millers have always been in favor of it," said Todd Gerdes, specialty grains manager for Aurora Cooperative, which buys white corn at three of its locations in Nebraska. The corn is sold to domestic mills and for export. "What they've always wanted to do is to make sure that they didn't accept (biotech versions) and drive away their customers."

"They've come to a comfort level where they can convince their customers it's OK."

That change of heart has opened a new business for Pioneer Hi-Bred, which offered three white varieties of its Herculex corn for the first time this year and plans to bring out three more in 2009. About 2 percent of Pioneer's white corn seed this year was genetically modified.

Virtually all of the corn grown in Iowa and nationwide is of yellow varieties and used for livestock feed, ethanol and for sweeteners and other food uses. Some 80 percent of the yellow corn seed planted this year was genetically engineered to make the plants toxic to insect pests or immune to a popular weed killer, or both.

Biotech varieties have been in the market for more than a decade, and there were even some versions in white corn in the 1990s. But industry officials said millers got spooked by the controversies that initially surrounded biotech crops, including the StarLink episode in 2000.

StarLink, a variety of biotech corn produced by a Pioneer rival, was found in taco shells and other food products without having been approved for food use.

Morry Bryant, Pioneer's key account manager for corn processing, said millers have changed their minds about biotech corn in part because of concerns about grain quality. Corn that has insect damage is susceptible to diseases that can make the grain toxic.

"When you have a healthier plant you typically have better grain quality," Bryant said. "They also like it because their growers like it."

Foreign corn buyers also are playing a role in the acceptance of biotech corn, Gerdes said. They already pay farmers a premium for white corn and feared that would go up unless they allowed farmers to grow genetically engineered versions, he said.

Darrel McAlexander, who farms near Sidney, Ia., and sells white corn to the Grupo Minsa mill in Red Oak, grew 50 acres of the biotech version this year. It turned in a sizable increase in yield of about 25 bushels per acre over the production he got on the other 1,400 acres of conventional white corn, he said.

"Now that Frito-Lay has approved it and some of the other food processors, I think we're going to see more" biotech white corn, said McAlexander, who is chairman of the Iowa Corn Promotion Board.

But as prices for yellow corn have risen to historically high levels during the past two years, premiums for white corn also have gone up, and are now running at about 60 to 70 cents a bushel, Gerdes said.

A spokeswoman for Frito-Lay said the company's individual business units can decide whether to buy genetically engineered ingredients. Officials with Mexico-based Minsa and Azteca Milling, a Texas-based unit of another Mexican company, GRUMA, did not respond to requests for comment on their buying decisions.

The fact that another food market has fallen to agricultural biotechnology isn't evidence that consumers are accepting genetically engineered crops, said Bill Freese of the Center for Food Safety, an advocacy group long critical of the industry.

The continued growth in sales of organic foods shows consumers don't want biotech foods, he said. Organic farming rules prohibit use of genetically engineered seeds.

Domestic use of white corn has been growing about 4 percent to 7 percent a year as the Latino population has grown, although white corn still represents a fraction of overall corn production, according to the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center at Iowa State University. About 700,000 acres were planted to white corn in 2005, up from 430,000 acres in 1990.

Texas and Nebraska are the leading producers, although white corn is also grown in southwest Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Source

Obama's Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men"

Biotech "Yes Men" on Obama's team threaten to expand the use of dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods in our diets. Instead of giving us change and hope, they may prolong the hypnotic "group think" that has been institutionalized over three previous administrations--where critical analysis was abandoned in favor of irrational devotion to this risky new technology.

Clinton's agriculture secretary Dan Glickman saw it first hand:

"It was almost immoral to say that [biotechnology] wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . If you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . . You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"

When Glickman dared to question the lax regulations on GM food, he said he "got slapped around a little bit by not only the industry, but also some of the people even in the administration."

By shutting open-minds and slapping dissent, deceptive myths about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) persist.

• The industry boasts that GMOs reduce herbicide use; USDA data show that the opposite is true.
• We hear that GMOs increase yield and farmer profit; but USDA and independent studies show an average reduction in yield and no improved bottom line for farmers.
• George H. W. Bush fast-tracked GMOs to increase US exports; now the government spends an additional $3-$5 billion per year to prop up prices of the GM crops no one wants.
• Advocates continue to repeat that GMOs are needed to feed the world; now the prestigious International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development has joined a long list of experts who flatly reject GMOs as the answer to hunger.

Food Safety Lies

Of all the myths about GMOs, the most dangerous is that they are safe. This formed the hollow basis of the FDA's 1992 GMO policy, which stated:

"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."

The sentence is complete fiction. At the time it was written, there was overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists that GM foods were substantially different, and could create unpredictable, unsafe, and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, diseases, and nutritional problems. They had urged the political appointees in charge to require long-term safety studies, including human studies, to protect the public.

Their concerns stayed hidden until 1999, when 44,000 pages of internal FDA memos and reports were made public due to a lawsuit. According to public interest attorney Steven Druker, the documents showed how their warnings and "references to the unintended negative effects" of genetic engineering "were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement," in spite of scientists' protests.

"What has happened to the scientific elements of this document?" wrote FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, after reviewing the latest rewrite of the policy. "It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."

Who flooded the market with dangerous GMOs

Thanks to the FDA's "promote biotech" policy, perilously few safety studies and investigations have been conducted on GMOs. Those that have, including two government studies from Austria and Italy published just last month, demonstrate that the concerns by FDA scientists should have been heeded. GMOs have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions in humans, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. GMOs are unsafe.

At the highest level, the responsibility for this disregard of science and consumer safety lies with the first Bush White House, which had ordered the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry and get GM foods on the market quickly. To accomplish this White House directive, the FDA created a position for Michael Taylor. As the FDA's new Deputy Commissioner of Policy, he oversaw the creation of GMO policy.

Taylor was formerly the outside attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto, and later became their vice president. He had also been the counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC), for whom he drafted a model of government policy designed to rush GMOs onto the market with no significant regulations. The final FDA policy that he oversaw, which did not require any safety tests or labeling, closely resembled the model he had drafted for the IFBC.

Michael Taylor is on the Obama transition team.

Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone and unhealthy milk

Taylor was also in charge when the FDA approved Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Dairy products from treated cows contain more pus, more antibiotics, more growth hormone, and more IGF-1--a powerful hormone linked to cancer and increased incidence of fraternal twins (see www.YourMilkonDrugs.com.) The growth hormone is banned in most industrialized nations, including Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. But under Michael Taylor, it was approved in the US, without labeling.

As more and more consumers here learn about the health risks of the drug, they shift their purchases to brands that voluntarily label their products as not using rbGH. Consumer rejection of rbGH hit a tipping point a couple of years ago, and since then it has been kicked out of milk from Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Subway, and at least 40 of the top 100 dairies. In 2007, Monsanto desperately tried to reverse the trend by asking the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to label their products as free from rbGH. Both agencies flatly refused the company's request.

But Monsanto turned to an ally, Dennis Wolff, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture. Wolff used his position to single-handedly declare rbGH-free labels illegal in his state. Such a policy would make it impossible for national dairy brands to declare their products rbGH-free, since they couldn't change packaging just for Pennsylvania. Wolff's audacious move so infuriated citizens around the nation, the outpouring caused the governor to step in and stop the prohibition before it took effect.

Dennis Wolff, according to unbossed.com, is being considered for Obama's USDA Secretary.

Although Pennsylvania did not ultimately ban rbGH-free labels, they did decide to require companies who use the labels to also include a disclaimer sentence on the package, stating that the according to the FDA there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rbGH and those not treated. In reality, this sentence contradicts the FDA's own scientists. (Is this sounding all too familiar?) Even according to Monsanto's own studies, milk from treated cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and IGF-1. Blatantly ignoring the data, a top FDA bureaucrat wrote a "white paper" urging companies that labeled products as rbGH-free to also use that disclaimer on their packaging. The bureaucrat was Michael Taylor.

Betting on biotech is "Bad-idea virus"

For several years, politicians around the US were offering money and tax-breaks to bring biotech companies into their city or state. But according to Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a 2004 report on this trend, "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable. This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials." He said it "remains a money-losing, niche industry."

One politician who caught a bad case of the bad-idea virus was Tom Vilsack, Iowa's governor from 1998-2006. He was co-creator and chair of the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership in 2000 and in 2001 the Biotech Industry Organization named him BIO Governor of the Year.

Tom Vilsack was considered a front runner for Obama's USDA secretary. Perhaps the outcry prompted by Vilsack's biotech connections was the reason for his name being withdrawn.

Change, Truth, Hope

I don't know Barack Obama's position on GMOs. According to a November 23rd Des Moines Register article, "Obama, like Bush, may be Ag biotech ally", there are clues that he has not been able to see past the biotech lobbyist's full court spin.

- His top scientific advisers during the campaign included Sharon Long, a former board member of the biotech giant Monsanto Co., and Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who co-chaired a key study of genetically engineered crops by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2000. - [Obama] said biotech crops "have provided enormous benefits" to farmers and expressed confidence "that we can continue to modify plants safely."

On the other hand, Obama may have a sense how pathetic US GMO regulations are, since he indicated that he wants "stringent tests for environmental and health effects" and "stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice."

There is, however, one unambiguous and clear promise that separates Obama from his Bush and Clinton predecessors.

President Obama will require mandatory labeling of GMOs.

Favored by 9 out of 10 Americans, labeling is long overdue and is certainly cause for celebration.

(I am told that now Michael Taylor also favors both mandatory labeling and testing of GMOs. Good going Michael; but your timing is a bit off.)

Source

Healthy bacteria Sale in Supermarkets

A company in Mayfield Heights is marketing a probiotic that might help the health trend already accepted in Europe and Asia catch on in America.

It's selling its healthy bacteria as a food ingredient -- one that unlike most other probiotics remains effective even when it's baked, boiled, frozen or squeezed.

The company, Ganeden Biotech, has teamed with two dozen food companies since January to incorporate its probiotic in everything from muffins to health bars to energy drinks -- even ice cream.

Main Street Gourmet in Akron recently began adding GanedenBC30 to the raisin bran muffins in its Isabella's Healthy Bakery line under the label Activate: Probiotic Enriched Muffins.

You can't buy these muffins in Ohio yet. But foods with the GanedenBC30 logo could start hitting the shelves of local grocery and drug stores by early next year.

Probiotics are live microorganisms containing bacteria or yeasts that can make people who take them healthier. Foods like yogurt naturally contain probiotics. Some believers say probiotics improve their digestion, boost their immunity and even enable them to digest dairy foods.

The number of new products containing probiotics has doubled since 2003, according to a database kept by NutraIngredients-USA.com.

The top categories for probiotics are yogurt, yogurt drinks, milk, baby food, supplement tablets and cheese, according to Nielsen LabelTrends, which keeps track of manufacturer labeling practices.

The trouble is, probiotics must be delivered to the gut alive to have a positive effect. Including probiotics in moist, refrigerated foods like yogurt is easy.

But processing the healthy bacteria for use in vitamin tablets, or baking or boiling it in food, often kills it. So do digestive acids in the stomach.

That's where Ganeden may have a leg up on many of its competitors. The company's patented strain of Bacillus Coagulans -- GanedenBC30 -- generally survives processing and digestion, and is stable in items on store shelves for up to two years.

So instead of drinking a few ounces of probiotic-rich Yakult dairy beverage every morning like Japanese people do, Americans soon may be able to get their daily dose of probiotics in breakfast cereal.

Ganeden has made dietary supplements with its probiotic -- discovered by Sean Farmer, a California microbiologist -- under the Digestive Advantage brand for nearly a decade. Farmer is Ganeden's founder and chief science officer.

These supplements come in the form of capsules aimed at helping people who have digestive ailments such as Crohn's disease or lactose intolerance, said Andrew Lefkowitz, the company's chief executive and president.

The Ganeden supplements "work wonderfully well with balancing the gut," said Dr. Terence Isakov, a family practice doctor in Lyndhurst.

Isakov, who has a financial interest in Ganeden, said probiotics have been found to help other inflammatory diseases such as arthritis.

"I think people are starting to look at probiotics in an entirely new light," Isakov said.

Ganeden, which means "Garden of Eden" in Hebrew, has spent millions of dollars testing its probiotic for safety and efficacy, said Michael Bush, who runs his company's food ingredient business as vice president of business development.

Figuring out when in the recipe to add the tasteless probiotic was the biggest challenge for Main Street Gourmet, said Harvey Nelson, co-chief executive.

It's too soon to say whether adding the Ganeden probiotic to its muffins will boost sales. However, food distributors "are calling us instead of us calling them," which is an indication of unusual demand, said Steve Marks, co-CEO.

Jack Kelly, president of PC Brands in Solana Beach, Calif., is adding Ganeden's probiotic to its Pop Culture health bars. GanedenBC30's proven survivability through the manufacturing process and stable shelf life made it an attractive addition.

"We believe in the use of probiotics in a more convenient form for most consumers," Kelly said. "Refrigerating is limiting for an energy bar."

Source

Accelerator adds $5 million to fund biotech startups

Biotechnology incubator Accelerator has snagged a commitment of about $5 million from a new investor to fund additional startups.

Accelerator, a Seattle-based incubator for biotechnology companies, snagged a commitment of about $5 million from a new investor to fund additional startups.

The commitment will bring to $27 million for the Accelerator's third round of investment, dubbed Accelerator III. The investor, PPD, is a large contract clinical research and development company based in Wilmington, N.C.

Accelerator Chief Executive Carl Weissman said PPD's expertise "should make a huge impact" in its farm team of young biotechs.

Accelerator's funding will allow it to invest in three or four more startups over the next few years.

At a time when few companies are willing to part with cash, PPD's involvement underscores its long-term thinking as an investor, said David Schubert, the Accelerator's chief business officer.

"They never even blinked when the economy or the markets went into turmoil," Schubert said.

In August Accelerator netted an initial $22.5 million for the third investment round.

Other investors include Amgen Ventures, ARCH Venture Partners, OVP Venture Partners, WRF Capital and Alexandria Real Estate Equities.

The Accelerator has invested in nine early stage companies, three of which have left the incubator and collectively raised more than $114 million.

Source

New York City Angles To Become A Biotech Hub

The latest effort to transform the city into a magnet for R&D and investment has its official opening today in the 90-year-old Brooklyn Army Terminal, where the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, or IAVI, will occupy part of a cavernous warehouse built as a military supply depot during World War I.

The center is the latest effort in a long-running campaign to make New York a biotech capital and, as The New York Times notes, reduce the city’s economic dependence on Wall Street. “This is a down payment on an industry that we think is going to be a major tax generator for both the city and the state for many years,” Seth Pinsky, who heads the city’s Economic Development Corporation, tells the paper.

So far, the city has invested more than $35 million to build or renovate office and lab space for bioscience ventures, the paper writes, adding that about one-third of that is going toward the new quarters for IAVI in Brooklyn. The state has pledged an additional $48 million to convert 500,000 square feet of the Brooklyn Army Terminal into space for biotechs.

Also under development is the East River Science Park, a $700 million complex adjacent to New York University Medical Center in Manhattan, which will house more than 1 million square feet of office and lab space and is expected to be completed in 2010. “The academic medical centers that are here spin off about 20 companies per year and we’re missing out on them,” Lenzie Harcum, vp biosciences at the Economic Development Corporation, tells the paper.

The idea, of course, is to offer alternatives to budding upstarts that are persuaded to locate in places where biotech is established and operating costs are lower, such as San Diego or Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“The joke here was that venture capitalists came into New York from the West Coast with the three M’s - the money, the management and the moving van - and relocated them,” Kathryn Wylde, chief executive of the Partnership for New York City, an association of large employers that has invested in some biotech startups, tells the Times. “They either went to the West Coast, some went to New Jersey, a lot went to Massachusetts, some to New Haven.”

http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/11/new-york-city-angles-to-become-a-biotech-hub/

Biotech firms fear pricing pressure from Obama

Biotechnology industry advocates didn't wait for election day to rehearse arguments against the broad policy changes they expect the Barack Obama administration to propose.
Obamanomics

* Pender: Obama wants to limit foreclosures - but how? 11.09.08
* Health care improvements have to wait awhile 11.09.08
* Tighter oversight of financial services needed 11.09.08
* President-elect likely to boost alternative energy 11.09.08
* Biotech firms fear pricing pressure from Obama 11.09.08
* Cybersecurity, more workers deemed crucial 11.09.08

More Business
* Macy's swings to $44 million loss in 3rd quarter 11.12.08
* Pelosi supports new help for ailing US automakers 11.12.08
* EU levies hefty fine on car glass makers 11.12.08
* Microsoft's lobbying tab dwarfs Google's tally 11.12.08

Obama's victory, and the Democratic party's commanding control of Congress, are expected to put tough pressure on drug prices as the new president tries to realize his campaign vision of expanded health care coverage for Americans at substantially lower cost. The new regime could also bring policy reversals at the Food and Drug Administration, an agency that became a political battleground during the Bush administration.

But James Greenwood, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said Obama's management of the continuing financial crisis will be the most important influence on the fate of biotech companies coping with tight credit markets and risk-averse investors.

"We're at a very, very difficult time right now, particularly our smaller companies," Greenwood said. "The most important thing this administration has to do is get the economy rolling again."

Greenwood hopes to convince the new leadership that this is no time to cut drug prices. Such moves would further undermine incentives for investors to risk their money on the uncertain chance that new biotech treatments will deliver attractive returns, he maintains.

Fledgling biotechnology companies, often unable to finance the pricey drug development process through to FDA approval, also depend on cash-rich pharmaceutical giants to license their new products or buy the smaller firm outright.

"You can't simply go after big pharma on pricing and not expect it to have an impact on the most innovative young companies," Greenwood said.

Obama's health care plan challenges drug prices on three main fronts. It would increase the use of cheaper generic drugs, allow the importation of low-cost drugs from developed countries, and authorize Medicare to negotiate with drugmakers for lower U.S. prices. The latter policy change could save as much as $30 billion, Obama's plan estimates.

Venture capital executive James Thomas said the drug industry may gain from health care reform even if price pressure increases.

Because drug prices include very high gross margins, he said, growth is driven more by the number of units sold than by price. An expansion of health coverage will boost sales. "That's good for units, and good for us," said Thomas, a co-founder of Thomas, McNerney & Partners.

Greenwood isn't so sure. Cuts in drug prices might come quickly because they would be relatively easy to implement, he said. But any upside in increased sales might be substantially delayed during complex negotiations over health care reform, Greenwood said.

Latham & Watkins attorney John Manthei, who represents drug companies in negotiations over new federal laws, said the Democratic Congress will try to beef up an FDA it sees as underfunded and ineffective.

Congressional committees that had sharply scrutinized the FDA under the Bush administration will now turn their focus to the industry itself, he predicted. Manthei expects Congress to demand answers to questions like: "Were they forthright with their data? Are they adequately policing themselves?"

Ken Johnson, senior vice president at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said the trade association will urge Obama to appoint "a strong independent FDA commissioner." The group also supports more funding for the agency.

"There's no question, the FDA is under-resourced," he said.

Names being floated for the FDA commissioner's job include Janet Woodcock, a veteran agency official who is the favored choice of drug manufacturers, Bloomberg News reports.

On the other side of the spectrum are FDA whistle-blowers and prominent drug safety advocates such as Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Steven Nissen, who has raised alarms over heart-related side effects of medicines including the diabetes drug Avandia and the painkiller Vioxx.

Greenwood said Obama's term will probably begin with some welcome initiatives, such as the expansion of health care benefits for children, which could establish common ground between the new administration and drug developers. He also expects Obama to overturn the Bush administration's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, which was a thorn in the side of the biotech industry.

Drugmakers, however, may lose ground they had gained during Bush's presidency. For example, the Bush administration has asked the Supreme Court, in a pending case called Wyeth vs. Levine, to insulate drug companies from lawsuits by injured patients.

If the high court does so, Manthei said, the Democratic majority may easily change the law because the reduced Republican contingent no longer has as much power to resist.

"The margins are such that they could do things very quickly," the industry lawyer said. "It's a different day."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/08/BU9H13UVDA.DTL&type=politics

Novel Enteric Dialysis(TM) technology

Kibow Biotech, Inc. will be introducing the concept of Enteric Dialysis(TM) at the American Society of Nephrology (ASN) Renal Week 2008, being held at PA Convention Center in Philadelphia, November 4-9.

Dr. Natarajan Ranganathan, the key founder, VP (R&D) and interim CEO stated, "We are pleased and honored to present the latest developments concerning our patented and proprietary Enteric Dialysis™ technology to the international nephrology community at Renal Week 2008. We are extremely grateful to our scientific advisory board members who have guided and encouraged our R&D work over the past 10 years, supporting us in our belief that the elegant simplicity, cost savings, convenience and effectiveness of our probiotic-based technology will have profound clinical implications for the management of CKF in both advanced and developing countries”.

Kibow Biotech Inc., with headquarters in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, will also be exhibiting Kibow Biotics(R), the company's core product, at the ASN meeting. Presented as an enteric coated gel capsule, Kibow Biotics(R) is an orally consumable formulation, intended to help improve the quality of life for chronic kidney failure (CKF) patients by possibly delaying the progression of their condition into End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD stage V). Having a high affinity for uremic toxins, Kibow Biotics(R) works on the principal of Enteric Dialysis(TM) to remove the accumulated uremic toxins diffusing from the blood into the bowel.

Kibow Biotech is currently conducting a pilot- scale, double-blind, randomized, cross-over human clinical trial for a period of six months at 6 study sites in the USA (2 sites), Canada, Mexico, Argentina and Nigeria (www.clinicaltrials.gov - identifier NCT00760162). Kibow Biotics(R) is scheduled to be available for marketing and sale in the USA by early 2009 upon successful completion of the on-going multisite clinical trials in the aforementioned countries. Licensed to Vétoquinol, S.A., the veterinary application of Kibow's technology and its patented probiotic product formulation (trade named AZODYL™) for cats and dogs with moderate to severe kidney failure has been successfully sold in the US and in Canada since 2006.

About Kibow Biotics(R)
Kibow Biotics(R) is an orally administered patented formulation of specially developed strains of naturally occurring bacteria or microbes which metabolize targeted uremic toxins in the gut and consume them as nutrients for their own growth. Clinical evidence shows that it may reduce bloodstream concentrations of urea, uric acid, creatinine, indoles and phenols, nitrosamines and related uremic metabolites. Kibow Biotics(R) also promote maintenance of normal healthy gut flora.

About Kibow Biotech, Inc.
Kibow Biotech, Inc. is an eleven-year-old, developing-stage biotechnology company having its R&D operations in Newtown Square, PA, USA. The company is dedicated to finding a simple, convenient and cost-effective worldwide solution for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure. The company's first generation product called Kibow Biotics(R); an orally consumable, enteric coated gel cap product formulation is composed of food grade microbes ("Probiotics") which metabolize the uremic toxins diffusing into the bowel as a consequence of increased levels of these toxins in the blood. It is targeted to help augment or maintain kidney function for Chronic Kidney Failure (CKF) patients (pre-dialysis) and has the potential to reduce the duration and/or frequency of dialysis for End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) patients.

For additional information, contact:
Kibow Biotech, Inc.
4629 West Chester Pike
Newtown Business Center
Newtown Square, PA 19073 USA
Tel: (610) 353 5130
Fax: (610) 353 5110
info@kibowbiotech.com
www.kibow.com

Source : http://www.einnews.com/pr-news/10529-novel-enteric-dialysis-tm-technology-to-be-introduced-by-kibow-biotech-at-asn-2008

Hawaii County Bans Biotech Coffee

The professional anti-biotech alarmists over at the Center for Food Safety are crowing in a press release (not yet available online) that the Hawaii County Council has banned growing biotech coffee and taro. According to the press release:

The new ordinance, which makes it unlawful to grow genetically engineered (GE) coffee or taro anywhere on the Island of Hawaii, was strongly supported by coffee and taro farmers, and passed by a 9-0 vote of the Council on October 9th.

"Coffee growers testified that the planting of genetically engineered coffee would contaminate and damage markets for their premium Kona coffee, costing them their livelihoods. Many cited past episodes where biotech rice and corn have contaminated conventional varieties, resulting in marketplace rejection, dramatically lower prices, and large losses to farmers.

Coffee farmers argued that they would lose their "specialty coffee" status and/or organic certification if biotech coffee were ever planted on Hawaii Island. The Kona coffee industry brings more than $25 million into the state each year."

Beside fears of "contamination," some residents apparently brought up possible health concerns:
"There were compelling testimonies from mothers of children who have complex allergies. Allergic reactions are one potential health threat of biotech crops, and taro is known world-wide as one the most hypo-allergenic foods on earth."

Never mind that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that any of the current varieties of biotech crops cause allergic reactions in people.

The coffee and taro growers should look at what happened to their neighbors who grow biotech papayas. In the 1990s, papaya growing in Hawaii was nearly extinct due to the ringspot virus. Fortunately, researchers developed a biotech variety that resists the virus, thus reviving the industry.

Other researchers have now developed a biotech variety of coffee that is resistant to insects such as the coffee leaf miner. Perhaps those nice Kona coffee growers will change their minds about biotech should the leaf miner ever make it to Hawaii.

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/12614/54/

Bristol preps for biotech buying spree

Bristol-Myers Squibb yesterday said it plans to buy "a long list" of biotech drugs and companies.

The company's future buying spree was announced after the New York City-based drugmaker hit what amounts to a jackpot these days: third-quarter net income tripled on strong sales of Plavix and a $2 billion gain from the sale earlier this year of its ConvaTec unit.

Earnings -- powered by strong sales of its heart, HIV/AIDS and psychiatric drugs and revenue from the sale earlier this year of ConvaTec, its wound care business -- beat Wall Street expectations by 4-cents, according to Bloomberg.

The company outbid this month for ImClone Systems said it was flush with $7.2 billion in cash for possible acquisitions over the next two years, before its top-selling product, the blood-thinner Plavix, loses patent protection.

"It is a buyers' market, but most of our competitors are also looking at some of these same companies," Bristol-Myers CEO James Cornelius said in a conference call with analysts.

"We have a long list of companies that we would like to acquire over the next couple of years, and I'm confident we will do it."

Net income for the quarter rose to $2.58 billion, or $1.29 a share, from $858 million, or 43 cents, a year earlier.

Deutsche Bank analyst Barbara Ryan and J.P. Morgan analyst Chris Schott wrote in client notes they expect Bristol-Myers to post double-digit earnings-per-share growth next year. And they said there's a bonus: the company is relatively free of new generic competition, a factor that has cut deeply into the earnings of other major drugmakers.

Bristol-Myers third quarter results included the of loss $224 million on investments in mortgage-backed securities, which brings to $250 million the drug marker lost on the type of investments roiling the global financial system.

Revenue in the third quarter rose 14 percent, to $5.25 billion on strong sales of Plavix and the schizophrenia drug Abilify.

The drugmaker raised its 2008 forecast to a range of $1.61 to $1.66 a share, from $1.36 to $1.46, based on plans to sell its 13 percent stake in ImClone, valued at $900 million.

Last month, Bristol-Myers' bid was turned down by ImClone, which co-markets the cancer drug Erbitux with Bristol-Myers in the United States and Canada.

The bidding was won by Eli-Lilly, which plans to complete the purchase of the biotech early next year.