US House of Representatives passes bill banning certain semi-automatic guns

Issued on: 30/07/2022 - 

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi speaks to reporters at the Capitol in Washington, July 21, 2022. © J. Scott Applewhite, AP

Text by:NEWS WIRES

|

Video by:FRANCE 24

The House passed legislation Friday to revive a ban on certain semi-automatic guns, the first vote of its kind in years and a direct response to the firearms often used in the crush of mass shootings ripping through communities nationwide

Once banned in the U.S., the high-powered firearms are now widely blamed as the weapon of choice among young men responsible for many of the most devastating mass shootings. But Congress allowed the restrictions first put in place in 1994 on the manufacture and sales of the weapons to expire a decade later, unable to muster the political support to counter the powerful gun lobby and reinstate the weapons ban.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed the vote toward passage in the Democratic-run House, saying the earlier ban “saved lives.”

President Joe Biden hailed the House vote, saying, “The majority of the American people agree with this common sense action.” He urged the Senate to “move quickly to get this bill to my desk.”

However, it is likely to stall in the 50-50 Senate. The House legislation is shunned by Republicans, who dismissed it as an election-year strategy by Democrats. Almost all Republicans voted against the House bill, which passed 217-213.

The bill comes at a time of intensifying concerns about gun violence and shootings — the supermarket shooting in Buffalo, N.Y.; massacre of school children in Uvalde, Texas; and the July Fourth shootings of revelers in Highland Park, Ill.

Voters seem to be taking such election-year votes seriously as Congress splits along party lines and lawmakers are forced to go on the record with their views. A recent vote to protect same-sex marriages from potential Supreme Court legal challenges won a surprising amount of bipartisan support.

Biden was instrumental in helping secure the first semi-automatic weapons ban as a senator in 1994. The Biden administration said that for 10 years, while the ban was in place, mass shootings declined. “When the ban expired in 2004, mass shootings tripled,” the statement said.

Republicans stood firmly against limits on ownership of the high-powered firearms during an at times emotional debate ahead of voting.

“It’s a gun grab, pure and simple,” said Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, R-Pa.

Said Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., “An armed America is a safe and free America.”

Democrats argued that the ban on the weapons makes sense, portraying Republicans as extreme and out of step with Americans.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said the weapons ban is not about taking away Americans' Second Amendment rights but ensuring that children also have the right “to not get shot in school.”

Pelosi displayed a poster of a gun company's advertisement for children's weapons, smaller versions that resemble the popular AR-15 rifles and are marketed with cartoon-like characters. “Disgusting," she said.

In one exchange, two Ohio lawmakers squared off. “Your freedom stops where mine begins, and that of my constituents begins,” Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur told Republican Rep. Jim Jordan. “Schools, shopping malls, grocery stores, Independence Day parades shouldn’t be scenes of mass carnage and bloodshed.”

Jordan replied by inviting her to his congressional district to debate him on the Second Amendment, saying he believed most of his constituents “probably agree with me and agree with the United States Constitution.”

The bill would make it unlawful to import, sell or manufacture a long list of semi-automatic weapons. Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said it includes an exemption that allows for the possession of existing semi-automatic guns.

Reps. Chris Jacobs of New York and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania were the only Republicans to vote for the measure. The Democratic lawmakers voting no were Reps. Kurt Schrader of Oregon, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Ron Kind of Wisconsin and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas.

For nearly two decades, since the previous ban expired Democrats had been reluctant to revisit the issue and confront the gun lobby. But voter opinions appear to be shifting and Democrats dared to act before the fall election. The outcome will provide information for voters of where the candidates stand on the issue.

Jason Quimet, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement following the vote that “barely a month after” the Supreme Court expanded gun rights “gun control advocates in Congress are spearheading an assault upon the freedoms and civil liberties of law-abiding Americans.”

He said the bill potentially bans millions of firearms “in blatant opposition to the Supreme Court’s rulings” that have established gun ownership as an individual right and expanded on it.

Among the semi-automatic weapons banned would be some 200-plus types of semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15s, and pistols. The restrictions would not apply to many other models.

Democrats had tried to link the weapons ban to a broader package of public safety measures that would have increased federal funding for law enforcement. It's something centrist Democrats in tough re-election campaigns wanted to shield them from political attacks by their Republican opponents they are soft on crime.

Pelosi said the House will revisit the public safety bills in August when lawmakers are expected to return briefly to Washington to handle other remaining legislation, including Biden's priority inflation-fighting package of health care and climate change strategies making its way in the Senate.

Congress passed a modest gun violence prevention package just last month in the aftermath of the tragic shooting of 19 school children and two teachers in Uvalde. That bipartisan bill was the first of its kind after years of failed efforts to confront the gun lobby, including after a similar 2012 mass tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

That law  provides for expanded background checks on young adults buying firearms, allowing authorities to access certain juvenile records. It also closes the so-called “boyfriend loophole” by denying gun purchases for those convicted of domestic abuse outside of marriages.

The new law also frees up federal funding to the states, including for “red flag” laws that enable authorities to remove guns from those who would harm themselves or others.

But even that modest effort at halting gun violence came at time of grave uncertainty in the U.S. over restrictions on firearms as the more conservative Supreme Court is tackling gun rights and other issues.

Biden signed the measure two days after the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down a New York law that restricted people's ability to carry concealed weapons.

(AP)

Yemen's ancient honey production a victim of war, climate change

Fri, July 29, 2022 a

For Yemeni beekeeper Mohammed Saif, honey production used to be a lucrative business but years of war and climate change have taken the buzz out of the family hives.

The business, handed down from father to son, "is slowly disappearing", Saif told AFP. "The bees are being hit by strange phenomenons. Is it due to climate change or the effects of war? We really don't know."

Yemen, one of the world's most impoverished countries, has been gripped by a deadly conflict since 2014, pitting the Iran-backed Huthis against government forces supported by a Saudi-led military coalition.

Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in fighting or through illness and malnutrition over the past eight years, and the country's infrastructure has been devastated.

But a fragile UN-brokered truce has held since April, bringing some respite to the country and its war-weary population.

In the southwestern region of Taez, Saif recently took stock of his hives in a rugged valley surrounded by mountains.

Before the war, Saif said, the family managed 300 hives, now only 80 are left.

Experts consider Yemeni honey some of the best in the world, including the prized Royal Sidr known for its therapeutic properties.

The United Nations says honey plays a "vital role" in Yemen's economy, with 100,000 households dependent on it for their livelihoods.

- Bee ecosystems battered -

But "enormous losses have been inflicted on the industry since the outbreak of the conflict", the International Committee of the Red Cross said in a report in June.

"Armed conflict and climate change are threatening the continuity of a 3,000-year-old practice," the ICRC said.

"Successive waves of displacement to flee violence, the impact of weapon contamination on production areas, and the growing impact of climate change are pushing thousands of beekeepers into precarity, significantly reducing production."

Saif knows it all too well.

"Last year in our village a missile struck a beekeeper's hives. He lost everything," he said.

"The war has had a very bad impact on us. The fighters have targeted many zones where bees are found," he added.

The ICRC's Bashir Omar said the conflict had limited the ability of beekeepers to freely roam the land whenever flowers were in bloom to collect the honey.

Landmines and active front lines are among the challenges they face.

"To make matters worse, Yemen, like many conflict-affected countries, is disproportionately affected by climate change," the ICRC report noted.

"Temperature rises in recent years, combined with severe alterations caused to the environment, are disturbing the bees' ecosystem which is impacting the pollination process," it said.

"With water tables falling and increased desertification, areas previously engaged in agricultural activities and beekeeping no longer sustain these livelihoods."

The ICRC is providing financial support and training this year to beekeepers, after a similar initiative in 2021 that helped nearly 4,000 of them.

Nabil al-Hakim, who sells Yemen's celebrated yellow nectar in Taez shops, also recalled the golden days before the conflict ravaged his country.

"Before the war we could make a good living by selling honey... but honey has become rare and customers can no longer afford it," he said.

"Before, I used to sell up to 25 five-litre jars a month. Now I can't even sell one."

str-sy/saa/aem/hkb/pjm

The root causes of the attacks on reproductive rights: A Marxist analysis


by Karina Garcia
May 7, 2022
Breaking the Chains Feature Theory - Women's Oppression

Art courtesy of Breaking the Chains magazine.

Editor’s introduction: Women’s History Month is a time to recommit ourselves to the unfinished struggle for women’s liberation, and this year it is even more crucial than ever. The conservative leaning Supreme Court is considering gutting or even overturning Roe v. Wade, which would roll back women’s hard-won and fundamental right to abortion. The current attacks on abortion rights are the culmination of decades of reactionary organizing to establish extreme reproductive control by challenging birth control access, criminalizing miscarriage, undoing the right to abortion, and promoting abstinence-only sex (mis)education.

This article offers a Marxist analysis of why abortion rights are in peril today, and how the historical attempt to limit and control reproductive freedom stretches back to the very beginnings of class society. This article was originally published in the Autumn 2019 issue of Breaking the Chains magazine, titled “Not a Moral Issue.”
Introduction

Thirteen years ago, a speaker at a meeting, addressing the right-wing attacks on women’s rights in the context of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, emphasized how important it was to elect pro-choice Democrats. The speaker gave no further explanation to the attacks.

At the time, the right-wing was attacking the ACA because it would expand abortion and contraception access. A couple years after it became law, the Supreme Court had already restricted access to birth control to “respect the religious beliefs” of corporations vis-a-vis reactionary owners. And to pass the ACA, the Democrats gladly compromised on reproductive rights. Obamacare ultimately continued to deny federal funds for abortion coverage and required that every state offer at least one insurance plan that did not cover abortions.

At the meeting, a young socialist woman spoke from the floor and criticized the speaker for not raising the “systematic” explanation. She said that capitalism was behind these patriarchal policies. She said that the bosses—the capitalists—want to restrict birth control and abortion because they want the working class to produce more workers and thereby drive down wages. On top of that, they want to pay less in healthcare costs to cover their employees. I remember nodding in the moment that indeed there must be a deeper cause. I knew capitalism as a system was implicated. What she was saying had a logic to it. But when I went home it started to make a lot less sense.

Do the capitalists really need more workers? Millions of people are unemployed as it is and they are incarcerating the “surplus” population. Is it really possible that the capitalists would conspire in this way to restrict abortion rights, but none of them would ever slip up and admit it? Why is it that some Democrats support abortion rights then? They too represent the capitalist class’s interests. It can’t just be about forcing women to produce more workers.

And as for costs and profits, the Affordable Care Act was going to make insurance companies, the healthcare sector, and the banks mega-profits with or without abortion coverage, so why try to tank the bill on that basis? It wasn’t really only about profit either.

She was right that the attack was “systematic” and that these sexist policies are linked to capitalism, but there seemed to be more to the answer than she’d presented. I dove into the Marxist and historical writing about the anti-abortion movement because I wanted to understand this and be able to explain it—for myself and others.

The Marxist approach to women’s oppression and liberation is often misunderstood or mischaracterized. In university settings it is portrayed as “economic determinism” or “reductionism” — asserting that Marxists reduce every issue to economics. In a way, that’s what the socialist speaking from the floor was doing in that meeting. But that’s not an accurate description of the Marxist method.

It is true that Marxists emphasize the importance of the economic system, in that the mode of production plays a critical role in shaping the economic system and the structures of society. Marxists start by looking at how a society produces and reproduces itself and the norms, laws and relationships under which production and reproduction take place. That is what “economics” really means anyway. At its base, every society is engaged in producing and reproducing.

The ideas, laws, formal institutions, religions that justify, strengthen, and stabilize those underlying processes and relations at the base of production and reproduction is what Marx called the superstructure.
The capitalist mode of production and the family

So for instance, under capitalism, there are some people who own the means of production (land, factories, technology, etc.), while others go to work every day and work on those means of production. They generate profits that go back to the owners. That exploitation is at the base of society. But that arrangement would not last a single day if it was not backed up by the laws, the courts and the police—which protect the owners and landlords—and by the schools, media, politicians, and religious institutions that have taught us since day one that this is the normal and perfectly natural way of things.

The capitalist mode of production developed historically out of previous modes of production, including slavery and feudalism. Capitalism represented a major change in the dominant form of property and labor and many other things changed as a result of that. Racism and white supremacy are part and parcel of the foundation of modern capitalism. In the case of the United States, colonial dispossession and racialized chattel slavery are the foundations for the accumulation of wealth within the capitalist mode of production.

Capitalism did not simply erase the pre-existing world and start with a blank slate. Patriarchy has existed since the dawn of class society and is part of the fabric of the capitalist system. In pre-class society, before private ownership of property there was a much more diverse set of family arrangements and women generally played a leadership role for the community as a whole.

After those pre-class modes of production were overthrown, and eventually the forms of social and family organization alongside them, women were held in a subordinate position and male supremacy became the law. For thousands of years, women’s basic conditions and status were confined to the home. Law, custom, and ideology held women to a dependent status and entirely subject to the whims of the leading male in the family. Housework and child rearing, in addition to ongoing work in the fields (in the case of agricultural societies), were delineated as “women’s work.” This was a central element to modes of production based on private property.

In the United States, today, the capitalist mode of production has changed in many ways, as has the shape and detail of the superstructure. Yet core historic features persist. While women can enter the wage workforce and women can legally own property and have independent political and civil rights, the basic unit of what has been called social reproduction is the nuclear family. In that family, women carry out the vast majority of the labor in the household, in child rearing, and in elder care. Because this family form has been carried over in its essential characteristics, all the values, traditions, and cultural norms that developed to explain and justify male supremacy have been largely carried over, too.

While capitalism has broken down many of the economic relationships that were at the heart of a nuclear family, the family has not been abolished or collapsed entirely. The family unit has changed, but the precarious existence of workers under capitalism makes it necessary for most workers to have a family to survive. One income is not enough. Take, for example, the conditions of so many LGBTQ youth who have been rejected by their families. To not have a family is, in these instances, to be subjected to the worst forms of deprivation, homelessness, and brutality that capitalism has to offer.

For the purposes of the capitalist system, the family unit is highly valuable—especially as it relates to the reproduction and caring for the next generation of workers. Lisa Vogel highlights this in her social reproduction theory [1]. Others have taken it in different directions, highlighting the other forms of labor that are often unpaid or underpaid, but are nonetheless essential for reproducing a workforce that is healthy and stable enough to continue to come into work.
Reactionary worldview explains economic shifts

How does this relate to the attacks on women’s rights and attacks on women’s growing assertiveness in challenging sexual violence and sexist rhetoric? These don’t present themselves as issues of the basic functioning of the mode of production. They can appear distinct and separate, so people fighting for women’s rights on these fronts might not see the linkage to capitalism. And yet more and more activists are talking about systemic patriarchy. The Party for Socialism and Liberation banners, “The whole system is sexist! Fight for socialism!” have been very popular in these movements.

Here we are talking about struggles in the world of politics and culture, the superstructure [2]. They appear as fights within capitalism—in the sense that you should be able to fight for and achieve full abortion rights and other reproductive services under capitalism. In some countries that already exists. You should be able to reduce sexual harassment or violence or eliminate it altogether under capitalism. At least, in theory, it is not pivotal to the mode of production.

But if that is the case, why are those gains so hard to win? Why do socialists insist a revolution would be necessary to really achieve them? It’s because the domination of women remains a pillar of the U.S. capitalist class’s form of rule.

Abortion access became a major political issue starting in the late 1970s as a cornerstone of an emerging reactionary trend. A reactionary is someone who says that things were better in society before they changed. “Make America Great Again” is a true reactionary slogan. It implies we should return to the past. Big sections of the ruling class turn to a reactionary agenda when they feel that their social control is slipping in the face of a powerful social movement, or when capitalism itself has destabilized the economy and when life seems more uncertain for big sections of the population.

In the late 1970s, both were happening in the United States. The mass uprisings of the 1960s and early 70s with the struggles for women’s liberation, Black liberation, LGBTQ liberation, and the anti-war movement were powerful challenges to the U.S. capitalist status quo. The Vietnamese anti-colonial resistance defeated U.S. imperialism, dealing it a major blow while imperialism was engaged in constant heated confrontation with the socialist bloc.

The U.S. economy also went into a period of recession during which layoffs and unemployment increased, consumer spending decreased. Capitalist recessions are cyclical and occur regularly because of overproduction. From 1979 to 1984, approximately 11.5 million workers either lost their jobs or shifted to lower-paying service jobs. Most of the jobs that were lost were in manufacturing industries such as steel, auto, mining, electronics, and more.

The reactionaries have a very powerful appeal and socialists should understand how it works. They say essentially, “Your life used to be better, right? You’re feeling less sure about your future right? Well, that’s understandable because look at how much has changed. We’ve lost our way. And now we’re going to hell in a hand-basket unless we turn back.” Then they link that to whatever issue, whether it be abortion, sex education, gay rights, and so on. The reactionaries sometimes blame the “weak” government, which has bent to pressure and refused to defend “our values, while at other times attacking the government for being “too big.”

Another example is how the economic ravaging of whole Black communities is laid at the feet of Black women for “having too many children out of wedlock,” or at the feet of “absent” Black males. This reactionary worldview builds upon the extreme racist character of the U.S. capitalist system along with thousands of years of ingrained cultural indoctrination that with a “strong” family—that is with men and women in their “proper place”—everything will be fine.

This sort of reactionary worldview offers an all-purpose explanation for general problems or unsettling changes. Politicians then conveniently avoid discussion of the actual causes of social and economic distress, i.e., capitalist instability. It furthermore coincides with and makes use of the explanations being cultivated in conservative religious institutions, which tend to focus on going back to a more moral time, and theorize the problems of modern society as a reflection of an absence of godliness and values. So these ideas and theories are already circulating and can easily be picked up on by a politician who wants to present himself as a champion of “family values” while not actually doing anything to change families’ material conditions.

And so the “New Right,” ascending in the Republican Party in the late 1970s, started to really focus on abortion in the 1980s and 1990s. Abortion rights were identified as a weak spot for the women’s movement because it had been secured in the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade, not via legislation. There was existing opposition on religious grounds that they could mobilize, and there were big parts of the country where abortion rights had become law but the movement was weak.

Evangelical mega-churches and televangelists were entering politics in a big way—most famously in the “Moral Majority”—and eventually became significant power-brokers that handpicked and groomed elected representatives. They delivered considerable resources and a captive audience to enterprising politicians, as long as they took on their issues and their framing. The whole Moral Majority movement became a target base of support for hard-right capitalists who personally did not care much about abortion or other moral issues, but who wanted to turn back government regulations, social spending, and the power of labor unions. Over time, this relationship produced a major pipeline of campaign funds and airtime.

In short, abortion became a preferred electoral issue, quickly moving from local and state to federal politics. Right-wing politicians could portray pro-choice Democrats as ‘baby killers’ and link them to the “decline of the family.” It is not so much that these issues in and of themselves threaten capitalists profits, but that they offered a way for one sector of the capitalist class—leaning on the powerful institutions of the superstructure in their areas to consolidate political legitimacy—to distract constituents from social and economic concerns that the politicians have no desire to address.

It became a central political strategy for the conservative right. The Republican Party used to be considered just the “pro-business” and “law-and-order” party. Some were actually liberal on “social issues.” But as the party moved further to the right, that has changed.

In the United States, where money controls so much of politics, the agenda is set by the highest bidder. With the near obliteration of campaign finance laws, this has become more overt. A few billionaires could say, “These are my political interests, these are my priorities and I’m gonna throw my money around only to those who take on my agenda and my interests.” When Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote that “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, they meant that ruling-class ideas were dominant because the ruling class “has the means of material production at its disposal” and therefore “has control at the same time over the means of mental production” [3]. Today ruling-class ideas become dominant because of the direct and explicit intervention of the most powerful capitalists and their politicians. In the absence of a fight-back movement, the reactionary obsessions of some really rich men can set the tone of politics, and actually can determine major issues for hundreds of millions of working-class women in the United States and worldwide.

The anti-abortion billionaires are not spending their money because it will help their immediate profits. If anything, they are spending significant parts of their fortunes on these right-wing causes. That is where capitalism comes back in at the systematic level. It is not as a conspiracy for profits, but as a form of political rule based on disciplining and intimidating one section of poor and working people, distracting and confusing others, and finally winning over and satisfying other layers.
True rights attainable only with a new mode of production

No mode of production based on extreme inequality and exploitation would be able to last long if it did not have ruling institutions, political systems, ideas, traditions, and so on, that protected and rationalized those economic processes. The ruling class does not just get to extract wealth; it also has to find stable ways to rule.

Forms of patriarchy operate powerfully at the base of capitalism, in how the system produces and reproduces itself on a daily basis. It also is a cornerstone at this superstructural level, and in particular, as a central element of the reactionary agenda. So how could patriarchy be ended under capitalism if it is so embedded at every level of the capitalist system? It is impossible.

Socialism, by contrast, eliminates the economic dependence on the family unit. Simply by changing who controls and owns the vast means of production, every person can now be guaranteed housing, food, healthcare, childcare, retirement, and other human needs as guaranteed rights. The gender pay gap and undervaluing of “women’s work” could essentially be overturned overnight. A government in the hands of class-conscious workers would also remove from power the lackeys of the billionaire bigots, and instead launch bold initiatives to advance women’s equality and liberation in the world of culture, ideology, education and politics.

This would be an ongoing process, of course, but it would be fundamentally different from the battle for women’s rights under capitalism. In the present, we fight for rights inside a system that reproduces patriarchal economic relationships daily, and under a ruling class that defaults to a reactionary agenda as a way to protect its exploitative rule. That is why “smashing the patriarchy” often feels so impossible. Under socialism, by contrast, the battle will be to win an egalitarian superstructure that will harmonize with a new economic system based on meeting the needs of all.

References

[1]See Dickinson, Hannah. (2019). “Social reproduction: A theoretical framework with organizing potential.” Breaking the Chains 4, no. 1.Also available here.

[2] Ford, Derek. (2021). “The base-superstructure: A model for analysis and action.” Liberation School, November 22. Available here.

[3] Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. (1964/1978). “The German ideology: Part I,” in R.C. Tucker (Ed.), The Marx-Engels reader, 2nd ed. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company), 172.

New study shows that a commonly used agricultural herbicide crosses the blood-brain barrier

Researchers explore possible effects in the brain

Peer-Reviewed Publication

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

 

IMAGE: GLYPHOSATE, A WIDELY USED HERBICIDE, IS SPRAYED ON A VARIETY OF CROPS. THE GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATES POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO GLYPHOSATE IN THE BRAIN. view more 

CREDIT: GRAPHIC BY SHIREEN DOOLING

Neurodegenerative illnesses, such as Alzheimer’s disease, are among the most perplexing in medical science. The underlying causes of such diseases range from genetic factors and overall cardiovascular health to dietary influences and lifestyle choices.

Various environmental contaminants have also been implicated as possible players in the development or advancement of neurodegenerative disease. Among these is a broad-spectrum herbicide, known as glyphosate. Glyphosate is commonly used herbicide, applied to agricultural crops around the world.

In a new study, first author Joanna Winstone, senior author Ramon Velazquez, and their colleagues at the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen) explore the effects of glyphosate exposure on the brains of mice. The research demonstrates, for the first time, that glyphosate successfully crosses the blood-brain barrier and infiltrates the brain. Once there, it acts to enhance levels of a critical factor known as TNF-α, (for tumor necrosis factor alpha).

TNF-α is a molecule with two faces. This pro-inflammatory cytokine performs vital functions in the neuroimmune system, acting to enhance the immune response and protect the brain. (Cytokines are a broad category of small proteins that are vital for proper cell signaling.)

When levels of TNF-α are dysregulated, however, a host of diseases linked with neuroinflammation can result. Among these is Alzheimer’s disease.

The study further demonstrates in cell culture studies that glyphosate exposure appears to increase the production of soluble beta amyloid (Aβ) and reduce the viability of neurons. The accumulation of Aβ, the sticky protein responsible for the formation of Aβ plaques, is one of the central diagnostic hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease.

Further evidence suggestive of potential hazards to neurological health were observed when the researchers examined changes in gene expression via RNA sequencing in the brains of mice following glyphosate exposure. 

These RNA transcripts hinted at disruptions in the expression of genes related to neurodegenerative disease, including dysregulation of a class of brain cells responsible for producing the myelin sheath critical for proper neuronal communication. These cells, known as oligodendrocytes, are affected by elevated levels of TNF-α.

“We find increases in TNF-α in the brain, following glyphosate exposure,” Velazquez says. “While we examined AD pathology, this might have implications for many neurodegenerative diseases, given that neuroinflammation is seen in a variety of brain disorders.”

Velazquez and Winstone are researchers with the ASU-Banner Neurodegenerative Disease Research Center and ASU’s School of Life Sciences.

The research appears in the current issue of the Journal of Inflammation.

An enigmatic disease. A path of destruction.

A hundred years have passed since the first diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Despite vast investments in research and drug development, the affliction remains without effective treatment. A suite of therapies, developed over many decades at extravagant cost, have one by one failed to alleviate the symptoms of the disease.

Alzheimer’s disease is the most common form of dementia. The progression of the disease usually begins with mild memory loss. As the disease develops, increasing confusion and a breakdown in communication abilities often result, as the affliction attacks brain pathways involved in memory, language and thought.

Some 5.8 million Americans are living with Alzheimer’s disease, as of 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Research. Unlike heart disease or cancer, the death toll for Alzheimer’s disease is on a frightening upward trajectory. By 2040, costs of the disease are projected to rise dramatically to between $379 and more than $500 billion annually. The staggering toll of the illness is currently projected to nearly triple to 14 million people by 2050.

The onset of symptoms typically occurs after age 60 and the risk to individuals doubles every 5 years after age 65. Although genetics are believed to play a role in some cases of Alzheimer’s disease, and a family history of the disorder is considered a significant risk factor,  environmental factors are believed to play a significant role in the disease.

Researchers are trying to learn how genetic correlates may subtly interact with environmental and other factors to decrease or enhance the likelihood of developing the affliction. Some recent research suggests that lifestyle changes, including proper physical activity, nutritious food, limited alcohol consumption, and not smoking may help prevent or slow cognitive decline, noting that brain and cardiovascular health are closely linked.

Toxic effects: the jury is out

The new study examines the neurological effects of glyphosate, the most ubiquitous herbicide in global use. Each year, around 250 million pounds of glyphosate are applied to agricultural crops in the U.S. alone. Although the chemical is regarded as generally safe to humans by the Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority, researchers are taking a second look.

Studies of acute herbicide use suggest they are non-harmful, but little is known about possible long-term effects from prolonged exposure. One issue of considerable concern is that glyphosate can cross the blood-brain barrier, a layer of endothelial cells preventing dissolved substances in the circulating bloodstream from readily passing into the extracellular fluid of the central nervous system, where the brain’s neurons reside.

Potential risks to brain health posed by glyphosate should be critically evaluated, particularly for those consistently exposed to the herbicide. “The Alzheimer’s connection is that there's a much higher prevalence of Alzheimer's disease in agricultural communities that are using this chemical,” Winstone says. “We're trying to establish a more molecular-science based link between the two.” 

The study exposed mice to high doses of glyphosate, then detected elevated levels of TNF-α in their brains. The researchers then exposed extracted mouse neurons in petri dishes to the same levels of glyphosate detected in the brains of mice, observing elevated amyloid beta and cell death in cortical neurons. Dysregulated oligodendrocyte RNA transcripts, which could indicate disruption of myelination, were detected in brain tissue.

Taken together, the results demonstrate a correlation between glyphosate exposure and classic symptoms of AD, though the authors stress that much more work will be required before a causative link can be established.

Nevertheless, the widespread use of the chemical and the disturbing correlates highlighted in the current study underscore the need for intensified investigation. Among the pressing questions to be answered: how does prolonged, low-dose exposure to glyphosate affect the brain; does glyphosate act synergistically with other chemicals present in common herbicides; and can glyphosate be detected post-mortem in patients who died of Alzheimer’s disease.

On the horizon, new drugs designed to reduce TNF-α in the brain are being explored, offering renewed hope for those with Alzheimer’s disease as well as other neurodegenerative ailments.

 

---

JOURNAL

Journal of Inflammation

DOI

10.1186/s12974-022-02544-5 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Experimental study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Animal tissue samples

ARTICLE TITLE

Glyphosate infiltrates the brain and increases pro-inflammatory cytokine TNF alpha: Implications for neurodegenerative disorders

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

27-Jul-2022

Carbon removal using ‘blue carbon’ habitats “uncertain and unreliable”

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA

Restoring coastal vegetation – so called ‘blue carbon’ habitats – may not be the nature-based climate solution it is claimed to be, according to a new study. 

In their analysis researchers from the University of East Anglia (UEA), the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and the OACIS initiative of the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation, challenge the widely held view that restoring areas such as mangroves, saltmarsh and seagrass can remove large amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.  

The findings of their review, published today in the journal Frontiers in Climate, identify seven reasons why carbon accounting for coastal ecosystems is not only extremely challenging but risky.  

These include the high variability in carbon burial rates, vulnerability to future climate change, and fluxes of methane and nitrous oxide. The authors, who also looked at information on restoration costs, warn that extra measurements can reduce these risks, but would mean much higher costs. 

However, they stress that blue carbon habitats should still be protected and, where possible, restored, as they have benefits for climate adaptation, coastal protection, food provision and biodiversity conservation. 

Lead author Dr Phil Williamson, honorary reader in UEA’s School of Environmental Sciences, said: “We have looked into the processes involved in carbon removal and there are just too many uncertainties. The expected climate benefits from blue carbon ecosystem restoration may be achieved, yet it seems more likely they will fall seriously short.   

“If you want to have extra carbon removal, you need extra habitat, and the scope for restoration is limited. Many of these sites have been built on, for coastal settlement, tourism and port development. 

“Nevertheless, we believe that every effort should be made to halt, and wherever possible reverse, the worldwide loss of coastal vegetation. That’s because blue carbon habitats are more than carbon stores – they also provide storm protection, support biodiversity and fisheries, and improve water quality.” 

The sediments beneath mangrove forests, tidal saltmarshes and seagrass meadows are rich in organic carbon, accumulated and stored over many hundreds of years.   

Many recent studies and reviews have favourably identified the potential for these coastal blue carbon ecosystems to provide a natural climate solution in two ways: by conservation, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions arising from the loss and degradation of such habitats, and by restoration, to increase carbon dioxide drawdown and its long-term storage. 

This new review focuses on the latter, assessing the feasibility of achieving quantified and secure carbon removal (negative emissions) through the restoration of coastal vegetation. 

Increasingly businesses and states have pledged to offset their emissions by restoring these ecosystems through carbon credits, assuming reliable knowledge on how much CO2 they will remove in future from the atmosphere.   

However, Dr Williamson and co-author Prof Jean-Pierre Gattuso, of CNRS and the OACIS initiative of the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation, say the policy problem is more subtle. That is, CO2 removal using coastal blue carbon restoration has questionable cost-effectiveness when considered only as a climate mitigation action, either for carbon-offsetting or for inclusion in countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions, which set out their efforts to reduce emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change under the Paris Agreement. 

“If we use these ecosystems for carbon offsets in a major way, expecting that they would remove up to, say, 100 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide over the period 2025-2100, but find they only remove 10 or maybe just one gigatonne of CO2, then climate tipping points could be crossed, with really serious consequences,” said Dr Williamson. 

“If, however, such ecosystems are restored to protect biodiversity, and we find that they also remove several gigatonnes of CO2, then that would be a bonus, assuming other means are used for climate mitigation. 

“Restoration should therefore be in addition to, not as a substitute for, near-total emission reductions. Where coastal blue ecosystems restoration projects are carried out primarily for carbon removal, they need to include comprehensive long-term monitoring to verify that the intended climate benefits are being achieved.” 

Prof Gattuso said: “Many important issues relating to the measurement of carbon fluxes and storage have yet to be resolved, affecting certification and resulting in potential over-crediting.  

“The restoration of coastal blue carbon ecosystems is nevertheless highly advantageous for climate adaptation, coastal protection, food provision and biodiversity conservation. Such action can therefore be societally justified in very many circumstances, based on the multiple benefits that such habitats provide at the local level.” 

‘Carbon removal using coastal blue carbon ecosystems is uncertain and unreliable, with questionable climatic cost-effectiveness’, Phillip Williamson and Jean-Pierre Gattuso, is published in Frontiers in Climate on July 28. 

ENDS 

---

JOURNAL

Frontiers in Climate

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Systematic review

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Not applicable

ARTICLE TITLE

Carbon removal using coastal blue carbon ecosystems is uncertain and unreliable, with questionable climatic cost-effectiveness

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

28-Jul-2022

Climate change could be making it harder for seabirds to feed, study finds

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK

 

IMAGE: MANX SHEARWATER FLYING OVER THE SEA view more 

CREDIT: JAMIE CARBY

University College Cork (UCC) researchers have found that that cloudier waters, caused in part by climate change, is making it harder for seabirds to catch fish.

On Little Saltee, a small island off the coast of Ireland, the researchers attached tiny trackers to the feathers of Manx shearwaters.  The aim of the study, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, was to understand how underwater visibility affects seabirds’ ability to forage for fish and other prey. It is the first study to examine the impact of ocean clarity on seabirds’ diving abilities.

Climate change is leading to the oceans becoming cloudier

Jamie Darby, a marine ecologist in the School of Biological Environmental and Earth Sciences and the MaREI centre at UCC, and lead author of the study, stated “The chemical and physical properties of the planet’s oceans are changing at an unnatural rate, bringing about challenges for marine life. One consequence of climate change is that large areas of our oceans are becoming cloudier.”

Darby and the research team investigated the diving patterns of the black and white Manx shearwaters in relation to local environmental conditions like cloud cover and water clarity. Over 5000 different dives were recorded and using publicly available databases, and a range of relevant information about weather patterns and ocean conditions were amassed.

Struggling to find food

The study found that the birds dove deeper when sunlight could penetrate further underwater, suggesting that visibility is key to their ability to dive for food. As the planet warms and the ocean becomes cloudier this finding is important because it means that seabirds will have to overcome this challenge.

“Our findings support the idea that the birds needed sufficient sunlight to be able to forage at depth. While this study examined one particular seabird. The results can be extended to other animals. Many visually-dependent predators could find themselves struggling to find food as human activities continue to make the oceans murkier” stated Jamie Darby.

JOURNAL

Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences

DOI

10.1098/rspb.2022.0862 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Observational study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Animals

ARTICLE TITLE

Underwater visibility constrains the foraging behaviour of a diving pelagic seabird

A window of opportunity for methane to slip by nature’s filters

Peer-Reviewed Publication

STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY

 

IMAGE: METHANE LEAKS THROUGH THE NATURAL MICROBIAL FILTER WHEN THE METHANE TRANSPORT SUDDENLY INCREASES IN RESPONSE TO WARMING OCEANS AND SUBSEQUENT METHANE HYDRATE MELTING. THE METHANE EMISSIONS DEPEND ON THE SEDIMENT TYPE; IN FINE-GRAINED SEDIMENTS SUCH AS CLAY, FRACTURES FORM THAT LEAD TO HIGHER EMISSIONS. ILLUSTRATION: CHRISTIAN STRANNE view more 

CREDIT: CHRISTIAN STRANNE

Warmer oceans can lead to large amounts of methane being released from the seabeds, which may amplify climate warming. A new study develops a method to understand the role of microorganisms in increasing emissions of methane from seabeds.

Vast reservoirs of the potent greenhouse gas methane are stored beneath the sea in a solid ice-like combination with water. This solid is known as methane hydrate. For over three decades, various concerns have been raised that warming the seafloor may cause this methane to be rapidly released, perhaps even reaching the atmosphere where it would cause further climate warming. Happily, this methane hydrate is mostly located beneath the seafloor and under hundreds of meters of seawater. Even if warming melts this methane hydrate and releases methane gas, the natural microbial filters present in the seafloor were expected to destroy most of the methane before it ever reaches the open seawater.

However, there have been some gaps in our knowledge of the relevant seafloor processes. In particular, can seafloor warming be rapid enough that methane hydrate could melt so fast that the released methane would overwhelm and ultimately bypass the natural microbial filters?
“The microbial filter layer in the sediment—we call it the ‘sulfate-methane transition’, where methane is removed—is somewhat delicate,” explains Assistant Professor Christian Stranne at the Department of Geological Sciences, Stockholm University.
“The filter layer takes many years to form and reach peak methane-consuming efficiency. The filter is a living thing, made of microorganisms that consume methane under anaerobic (no-oxygen) conditions. The filter also moves up and down within the sediment, depending on the rate at which methane is reaching it.”

In a new study, just published in Communications Earth and Environment, Stranne and colleagues from Stockholm University and Linnaeus University have combined a new model of the biological behaviour and vertical movements of this microbial filter with existing models of seafloor sediments’ physical behaviour. The physical parts of the model include processes such as how cracks form and methane can move up thorough the sediment after methane hydrates melt.

Christian Stranne explains: “Imagine that the amount of methane rising through the sediment suddenly increases, as might happen if methane hydrate begins to melt faster. It can take decades for the filter to adjust itself to consume methane at the new rate. Our new study shows that during the time that the filter is not reestablished, substantial methane can leak past the filter, and into the ocean water.”

Despite this “window of opportunity”, methane from melting hydrates that reaches the seawater faces further methane-destroying processes. These processes make it nearly impossible for substantial methane from methane hydrate melting to reach the atmosphere. However, methods as demonstrated in this study can be applied to other regions where seafloor-released methane is much shallower and is more likely to reach the atmosphere, such as the Arctic continental shelves, according to Christian Stranne.

“Methane hydrates are a massive storehouse of carbon, so it remains important to understand how they interact with ocean changes, and potentially, the atmosphere, over long and, in the case of our study, rather short timescales. We now know that there is indeed a possible process for melting methane hydrates to temporarily bypass what was previously thought to be a strong filter in the sediment,” says Christian Stranne.

The warming rate is, however, of great importance: “Our results suggest that if our oceans warm at a pace significantly lower than 1 °C per 100 years, the filter can keep up with the pace and remain highly efficient. Unfortunately, we see higher warming rates than that in some of our oceans.”

The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, VR.

Reference: Christian Stranne, Matt O’Regan, Wei-Li Hong, Volker Brüchert, Marcelo Ketzer, Brett F. Thornton, & Martin Jakobsson, (2022) Anaerobic oxidation has a minor effect on mitigating seafloor methane emissions from gas hydrate dissociation, Communications Earth & Environment. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00490-x

Contact:

Christian Stranne, e-mail christian.stranne@geo.su.se, phone +46 706476154

---

JOURNAL

Communications Earth & Environment

DOI

10.1038/s43247-022-00490-x 

ARTICLE TITLE

Anaerobic oxidation has a minor effect on mitigating seafloor methane emissions from gas hydrate dissociation

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

28-Jul-2022