text:
The dawn of Trumperica and the collateral empowerment of Shitlord, Inc. has supercharged three stereotypical neuroses of the Left, pushing them to the brink of mass psychosis and mental breaks with reality. These neuroses are cognitive dissonance, narcissistic rage, and psychological projection.
Bixxy Noodles explores the topic here, and it's well worth reading in full (including the follow-on comments).
Cognitive dissonance is a major problem in our over-SCALEd society. The information control systems (education-media complex) used by our governing order to manage the people and keep them in line lead directly to the people adopting a lot of conflicting and wrong beliefs in order to adapt to the system and get by. The indoctrination of these conflicting beliefs happens mostly in education, while the purpose of the major media has been to reinforce them via "the narrative" and provide a vehicle for the management of any cognitive dissonance which does arise.
This election has been a case study in this dynamic. The regnant orthodoxy demands that its partisans believe all sort of incompatible and false things: everyone is equal except white males, faggotry is normal and healthy while traditional marriage is rape, debt is money, and way too many other examples to list. Because of the constant, competing cognition these nonsensical and contradictory beliefs generate, the people who hold them are in a nearly constant state of emotional disequilibrium. They are temperamentally brittle, and easily perturbed into emotional outbursts as their cognitive dissonance essentially causes their brains to lock up and blue screen.
The old media narrative control system evolved specifically to mitigate this problem. By dramatically narrowing the Overton Window and ruthlessly deprecating everything outside of it, the amount of contradictory stimulus and information generating dissonance was reduced. They also provided mantras as tools for people to use to insulate themselves from dissonance: extremist!, racist!, conspiracy theory!, dangerous!, insane!, etc.
The advent of the internet undermined and routed around this control and management system, to the point where, in The Current Year, the only people still using the old media are the ones who need it most to manage their dissonance problems.
When there is no direct threat or stimulus generating dissonance, their attitude is what I like to refer to as "aggressive complacency" or "belligerent apathy." They are comfortable in their bubble and aggressively reject, ridicule, or ignore anything that might endanger it.
This was on display everywhere over the past 18 months, on both the establishment left and establishment right, as well as the major media gaslighting the whole nation right up to the end (and beyond at CNN).
This is a great point about "aggressive complacency". It's the same emotional phenomenon that explains the reaction of lifelong beta males upon exposure to realtalk about the true sexual nature of women. Betas love their loser comfort bubbles (after all, those bubbles serve to absolve them of personal responsibility for their romantic failures), and will lash out indignantly at the bearer of new information which challenges the primacy of their pussy pedestal ideology.
When aggressive complacency fails to insulate and cognitive dissonce occurs when conflicting and false beliefs run smack into cold, hard realities, you get strong emotional reactions.
Now, a psychologically-healthy person will generally respond to cognitive dissonance emotions by recognizing something is wrong and adjusting their beliefs and behavior to adapt.
What we're seeing with these meltdowns is a long way from psychologically healthy. Light years away.
What it DOES resemble, quite closely, is Narcissistic Rage.
(Narcissistic rage) occurs when the narcissist perceives he is being personally "attacked" by someone else. Grandiose self-worth, vanity and entitlement are basic characteristics of this disorder; when these are challenged it often leads to narcissistic rage. Narcissistic rage is a reaction to" narcissistic injury"- a perceived threat to their self-worth or self-esteem. Their rages can be of two types: explosive or passive-aggressive. The explosive rages are just as they sound- explosive, volatile outbursts which may be verbal, physical, or both. The passive-aggressive rages are exhibited as withdrawal into a sulky, silent treatment as the means to punish the offender.
…they have strongly encouraged those partisans to closely associate the beliefs with their personal identity and self-worth. E.g. "I am a good person because I hate racism and vote for Hillary Clinton."
This naturally leads to the narcissist's flip-side of the equation: "Anybody who opposes these beliefs is an evil, bad person."
The recent meltdowns we're seeing are a perfect storm of these two dynamics. In the one hand, we have a belief system so contradictory and out of touch with reality, that a situation in which reality has contradicted it has generated mass cognitive dissonance. On the other hand, the people experiencing that dissonance emotion are treating it as an existential threat to their personal identity and self-worth, so they can't respond in a healthy manner and are instead freaking the f**k out.
Reality — and the thrusting of reality into the faces of libtards by sadistic alt-righters — has forced the equalist leftoid bubblebitches to grapple with their amplified and aggravated cognitive dissonance. This unfamiliar threat to their cortical stability results in a narcissistic self-protection cascade; essentially, race and sex equalist shitlibs feel like they are under physical attack (even when the attacks are only verbal shivs) and that their worth as human beings — as reproductively judged human beings — is questioned and found wanting.
The political is personal for libs, and therefore the massive dissonant mental break between their signaled virtues and reality makes it feel to them as if their sexual attractiveness has cratered. They are in a state now that is not unlike how a fat chick or a loser man feel when her or his sexual worth is suddenly and unappreciatively thrown into stark relief by exposure to higher SMV women and men enjoying the romantic adventures that they futilely crave. This causes a bitter series of contradictory reactions to unkind reality that manifests as, for example, "fat acceptance" hitched to "thin privilege", or to bring it closer to the origin source of this blog, as Game denialism contradictorily coupled to jerkboy shaming.
The one libshit neuroses I would add to Bixxy's thesis is psychological projection, which is universally evident in liberal mental gymnastics, and never more so than now, when they are being undermined and subverted to a degree that they haven't experienced in generations by an unleashed force of impertinent shiv-wielders. Psychological projection, like narcissistic rage, is the liberal's emotional defense to cognitive dissonance. When the real world won't align with one's cultivated virtue-world, and one's beliefs and actions are exposed as the menace to healthy society they are, then psychological projection becomes an ego emollient that spares the liberal any need for self-reflection, or even self-awareness. When one can readily project one's personal malevolence (intended or coincidental) onto a perceived enemy, a release from guilt and shame is achieved.
Furthermore, psychological projection has the added benefit of opening a pathway for liberals to recommit to their virtue signaling and slandering of non-liberal realists. If you have tricked yourself into believing your foes are the shitbags that you really are, then you can return to the pleasure of feeling smugly moralistic.
So what does all this mean for the nascent White Awareness rebellion? When equalist leftoids are experiencing acute cognitive dissonance and narcissistic rage, the correct response is….
Cucks had it all wrong from the get-go. You never give emotionally breaking shitlibs an inch. Feed a rabbit a blade of grass, and he'll pop out ten more rabbits to devour your lawn. When the rabbit warren is on the edge of annihilation, you put foxes in holes and wipe out every last one of them. Metaphorically, of course, by completely frying their ability to bunker their egos behind a gaywall of narcissism and projection.
Metaphorically…….until only the alternative option remains.


text:
This 2018, in this wet weather, where there is little light shining through, think of what it means to focus on what's important and valuable for you. Life is as dreary as we want it to be, and most times, there might be others who would cheer to see you in a bad shape, or put you down because it feels rightly satisfying.
Whilst we know you need good light for making good pictures, much beauty can also be found in the shadows. So take heed, and Embrace your Negative Thinking (we recently wrote about this in a separate post, in our #12DaysOfXmas series) - There is always value in considering what pricks us, and causes us a stir - sometimes that stir is what we need to create and bring forth that pretty picture.
Happy weekend, psychpracticers, and remember, there's always a function to our responses (even the negative ones).
Extracting the real notion of independence…
Our emotional responses to triggers can sometimes go under. Here's our 8-Steps to Recovery.
Consider what stirs you and what it means to you - it could be valuable.
Sometimes all it takes is some grounded self-reflection.
#qotd thoughts on betrayal and authenticity. Build your reflective capacity.
Think you know how to listen to someone? Think (or listen) again.
Just like a good soup, we need something that hits the spot.
Here's to the start of our Quote of The Day series.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
These Are the 20 Most Important Ages of Your Life
Meet the years when you hit your most crucial bodily milestones.
If you've read about this medical test that can pinpoint you "true" age, you know your biological age is much more important than the years you've racked up since birth. Still, one of the great things about being human is that, as different as we may be, there are certain rites of passage that occur at different numbers, and markers, backed up by science, that affect all of us. We've rounded up some of the the most important years below. So read on, and be amazed. And for more about your fascinating mind and body, here are 20 Amazing Facts You Never Knew About Your Body.
Kids are like sponges when it comes to learning new languages, but the unique ability to pick up a language as easily as a rock ends just before puberty. And for more on kids, here are the 40 Lies Kids Say That Parents Always Fall For.
Girls are hitting puberty earlier than their mothers these days. A 2010 study found that the proportion of girls who had breast development at the age of 8 was much higher than in the previous generation. This is of some concern in the medical community as early puberty has previously been linked with an increased risk of breast cancer. And for more on breast cancer, here are the 20 Breast Cancer Symptoms You Shouldn't Ignore.
Anyone who has had a bar mitzvah knows that the age at which a boy traditionally becomes a man is 13. But a 2012 Harvard study found that boys today are hitting puberty, on average, at 10—a full three years earlier than 40 years ago.
A girl can get her period anytime between 8 and 15, but, on average, this momentous rite of passage into womanhood occurs at the age of 13.
Like growth spurts, voice breaking is an essential part of puberty, and it can happen anytime between 12 and 16 for a boy. On average, however, both will have occurred by the end of their 13th year. And for more ways to take care of your body, here are the 50 Genius Tricks to Improve Your Life.
A guy can start to develop "peach fuzz" anytime between 8 and 12. By 15, however, most men have enough strands of facial hair to justify their first razor. And if you've got a family member hitting 15 soon, pick him some of these men's grooming essentials.
By 16, most men have stopped growing, though their muscles will continue to develop. 16 is an important year for both men and women in America, however, because it's when they can receive their driving license. For gay men growing up today, 16 is also the year that they are most likely to come out (a number much lower than that of their grandparent's generation, for whom the average age was 37).
Though some statistics indicate that men tend to lose their virginity a little earlier than women, and there's some debate about what losing your virginity even means if you're LGBT, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that the average age Americans first have vaginal sexual intercourse is 17.1 for both men and women.
According to a 2016 study, this is the age at which our brain's processing power is at its peak.
According to data crunched by Dataclysm author and OkCupid co-founder Christian Rudder, this is the year in which woman are the most attractive to men. In a somewhat unfair twist, it seems women don't have a particular age that they prefer in men, but do generally prefer someone who is the same age as them or a little older. In an extra unfair twist, Rudder's charts show that men continue to prefer women who are 23, regardless of how old they themselves get.
Strength peaks around 25 years of age, plateaus through 35 or 40 years of age, and then declines at an accelerating rate by the age of 65. All the more reason to be like Dennis Quaid and hit the gym more often!
The average age of first marriage in the United States is 27 for women, a steep increase from 23 in 1990 and 20 in 160.
The average age of first marriage in the United States in 29 for men, a steep increase from 26 in 1990 and 22 in 1960. According to a 2014 Gallup poll, 29 is also when you're likely to have the most friends you'll ever have. As a result, it's also often cited as the age at which people reach peak happiness.
At 30, men and women have the densest and strongest bones. After that, bone mass plateaus for women until menopause, when it drastically declines. You can help prevent osteoporosis by not smoking and getting plenty of exercise.
According to a 2013 UK study, this is when women reach peak maturity.
Whereas men reportedly hit their sexual peak at 18, women don't hit their prime until 35, presumably because that's when the biological instinct to have a baby goes into overdrive.
The average Noble Prize winner didn't make their discovery until they were 40. But even if you're not a genius, the study claims that you're still most likely to realize your full creative potential at this age. Unfortunately, if you're a man, this is also when your fertility begins to decline (compared to 35 for a woman).
According to a 2013 UK study, men don't reach maturity until the age of 43, a full 11 years later than women. "Maturity" was defined as not playing video games late into the night, eating tons of fast food, farting, failing to do any chores, and other behavior that characterizes a 15-year-old boy.
Studies have found that American men and women report large levels of satisfaction with their lives in their early 20s, then dip in their middle age, reaching a low point at around 50. But, fear not, because we peak again at 69.
According to a a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Americans reach their peak emotional well-being at 82.
To discover more amazing secrets about living your best life, click here to sign up for our FREE daily newsletter!


text:
Regulatory hurdles for genome editing: process- vs. product-based approaches in different regulatory contexts
- 9.4k Downloads
- Citations
Novel plant genome editing techniques call for an updated legislation regulating the use of plants produced by genetic engineering or genome editing, especially in the European Union. Established more than 25 years ago and based on a clear distinction between transgenic and conventionally bred plants, the current EU Directives fail to accommodate the new continuum between genetic engineering and conventional breeding. Despite the fact that the Directive 2001/18/EC contains both process- and product-related terms, it is commonly interpreted as a strictly process-based legislation. In view of several new emerging techniques which are closer to the conventional breeding than common genetic engineering, we argue that it should be actually interpreted more in relation to the resulting product. A legal guidance on how to define plants produced by exploring novel genome editing techniques in relation to the decade-old legislation is urgently needed, as private companies and public researchers are waiting impatiently with products and projects in the pipeline. We here outline the process in the EU to develop a legislation that properly matches the scientific progress. As the process is facing several hurdles, we also compare with existing frameworks in other countries and discuss ideas for an alternative regulatory system.
KeywordsNew plant breeding techniques Genome editing Genetic engineering Regulation Site directed nucleases CRISPR/Cas9 ODM
The development of plant breeding methods in modern times is always preceded by scientific progress. Gregor Mendel's laws of genetic inheritance launched an era of controlled hybridizations and selection of superior crop material, and further discoveries in biology, physics and chemistry paved the way for the astonishing yield increases in all major crops particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century. Discoveries in molecular biology enabled more targeted approaches and expanded the available gene pool in plant breeding in the 1980s, allowing researchers and breeders to work efficiently at the single-gene level with the genetic material from any organism. The regulatory system put in place in the European Union (EU) in 1990 (The Council of the European Communities 1990a) focused mainly on the distinction between conventional plant breeding techniques involving hybridizations and induced mutations on one hand and recombinant DNA technology involving DNA from sexually non-compatible species on the other. This was at that time a relatively clear distinction, with the term "genetically modified organism", or GMO, coined to represent the latter category. However, scientific progress in the last two decades has moved plant breeding into a new continuum between genetic engineering and the so-called conventional methods. With novel genome editing (GE) techniques, the focus shifts from the insertion of protein-encoding DNA towards the use of regulatory RNA molecules and/or site-specific DNA-modifying enzymes.
A battle is currently raging in the EU on how to accommodate novel GE techniques within the existing regulatory frame for GMO. The discussions have intensified in 2014 and 2015 with precedential cases both from the industry and from public researchers. The current regulatory system in the EU is both process- and product-oriented; however, it has by and large been interpreted as strictly process-based. It is along this interpretation that the main battle line is now drawn, with the novel GE techniques ending up on either side of the GMO definition. In this review, we outline the political steps taken towards the regulation of novel GE techniques in the EU and put this in relation to other regulatory contexts such as that of Canada, the US and Argentina. We also make the case for an interpretation including both process and product, with focus on the latter, and discuss suggestions for an alternative regulatory system in the EU that may improve the current legislation regarding the incorporation of science-based, neutral and experience-based decision making.
Crop genetic improvement technologies
Plant breeding for the improvement of plant-derived products used for human nutrition, feeding of domesticated animals or raw material production has been performed for thousands of years. Crossing of superior plants obtained by selection breeding has been, for a long time, the only possible method to improve cultured plants. Traditional breeding techniques have been complemented, since the last century by conventional mutagenesis, translocation breeding and intergeneric crosses leading to a more sophisticated exploitation of the existing natural genetic variation. With the development of genetic engineering in the 1980s, plant breeding made a movement from cisgenic to transgenic approaches resulting in transgenic plants in which genes from non-crossable organisms are introduced by different transformation techniques. The transgenic plants are produced by undirected approaches integrating the transgene (or cisgene) in unspecified locations of the genome. Since then the development of breeding techniques progressed rapidly resulting in much more sophisticated methods to create plants with novel traits. These techniques are summarized as New Plant Breeding Techniques (NPBT, Lusser et al. 2011). In particular, the genome editing and modification techniques described in the following are tools for sequence-specific changes in the plant genome. These techniques enable breeders to introduce a single point mutation or a new DNA sequence at a specific location in the plant genome, thereby circumventing the negative side effects of conventional mutagenesis. The potential risks of exploring these new genome editing techniques are comparable to conventional mutagenesis or transgene technology (EFSA 2012). Considering these techniques and emerging new breeding techniques, the GMO-legislation framework in the EU, which is mainly interpreted and executed as being based on the technique which is used to produce a new plant, is not reflecting the progress made in recent development of NPBT.
In 2013, the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) has provided a comprehensive report on the risks and benefits of crop genetic improvement technologies, a term which is including NPBTs, genetic engineering and emerging plant breeding techniques. The report did not find evidence for an intrinsic higher risk of genetic engineering in comparison to conventional breeding technologies. This finding is based on solid science conducted in several thousand research projects and published in the last 20 years. The EASAC report came to the conclusions that "the trait and product, not the technology, in agriculture should be regulated, and the regulatory framework should be evidence-based" (EASAC 2013). This request for a trait-/product-based regulation reflects the scientific evidence which is very solidly based on GMO safety research and risk analyses accumulated in the last two decades (Heap 2013; Swiss National Science Foundation 2012; Hartung and Schiemann 2014). The EASAC report was endorsed by several academic organizations, most prominently by Anne Glover, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the President of the European Commission (EC). "The conclusions of the report are based on the best possible evidence and I endorse its conclusions whole-heartedly." Besides the EASAC statement mentioned above that intrinsic risks of genetic engineering do not exist, concerning the NPBTs Ann Glover stated that "… we shouldn't forget that there are also other promising novel plant breeding technologies, post-GM, and we shouldn't make the mistake of regulating them to death as we have done with GM" (Glover 2013).
In its recent Statement on New Breeding Techniques (EASAC 2015), EASAC requests that the EU policy development for agricultural innovation should be transparent, proportionate and fully informed by the advancing scientific evidence and experience worldwide. EASAC demands to resolve current legislative uncertainties and asks EU regulators to confirm that the products of NPBTs, when they do not contain foreign DNA, do not fall within the scope of GMO legislation. In contrast, in an Open Letter to the Commission on new genetic engineering methods, the anti-GMO Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) call on the Commission to reject any attempt to exclude these new techniques from EU regulation (NGO 2015). In particular, they urge the Commission to ensure that organisms produced by these new techniques will be regulated as GMOs under existing EU regulations and that current GMO health and environmental safety testing requirements are strengthened in light of the enhanced ability of these new techniques to alter the genetic code.
GMO regulatory frame in the European Union
In the same letter, EFSA regarded RdDM as a type of epigenetic regulation that can impact gene expression without altering the nucleotide sequence of the DNA. Following this definition, the term alteration of the genetic material is not applicable for RdDM (EFSA GMO unit 2015). In addition to EFSA, BVL sent a letter to the EC in September 2015 with the request to forward it to the legal service to help clarifying the legal status of NPBTs. The BVL had combined the views of UK, Irish and German Competent Authorities leading to the assessment that Directive 2001/18/EC is both product- as well as process-oriented (BVL 2015c).
Comparison of SDN-1, -2, and -3 in relation to the legal interpretations (BVL, NGOs, BFN, NTWG, ZKBS, EFSA)
Non GMO
Non GMO
Non GMO
Non GMO
Non GMO
Non GMO
Non GMO
Non GMO
Non GMOa
Non GMO
Non GMO
Non GMO
Non GMO
Non GMO
Non GMO
On 7 December 2015, the BVL released a legal opinion maintaining its assessment decision from 5 February 2015 (BVL 2015d). In this legal opinion, the BVL is interpreting the Directive 2001/18/EC as process- and product-based (Table 1). Furthermore, it is stated that oligonucleotides used in ODM approaches as well as guide-RNAs used in CRISPR approaches are not recombinant DNA, since they are not a novel combination of genetic material. Therefore, products created using SDN-1, -2 or ODM approaches should not be regarded as GMO according to the Directive 2001/18/EC. This is in accordance with the assessment of several scientific organizations in Europe, such as ZKBS and EFSA (EFSA 2012, 2015; ZKBS 2012). This interpretation reflects also the view of the NTWG (Lusser et al. 2011; Table 1).
In addition, national academies of science in Germany, such as the Leopoldina, acatech (German Academy of Science and Engineering), and the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities, the German Research Foundation (DFG) as well as the European Plant Science Organisation (EPSO) support the application of NPBTs for future crop improvement. An advantage to the classical mutation approaches is that only small and predefined loci are modified with many of these techniques (National academies of Sciences 2015; EPSO 2015). The academies also share the interpretation of BVL that the Directive 2001/18/EC should be interpreted as process- as well as product-based.
To date (April 2016), a clarifying legal opinion of the EC is still pending but might be released in the first quarter of 2016. Until the legal opinion is released the legal status of living organisms as well as products deriving from NPBT approaches is unclear.
Legal interpretation of genome editing techniques
Site-directed nucleases 1, -2 and -3
The legal analyses on behalf of the NGOs and BFN result in a different opinion, since the GMO regulation is strictly interpreted as process-based. As Krämer (2015) states: "It follows from the definition of GMO in Article 2(2) that Directive 2001/18 is a directive which is "process-based": it covers organisms that are generated by a specific process ("the genetic material has been altered in a way.."). The Directive does not look at the final result of the process, the organism, but rather at the way in which this final result is obtained…. This means that Directive 2001/18 intends to regulate certain techniques which it considers of being able to constitute a risk to human health or the environment". Spranger (2015) advance a similar view: "First of all, Annex I A Part 1 No. 1 essentially refers to the procedure of incorporation. From an applicability point of view, it is sufficient that an incorporation, as such is performed. The fact that this organism can in turn be reproduced without any further incorporation is irrelevant." In addition: "it needs to be taken into account that Annex I A Part 1 No. 2 has to be interpreted in light of the aim of the European legislator who intended that the simple use of genetic modifying techniques would be sufficient for the applicability of Directive 2001/18/EC by the means of a process approach."
The legal analyses on behalf of the NGOs and BFN result in the conclusion that the organisms created using the ODM technique have to be considered as GMO, since the introduction of oligomers is a genetic technique and targeted mutagenesis is not a naturally occurring process. Krämer mentions: "…the context may be relevant for defining whether usage of oligonucleotides is regarded as a mutagenesis or genome editing/genetic engineering. The difference in the terms is due to the technical details of the technology. In summary, the process used in oligonucleotide technology makes use of genetic material prepared outside the cell and thus has strong parallels to genetic engineering. … With regard to Directive 2001/18, these differences are relevant. First, the Directive emphasises that the process is decisive for defining what is covered by the Directive and what is exempted. Second, if the process is regarded as a mutagenesis, the use of recombinant DNA might be used as the most relevant criterion; if the use of oligonucleotides is not regarded as mutagenesis, other criteria will also have to be taken into account. Third, mutagenesis is known for many years, while genome editing is a recent technology." And Spanger states: "The fact that mutations as such [sic!] do occur naturally is of no importance in this context. Crucial for this assumption is the fact that the 'not-natural appearance' has to be assessed in an individual-concrete but not in a general-abstract way. The modifications caused by ODM and similar new techniques are carried out purposefully and lead to the incorporation into a host organism in which the nucleic acid molecules with certainty do not occur naturally. As this represents a target-oriented point mutation, Annex I A Part 1 No. 1 has to be applied to the relevant genome editing techniques."
Urgency for clarifying the legal status of GE in the EU
Many public researchers are seriously concerned about the situation in the EU regarding the current legislation for field release and cultivation of genetically modified plants (Directive 2001/EC/18; Directive 2015/412) and the lack of certainty for novel GE techniques in relation to existing Directives. To give but a few examples; public researchers from Sweden and the Netherlands recently expressed hesitation at using valuable and versatile GE techniques in their world-class fundamental and applied research, not knowing whether or not they would be allowed to carry out field trials with the resulting plants. Perhaps worse yet is the situation where research funding applications are being rejected solely for this reason of GE uncertainty (Abbott 2015), or when companies decide to move R&D investments out of the EU because of a similar reason.
As described above, several signals have already been delivered from some of the EU member states and from EFSA regarding the regulation of GE techniques. Another precedential case occurred in 2014 when two public research groups in Sweden independently asked the Swedish Board of Agriculture (SBA) whether they needed to apply for permission to carry out field trials with Arabidopsis plants mutated with the CRISPR/Cas9 method. The question was followed up in the spring 2015, and on 13 November 2015, SBA announced that the application of CRISPR/Cas9 induced mutations in plants should be considered as equivalent to mutagenesis and provided that no foreign DNA is left in the mutated plant and, therefore, excluded from Directive 2001/18/EC together with the techniques listed in Annex 1B. SBA´s interpretation suggested that the original intention to exclude mutagenesis from Directive 2001/18/EC was that the resulting mutations should be in focus and not the methods yielding these mutations. Otherwise, it may jeopardize any future method development (SBA 2015a, b). As explained earlier, the Competent Authorities of six EU member states have also announced that the ODM is not to be regulated as technology resulting in a GMO under Directive 2001/18/EC. All of these statements represent strong signals to the EC to not further delay resolving current legislative uncertainties for exploring GE techniques as well as to allow strict scientific reasoning to play a prominent role in risk assessment and regulation of these techniques.
Reacting to the concerns of public researchers in the EU regarding the possibility to use GE techniques in their research, the EPSO, representing more than 220 European public research institutes, delivered a statement in February 2015 welcoming the outcome of the NTWG report (2012) and calling on the EC to urgently provide a guideline document following the recommendations of this report and clarifying the legal status of NPBTs, including GE techniques. The EPSO statement emphasizes that "the legal definition of a GMO does not apply to most of the NPBTs and that these techniques either fall under the exemptions already established by the legislation (Authors' comment: see Directive 2001/18/EC; Annex 1A part 2, Annex 1B) or should be exempted, as they do not differ from plants obtained by traditional breeding" (EPSO 2015).
The statement was updated and reiterated to the EC in December 2015, clarifying that the interpretation of the EU GMO legislation is both process- and product-based and arguing that this would help clarifying the legal status of NPBTs (EPSO 2015). Certain GE techniques would yield very different products, such as plants with point mutations rather than gene insertions, compared to those which are classified as GMO—and not exempted—in Directive 2001/18/EC, and they should, therefore, clearly not be regulated as GMO in the current legislation. We agree with this and would like to once again highlight the point that the EU GMO Directives are commonly misinterpreted, by proponents and opponents alike, as being strictly based on process and not product. However, as explained above, this is not the case. A similar view to ours has also been put forward by, apart from EPSO, several other prominent European biotech and science organisations, such as the EASAC (2015), the European Seed Association (ESA 2012) and the European Technology Platform 'Plants for the Future' (Plant ETP 2012), as well as the Advisory Committee of Releases into the Environment (ACRE 2012), the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC 2014) in the UK and the BVL in Germany (BVL 2015d). On the other hand, Kuzma (2016) recently claimed that it is necessary to avoid the polarisation of process- vs. product-based interpretations to move forward in the debate, arguing that this regulatory dichotomy is neither logical nor scientific. Whereas we agree that any future system needs to be non-discriminatory in every aspect, we still want to point out that it is necessary to look at the resulting product to make sense of today´s legislation in the EU. If not, then the issue of implementing traceability measures would become impossible for certain products developed by GE techniques, i.e., they would be technically impossible to differentiate from products developed by classical (unregulated) mutagenesis, rendering the legislative procedure meaningless.
Situation in the US, Canada and Argentina
As pointed out, the regulation of biotechnology in the EU dealing with GMOs is in principle of both process- and product-oriented, but their interpretation is in practice predominantly focused on the production process and if this process is leading to a GMO or not. In contrast to this, in the US, the assessment of the risk posed by the resulting organisms to human beings, animals or the environment is predominantly based on the end product and not the technological process (NRC 1989). A strong precautionary principle is implemented in the US law concerning biotechnology but nevertheless the process during which a GMO is produced is not considered to be dangerous per se and neither is the transfer of genetic material between organisms according to the US law. In Canada, a different regulation concerning plants, called "plants with novel traits," is present. This regulation is based on the Plant Protection Act from 1990 and solely considering the novel trait of a plant, regardless which technology was used to produce it (e.g., biotechnology, conventional breeding or mutagenesis) (The Plant Protection Act 1990).
The regulatory system working in the US has been developed over the last five decades, and already in 1984, a Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology was issued (Lynch and Vogel 2001). This document is still the key document on biotechnology in the USA. Three agencies, such as EPA (Environment Protection Agency), USDA (US Department of Agriculture) and FDA (Food and Drug Agency), became responsible for regulating biotechnology, including genetic engineering. The FDA is responsible for medical products derived from biotechnology, the USDA for transgenic plants and the EPA for pesticidal plants and genetically engineered microbial pesticides (e.g., Bt-toxin). Concerning transgenic plants, a fast growing number of events have been deregulated by the USDA, which can be found in the APHIS database (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service). Starting in 1992, a total number of 121 events have to date undergone deregulation by the USDA, including 19 different plant species, such as apple, corn, cotton, potato, tomato and others. The agencies involved based their decision rather on the scientific data which have been collected in the frame of risk assessments with respect to possible risks for humans, animals or the environment than on the biotechnological process which produced the new trait. Therefore, in view of the US regulatory system, genome editing by ODM or SDN should not be a matter of regulation as long as no pest sequences are integrated in the plant genome. The pure editing process involving only base mutations should not be regulated, because it does not pose a new risk to humans or the environment as long as it does not code for any pest sequence. Sustaining this view, the USDA stated already in 2004 that ODM is comparable to mutagenesis and will be most likely not in the focus of regulation in the US (Wolt et al. 2015). The first example for approval of genome editing in plants which is still in the launch phase for the US is the canola event 5715 (Cibus Inc., San Diego). To handle GE and further new biotechnology developments, a memorandum was passed in 2015 in the US which claims for a modernization of the US regulatory system (Memorandum 2015). In this text beside other aspects, it is clearly pointed out that future biotechnology regulation in the US should be based on the best available science; it should be transparent and efficient and should promote public confidence in the oversight of the products. These goals will be reached by the establishment of a Biotechnology Working Group as part of the Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Group (ETIPC). The group will consist out of members from the Executive Office, FDA, EPA and USDA and will be coordinated with other Federal agencies (Memorandum 2015).
A Canadian system for GMO regulation is in principle not existent, as there is no specific regulation for the evaluation of a specific production process. The decision if, for example, a new plant is dangerous for humans or the environment is solely based on its novel inherent trait (The Plant Protection Act 1990). The definition of a novel trait is given by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: "A plant with a novel trait (PNT) is a plant that contains a trait which is both new to the Canadian environment and has the potential to affect the specific use and safety of the plant with respect to the environment and human health. These traits can be introduced using biotechnology, mutagenesis, or conventional breeding techniques." (Canadian Food Inspection Agency 2015a). This is a very pragmatic view which can lead to the situation that plant varieties harboring a novel trait have to be evaluated for potential risks even if conventional breeding or mutagenesis was used. For instance, in the case of crop herbicide resistance phenotypes, these have been developed by conventional breeding, mutagenesis and transgenesis as well as genome editing and subsequently evaluated and approved by Canadian regulators (Canadian Food Inspection Agency 2015b; Wolt et al. 2015). The Plant Protection Act also covers the invasive potential of new plants, and one of its main objectives is to prevent import, export or spreading of pests in Canada. In principle, this way of legislation is the logical result of the precautionary concept, but in view of a long history of safe use of such plants, it is not ideal for breeders which are developing new varieties by conventional breeding processes like introgression breeding. In 2016, 100 different plant events involving biotechnical modifications have been approved by the CIFA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) which are recorded as decision documents in the Guidance Document Repository (GDR) (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plants-with-novel-traits/approved-under-review/decision-documents/eng/1303704378026/1303704484236). Concerning the genome editing technology, the Canadian government already approved the above-mentioned canola plants generated using the ODM technology (Canola Event 5715, Cibus Inc., San Diego) and most likely will approve new plants made by the use of genome editing techniques, such as CRISPR/Cas9 or others, summarized as SDN techniques.
In view of the different regulation processes performed in different countries, GE is, on one hand, a new kind of biotechnology, but, on the other hand, highly predictable when it comes to the risks which can occur using the technology. The principal intrinsic risks of the GE process are the same as in conventional mutagenesis (unintended base mutations off-side the target locus often called off-target activity) but to a much lesser extent, as the side mutations of GE are lower by orders of magnitude (EFSA 2012).
Argentina is the third largest grower of genetically modified crops in the world by 2014 (GLRC 2014). The use of GMOs in agriculture and food is regulated by the general Law on Seeds and Phytogenetic Creations (LS) and by the Law on the Promotion of the Development and Production of Modern Biotechnology (LB). The LS is covering all issues affecting the commercialization of crops and their import or export. In respect to genetically modified seeds, an additional registration in the National Registry of Operators of Genetically Modified Plant Organisms is mandatory (Resolucion 46/2004 2004). The LB is covering the legal issues connected to the promotion of modern biotechnology in Argentina, including research and production projects. The responsible authority for release and commercialization of GMOs is the Secretary of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Food. The granting of a permit to release or commercialize a GMO in Argentina is done case by case and depending on its assessments in regard to biosafety standards, food safety standards and additionally on an evaluation of the impact a commercialized GMO will have on Argentina´s trade. This system is—as the US and Canadian—focused on the evaluation of the new trait of a given GMO than on its production process per se. In contrast to the EU where only an assessment of potential risks has to be performed, an additional risk/benefit analysis can influence the approval process in Argentina. As of May 2015, Argentina became the first country to make its resolution on the regulatory status of NPBTs publicly available. The resolution determines that all crops derived through the use of NPBTs, and thus modern biotechnology, are to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. However, the definition of a GMO is still missing approval, and real-world cases will have to show the practicalities of the resolution (Schuttelaar and Partners 2015).
The authors welcome the Argentinean practice to offer researchers and applicants the possibility to discuss future risk assessment and regulation of plants produced by means of NPBTs with the regulators. In a case-by-case approach, it will be evaluated in advance if the particular plant will fall under the scope of the Argentinean GMO regulation or not. This valuable procedure will save an enormous waste of time and effort for both developers/researchers and regulators (Whelan and Lema 2015) and will provide the legal certainty which is missed in Europe to date.
Conclusions and perspectives
The legislation put in place to regulate the development and commercialization of GMOs in the EU was originally intended to handle issues of uncertainty and safety. Scientific progress has since provided us with a wealth of knowledge about the genetic structure of, inter-relationship between, and exchange of genetic material between a multitude of organisms from all major kingdoms, such as plants, animals, fungi and bacteria. In the context of safety issues, plants modified through GM or GE techniques should, therefore, be discussed in relation to the "natural baseline" of genetic variation that exists in nature. In nature, genetic alterations occur all the time, such as nucleotide sequence changes, intragenomic rearrangements of DNA, and the acquisition of foreign DNA segments by horizontal gene transfer. Within species, genetic variation, including SNPs and retrotransposons, can be enormous, and horizontal gene transfer is probably much more commonplace than we previously thought (Jansson 2015; Kyndt et al. 2015). This is all part of natural biological evolution. Similar genetic alterations may take place with GM as well as novel GE techniques. Estimations or assumptions of risk should, therefore, be of the same order of magnitude as for those changes involved in natural genetic variation, or for that matter, also in the conventional breeding methods (Arber 2010). From a scientific point of view, it is, therefore, reasonable to assume that genetic alterations caused by currently available GE techniques do not per se pose a "higher-than-natural" risk.
The original intention of the legislators was certainly also to include the aspects of both process and product in the definition of a GMO; hence, Directive 2001/18/EC defines a GMO as an organism "in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination", and further describes GM techniques as "recombinant nucleic acid techniques involving the formation of new combinations of genetic material". Since Directive 2001/18/EC includes, as a criterion, the formation of new combinations of genetic material, the product itself also has to be scrutinized whenever a particular technique is put in relation to the GMO regulation in the EU. This is also in compliance with the definition of Living Modified Organism (LMO) established in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The one-sided focus on a process-oriented interpretation may in fact be erroneous and misleading. When the argument is put forward that GE techniques should automatically be classified as genetic engineering and regulated accordingly, simply based on the fact that the steps of recombinant nucleic acid techniques are involved, it is commonly overlooked that the current legislation is based both on process and product (Abbott 2015). This erroneous argument becomes even more problematic when it is considered that the products of certain GE techniques are in several cases indistinguishable from those developed by conventional or mutation breeding. In our opinion, in the case, the use of a certain technique has not resulted in the incorporation of foreign DNA or any novel genetic combination, then the resulting plant cannot be regulated as a GMO according to the intention or the definitions of Directive 2001/18/EC. As explained previously, this view has also been expressed by the Competent Authorities in several EU member states as well as by EFSA, encouraging the EC to take this under consideration in the preparations for a legal interpretation for how novel GE techniques may be regulated according to the current EU legislation. Failure to adapt the regulatory system to fully be able to utilize the novel GE techniques may have—and is already having—severe negative impact on research and innovation in the EU.
Other regulatory systems have been proposed lately. Huang et al. (2016) suggested a five-step procedure for GE crops including the following: (1) minimizing the risk of unintentional release from laboratories and field trials, (2) demonstrating the absence of foreign DNA sequences, (3) documenting DNA changes at the target site, (4) ensuring the absence of unintended secondary editing events, and (5) including the documentation of the above four points in the application. If all five steps are satisfactorily met, the GE crops should be subject only to the same rules that apply to conventionally bred cultivars before commercial release. Miller (2010) and Barton et al. (1997) presented the "Stanford Model" for regulation of field trials with GM/GE plants, being unsatisfied with the lack of proportion between risk and regulatory scrutiny. This model stratifies organisms according to risk in field trials, and is analogous to existing regulatory regimes, such as those for quarantine regulations for plants or animal pests, and also to the US government's approach to handling dangerous pathogens or other microorganisms in the laboratory. The advantage of the Stanford Model is that it is sufficiently flexible to accommodate differences in regulatory authorities' preferences for greater or lesser regulatory stringency, as long as the risk factor of each category is coupled with an appropriate and relative regulatory requirement. Another similarly flexible model has been presented by Araki and Ishii (2015), setting up the continuum of genetic alterations in a range from minor (leaky or null mutations) to major (transgenesis) changes. Four levels of stringency in the regulation are imposed along this range, allowing policy makers to shift towards more permissive regulation for certain genetic alterations as evidence of safety accumulate. This model would also promote global harmonisation of regulatory frameworks. The benefit of this model is, in our opinion, that it has the flexibility to start off with a relatively process-directed system of regulation, that is politically acceptable to many stakeholders today while allowing a shift towards more product-based interpretations as scientific evidence accumulate and the products gain a safe history of use.
All of these models have their virtues and should serve as inspiration for the development of a more dynamic regulatory system in the EU that is flexible enough to accommodate any novel plant research and breeding techniques.
Author contribution statement
All authors wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript. TS prepared the figures.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Abbott A (2015) Europe's genetically edited plants stuck in legal limbo. Nature 528:319–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- ACRE (Advisory Committee of Releases into the Environment) (2012) Report: Towards an evidence-based regulatory system for GMOsGoogle Scholar
- Araki M, Ishii T (2015) Towards social acceptance of plant breeding by genome editing. Trends Plant Sci 20(3):145–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Arber W (2010) Genetic engineering compared to natural genetic variations. New Biotechnol 27(5):517–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Barton et al (1997) A model protocol to assess the risks of agricultural introductions. Nat Biotechnol 15:845–848CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- BBSRC (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council) (2014) Position statement: New techniques for genetic crop improvementGoogle Scholar
- Brockmann K (2015) Objection by NGO association http://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/Widerspruch%20Cibus%20final.pdf. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- BVL (German Federal Agency for Consumer Protection and Food Safety) (2015a) http://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/BVL%20Cibus.pdf. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- BVL (German Federal Agency for Consumer Protection and Food Safety) (2015b) http://www.bvl.bund.de/DE/06_Gentechnik/04_Fachmeldungen/2015/2015_06_03_Fa_CIBUS.html. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- BVL (German Federal Agency for Consumer Protection and Food Safety) (2015d) Opinion on the legal classification of new plant breeding techniques, in particular ODM and CRISPR-Cas9. https://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/06_Gentechnik/Opinion_on_the_legal_classification_of_New_Plant_Breeding_Techniques.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016]
- BVL (German Federal Agency for Consumer Protection and Food Safety) correspondence (2015c) http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/14._09-28_letter_de_redacted_0.pdf. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2015a) Plants Evaluated for Environmental and Livestock Feed Safety. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plants-with-novel-traits/eng/1300137887237/1300137939635. Accessed on 18 Feb 2016
- Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2015b) Plants evaluated for environmental and livestock feed safety. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/active/eng/plaveg/bio/pntvcne.asp. Accessed on 18 Feb 2016
- Collected Correspondence competent authorities (2014, 2015) http://www.gen-ethisches-netzwerk.de/files/cibus_bvl_uig_1500.pdf. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- EAS (European Seed Association) (2012) Position: new breeding techniques: ensuring progress and diversity in plant breedingGoogle Scholar
- EASAC (European Academies Science Advisory Council) (2013) Planting the future: opportunities and challenges for using crop genetic improvement technologies for sustainable agriculture. European Academies Science Advisory Council Policy-Report 21. http://www.easac.eu/home/reports-and-statements/detail-view/article/planting-the.html. Accessed on 15 Feb 2016
- EASAC (European Academies Science Advisory Council) (2015) Statement on new breeding techniques. http://www.easac.eu/GGTSPU-styx2.jki.bund.de-6690-9894523-KsiSqGBHnPfPgltq-DAT/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Easac_14_NBT.pdf. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) (2012) Scientific opinion addressing the safety assessment of plants developed using zinc finger nuclease 3 and other site-directed nucleases with similar function. EFSA J 10(10):2943Google Scholar
- EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) (2015) Genetically Modified Organisms UNIT. Mandate Number: M-2015-0183 http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- EPSO (European Plant Science Organization) (2015) Crop Genetic Improvement Technologies. http://www.epsoweb.org/file/2147. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- European Biotechnology (2015) No GMO-Wave. Summer Issue, vol 14, p 10Google Scholar
- European Commission (2015) DG SANTE. Letter to competent authorities. http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/18._2015.06.15_lettre_autorites_competentes_redacted_1.pdf. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- European Parliament and European Council (2001) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC—Commission Declaration. Off J 106:1–39Google Scholar
- European Parliament and European Council (2003) Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (Text with EEA relevance). Off J L 268:1–23Google Scholar
- European Parliament and European Council (2009) Directive 2009/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms. Off J 125:75–97Google Scholar
- Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health; Board for Gene Technology (2014) http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/26._letter_from_fi._registered_version.pdf. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- Gesetz zur Regelung der Gentechnik (Gentechnikgesetz: GenTG) (1993). http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gentg/. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- Glover A (2013) Euractiv-Interview. http://www.euractiv.com/science-policymaking/chief-eu-scientist-backs-damning-news-530693. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- GLRC (Global Legal Research Center) (2014) Restrictions on GMOs. International Protocols. The Law Library of Congress, USA, pp 1–242Google Scholar
- Hartung F, Schiemann J (2014) Precise plant breeding using new genome editing techniques: opportunities, safety and regulation in the EU. Plant J 78:742–752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Heap B (2013) Europe should rethink its stance on GM crops. Nature 498:409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Huang S et al (2016) A proposed regulatory framework for genome-edited crops. Nat Genet 48(2):109–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jansson S (2015) Presentation workshop `New and improved´, Brussels. Accessed 09 Dec 2015Google Scholar
- Jones HD (2015) Future of breeding by genome editing is in the hands of regulators. GM Crops Food 6:223–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Krämer L (2015) Legal questions concerning new methods for changing the genetic conditions in plants. http://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/Kraemer_Legal%20questions_new%20methods_0.pdf. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- Kuzma J (2016) Reboot the debate on genetic engineering. Nature 531:165–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kyndt T et al (2015) The genome of cultivated sweet potato contains Agrobacterium T-DNAs with expressed genes: an example of a naturally transgenic food crop. PNAS 112(18):5844–5849CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Lusser M, Parisi C, Plan D, Rodriguez-Cerezo E (2011) New plant breeding techniques: state-of-the-art and prospects for commercial development. Joint Research Centre Technical Report EUR 24760. European Commission Joint Research Centre, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- Lynch D, Vogel D (2001) The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: a case-study of contemporary European Regulatory Politics. Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulation-gmos-europe-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- Memorandum (2015) https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/modernizing_the_reg_system_for_biotech_products_memo_final.pdf. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- Miller HI (2010) The regulation of agricultural biotechnology: science shows a better way. New Biotechnol 27(5):628–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften Leopoldina, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, acatech—Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften, Union der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften (2015) Chancen und Grenzen des genome editing/The opportunities and limitsof genome editing. http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/reden_stellungnahmen/2015/stellungnahme_genome_editing_2015.pdf. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) coalition (2015) http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/New_Breeding_Techniques___Open_Letter_27_Jan_2015.pdf. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- NRC (National Research Council) (1989) Committee on Scientific Evaluation of the Introduction of Genetically Modified Microorganisms and Plants into the Environment, National Research Council in: Field Testing Genetically Modified Organisms: Framework for Decisions. National Academies Press; ISBN: 0-309-56420-4. http://www.nap.edu/catalo/1431.html. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- Plant ETP (Plant European Technology Platform), (2012) Position: on new breeding techniques—ensuring an innovative and diversified European agricultureGoogle Scholar
- Resolución 46/2004 (2004) de Organismos Vegetales Geneticamente Modificandos, 28Google Scholar
- SBA (Swedish Board of Agriculture) (2015a) Dnr 4.6.18-6714/14Google Scholar
- SBA (Swedish Board of Agriculture) (2015b) Dnr 4.6.18-6864/15Google Scholar
- Schuttelaar, Partners (2015) The regulatory status of New Breeding techniques in countries outside the European Union. Version: June 2015Google Scholar
- Spranger TM (2015) Legal analysis of the applicability of Directive 2001/18/EC on genome editing technologies. http://bfn.de/fileadmin/BfN/agrogentechnik/Dokumente/Legal_analysis_of_genome_editing_technologies.pdf. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- Swiss National Science Foundation (2012) Benefits and risks of the deliberate release of genetically modified plants. National Research Programme NRP 59. http://www.nfp59.ch/e_index.cfm. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- The Council of the European Communities (1990a) Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms. Off J 117:227–247Google Scholar
- The Council of the European Communities (1990b) Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. Off J 117:15–27Google Scholar
- The Plant Protection Act (1990) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/P-14.8.pdf. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
- Whelan AI, Lema MA (2015) Regulatory framework for gene editing and other new breeding techniques (NBTs) in Argentina. GM Crops Food. doi: 10.1080/21645698.2015.1114698 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wolt DW, Wang K, Yang B (2015) The regulatory status of genome-edited crops. Plant Biotech J 14:510–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- ZKBS (German Biosafety Commission) (2012) Position statement of the ZKBS on new plant breeding techniques. http://www.bvl.bund.de/DE/06_Gentechnik/04_Fachmeldungen/2013/2013_08_01_Fa_neue_Techniken_Pflanzenzuechtung.html?nn=1471850. Accessed on 16 Feb 2016
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.


text:
If you haven't read Chapters one or two, start here.
For Joyce, life changed on a Tuesday. The sun was high in the crystal sky, casing the community in beautiful rays of spring sunlight. California water restrictions had stripped the landscape of flowers, yet on this day, the spiky drought-resistant plants had transformed from a dowdy brown to vibrant hues of green and purple, adding joyful pops of color. The air tasted of chlorine and SPF. Children with goggles wrapped tightly around their eyes tiptoed on the pool deck, careful not to burn their feet on the scorching surface.
Bob offered to man the office so Joyce could enjoy the first day of spring, her favorite season, outside surrounded by her residents. She parked herself at the picnic table by the pool with the latest John Grisham in hand, appreciating the warmth on her skin and the shrieks of laughter from the children as they cannonballed into the deep end.
Then, it happened.
One moment Joyce's brown eyes were soaking in the words of her favorite author, and a single blink later they were watching Silvia Kravitz running through the breezeway. Joyce closed the book, being sure to dog-ear her page, and folded her hands, waiting. Silvia treated every maintenance request as if it were a life-threatening emergency. Clogged toilets, jammed quarter slot, massive flood—they all received the same over-the-top reaction.
This time felt different though. It wasn't because of the urgency in Silvia's steps, and it wasn't because of the emotion on her face (she had none—the woman was eighty percent Botox, and the rest was silicone). Dread swirled around in Joyce's stomach as if she had just eaten five-day-old Chinese takeout.
Before Silvia could get the words "Something's happened!" out of her mouth, Joyce was up and running, going as fast as her mature limbs would take her.


text:
and Fees
To help you decide, please complete the form below
and we will let you know, not only which account we think would
be more suitable, but which one you would stand a better chance
of being approved with.
Obviously this is simply to point you in the right
direction and the final decision is yours. Plus we will only know
for sure once we receive a completed online
Please complete all fields otherwise we will not be able to answer.
Company Name:
Contact Name:
Telephone Number:
Email Address:
of Incorporation:
Getting you the right account
On occasion we may feel that certain applications stand
a better chance with a different acquiring bank. In this
instance we may transfer your application to a different
account or even place it with two at the same time. However
please be aware that you are under no obligation to accept
the new offer and can cancel your application at any time.


text:
Richmond Council Home Page
Perhaps the person you look after can't be cared for at home anymore, or you feel you can no longer cope with caring on your own.
It's inevitable that your role as a carer will change over time depending on various circumstances. You might find yourself in a situation where you feel you can no longer look after someone. Caring can be physically and mentally challenging, and there are often limits to the level of care that can be provided in the home.
If you live with the person you're caring for, you could choose to get additional support at home, which would take the pressure off you as a carer. This could be anything from a few hours of support a week to employing someone like a personal assistant to live with you full time. Whatever your circumstances, there is local advice and support available to help you decide.
There are different options for getting help with practical support at home, such as washing, dressing and cooking and moving around the house:
You can arrange for a qualified care worker to visit you in your home and help support your needs as a carer. They can help you with your role. Care workers are employed by home care agencies and the agency would carry out all the necessary employment checks and train them make sure they are able to support you in the best possible way. Care agencies employ lots of different care workers and have more potential to be flexible. This may mean that you won't have the same care workers visiting you each time.
More about care and support workers
If the person you look after has considerable needs or you needs someone to help them get out and about, you may want to consider employing a personal assistant (PA). A PA is someone who works privately for you. You get to decide who you would like to help you, when they come and what they do. Employing a personal assistant also brings responsibilities.
More about personal assistants
If you are no longer able to provide the necessary care for the person and support at home isn't enough, there may come a time when you consider whether it would better for the person to be looked after somewhere else.
More about somewhere to live
Realising that you can't cope anymore and have to stop caring for someone close to you can be a very difficult time, as you may feel guilty for not being able to do more yourself. It's important to take care of yourself at this time and talk to your friends and family and get their support. You can also get advice and support from the Richmond Carers Hub Service.
More about taking care of yourself
Richmond Carers Hub ServiceAddress: 5 Briar Road, Twickenham, TW2 6RB Phone: 020 8867 2380Web:www.richmondchs.orgEmail: firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
House Remodeling Improvement I Enjoy Lanais Porches And Verandas
Nation Residences serves as summer time homes, vacation house or just simply a house away from the city bustles. Design your home so that exterior lights and the aluminum ladders you set up to the roof will be visible from the street to encourage the firefighters to select your residence to defend. The HGTV Ultimate House Style did not match the high quality of the best residence style programs its 2D floor program was easy in comparison to our top-rated programs. The purpose of this article is to expose you to a group of colors that probably are out of your comfort zone. In your search for the best home design software, you must focus on the characteristics that make every single program straightforward to use, style and construction tools, and the assistance choices each inside the application and on the company's internet site. Victorian homes are frequently swathed in unusual and multiple colors spotlighting their intricate specifics.
It doesn't have topography or landscape tools, but it has a deck designer and some plants you can use to strategy the exterior of your property. Preserve the colour scheme straightforward, leave the bold colors for locations you can readily change for the resale factor. Property owners, contractors , and architects use virtual house exterior style application to help visualize modifications to styles. Universal Design evolved from the term Accessible Style," a style approach that addresses the wants of people with disabilities.
As many seek skilled interior design and style tips for either residential or commercial buildings, the most important issue to note as a professional designer is the effective implementation of projects that will not only satisfy your client's vision and dreams, but also enhance communities by means of far better designs. Our mission as exterior remodeling specialists is to help guide home owners through the approach by setting their minds at ease understanding their renovation is going to be some thing they are truly happy with for years to come selecting colours and designs that will stand the test of time, as nicely as complement the style and era of their residences.
I dream of a rustic area and my husband and I have a couple of products stored in the basement which spurred my need for the investigation and the passion for this fascinating design idea. The 1st and most essential element of exterior painting requires Subtrate or Surface Preparation If the surface is not prepared the paint may not adhere effectively or there may be premature peeling. So that it is the Interior designer profession to pick acceptable colors for a spot in approaches people want to look and really feel in the space.
Exceptional use of architectural delights – dormers, bay windows and copper roofing as well – an additional design house run of 3 architectural delights. It is achieved in all components of design by utilizing 1 element that differs in colour or shape amongst objects. Universal Design goes further by recognizing that there is a wide spectrum of human abilities.


text:
March 25, 2004
Holy Crap
I am tired. Very, very very tired. That is all.
Posted by:
@ 3:39 a.m.
March 24, 2004
Knuckle Nugget
People are just so goddamn stupid.
has launched a new campaign against KFC which involves giving children KFC buckets filled with fake blood, a bloody plastic chicken, and a cartoon featuring Colonel Sanders, who is covered in blood and holding a butcher knife over a terrified chicken. What in the hell are these people thinking? Or a better question is: could they possibly think up a more inappropriate way of getting their message out? Giving out the buckets of gore is one thing, but to specifically target children with it is completely and utterly wrong.
I wonder where they are going to dig up people who are stupid enough to stand beside a KFC and hand out these buckets? I can safely say a lot of them are going to be leaving that scene sporting a few nuggets of their own when parents realize what their children have just gotten. Way to go PETA, scaring little kids and getting yourself punched in the face. Congratulations.
Posted by:
@ 11:01 p.m.
Dove White, Ultra White, Tightie-White
I have always hated a room painted entirely in white. My bedroom was a big white box for several years, and I felt like I was incarcerated in the medical ward of a maximun security prison. Since then I have enjoyed numerous pink rooms (with blue skies) and now I have a tan and green room. It's striped, and I think it looks a lot like what you would see on Trading Spaces, (minus the feathers, straw, and fake flowers
would put on the walls)Anyway, I've just spend the day in a tiny bedroom painting the ceiling Ultra White, and the walls Dove White. Which ordinarily would be considered Just Plain White, except you can really tell the difference when paired next to a Chalk White, or an Aspen Snow White. And this all-white bedroom does match quite nicely with the rest of the all-white house, complete with white carpet and brand new white furniture. I think once I get the room done I will have to make sure to hose myself down before I go in for fear of dirtying things up in there. Tomorrow I will go back in for a second coat, because Dove White is not quite covering up the slightly darker shade of White that was in there before. Spring Break - HO! Also, you can now apply for an award from my site. I keep making these things, and people just don't seem to care, but hey, it amuses me for a while. All you have to do is
email me
with the name of your site, your site address, and what your favorite candy of all time is. Bonus points if your site has something to do with sugar, candy, or Mountain Dew. Anyone winning my award will not only get the stunningly beautiful graphic that is shown below, but you'll get a link from your page to my page..er, from my page to your page that might increase your traffic. Plus you can run around, all willy-nilly yelling about how you won an award and how this should somehow relate to you getting a raise in allowance or possibly PTO time.
Posted by:
@ 12.37 a.m.
March 23, 2004
The Pachyderm
Update: New guestbook, primed and ready for signing, look below!
posted by:
@ 3:54 a.m.
Ok, some extensive site work tonight, for a change. You probably didn't notice the change in graphics, because most likely you've never been here before. That's ok, but these graphics are much cooler than the other ones that were here. They had butterflies. Yuck. I added a whole new section about my Fark photoshop entries, which you can find at the bottom of this page. Most of the links on the left should work, just click on the little star thing. There aren't any links on the right side works as of right now. Sooo...don't click over there.
I seems to only update when I am on some kind of break from school. Last time was Xmas, this time Spring Break. Woo-hoo!
Anyway, it was 34 and raining here today so it really wasn't that springy, and I am going in to paint a couple rooms at my grandma's house tomorrow, so it's not to breaky either. More like an achy. I've got to go find another guestbook to put up here, and maybe some kind of thing that does things that you can type in things and then they are there. Yes. I will do that.
I have been reading too many Strong Bad emails, I am not making any sense.
posted by:
@ 1:24 a.m.
December 27, 2003
And then it was over...
Today I took down my grandma's Christmas tree. She and my mom are the same way, as soon as Christmas is over, they want nothing more to do with it. I usually wait until about the 30th to take my tree down, but they are solid 26'ers all the way. Anyway, it was a beautiful tree, if I do say so myself (I put it up, too.) I hate to see the holidays over, it only signals the beginning of a long, cold, lonely winter. All work and no play, if you will. Soon it will be 2004, and I will be no wiser than I was a year ago, still brash and impatient, letting my every thought spill from my lips without a second's thought. Always regretful afterwards. I decided my New Year's Resolutions this year are as follows:
1. Stop comparing myself to everyone else.
This will be a big one, and I think, one with the most chance of happiness if I succeed. I wish I could stop being so jealous and selfish all the time. There is nothing I want that I can't get.
Don't look at the score.
2. Stop being an ass.
Ties along with the above a little, I can really treat people like crap sometimes. I really would like a leash on my tongue to shut me up.
Think before you speak.
3. Lose some weight.
I refuse to go above a size 8 damnit!
Gym. Salad. Pizza...mmmmmm
4. Get some self-confidence.
I am looking for sellers, if you've got some. I need it big time. Maybe it will help with #5.
Chin up.
5. Love.
It's been too long, I need a man.
Stetson man, call me!
There you have it, my short list of resolutions. Check back to see how these things are going in the coming year. I think I should add "quit drinking mountain dew" to my list, and maybe I will be able to fall asleep at night. Cheers!
posted by:
@ 3:07 am
If you are interested in a link exchange send me your site url and a small button. Link my banner back to http://dlight7.tripod.com, you can use the button below or a text link:
I will display your logo or link on my site in the space below:
Empty Space for Affiliates' buttons
Click below to see some of my more illustrious entries in Fark photoshop contests!
The set on this page was made by
for exclusive use on this web page. I'll make you one, too, if you want.


text:
We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on our site. By continuing to use the site you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more.
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay
Illustrated by Chris Samnee
Introduced by Michael Moorcock
Colouring by Matthew Wilson
Experience The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay with this special collector's edition. Featuring illustrations by comic book artist Chris Samnee, Michael Chabon's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel is also introduced by Michael Moorcock.
A triumph of both cult and mainstream literature, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 2001. Delivering all the thrills of Golden Age comics and a deeply humane story about hope and tragedy – all via an exuberant literary voice – it has become one of the defining novels of the modern age.
'A novel of towering achievement'
- New York Times
Bound in blocked coated paper
Set in Utopia with Scriptorama Markdown display
632 pages
Frontispiece, three single-page and six double-page spread colour illustrations
Blocked and die-cut slipcase
10˝ x 6¾˝
Dreams of Liberty
The Great American Novel
An authentic comic book hero
Bringing the Escapist to life
About Matthew Wilson
You May Also Like
- Get ShortyIllustrated by Gary Kelley£36.95
- East of EdenIllustrated by Edward Kinsella£75.00
- American GodsIllustrated by Dave McKean£75.00
- The Great GatsbyIllustrated by Sam Wolfe Connelly£34.95Out of stock


text:
Branding a product is so crucial, both to the success of the product and the way in which consumers will identify with it. Many entrepreneurs or companies are able to create a product but not a brand. The truth of the matter is that when you have an established brand, consumers are far more likely to remember you. When they see that logo or certain characteristic of your brand, they will think of your product, which is what you are aiming for. Therefore, learning how to brand your product is of utmost importance if you want your product to stand out in the marketplace and be successful.
Are you just building a product or a brand? Do you want to learn what it takes to brand your product and make it a winner? Then read on.
Why brand your product?
When you have a brand, you are spreading a message to consumers about your product, offering them a promise or even a guarantee about what they should expect out of the product or the overall brand as a whole. When a consumer is first exposed or buys your product, they will notice certain characteristics; which includes the logo you have for the brand and if they actually do like your product (or their peers like it), they will feel comfortable trying other products that also have the same logo, and are produced under the same brand simply because they trust the brand. The truth is that when you have a brand, you can increase engagement of the consumers. Without a brand, you will not have nearly as much success with selling your products and gaining loyalty from consumers.
Product Branding Strategy 101: How to Better Brand Your Product
Developing a Brand
There are certain aspects of branding that you must consider when making attempts to better brand your product. Your brand needs to be able to answer a number of different questions without saying much. Some questions you have to ask yourself include:
- What is it your business creates in terms of a complete experience?
- What is your business about?
- What makes your product the best?
- What will the consumer get out of the product?
These questions will help guide you towards a general visual concept for your brand. But your brand goes far beyond a visual look and feel.
Five Elements of a Brand
The most obvious visual representation of a brand is the logo. But a brand is much more than just a logo:
- Logo – the fixed symbol for your brand
- Color scheme – a set of colors that are used consistently through marketing literature/websites
- Tone – the "voice" or way that you craft your copy
- Message – the big picture value statement that you want consumers to go away with when they interact with your brand
- Typography – fonts used for various pieces of your copy, such as titles, body copy, and other designs
These and other elements are what drive a brand. You should have a very clear understanding and direction for each of these elements. In fact, many companies have a document that formally sets out each of these elements and how they're going to be managed.
Getting Focused
What most companies need to do more than anything else is to be focused. Between all the various social media sites, advertising campaigns, company websites, and PR campaigns, it's easy for a brand's message to get cluttered. The key is to get focused and make sure that all your various marketing channels are in sync. This can be a serious challenge if multiple people are involved, but it is necessary to better brand your product.
Better branding ultimately boils down to knowing your strengths and then tying your strengths into a consistent representation; both visually and through all other communication media. As you develop a clear brand, consumers will have a clearer picture of what you represent. You should also be active in helping with this view. Don't let consumers form a general impression; rather, engage them and brand your product with distinction and confidence.
Author's Bio: Tara Hornor has a degree in English and has found her niche writing about marketing, advertising, branding, web and graphic design, and desktop publishing. She writes for PrintPlace.com, an online printing company that offers folded brochures, business cards, flyers, posters, postcards, full color booklets, and more printed marketing media. In addition to her writing career, Tara also enjoys spending time with her husband and two children. Connect with @TaraHornor on Twitter.


text:
Well, well, well... it's Teacher Appreciation Week. And being a mom who schools her children at home (as well as someone who
likes loves to be appreciated), I have a small list of requests that I am sending to my students-slash-children:
Dear Students-slash-Sugar-Babies:
It has come to my attention that this is Teacher Appreciation Week and while I know how much you appreciate my endless hours of curriculum preparation, creative teaching, and planned outings to enhance all that you're learning, it would be really great to actually SEE some expressions of that appreciation.
Now I'm not saying I don't totally love all the sweet weed-like flowers that I receive on our walks or the hand painted murals you leave me on the walls, here are some other ideas that you may want to consider:
You know how I like my coffee really strong in the morning? And you know how I have to get up and cut my coffee grounds even finer because I stupidly gave away my grinder thinking that I would never need it again after I bought the pod press coffee maker? Well, how cool would it be for your Mommy-slash-Teacher to wake up to pre-cut grounds? That would definitely show some serious appreciation. Now remember, don't tell the nice lady from Social Services that I approved the use of the Ginsu knife. She wouldn't understand.
AND... how cool would it be for your Mommy-slash-Teacher to wake up to that coffee already made? I know she would really appreciate that kind of appreciation! Just sayin.
Pancakes are nice, but crepes are better! I like my crepes with a nice thin layer of Nutella spread. Then fold the crepe in fourths (fractions, remember?), drizzle a little chocolate sauce and then sprinkle some powdered sugar on top. That should be pretty easy, right? I mean... you do appreciate me, don't you?
Mama's tootsies have been neglected for far too long. If it's not too much trouble (and it shouldn't be compared to ALL that I do for YOU!), I'd like to have a spa pedicure treatment. Now, I know Grandma Jones sent you that Christmas money for you guys to buy something special for yourselves, but I also know that I've taught you that it's better to give than to receive. So really... this is more for you than me. Anyway, take that Christmas money you've been saving and let's go get my toes done!
Nothing says love and appreciation like folding and putting away the laundry. You know how much Mommy-slash-Teacher HATES that, so what better to show appreciation for the woman that is teaching you how to read and write than to put the damn laundry away? Isn't it the least you can do? Just in case I haven't taught you how to organize your laundry (because there hasn't been much example of that lately), watch the video I took last week while I was at the spa and you guys were
locked up at home alone with your big sister.
You know what else mommy hates? Water waste. We live in a desert. Remember our ecology lessons? Not much water in deserts. So that's why I need you to buy me the Bosch Vision Washer and Dryer. The machines are smart like you guys (thanks to all of my teaching) and know just how much water to use so that we're not wasting what precious little we have out here. And the nice people at Bosch also told me that there are lots of rebates available through the state and retailers, so you really shouldn't have to sell TOO much lemonade. And BONUS: while you're selling that lemonade, you're learning real life skills like accounting, marketing, and business management.
You kids are SO lucky!!
Mommy also hates noise, so you can show your appreciation by putting down the recorders for the week. Or, just get me the Bosch Vision set. Not only are those suckers water and energy efficient, they are WAY quiet. Like you guys... when you're sleeping.
Free foot rubs would be nice this week, too. Could you suspend charging me for those, you know, just for this one week? I would really feel appreciated then.
Well, that's it for now. Please be on the lookout for the Birthday and Mother's Day request letters!
Mrs. Sugar Mama
Your Teacher and Mom
and the reason you exist on this planet
Dear Readers,
Bosch hosted a group of us at a Blogger Retreat at Montelucia in Scottsdale. Staying there was such an amazing and lovely experience. It's where I got my clarity on, remember? They also had us out to their training facility where we learned about the technology behind their awesome appliances. I took copious notes, like I promised. I will dazzle you all with my new laundry knowledge soon. Until then, you can see some of our witty tweets by looking up #BoschH2H.


text:
Mobile phone accessories – wire-connected handsfree and Bluetooth handsfree, car kits, mobile phone cases, batteries, car chargers, travel chargers, memory cards, data cables and car holders – account for nearly 7% of Germanos' monthly average sale.
The contribution of accessories rose from 5% in first quarter of the year to 7% in first quarter 2009. The approximately 30% increase is a result of the growing demand for every mobile phone sold, such as Bluetooth , car chargers, data cables and cases.
Bluetooth systems account for 60% of Germanos' monthly sale book. The retailer offers a wide range of terminals embedded with Bluetooth devices – over 69 models, priced between 69 lei and 319 lei (VAT included).
Furthermore, the sales of memory cards rose 15% in first four months of 2009 from prior-year period.
"Mobile phone accessories segment has a spectacular evolution and this is why we have identified various trends influencing this market. Wired-connected handsfree devices are more frequently being replaced by headsets containing Bluetooth technology. Bluetooth systems are gaining ground in terms of data sharing, gradually replacing the classic data cables", said Cosmin Vintila, accessories product manager Germanos Romania.
Te-ar putea interesa si:


text:
Nutrition and Detox
The human body operates to efficiently run the numerous and intricate operating systems that comprise your complex body. Nutrition is the only way to offer fuel to the trillions of cells that control our heart beat, our oxygen intake, our digestive tract, and much more. What exactly can we do to make sure our body's life supply is running on high? Maximize the quality of your nutrients!
Most American's run their bodies on convenient, processed, and chemical enriched foods. Due to the fast paced world we live in, most consumers believe it is easier to visit their local McDonalds or Burger King to partake in a greasy helping of chemicals and preservatives. Our bodies were not created to run off of French fries and Krispy Kreme donuts, and this new diet of convenience is posing a serious threat to healthy cell life!
It doesn't stop there either. Essentially, we are what we ingest, and the sugary colas, coffee drinks, and artificial "juices" are just as bad as the newest, fatty burger creation from the fast food joint down the street. Dousing your organs and cells with these beverages is not allowing them to properly function and attain optimal operations. If a fish cannot survive in a bowl filled with those types of beverages, what makes you think your cells can?
Eliminating or reducing fatty processed foods and replacing them with whole foods rich in nutrients is one way to ensure cell performance and survival. Also, adding supplements to your diet will help to encourage healthy cell production, and maintain optimal body performance. Just think, your body is essentially a divine mix of chemical reactions. When you begin to dump foreign chemicals into your body, the results could be explosive. To maximize your potential, become educated on what you're putting in your body!
Find out more about Health Essential #3: Maximized Quality Nutrition or grab your copy of our Maximized Living Nutrition Plan book for information healthy nutrition.
Toxins Sabotage Your Efforts
Popular thinking in our society blames poor nutrition, lack of exercise, and stress as the main contributors to disease. There is an even bigger culprit – a constant invasion of toxic substances into your body can produce disease over time. Minimizing toxins will drastically improve your quality of life and reduce your likelihood of disease.
Find out more about Health Essential #5: Minimizing Toxins or Maximized Living Nutrition Plan book to learn more about how to remove deadly toxins from your body.


text:
Full line up for after-hours entertainment at this year's festivals is revealed
Fuck Buttons, London Grammar, Foals, Pulled Apart By Horses, Jon Hopkins and more have been announced for Transgressive's Alternative Stage Takeover at Reading and Leeds 2013.
Transgressive Records has today (July 5) announced the line up for its eighth year at Reading and Leeds Festivals, bringing with them a host of bands and DJs for after-hours entertainment at this year's festivals. For the first time ever, Friday night in Reading will be a silent stage, requiring each audience member to enjoy the sound of the live performers and DJs via headphones handed out upon entry.
Joining the live bill this year will be Oxford duo Fuck Buttons as well as Jon Hopkins and James Holden plus Snakehips, Blaenavon, Thumpers and Karma Kid. Foals will DJ following their main stage appearance on the Sunday at Leeds while Pulled Apart By Horses will DJ a set comprising solely of gangsta rap anthems in Leeds on the Saturday night.
Saturday Day tickets for Reading Festival have now sold out. This follows the recent announcement that all of the Early Entry tickets to Reading Festival are also sold out. Friday, Sunday and Weekend tickets are still available for Reading Festival and Early Entry, Day and Weekend tickets are still available for Leeds Festival.
The line up for the Alternative Stage can be seen in full below.
Friday – Reading
Silent Stage
Fuck Buttons (live)
Karma Kid (live)
Jen Long (BBC Radio 1) DJ Set
Transgressive Sound System DJs
Rockfeedback DJs
Bless DJs
Saturday – Leeds
Fuck Buttons (live)
Jon Hopkins (live / AV set)
Pulled Apart By Horses – Gangsta Rap DJ Set
Blaenavon (live)
Transgressive Sound System DJs
Bless DJs
Rockfeedback DJs
Sunday – Leeds
Foals DJ Set
James Holden (live)
London Grammar (live)
Snakehips (live)
Thumpers (live)
Transgressive Sound System DJs
Rockfeedback DJs


text:
The quartet of the Armenian Evangelical Church of Marash (L to R): Ara Khederian, Raffi Akbasharian, Anto Messerlian, Vache Khederian
Calling the people to accept Christ and those who ask for specific prayers
Rev. Megerdich Karagoezian, President of the Union of the Armenian Evangelical Churches in the Near East
Rev. Haroutune Selimian, President of the Armenian Protestant Churches in Syria
Rev.Hovannes Svajian
(L to R): Ara Torkomian, Shant Aynilian, Koko Avessian
(L to R): Mr. Levon Bedigian, Rev. Soghomon Kilaghbian, Rev. Hagop Tchoghandjian
Garo Keloukian, the cameraman, who is a member in the Armenian Evangelical Church of Ashrafieh
Hagop Gojigian, the assistant cameraman