Medicolegal and Cultural Anthropological Aspects of Tattooing: a Qualitative Atudy

Mummified human skins and ancient art containing tattoos, tools used for tattooing etc. prove that tattooing had been in practice since at-least 4000 BC. Tattooing is a form of permanent body modification. Body modifications could be permanent or temporary. Body painting is the commonest form of temporary body modification. Permanent modifications include tattooing, piercing, branding and prosthesis. Branding is a disfiguring, incriminating practice usually not accepted cosmetically. Tattooing is a science and an art evolving with human culture. The account that the authors wish to discuss is based on the working experience of three countries Australia, UK and Sri Lanka during the past seven years. Some important points are summarized below accordingly. The nature of tattoos differs from culture to culture. It is dynamic and evolves in the same culture with time. Conventional tattoos (barb wire, snake and dagger, cross, “Amma Buduwewa”, “Maruwa Samage Wase” etc.) are diminishing. The culture of tattooing is gaining rapid popularity and acceptance in all communities. Tattoos are still commoner among the lower socio-economic classes though this disparity is rapidly diminishing. Some are black while others are bi or tri-chromatic. Tattoos are becoming popular among females. There are gender differences in tattoos. Tattoos act as a rich source of information as to the barer’s ethnicity, language, religious faiths, preferences (sexual or otherwise), personal data and socio-cultural background. Some such information is misleading at times. Forensically, tattoos help establishing specific identity of the living and the dead. Tattoos become prominent in early putrefaction. Historical forensic evidence that drug peddlers tend to tattoo No 13 in their lower lips and gays tattoo a blue-bird in the web between thumb and fore-finger are still valid. Some individuals bare extremely unusual tattoos. Others bare tattoos on unusual sites of their anatomy such as on the penis and around anal verge. Some use tattoos to hide old scars, moulds, previous ugly tattoos and recreational drug injecting sites. Crude attempts of removing tattoos are always obvious while laser quarterization is less disfiguring. Some tattoos become culturally unacceptable when the person grows old. Tattooing is generally considered as posing a risk of contracting blood-borne infections on the person.Key words: body modifications, tattooing, identification, forensic (evidence

Challenges in testing genetically modified crops for potential increases in endogenous allergen expression for safety

Premarket, genetically modified (GM) plants are assessed for potential risks of food allergy. The major risk would be transfer of a gene encoding an allergen or protein nearly identical to an allergen into a different food source, which can be assessed by specific serum testing. The potential that a newly expressed protein might become an allergen is evaluated based on resistance to digestion in pepsin and abundance in food fractions. If the modified plant is a common allergenic source (e.g. soybean), regulatory guidelines suggest testing for increases in the expression of endogenous allergens. Some regulators request evaluating endogenous allergens for rarely allergenic plants (e.g. maize and rice). Since allergic individuals must avoid foods containing their allergen (e.g. peanut, soybean, maize, or rice), the relevance of the tests is unclear. Furthermore, no acceptance criteria are established and little is known about the natural variation in allergen concentrations in these crops. Our results demonstrate a 15-fold difference in the major maize allergen, lipid transfer protein between nine varieties, and complex variation in IgE binding to various soybean varieties. We question the value of evaluating endogenous allergens in GM plants unless the intent of the modification was production of a hypoallergenic crop

Postmortem detection and histopathological features of canine spirocercosis-induced putative esophageal chondrosarcoma

Aim: The objective of this study was to describe and characterize the postmortem and histopathological findings of putative esophageal chondrosarcoma associated with Spirocerca lupi. Materials and Methods: Spirocerca-associated esophageal nodules were collected from 54 dogs at postmortem examination and were stained with hematoxylin and eosin. Of the cases examined, 15 were selected randomly for further investigation, of which 11 were classified as non-neoplastic nodules while 4 had changes reflecting a neoplastic process. Results: In all four neoplastic cases, the wall of the esophageal nodules contained islands and nests of highly proliferative atypical chondroblasts within a cartilaginous matrix. However, there was no statistically significant association between gender (p=0.228), age (p=0.568), and breeds (p>0.05) with the occurrence of spirocercosis. Moreover, all esophageal nodules identified were located near the caudal segment, and their diameters ranged from 1 to 6 cm (4.7±1.5 cm). A number of worms in each nodule varied from 5 to 25 (11.3±5). Conclusion: Histopathology and cytology revealed that the wall of the esophageal nodules contained islands and nests of highly proliferative atypical chondroblasts within a cartilaginous matrix, a rare finding, and clinical challenge in spirocercosis

Challenges in testing genetically modified crops for potential increases in endogenous allergen expression for safety

Premarket, genetically modified (GM) plants are assessed for potential risks of food allergy. The major risk would be transfer of a gene encoding an allergen or protein nearly identical to an allergen into a different food source, which can be assessed by specific serum testing. The potential that a newly expressed protein might become an allergen is evaluated based on resistance to digestion in pepsin and abundance in food fractions. If the modified plant is a common allergenic source (e.g. soybean), regulatory guidelines suggest testing for increases in the expression of endogenous allergens. Some regulators request evaluating endogenous allergens for rarely allergenic plants (e.g. maize and rice). Since allergic individuals must avoid foods containing their allergen (e.g. peanut, soybean, maize, or rice), the relevance of the tests is unclear. Furthermore, no acceptance criteria are established and little is known about the natural variation in allergen concentrations in these crops. Our results demonstrate a 15-fold difference in the major maize allergen, lipid transfer protein between nine varieties, and complex variation in IgE binding to various soybean varieties. We question the value of evaluating endogenous allergens in GM plants unless the intent of the modification was production of a hypoallergenic crop

Evaluation of Endogenous Allergens for the Safety Evaluation of Genetically Engineered Food Crops: Review of Potential Risks, Test Methods, Examples and Relevance

The safety of food produced from genetically engineered (GE) crops is assessed for potential risks of food allergy on the basis of an international consensus guideline outlined by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (2003). The assessment focuses on evaluation of the potential allergenicity of the newly expressed protein(s) as the primary potential risk using a process that markedly limits risks to allergic consumers. However, Codex also recommended evaluating a second concern, potential increases in endogenous allergens of commonly allergenic food crops that might occur due to insertion of the gene. Unfortunately, potential risks and natural variation of endogenous allergens in non-GE varieties are not understood, and risks from increases have not been demonstrated. Because regulatory approvals in some countries are delayed due to increasing demands for measuring endogenous allergens, we present a review of the potential risks of food allergy, risk management for food allergy, and test methods that may be used in these evaluations. We also present new data from our laboratory studies on the variation of the allergenic lipid transfer protein in non-GE maize hybrids as well as data from two studies of endogenous allergen comparisons for three GE soybean lines, their nearest genetic soy lines, and other commercial lines. We conclude that scientifically based limits of acceptable variation cannot been established without an understanding of natural variation in non-GE crops. Furthermore, the risks from increased allergen expression are minimal as the risk management strategy for food allergy is for allergic individuals to avoid consuming any food containing their allergenic source, regardless of the crop variety