Anti-GMO Activists: Venezuela is Not Your Trophy

On January 21st, the Organic Consumer Association posted this on Twitter:
 
Having grown up in Venezuela, it set off a murderous rage in my soul, and I'm going to take some time to outline how that one tweet represents the epitome of the anti-GMO lobby's head-up-their-ass-ishness.

The Organic Consumer Association (OCA) is an advocacy group that believes in the dangers of vaccines (see here and here) and the benefits of homeopathy, among other things. But their celebration of GMO bans across the world, with no knowledge whatsoever of the country's problems embodies their privileged ignorance. After all, why would you tout the evils of vaccines if you haven't known someone who died of measles? Why would you celebrate the banning of GMOs in a country if you haven't stood in line to buy milk?

That's not an exaggeration. As some of you may know, I was raised in Venezuela but left to pursue my education after graduating from high school. With my parents and siblings still living in the country, I visited nearly every year, but my visits became less and less frequent. As of today, no one in my family lives there. While my parents lived in Venezuela, it was traditional that during their visits to me in Canada, I'd take them to the grocery store. Like kids in Disneyland, they'd stand in the middle of the grocery store staring at the abundance of it all, and then top the grocery cart with all the things they couldn't find. Some of it was due to cultural differences (for example, peanut butter isn't commonly eaten in Venezuela). But sometimes, it was the most basic of items. During a trip to the US, my sister once shared pictures that she took of the milk aisle in a grocery store during a particularly harsh milk shortage.

Venezuela's food shortages are due to many economic and social factors: restrictive regulations on currency, an inflation rate set to surpass 700%, a political climate that has made private investments challenging, and agrarian reform that has transferred lands into the hands of owners with little to no experience, among many others.

Empty Aisles at a Venezuelan Supermarket
From Wikimedia

As such, a ban on GMOs must necessarily be viewed and reported through the lens of how it will impact Venezuela's food supply. The ban is very far reaching: not only does it ban growing GMOs, but also their import, as well as research on transgenic crops. At a time when Venezuela relies heavily on imported food, particularly from Argentina and Brazil who are two of the world's leaders in GM-crop growth, such a ban might have very severe implications.

The OCA wasn't alone in its celebration of this "progressive" seed law. Here are a few other organizations that celebrated the ban:

The Hollywood Food Guild rejoiced:

Go Venezuela! Venezuela's neighbor Brazil is the biggest #gmo grower after the US. #ag #pesticides #monsanto https://t.co/dmf6MEVtCO

— Hollywood Food Guild (@HollywoodFood) December 16, 2015

GMWatch was in a celebratory mood:

The approval of the #GMO seed ban in Venezuela makes for a joyous end of year. Celebratory tweets coming up! Let's work for this everywhere.

— GMWatch (@GMWatch) December 25, 2015

Hundreds of people tweeted in celebration of the ban, hoping that their own country would soon follow suit. There were several articles that circulated many times: one article that was co-written by a Venezuelan activist which I can only describe as government propaganda, and a second that was published in EcoWatch. But every piece that I read left me with even more questions.

• The article claimed that the new seed law banned "transgenic (GMO) seed while protecting local seed from privatization". Why was there no mention of an uncommercialized locally developed, ring-spot resistant variety of GM papaya, particularly when it is one of the country's more popular fruits? Since it was developed by the public sector, isn't this an excellent example of endogenous agronomy that could be resistant to privatization?
• Many articles claimed that the law was a product of "direct participatory democracy", and the summary from the OCA stated that the law "was hammered out through a deliberative partnership between members of the country’s National Assembly and a broad-based grassroots coalition of eco-socialist, peasant, and agroecological oriented organizations and institutions". Why weren't agronomists part of that equation? Why was there no mention of the fact that scientists were not consulted and in fact, Venezuela's Academy of Physical, Mathematical, and Natural Sciences issued a statement asking the National Assembly to reconsider the law?
• Venezuela has had a moratorium on growing GMOs for several years. The OCA mentions this by stating that Venezuela has virtually had a ban on GMOs since 2004, and that this is aligned with the country's goal of "endogenous development". But none of the articles outlined how this ban has helped the country and its economy. Is 10 years not enough time to see an impact? How did the ban help endogenous agronomy? Were any new crops developed nationally in the decade since the ban? If not, how will a ban on GMO research help the nation's goals?
• In 2013, a local research paper published a study demonstrating that a patented corn variety was being grown by the government. If Venezuela had a ban on GMOs since 2004, why were government farms growing GMOs? Why didn't any of the articles report this? Is this the type of "progressive" government-led food transparency that GMWatch is celebrating and would like other nations to adopt?
• The law does not outline if processed foods derived from GMOs can be imported. Does this mean that the country will now rely more heavily on importing finished goods instead of imported crops that can be developed into goods within the nation?
• Why didn't any of the pieces say anything on what this law represents in terms of Venezuela's economy and food shortages? Could it possibly be that the Hollywood Food Guild failed to read any of the 20,000 hits that I pulled up when I typed in "Venezuela Food shortages" into Google News?
• The article that the OCA bases it's piece on states that "national seed legislation is increasingly being co-opted by corporate agribusiness interests", and that this law will put a stop to that. Is the OCA under the impression that corporate agribusinesses only produce GMO seeds? Is EcoWatch unaware of the fact that there are dozens of transgenic crops being developed by public sector and non-profit groups around the world?

I find it so illogical that GMWatch would seek to mimic economic policies from a country whose new minister of economics calls inflation a "bourgeois invention". I find it to be the epitome of stupidity, to hold one of the 10 most corrupt countries in the world as a standard of transparency. I find it ridiculous to hail a law as "progressive" from a nation with one of the vastest natural resources in the world that is about to default on its loans.

But above all else, what set off my rage was the fact that some ass-hat at EcoWatch probably typed up their puff-piece when they had never stood in line to buy any basic food item in their life. In the years leading up to my parents leaving Venezuela, my mom's life schedule was built and defined around the amount of time that she'd have to stand in line at stores to buy goods. When she or one of her friends found a basic supply such as corn flour that had been lacking, they'd alert one another by text message. Has anyone at the OCA had to do that? Has anyone at the Hollywood Food Guild had to buy rice on the black market? Or does their world end when Starbucks doesn't have organic soy milk?

Don't get me wrong: I do not believe in North American exceptionalism. I do not believe that a country is inherently "better" than others. I believe that each nation has strengths and weaknesses, and that we can all learn from one another. So, I invite the tweeters who are celebrating Venezuela's seed law to go visit Venezuela. It is a beautiful nation with rich culture, amazing natural beauty, and fantastic people. Visitors will have a wonderful time, I have no doubt. But Venezuela has its problems. To ignore these and to hail an ill-defined law that can only worsen them is misleading at best. To call Venezuela's law as "progressive", when its President has stated that the solution to the food shortage is to "grow your own" is sheer ignorance. Are people supposed to then grind their own corn flour, too?  

The fact that we, living in North America, have options to buy organic, conventional, non-GMO, gluten-free, or peanut-free is not something that should be taken lightly. Our farmers have the right to grow whatever they'd like, using whatever methods and standards they'd like, as approved by laws and regulations, and that's a freedom and right that should be celebrated. Yet other nations have agricultural sectors that are lagging decades behind, where producing enough food is a serious challenge. The fact that tools and technologies that may help address such challenges are being barred due to philosophical or political ideologies and not science based policies makes progress all the more challenging and defies the notion of an informed democracy. But that's something that all these anti-GMO groups seem to forget in their priviledged positions: the fact that they feel that their developed-nation standards should be applied globally reeks of elitism.

And let me make a suggestion to those tweeters who accept the invitation to visit Venezuela: print out many copies of the articles you shared when you visit. It will come in handy due to the toilet paper shortage.

Better Know a Scientist: Interview with Estefania Elorriaga on Site-Specific Nucleases

This week in “Better Know a Scientist”, I’m interviewing Estefania Elorriaga. She’s in the midst of her PhD in Dr Steven Strauss’ lab in the Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society at Oregon State University. She is doing research on using site-specific nucleases for mutagenesis (fear not! She’ll have to explain her research in this interview). Let’s get started!

Q: What are site-specific nucleases? Why are they important?

Site-specific nucleases are enzymes that can cut DNA at specific  locations in the genome of your organism.  The nucleases create a break which stimulates the organism’s DNA repair mechanisms to fix the break.  Occasionally, the repair mechanisms will make a mistake (delete some DNA or insert some extra DNA) that will lead to a loss-of-function mutation in the target gene, meaning that the protein you targeted will no longer do its job.  Examples of site-specific nucleases are zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), the CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)-Cas system, and engineered meganucleases.  Site-specific nucleases can also be used for gene repair or gene replacement with the addition of a donor DNA sequence.  These technologies are important because they allow scientists to modify only specific locations of genes in order to obtain a desired trait.  In the area of crop breeding we believe these technologies will be crucial for improving current lines specially for particular cases like drought-tolerance, high or low temperature tolerance, disease resistance, or even nutrient content.

[Biochica’s note: if you want to learn more about gene editing, please see my previous post on the topic]

Estefania's work using TALENs.
The plant on the left has a TALEN (will show it's trait much later)
The plant on the top-right is her transgenic control,
expressing GFP (green fluorescent protein).
The plant on the bottom right is the unmodified control.

Q: How specific are the nucleases? If you can share, are you seeing off-target edits in your work?

We are still at the early analysis stage, so I cannot really say personally how specific they are.  But, according to the scientific literature, CRISPR-Cas nucleases appear to be the most active and specific, followed by TALENs, and last ZFNs.  CRISPR-Cas nuclease show a lot of promise because of the high activity that they show so far and their off-targeting appears to be somewhat predictable.  

Q: Are there any GMOs made using site-specific nucleases currently on the market? Do you know of any that are in development?

There are no commercially available GMOs currently in the market or in development (that I know of), but everyone in the field believes that the technology is going to revolutionize genetic engineering, especially breeding and gene therapy.

Q: Like me, you were raised in Venezuela (I was raised in Barquisimeto and I left after graduating from high school). Venezuela has a moratorium on growing any GMOs and activists would argue that the moratorium is in place because of how harmful GMOs can be. So, how do we know that you aren’t a spy sent to the United States to bring down the imperialist empire through evil GMOs?

Ha ha! If the Venezuelan government was making me get a PhD just to spy on the USA, I think I would have quit my job as a spy and gone to Colombia or Costa Rica.  I cannot imagine doing research while spying.  As it stands, I barely have any free time.  And also, I cannot imagine pretending to be a researcher.

[Biochica's note: that's exactly what a person tasked with destroying the imperialist empire with GMOs would do: deny it].

Q: What traits are you working on in the lab? Why are they important?

I work with flowering genes in both poplar and eucalypts. Understanding floral development and identity genes is important because it will allow us to generate transgenic trees that don’t have functional pollen or ovules, so there is no possibility of transgene flow.  Developing transgene containment technologies for forest trees to facilitate the commercial and scientific use of transgenic trees is one of the main goals of our lab.

Q: Can you explain what you mean by “transgene flow”? [Biochica note: some activists refer to this as “GMO contamination”] Does it basically mean that you’re blocking the GM tree or plant from hybridizing or crossing with a non-GM tree or plant?

“Transgene flow” is the movement of the gene we inserted into our trees into a wild or cultivated population of the same or a related species. And yes, it basically means not allowing our GM tree to cross or hybridise with wild or cultivated trees.

Q: If you’re creating a GMO to address one of the major concerns against GMOs, aren’t you creating a circular argument? How would that conversation even go? I imagine it would be like, “Activists! You’re worried about GMO genes getting into the environment? Here’s a GMO that will prevent GM genes from getting into the environment. Go forth and plant it!” Aren’t a few heads going to explode? Is THAT the real plan of the Venezuelan government? To bring down the imperialist empire through circular arguments?

By eliminating transgene flow, we are just allowing the GM trees to be used commercially for other purposes like a non-flowering faster growing eucalyptus.  Also, eliminating transgene flow in the current GM crops will allow the scientific community to educate the public, and also other scientists that are weary, about the safety of GM technology.  We hypothesize that transgenes will likely not do well in the wild, so they will probably get eliminated through fitness selection, but we need to study each particular case. Ha ha! Nothing from the current Venezuelan government surprises me, so who knows...

Q: Are there any non-GM crops where gene-flow is a problem that may benefit from the adoption of the technology?

The other case that comes to my mind is the case of gene purity in seed crops.  Seed producers follow standards and practices that guarantee the purity of the seeds available to farmers and home growers. Genetic purity in their case is essential to ensure that the seed will perform as expected, so seed producers must be careful about the pollen that fertilizes their plants.  

Q: What trait would you like to work on in the future?

I would like to work with either nutrients (e.g. create a highly nutritious fruit or vegetable crop), drugs (e.g. create plants that can make medicines), or abiotic resistance (e.g. create plants that can take up heavy metals).

Q: There are many articles in the news and in journals about potential traits that may benefit us, many of which never make it past research, but none-the-less create much buzz. Which one(s) do you think are the most exciting? Which one(s) do you think are the most promising?

Being a transplant in Oregon and feeling like a true Oregonian since I moved to the Northwest, protecting the environment is a topic dear to my heart.  In the University of Washington, Prof. Sharon Doty worked with transgenic poplars that were able to remove more than 90% of contaminants from Superfund sites. According to the EPA, “A Superfund site is an uncontrolled or abandoned place where hazardous waste is located, possibly affecting local ecosystems or people”. I think using trees to clean our aquifers and our soils is a win-win. We get more oxygen, cleaner air, and also cleaner soils and rivers. But, the trees are nowhere near being ready for use outside of university labs.  

There is also a transgenic pig called “the Enviropig” from the University of Guelph in Canada, that digests phosphorus from its food more efficiently than non-transgenic pigs, so it needs less feed and its waste is less toxic to the environment.  Doesn’t that sound like a win-win too?!  

I am also a big fan of producing medicines in plants (like I mentioned above).  This practice is known as biopharming.  I am also a fan of using GM mosquitoes to eliminate vector-borne diseases like dengue (after the GM mosquito mates with a non-GM mosquito the transgene causes the mosquito larvae to die).  These two cases I mentioned though are closer to production than the Enviropig or phytoremediating trees.  Biopharming had a rough time recently because many of the companies involved went bankrupt, but there is an experimental antibody for Ebola currently being made in tobacco by Kentucky BioProcessing called ZMapp that should give this industry a boost, and the British company Oxitec plans to release GM mosquitoes in the Florida keys to reduce dengue and chikungunya (both diseases you don’t want to get, and less yet while on vacation).  ZMapp is considered the most promising candidate to combat Ebola and it is currently being used in a controlled human trial in Liberia. The mosquitoes were already tested in Brazil and Panama with great success, so both countries plan on releasing a lot more of them.

[Biochica’s note: if you want to learn more about Oxitec’s mosquitoes, please see my previous post on my family’s experience with dengue and my review of the literature on these phenomenal skeeters]

Q: How much money is Monsanto paying you to develop these transgene containment technologies that will solve one of their public image problems? After all, we all know that Monsanto controls university research.

Monsanto has never paid me or our lab for the research we do.  Sadly, when many people think “GM technology” they think “Monsanto”.  But, in reality the technology is being used by hundreds of university labs, research facilities, and biotech companies developing more than herbicide- or insect-resistant crops.  Monsanto and all the other large biotech multinationals like Dupont, Pioneer, or Syngenta come up with cutting-edge seed and agro-chemical technologies, but given that there is no direct benefit to the end user (all the benefits go to the farmer), the public shows little to no support because of lack of understanding and fear.  If you look over the ISAAA’s (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Application) Pocket K. Documented Benefits of GM Crops, you will find that from 1996 to 2012, global farmers’ income increased by $116.6 million billion and there was a reduction in herbicide and pesticide use of 503 million kgs (ISAAA is an international non-profit “that shares the benefits of crop biotechnology to various stakeholders, particularly resource-poor farmers in developing countries, through knowledge sharing initiatives and the transfer and delivery of proprietary biotechnology applications”).  All these agricultural biotech companies perform cutting edge science and create impressive biotech products.  However, as companies they are concerned with profits, so given the high cost of generating a GM product, they focus on products that will bring them a return on their investment.

Q: My dreams for crop modification aren’t as lofty: I just want a peelable pomegranate. Do you think that the research you’re conducting might be able to help?

My work won’t directly affect the possibility of creating a more peelable pomegranate. But, indirectly it can bring science closer to your dream.  My research can add onto the increasing scientific knowledge base that is proving that site-specific nucleases can someday be an important tool in crop breeding.  If we find the gene or sets of genes involved in making the pomegranate’s skin, we can either modify or replace the genes for ones that will make the pomegranate easier to peel.  For many centuries, humans have been modifying the aspect, size, and taste of cultivated crops by doing selective breeding without knowing anything about genetics.  Wild bananas and corn (and dogs...chihuahuas come from wolves!) are great examples of what selective breeding can do.  Wild bananas are small and loaded with seeds.  Meanwhile, cultivated bananas are large and have tiny seeds (that actually are not viable because cultivated bananas are sterile).  Teosinte (the wild ancestor of corn) make small ears with only two rows of hard fruit cases that protect the seeds.  Corn makes large ears with eight to twelve rows of tender seeds (no hard fruit cases).  So, GE is basically streamlining breeding by allowing use scientists and plant breeders to perform highly selective and direct breeding using genes from the same species or other species.

[Biochica’s note to the spouse: it sounds like there’s the remote possibility that Estefania’s research might be able to make my pomegranate. Please be advised that we may have to move to Oregon in the near future to help conduct this research].

The Life and Times of BioChica as Told Through GMO Legislation Around the World

As you may know, I'm not American. The spouse and Mr Chubby-Cheeks were born in the US, whereas I was born in Canada. But that's not the whole story: my parents are Iranian who fled the Islamic revolution in 1979 due to their religion, I was born in Canada, raised in Venezuela (which is why I've written about dengue), and I actually met the spouse while working for a year in Israel. I don't know where we'll end up: probably wherever I get decent job offers. Until today, my blog has been very US-centric, but this post will have a more international angle.

This article is about different nations' laws and regulations surrounding GMOs. A common argument that you may read about the dangers of GMOs is how different countries around the world have banned them or have legislation around them. Here's an example from the Non-GMO Project's website:

"Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs."

You can see how this can lead to a conspiracy theory with the following narrative: GMOs aren't properly tested in the United States. In Europe, scientists have discovered that GMOs can be harmful and they've been banned. But in the US, the FDA is in bed with Monsanto, which is why we're eating these toxic poisons and we aren't being told the truth.

To quote Professor Higgins, it's "so deliciously low, so horribly dirty!" Hence the appeal of this particular conspiracy theory. 

In terms of "bans", there's actually only one country in the world that has an outright ban: Kenya. Recently, there have been calls to lift the ban due to farming losses. 

All other countries have laws and regulations surrounding biotech crops. That includes the United States. There's a reason why you can't just make a transgenic crop and have it sold in stores the following season. So, for the rest of this article, I'm going to look at laws surrounding GMOs in 4 different countries: Canada, Israel, Venezuela and Iran. 

It's the "The Life and Times of BioChica as told Through GMO Legislation Around the World". 

GMO Legislation in Venezuela, Iran, Israel, and Canada

Venezuela: Venezuela's story about GMOs is fascinating (in my biased opinion). To understand Venezuela's stance on GMOs, a bit of a background is needed: Hugo Chavez was elected as Venezuela's president in 1999 and remained in power till his death in 2013. He led a "socialist revolution" that took a very hard anti-American, "anti-imperialist" stance (whatever that means...). As such, much of the policies in the country reflect this attitude. In 2002, Chavez passed a "seed law" which included the establishment of an institute that would oversee the testing, development and research of transgenics. However, in 2004 Chavez made the sudden decision of cancelling a contract with Monsanto, which was about to plant 500,000 acres of GM corn. There was no legal ban, yet no one has planted transgenic crops in Venezuela ever since the incident, which was paired with Chavez's public statement: "the people of the United States, of Latin America and the world, should follow the example of Venezuela and be free of transgenics.”

However, Venezuela relies very heavily on imports and food shortages have become increasingly common the last decade and have hit an all-time high in the last 1-2 years. Two of Venezuela's biggest import partners are Argentina and Brazil, who also happen to be global leaders in the number of acres dedicated to transgenic crops. Despite the fact that Venezuela needs a dramatic increase in food production to meet the demands of its growing population, it plans to pass a law that will straight-out ban growing GMOs.

Here's where it gets interesting. This story comes from Dr Felix Moronta (@morontafelix) who generously gave me permission to translate the story from his website. A recent study published in a regional journal examined 12 Venezuelan corn growers in 2011: 10 were government owned and 2 were privately owned, and these represented 70% of the corn growers in the country. Using tests that searched for the transgenic protein as well as for transgenic DNA, the authors were able to determine that a government owned company was actually growing transgenic Bt-corn (for more info on Bt-corn and transgenic proteins, please see previous post). The authors were also able to determine that the crop being grown carried a patented trait (transgenic event TC1507). The journal article, as well it's summary by Dr Moronta, ask the government to 'fess up and to clarify their stance. As Dr Moronta eloquently outlines, the government is banning growing and doing research on GMOs, yet they import tons of GM grains and goods, AND they're growing them on the DL. Makes no sense...

I can only conclude that Venezuela's position has NOTHING to do with the safety of transgenics. If it was legitimately about safety, then there would be laws surrounding their import. In reading articles and news stories, the sense that I get is that Venezuela's ban on transgenics seems to be due to 1) sticking it to "imperialist" big-Ag. 2) striving for food sovereignty and 3) removing GM seeds from the equation so that small farmers can be successful in the socialist revolution. However, there's no evidence that the moratorium on growing GMOs has contributed to any of these goals given the devastating food shortages.

Iran: Unfortunately, I can only read Farsi up to a 1st or 2nd grade level at best, so most of this information came through translated material. Only one transgenic crop has been approved for cultivation in Iran: rice. It makes perfect sense: rice is eaten every day in an Iranian household. According to my dad, it's not real food unless it has rice. A form of Bt-rice was approved in 2004, but when President Ahmadinejad took office in 2005, his administration "decided against the release of GM crops". It's important to note that Iran was the first nation to commercialize transgenic rice and this article outlines how Iran had hoped to quickly follow this success with additional crops. There was no ban or legislation against GMOs. Apparently, the decision to drop the commercialization of GMOs was due to the lack of a "biosafety law in the country, and 2) lack of harmonization among different stakeholders (Ministry of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Organization etc.)". However, the Iranian government now feels that a decent biosafety law is now established, and the law's text states that the government should facilitate the release, research, commercialization, etc of GMOs.

Makes sense:  I don't think that international companies based out of the US would be allowed to trade with Iran due to the current sanctions that are in place, so Iran's probably trying to figure out a way to boost food production. Mmmmmmmm... Tahchin made with GM rice... Drool...

Israel: Before I start this section, I've got to tell you something about Israel. It's a desert. It's hot. It can be really dusty. But despite all this, the local fruits and veggies are spectacular (here's Wikipedia's article on agriculture in Israel). There are no GMOs commercialized in Israel, even though the country is a hotbed for research into GMOs. This comes as no surprise considering the interest that the nation has in drought-resistant crops. Apparently, this is due to the fact that a very large portion of Israel's agricultural exports head to the EU, where they are slow to approve transgenic crops for import and have labelling laws as well. As such, growing GMOs might have financial repercussions if the EU were to decide to be more wary of Israeli produce.

I couldn't find the actual text of any laws. If anyone out there knows where I could find them, please let me know.

Canada: This database lists a slew of GMOs that have been approved for cultivation in Canada. Health Canada's website has a great description of the regulatory process to gain approval for cultivation and/or sale of a new crop. When someone is interested in submitting a new crop, they're encouraged to consult with Health Canada beforehand to determine if there are any potential red flags. Then they submit the paperwork and undergo a scientific assessment. Health Canada can request additional information, will summarize it's findings, prepares a ruling, and then posts the information on the Health Canada website. It seems very similar to the process in the US under the FDA.


What struck me when I was doing research for this article, is how little the science of GMOs were mentioned. I didn't find any evidence to support the Non-GMO projects' statement that "most developed countries do not consider GMOs to be safe", albeit I only looked into 4 countries for this article. However, these 4 countries are extremely diverse in terms of economic status and development, as well as their relationship with the US. Despite these differences, I think that the common thread in this article seems to be the fact that laws for and against GMOs are economic or political in nature, and have little to do with safety. If it were genuinely about safety, then they'd ban the import of GMOs and join the ranks of Kenya.

Happy New Year y'all! Or, Feliz Año!