Has the New York Times, which has been squarely in the 'No GMO' column for many years, moved into this century? Drs. Kathleen Hefferon and Henry Miller argue yes, but not nearly enough so to make up for past misrepresentations about genetic modification.
Despite the common notion among Americans that Europe is a progressive, technologically advanced utopia, the reality is that the continent -- when it comes to matters of science -- is rather backward. Now, a very harsh report in the most recent issue of Trends in Biotechnology underscores the infuriating extent of the problem.
Organic food purveyors point out that organic already is non-GMO, while a non-GMO food is not necessarily organic. For the rest of us, it s basically a tempest in a teapot, except the teapot is the source of a huge amount of dough.
Jon Entine, the founder of Genetic Literacy Project and a Senior Fellow at UC-Davis is perhaps the most prolific writer on GM technology. Entine addressed the National Press Club in Australia. You should listen to what he has to say.
We have to give a shout-out to Levi Gadye over at io9.com for his informative article You Can Thank Genetic Engineering For Your Delicious Cheese. Unbeknown to most, GMOs are used to make about 80 to 90 percent of cheese
Talk about a big job. Writing for the Canadian Press, Jack Dini s new piece, Chemicals Don t Trouble Oneself With the Facts, goes way past the title.
Former executive director of Greenpeace UK: Morally unacceptable to campaign against GM technology. Bravo.
Yet another prominent anti-GMO advocate has come forward to publicly announce that he has reassessed his opinion on GMOs. Earlier this year, the co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore, did likewise, calling the campaign against genetic science baseless. Following shortly thereafter was Mark Lynas, who penned a New York Times op-ed titled How I Got Converted to GMO food this past
Dr. Patrick Moore, who co-founded Greenpeace in 1970, parted ways with the organization in 1986 due to philosophical differences. These differences could not be more clear, certainly with regard to GMOs, and especially Golden Rice. (It should be noted that Greenpeace is perhaps the most formidable opponent of Golden Rice.)
It is fairly standard practice for companies to try to give their customers what they want, even if it makes no sense. Perhaps the most notable recent example was Johnson and Johnson,
One of our primary missions at ACSH is to inform people about risk, in particular, about theoretical or minuscule risks vs. real ones.
The November ballot in Maui County, Hawaii will include an initiative that would ban growing genetically modified crops in the area. Members of the group that helped to get this initiative on the ballot say they feel that there s a real threat to the health of the Earth and that they do not want to be an experimental lab. However, since GMO technology began in the mid-1990s, there have been over 2,000 studies providing evidence that biotechnology does not pose a health threat and that GM foods are safe or even safer than organic foods.
Two recent stories may have rendered the old saw, one step forward, two steps backwards obsolete. And not by a little. In fact, it would not be incorrect to adjust the numbers a bit. Such as: one step forward, two-and-a-half billion steps back, because this is the combined population of China and India two of the places where significantly more food will be required to feed their rapidly-growing countries. Together, they comprise 36 percent of the earth s population.