Borlaug was a brilliant scientist and plant breeder, but the other secrets of his success were his perseverance and persuasiveness.
Twenty years ago, Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug wrote about agricultural biotechnology – its promise, importance, over-regulation, and the mindless opposition to it from activists. His words ring true today.
Flawed regulatory policies and decisions have inflicted tremendous damage on the biotech industry and on American consumers.
More than 100,000 Americans are waiting for organ transplants, and due to a shortage of hearts, lungs, livers, and kidneys, at least 17 die each day.  There are high-tech and policy interventions that could alleviate the shortages, and we need them now.
The Biden Administration's attempt to boost the "bioeconomy" is burdened with bureaucratic requirements and busy-work initiatives and projects. It will fail.
The EPA's intransigent regulation of genetically engineered bacteria that could mitigate frost damage to crops prevented their commercialization. Especially when inflation is boosting food prices, the last thing we need is the continuation of an irresponsible, unscientific government policy that lowers crop yields, increases prices to consumers, and threatens farmers’ profits.
The Non-GMO Project claims that drought-tolerant crops won't help "feed the world" as climate change threatens crop yields. The evidence says otherwise.
Some social justice activists have alleged that Western companies use biotechnology to "colonize" the developing world. There isn't a bit of evidence in support of this popular but very dangerous accusation.
Starting next month, many grocery store products will have to carry the USDA's bioengineered ("GMO" in the vernacular) food labels. Here's what you should know about this pointless, costly regulation.
Japanese consumers now have access to a genetically engineered -- specifically, a CRISPR-edited -- tomato that can help prevent high blood pressure. Hopefully, it's one of many gene-edited products we'll begin to see in grocery stores around the world.
Could governments mandate that we quit reproducing sexually for the sake of public health? It sounds outlandish, but there are prominent thinkers making that case. Their argument is superficially plausible but ultimately absurd, both for scientific and ethical reasons.
Three well-known anti-GMO groups have attacked the New York Times for publishing a generally excellent story about crop biotechnology. Natural News, for example, called the article "pure propaganda masquerading as journalism." Unsurprisingly, Natural News is wrong.