genetically engineered food

On Thursday, the US House of Representatives passed the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 a bill that would ban states from requiring labels for all genetically modified foods. The bill passed by a vote of 275 to 150.
The latest in health news: long-lasting GM apples win the fight, while GMO labeling adds confusion for consumers, and added vitamins to foods does not make you eat a poor diet, despite what a NYTimes op-ed says.
Shareholders of food company behemoth General Mills soundly rejected a move to eliminate genetically engineered (GMO) ingredients from the company s product line.
In a hard-hitting essay, Paul Driessen accuses Greenpeace and its Big Green accomplices of being threats to the health and economic well-
Friday's Medical Wrap includes GM labeling - is a federal law necessary? and what to do about Junk Science.
Dr. Matthew V. DiLeo and colleagues from Cornell University analyzed the biochemical footprints of a variety of tomatoes, some of which had been genetically engineered to ripen more slowly than usual, and compared those to the footprints of conventional varieties (both modern and heirloom types).
Ever since the first genetically-engineered (GMO) crop was introduced in 1996, nay-sayers and fear-mongers have busied themselves trying to convince the public that foods produced by such means are, if not deadly, at least bound to have negative health effects. Even though no science supports their position, these folks have forged ahead, and unfortunately have made some headway.
In an invited essay in Scientific American this week, Dr. Nina Fedoroff explains why genetically engineered crops and foods benefit both people and the environment.
ACSH's new series where experts debunk the junkiest health and science studies making news. This segment features Dr. Gilbert Ross and Dr. Josh Bloom talking about GMOs and artificially-sweetened beverages