GMO

The Trump Administration recently issued two executive orders relating to biomedical science. The first involved the regulation of biotechnology products; the second involved transparency in healthcare costs. We believe both are a step in the right direction.
One wonders how the anti-GMO movement could oppose something like this. But given its hostility to Golden Rice, which has been genetically modified to contain a vitamin A precursor to prevent blindness, it usually finds a way.
The New York Times has done something that it very rarely does: It wrote an editorial in support of biotechnology. Unfortunately, the newspaper has a long history of spreading misinformation about GMOs and chemicals, which seriously undermines the important message in its pro-vaccine editorial.
How can you identify a scientifically ignorant person? Ask him if he's concerned about the health effects of GMOs. If the answer is yes, you've identified somebody who probably couldn't pass an 8th grade science test. Too harsh? Not according to the latest Pew poll. 
The famous vodka company cashes in on the anti-science movement, announcing that it was renouncing GMO corn in its famous "No. 21 vodka." What's wrong with GMO corn? Nothing. In fact, it's a net positive for the environment.
Though widely touted, there's no such thing as "free speech" in academia. Instead, there are two sets of standards: One for a largely far-left-wing, postmodernist type who reject science and basic decency; and a second for everybody else.
Given the thoroughly unscientific and litigious milieu in which we live, companies find themselves scrambling to appease the uneducated Twitter mob and apologizing for being in business. That's why it's such a breath of fresh air when a company stands up to the hysteria and gives a full-throated endorsement of science.
Question: Does the deletion a gene make an organism genetically modified? Answer: Not if the organism is a plant – only if it's an animal. The contradictions of that definition are now a subject of congressional concern.
CRISPR-Cas9, unlike other methods, can create food products so close to the original that they are not considered genetically-modified organisms. That's because it's not how the process of change is of regulatory concern, but instead, it's the final result. Biosimilar is not genetically modified. 
Reputations are funny – they take years to build but seconds to destroy. Cargill, a company that provides all manner of agricultural products and services, ruined its reputation with farmers and science writers by announcing a partnership with the thoroughly wretched Non-GMO Project, an anti-biotech organization.
We were recently contacted by a concerned group of pro-science scholars who wants to counter the unscientific arguments made by anti-GMO activist Vandana Shiva. We made this handy flyer for them. Then, we realized that this could be useful for anybody who needs to confront the anti-GMOers in their lives. So, here it is. Feel free to print and distribute as widely as possible! 
When ACSH's Alex Berezow was the editor of RealClearScience, he frequently linked to Pacific Standard's content. However, in recent months, he says the magazine as a whole has now become nearly unreadable. As its political cheerleading becomes more and more blatant, its standards for science journalism have fallen -- and that's no coincidence.