The alternative health advocates at Natural News recommend you spend an additional $83,000 on organic food to avoid cancer and the cost of expensive treatments for the disease. You should save your money because eating conventional food, even if it's genetically modified, won't up your cancer risk.
The war against the "infodemic" ... why are we drawn to conspiracy ... what if we could save ourselves from climate change -- but had to use GMOs ... doodles from a lockdown ... and in the seasonal spirit, the economy that is Christmas Trees.
Opposition to the use of biotechnology to enhance agriculture was always based on junk science. But now these anti-GMO activists look downright silly as cutting-edge biomedical science rescues us from COVID.
Are the small levels of pesticides, herbicides and genetic modifications in our food -- whether human-made or natural -- harmful? Let's put the virus aside for a moment and see what we find.
The internet is brimming with nutritional nonsense. A new book teaches us how to spot the myths.
For centuries farmers have tried to bend their crops -- nature’s bounty -- to their will to create bigger, more plentiful, perhaps ever-tastier foods. In the past, this genetic editing, known as hybridization, has been luck of the draw. But new genetic technologies have changed that random-luck equation. A new study looks at how your scientific literacy impacts the perception of these changes, and whether knowing more reduces fear.
Four sips from the firehose that is Internet content: Spicy and bitter are ways plants tried to dissuade you from eating them; CRISPR, in service of animal welfare, hits a snag; a podcast contrasts Nathan's Hot-Dog Eating Contest to chemotherapy, and good news science is alive and beautifully well.
Thanks to a backlash by scientists and journalists, it is no longer acceptable in polite society to be an anti-vaxxer. Not so for anti-GMOers. So we've curated a list of the best anti-anti-GMO memes on the web.
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.