The anti-GMO movement is gradually campaigning itself into irrelevance. Unfortunately, this positive trend has been slowed by public universities that pay activists exorbitant speaking fees to promote their questionable ideas. This is but one example of taxpayers subsidizing ideological advocacy with potentially serious consequences.
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.
Earlier this year, Sri Lanka banned imports of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, part of its effort to embrace organic-only farming. The project has left farmers without access to vital tools and sent food prices soaring.
The evidence is in: genetic engineering promotes sustainable farming, vaccines save lives, and nuclear energy is our best hope of powering society in a changing climate. But the question remains, how do you convince a generally skittish public to embrace the science behind these technologies? Our answer: make a movie.
It's no secret that the weed killer glyphosate shows up in our food. But how much of a health risk is this to consumers? A new review paper examining the evidence offers a reassuring conclusion.
Thanks to genetic engineering, it's now possible to make this frozen dessert without cows, at least indirectly. Naturally, the anti-GMO industry is up in arms. They're making all sorts of baseless arguments in an attempt to scare people away from this so-called "animal-free" ice cream.
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.
The Philippines has finally approved Golden Rice, a genetically engineered crop designed to combat vitamin A deficiency. Greenpeace, never content to let evidence guide its agenda, has trotted out some mealymouthed justifications to urge regulators to reverse the decision.
Scientists and farmers are taking to social media in increasing numbers to fight anti-GMO misinformation. The results so far have been promising.
In part one of this series, we looked at some of the hallmarks of sloppy pesticide reporting. We round out our analysis here with a breakdown of three more themes common to this species of junk journalism.
Cultivated meat refers to a “meat-like” product grown in a laboratory, not a cow or pig raised listening to Vivaldi. As the market for plant-based “meat-like” products rapidly expands, is there a place for food produced in the laboratory?
A detailed investigation has exposed troubling connections between Scientology-affiliated lawyers and anti-GMO, anti-vaccine groups. For years, these forces have colluded to attack safe medicines and pesticides, while slandering scientists and organizations that challenge activist rhetoric as "Monsanto shills."