regulation

A recent study examined the nutritional composition of meat and milk derived from gene-edited cattle bred to be hornless. The two-year-long project provided further evidence vindicating the safe use of biotechnology in food production.
Disease-resistant grapes are among the many genetically engineered plants that have yet to be commercialized. They would help the wine industry cut its pesticide use and expand production, lowering costs for both winemakers and consumers. Why haven't these GE grapes been approved?
A new report documents the hefty price countries pay for banning genetically engineered crops. The results aren't pretty, but they clearly illustrate the benefits of embracing biotechnology.
Some scientists say we need tighter gene-editing regulations to mitigate the serious risks associated with the technology. There are some critical flaws in their argument.
As new breeding techniques create new ethical debates over food, we think the ethical toolbox needs updating. Talking about crossing species lines simply isn’t enough. If Darwin had known about gene editing, we think he would have agreed.
Mergers may be a great business decision, but they may not be great for society. If the European Union is not distracted by politics and anti-GMO activists – and if it's able to focus solely on the economic pros and cons of a merger – it is engaging in appropriate regulatory oversight. (But that's a big "if.")
An increasing regulatory burden has a disproportionate impact on the small farmer. Larger farms can absorb the high cost of increased compliance, and can afford to hire lawyers and compliance personnel to navigate regulations. As a result, farms and agricultural businesses are forced to get big, or shut down.
An op-ed in the Wall St. Journal by ex-FDA second-in-command, Scott Gottlieb, accuses the regulators of chilling the development of innovative smartphone apps by its precautionary dicta. Could this be true?
NYC Council sends e-cigarettes and vapers who switched from deadly smoking out into the cold with real cigarette smokers. A brilliant coup, by a thoroughly political and ignorant group of lawmakers. It s now an embarrassment to be a New Yorker.
Following-up on their op-ed in the NYTimes last week, Drs. Amy Fairchild and colleagues published a Perspective in the New England Journal of Medicine, calling for a valid, science-based approach to e-cigarettes, and noting the vast potential benefits from these devices.
If you thought the debates about the role of e-cigarettes in dealing with the most important public health problem we face smoking was hot before, you ain t seen nothin yet. There were a flurry of new commentaries this weekend, based on sound science and commonsense.
Safe and effective in helping smokers quit, concerns about e-cigarettes provoke efforts to suppress their use in public by New York City. Can the City leaders not tell the difference between a cigarette, and an e-cigarette? It s not that hard.