Life Sciences

UMR, ITIF Outline Strategies to Make NIH Funding More Predictable

GenomeWeb
Science funded by NIH reduces government spending on health care, increases future productivity, and saves lives by delivering cures for some of society’s deadliest diseases.

Agricultural Biotechnology: A Reality Check

February 26, 2015
| Presentations

Val Giddings participated in the University of Maryland extension’s 2015 Agronomy Update, highlighting the current controversies and ongoing policy debates surrounding GM foods. 

A Policymaker's Guide to the GMO Controversies

February 23, 2015
| Reports

 

Crops and foods improved through biotechnology, popularly known as “GMOs” (for “genetically modified organisms”) remain at the center of a maelstrom of conflicting claims and assertions. This is evident throughout all media, but especially on the Internet. It is difficult for a layperson to make sense of it all, and this becomes even more important when the layperson is a government official in a position to make or influence policy decisions. Because bad information makes for bad policy choices we have prepared this report to provide some factual information, with abundant citations from independent third party authorities.
It always helps to consult the data, so we do that in order to examine several key questions that have been repeatedly visible in media of late. These include the economic benefits of GMOs, the U.S. rate of adoption of GMOs, the level of success of the labeling movement, the role of GMOs in affecting weeds and human health, and the sustainability of GMO-based agriculture. In all six cases we find overwhelming evidence for the economic, agricultural, environmental, and health benefits of GMOs.
Anyone who follows the news could be forgiven for believing that there is a genuine debate over the merits and safety of crops and foods derived through modern biotechnology. There is not. Scientists and farmers are virtually unanimous on the safety and desirability/effectiveness of crops improved through biotechnology. There is, however, definitely a controversy, one largely manufactured by a small handful of committed, anti-innovation advocacy groups using tried-and-true propaganda techniques to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about this important technology, aided by media coverage that is too often uninformed about science and agriculture. As with any campaign wanting to hold back technological innovation, the anti-GMO campaign is based both on ideology and vested interests. The ideological protestors simply reject modern technology in foods and want the world to return to a pre-industrial, pastoral system where farmers plowed with horses and reaped with scythes. In recent years, these professional protest industry’s opposition campaigns have been heavily aided by interests: in this case the organic food industry, a segment of which has openly adopted a strategy of spreading unjustified fears and disparagement of their competition. For if extremist elements of the organic industry can (despite all evidence) persuade consumers that GMO foods are harmful, the price of foods will not fall as much, providing less competition for high-priced organics. It is, therefore, worthwhile to dig a little deeper into some of the key issues of the controversy that have been featured prominently over the last year or so.

 

Crops and foods improved through biotechnology, popularly known as “GMOs” (for “genetically modified organisms”) remain at the center of a maelstrom of conflicting claims and assertions. This is evident throughout all media, but especially on the Internet. It is difficult for a layperson to make sense of it all, and this becomes even more important when the layperson is a government official in a position to make or influence policy decisions. Because bad information makes for bad policy choices we have prepared this report to provide some factual information, with abundant citations from independent third party authorities.

It always helps to consult the data, so we do that in order to examine several key questions that have been repeatedly visible in media of late. These include the economic benefits of GMOs, the U.S. rate of adoption of GMOs, the level of success of the labeling movement, the role of GMOs in affecting weeds and human health, and the sustainability of GMO-based agriculture. In all six cases we find overwhelming evidence for the economic, agricultural, environmental, and health benefits of GMOs.

Anyone who follows the news could be forgiven for believing that there is a genuine debate over the merits and safety of crops and foods derived through modern biotechnology. There is not. Scientists and farmers are virtually unanimous on the safety and desirability/effectiveness of crops improved through biotechnology. There is, however, definitely a controversy, one largely manufactured by a small handful of committed, anti-innovation advocacy groups using tried-and-true propaganda techniques to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about this important technology, aided by media coverage that is too often uninformed about science and agriculture. As with any campaign wanting to hold back technological innovation, the anti-GMO campaign is based both on ideology and vested interests. The ideological protestors simply reject modern technology in foods and want the world to return to a pre-industrial, pastoral system where farmers plowed with horses and reaped with scythes. In recent years, these professional protest industry’s opposition campaigns have been heavily aided by interests: in this case the organic food industry, a segment of which has openly adopted a strategy of spreading unjustified fears and disparagement of their competition. For if extremist elements of the organic industry can (despite all evidence) persuade consumers that GMO foods are harmful, the price of foods will not fall as much, providing less competition for high-priced organics. It is, therefore, worthwhile to dig a little deeper into some of the key issues of the controversy that have been featured prominently over the last year or so.

IPRs and Access to Medicines: New Evidence

January 7, 2015
| Blogs & Op-eds

Those in the global health community often allege that prices of new innovative drugs under patent make them unaffordable to most people in developing countries because of the absence of generic competition. A new report, however, finds good news about the relationship between IPRs and access to innovative medicines.

Should Foods Be Labeled as GMO?

November 26, 2014
Val Giddings appeared on "Make the Case" debating whether foods improved through biotechnology should be labeled.

Val Giddings appeared on the Meet the Press segment "Make the Case" debating whether foods improved through biotechnology should be labeled. Giddings argued that the FDA already requires labels based on the health and nutrition of a food and that additional GMO labels would be redundant and misleading to consumers. 

Technology Solutions for our Future

November 18, 2014
| Presentations

Val Giddings spoke on a panel at the North Carolina Agriculture & Biotechnology Summit, discussing technological innovations being developed to meet the challenges in the production of food, feed and fiber for the 21st Century and a planet that will be home to 9 billion people.

Genetically modified crops will play an increasingly indispensable role in feeding the world’s growing population.

Most genetically modified crops in commercial production today have been improved either to resist insect pests without pesticide sprays, or to tolerate herbicides for superior weed control. European researchers recently reviewed the scientific literature on the impacts of biotech improved crops and found that weed control traits led to a 9 percent increase in yield over competing methods, and that insect resistant crops yielded a 25 percent increase. Read more »

Brave New Potato

November 17, 2014
| Blogs & Op-eds

On Friday, 7 November, the US Department of Agriculture cleared the path to commercialization for a “genetically modified” potato developed by J.R. Simplott.
This is big. This is very big.
It’s big for a host of reasons, but at the top of the list is one: French fries. The United States alone produces some 20 million pounds of potatoes each year, two thirds of which wind up in frozen products. Most of those are French fries. The American consumer eats 120lb of potatoes per year, on average. Global potato production is ~73 billion pounds/year (365 million tons). That’s a lot of spuds
- See more at: http://www.innovationfiles.org/brave-new-potato/#sthash.A8tfPmNM.dpuf

On November 7, the US Department of Agriculture cleared the path to commercialization for a “genetically modified” potato that will be more resistant to disease and insects than current varieties. This is big for a host of reasons, but at the top of the list is one: French fries. The United States alone produces some 20 million pounds of potatoes each year, two thirds of which wind up in frozen products. Most of those are French fries. The American consumer eats 120lb of potatoes per year, on average while global potato production is about 73 billion pounds/year.  This new variation will reduce pesticide use and crops lost to blight increasing efficiency, reducing environmental impact and producing better yields overall.

Demons Haunt Los Angeles

November 7, 2014
| Blogs & Op-eds

Los Angeles City Council voted in late October to draft an ordinance that would prohibit the sale or planting of genetically modified (GM) seeds and plants.  While the practical impact of this ignorant posturing would be nil, no GM crops are even grown in Los Angeles County, the symbolic impact of the political leaders of Los Angeles slamming the door on the technology that offers some of the best (if not the only) hope of producing improved drought tolerant crops, or rescuing California’s wine and citrus industries from exotic pests and diseases, is alarming to say the least.

Read the extended version here.

Colorado Voters Choose Food Affordability and Access