Life Sciences

GMOs, Neonicotinoids, and Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic: The Fish & Wildlife Service Brings a “Whole Foods” Approach to Wildlife While Shooting Itself in Our Foot

October 21, 2014
| Blogs & Op-eds

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service quietly announced last summer they would ban the use of the most modern, safest, and most productive new pesticides and improved seeds in national wildlife refuges. This forces them to rely on agricultural techniques with more negative environmental impacts and undermines their conservation mission.  Why did they do this? They bought into special interest propaganda and failed to test their prejudices against data and experience. The wildlife they sacrifice on the alter of political correctness will not thank them. 

GMO Labeling is Unwarranted and Unnecessary

October 9, 2014
| Testimony and Filings

Val Giddings testified before the New Jersey Assembly’s State and Local Affairs Committee arguing that a proposed bill mandating labels for genetically modified foods is unnecessary and based on ideology and commercial interests not on safety or better informing consumers. GMO foods receive unprecedented testing and review from multiple government, non-governmental and international organizations making state labeling initiatives redundant and costly without providing any additional benefits to consumers.

Testimony in Opposition to Pennsylvania’s Mandatory GMO Labeling Bill

October 8, 2014
| Testimony and Filings

Giddings testified before the Pennsylvania House of Representatives’ Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee in opposition to HB 1770, a bill which would mandate warning labels on foods derived from crops improved through biotechnology. Giddings argued GMO labeling is redundant and unnecessary due to the the global consensus on the safety of biotech improved seeds and the comprehensive reviews and oversight of GMO crops and foods that are already being undertaken by multiple federal agencies. He also noted that labeling legislation is driven by fear, ideology and commercial interests not on a concern for consumers or safety.

U.S. government funding laid the foundation for the development of 48 percent of all drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration and 65 percent of drugs that received priority review between 1988 and 2005.

Federal funding for biomedical research, much of it channeled through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), plays a vital role in supporting America’s life sciences innovation ecosystem. NIH devotes the vast majority of its budget to funding grants for basic biomedical research into the causes and treatment of human disease. The results of this research feed directly into the development of new drugs and devices to cure medical conditions. Read more »

Points to Consider: Republication of Discredited and Retracted Paper on Rats, GMOs, and Cancer

June 25, 2014
| Blogs & Op-eds

A dubious paper making unsupportable claims of dangers from GM corn and the herbicide Roundup, retracted by the original publisher, has been republished by the authors. Scientists continue to reject it for numerous flaws in the study design and experimentation.

The Truth about GMOs, Labeling and Food

June 19, 2014
| Blogs & Op-eds

Crops and foods improved through biotechnology have helped to improve farmers’ lives and livelihoods, reduce hunger, lower the cost of food production and increase food access across the globe. Efforts to reduce access to GMOS are based on ideology and self-interest, not on an objective review of the science.

About Censorship

May 20, 2014
| Blogs & Op-eds

Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, pushes indefensible policies and health quackpottery. Straight shooting science journalist Jon Entine shines some light into dark places, and Adams goes ugly. So why, again, should anybody take his policy prescriptions seriously? Time to bring back ostracism? 

Consumers Union Makes False Claims Against the Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Based On Ideology Not Science

May 14, 2014
| Blogs & Op-eds

Consumers Union supports proposed state legislation to mandate labels stigmatizing foods derived from crops improved through biotechnology. They advance a number of arguments to support the proposals, each of which is contradicted by facts, data and experience.  We take a closer look.

Vermont’s GMO Labeling Law: What it Really Means for Consumers

May 12, 2014
| Blogs & Op-eds