May 2nd, 2013
Read attempts to defend the sustainability of industrial agriculture and genetic engineering, and you will soon encounter no-till, or more generally, conservation tillage. Now it appears that no-till may be contributing to some serious environmental problems. Read More
March 25th, 2013
A short addition to the legislation passed last week to continue the funding of the U.S. government contained a gift for the biotech industry that could hurt the very farmers that the transnational seed companies love to cozy up to. It could also hurt the environment. Read More
February 14th, 2013
It’s Valentine’s Day, and love is in the air. The President loves the First Lady’s bangs. Grammy-winner Kelly Clarkson loves fellow winner Miguel (now that she knows who he is). Babies (apparently) love Beyoncé.
And the Monsanto Company, the world’s largest seed and agrichemical seller, is making sure we all know how much they love American farmers.
January 11th, 2013
UPDATE: I have appended at the bottom of this post an update addressing Mark Lynas’ response to this post on his own website.
I suppose it is hard for journalists to resist a good story: Mark Lynas, former green activist, has seen the light. The pronouncements of converted GM critic Lynas have garnered coverage from several respected media sources, despite often being misleading, wrong, or questionable scientifically. Read More
December 18th, 2012
The new report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) addresses the state of U.S. agriculture research. The report notes that public funding for agricultural research has stagnated, while industry sources have increased greatly to 61 percent of the total—three times the amount from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Read More
December 3rd, 2012
A new paper in Nature magazine summarizes a project to delineate the DNA code of bread wheat. The results add to the growing number of crops and other plants whose genomes have been decoded, which facilitates genetic comparisons for evolutionary studies, crop improvement through breeding, and other biological work. Read More
November 20th, 2012
In my last post, I gave a general reason why the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Board was misleading in writing that a review by Snell and colleagues showed that genetically engineered (GE) foods are equivalent to non-GE counterparts.
Here, I want to discuss why the study does not lead to the conclusion that 90-day tests are generally sufficient to determine the safety of GE foods, and more reasons why the study says little about the long-term safety of engineered foods. Read More
November 2nd, 2012
As a long-time member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and as a scientist, I was disappointed at the inaccurate information in the statement by the Board against labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods. Read More
October 15th, 2012
As several recent articles, such as by Daniel Imhoff and Michael Dimrock, have clearly articulated, the most compelling reason to support labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods is simply the right to know and control what we put into our bodies. We should not have to provide reasons or justifications to food companies, politicians, or scientists for our personal choices. Read More
© 2013
