GMO

We were pro-GMO before the term "GMO" was even invented. That's because the acronym "GMO" is not used by scientists, but is instead a colloquialism employed by the media, activists, and the general public.

Pick just about any newspaper or journal and during the course of a year, one or more articles will be devoted to the benefits (or not) of organic foods and the downsides (or not) of conventionally grown food with pesticides and herbicides.

The internet can be a confusing place. A five-minute Google search for nutrition advice is perhaps the best illustration of this fact. Allow me to demonstrate with a classic example. Do GMO crops cause cancer?

Gene editing, using a CRISPR approach to alter single-nucleotide pairs and genetic modification, where entire genetic alterations are incorporated into a plant’s DNA through the use of bacterial “messengers,” have allowed farmers and scientists to

“… the hot flavors in spices, the mouth-puckering tannins in wines, or the stink of Brussels sprouts. They are the antibacterials, antifungals, and grazing deterrents of the plant world.

The Trump Administration issued two executive orders relating to biomedical science in recent days. The first involved the regulation of biotechnology products, and the second involved transparency in healthcare costs.

In poor parts of the world, people may rely on a single staple crop to meet a substantial proportion of their energy requirements. For example, those who live in southeast Asia rely heavily on rice.

The New York Times has done something that it very rarely does: It wrote an editorial in support of biotechnology.

How can you identify a scientifically ignorant person? Ask him if he's concerned about the health effects of GMOs. If the answer is yes, you've identified somebody who probably couldn't pass an 8th grade science test.

Count vodka maker Smirnoff among the latest companies to jump aboard the anti-science bandwagon.