Modern advances in food science, both in how we produce and deliver food, have become key battlegrounds in the science versus fear-mongering debate.
An open letter from Brazilian civil society was delivered, a supporting letter came from international groups. All in all, more than 100,000 protest letters made the resistance and opposition to GE trees loud and clear. But Brazil did not heed.
In January 2001, I went to California's Monterey coast for the Asilomar ecological conference. About 300 people met in Watsonville to take a bus tour through farms in the prosperous Pajaro Valley near Watsonville.
The unfortunate reality is that most downstream organic processors and brands are now owned by largely non-organic companies who are not paying anything to promote organics. This check-off program leverages funds that would not otherwise be doing anything remotely good for organics.
One might wonder what would motivate someone to embark on a campaign of hostility toward innovations in food and agriculture that have already delivered enormous benefits around the world, particularly to small farmers in developing countries?
Perhaps no group of science deniers has been more ridiculed than those who deny the science of evolution. What you may not know is that Monsanto and our United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are among them.
It's going to be a big global challenge to feed our growing population without destroying the environment, but modern biotechnology can play an important role in meeting our future food demands in a sustainable manner. Biotech can increase crop yields, help develop new crops, and adapt existing crops to be cultivated on marginal lands with reduced fresh-water inputs.
It's past time that mainstream media cut through the flak of GMO pesticide industry propaganda, and connect the dots that GMOs = pesticide companies engineering food crops to sell more volume of more kinds of more toxic weed killer.
The first step to solving problems is to identify and understand them. With that in mind, here is a list of five reasons why some liberals are just as bad, or at least almost, as creationism-believing conservatives when it comes to spreading pseudoscience.
The overwhelming scientific consensus exceeds the percentage of scientists, 88%, who think humans are mostly responsible for climate change. However, the public appears far more suspicious of scientific claims about GMO safety than they do about the consensus on global warming.
It's a tradition of mine to write a note of gratitude to Big Ag for the many "gifts" they've bestowed upon us all over the past 12 months. Gifts that...
Both cannabis policy reform and the movement to label genetically engineered foods in the United States made huge strides in 2014. Major battles were won, some narrowly lost, but ultimately victory is inevitable.
So here's what happens when Americans don't spend enough time or money testing the safety of our food: Russians say they will do it for us.
Here is a powerful, non-denominational prayer to be recited while opening emails, logging on to online portals, or dealing with with envelopes announc...
The largest meta-analysis to date comparing yields of organic and conventional agriculture concluded that the "yield gap" between the two is much smaller than previously claimed and for some crops, doesn't exist at all.
The soil clearly must be protected, and to do that, we need to understand it. But we're making great strides now, and they're going to make agriculture more productive and sustainable -- better for us and the earth.