A huge gulf exists in farmer attitudes toward science. Growers clearly accept the scientific evidence that modified food is safe while rejecting the scientific evidence that climate change is real and caused by human activity. And this chasm is driven by simple economics. One finding makes farmers money, but the other doesn't -- yet.
Mainstream reporting lately gives a pass to the pesticide industry that pours millions into lobbying government and media elites and defeating voter ballot initiatives to require labeling of GMO foods.
After removing overstepping authority on recreational, relatively harmless psychoactive drugs, the "in" crowd immediately does an about-face and asks the state to regulate its food. You cannot, if you love freedom and trust the individual, have it both ways.
This decision doesn't just disappoint. It is truly frightening for it vividly demonstrates the powerful grip that a handful of major chemical/biotech companies hold over our regulatory process.
As a new resident, I don't have to right to claim these lands like someone who has loved them for years or was born here. In our short time here, however, this has truly become our "aina" and we have fallen in love with every part of it.
Life is busy, it is complicated. We are bombarded with all these mixed messages about our diet and what's healthy and what's not healthy. But just in case no one has ever told you before... it's okay to once in a while cook food that comes from a box.
The focus of protest has been on energy, and strategically this makes sense. But at some point, we're going to have to rethink the much more fundamental structures that have been with us long before we discovered fossil fuels or even harnessed the power of the wind and the water. We desperately need to rethink agriculture.
Corporate science is, above all else, secretive. The flimsy excuse of "trade secrets" is used to prevent independent or academic scientists from evaluating exaggerated corporate claims.
Setting the record straight, Dr. Ramon J. Seidler, Ph.D., former Senior Scientist, Environmental Protection Agency, has recently published a well-researched article documenting the devastating facts on GMOs, "Pesticide Use on Genetically Engineered Crops."
Not all GM foods are apples modified to be a brighter shade of red.
The east coast organic apples I have seen tended towards the same type of imperfections. I bought a container of the lumpy fruit. It was not as pretty as its commercial cousins but the farmer could legitimately claim no bees died while producing this fruit. And they were delicious.
I sat down with Jim Keyt, Senior Manager of Global Technology Strategy over at Ben and Jerry's to find out just how technology fuels the processes behind your favorite flavors.
To what extent we actually will use GMOs is an open question, but many who have studied the issue agree that GMOs can help produce enough food to feed 9 billion people on our existing agricultural footprint. And we know that GMOs offer answers to some of the problems raised by global climate change.
As I looked over the bios provided on NRC's webpage, I quickly realized that the Council appears to have a pretty poor idea of how to carry out such a challenging, complex and multifaceted study. In fact, this week 67 scientists and researchers publicly rebuked the NRC for failing, right at the outset, to put together a slate of experts equipped for the task.
The voices of GM proponents in academia and small-scale agriculture tend, more often than not, to be drowned out in the food fight between grassroots environmental organizations and Big Ag.
Matalin and Corn debate déjà vu news - Israel back in Gaza and ACA back in court. Consensus: there's not a media bias but a rough balance between pro-Israel talking heads and the flood of photos of dead civilians. Also: why not label GMOs in processed food?