https://geneticliteracyproject.org Science Not Ideology Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:05:31 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.5

Genes and Science and our world-renowned experts as we explore the brave new world of human genetics, biomedicine, farming and food.]]>

Cameron English clean episodic Cameron English cenglish211@gmail.com cenglish211@gmail.com (Cameron English) Exploring the biotech revolution. TV-G https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/08/19/podcast-covid-conspiracies-cuba-embraces-gmos-biotech-vs-natures-mindless-dangers/ Wed, 19 Aug 2020 04:01:38 +0000 https://geneticliteracyproject.org/?p=2332626 https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/08/19/podcast-covid-conspiracies-cuba-embraces-gmos-biotech-vs-natures-mindless-dangers/#disqus_thread https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/08/19/podcast-covid-conspiracies-cuba-embraces-gmos-biotech-vs-natures-mindless-dangers/feed/ 0 A fearful public accepts conspiracy theories because they offer a sense of control in an uncontrollable situation, says a young physician working to educate his patients about COVID-19. Cuba has opened its borders to GM crops after decades of communist rule forbade the use of such 'capitalistic' technologies. And genetically engineered mosquitoes illustrate why we have to let scientists combat nature's 'mindless dangers.' Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP editor Cameron English on this episode of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories: COVID-19 conspiracy theories give people the feeling of being in control As the COVID-19 pandemic proceeds, many American are embracing coronavirus conspiracy theories to make sense of a chaotic situation over which they have no control. The problem is compounded by the fact that people with conspiratorial leanings already distrust government and believe politicians are weaponizing the virus for ideological reasons. Communicating sound science to a skeptical public under these conditions is a trying task, but newly minted physician Yoo Jung Kim says its doable if people's concerns are validated and their values respected. Fidel Castro. Credit: Warren K. Leffler Viewpoint: Cuba needs GMOs to help combat poverty fueled by decades of communism Under Fidel Castro's iron rule Cuba expressly outlawed genetically engineered seeds, a technology the deceased dictator viewed as the product of America's corrupt capitalist system. But times have changed on the tiny island nation. Facing food shortages exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic, Cuba's leadership in July established a commission to encourage farmers, who have long been unable to grow enough food for the country, to embrace biotechnology. The story painfully illustrates what happens when "a nation [scrambles] to make up for the shortcomings of a command-and-control economic system," says New Jersey farmer John Rigolizzo, Jr. Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotech and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter. Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Name *Email *MessageSIGN UP Viewpoint: GMO mosquitoes illustrate how and why science should confront ‘nature’s mindless dangers’ Blood-sucking mosquitoes that vector deadly pathogens like Zika, West Nile, dengue and malaria may be the most dangerous animals that have ever existed. In 2018, for example, malaria alone killed more than 400,000 people. Scientists have genetically engineered mosquitoes that can breed with their disease-spreading relatives and crash their populations, preventing all sorts of human suffering as a result. Yet biotech skeptics vehemently oppose the release of GM mosquitoes on the grounds that they're unnatural. While the engineered bugs are indeed laboratory creations, "the back-to-nature crowd tends to forget that 'nature' isn’t some benevolent caretaker that keeps our best interests at heart," writes St. Louis Post Dispatch contributor Kevin McDermott. Nature, though the source of much beauty, is also the creator of many "mindless dangers" that can and should be confronted by the latest scientific advances. Subscribe to the Science Facts and Fallacies Podcast on iTunes and Spotify. Kevin M. Folta is a professor in the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida. Follow Professor Folta on Twitter @kevinfolta Cameron J. English is the GLP’s managing editor. BIO. Follow him on Twitter @camjenglish A fearful public accepts conspiracy theories because they offer a sense of control in an uncontrollable situation, says a young physician working to educate his patients about COVID-19. Cuba has opened its borders to GM crops after decades of communist...

Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP editor Cameron English on this episode of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* COVID-19 conspiracy theories give people the feeling of being in control

As the COVID-19 pandemic proceeds, many American are embracing coronavirus conspiracy theories to make sense of a chaotic situation over which they have no control. The problem is compounded by the fact that people with conspiratorial leanings already distrust government and believe politicians are weaponizing the virus for ideological reasons. Communicating sound science to a skeptical public under these conditions is a trying task, but newly minted physician Yoo Jung Kim says its doable if people's concerns are validated and their values respected.

Fidel Castro. Credit: Warren K. Leffler

* Viewpoint: Cuba needs GMOs to help combat poverty fueled by decades of communism

Under Fidel Castro's iron rule Cuba expressly outlawed genetically engineered seeds, a technology the deceased dictator viewed as the product of America's corrupt capitalist system. But times have changed on the tiny island nation. Facing food shortages exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic, Cuba's leadership in July established a commission to encourage farmers, who have long been unable to grow enough food for the country, to embrace biotechnology. The story painfully illustrates what happens when "a nation [scrambles] to make up for the shortcomings of a command-and-control economic system," says New Jersey farmer John Rigolizzo, Jr.












Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotech and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter.




Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Name *Email *EmailSIGN UP













* Viewpoint: GMO mosquitoes illustrate how and why science should confront ‘nature’s mindless dangers’

Blood-sucking mosquitoes that vector deadly pathogens like Zika, West Nile, dengue and malaria may be the most dangerous animals that have ever existed. In 2018, for example, malaria alone killed more than 400,000 people. Scientists have genetically engineered mosquitoes that can breed with their disease-spreading relatives and crash their populations, preventing all sorts of human suffering as a result. Yet biotech skeptics vehemently oppose the release of GM mosquitoes on the grounds that t...]]>

Cameron English 24:48 https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/08/13/podcast-arguing-with-anti-vaxx-activists-works-ban-gmo-labels-agroecology-keeps-africa-poor/ Thu, 13 Aug 2020 04:01:50 +0000 https://geneticliteracyproject.org/?p=2331467 https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/08/13/podcast-arguing-with-anti-vaxx-activists-works-ban-gmo-labels-agroecology-keeps-africa-poor/#disqus_thread https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/08/13/podcast-arguing-with-anti-vaxx-activists-works-ban-gmo-labels-agroecology-keeps-africa-poor/feed/ 3 Contrary to popular belief, arguing with anti-science activists on social media helps combat the spread of misinformation. Organic food groups have sued the USDA to block the agency's GMO labeling guidelines. And a new analysis shows that agrecoloogy, or conservation agriculture, traps Africa in poverty—yet the United Nations, aid agencies, churches and NGOs continue to subsidize it. Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP editor Cameron English on this episode of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories: Viewpoint: How to constructively engage on social media with those who post anti-GMO and anti-vax conspiracies COVID-19 has fueled an explosion of anti-vaccine and anti-GMO misinformation on social media, as activist groups attempt to capitalize on the pandemic to advance their ideological agendas. This rampant spread of conspiracies, bogus coronavirus treatments and just plain old nonsense has prompted science communication experts to reevaluate how they interact with the public on Facebook, Twitter and other platforms. A series of new studies on the issue shows that challenging junk science purveyors with facts can indeed influence public perceptions on issues like vaccine safety and genetic engineering, countering the popular belief—known as the "backfire effect"—that arguing with skeptics only solidifies their point of a view. Instead of following a specific formula to win hearts and minds, according to the research, science communicators should adopt whatever style works best for them when battling social media misinformation—even if that style could be called "uncivil." Organic activists sue USDA to nullify and revise bioengineered food labeling standards In 2016, Congress tasked the USDA with developing a federal standard for labeling foods containing genetically modified ingredients. Organic food advocates, who previously led campaigns to enact state-level GMO labeling initiatives across the US, consider the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS) "arbitrary and capricious," and are suing the USDA to force the agency to nullify and revise the labeling rule. Led by the Center for Food Safety, plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that the NBFDS misleads consumers by using the term "bioengineered" in place of "GMO" to identify genetically modified food ingredients, and exempts most products from the labeling requirements. Do these arguments stand up to scrutiny? Viewpoint: Agro-ecology agendas are trapping African farmers in poverty One country after another has embraced modern farming techniques, including the use of biotech crops, to combat food insecurity and lead its population out of poverty. Anti-GMO groups have attempted to stifle this progress by demonizing these "industrial" agricultural practices and lobbying developing countries to instead adopt organic farming promoted as "agroecology." Charities, UN agencies and environmental NGOs have endorsed this messaging and funded efforts to promote agrecological farming in Africa. Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotech and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter. Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Name *Email *NameSIGN UP Agroecology—which seeks "to optimize interactions between plants, animals, humans and the environment" and  promote "a sustainable and fair food system"—is a laudable idea. As utilized by organic activists, however, the term has become the rallying cry of a political movement that views technological progress as the enemy. The results have been predictably disappointing, research shows, with smallholder farmers in Africa seeing no improvement in crop yields after adopting agroecological techniques. "In practice therefore, agro-ecology is likely to have no benefits at a... Contrary to popular belief, arguing with anti-science activists on social media helps combat the spread of misinformation. Organic food groups have sued the USDA to block the agency's GMO labeling guidelines. And a new analysis shows that agrecoloogy,

Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP editor Cameron English on this episode of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* Viewpoint: How to constructively engage on social media with those who post anti-GMO and anti-vax conspiracies

COVID-19 has fueled an explosion of anti-vaccine and anti-GMO misinformation on social media, as activist groups attempt to capitalize on the pandemic to advance their ideological agendas. This rampant spread of conspiracies, bogus coronavirus treatments and just plain old nonsense has prompted science communication experts to reevaluate how they interact with the public on Facebook, Twitter and other platforms.

A series of new studies on the issue shows that challenging junk science purveyors with facts can indeed influence public perceptions on issues like vaccine safety and genetic engineering, countering the popular belief—known as the "backfire effect"—that arguing with skeptics only solidifies their point of a view. Instead of following a specific formula to win hearts and minds, according to the research, science communicators should adopt whatever style works best for them when battling social media misinformation—even if that style could be called "uncivil."

* Organic activists sue USDA to nullify and revise bioengineered food labeling standards

In 2016, Congress tasked the USDA with developing a federal standard for labeling foods containing genetically modified ingredients. Organic food advocates, who previously led campaigns to enact state-level GMO labeling initiatives across the US, consider the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS) "arbitrary and capricious," and are suing the USDA to force the agency to nullify and revise the labeling rule.



Led by the Center for Food Safety, plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that the NBFDS misleads consumers by using the term "bioengineered" in place of "GMO" to identify genetically modified food ingredients, and exempts most products from the labeling requirements. Do these arguments stand up to scrutiny?

* Viewpoint: Agro-ecology agendas are trapping African farmers in poverty

One country after another has embraced modern farming techniques, including the use of biotech crops, to combat food insecurity and lead its population out of poverty. Anti-GMO groups have attempted to stifle this progress by demonizing these "industrial" agricultural practices and lobbying developing countries to instead adopt organic farming promoted as "agroecology." Charities,]]>

Cameron English 30:02 https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/08/05/podcast-global-population-crash-pesticide-bans-backfire-beef-producing-crispr-male-cows/ Wed, 05 Aug 2020 04:01:16 +0000 https://geneticliteracyproject.org/?p=2329954 https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/08/05/podcast-global-population-crash-pesticide-bans-backfire-beef-producing-crispr-male-cows/#disqus_thread https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/08/05/podcast-global-population-crash-pesticide-bans-backfire-beef-producing-crispr-male-cows/feed/ 2 CRISPR could enable farmers to produce more beef from fewer cattle, boosting farm sustainability. Lawsuits designed to get pesticides and GMO crops off the market are paradoxically fueling the development of new biotech crops and pesticides. A troubling study says the world is headed for a population crash. What can be done to reverse this trend before it's too late? Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP editor Cameron English on this episode of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories: More meat with less environmental impact? CRISPR and one gene change could improve the sustainability of beef production Editing a single gene in beef cattle with the new breeding technique CRISPR enables cows to convert feed into weight 15 percent more efficiently, say animal scientists from the University of California, Davis. The simple genetic change could help farmers produce more beef from fewer cattle in the coming years, leading to cheaper food and a smaller environmental footprint for animal agriculture. Several key questions remain to be answered before these gene-edited cows enter the food supply. Chief among them: will the FDA prevent farmers from breeding them? Sustainable farming advances: Global movement to ban pesticides and GMOs spur next-generation biotech pest controls An onslaught of lawsuits brought by high-profile anti-GMO groups has forced the EPA to ban several pesticides widely used in concert with biotech crops. The legal effort is part of a long-term strategy to ban genetically engineered seeds. But there's a crucial problem: Biotech companies are developing more sustainable pest-control tools in response to the lawsuits. In the short term, then, product bans could spell trouble for farmers. But over the long haul, activist groups may be pushing themselves into irrelevancy by encouraging the development of new products that are eco-friendly and nearly impossible ban. Birth rates expected to crash by half in coming decades in some countries, driven by educated, working women With more women than ever in the workforce, fewer people are getting married and having children. Those married couples who are still having kids are having far fewer than their parents and grandparents did. 70 years ago, women were having approximately 4.7 children, say researchers at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. But the global fertility rate dropped to 2.4 in 2017, and is projected to fall below 1.7 by 2100, the BBC reported. The study authors project that the global population will peak at 9.7 billion near 2064, then fall to 8.8 billion by the end of the century, conclusively debunking fears that the world will run out of food and other natural resources. The real danger lies in the fact that a population crash could eventually—perhaps in the next two or three centuries—lead to a world with no people. "If you can't [find a solution] then eventually the species disappears," warns University of Washington researcher Christopher Murray. Subscribe to the Science Facts and Fallacies Podcast on iTunes and Spotify. Kevin M. Folta is a professor in the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida. Follow Professor Folta on Twitter @kevinfolta Cameron J. English is the GLP’s managing editor. BIO. Follow him on Twitter @camjenglish CRISPR could enable farmers to produce more beef from fewer cattle, boosting farm sustainability. Lawsuits designed to get pesticides and GMO crops off the market are paradoxically fueling the development of new biotech crops and pesticides.

Join geneticist Kevin Folta and GLP editor Cameron English on this episode of Science Facts and Fallacies as they break down these latest news stories:

* More meat with less environmental impact? CRISPR and one gene change could improve the sustainability of beef production

Editing a single gene in beef cattle with the new breeding technique CRISPR enables cows to convert feed into weight 15 percent more efficiently, say animal scientists from the University of California, Davis. The simple genetic change could help farmers produce more beef from fewer cattle in the coming years, leading to cheaper food and a smaller environmental footprint for animal agriculture. Several key questions remain to be answered before these gene-edited cows enter the food supply. Chief among them: will the FDA prevent farmers from breeding them?

* Sustainable farming advances: Global movement to ban pesticides and GMOs spur next-generation biotech pest controls



An onslaught of lawsuits brought by high-profile anti-GMO groups has forced the EPA to ban several pesticides widely used in concert with biotech crops. The legal effort is part of a long-term strategy to ban genetically engineered seeds. But there's a crucial problem: Biotech companies are developing more sustainable pest-control tools in response to the lawsuits. In the short term, then, product bans could spell trouble for farmers. But over the long haul, activist groups may be pushing themselves into irrelevancy by encouraging the development of new products that are eco-friendly and nearly impossible ban.

* Birth rates expected to crash by half in coming decades in some countries, driven by educated, working women

With more women than ever in the workforce, fewer people are getting married and having children. Those married couples who are still having kids are having far fewer than their parents and grandparents did. 70 years ago, women were having approximately 4.7 children, say researchers at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. But the global fertility rate dropped to 2.4 in 2017, and is projected to fall below 1.7 by 2100, the BBC reported.

The study authors project that the global population will peak at 9.7 billion near 2064, then fall to 8.8 billion by the end of the century, conclusively debunking fears that the world will run out of food and other natural resources. The real danger lies in the fact that a population crash could eventually—perhaps in the next two or three centuries—lead to a world with no people. "If you can't [find a solution] then eventually the species disappears," warns University of Washington researcher Christopher Murray.



Subscribe to the Science Facts and Fallacies Podcast on iTunes and https://geneticliteracyproject.org/?p=2132827 https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/08/03/podcast-how-1970s-fat-free-fad-launched-organic-non-gmo-and-other-absurd-labeling-schemes/#disqus_thread https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/08/03/podcast-how-1970s-fat-free-fad-launched-organic-non-gmo-and-other-absurd-labeling-schemes/feed/ 1 Go walk the aisles of your local grocery store and see how many products are being marketed for what they are ­not. Fat Free, Sugar Free, Gluten Free, Non-GMO, Cage Free, Antibiotic-free, Hormone-free, and on and on. This massive assortment of food labels demonstrates one thing: wealthy, Western consumers have been duped into buying pricier food with no additional nutritional benefits. For millennia, people have often struggled to have sufficient food and sadly, based on a 2018 report from the World Health Organization, there are still around 821 million people in our world that are hungry. These fellow humans just need food for what it is—a source of nutrition. Even the privileged need our food to be what it is, to provide us energy, vitamins, minerals, fiber and all sorts of health-promoting compounds. I recently went to pick up a few things at a Ralphs supermarket and I could not find a cart without a placard on it that said, “Simple truth, proud of what’s not in our food.” Of course, they mean pesticide residues, GMOs, anything that might help farmers to feed consumers. I will never shop at that store again, as with my previous decision never to shop at Whole Foods. So, how did this whole food labeling gimmick start? Why are we constantly advertising food for what it is not?  Epidemiologists in the 1960s looking at data about lifestyles and heart disease concluded that the typical American diet was high in saturated fats and cholesterol, which was why heart attack rates were so high in our country. In the 1970s, the U.S. Dietary Goals advised Americans to cut back on fat and eat more carbs to lower the risk of heart disease.It later turned out that if they had included more of the available dietary data by nationality, they might not have reached that conclusion. Image: IDM Program Americans got used to paying attention to implied health claims on the front label, and those began to proliferate. The soybean processing industry started promoting the label, “contains no tropical oils” because their international competitors who supplied coconut and palm oil fell into the “saturated fat” category. This sort of barely regulated kind of marketing expanded to other “health demons” which eventually included sugar, antibiotics, hormones, gluten and GMOs. Let's explore the absurdity of marketing foods based on what they do not contain. Steve Savage is a plant pathologist and senior contributor to the GLP. Follow him on Twitter @grapedoc Go walk the aisles of your local grocery store and see how many products are being marketed for what they are ­not. Fat Free, Sugar Free, Gluten Free, Non-GMO, Cage Free, Antibiotic-free, Hormone-free, and on and on.

For millennia, people have often struggled to have sufficient food and sadly, based on a 2018 report from the World Health Organization, there are still around 821 million people in our world that are hungry. These fellow humans just need food for what it is—a source of nutrition.



Even the privileged need our food to be what it is, to provide us energy, vitamins, minerals, fiber and all sorts of health-promoting compounds. I recently went to pick up a few things at a Ralphs supermarket and I could not find a cart without a placard on it that said, “Simple truth, proud of what’s not in our food.” Of course, they mean pesticide residues, GMOs, anything that might help farmers to feed consumers. I will never shop at that store again, as with my previous decision never to shop at Whole Foods.

So, how did this whole food labeling gimmick start? Why are we constantly advertising food for what it is not?  Epidemiologists in the 1960s looking at data about lifestyles and heart disease concluded that the typical American diet was high in saturated fats and cholesterol, which was why heart attack rates were so high in our country. In the 1970s, the U.S. Dietary Goals advised Americans to cut back on fat and eat more carbs to lower the risk of heart disease.It later turned out that if they had included more of the available dietary data by nationality, they might not have reached that conclusion.

Image: IDM Program

Americans got used to paying attention to implied health claims on the front label, and those began to proliferate. The soybean processing industry started promoting the label, “contains no tropical oils” because their international competitors who supplied coconut and palm oil fell into the “saturated fat” category.

This sort of barely regulated kind of marketing expanded to other “health demons” which eventually included sugar, antibiotics, hormones, gluten and GMOs. Let's explore the absurdity of marketing foods based on what they do not contain.



Steve Savage is a plant pathologist and senior contributor to the GLP. Follow him on Twitter @grapedoc]]>

Steve Savage 12:50