The burritos didn’t contain GMOs, but they did contain E. coli.

“Last April, Chipotle announced it would be phasing out ingredients containing genetically modified organisms. As Science of Us argued at the time, this was a meaningless bit of PR designed to bolster Chipotle’s reputation as a “responsible” or “wholesome” fast-food joint; while GMOs, like any technology, need to be effectively regulated and deployed responsibly, all else being equal there are no valid reasons to consider foods without GMOs to be healthier or more environmentally friendly than those containing them. But Americans are terribly ill-informed about GMOs — they answer basic true-false questions about the technology with barely more accuracy than a coin flip — and therefore become easy prey to this sort of opportunistic corporate feel-goodery.” (more…)

One of the most persistent arguments for modern, mechanized agriculture is that it produces a lot of food per acre, leaving more land for other purposes. I’ve often wondered how solid this argument is, and when a debate broke out recently, I decided to look closer.

It started with a paper from a think tank. The Breakthrough Institute study, called Nature Unbound, argued that, by embracing technology, humanity could shrink its footprint and leave more land for “nature.” (more…)

Crops developed through biotechnology must undergo regulatory approval to ensure their environmental, food and feed safety before they are commercially introduced in the marketplace. This regulatory process necessarily lengthens the time required to bring such new crops to market. Insofar as this delay is necessary to ensure their safety it is regarded as worthwhile. Efficiency is crucial, though; there are many possible ways that the regulatory review process can be structured. If the approval process goes on longer than necessary to ensure safety with reasonable scientific certainty, the opportunity cost of delaying or altogether missing out innovation can mount.  Kalaitzandonakes, Zahringer and Kruse analyze such potential economic impacts in EMAC’s working paper 2015-1. (more…)

It’s discouraging how often public debates over controversial genetics and biotechnology issues – from stem cell research, epigenetics and “three parent babies” to GMO foods, pesticides and environmental conservation – can descend into shouting matches between interest groups.

Where are the voices of independent scientists? Of the real experts who study these issues?

Genetic Literacy Project, along with numerous other independent outlets carry the voices of scientists willing to engage on issues, but for every expert who reaches out and communicates to the public, many more voices are never heard. That narrows the range of expertise available to the public and everyone suffers.

(more…)