Fake Banner
"Food Evolution": A Tale Of Two Cities

Last night was the premiere of "Food Evolution", a documentary on the science in our dinner...

Are New Government Guidelines For Genetically Engineered Products Going Far Enough?

Since 2014, China has spent $4 billion on advanced agricultural science and is approving new technologies...

The Bizarre Relationship Between Environmental Lawyer Stephen Tillery And A Federal Judge Who Helped Him

Attorney Patrick Murphy is representing infamous sue-and-settle environmental lawyer Stephen Tillery...

Alan Alda's Art And Science Of Relating And Communicating

You are about to hear a huge sigh of relief from the entire science journalism community, because...

User picture.
picture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for picture for Steve Hentgespicture for Camillo Di Ciccopicture for Hontas Farmerpicture for Camilo Tabinas y Apita
Hank CampbellRSS Feed of this column.

I'm the founder of Science 2.0® in 2006 and, since June of 2015, the President of the American Council on Science and Health.

Revolutionizing... Read More »

Blogroll
Are bees in peril or not? It's difficult to know, because the moment science declares one thing not an issue (example: neonicotinoid targeted pesticides), environmental groups move the goalposts and declare something else is the problem. When honey bees were shown to be unaffected, groups proposed that wild bees were the big concern, and if amateur record-keeping and a Bayesian estimate agrees, they declare the science settled. If a world-class entomologist does a good, controlled study of bees, it is ignored.
Though Britain has consistently been part of formal European trading, it was with some hesitation that they entered the European Union (EU) in 1993, and they famously balked at adopting the Euro currency in 1999.

During that time, fears about giving a lot more than they get have been realized. 

Some claims have been that science in the UK would be impacted by Britain's exit from the EU - "Brexit" for short. So is that fact or hype?
Organic farming should be in a Golden Age. Organic marketing groups, and the junkyard dogs they pay to attack scientists (1) finally got mandatory labeling on conventional food, the public is already spending $13,000,000,000 on organic food in the U.S. alone, and margins have shown to be much higher.

I have long wondered why everyone doesn't switch to organic farming.

It's that pesky free market. 
Environmental groups in major cities all across America have sent their armies marching, a last, desperate attempt to ideologically plunder everything they can before the November election.

They have good reason to gain as much ground as possible now. While Republicans will insist that we are doomed if Hillary Clinton wins the White House, and Democrats will claim the same about Donald Trump, either one is going to be bad news for environmental groups.
Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin recently signed Federal Law 358-FZ, which bans genetic engineering of plants and animals for the indefinite future.
In response to an overtly science-hostile bill by the state government in Vermont (1), the U.S. House of Representatives preemptively passed a softball GMO labeling law in 2015.

Anti-science groups (Friends of the Earth, NRDC, Union of Concerned Scientists, et al.) and their paid Deniers for Hire (Sourcewatch, US Right To Know, every other organic trade rep) were understandably apoplectic, because it was not going to handicap domestic agriculture and thereby make the organic food process more attractive.(2)