On Wednesday, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Horticulture, Research, Biotechnology, & Foreign Agriculture heard testimony on the “Societal Benefits of Agricultural Biotechnology.” Below is an overview of such:
Dr. David Just, PhD: Professor of Applied Economics & Management at Cornell University and Co-Director of the Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition.
Consumers have developed misperceptions regarding the benefits of biotechnology in part because the industry does not explain those benefits to them. Industry has focused understandably on marketing the benefits of growing these crops on farmers, leaving consumers with a latent understanding of why genetic modifications are introduced into the food supply to begin with.
At a biotechnology communication conference I was recently at, one gentleman raised his hand and said, “Current labeling initiatives are trying to use 19th century technology to label 20th century technology in the 21st century.” Take a second to think about that.
Based on a recent piece by The New York Times’ Andrew Revkin, the United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has had this same train of thought:
The way to go, long-term, is to embrace a 21st-century answer to this problem… — an extended bar code or some mechanism [through which] consumers who are interested in all the information about a product could obtain it fairly easily, either through their smartphone or through a scanner that would be available in grocery stores.
The F.D.A. and U.S.D.A. could help coordinate the compilation of information. That way you wouldn’t create a misimpression about the safety of a product, which could happen depend on how something was labeled.
If you read anything news-related, it’s likely you heard about last week’s ethics and privacy discussions surrounding Facebook and social science research. Essentially, a paper was published by a team of researchers from Cornell University and Facebook—”Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks“—through the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (June 2014), which says to have physically manipulated the news feeds of thousands of Facebook users to control the emotions of their perceived-networks, to ultimately analyze their not-in-person emotional responses.
The research findings are fascinating. They’re simply described in the following excerpt from the paper Abstract: Continue reading →
Although I’m a few weeks late to the party, I wanted to share John Oliver’s take-down of Dr. Mehmet Oz on his new show, “Last Week Tonight.” I don’t necessarily agree with everything Oliver says, though I love his eloquence at tackling our nation’s complex science politics, corporations, and risk communication/trust.
Is it a powerful punch of nutrients in one pint of delicious energy drink, or every nutritionist’s worst nightmare? Well, one of my friends posted this article, “10 reasons for serving flavored milk in schools,” on her blog’s Facebook page, and I couldn’t keep my mouth shut. My comment turned into almost a full-length blog post in itself, so I figured I would transfer my discussion here.
As a student with an animal/dairy science background, I agree with almost everything the article’s author, a registered dietician, had to say in support of flavored/chocolate milk. As the author writes, the United States Congress passed the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010, giving the Department of Agriculture more purview in controlling foods sold in cafeterias across the nation. Recently, there has been an increased emphasis on eliminating sugar from the American (kid’s) diet — with one significant culprit being the seemingly innocent, beloved chocolate milk. Continue reading →