$3 Million Earmarked for 'Government-Controlled Propaganda Campaign to Convince Americans GMOs Are Safe'
The recently passed Congressional budget that averted government shutdown will allocate $3 million to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to promote "the environmental, nutritional, food safety, economic and humanitarian impacts" of biotech crops and genetically modified (GMO) ingredients in food to consumers—many of whom are wary of the products.
While the specifics of the campaign are yet unclear, the measure calls for the "publication and distribution of science-based educational information."
According to the Washington Post, more than 50 agriculture and food industry groups said the funding is needed to counter "a tremendous amount of misinformation about agricultural biotechnology in the public domain."
But Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) opposed the measure, describing it as government-sponsored GMO propaganda.
"It is not the responsibility of the FDA to mount a government-controlled propaganda campaign to convince the American public that genetically modified foods are safe," Lowey said during a congressional hearing. "The FDA has to regulate the safety of our food supply and medical devices. They are not, nor should they be, in the pro-industry advertising business."
"Clearly, communication of the benefits of biotechnology from the scientific community has not gone well, and this presents an opportunity to engage with the public in a more meaningful dialogue," Mark Rieger, the dean of the University of Delaware's College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, told The Post. "We see it as a communication issue, not a political one."
The Post reported that Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-Ala.), the chair of the House agriculture appropriations subcommittee and defender of the GMO education funding, received $10,000 from agritech giant Monsanto in 2016.
"This is a really clear example of big ag influencing policy," said Dana Perls, the senior food and technology campaigner for Friends of the Earth. "The Trump administration is putting big ag before consumer desire and public health ... Consumers do not want this."
2018 saw a number of studies pointing to the outsized climate impact of meat consumption. Beef has long been singled out as particularly unsustainable: Cows both release the greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere because of their digestive processes and require a lot of land area to raise. But for those unwilling to give up the taste and texture of a steak or burger, could lab-grown meat be a climate-friendly alternative? In a first-of-its-kind study, researchers from the Oxford Martin School set out to answer that question.
By Gary Paul Nabhan
President Trump has declared a national emergency to fund a wall along our nation's southern border. The border wall issue has bitterly divided people across the U.S., becoming a vivid symbol of political deadlock.
By Daniel Ross
Hurricane Florence, which battered the U.S. East Coast last September, left a trail of ruin and destruction estimated to cost between $17 billion and $22 billion. Some of the damage was all too visible—smashed homes and livelihoods. But other damage was less so, like the long-term environmental impacts in North Carolina from hog waste that spilled out over large open-air lagoons saturated in the rains.
Hog waste can contain potentially dangerous pathogens, pharmaceuticals and chemicals. According to the state's Department of Environmental Quality, as of early October nearly 100 such lagoons were damaged, breached or were very close to being so, the effluent from which can seep into waterways and drinking water supplies.
China has closed its Everest base camp to tourists because of a buildup of trash on the world's tallest mountain.