Andrew Ladenheim

Experts from the School of Communication, Soochow University in China, surveyed over 600 consumers in China to solicit their perceptions of gene-edited

In 2019, an agency within the U.S. Department of Defense released a call for research projects to help the military deal with the copious amount of plastic waste generated when troops are sent to work in remote locations or disaster zones. The agency wanted a system that could convert food wrappers and water bottles, among other things, into usable products, such as fuel and rations. The system needed to be small enough to fit in a Humvee and capable of running on little energy. It also needed to harness the power of plastic-eating microbes.“ When we started this project four years ago, the ideas were there. And in theory, it made sense,” said Stephen Techtmann, a microbiologist at Michigan Technological University, who leads one of the three research groups receiving funding. Nevertheless, he said, in the beginning, the effort “felt a lot more science-fiction than really something that would work.”

When genetically modified (GM) crops were initially commercialized in the mid to late 1990s, many critics of the new technology predicted the benefits would be minimal and short-lived. These critics argued the financial benefits to farmers would be offset by higher seed costs, resulting in farmers returning to previous technologies that were more profitable at the time. Arguments were also made that GM crops would ‘pollute’ landscapes, resulting in significant environmental damage, a rise in herbicide tolerant weeds, and an increase in chemical applications to control such weeds. Such arguments were put forth by environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) and over time, have proven to be fallacies, not grounded in empirical evidence. Previous research based on 2006 herbicide use, found the adoption of GM canola contributed to reduced herbicide use. In a recent survey of Saskatchewan farmers, we found evidence quantifying that the longer GM crops are included in crop rotations, less herbicide is applied to fields to control weeds during crop production.

The “genetic revolution” in agriculture powered by gene editing can help preserve access to traditional foods in the future, protecting them from

What’s a future without glyphosate look like? How about a nearly $2.9 billion drop in net farm income, food inflation more than doubling, and an

'he current EU regulatory context on GMO’s is a major handicap for European biotechnology innovation. Since 1989, the various European directives and

“Scientists and engineers want to be ready when new crops are needed,” Maeda said. “Of course, we shouldn't push the technology if society isn’t ready,

One of the lessons from our recent national election is that we are a nation of individuals , not demographics . We change over time and with the circumstances.

Rotten tomatoes no more: growing sweeter tomatoes is possible by editing just two of the fruit's genes.

I t has been four years since I highlighted the scientific evidence pointing to the urgent need to take forward a land sparing approach as the basis of a future UK land use strategy.