One of the things that we at GMO Answers emphasize is finding common ground. In this time of polarization, with all the fractious discussions online and in the news, we sometimes forget that we actually have more in common with each other than some may think. Whether it’s politics, religion, money, or yes, even the weather, it can seem like there’s nothing we can agree upon.
But when you look what we care about, and what we value, deep down, we’re not so different after all. Take the case of GMOs. People on both sides of the issue really just want the same things: safe, affordable, healthy food that is good for farmers and for the environment. It’s really that simple.
In a new Medium post for GMO Answers, millennial Laura Rutherford explains just how much millennials, known for their love of food, and farmers, also known for their love of food, have in common.
We both want the same things – healthy, real food that is the highest quality possible for ourselves and our families. We both want to not only preserve, but improve our environment with safe and sustainable farming practices that will ensure a safe food supply for generations to come. Both farmers and millennials love the environment and understand the value of the land. It is in farmers’ best interest to be good stewards of the land because they often pass it down generation after generation, and often live on the land where they farm.
The frontrunner in Mexico’s presidential campaign said Thursday he’ll personally respond on social media after President Trump · Donald John TrumpDems flip Wisconsin state Senate seat Sessions: ‘We should be like Canada’ in how we take in immigrants GOP rep: ‘Sheet metal and garbage’ …
Devex reporter Lisa Cornish recently kicked off a four part series examining all sides of the GMO debate. In her first installment, Cornish starts by focusing on the science behind GMOs, explaining that the scientific community is one of the biggest proponents of GMO use.
Aside from the corporations profiting from GMOs, scientists are one of the most vocal groups in favor of the use of GMOs. In June 2016, 129 Nobel Laureates signed a letter urging Greenpeace to re-examine and abandon their campaign against GMOs. In their letter, they argue that there has never been any evidence of health issues associated with GMOs and the impact on the environment is less harmful than traditional agriculture. They also noted that GMO has the potential to greatly reduce death and disease from issues such as Vitamin A deficiency in developing countries.
Today, scientific research continues to find no health risk from GMOs and scientists are being urged to engage on the debate.
However, even with the support from the scientific community, organizations focused on marketing and promoting non-GMO products have been able to infiltrate public perception, creating an uphill battle for GMO advocates in reversing public opinion. Dr. Hugo Alonso, a researcher in plant genetics and physiology, explains his frustrations over the negative perceptions of GMOs:
Despite there being strong arguments for GMO to support the needs of the developing world, the perceptions of the developed world dominate – and GMO-free branding on products means consumers are more likely to be educated on why they need to avoid GMOs. It is a difficult education cycle to compete against. Combined with supermarkets full of food, Alonso said it is difficult to explain to consumers in developing countries why creating more food should be an important issue to them.
Cornish, and the scientists she interviewed for her coverage, argue that to change public perception GMO advocates should focus their messaging on the public good. Once consumers start to understand the global benefit of GMOs, such how it can help us achieve global food security, perceptions will likely shift. As evidence, the documentary Food Evolution, which explores both sides of the GMO debate and illustrates the social and community benefits in places like Hawaii and Uganda, seems to be reversing public opinion already.
At a screening at the Australian National University in Canberra last September, the audience were asked about their perspective on GMOs before the film – displaying a red, orange or green card to say if they were against, undecided or for GMOs. Red and orange dominated.
After the screening they were asked the question again – and a significant number were changed to green.
BIO’s Industry Analysis team has released its first report in a new series on the state of innovation in highly prevalent chronic diseases.
The new series of reports will dig deeper into a previously observed phenomenon: less venture dollars are heading into chronic diseases. BIO’s previous research showed recent increases in venture funding heading into oncology and rare disease, leaving highly prevalent, chronic disease behind. Disease area examples include psychiatric disorders, endocrine, cardiovascular, and respiratory diseases as shown in the figure below.
Figure 1. Annual costs vs. a decade of venture capital funding (2007-2016) for Oncology, and other highly prevalent, chronic diseases. [Source for prevalence: Psychiatric Source for healthcare cost: Health Affairs, 35, No. 6 (2016). Source of venture data: BIO Industry Analysis, Emerging Company Trend Report, 2017.]
The persistence of this trend could have implications for the future output of innovative medicines in these disease areas. The cause for concern is magnified by the impact these chronic disease areas are having on the overall healthcare system (as shown in $ Billions in the figure above).
Depression, the first in a series of reports on the current funding and R&D landscape of highly prevalent, chronic diseases, takes an in-depth look at the state of innovation in depression therapeutics. As one of the most prevalent psychiatric disorders, depression impacts 16 million patients in the United States and is estimated to cost our health care system $105 billion annually.
The report is available for download here, where you can also sign up to receive future BIO Industry Analysis reports as they are released.
Key Takeaways
There is a significant unmet need for new therapies for the treatment of depression. Only 29 active substances have been approved for major depression since 1959, and work on a single hypothesis.
Promising new therapeutic approaches, based on unique molecular targets discovered in the 1990s and early 2000s, have experienced a significant number of setbacks. Currently, there are now only 33 drug programs in clinical trials utilizing new approaches for major depression.
Clinical trial initiations for new therapeutics are down 50% over the last decade, and drug candidates for new clinical studies are nearly non-existent.
Venture investment in companies focused on depression is at record low levels.
The next report in the series will focus on pain and addiction. Opioids will be covered in the report and a special session on the opioid epidemic will be featured at the BIO CEO & Investor Conference next month, February 12-13 in New York City. month, February 12-13, in New York City. The session will explore the most promising avenues in the neuroscience of addiction and alternatives to opioid-based pain management, as well as identify the most pressing bottlenecks in our understanding of the brain’s addiction to painkillers. Register today!
The latest viral craze matches your photo to works from museums and galleries from 70 countries. We asked CNET staffers to try it out and the results aren’t always pretty. [Read More …]
Since 2006, the Medicare prescription drug program – known as Medicare Part D – has provided America’s seniors and disabled individuals with access to a wide range of affordable medicines. By relying on market-based competition, this program has achieved substantial savings for taxpayers and helped provide affordable medicines to our most vulnerable population.
To learn more about the success of the Medicare Part D program, check out our new infographic: click here.
Endpoints’ John Carroll reports that FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. has apparently backtracked on a confirmation hearing pledge to publish (redacted) Complete Response Letters (CRLs) as part of an overall push for greater agency transparency. In an address this morning, he said publishing …
Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey aren’t up for re-election when the company holds its annual shareholder meeting March 8, in Houston, Texas, according to a regulatory filing. “Given our evolving business and the businesses Ms. Sandberg and …
If you’re an adult living in the United States, there’s a 95-percent change you’ve had chickenpox. Unfortunately, as we age, we run the risk of reactivating that virus, varicella zoster, in the form of shingles.
If you contract the chickenpox virus, you will carry it for the rest of your life. It can be considered an infectious disease time bomb. For most, the virus stays dormant, remaining silent in the nervous system. However, introduce stress, a weakened immune system or the vagaries of the normal aging processes, and the virus can reactivate years later as shingles. A third of us will contract shingles in our lifetimes.
Shingles manifests as a painful rash that develops on one side of the face or body, which usually clears up within 2 to 4 weeks. Those who have suffered from shingles can tell you the pain ranges from mild to debilitating. Those who experience extreme bouts often describe the pain as the most intense of their lives. The disease can also threaten vision and cause nerve damage which can linger for months or years, long after the initial shingles rash is gone. Very rarely, shingles can lead to pneumonia, hearing problems, blindness, brain inflammation or even death.
In yet another milestone for biotechnology, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave the green light last fall to a new shingles vaccine called Shingrix. The vaccine is more than 90 percent effective in preventing shingles for adults 50 and older.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that the number of shingles cases continues to rise. Half of all shingles cases occur in people over 60. However, fewer than one-third of people over 60 have been vaccinated for shingles, according to the CDC. Most people who get shingles will have it just once, but it’s possible to get it a second and even a third time. As we age, we become more likely to develop long-term, severe pain as a complication of shingles. There is no treatment or cure from this pain.
One million people get shingles every year. Shingrix – a two-shot regimen – can spare people a lifetime of needless anguish. So can an earlier shingles vaccine called Zostavax, a single-shot inoculation effective in more than half of those who receive it.
There is hope that the next generation of Americans will be less susceptible to shingles. In 1996, the CDC recommended universal varicella vaccination against chickenpox for healthy 1-year-olds. Doctors believe that children who receive the chickenpox vaccination will be at a much lower risk of getting shingles as they grow older. However, kids vaccinated for chickenpox in 1996 are only 21 or 22 now, so doctors can’t say for sure what will happen when they’re 50. Researchers believe if they do contract shingles, it is more likely to be a milder case.
The new shingles vaccine contains an adjuvant, a substance that boosts the immune system’s response. In October, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices endorsed Shingrix for adults over 50. Once the CDC director endorses the committee’s findings, Medicaid and Medicare will begin covering the vaccine later this year.
Biotechnology vaccinations have been among the greatest achievements of the human race, for they represent our ability to prevent suffering and disease rather than mitigate it. Thanks to biotechnology innovation, we’ve moved a step closer to the day when shingles will be moved from the medical books to the history books.
