I do my best as a science writer to pen carefully-researched articles about crop biotechnology. Part of that work involves profiling anti-GMO critics and correcting their scientific mistakes, but some people don't like what I do. The activist group GM Watch, for example, thinks I'm in the business of "villainizing those who raise questions inconvenient for [the biotech] industry."
They say I slander "industry-critical" academics and journalists, though they don't explain what that means. Curiously, they also don't cite any mistakes I've made. Apparently, all you need to know is that I work for science denial "stooges" that run "industry-funded disinformation campaigns." Of course I've been writing about biotechnology since 2012, and until recently I did so entirely for free. My opinions haven't changed in that time, so perhaps GM Watch will explain how money influences what I write.
While we wait on their reply, here's a roundup of items I've written recently:
Europe's leaders remain hostile toward advances in crop biotechnology, specifically gene-editing techniques like CRISPR-Cas9. Fortunately, much of the world doesn't share the EU's skepticism. 13 nations announced last week at a WTO meeting that it's time to end this "political posturing" and embrace gene editing. I summarize the situation here.
Scientists are developing new ways to prevent the spread of mosquito-borne diseases like malaria. The most controversial methods involve releasing genetically engineered mosquitoes into the environment to sterilize their disease-transmitting wild relatives. But won't that cause an ecological disaster? Experts say that's unlikely.
Finally, here's a story about nutritionist Dr. Shelley McGuire, who debunked the popular claim that the weed killer Roundup makes its way into breast milk and harms infants. For conducting this important research, McGuire was told she hates children, including her own. And her email was apparently hacked by anti-GMO activists.