When Food Companies Use Lies (and Children!) to Fool Consumers

The social media activity has been swift in response to Stonyfield Organic's latest video advertisement that uses children to push their non-GMO agenda.

Sadly, bashing GMOs has become a marketing trend so common that I barely raise an eyebrow anymore when I see a commercial for Dole fruit bowls, Triscuits or even non-GMO water, salt, kitty litter or dry cleaning.

I think what makes Stonyfield's latest campaign so appalling is the use of children.

Filmmaker Natalie Newell, who directed the Science Moms short documentary agrees:

"If you want to talk about GMOs, awesome. Find experts (and there's no shortage of folks who can talk on genetic modification and biotechnology) to define the term. But do not use children. Don't use children to perpetuate these myths and further demonize biotechnology, all in the name of selling your yogurt pouches."

Still, the broader issue of deceptive advertising needs to be addressed. I wrote in this space about Chipotle's "Food with Integrity" campaign and their commitment to go GMO-free while serving thousand-calorie burritos laced with E.coli. There's no integrity in serving food that is unhealthy – and unsafe – while telling your customers lies about biotechnology, which has contributed to more than 460 million acres of sustainable farming systems around the world.

The same is true for Danone, the world largest yogurt maker (and former parent company of Stonyfield): It announced last year it was "committing to getting rid of GMOs" in its flagship brands to further support sustainable agriculture. Meanwhile, advancements like GMO technology have allowed farmers to use fewer pesticides and herbicides, fossil fuels, and water, and prevent the loss of soil to erosion.

Hats off to the dairy industry who has decided they want to shed some light on this alarming and misleading marketing strategy with their "Peel Back the Label" campaign. They point to an article in The Delaware News Journal by Kent Messer, a professor at the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Delaware:

"This trend toward fear-based labeling may help prop up profits for food manufacturers, but it comes at a much greater cost for consumers who are trying to make informed choices for their families."

But back to Stonyfield… On their Facebook Page, the company acknowledges the controversy created by their children's video and says "we appreciate the importance of a constructive fact-based scientific debate." Then it urges readers who want more info on GMOs to visit – WAIT FOR IT – The Just Label It website, which contains absolutely nothing "constructive," "fact-based" or "scientific" whatsoever. For those who don't know, Just Label It was created by Stonyfield Organic CEO Gary Hirshberg for the purposes of pushing a mandatory GMO label on food products in the interest of "consumer transparency."

And before I start harping on the hypocrisy, let's get a snapshot of some of the pushback Stonyfield is getting:

"You exploit the fact that the average parent is ignorant about how food is grown and the sciences behind it. You use children you've brainwashed to manipulate and spread fear."

"It's hard to trust in the safety of food made by a company with such rigidly anti-science views. I mean, what's next? Will Stonyfield decide that bacteria are a myth and stop pasteurizing?"

"Offering choices is great, confusing customers with misinformation is NOT!"

"How about instead of using fear based marketing you actually try and be informative. You'd run into less problems."

To all the Stonyfields, Chipotles, Danones (among others) out there, I leave you with this:  If you want to be organic or non-GMO, please do so. The American food market thrives on the principle of consumer choice. But don't call organic or non-GMO healthier (it's not) or more environmentally sustainable (it's definitely not).

Feeding the world is a daunting task with real challenges that come in the form of droughts, floods, disease, insects, weeds and all those pesky regulations governing food production.  Everyone needs to work together – using a variety of tools and farming practices – and hopefully, with a little more integrity in the marketplace.

UPDATE: 

On its Facebook page, Stonyfield posted "we welcome the conversation and appreciate your taking the time to reach out," and yet Stonyfield has reportedly blocked a tremendous amount of feedback. In response, a "Banned by Stonyfield" Facebook group has been created where these voices are engaged in a ongoing public dialogue on the issue.

Flashback Friday: Historical Perspective on Health Care Reforms

This post is part of BIO's yearlong, bi-weekly series called Flashback Friday, highlighting newsletter stories from BIO's past.  To learn more about BIO's history and our 25^th Anniversary visit our interactive historical timeline.

Reprinted from BIONews, September/October 1993

REFORMING AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM: FIRST ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS

By G. Kirk Raab, Chairman, Biotechnology Industry Organization

Soon after this reaches you, President Clinton is scheduled to formally announce his health care reform plan before a joint session of Congress. Rather than predict what he will propose or what the eventual legislative outcome will be, I would like to suggest criteria by which the biotechnology industry should evaluate, the health care reform proposals that emerge from Congress.

Surely the president's plan will address health care access and financing, and we are likely to see intense controversy on those issues. But the overarching concern for BIG is how the new health care reform plan will affect our mission: bringing to market safe, innovative and cost· effective treatments and cures for significant medical problems.

We must first ask this question: Will health care reform ultimately enhance the quality of care, promote the development of more cures and improve the quality of life?

During the last two decades the biotechnology industry has created important new treatments to fight serious medical conditions. The pipeline of biotechnology products under development promises to provide far more advances in the coming years. In fact, most experts agree that in the next several decades biotechnology will be the single largest contributor to medical progress from within the overall pharmaceutical and healthcare industries. Any health care reform plan that is designed to improve future medical outcomes needs to recognize and support the efforts of the biotechnology industry.

Second, in evaluating health care reform, the industry must ask how decisions will be made regarding the development and use of new technologies. Will doctors or government bureaucrats make these crucial decisions?

Doctors will decide the value of new technologies based on scientific and clinical evaluation. Bureaucratic decision making is more opt to reflect the uncertainties of budgetary and political compromises and thereby stifle investment in innovative research-the lifeblood of our industry.

Finally we must ask: Will incentives for innovation continue to stimulate research and development investment?

Policy makers must be willing to recognize the industry's massive commitment to ongoing R&D because of the extraordinary opportunities it brings. But they must recognize the level of investment and risk-taking that is being made to realize the new products in human biotechnology that will bring the important clinical advances the medical community and general public won't.

Last year the biotechnology industry spent $5.9 billion to realize the dream of medical progress. Without continuous and adequate investment capital to pay for this level of R&D expenditure, the industry will be seriously crippled. A negative impact on U.S. productivity, economic growth and competitiveness could follow.

It is crucial that policy makers understand the need to keep the spirit of capitalism alive for the biotechnology industry. Otherwise the free market incentives that stimulated the medical progress of the post will no longer spark that progress, and government restrictions and intrusion into medical decision making will blunt the effectiveness of the world's most prolific source of medical progress.

Conversely, if we are allowed to do what we do best, our industry will significantly improve quality of life, as well as contribute ultimately to reducing the cost of health care. During this reform process, none of the decision makers should ever lose sight of the fact that as important as economics ore, saving lives and reducing suffering should be a foremost priority of this notion, and that priority should be embraced as passionately by our political leaders as it is by the medical community.

I personally believe President Clinton is well intentioned in his effort to reform health care in this country. But his recommendations and ultimately the reforms that are enacted must be thoughtfully designed so that they will actually achieve those good intentions. The immediate and pressing challenge for the industry as the new health care proposals unfold is to ask the right questions and forthrightly carry the message of our mission to our political leaders.

Biotechnology in Action: How Innovation is Having an Impact in Personalized Medicine

Editor's Note: As part of BIO's 25th Anniversary celebration we will be spotlighting biotechnology innovations that have made a major impact over the past 25 years.  This "Innovation Series" will publish on the 25th of every month throughout 2018. We kick-off this month with personalized medicine.

One size does not fit all when it comes to medicine. Treatments that help some patients fail to help others, and the same medicine may cause side effects in only certain patients. As a result, health systems often deliver inefficient care that fails to help large portions of the patient population - at a notable financial cost as well.

That's where personalized medicine comes in.

Personalized medicine, sometimes called precision medicine, is an evolving field in which physicians use diagnostic tests, often genetic, that help determine which medical treatments and procedures will work best for each patient. By combining this information with an individual's medical records, circumstances and values, personalized medicine allows doctors and patients to develop targeted treatment and prevention plans.

Personalized medicine is having a major impact on health care.

For example, one notable personalized medicine, Gleevec, approved in 2001, has transformed the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). The American Cancer Society now credits Gleevec and other personalized medicines in large part for a five-year CML survival rate that has more than doubled over the past two decades, from 31 to 68 percent. Called "targeted therapies," the personalized medicines used to treat CML work by disrupting the function of proteins produced only by diseased cells.

More recently in oncology, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a different kind of personalized therapy, called Keytruda, for the treatment of solid tumors anywhere in the body. Keytruda helps the body's own immune system attack cancer, and was approved for use on any tumor that expresses "microsatellite instability" or "mismatch repair deficiency," genetic features that make it easier for immune cells to recognize cancerous cells.

Targeted therapies are also helping patients with rare diseases. A landmark study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, suggests that a targeted therapy approved by FDA in 2012 can help reduce some of the most extreme effects of cystic fibrosis by 55 percent, helping patients with this disease live longer, healthier lives.

Some of the most recently approved personalized medicines, called gene therapies, take the science a step further by correcting genetic mutations in human cells. FDA approved the first gene therapies in 2017, for the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and a genetic form of blindness.

Doctors can also use personalized medicine to help patients avoid the trial-and-error process usually associated with learning whether a treatment option that works for many patients is likely to work for them.

These approaches exemplify how personalized health care can help detect the onset of disease at earlier stages, pre-empt the progression of disease, and, at the same time, make our health system more efficient - and they underline the need for up-to-date public policies and clinical practices that keep pace with the implications of new scientific discoveries.

About Christopher Wells:

A published expert in public affairs, Christopher Wells has worked with the personalized medicine community for nearly three years to coordinate the communication of the field's complex principles to diverse audiences. As Vice President of Public Affairs, Wells oversees the development of PMC's marketing and communications messages and leverages a comprehensive portfolio of digital and traditional communications tools to increase awareness and understanding of personalized medicine in the United States and internationally. He also oversees content development for the Annual Personalized Medicine Conference at Harvard Medical School.

Prior to joining PMC, Wells worked as a research assistant at Binghamton University, where he graduated with a master's degree in public administration and received the University's Department of Public Administration Alpha Student Award. He holds a B.A. from the State University of New York at Brockport, where he was honored with Department Scholar's Awards in both journalism and international studies.

Combating Antimicrobial Resistance

Here's a statistic you might not have known: an estimated 700,000 people die each year due to the growing number of infections resistant to treatment. Known as antimicrobial resistance (AMR), this "silent killer" and looming public health threat has severe social and economic consequences that could have a lasting impact on families, individuals and communities across the globe.

Writing for Life Science Leader, Thomas Cueni, Director General of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) points out that while the United Nations and the World Health Organization recognize AMR as serious concern, it is not as visible as other epidemics, which explains why the general public is often unaware of the issue at hand.

"AMR does not have the recognizable "face" of disaster. It is not a train crash, an ecological disaster, or a disease epidemic such as Ebola or Zika scaring all of us. It is more of a silent killer," Cueni notes.

"People only fully realize its consequences when they or a member of their family suffer from a bacterial infection which proves resistant to treatment.  From a health community perspective, AMR has crept up on us over a period of time where we perhaps complacently believed we had effectively dealt with any number of established diseases and could now save our attention for a few new ones."

And from a dollars and cents point-of-view, AMR could have a crippling effect on the global economy and in local communities who might not have the means to combat such an epidemic. As Cueni explains:

"The economic impact of AMR is huge - estimates are of $100 trillion lower GDP on a global level. Given these figures, it is actually quite astounding that the emerging consensus on the need for sustainable pull incentives to encourage long-term investment in AMR R&D has not moved from talk to action. Progress on this front is urgent. There is need for open-minded conversations amongst all of the key stakeholders, including international organizations, governments, the public health community, civic society, and the private sector."

The global biopharmaceutical industry is committed to doing our part to tackle this serious issue. The AMR Industry Alliance - a cross-sector coalition of 101 companies from across the industry - was formed to fight and overcome antimicrobial resistance. Members including biotech, diagnostics, generics and research-based pharmaceutical companies and associations have committed to sharing information and jointly reporting on four key areas: R&D, appropriate use, access to treatment, and reducing the impact of manufacturing on the environment. And findings from their first progress report shows that they are doing just that:

• In 2016, 22 Alliance members invested at least $2 billion in R&D to counter AMR;
• Approximately 250 biotechnology companies across the globe are investing in innovative R&D approaches – both antibiotic and non-antibiotic – and are focused on developing powerful drugs and novel tactics to fight against AMR;
• More than two out of three Alliance companies surveyed with marketed AMR products, have strategies, policies or plans in place to improve access to their AMR-relevant products; and
• The Alliance is appealing to policy makers to draw from the evidence provided in this report and invites stakeholders to work more systematically with the life sciences industry, to find sustainable solutions to tackling antimicrobial resistance.

To read the full op-ed, click here.

To learn more about the AMR Industry Alliance, click here.

4 Things Millennials Should Know (and Love!) About Food and Farming

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.

To read the rest of Laura's blog post, please visit the GMO Answers Medium page. And visit the GMO Answers website if you have further questions about GMOs.

Pixar Announces Incredibles 2 Voice Cast and Character List - IGN News

Pixar has announced the full voice cast and character list for The Incredible 2. The long-awaited sequel will feature most of the main cast from the original film, which includes Craig T. Nelson (Bob/Mr. Incredible), Holly Hunter (Helen/Elastigirl), Sarah Vowell (Violet), Samuel L. Jackson (Frozone/Lucius), Brad Bird (Edna Mode), and the new addition of Huck Milner as Dash.
[Read More ...]

Science Over Fiction: GMOs for Public Good

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.

Read the full article here.

New Report Series Launched on The State of Innovation in Highly Prevalent Chronic Diseases

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!