Giddings, Val

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">lobbywatch</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><table border="1" align="center" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" bordercolor="#111111" width="100%" class="tab" style="border-collapse: collapse; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><tbody><tr><td><table border="0" align="center" width="100%" class="tab"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#EEEEEE"><td><strong><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">L Val Giddings

</font></strong></td></tr><tr><td><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dr Luther Val Giddings is the Vice President for <a href="http://www.bio.org/foodag/" style="text-decoration: none;">Food & Agriculture</a> of the Washington DC based<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=23" style="text-decoration: none;">Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) </a> - the industry's major trade lobby which  represents such corporate giants as Aventis, Bayer, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta. Giddings' specific responsibility at BIO is to promote GM crops.</span></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Giddings joined BIO in May 1997. P rior to BIO, Giddings was with the biotechnology products regulatory division of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).   </font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">During his time as a biotechnology regulator for USDA (1989-1997), Giddings served on the US delegation to the first meeting of the Open Ended Ad Hoc Working Group on a Biosafety Protocol. He attended subsequent meetings on the protocol as the representative of <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=23" style="text-decoration: none;">BIO</a> .  </font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Prior to USDA, Giddings worked as a biotech consultant for the <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=135" style="text-decoration: none;">World Bank</a> , following five years contributing to and directing biotechnology policy studies with the Office of Technology Assessment of the United States Congress.</span></font></p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" /><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In November 2002 Giddings wrote to the journal <a href="http://www.monsantoafrica.com/news/afrenshowlib.phtml?uid=6794" style="text-decoration: none;">Nature Biotechnology</a> to draw attention to something which would make us 'look back on [the <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg as something of a watershed event - a turning point.' What made the Earth Summit </span>so remarkable, according to Giddings, was a pro-GM protest march which, he told the journal's readers, was the very first time that 'real, live, developing-world farmers' had been seen 'speaking for themselves'.     </font></font></font></font></p><p>In his letter Giddings singled out the statement of one of the protesting farmers, <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=108" style="text-decoration: none;">Chengal Reddy</a>, leader of the Indian Farmers Federation. 'Traditional organic farming  . . .  is the very technology that led to mass starvation in India for centuries,' said Reddy who argued that, 'Indian farmers need access to new technologies and especially to biotechnologies.' Giddings also noted that the farmers dedicated a 'Bullshit Award,' made with two varnished piles of cow dung, to those who were deepening their poverty by denying them biotechnology. According to Giddings, this all made what had happened in<b> Johannesburg,</b>  'something new, something very big.'</p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">But, in fact, almost  every element of <a href="http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.asp?id=254" style="text-decoration: none;">the spectacle presented by Giddings </a>is framed so as to deceive. Take the farmer he singles out, <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=108" style="text-decoration: none;">Chengal Reddy </a>. Reddy is not a poor farmer, nor even the representative of poor farmers, but a politician who has on occasion admitted to never having farmed in his life.  His 'Indian Farmers Federation' is a lobby for big commercial farmers in Andhra Pradesh, where<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Reddy's family is a prominent right-wing political force. </span>

Similarly, the media contact on the march organizers' press release was <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=169" style="text-decoration: none;">Kendra Okonski </a>, the daughter of a U.S. lumber industrialist. Okonski has worked for a variety of anti-regulatory NGOs, including the ultra-right <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=30" style="text-decoration: none;">Competitive Enterprise Institute </a>.  Okonski also runs Counterprotest.net, a website devoted to helping pro-corporate lobbyists take to the streets in
mimicry of popular protesters. 

Likewise Giddings' 'Bullshit Award' far from being the imaginative riposte of impoverished farmers, that Giddings suggests, was the creation of another right-wing pressure group. Based in New Delhi and well known for its fervent support of deregulation, GM crops and Big Tobacco, the <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=156" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Liberty Institute</span> </a>is part of the same <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=154" style="text-decoration: none;">coalition that organized the rally </a>. The Liberty Institute like Chengal Reddy regularly cooperates with Monsanto in its promotional work for GM crops in India. 
  
Chengal Reddy was brought to Johannesburg by <a href="http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=170" style="text-decoration: none;">AfricaBio</a>, a lobby group that, like others represented at the march, is closely aligned with Monsanto and the biotech industry. All of which raises more questions about the role played in this PR spectacle by the industry's biggest lobby organisation, BIO and by Giddings who was in Johannesburg at the time.       </font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As well as promoting GM crops, Giddings' job at BIO also involves resisting regulatory restrictions on approving and marketing new products. This means that Giddings is keen to dismiss concerns about GM products and those who raise them.  </font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At the height of concern over the 'Terminator' seed-sterility  technology, which it is feared could impact on the one and a half billion people who depend on farm-saved seed for food security, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Giddings declared, <strong>'The Terminator technology is not unethical. It is unethical to empower farmers with the ability to steal value added by companies.'</strong></span>Monsanto eventually pledged itself not to make use of the technology.

More recent attempts by Giddings to dismiss concerns over so-called 'pharma crops' - crops genetically engineered to produce pharmaceutical drugs and industrial chemicals - have also run into difficulty</font></p></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><p style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Thursday, July 23, the “DARK” side took a hit. By a vote of 275 to 150, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo), aimed at preempting state-level mandates for discriminatory, skull and crossbones labels on foods derived from crops improved through biotechnology, or “GMOs.”</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Opponents of the bill, legions whipped into fearful frenzy by pro-labeling forces, mounted a full scale assault in an attempt to derail the bill, dubbing it the “<a href="http://civileats.com/2015/07/20/5-things-to-know-about-the-dark-act/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">DARK</a>” (“Denying Americans the Right to Know”) Act, casting it falsely as a revived “<a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/mpa.asp" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Monsanto Protection Act</a>,” and claiming it was aimed at denying consumers access to information. Those, and their other arguments, are both wrong and unpersuasive, which is why their efforts have increasingly <a href="http://www.innovationfiles.org/mandatory-gmo-labeling-proposals-are-failing-despite-unprecedented-efforts-and-expenditures/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">failed to bear fruit</a>. With House passage of the bill, the consistent thread of bipartisan support for agricultural biotechnology and science-based innovation we’ve seen in Congress since the end of World War II continues unbroken.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The bill represents real progress. Those who have tried to use fear and deception to advance a dogmatic world view, <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">built on deceit and self-deception</a>, contradicted by <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">data</a> and <a href="http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/49/executivesummary/default.asp" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">experience</a> have suffered a massive defeat. Again. Members of Congress rejected their clamor (rumors suggest calls urging “No” votes outnumbered support by 300 to 1) and voted to reject the niggling (and expensive) harassment campaign, largely underwritten by the organic lobby, and chose instead to support modern agriculture.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Despite the importance of the bill, there are some areas where it can be improved. First, the bill uses the term “genetically engineered plant” throughout, without defining it, based on the apparent presumption that the term defines a real category that is useful for identifying hazard or managing risk. But the United States explicitly <a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/sa_regulations/ct_agency_framework_roles/!ut/p/a0/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfGjzOK9_D2MDJ0MjDzd3V2dDDz93HwCzL29jAyMTPULsh0VAU1Vels!/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">rejected</a> this thinking in the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/biotech_rule/pubs/pdf/coordinated-framework-1986.pdf" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology</a> in 1986, after years of deliberation, because such a process-based approach fails to define a category with any value for identifying hazard or managing risk. Unlike Europe, the United States <a href="http://scienceprogress.org/2009/07/igniting-agricultural-innovation/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">prudently</a> elected to treat “regulated articles” on the basis of characteristics that might indicate a risk in need of management. This bill sets all that aside, apparently without realizing it. This would be a giant step backward and away from basing regulations in science, which has been the signal strength of the U.S. approach, underlying all the global success we have seen with crops improved through biotechnology. This is neither a good nor a necessary move.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The stated intent of the bill <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr1599/text" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">as marked up</a> is to uphold the existing, voluntary Food and Drug Administration (FDA) consultation process that has been in place and worked very well for more than two decades (zero cases of illness, not a single death). But Section 461(a)(1) makes it unlawful to commercialize a crop variety improved through biotechnology unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) certifies no objections to the outcome of the FDA voluntary consultation process. The responsible individual seeking final (mandatory) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) clearance prior to commercialization must submit this certification to USDA as part of the approval package. It would take a skilled, energetic, and acrobatic advocate to maintain that this is anything but a change in the FDA process from voluntary to mandatory.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is not an advisable change. The FDA process is not broken. In two decades there have been zero failures and zero negative outcomes (which does beg the question, what are the comparable numbers for organic food?). This “fix” would break the FDA consultation process by mandating review for a scientifically indefensible class, “GMOs,” never before recognized in U.S. law. It would, for the first time, align the United States squarely with the European Union, whose <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/genetically-modified-organisms-improving-risk-assessments" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">disastrous policies</a> have <a href="http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2012/January/basf-pull-out-gm-crops-biotech.asp" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">driven their ag biotech industry to our shores</a>. This is not a good idea, and it is irrelevant to the purpose of the bill, which is to end the labeling efforts at the state level. This bill, as it stands, would create a new opportunity for political interference with a regulatory process that is already under political attack despite its unbroken record of remarkable success. That would create far bigger problems than it seeks to solve.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Title I, Section 113 is titled “Preemption.” It provides that “no State or political subdivision of a State may directly or indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as to any food in interstate commerce any requirement with respect to genetically engineered plants for use or application in food that is not identical to the requirement of section 461 of the Plant Protection Act….” With the intent to preempt state-mandated GMO labels, it would seem more logical to invoke the governing federal authority, which is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It looks more than anything like an open invitation to litigation because questions about its meaning have <a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/House-Ag-leaders-gmo-labeling-bill-does-not-preempt-cultivation-bans-7172015.asp" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">already been raised.</a></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Title II mandates that USDA become a “Genetic Engineering Certification” agency and set up labeling mechanisms for both GM and non-GM materials based on the USDA’s Organic Marketing Program. But the market has already provided numerous mechanisms through which consumers who want to avoid foods containing biotech-improved ingredients can do so. This provision is superfluous and would create a brand new bureaucratic machine that would cost a great deal and deliver nothing of value that we do not already have.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Title III is also problematic. It mandates that FDA define and regulate the use of the term “natural” on food labels. FDA has <a href="http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/transparency/basics/ucm214868.htm" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">already addressed</a> this with virtuous brevity. This section of the bill would mandate nothing more than endless muddling, equivocation, and no doubt legislation, while doing nothing to improve food safety or quality.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In short, despite good intentions, H.R. 1599 as passed by the House is an inedible sausage. Nothing more was needed than something simple, direct, and to the point:</font></p><blockquote style="margin: 0px 20px 15px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 10px; border-width: 0px 0px 0px 3px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(232, 232, 232); outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; quotes: none; font-style: italic; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 22px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><p style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In accordance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, this Act reaffirms that authority over the content and format of mandatory food labels in these United States is the responsibility and sole province of the Food and Drug Administration; States are hereby and forever permanently preempted from meddling in this arena.</font></p></blockquote><p style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 20px; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It is not clear that even that much is needed, as <a href="http://www.politico.com/morningagriculture/0314/morningagriculture13440.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">FDA already has all the authority and responsibility it needs</a> over food labels. But at least that short paragraph would create no new problems. If the Senate takes up the issue, we can only hope they will be inclined to keep it simple.</font></p><span style="line-height: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">- See more at: http://www.innovationfiles.org/the-dark-side-loses-another-one-with-house-passage-of-state-labeling-preemption-bill/#sthash.NZ9056XX.dpuf</font></span></div><div><span style="line-height: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="line-height: 20px;">http://www.innovationfiles.org/the-dark-side-loses-another-one-with-house-passage-of-state-labeling-preemption-bill/</span></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=
</font><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">LI bs</font></div><div><div id="background-summary-container" class="background-section " data-li-template="summary_section" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 17px; background-color: rgb(223, 223, 223);"><div id="background-summary" class="background-summary edit-default" style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px 0px 5px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14902) 0px 1px 1px, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.027451) -1px 0px 0px, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.027451) 1px 0px 0px, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.117647) 0px 1px 0px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div id="summary-item" class="editable-item section-item" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 35px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><div id="summary-item-view" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><div class="summary" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><p class="description" dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 30px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Specialties: Val Giddings has over 20 years experience in policy, regulation, strategic analysis and international relations with innovative technologies, especially agricultural biotechnology, in Washington, D.C. and around the world. Follow me on Twitter @prometheusgreen.</font></p></div></div></div></div></div><div id="background-experience-container" class="background-section" data-li-template="experience_section" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 17px; background-color: rgb(223, 223, 223);"><div id="background-experience" class="background-experience edit-default" style="margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px 0px 5px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.14902) 0px 1px 1px, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.027451) -1px 0px 0px, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.027451) 1px 0px 0px, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.117647) 0px 1px 0px; background: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h3 style="margin: 0px; padding: 30px 35px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 18px; background: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Experience</font></h3><div id="experience-330250581" class="editable-item section-item current-position" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 35px 30px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><div id="experience-330250581-view" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><header style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><h5 class="experience-logo" aria-hidden="true" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 16px; text-align: center; width: 100px; float: right;"><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/836570?trk=ppro_cprof" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><img class="lazy-load" src="https://media.licdn.com/media/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAHEAAAAJGQ3MjMzYzUzLTE1YjYtNGJjYy04ZjQxLTJkYmIwOWYxMWM1Mw.png" data-li-src="https://media.licdn.com/media/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAHEAAAAJGQ3MjMzYzUzLTE1YjYtNGJjYy04ZjQxLTJkYmIwOWYxMWM1Mw.png" alt="" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;" /></font></a></h5><h4 style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: middle; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 18px; display: inline-block; zoom: 1;"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/title/senior-fellow?trk=pprofile_title" title="Learn more about this title" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Senior Fellow</font></a></h4><h5 style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 16px;"><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/836570?trk=ppro_cprof" dir="auto" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Information Technology & Innovation Foundation</font></a></h5></header><span class="experience-date-locale" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 15px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 14px; display: block;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><time style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">2011</time> – Present (4 years)<span class="locality" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;">Washington, D.C.</span></font></span><p class="description summary-field-show-more" dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Val is responsible for the life sciences portfolio with ITIF, a leading public policy think tank focused on innovation and sustainable economic growth.</font></p></div></div><div id="experience-17498670" class="editable-item section-item current-position" style="margin: 0px; padding: 30px 35px; border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><div id="experience-17498670-view" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><header style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><h5 class="experience-logo" aria-hidden="true" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 16px; text-align: center; width: 100px; float: right;"><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/14668?trk=ppro_cprof" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><img class="lazy-load" src="https://media.licdn.com/media/p/2/000/190/0d0/105c1e6.png" data-li-src="https://media.licdn.com/media/p/2/000/190/0d0/105c1e6.png" alt="" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;" /></font></a></h5><h4 style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: middle; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 18px; display: inline-block; zoom: 1;"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/title/president-%26-ceo?trk=pprofile_title" title="Learn more about this title" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">President & CEO</font></a></h4><h5 style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 16px;"><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/14668?trk=ppro_cprof" dir="auto" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">PrometheusAB, Inc.</font></a></h5></header><span class="experience-date-locale" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 15px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 14px; display: block;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><time style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">2006</time> – Present (9 years)</font></span><p class="description summary-field-show-more" dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Advanced expertise in US and global biotechnology policy, regulation, media affairs and strategic planning.</font></p></div></div><div id="experience-135738315" class="editable-item section-item past-position" style="margin: 0px; padding: 30px 35px; border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><div id="experience-135738315-view" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><header style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><h5 class="experience-logo" aria-hidden="true" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 16px; text-align: center; width: 100px; float: right;"><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/22937?trk=ppro_cprof" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><img class="lazy-load" src="https://media.licdn.com/media/p/5/000/1e2/03a/1cac48a.png" data-li-src="https://media.licdn.com/media/p/5/000/1e2/03a/1cac48a.png" alt="" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;" /></font></a></h5><h4 style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: middle; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 18px; display: inline-block; zoom: 1;"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/title/vice-president-for-food-%26-agriculture?trk=pprofile_title" title="Learn more about this title" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Vice President for Food & Agriculture</font></a></h4><h5 style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 16px;"><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/22937?trk=ppro_cprof" dir="auto" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Biotechnology Industry Organization</font></a></h5></header><span class="experience-date-locale" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 15px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 14px; display: block;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><time style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">1997</time> – <time style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">2006</time> (9 years)</font></span><p class="description summary-field-show-more" dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Val Giddings has over 20 years experience in policy, regulation, strategic analysis and international relations with innovative technologies, especially agricultural biotechnology, in Washington, D.C. and around the world. Most recently he served 8 years as Vice President for Food & Agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). BIO is the flagship trade association representing over 1,100 biotechnology companies worldwide. Giddings led in serving members in Food & Agriculture, working directly with member company CEOs to shape and prosecute a wide ranging policy agenda with supporting media, political, science policy and diplomatic action. 

At BIO, Giddings built a program widely recognized for the competence of its staff and strong representation of member companies’ interests. In the course of building BIO’s Food & Agriculture practice, Giddings gained global recognition for his gifts for critical and strategic analysis, his subject matter knowledge, diplomatic experience and leadership skills. Giddings is particularly recognized for finding creative solutions to difficult problems under pressure. At BIO he organized and led numerous industry delegations to international negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol, participated and spoke in numerous national and international venues and meetings, and was extensively involved in media and public affairs work. Media experience includes numerous interviews with major newspapers, and radio and television outlets around the world, including appearances on ABC’s Nightline, CNN’s Crossfire, and multiple appearances on major network television news and radio programs.</font></p></div></div><div id="experience-135739390" class="editable-item section-item past-position" style="margin: 0px; padding: 30px 35px; border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><div id="experience-135739390-view" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><header style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><h4 style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: middle; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 18px; display: inline-block; zoom: 1;"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/title/international-team-leader-%26-senior-staff-geneticist?trk=pprofile_title" title="Learn more about this title" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">International Team Leader & Senior Staff Geneticist</font></a></h4><h5 style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 16px;"><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/4746?trk=ppro_cprof" dir="auto" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">US Department of Agriculture, Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service</font></a></h5></header><span class="experience-date-locale" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 15px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 14px; display: block;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><time style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">1989</time> – <time style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">1997</time> (8 years)</font></span><p class="description summary-field-show-more" dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Giddings worked for eight years in the biotechnology products regulatory division of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture. At USDA Giddings was Senior Staff Geneticist responsible for international policy coordination. In that capacity, he served on the US delegations negotiating the Biodiversity Convention and the Biosafety Protocol, as well as the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, the “Earth Summit”) in Rio de Janeiro, participating also in its Johannesburg sequel. Previously Giddings worked as a Consultant to the World Bank, examining the potential for biotechnology to contribute to agriculture and the environment in developing countries.</font></p></div></div><div id="experience-135739143" class="editable-item section-item past-position" style="margin: 0px; padding: 30px 35px; border-width: 1px 0px 0px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><div id="experience-135739143-view" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><header style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;"><h4 style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: middle; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 18px; display: inline-block; zoom: 1;"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/title/analyst%2C-office-of-technology-assessment%2C-united-states-congress?trk=pprofile_title" title="Learn more about this title" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Analyst, Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress</font></a></h4><h5 style="margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: normal; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 16px;"><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/company/3923?trk=ppro_cprof" dir="auto" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">U.S. Congress</font></a></h5></header><span class="experience-date-locale" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 15px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: 14px; display: block;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><time style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">1984</time> – <time style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;">1989</time> (5 years)</font></span><p class="description summary-field-show-more" dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Giddings’ experience in Washington began with 5 years in the Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress. While at OTA he directed and contributed to multiple studies of issues associated with innovative technologies including neuroscience, genetics, and biotechnology including public perception, genetic and ecological challenges associated with field testing genetically modified organisms, and testified before Congress multiple times.</font></p></div></div></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">scrape:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Stephen Ezell</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>Robin Gaster</div><div>Robin Gaster</div><div>President, Innovation Ecologies Inc.</div><div>Daniel Castro</div><div>Daniel Castro</div><div>Director of the Center for Data Innovation</div><div>Rob Atkinson</div><div>Rob Atkinson</div><div>Randolph Court</div><div>Randolph Court</div><div>Chief Operating Officer and Managing Editor at Information Technology and Innovation Foundation</div><div>Tamar Haspel</div><div>Tamar Haspel</div><div>Freelance writer</div><div>Joe Kennedy</div><div>Joe Kennedy</div><div>President, Kennedy Research LLC, Senior Fellow ITIF, Senior Policy Editor, Mercatus Center</div><div>Ben Miller</div><div>Ben Miller</div><div>Jim Chung</div><div>Jim Chung</div><div>Executive Director, Innovation and Entrepreneurship</div><div>Vinny Catalano, CFA</div><div>Vinny Catalano, CFA</div><div>President and Global Investment Strategist, Blue Marble Research Advisory</div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">links</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">http://www.innovationfiles.org/anatomy-of-a-smear-attack-on-gmo-supporting-scientists/</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">this article was originally published in The Huffington Post. It is co-authored by Val Giddings and Jon Entine</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Recently on the Huffington Post we came across a<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> disturbing</span> article – an attack by <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Jeffrey Smith</span> on two respected university professors who apply a critical eye to the claims made by various advocates alleging dangers to human health linked to genetically modified organisms (GMOs.) 2015-04-01-1427906926-6335062-HuffPoheadline.png</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Smith, if you are not familiar with him, heads up a one-man band rabidly anti-GMO organization known as the Institute for Responsible Technology–he and his organization are controversial to say the least, but more on that later.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The subject of the attack piece was co-written by University of Illinois emeritus professor Bruce<b> Chassy and University of Melbourne geneticist David Tribe</b>. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">It appears on the website of AcademicsReview,</span> an<b> independent non-profit s</b>et up by the scholars to address the maelstrom of misinformation that passes for debate <b>on the GMO </b>issue. In one of their most pointed and heavily circulated critiques, Chassy and Tribe examine one of Smith’s two self-published books that supposedly ‘prove’ that GMO foods are reckless and dangerous.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Chassy and Tribe’s critique titled “Yogic Flying and GM Foods: The Wild Theories of Jeffrey Smith,” addressed each of the 65 major claims Smith makes about the safety of GMOs, using peer reviewed research and fact-based evidence to refute every one.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Smith’s response in the Huffington Post defends his claims by citing the example of the FLAVR SAVR™ tomato. Let’s take a closer look at Smith’s “new” claims. </font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">It is not clear why, in 2015, Smith would choose to mount an argument claiming dangers from “GMOs” based on an obsolete tomato variety developed more than 25 years ago that has been off the market for two decades. But Smith chose to defend his mistaken and falsified claims that the Food and Drug Administration had botched its review of the tomato and suppressed warnings from its staff about alleged dangers.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The first thing to note is that three of Smith’s ten embedded links to comments by FDA officials supposedly casting doubt on the safety of the tomato or the review process don’t work. In any case, what Smith leaves out is worth noting.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The FLAVR SAVR™ tomato, developed by Calgene, was the first “bioengineered” food ever reviewed by FDA. At that time FDA had no formalized process for such reviews, so, typically, officials bent over backwards to make sure they didn’t miss anything that might be important or relevant.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Among other things, FDA scientists did not yet have a clear view of what kind of tests were needed to ensure safety and much of the back and forth among agency scientists that Smith argues is evidence of corruption and bad faith is, in context, simply and obviously, the record of folks trying to figure out how to get it right. This is evident to those who read the documents without presupposing conspiracies and evil intent. Read through the documents Smith cites yourself and see what you think. But read them all, from beginning to end; don’t short cut. The full, boring, bureaucratic context is, in fact, the essential point.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Smith refers to a selected compilation (i.e. “cherry picked”) of FDA documents he claims supports his case. The specific “smoking gun” supposedly proving the dangers of this tomato is that in a total of 39 studies involving 456 rats, 12 animals fed the tomatoes showed “erosions” in their digestive tracts. The question is whether these were caused by eating the tomatoes, or by something else, such as the feeding procedures or stress on the animals because of their confinement, both plausible explanations. Without corroborating evidence, Smith insists the tomatoes were at fault, and he cites documents long available in the public record as evidence that facts were suppressed. But the documents, in their entirety, show the opposite of what Smith claims; the FDA reviewed all of the available data and affirmed the safety of the tomato.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">One of us (<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Val Giddings) read these documents when they first came out as he was at the time a regulator in the biotech products division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, </span>and had been peripherally involved with USDA’s review of the Calgene tomato. The documents didn’t support Smith’s conspiracy theories then and that hasn’t changed in the 22 years since.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Consider item 15 on Smith’s list (chosen entirely at random as one of his few cited links that actually worked). Smith has offered it as one of many documents showing a conspiracy to suppress findings of dangers to consumers of the tomato. What does it show? Read it in its entirety for yourself and reach your own conclusions. If you do, you will find this statement, from an FDA official summarizing for his superiors:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">All I can do is state my opinion that the data does not show any real toxicity. The requirements that one should have in this data (and in data generally) for a real finding [of toxicity] are:A strong association between the alleged cause (treatment) and the effect. Here the association is weak and variable and the effect seems spurious and unlikely to be reproduced.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Specificity (One should not find the effect produced by other extraneous factors. (Here we find the effect produced in the controls.)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">A biological gradient evidenced by a clear dose response. (This feature was not present in these studies.)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Consistent data shown by positive results in repeated studies. (Here a second study is negative.)</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">A plausible biological mechanism for the treatment and the effect observed. (Here the tomatine levels were shown to be the same as in regular tomatoes and the acid in tomatoes is much weaker than stomach acid itself. No other likely treatment related cause is apparent.) On the other hand the stress-induced fasting is plausible.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">At least two things stand out that are worth emphasizing: first, Smith claims the observed lesions were caused by the tomatoes, yet they were also seen, in the first experiment, in control rats that were not exposed; second, in the repeat experiment, no lesions at all were noted. This argues strongly against the tomatoes as the cause of the lesions seen in the first experiment, and suggests they were in fact an accidental result of the experimental procedures, which involved inserting a feeding tube down the throats of the rats – a technique that requires skill, and is easy to get wrong.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Bottom line: FDA evaluators considered all the data, compared observations to what would be expected if the tomatoes were in fact the cause of the lesions, and when things didn’t add up, they concluded, following well established principles of toxicology, that whatever caused the lesions it wasn’t the tomatoes. And they documented their analysis and conclusions for the record. End of story.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">But Smith disputes FDA’s conclusion, despite the clear absence of any of the signs that would be expected if the tomatoes were in fact guilty, as enumerated above. Now Smith may sincerely believe FDA got it wrong, but there is nothing in the record to support his belief, and the science does not back him up.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Furthermore, Smith does more than just misunderstand and misrepresent ancient bureaucratic documents on obsolete products. He also writes:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">To claim that there are no new potential health hazards from GMOs is absurd. Fran Sharples, the Director of the Board on Life Sciences at the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), told me, “The academies have issued numerous reports on assessing the risks of transgenic plants. If the academy believed there were no such potential risks, why would we have delved into these matters in these reports?”</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">This is intriguing. Fran Sharples has been working in this area for three decades. She has a well-deserved reputation for probity and professionalism. This comment does not sound like something she would say (if only for its clumsy phrasing). So, having known Dr. Sharples for three decades, we reached out to her and asked if Smith’s quote was accurate. Her reply:</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">To be perfectly honest, I have no recollection of ever talking to this guy or of making such a statement. For all I know, he made it up. It’s a mystery and a bit unsettling to find my name in print in association with something I have no memory of.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">It is also worth pointing out that the words Smith attributes to Dr. Sharples make no sense to anyone familiar with how the National Academy of Sciences works. The Academy generally does not pick and choose the topics of its studies, but rather responds to requests to examine issues, most often from government agencies. The Academy enlists</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">…the aid of the nation’s most knowledgeable scientists, engineers, health professionals, and other experts who volunteer their time to produce reports that have led to some of the most significant and lasting improvements in the health, education, and welfare of all the world’s citizens.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">It is commonplace for U.S. Government Agencies under assault by parties unwilling to follow where the data leads to request an impartial third party review from the Academy, which has frequently happened on GMO related issues. But as the present case demonstrates, folks unpersuaded by data are difficult to persuade by examinations of data.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">One might wonder what would motivate someone to embark on a campaign of hostility toward innovations in food and agriculture that have already delivered <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">enormous benefits around the world, particularly to small farmers in developing countries? </span>There doesn’t appear to be anything in Smith’s previous background as an accomplished ballroom dance instructor or practitioner of yogic flying (yes, see accompanying picture) that would lead one to anticipate such an obsession. 2015-04-01-1427907250-558156-smith1.jpg</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Perhaps it is related to his membership in the Maharishi religious cult that seems to make opposition to innovation in agricultural biotechnology one of its central tenets. Whatever Smith’s motivation, the weaknesses of his claims are not repaired by his ineffective attempts in their defense.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">At this point, it may be worth considering the credentials of the folks at odds here. David Tribe, a microbiology PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in microbiology, recognized around the world for his expertise in biotechnology and food safety, widely published and cited in peer-reviewed literature, and noted for his dedication to education and public service. Bruce Chassy, a biochemistry PhD, was a research chemist at the National Institutes of Health, received the Public Health Service Distinguished Service Award, served as Professor and Head of the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition at the University of Illinois, and as a food safety expert on the FDA’s Food Advisory Committee.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jeffrey Smith? His expertise in relevant areas is more quickly catalogued: he has none. He has two self-published books and a self-produced documentary narrated by the wife of Dr. Oz on the topic. He speaks to rabidly anti-GMO audiences around the world with a degree of passion and enthusiasm that does not embrace critical and rigorous engagement with the data. One is free to choose who one thinks is credible, but if you place value on competence and expertise, it is clear whose opinions are worthy of consideration.</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Jon Entine, executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project, is a<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Senior Fellow at the World Food Center Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy, University of California-Davis</span>. Follow @JonEntine on Twitter</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">- See more at: http://www.innovationfiles.org/anatomy-of-a-smear-attack-on-gmo-supporting-scientists/#sthash.H6UERF6N.dpuf</font></div><div><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></p><div class="page-restrict-output" style="line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">US Rep. Mike Pompeo </span>(R-Kansas) today introduced legislation that would recognize the federal government’s authority to determine [READ PREVENT] if mandatory GMO labels should be applied to foods, to require FDA to review GMO-containing foods prior to marketing, and to define the word “natural” as applied to foods. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Reuters carried a story on the proposed legislation written by Carey Gillam.  Academics Review</span> has assigned low grades in the past due to Ms. Gillam’s inaccurate reporting on GM foods which reflects a clear bias (<a href="http://academicsreview.org/2014/03/grading-the-science-usdas-economic-research-report-coverage-by-reuters/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">academicsreview.org/2014/03/grading-the-science-usdas-economic-research-report-coverage-by-reuters/</a>).  In her April 9, 2014 report on the proposed legislation Ms. Gillam claimed “But there are also many scientific studies showing links to human and animal health problems, and many indicating environmental damage related to GMO crops.”[note weeds cut?]</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">This statement is simply factually incorrect:</font></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> 1.  There are many scientific studies that show that GM crops are safe</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> 2.  There are a handful of discredited and flawed scientific studies that claim GM crops are not safe but these have been widely rejected by the scientific community</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> 3.  There is a broad scientific consensus, supported by 18 years of real-world experience by tens of millions of farmers who have planted billions of acres of GM crops, that GM technology presents no new or different risks and is as safe as, or is <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">safer than other modalities of breeding. </span> The vocal misrepresentation of fact by a few well funded hardcore dissidents by whom Ms. Gillam’s views are apparently informed do not change these facts.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"> 4.  Ms. Gillam also claims “Notably, millions of acres of U.S. farmland have developed <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">weed resistance</span> due to heavy use of crops that have been genetically altered to withstand dousings of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, and the subsequent heavy use of Roundup.” As is true with all herbicides, weeds with elevated resistance to glyphosate have emerged and have caused concern in 15-40% of planting locations, the challenge this presents to farmers can be<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> controlled by better stewardship practices. </span> [read: higher doses] The claim that crops are doused with Round-Up is emotionally loaded but equally inaccurate.  </font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">For these reasons Academics Review have to assign this report a grade of F.  </font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><strong><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Additional review in support of this assessed grade:</font></span></strong></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Reprinted here with the author’s permission from the<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"><a title="ITIF - Information Technology & Innovation Foundation" href="http://www.itif.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;"> Information Technology & Innovation Foundation</a>.</span></font></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><a title="Reuters Carey Gillam" href="http://www.innovationfiles.org/reuters-predictably-gets-it-wrong-again/" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000" size="4">REUTERS (PREDICTABLY) GETS IT WRONG.  AGAIN.</font></a></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">One of the reasons the “controversy” over crops improved through biotechnology persists, is because it is manufactured and sustained by a well-organized, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">ongoing campaign, funded and sustained by </span></span><a href="http://academicsreview.org/2014/04/why-consumers-pay-more-for-organic-foods-fear-sells-and-marketers-know-it/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; line-height: 1.5em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">vested interests</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">.  This astroturf campaign [who? why?]</span>is fueled by credulous and disengaged journalists who recycle their press releases, and allow those biases to bleed over into other coverage.</span></font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">We’ve <a href="http://www.innovationfiles.org/organic-farm-supporters-seek-special-treatment/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">written before</a> about one<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> repeat offender, Carey Gillam, of Reuters. </span> She’s back with more of the same, in <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/u-bill-seeks-block-mandatory-gmo-food-labeling-164547641--finance.html" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">a story</a> that ran on 9 April covering legislation introduced in Congress that would (<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/131172738/Attorney-General-s-opinion-letter-on-GMO-labeling-bill" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">redundantly</a>)    preempt state legislation to mandate labels that would mislead consumers and abet fraudulent marketing campaigns. Gillam writes “But some scientific studies warn of potential human and animal health problems, and GMO crops have been tied to environmental problems, including rising weed resistance. Millions of acres of U.S. farmland have developed weed resistance due to heavy use of crops that have been genetically altered to withstand dousings of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.”</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Hold the weed/herbicide resistance issue for a moment, and let’s look at the “scientific studies that warn of potential human and animal health problems…”  This claim is false, and flagrantly so.  Gillam has been called on this before, yet she continues to recycle the falsehood.  It bears repeating: there is not a single credible study showing any health or safety problem with any of the foods or animal feeds on the market derived from crops improved through biotechnology. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> Not one. FDA’s evaluation of each and every one can be found <a href="http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=Biocon" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">here</a>.</span>  Gillam obviously cannot be bothered, but it makes for illuminating (if soporific) reading. Professional opponents of agricultural biotechnology, whose water Gillam reliably carries, argue that the FDA consultation process is “voluntary.”  This, too, is a canard we’ve <a href="http://www2.itif.org/2014-testimony-opposition-vt-h112.pdf" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">previously addressed</a>, one which ignores that the same products have been subjected to equivalent, mandatory reviews in the EU, Japan, Australia, Canada, and other countries around the world.  Gillam also ignores the recent <a href="http://www.agri-pulse.com/FDA-says-it-will-finalize-voluntary-GMO-labeling-soon-03282014.asp" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">reaffirmation</a> from the FDA Commissioner that these foods are safe, and that FDA labels give consumers everything bit of scientifically defensible information about the safety and nutritional value of these foods.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The repeated citing of these false claims ignores the robust global <a href="http://www.skeptiforum.org/richard-green-on-the-scientific-consensus-and-gmos/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">consensus</a> on the safety of crops improved through biotechnology, and recycles the canard that the science is undecided; that the <a href="http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Nicolia-20131.pdf" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">published studies</a> <a href="http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-global-studies-confirming-safety-gm-foods-among-most-analyzed-subject-in-science/#.U0XJa_ldWSr" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">demonstrating the safety</a> of these crops are counterbalanced by credible scientific publications suggesting otherwise.  This is bogus, and after the last time Gillam ran it, we called her on it.  That lead to an email exchange.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">I challenged her to back up what she had written, and asked her to provide examples of the scientific papers she claims credibly support the notion that there are genuine safety issues here.  .  “I’d love to know what papers you think credibly support the claims you reported. Why not bring them on and let’s see what they are…  But I could be wrong. If you have data, stand behind it. If not, I can provide you plenty of data on which a balanced journalist could base a correction.”</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">She responded “…The scientific literature showing a variety of health and environmental concerns surrounding the use of GMOs is out there. I have not just read the studies and made copies, but talked to scientists in several different countries about their concern.”  Conspicuously absent from her response was any mention of just which studies these are.  Perhaps because she knows she can’t cite any that haven’t been rejected by the scientific community or <a href="http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">retracted</a>  by the journals in which they were published by mistake. Pressed further, instead of providing any examples of these mythical studies, she resorted to the <a href="http://badskeptic.com/?p=750" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">shill gambit</a> (hurling accusations that the views one disagrees with are bought and paid for, and thus do not have to be dealt with on their merits) thus conceding the argument.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">As for biotech improved crops being “tied to environmental problems, including rising weed resistance. Millions of acres of U.S. farmland have developed weed resistance due to heavy use of crops that have been genetically altered to withstand dousings of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide…” there are several points to be made.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The first is that the evolution of resistance/tolerance is completely unsurprising. In fact, “<a href="http://entomologytoday.org/2014/04/08/the-first-journal-article-on-insecticide-resistance-was-published-100-years-ago-this-month/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">The First Journal Article on Insecticide Resistance was Published 100 Years Ago this Month</a>”.  Gillam may be <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">shocked</a> to discover gambling in the casino, but it’s been known for some time.  And experts in weed management have known about glyphosate tolerant weeds for some time as well, and they <a href="http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/12/superweed-part-2/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">don’t fit comfortably into</a> activist story line Gillam dutifully parrots.  Never mind that farmers don’t “douse” weeds with glyphosate, or anything (why not? It costs money, and dousing is unnecessary, wasteful and expensive.) The bottom line is that the resistance issues are most severe in the fields of farmers who failed to follow the recommended and established best practices, and went instead year on year using only one method of weed control, eschewing the rotation and alternation of crops and weed control methods called for by long experience. The result is neither a new problem, nor one that cannot be managed. As any chef can tell you, the kitchen knife needs sharpening from time to time, and every so often one must buy a new one.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Others have noted Gillam’s repeated offenses in this area.  Sadly, it seems nothing will change until something changes.  Perhaps it’s time for her editors to move her to a beat that would give her less opportunity to exercise the prejudices she is obviously unwilling to check.</font></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">Contributor L. Val Giddings, Ph.D. (Genetics, <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Evolutionary Biology).</span>  Dr. Giddings is a senior fellow at the Senior Fellow at Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.</font></span></p><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 15px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p></div><p class="cats" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>Filed Under</strong>: <a href="http://academicsreview.org/grading-science-published/" title="View all posts in Grading Science" rel="category tag" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Grading Science</a></font></p><p class="tags" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 16.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><strong>Tags</strong>: <a href="http://academicsreview.org/tag/carey-gillam/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Carey Gillam</a>, <a href="http://academicsreview.org/tag/reuters/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">Reuters</a>, <a href="http://academicsreview.org/tag/science-journalism/" rel="tag" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">science journalism</a></font></p><p style="margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></p></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></div></div></div>