Current economic and political battle taking place in America over the labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods. In 2015, 19 US states considered GM food labeling legislation. 3 States (Connecticut, Maine and Vermont) have passed mandatory GM labeling laws.

July 23: US House passed the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling bill and will move to the Senate and, if passed, will prohibit both state-level legislation regarding GM labels and the labeling of products that contain GM ingredients.

Those for the “Dark Act”

Proponents argue that GM labels will act as a warning, or an indicator of a dangerous or inferior product that people won’t want to buy. Another reason people oppose labeling is that they say scientific evidence has shown GM foods are safe.

Those against:

Opponents of this legislation call it the DARK (Denying Americans the Right to Know) Act. Food and biotechnology companies reported more than US $60 million in anti-GM labeling lobby expenditures in 2014. About 3x what was spent in 2013

The right to know

GMO food labels would provide consumers with information on which to base their purchasing decision. Consumers who wish to avoid GMO ingredients would do so and those who either want GMO ingredients or are indifferent can also make that choice. Label would not signal to consumers that GMO ingredients are inferior to those produced using other agricultural production methods, rather gives a choice.

In a Vermont study, where labeling law has been passed: 

• Law acts as intended
• Provides consumers with the information they want in order to make choices about the food they want to buy and it will not scare them away from GM technology
• More research is needed to determine whether these results are generalizable to consumers in other states

Blood-filled drones could soon become a reality and could be the answer for transportation of samples to hard-to-reach testing centers, especially in underdeveloped countries. New proof-of-concept study between John Hopkins Hospital and Uganda’s Makerere University.

Announced this week in a paper published in PLOS ONE through a Sstudy collaboration analyzed:

o   Researchers and engineers wanted to test the effects of drone transportation method on blood that needs to be screened

o   Drones are currently being tested for transporting parcels and less delicate materials

o   Drones can be hardy carrier vehicles and are built to sustain impact from bumping into other objects while airborne and upon delivery

o   Normally these types of movements could have destroyed blood cells or prompted blood to coagulation

But study shows blood samples were not affected.

Study Methods:

o   56 volunteers donated six samples of blood each

o   Samples were split into two different groups

o   Half of the blood samples were controls, the rest were packaged for the test drone flights

o   Drone blood samples were flown for between six and 38 minutes to see if time in transit could be a factor in quality

After flights, the samples were unloaded and taken back to the hospital for an array of common tests. Results were compared with control samples. No "systematic differences" were found between the two types of blood samples.

Researchers hope to next test ability of drones to deliver medicine to actual testing centers in rural areas where transport by car or on foot would be difficult.