Gaijin Panty

The chart of Cellect Biotechnology Ltd. (APOP) shows a double bottom with $7.90 target or 8.00 % below today’s $8.59 share price. The 8 months chart pattern indicates high risk for the $51.56M company. It was reported on Jan, 30 by Finviz.com. If the $7.90 price target is reached, the company will be …

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.

Check out the latest trends in bath appliances from the 2018 Kitchen and Bath Industry Show, such as Gerber Plumbing’s new Avalanche Elite toilet.

Check out the latest trends in bath appliances from the 2018 Kitchen and Bath Industry Show, such as Gerber Plumbing’s new Avalanche Elite toilet.

Check out the latest trends in bath appliances from the 2018 Kitchen and Bath Industry Show, such as Gerber Plumbing’s new Avalanche Elite toilet.

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.

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.