- The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has ruled that the study purporting to link biotech crops to cancer in lab animals is of “insufficient scientific quality for safety assessments.” EFSA found that the “design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate.” The paper was put out by an activist researcher under a curious media embargo and was widely trashed by independent scientists.
- Opponents of the proposed soda tax in Richmond, California are drawing attention to the large number of non-soda items that will be subject to the tax. The ballot measure would apparently apply to infant formula and nutrition supplement beverages aimed at the elderly, among 800 other items. These kinds of administrative difficulties should be a warning to those like New York Times columnist Mark Bittman who think that policymakers can assign a tax or subsidy to every single one of the over 38,000 items in a typical grocery store.
- The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead editorial board has a suggestion for their fellow North Dakotans: Counter-protest the animal rights radicals from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The paper suggests holding an outdoor fish fry the next time PETA’s scantily-clad “mermaids” arrive, but given that the group kills about 2,000 dogs and cats per year in its Virginia animal shelter, perhaps signing our petition to strip the group’s animal shelter status would be a better idea.
- CCF in the News: Our HumaneWatch project is calling attention to the deceptive fundraising practices of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in Illinois. Our Senior Research Analyst is unsure that a new portion-sizing education campaign in California is worth the money it will cost Los Angeles County taxpayers. (But as portion-size campaigns by big-city health departments go, it isn’t the worst by a long shot.)
- CCF This Week: In our posts this week, we gave a shout-out to sensible comments on New York’s prohibitionist soda ban from Steve Forbes, examined an upcoming court case pitting a Maryland farm family against an activist group run by a multimillionaire conspiracy theorist, called bull on claims that defending freedom to choose amounted to victim blaming, and recast the debate over the cause of obesity from soft drinks to irresponsible personal choices.
More on “Animal Rights Extremism”