If you’re recovering from a busy Thanksgiving weekend and looking to catch up on what’s been going on at Law Street, look no further. ICYMI, check out the best stories of the past week.

#1 What’s Up With All the “White Student Unions?”

College students around the U.S. and Canada have been seeing “White Student Union” pages pop up for their respective schools–as of this morning there were more than 30 around the country. But is this a new trend–are random college students really trying to create “white student communities,” or just a bunch of annoying trolls? Read the full story here.

#2 American Medical Association Calls for Ban of Prescription Drug Ads

It doesn’t matter what you’re watching–it’s almost impossible to get through a TV program without seeing at least a few ads for prescription drugs. But is the constant barrage of drug ads a good thing? The American Medical Association (AMA) has decided no, and is calling for a ban on direct-to-consumer ads for prescription drugs. Read the full story here.

#3 LGBTQ Groups Are Not Happy with the New “Zoolander 2” Trailer

The newest trailer for “Zoolander 2” follows the main characters, Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller) and his fellow model buddy Hansel (Owen Wilson), from the 2001 original as they deal with their inevitable replacement by newer, fresher-faced models. But one of those new faces is sparking quite the controversy: an eyebrow-less Benedict Cumberbatch as a gender-flexible androgynous model named All that Stiller and Wilson find confusing. In the trailer, Stiller asks Cumberbatch if the character is a male or female model, and Wilson follows up by asking, “do you have a hot dog or a bun?” LGBTQ groups, trans advocates, and many onlookers are not pleased. Read the full story here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

It doesn’t matter what you’re watching–it’s almost impossible to get through a TV program without seeing at least a few ads for prescription drugs. But is the constant barrage of drug ads a good thing? The American Medical Association (AMA) has decided no, and is calling for a ban on direct-to-consumer ads for prescription drugs.

At the 2015 Interim Meeting, hundreds of AMA delegates voted for the ban. There were a few different motivations cited for why the AMA called for the ban, including the fact that the constant exposure to ads push more expensive treatments and inflate the cost of certain drugs. The U.S. is somewhat unique when it comes to allowing direct-to-consumer ads; currently Australia is the only other nation that allows the practice.

In a statement released yesterday, the AMA further explained the main motivations for its decision. AMA Board Chair-elect Patrice A. Harris, M.D., M.A stated:

Today’s vote in support of an advertising ban reflects concerns among physicians about the negative impact of commercially-driven promotions, and the role that marketing costs play in fueling escalating drug prices. Direct-to-consumer advertising also inflates demand for new and more expensive drugs, even when these drugs may not be appropriate.

[…]

Physicians strive to provide the best possible care to their patients, but increases in drug prices can impact the ability of physicians to offer their patients the best drug treatments. Patient care can be compromised and delayed when prescription drugs are unaffordable and subject to coverage limitations by the patient’s health plan. In a worst-case scenario, patients forego necessary treatments when drugs are too expensive.

This decision by the AMA is actually a departure from its traditional policies, which supported direct-to-consumer drug ads as long as they were informational and accurate. But an uptick of the ads in recent years appear to have swayed the AMA away from that acceptance. Approximately $4.5 billion was spent to direct-advertise drugs to consumers in 2014 alone, an increase of about 20 percent from 2013. As a result of these ads, many drugs are easily recognized by the general public–Viagra, Cialis, Humira, Lyrica, and Eliquis rank as the most advertised drugs of 2014. In fact, these ads have become so ubiquitous, predictable, and common that they’ve even sparked plenty of parodies: 

The fact that the AMA has removed its support for direct-to-consumer drug ads doesn’t really mean much right now, but the organization is planning on reviewing its options in the next few weeks to determine how it will go about advocating for a ban. So, we may see a whole lot less “talk to your doctor ads” in coming years–and it’s easy to imagine that will be a good thing.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Medical Association Calls for Ban of Prescription Drug Ads appeared first on Law Street.

What’s for dinner tonight? Perhaps steamed corn, infused with some delicious dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Or maybe, if you’re feeling bold, you’ll eat some tofu bites containing glyphosate, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified in March as “probably carcinogenic in humans.” Corn, soy, sugar, papayas, milk, zucchini—the list goes on; the number of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is multiplying. The U.S. House of Representative’s decision on Thursday to pass a law that would block states from mandating GMO labels only contributes to the danger that these GMO or genetically engineered (GE) foods inflict on farmers, on the environment, and on consumers.

So what are GMOs exactly, and why are they causing such a scene on Capitol Hill? Genetically modified organisms are plants or animals that are genetically altered to exhibit traits that are not natural, primarily a resistance to pesticides and herbicides. It may sound brilliant to have developed crops that can withstand the chemicals necessary to cultivate large amounts, but GMOs are often untested, require dangerous chemicals in their farming, and may be a threat to organic foods and to the environment. In the United States, GMO foods require no pre-market testing. Unlike with drug production, where there is mandatory testing on animals, mandatory human clinical trials, mandatory tests of carcinogenicity, fetal impact, neurological impact, and at least some limited allergy testing, none of those steps are required for these crops.

The American Medical Association has stated that mandatory testing should be required before GE foods and ingredients are introduced on the market, but lawmakers continue to ignore medical research centers, farmers, and constituents who oppose or at least want labels on GMOs. Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont have all passed laws mandating the labeling of genetically modified foods for consumers but unfortunately these three states are the exception, not the rule. Last week, a majority of Representatives voted in favor of a law that prevents states from mandating GMO labels, stating that labeling GMO foods is “misleading.” Supporters of the bill said that labeling foods that contain GMOs sends a message to consumers that the products are risky, and that according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), GMOs are not dangerous. However, that information is based on testing by scientists who are funded and influenced by the companies who own GMOs. Opponents of the bill called banning the labeling of GMOs “an infringement of the public’s right to know what’s in their food.”

Currently, 64 countries worldwide require the labeling of GMOs, including all 28 nations of the European Union, Russia, and China. Our lack of GMO labels is not only causing us to fall behind most other developed countries, but is also failing the satisfy a vast majority of Americans who support GMO labeling. A total of 92 percent of Americans want GMO foods to be labeled and in the past two years, more than 70 labeling bills or ballot initiatives were introduced across 30 states.

In 2012, some of America’s most profitable chemical companies teamed up with large food companies to defeat California’s Proposition 37, an initiative that would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods. Monsanto, PepsiCo, CocaCola, Nestle, and several other companies spent over 45 million dollars to block the legislation. Why? Because keeping consumers in the dark about the dangers of GMOs can be profitable, and requiring labels would allow consumers to question what they’re consuming before they buy. The companies that own GMO seeds, which are patented, sell their seeds to farmers who then buy herbicides from the same companies who also own the chemicals. This brilliant business model is racking up millions for these corporations, but is causing people to consume more and more dangerous herbicides.

Another concerning symptom is that weeds are becoming resistant to the hazardous chemicals. Genetically engineered crops are designed to survive weed killers. Corporations like Monsanto that create these herbicides and pesticides claim that herbicide use has decreased since the introduction of GE crops; however, before GE crops were cultivated, weeds resistant to Roundup did not exist. There are now 14 known species of Roundup-resistant weeds in the U.S. alone, known as “super weeds.” Super weeds have been reported on half of all U.S. farms and cost farmers millions of dollars a year to control. With more weeds becoming resistant to Roundup, farmers now have to spray larger quantities of even more toxic herbicides on their crops to kill weeds, like 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-d), a component of the poisonous Agent Orange used during the Vietnam War. GMOs intensify the problem of herbicide use and create more super weeds that are immune to harsh chemicals, disrupt the environment, and contaminate water systems.

In 2010 the President’s Cancer Panel reported that 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. The panel pointed to chemicals, primarily herbicides in our air, water, soil, and food as the primary cause of this increased cancer rate. Later that same summer, the journal Pediatrics reported in a peer-reviewed study that there is a direct correlation between pesticide exposure and increased ADHD diagnoses. In 2011 a study revealed that the insecticide in GMO corn was detected in the umbilical cord blood of pregnant women. With 90 percent of soy and 85 percent of corn now genetically engineered, and super weeds on the rise leading to harsher chemicals being used on our food, GMO consumers are being exposed to more and more dangerous chemicals. And without GMO labels, shoppers have no idea if the foods they are eating are a part of that group.

Congress’s decision last week to block any mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically engineered crops proves that corporate influence in Washington is taking away our right to choose what we consume. Genetically modified foods can and should be labeled, and Congress has an obligation to listen to the 92 percent of Americans who support the right to know what they are consuming via GMO labels. The FDA’s Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act states that the consumer has a right to know when something is added to food that changes it in ways a consumer would likely not recognize, and that indicates labeling should be required. Just like juice from concentrate, wild versus farmed, country of origin, and many other mandatory labels we see on our foods, GMOs should also be visible, since the chemicals that come with them are not. We have a right to know and a right to choose. It’s time to question whether the FDA and Congress are here to protect us, the people, or to protect a handful of chemical companies that want to keep us in the dark.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GMO Labeling: The American People Have A Right To Know appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Last week lawmakers in Utah passed HB 249, which “allows a person conceived through assisted reproduction access to non-identifying medical history of the donor from the fertility clinic.” This is a huge deal that has gotten zero attention. Maybe a couple of articles in some random news sites; the Salt lake Tribune and USA Today have covered it, but nothing that has grabbed the country’s attention.

I know who both of my biological parents are (they did it the old fashion way), but my dad was adopted and there have been so many questions about his biological parents’ medical history. When filling out any medical forms there are always plenty of questions about my parents’ and grandparents’ medical histories that I sometimes just can’t answer because there isn’t much known on my dad’s side. There is a certain kind of frustration behind that because I could be facing health risks that are passed on genetically without knowing anything about it.

I’m a strong believer that having too much information is better than not having any information at all, especially when it comes to your health!

Utah’s new law gives people a better idea of what they are genetically predisposed to while still maintaining a certain level of anonymity for the donor.

USA Today discusses the lack of interest that legislators have in “assisted reproduction,” claiming that legislators are afraid to get their hands dirty because of the doors that could be opened into a deeper conversation about conception, abortion, and embryos. I know, I know, no one wants to have a continuous debate about those topics because it seems like each side is beating a dead horse, but there is something to be said about the fact that there are children out there who have no idea about one side of their genetic traits.

Currently countries like Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Australia all heavily regulate many areas of reproductive technology, and many scholars around the world claim that the U.S. does not. Like somehow we have allowed this medical venture to fall by the wayside.

In my opinion the government does not need to have its hands in every single cookie jar unless it is completely necessary. There are already enough regulations set by the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, the American Medical Association, and the boards that license every doctor. It isn’t harmful for Utah’s legislature to step in and give people a legal right to know about their medical history. It’s impossible to get any information out of a doctor about someone else’s medical history and this just allows people to know what could possibly be in their future or what could affect their own children.

This legislation does open the door to other issues; donor-conceived offspring could want to have full access to all of the information about their donor. Sometimes people just want to know where they really came from, and sometimes the donor wants to know their offspring.

Sperm banks should do a full work up and have a detailed medical history about the person donating their eggs or sperm. I get that the process is meant to be quick and helpful for those who can not conceive without a little medical intervention, but in all reality it isn’t just sperm and eggs. These pieces of biology become human beings. This is the major process of creating a life. If you are going to create a life you should know all there is to know about the counterpart helping to create it!

I will leave you with a kick ass and somewhat relevant moment from Legally Blonde to lighten the mood!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post People Born Via Assisted Reproduction Can Now Access Medical History appeared first on Law Street.