Does the proliferation of Non-GMO labels represent a serious obstacle to progress in agriculture or are they just a hazy clean food fad that will pass soon enough. I think it’s a fad that I wouldn’t worry too much about.
Looking for a New Year’s resolution that won’t trigger any guilt when you fail? Take a little time and read up on the latest research in plant breeding every now and then.
A recent documentary on RoundUp on Norwegian state television went dumpster diving for some of the most discredited ideas about the popular herbicide.
UVM horticulture professor Terence Bradshaw lays out his principles for teaching farming and food systems.
The GMO safety narrative is seemingly chock full of villains (corporations), victims (public health), and heroes (activists) – the necessities of a great story. And although this narrative has been accurate in the past it doesn’t really hold up when it comes to genetic engineering.
Food Evolution film makers Scott Hamilton Kennedy and Trace Sheehan sit down with the Food and Farm Discussion Lab community for a free wheeling chat about making the film, the state of the GMO debate, and doing science communication well.
Professor Kevin Folta challenges the Berkeley 45 to publicly engage on their claims that the documentary Food Evolution is a propaganda film. They refused.
The Science Moms wade into the controversy over “ Food Evolution ” a new documentary about GMOs that anti-GMO activists are calling propaganda.
What happens when you combine the principles of ecomodernism with the tools of scientific skepticism? Agromodernism: A pragmatic path to sustainable food production.
If Bittman, et.al., truly believe that “farming should happen in harmony with the environment,” then why are they fighting genetic engineering, which offers tools for growing food in a more environmentally sustainable manner, with fewer pesticides, less nitrogen fertilizer, less tilling, less water and higher yields?
Lets’ start this by saying I deplore the use of fear-based imagery in marketing and education. That’s represented in the aforementioned post. But I have also recently called out ‘agvocate’ voices for using hyperbole or bad reasoning in their arguments. When we take sides first and ask questions later, we risk falling on sloppy arguments ourselves. Painting any issue as black or white is a dangerous proposition.
Debunking too often tends to be a team sport and just because it’s inevitable, doesn’t mean it’s not a problem. In food and farm issues, only biotech drives more debunking than the Organic vs Conventional debate. When you are responding to misinformation the “other” side has already defined the terms of the debate and it’s hard to bust out of those frames. Often that means the big picture gets lost.
Terence Bradshaw, Director of the UVM Horticulture Research and Education Center tries to bring some sanity and context to the use of protective gear when applying pesticides in both organic and conventional systems.
Kevin Folta explains why it’s important to use the scientifically accurate term “genetically engineered” to refer to biotech crops and animals rather than the sloppy and baggage laden “GMO”.
When a research team included an industry partner, our participants were generally less likely to think the scientists would consider a full range of evidence and listen to different voices. An industry partner also reduced how much participants believed any resulting data would provide meaningful guidance for making decisions.
How can you tell good science from bad science? As the quality of peer review falters and pop science reporting relies on controversy it gets harder all the time. Here are six guidelines for separating the signal from the noise.
When scientists gather to march for science, we want them to know about this body of research. In addition to carrying signs, they can take up the toolbox of effective communication known as the rhetorical tradition. Rhetoricians will be marching by their side, allies in the battle to protect science from politically motivated attacks on one of the greatest treasures of the nation.
As I was at the Portland, OR March for Science today, I walked past a woman who had cornered me at a March Against Monsanto rally a few years back. She had very misinformed, conspiratorial views about biotech in agriculture and when she spied my I ♥ GMOs sticker on my shirt today, she gave me a side eye and I could see her trying to decide whether to challenge me again. It was a little jarring, but not at all surprising to bump into someone who I knew rejected the scientific consensus on more than one issue at a March for Science. This essay looks at why that’s the case and how to process that fact and try to put it to some productive use.
Kevin Folta unpacks the problems with Wild Turkey’s decision to source non-GMO corn. It increases the environmental impact of the popular whiskey, while playing on an ignorant health claim for … whiskey of all things.
Do you feel like the person on the other end of a conversation about GMOs isn’t playing fair? Recognize three common strategies for moving the goal posts on the subject and keep the conversation on point. You may not change anyone’s mind but you’ll feel a lot more sane.