Illumination 2.0

I have a friend here in Gainesville, FL that I'll refer to as Annie. Annie goes to her temple, then squeezes out some yoga, talks of peace and love, smokes like a fiend, and then tells you how evil medicine is after she rips a bongload.  She's a sweetie that I would do anything for, as her kindness towards others allows me to approach her softly on issues where her science leaves much to be desired.  Then last week she posts this on her Facebook page: Don't get a shot-- take a shot!  A glass of plant goo is claimed to exceed vaccination in protection against the influenza virus. She's crossed a line here.  I simply posted, "You make my science hurt" because any time I inject science onto any of her postings I get to deal with the usual patchouli-soaked retorts that make me lose faith in humanity.  I have to deal with this one a little more aggressively. Folks are welcome to down as much plant juice as they can stomach-- but let's not te

U.S. farmers make up approximately 1.5% of the population. They are the most credible source of information about production details, the inputs used, and the challenges faced.  However, they are not active in social media.  Of course, there are notable exceptions, one featured here today. On the other hand there is Moms Across America , a group of anti-farmer, anti-vaccination, anti-biotech affluent Californians that have a strong social media presence.  They don't know about farms and farming, yet they write about how detrimental farming is, they certainly don't like the major seed companies, and they even promote false or flimsy data.  So Kansas farmer Mary Mertz reached out.  The following note was re-posted in the Food and Farm Discussion Lab on Facebook, after its original post was posted as a comment on the MAA site.  Mary Mertz reaches out to Moms Across America.  Her heartfelt honesty is what is needed to build trust with the average consumer. 

The recent flap on glyphosate has been fun to watch.  It is an ag chemical that is used on some transgenic crops that contain a gene allowing them to grow through herbicide treatment, where weeds die. This technology has been extremely helpful for farmers.  Because the folks opposed to ag biotech have had zero luck tying the process of gene transfer or the genes themselves to any health issues, they have retreated to hammering glyphosate.  After all, it is the chemical that makes the trait valuable. Plus it kills weed pests, so it can be lumped in with the ever-evil pesticides . Plus, herbicides by definition kill herbs, and herbs cure every disease in the world, ever. Big pharma just won't let that happen. Therefore, glyphosate has become the new popular target for the anti-GMO movement.  Of course, nobody points out that glyphosate is used extensively in non-GMO applications, such as a harvest aid in grains, clearing rows of weeds in tree-crop orchards, or heavy use by mun

The most hilarious part about US-RTK is that they are so clueless on science that they'll actually print the stuff like you find here .  Go ahead and read it.  After you compose yourself from laughing, come back and continue reading.  Their claim is that the GMO Answers website is a PR tool.  I suppose at some level it is, as the technology, traits, seeds and users of agricultural biotech have been defamed and smeared by activists for two decades without a whole lot of push back.  Here the science is related to the public, which I guess defines public relations.  However, Truth does not need "PR"-- it just needs to be communicated effectively.  That is what GMOAnswers.com does. For almost twenty years the non-scientific arguments, blatant untruths, and half-cocked evidence were allowed to tarnish the reputation of technology that has performed safely and effectively.  These efforts have led to calls for horribly-conceived, non-scientific and expensive changes in

This week controversy ignited when Patrick Moore, a prominent advocate for Golden Rice, was interviewed on the French TV channel Canal+.  He correctly claimed that glyphosate was safe enough to drink and not likely causing alleged cancer outbreaks in Argentina.  When the host offered him a glass of Roundup herbicide he did not drink it and walked off the set. From the interwebs. Of course, twitter and other opinion outlets of the world's pseudoexperts exploded with the fact that Moore was forced to eat his words rather than drink weed killer.   And then the Big M felt compelled to remind everyone that weed killer is not a beverage and that Moore is not representing the company.  Once upon a time I did the demo, not hammering a glass of the stuff, but mixing a tablespoon of the working solution into diet Mountain Dew.  No big deal. Of course when you do a stunt like this everyone goes completely unhinged, screaming that a scientist endorses drinking weed kille

This week I spoke at Iowa State University, a place where Dr. Vandana Shvia spoke earlier this month.  The audience included some of her supporters, and they were not terribly happy when I uploaded a photo of her along with Oz, Smith, Adams and Babe.  I also included a screen shot of her website Seed Freedom where she posted the article about the justification of murder for biotech supporters because they are "Monsanto Collaborators", including "scientists, journalists, politicians, (and) food companies".  The words on her site read, "(someone should)  document all the Monsanto collaborators  and make sure they are held accountable for their actions...  to hunt down and arrest Monsanto collaborators: the scientists, journalists, politicians, food companies and other ena blers...   teams of “Monsanto collaborator hunters” will likely be offered financial rewards for bringing these individuals to justice." A screenshot of Dr. Shiva's websi

This blog is a critical demonstration between what good science says, and how the anti-GM activists twist meanings beyond what the data say, even contradicting the authors' interpretations.  GMO-Free USA is an activist organization that does a great job blanketing the internet with false associations.  Their tactics are crystal-clear to scientists and to anyone that takes the time to look past their facade. Their recent attempt is the kind that upsets me most.  They use actual published science that looks decent, not a bad paper, and published in a peer-reviewed source.  However, they take the real data and sensationalize it with imagery that does not match the research findings. The work was performed by Dr. Fiona Young at Flinders University.  From her website, it is clear that she has expertise in reproductive toxicology, and studies the effect of potential environmental compounds on reproduction-relevant cell lines.  These efforts are important because they are the first