Illumination 2.0

It is dangerous to scream fire in a crowded theater, when no fire is present.  So why would the Naples Daily News possibly print an inflammatory alarmist story on agricultural biotechnology (in the article referring to “GMOs”) that presented patently false information and opinion, instead of sound science?  The photo below leads the health section of the paper.  It is another familiar attempt to scare a curious public away from perfectly good food.  From an activist webite?  Nope!  From the front page of the health section of a Florida newspaper. Again, the line between science and fiction is crossed, and made to look like investigative journalism.   The words of Kelly Farrell are a veiled advertisement for Jeffrey Smith, a non-scientist that runs a business manufacturing fear around the world’s safest and most highly-regulated food products.  To a public scientist like me, it was a profound disappointment to see such nonsense in a health-associated story.  The informa

I have not been writing much because I've been traveling and writing more than usual, and then also fired up a new podcast. The last two weeks have been truly difference makers. However, when you make a difference, you have to start looking over your shoulder. 1.  Biotech Literacy Project Bootcamp 2 - Davis, CA. This was a closed, invite-only meeting that allowed scientists, journalists and others to meet and discuss how we can be better communicators with the public. Again, I learned a lot, and I'm amazed at how much we are learning about talking to non-scientists about science.  2.  Podcast with Joe Rogan Going in I was not sure how this would break, but Joe and I had a nice conversation that really frames how this discussion needs to go.  It needs to depart from the tired, baseless discussions of Indian suicides and terminator genes, and focus on traits and innovations that can't be used.  These have a daily body count.  I received literally hundreds (I copie

I've been wanting to write this blog for a long time, and now I'm glad I didn't until now. There is a groundswell of outcry against the herbicide glyphosate, the stuff that has the acute toxicity as a sip of your favorite beer.  If you listen to the anti-GM activists, it causes everything from autism to Alzheimers, to allergies, to cancer, to celiac disease, and a dozen other ailments.  Of course, none of been demonstrated experimentally.  It is easier and more fun to just make up goofy talk.  I do get a lot of email about this lately and an article published from Natural Society (red flag here) brings one issue to the fore-- It is not toxic to humans, but it is toxic to the bacteria in the gut. It has even become the basis of a class-action lawsuit, claiming that the manufacturers, well, one manufacturer that these goons especially don't like, did not provide a warning label on the package about toxicity to human gut bacteria.   Matthew Phillips is an attorne

The trend continues.  Organizations committed to ending the use of genetically modified seeds and their associated products continue to fabricate misinformation solely with the intent of misleading consumers.   Today's example is an inflammatory meme posted by the Cornucopia Institute.  It makes five statements, none that are true, and solely broadcast with an intent to spread fear and misinformation.  "5 Disgusting Facts" are really five disgusting lies.  Blatant misrepresentation of information purely designed to spread fear and misinformation. Why do people believe such nonsense? The beauty of this kind of communication is that it does show the clear intentions of the author, in this case the Cornucopia Institute. It shows they are not committed to the truth, but instead are a depot for rhetoric designed to mislead consumers, and frighten them to affect their attitudes toward biotechnology and farming.  It is amazing to me that people can be so easily

Grandpappy Folta once said, "When someone gives you an opportunity to see what they are about, pay attention."  He was right. The true measurement of character and someone's real agenda oftentimes are presented at shimmering moments that reveal quite a bit.  Such is the case of the Huffington Post article by Michael Hansen.  For those that don't know Dr. Hansen, he's a guy with a science background that works for the Consumer's Union, and never has much nice to say about biotech.  I actually got to meet him a few years ago at the Hofstra Pride and Purpose debate , and we had a nice dinner together. I felt bad for him in that he seems to have a stick-to script and a deep self deception that makes him immune to actual scientific discussion of data. Watch the debate. You'll see it oozing everywhere.  He sounds more a politician than a scientist, as you can see by his manipulation of pseudo facts and dodging questions. Here's the part that anyone on

This year's American Society of Plant Biologists annual conference will feature a kick-off session on science communication, framed around the issue of agricultural biotechnology, or GMO technology. The session will take place on Sunday, July 26th time TBD, but likely about noon, and will focus on effective content and presentation advice for addressing skeptical and concerned audiences. So as you plan your trip to Minneapolis, MN, figure in some  time to attend this special session.  Here's a Blurb!  Agricultural biotechnology, oftentimes referred to as “GMO technology”, has been safely and effectively used in agriculture for almost two decades. Many new products await approval and could have profound positive impacts that benefit the environment, the needy, the farmer and the consumer. However, public distrust of the technology slows application and invites prohibitive rules and policy changes. The divide between the scientific reality and the public percepti

As printed in the May 2015 issue of In the Field magazine.