Illumination 2.0

Dr. Mark Williams has extensive training in molecular biology.  He also is interested in sustainable crop production, and leads training in organic production at University of Kentucky.  In this interview he speaks about the intersection of these areas, touching on how what have been treated as disparate approaches really fit well together.  Dr. Williams touches on  gene editing, food labeling, environmental impact, and how education efforts need to focus on sustainable agriculture using the best tools going forward.  Hosted by Dr. Paul Vincelli

I've known of the stewing agricultural pressure cooker known as Boulder County, Colorado for several years, and this week the inevitable happened.  Affluent city dwellers have used post-truth emotional arguments to denounce scientific and agricultural experts, placing their Whole-Foods-informed truthiness above evidence.  The county harbors 25,000 acres of farmland, most of it under needed irrigation.  The space has been greened by annual plantings dominated by corn and sugar beets.  Over the last two decades these crops have transitioned to genetically engineered (familiarly "GMO") seeds that bear traits to limit farmer costs and reduce environmental impacts.  Boulder County plans to restrict farmer seed choice based on politically-motivated, emotionally driven rhetoric that denies basic scientific facts. But last week a county council voted 2 to 1 to 'phase out' the use of genetically engineered seeds, putting restrictions on farmers about the plan

The enemies of science and reason must take unethical steps in attempts to tarnish and discredit the legitimate scientists who retard penetration of their fear mongering campaigns.  Last week's fear brochure claiming "alarming" levels of herbicides in familiar processed foods was a joke to scientists that understand analytical chemistry, agricultural chemistry, and their relative risks.  When Dr. Shelly McGuire and I correctly commented that the analysis presented was wholly insufficient to support a claim of alarm, we immediately became targets for those that manufacture risk and wish to erode trust in food, farming and science.  We were immediately chastised by those that promote pseudoscientific claims, and those paid to obfuscate science and ablate the trust of public scientists.  USRTK employee and paid content producer Carey Gillam cites article where Dr. McGuire and I were referred to as "Monsanto Supporters".  Wow. Sticks and stones... 

Two weeks ago now an activist brochure was distributed through the internet, promoted as exposing "alarming" levels of glyphosate in common grocery store items.  The report did not provide adequate methods, statistics, or evidence of replication, and therefore does not qualify as work that can be trusted.  I have spoken with the laboratory that did the work.  They claim to have done the test correctly, but did not provide evidence of that or any statement of the numbers of replicates.  They won't do that because the data belong to a paying client.  And of course, the paying client has no interest in transparency, as that would let the air out of the fear balloon.  My comments and criticisms were all correct and within the bounds of conventions of analytical chemistry.  Others have been much more critical and feel that there's no way these results should ever be trusted.  Bottom line-- it is unacceptable to scare the public with false statements about un-trustabl

Science is not about entrenching into a position based on ideology. It is about making interpretations based on the evidence provided, and that evidence can, and does change.  This is a critical follow up to the discussion of the Food Democracy Now brochure that claims dangerous levels of herbicide in common grocery items. I was contacted by the laboratory that did the analysis for them and I am comfortable that they did the detection 100% correctly. No question. There was no way that I could have known this from the information presented by FDN or by the company's analytical documents. This tells us two things: 1. Peer review and complete disclosure of methods is important. 2. The levels are still of absolutely no biological consequence. If anything, this reputable laboratory's analysis and document tells consumers that their food is safe, because an herbicide aggressive food activists find controversial is detectable at the edge of nothing. You

As a public scientist I'm deeply committed to providing research, teaching, and outreach to help broaden our understanding of farming and food.  One leg of that stool is to connect with the public and help them understand the current scientific literature, and help them make evidence-based decisions.  Last week a glossy brochure was published by the fear factory called Food Democracy Now.  Despite the name, it is much less democracy as it is a cult. Their deceptive self-published report featured hyperbolic images of babies juxtaposed with herbicide bottles and Cheerios.  The meat of the report was a table that claims to find parts-per-billion levels of the herbicide glyphosate in an array of common grocery products. Even if it was true, such levels would be biologically meaningless.  I've discussed the technical limitations of their analysis here and on my podcast .  The bottom line is that this is statistically underpowered, they are likely reading noise, and the work has

I'm up on a Saturday enjoying a big cup of coffee and working on the podcast . I'm also standing by for the next round of requests for my emails from Vani Hari. What happened? Yesterday's blog was in response to an article on Snopes .  The article on Snopes was in response to a flashy brochure that claimed to find herbicide residues, in parts per billion (seconds in decades) in familiar foods.  The well-circulated activist rhetoric was intended to scare, and it worked .  My inbox was flooded with inquiries from friends, relatives and dozens of strangers.  When Snopes talks, people listen, and their analysis was a bit confusing, sort of lending credence to the claim, as well as stating that glyphosate herbicides were carcinogenic.  This is on the cover of the report. It should be an immediate tip-off to the reader that this is highly suspect and intended to tell a manufactured story, not communicate scientific results.   I reached out to the author and partic