Illumination 2.0

The boring saga of the Berkeley 45 continues , as several more have now emerged to ensure that their denial of fundamental science and deep scientific consensus is codified in the archives of time. At the same time, those on the science side of the discussion make a critical mistake-- piling on to a grad student, presumably the one that led the charge.  Grad students make mistakes, we all do.  Our job as leaders should be to reach out, help them correct, and at worst, simply inspire their elevated thinking by doing the right thing.  Unfortunately lots of folks have fallen into the trap of an eye for an eye.  She stuck her neck out in a poorly-advised way and now is being singled out and pummeled on blogs and in the Twittersphere in a way that could ultimately affect her long-term career options. Some think that this is appropriate, that if she is going to make claims that run counter to science and besmirches the credibility of scientists she disagrees with, then she des

The release of the documentary Food Evolution was lauded by scientists and folks in agriculture, as finally someone attempted to generate a factual account of biotechnology.  But the film's release did not sit well with everyone, especially those that hold deep beliefs against technology, those that loathe seed companies, and those that make a living manufacturing and selling fear. Will the real propaganda please stand up? One group of 45 faculty and students, most at UC Berkeley, were held up as "experts" that claimed the film to simply be a "slick piece of agrichemical industry propaganda," which seemed strange because so little of the film dealt with any agrichemical anything. Summarizing current events: 1. I invited the group to join a discussion on my weekly podcast, but none accepted, and a spokesman for the group, Prof. Miguel Altieri, sent an email stating that they would not take advantage of the opportunity.  Worse, Altieri s

Last week I seriously questioned those that were writing off a new food/farming/science documentary as "agrichemical industry propaganda".  It seemed like a bad move to refer to proven and effective science as propaganda, and I was especially surprised that a group of 45 scientists would write a letter stating that conclusion. When I approached them and asked them to help me understand their interpretation, I was shot down and told that I have no credibility.  No discussion, no words. My request for collegial scholarly discourse was denied.   That's really low. But it gets lower.  Let me remind you of the title of the article in Munchies that projected the claims of the Berkeley 45.  And this is on Alex Swerdloff.  He either failed to do due diligence on who these "experts" were, or realized they were ideologically entrenched anti-biotech interests and did it anyway.  He certainly didn't reach out to level-headed, strengths/weaknesses, actual

Today's Haiti Sentinel features an article by Editor-in-Chief Samuel Maxime.  He tells the scandalous tale of 150 tons of "genetically modified corn seeds" sent to Haiti from Mexico by CIMMYT-- a place sponsored by the likes of Bill Gates and other "Clinton confidants".  Oh no! Seeds shipped for humanitarian aid! The atrocity must stop! But wait, are they really even GMO seeds? Samuel is clearly displeased.  As he states, the seeds were sent to jumpstart the Hatian farming economy as part of a partnership between CIMMYT, USAID, and Feed the Future.  Seems like a great idea, but he's not too happy about this. Why?  His next paragraph summarizes it well. Apparently the seeds create drug addicted soils and make farmers poor.  Samuel also contends that these organizations are giving away seeds because their top priority is profit, which seems like a really lousy business model.  Here it is, right from the Editor-in-Chief: And of co

Well, not really.  In fact, they basically told me to pound sand through one of the professors serving as a spokesperson.  I emailed an invitation to discuss the claim that the movie Food Evolution fit the criteria of propaganda, a claim that they made in a signed, public letter that has garnered much attention . Coverage of the letter describes the 45 signatories as "experts" and "prominent scientists, academics, and writers—many from UC Berkeley".   I personally have a problem with referring to science as propaganda, and in today's contentious climate around climate, vaccines, and genetically engineered crops (the GMO story), dropping the word "propaganda" does three things. 1.  It invalidates the content as authentic representation of science.  2.  It impugns the integrity of the scientists that participated. 3.  It harms application of technologies that could be helpful to people and environment.  The Film The film Food Evolution

I don't like the vindictive feeling of saying, "Well there's karma coming back to say hello," or the whole eye-for-an-eye thing. Nobody ever should be maliciously misrepresented in media, and I'll always be critical of that.  But it is important to point out amazing hypocrisy. Someone that claims to have been wronged is the exact same person that celebrated the harm of others, and promoted false information to hurt someone professionally and personally, and refused to discuss it or make corrections when kindly approached about it.  The emails are all shown below. Before September of 2015, I felt rather positive about Dr. Marion Nestle. I always appreciated her views and always took the time to consider them and understand where she was coming from even if I disagreed. In fact, we probably agree on food issues much more than we disagree.  So in September of 2015 when she decided to unfairly amplify the retracted distortions of Paul Thacker and Charles Seife

The discussion of genetic technologies in food has been an asymmetrical fear fest dominated by misinformation.  The bad information has penetrated social ranks through the internet, but also through art and film.  Scott Hamilton Kennedy and Trace Sheehan shatter this trend with a fact-based response to the avalanche of misinformation. In true documentary style they allow the story, the circumstances and the personalities to tell the story.  You can listen to the an interview with the  Food Evolution  Director, Producer and a scientist in the film.  The film is only somewhat about technology or "GMO".  It is really about science, experts, belief, and hypocrisy.  Why do you believe what you do?  Who is trying to fool you? Jeffery Smith, Chuck Benbrook, Zen Honeycutt and "Food Babe" Vani Hari make appearances.  Their words are their own-- and it is refreshing to find a film that holds them somewhat accountable simply by letting them speak. Critics of te