Illumination 2.0

Hearts fluttered and hearts sank.  Election returns brought some to ballrooms and others to bathrooms. Others remained too close to call. It appears that the ballot initiatives mandating labels on foods containing ingredients derived from transgenic crops did not pass. But it is no victory. Many will disagree.  Grocery manufacturers, seed companies and farmers will claim victory because voters will not mandate what seed they use, or force unneeded hassles of separating products depending on if they contain a single gene or not. However, the anti-farmer, anti-scientific voters that use a ballot box to vote on if science is true will return to the drawing board for two more years.  That's a temporary victory to those that spent (wasted) millions to push them back.  It should never have gotten that far. Once again a comma defines the sentiment.  Worse in watching the persuasive ads for YES and NO, both camps manipulated fear and emotion to influence voters.  There was no

I just get sick when I hear proponents of Oregon 92 and Colorado 105 claim that they demand food labeling because they deserve a right to know . In reality, there is no need for a right to know , at least as imparted by a clunky, expensive, and scientifically invalid law or amendment.  The right to know begins with a desire to learn.  A right to know begins with a willingness to listen to, and understand science. As it stands, proponents of the ballot initiatives hope the right to know is a punitive tool.  It does not teach, it does not inform. It simply provides a means to distinguish food produced from certain farmers that chose specific seeds. It will be a way for them to conjure fear around perfectly safe foods, based on no real information. That's some powerful right to know .  What good is a right to know, if you know nothing, or worse, know false information? What good is a right to know if you use it to harm farmers, consumers and the environment, let alone the n

One big difference between scientists and activists is that the latter have no problem using manipulating language to scare the public.  The former uses information to help the public make sound decisions. Here's a stellar example from GMO Awareness.com.  It features fossil biotechnologist Dr. Theirry Vrain, a guy that used to work on the genetics of nematodes and used some molecular biology tools in the process.  Since his retirement, he's enjoyed the stage as one of the handful of sort-of-scientist darlings of the anti-scientific, anti-GM movement. It bothers me when guys like Vrain and Huber use their former credentials to perpetuate bad science today.  Maybe I'm a little pointy because I was asked to analyze his YouTube video and it cost me an hour of my life I'll never get back. However, it did help me understand who he is and why the anti-GMs love him so. The sure love Thierry.  He tells them what they want to hear, and aside from a good 1980's u

This is a video from Morning News Winnipeg, October 24, 2014. Mike Koncan was the interviewer and asked great questions with almost no prep time. That guy is a pro! Thanks Mike!

As the discussions of ballot propositions heat up, it is fun to read the comments sections of news articles. It is a way to explore the rationale for decision making and a gauge of public perception.  It is a way to learn new arguments that may be compelling for or against the initiatives.  It is interesting to see how others attempt to persuade voters to make a decision, one way or another. But are there deliberate efforts to blanket comments sections and social media with the same cut-and-paste messages?  Is there an effort to do so under different usernames to build the deceptive appearance of swelling support? A quick Google search suggests this is the case. For example the comments section of the Stateman article that deliberately deceives readers by making detection of the DNA encoding herbicide resistance to "pesticides", you'll find a comment from "Noah Dazinger" a name attached to someone that shows up frequently in comments sections arguing agai

It was 6:30 pm in the lab and I was just thinking about the last things I'd need to get done before I could go home.  Typical night.  Usually I'm riding home about 7 pm, but an email popped up asking me if I was going to go watch the Food Babe.  A click on a link would take me to the note on a UF Dean for Students Good Food Revolution Events website.  Vani Hari would be spreading her corrupt message of bogus science and abject food terrorism here at the University of Florida. Oh joy. There's something that dies inside when you are a faculty member that works hard to teach about food, farming and science, and your own university brings in a crackpot to unravel all of the information you have brought to students. She might have started from honest roots.  Her story says she was duped by an organic yogurt stand (join the club) into buying taro toppings that were filled with artificial, non-organic colors.  She realized that she could use social media to coalesce

Here's how you know that GMO labeling laws are just wrong-- protectionist exemptions.  In short, labeling promoters will tell you it is a necessary right to know, that GMO-based ingredients are untested, unsafe, and need labels so that they can be avoided. Unless they are products they care about, or influence their state's economy.   Somehow those are perfectly fine. Vermont is a wonderful example.  The recently-passed laws require foods derived from transgenic means to bear a label indicating their presence.  Labeling proponents say that foods using recombinant DNA intermediates are dangerous, untested, and should be banned! EXCEPT... if they are used in foods Vermont makes!   Examination of the public draft reveals the hypocrisy.  It is written so that it exempts cheese from being labeled.  The enzyme chymosin, the main entity of rennet (the concoction that causes milk to curdle) is almost exclusively derived from a transgenic (GMO) intermediate.  It used t

Dr. Don M. Huber was hit by a car on October 8, which prompted Robyn O'Brien to write a glowing assessment of his mission and claims in her Healthy Bites page at Prevention .   The title is Dr. Huber's Brave Crusade Against Biotech .  I thought it would be appropriate to share a scientist's perspective, and show his angry crusade against science, reason and a certain public scientist that made him accountable for his claims. Of course, I do wish Dr. Huber well and hope for a speedy and complete recovery. The burdens of injury in the elderly can be a challenge to the injured as well as to the family, so I hope he is well soon and without long-term consequences.  This is a difference of ideas.  Relative to science, it is critical that we find the truth about his mysterious pathogen.  If it is true, the first Edible Arrangement on his porch will be from me, and I will happily assist in further study in any way possible, as I have offered already.  If it is not true, and he

As someone that has followed recombinant DNA technology for almost four decades, I can remember the awakening of the technology.  As it moved toward implementation, I remember what activists said.  I remember dire predictions of doom and gloom, of horrors and suffering.  Most predicted that every animal consuming GM feed would be dead within days, maybe a year if they were lucky... including humans. Here we are 18 years later, and none of those predictions came true. None. Of course, papers like the famous Seralini Lumpy Rat Extravaganza argued that consumption of transgenic crops, or the herbicide used on them, caused massive and grotesque tumors (that the controls got too- but the authors conveniently forgot to show). For over twelve years retired plant pathologist Don Huber has traveled the globe, warning of a GMO-based pathogen that is killing humans and animals that consume the feed. Based on their dire predictions, it is a wonder any of us are still alive.  Especially th

Science sure is cool.  However, when I talk about science in public places, and that science doesn't mesh with someone's beliefs, they tend to get prickly.  I'd like to think that scholarly, evidence-based discussion can bring those in disagreement to a common ground based on data and its interpretations. However, when all they have is photoshop and time on their hands- they don't talk science- they give me a funny hat. Better yet, they juxtapose me next to woo-woo former scientist David Suzuki.  This gem was floating around the internet, thanks to the folks over at GMO Free USA.  To opponents of transgenic technology, the words they agree with define their allegiance, not critical consideration of data, interpretations or scientific consensus.  And to call a publishing scientist "Anti-science" while calling Suzuki "Pro science" when he's the guy on record of being "ashamed by geneticists"...  Plus they gave me a demot

On Thursday I was asked to be a guest on Russia Today's  Breaking the Set with Abby Martin.  It was the usual scientist and anti-Monsanto activist, one talking from reality and evidence and the other frothing forward silly and discredited talking points. False equivalence 101. It started to feel a bit like an ambush when the feed died.   They knew I was on until 6:25 (there was limited satellite time purchased by them) and when I dropped at 6:25 the anti-GMO activist had free run to talk about "Bt in the blood", etc.  They later apologized, said it was a mistake and read my closing statement live. However, right after the disconnection I felt like I had been swindled. I did check in on the message boards on the corresponding YouTube site, as I could at least get the word out there. It was a wretched hive of tweaked-out nonsense. Still is.  I tried to add to the conversation.  Here are a few choice tid-bits of comments on the corresponding You-Tube site.

When the phone call came in my Administrative Assistant accepted-- my time was open at 6 pm EST to talk to Russia Today (RT).   I know Abby Martin, I've seen her shows and understand her politics, so I didn't cancel.  I did speak to the producer.  It was sold to me that I'd be a guest on the show about GMO technology. There would be another guest, but it would be a conversation. I was scheduled for 6 pm, and RT bought 25 minutes of 'fiber time'.  This is the time on the satellite feed that they purchase to ensure a decent connection with where I was in Gainesville, FL.  I raced back from my talk at Valencia College to make it on time.  I cleaned up, fixed my tie by 5:45, and sat ready to begin at 6 pm. No idea this was a "debate". I guess if I knew this was they GMO Bill Nye vs Ken Hamm I would not have agreed.  At 6 pm I was ready to go.  However, there was a 10 min story on Scottish independence.  At 6:10 there was a discussion of libertarian

Colorado is trying to pass a GMO labeling law, so they'll need to bring in the slate of discredited pseudoscientists to scare the credulous.  The Seeds of Doubt Conference is being held on October 11, and features an array of proven scare mongers that sell bad science. Renowned experts!  Wow!  I can't wait to see who those might be... The usual suspects.  Of course, nobody invited that actually presents a viewpoint based on the peer-reviewed literature. This is no surprise.  When a ballot initiative needs to steep a population in fear and push them to vote against science, this group will be most effective.  Huber will talk about his mystery "entity" that he's cultured since 2002 and has no idea what it is (even though anyone could figure it out in a few days).  There's author and documentarian Jeffery Smith, a guy who's empire depends on scaring audiences. Seralini is well known for data that never pan out anywhere else in the world,

I was at the Lihue Farmers' Market on a beautifully warm morning in July.  The sun was bright and chickens meandered among shoppers' feet, all with the lush green backdrop of lovely Kauai.  I was visiting on the request of the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, there to help answer public concerns about transgenic (GMO) technology. I was there with Dr. Steve Savage, along with Renee and Kirby Kester (from HCIA) and a local television guy. It was the first day with new people that would become life-long friends (not so much the camera guy). I had wonderful interactions with farmers as well as those opposed to GM technology.  Those unhappy with biotech on the island were clearly identified by their red shirts that urged support for County Ordinance 2491, a local initiative that would impose tough (almost impossible) restrictions on the seed companies that shared the island.  Kauai is an off-season nursery for mainland seed production. After sampling the sweetest pineapple I

The anti-GMO believers have learned that the constant release of tenuous, unconfirmed, even fake, information is critical to their misinformation campaign, as it resonates favorably with the biotech-knowledge-less. Such nuggets of fraud are stitched together by social media, gaining momentum from wide acceptance among the willing, and are incorporated into the permanent body of their factless reality. Last week at Sustainable Pulse I found this: Leukemia Boom?  Sounds serious.  At least it is actually a picture of HAU. The story claims that students are fed Bt rice in the cafeterias of Huazhong Agricultural University (HAU; the region's leading ag university), and now ten students are sick with leukemia.  Even if that was true, those numbers are hardly statistical reinforcement of anything, especially at a university where most days you can't see 50 m down the street. HAU is in Wuhan, China, and the air quality is pretty rotten. I think, as usual, the whole story i