Deciphering propaganda and pseudoscience from real science

 I remember my parents bought a set of encyclopedias when I was a kid.   There were over 20 giant size books that took up two shelves of one of our bookcases. It was one of the best sources of information you could find outside of a library.  I remember days where I would  randomly pick a letter and just read every entry from that letter.  Today, I asked my kids what an encyclopedia was and they have no idea.  The reason they don't know is because encyclopedias are ancient relics in this age of technology.

The invention of the internet was game changing for the world.  Information is at our fingertips in vast quantities.  Just one site called Wikipedia has more information than that set of encyclopedias my parents had invested in.  And there are thousands and thousands of sites with information to be found.

The internet is a double edged sword because not of that data out is correct.   Facebook is currently making headlines because of the "fake news" stories that are common.   The internet is full of information, both real and fake.  Our biggest challenge now is not the lack of information but taking the time to vet information.  Today's society is quick to hear or read something and take it at face value.   

If you go onto the internet then you are surrounded by opinions.  These are fine because we know those are opinions.   We can agree or disagree and move on.    We are surrounded by by facts and evidence.  This is good because we can go over the data and that data can help us make a rational choice.   And then we are surrounded by propaganda that presents a convincing story to deliberately convince you on which side of the fence you should go.   Sometimes that story is in the form of science.   It is not fact and it is not science, but it looks like science.  This form of propaganda is called pseudoscience.  At some point we all fall into the trap of reading propaganda and pseudoscience and succumbing to it because it is well thought out and portrayed in a very convincing manner.   .

I came across this email on twitter which shows how pseudoscience starts.

I usually skim my twitter feed, but this one made think of some  DJ Kool lyrics.

When I say freeze you just freeze one time
When I say freeze y'all stop on a dime
Frezze

That's right.  Freeze!  Did I really just read that right?  I need to read that one again.   Let's get some data that is not necessarily scientifically accurate and then use that data like it is real to emotionally scare the public towards our own agenda.  This is the kind of stuff that puts a bad taste in my mouth.

There is so much misinformation out there.   Some of it is unintentional, but the worst is the info that is intentionally manipulated and looks like science.

I ran across this article of Forbes that is a great read!  It is 10 questions to distinguish real from fake science.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2012/11/08/10-questions-to-distinguish-real-from-fake-science/#78341de9533b

I will list those questions, but encourage you to read the article as well.

1. What is the source?
2. What is the agenda? 
3. What kind of language does it use?
4. Does it involve testimonials?
5. Are there claims of exclusivity?
6. Is there mention of a conspiracy of any kind?
7. Does the claim involve multiple unassociated disorders?
8. Is there a money trail or a passionate belief involved?
9. Were real scientific processes involved?
10. Is there expertise?

So when you see some article come our saying our urine is full of glyphosate or some other claim, we should all do a little investigating before believing everything we read or hear at face value.   If it is true then there will be scientific evidence that is reproducible.  A little bit of skepticism is healthy for all of us.

The NY Times and GMOs

A New York Times article recently came out that in my mind was really disappointing in its portrayal of GMOs.  Here is the article for those who have not had a chance to see what was said:    NY Times Article

They crazy thing is I was sitting in the lab when this reporter walked through.  I remember thinking "this is pretty cool" as he toured the facility.  This reporter is actually visiting us and seeing what we do.  He is going to get the full story and finally an article will be written about GMOs that tell the real story.   He even put some great pictures in there.  I work with this great guy and we have been joking about the NY Times making him famous. 

So when I had multiple people forward the final  article to me the minute it came out my smile immediately turned into a frown.  Somehow the positive message of what we do did not translate very well.  This guy came and went and while the article had truth, it also was misleading    It only showed pieces instead of the entire picture.   These type of arguments are a dime a dozen and honestly all I can do is try to share the facts just as fast as the misleading information surfaces. 

There has obviously been a lot of rebuttals to the NY Times article and I just wanted to highlight a few great commentaries and scientific facts.  If you read the NY Times article, please read these as well.  Look at both sides of the story before forming your own opinions.  

1. Andrew Kniss - Associate Professor for University of Wyoming

Here is a great one to start with, a blog by Andrew Kniss:  http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/10/the-tiresome-discussion-of-initial-gmo-expectations/

In the New York Times paper it was claimed that "At the same time, herbicide use has increased in the United States, even as major crops like corn, soybeans and cotton have been converted to modified varieties. And the United States has fallen behind Europe’s biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides."


Here is some nice data from Dr Kniss:

"I have to say this comparison seems borderline disingenuous; certainly not what I’d expect from an “extensive examination” published in the New York Times. The NYT provides a few charts in the article, one of which supports the statement about France’s reduced pesticide use. But the figures used to compare pesticide use in France vs the USA are convoluted and misleading. First, the data is presented in different units (thousand metric tons for France, compared to million pounds in the US), making a direct comparison nearly impossible. Second, the pesticide amounts are not standardized per unit area, which is critically important since the USA has over 9 times the amount of farmland that France does; it would be shocking if the U.S. didn’t use far more pesticide when expressed this way. So I took the data presented by Mr. Hakim and converted it into the same units, and standardized by arable land, and this is what that same data looks like:"

"It is true that France has been reducing pesticide use [actually, maybe not… see update at the end], but France still uses more pesticides per arable hectare than we do in the USA. In the case of fungicide & insecticides, a LOT more. But a relatively tiny proportion of these differences are likely due to GMOs; pesticide use depends on climate, pest species, crop species, economics, availability, tillage practices, crop rotations, and countless other factors. And almost all of these factors differ between France and the U.S. So this comparison between France and the U.S., especially at such a coarse scale, is mostly meaningless, especially with respect to the GMO question. If one of France’s neighboring EU countries with similar climate and cropping practices had adopted GMOs, that may have been a more enlightening (but still imperfect) comparison."

"Given all of these confounding factors, I wonder why France was singled out by Mr. Hakim as the only comparison to compare pesticide use trends. Pesticide use across Europe varies quite a bit, and trends in most EU countries are increasing, France is the exception in this respect, not the rule. In the early 1990’s, France was using more herbicides compared to almost every other country, so it shouldn’t be too surprising that pesticide use decreased as formation of the EU began to standardize pesticide regulations after 1993. If the increase in herbicide use in the U.S. is due to GMOs, what can explain the increase in herbicide use throughout most of Europe, where GMO varieties are not available?"

2. Kevin Folta, Professor for University of Florida


Yield is complicated and the NY Times post makes it seem like GM crops are not doing anything to help farmers. Dr. Folta really shares some great information in his blog post: http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2016/11/some-actual-yield-data.html

There a couple things he highlights that the NY times article failed to mention.

a. "GE crops were not made to directly increase yields. They control other aspects of growth so that yields are maximized."

b. "Farmers seem to think their yields are good and pesticide costs lower"

 

Just look at a survey from the farmers that is in Dr. Folta's commentary. I believe the farmers over a reporter any day.






There are more examples in his blog to dissect. Take a look at all the examples he points out.


3. Henry Miller - Just google his bio - this guy knows his stuff


Henry Miller also commented on the yield topic too in Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2016/11/02/the-gray-lady-soils-herself-again/#42c068eb3fc6


Miller states:

"More fundamentally, however, Hakim begged the question about the goal of molecular genetic engineering: The purpose of the genetic modification of most of those crop plants—namely, the ones modified for increased resistance to herbicides (see graph below)–was not, in fact, higher yields; it was greater efficiency and lowering the cost of farming inputs."

4. Jayson Lusk - economist


Jayson Lusk, an economist shared his own opinion on the article. Take a read: http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2016/10/31/new-york-times-on-gmos

"One thing the NY Times article did not really talk about was why did the farmers adopt technology so fast and at such a large scale if there are no benefits?"

5. Dr. Channa Prakash - Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Tuskegee University


Dr. Channa Prakash, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Tuskegee University chimed in on Facebook, where he showed data from the following journal article:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0111629









He is referencing the following graph which show Farmers are making more profit with GM crops.


6. Dr. Steven Novella - Clinical Neurologist at Yale University


Dr. Novella points to a great paper by Brooks and Barfoot that can be found here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2015.1022310


Dr. Novella also has his own well written opinion of which the following is just small excerpt. Take a full read here: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-times-gets-it-wrong-on-gmos/

"A 2015 review found:
This annual updated analysis shows that there continues to be very significant net economic benefits at the farm level amounting to $20.5 billion in 2013 and $133.4 billion for the 18 years period (in nominal terms). These economic gains have been divided roughly 50% each to farmers in developed and developing countries. About 70% of the gains have derived from yield and production gains with the remaining 30% coming from cost savings. The technology have also made important contributions to increasing global production levels of the 4 main crops, having added 138 million tonnes and 273 million tonnes respectively, to the global production of soybeans and maize since the introduction of the technology in the mid 1990s."

"Hakim did not even consider developing countries, where the benefit has arguably been the greatest. The increase in yield is really from a decrease in loss, mainly from pests."

"Any meaningful analysis of GM technology has to consider each application unto itself. Further, the GM trait is only part of the picture – you also have to consider how it is being applied. For Bt trait crops, where a natural insecticide is produced by the plants, there is no question that this has reduced overall insecticide use, decreased crop loss due to pests, and increased profits and crop predictability for farmers. This particular application is a clear win."

"Hakim reproduces a common anti-GMO trope to combine Bt crops with herbicide resistant crops – two completely different applications. Herbicide resistance, most notably glyphosate resistance, has been more complicated in its application. Farmers often love this trait because they can just spray their crops to reduce weeds. It is a huge convenience. There is also a benefit in that it can reduce tilling, which is bad for the soil and releases CO2 into the atmosphere."

"However, this has clearly led to an increase in glyphosate usage. That was actually the point of the trait. The deception comes from combining herbicide resistant traits with pest resistant traits and then saying that overall pesticide (herbicide plus insecticide) use has not decreased. This is pointless, however. The fact that glyphosate use has increased takes nothing away from the fact that insecticide use has decreased. They are completely separate applications of GM technology."

"Further, Hakim fails to point out that while glyphosate use has increased, it has replaced applications of much more toxic herbicides. If you measure only tons of herbicide you miss the point that overall herbicide toxicity has dramatically decreased, because glyphosate (despite claims of anti-GMO activists) is a very benign chemical."

The companies in the Ag biotech industry published their own commentaries which you can search and find.   However, the above opinions are not from the companies which I am sure some people may argue are biased.  While I believe adamantly that the industry is also writing facts based on science, it is really hard to ignore the compelling science, data, and opinions from the academics.  Their job is to ask questions.  The GMO question has been one they have studied and researched for years independently of what the industry is doing and saying.  One NY Times article should not overshadow the multitudes of scientific data that show the benefits of GM crops.