Mae Culumber

Mae Culumber

Keys To Effective Potassium Management in Nut Crops

Carol Miller

Carol Miller

How Dixondale Farms Is Aiming To Protect Its Legacy

David Eddy

David Eddy

Pistachio Power: Where Growing and Research Mesh for Success

Bob West

Bob West

Data Dig: California Farmers Working Hard To Protect Their Assets

Stay Opinionated, My Farmer Friends

Avatar for Paul Rusnak By Paul Rusnak|July 15, 2015

Paul RusnakYou know what people say about opinions: Everyone has them (or something to that effect). Whether or not I agree with a particular perspective, I do find much of what you all have to say pretty informative — if not entertaining. In fact, reviewing reader comments submitted to GrowingProduce.com is one of the favorite parts of my job.

According to the cache of comments being submitted, the voices of our industry have quite the wide range. Viewpoints can be heard from a field’s front lines as well as from the outskirts of reality. Either way, I enjoy digesting the full breadth of what our readers are dishing out to each other and the industry in general.

Conviction counts for a lot. It reveals much about one’s character. And there are plenty of topics that evoke an “us vs. them” mentality.

How far are you willing to go to defend your opinion? In scanning through reader reactions to articles, many are standing by their beliefs, and no amount of scientific proof or bullying will lead them to sway. Two recent reader comment standouts include:

“Atomic bomb testing and wars in Middle East always throws the weather patterns in chaos. The 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq resulted in rain most of summer in Northeast Ohio.” — Scientist Warns Southeast U.S. To Prepare For Wild Weather From Climate Change

Top Articles
A New Biopesticide in the Making To Fight Spotted Wing Drosophila

“This is like letting the fox watch the henhouse, it’ll be all show and no go.” — Researchers Ready To Testify Before Congress About GMOs

It goes to show some of the “best” content begins after an article ends.

Not Going To Budge

A recently released University of Florida study suggests once people have something made up in their minds, even the most convincing of evidence is not likely to change their stance.

The two topics researchers based their results on are GMOs and climate change. Both issues certainly can stoke the ire of those who are either defending or refuting.

In fact, results show people who were taking part in the study actually grew more bull-headed in their beliefs even after reviewing information affirming the contrary.

In the article we posted about this study, we inserted a reader poll question that asked: Has more recent scientific evidence convinced you to change your initial opinions on GMOs and/or global warming? A little more than half (54%) of respondents said no.

But shouldn’t we all be more open-minded and less heavy handed with our opinions? Perhaps. But where is the fun in that?

For What It’s Worth

After reading my column last month, one reader felt inspired to call me a “business desk jockey.” Did this offend me? No. In fact, I was grateful to get the feedback. It shows people are reading/listening to what you have to say.

So, please keep your comments coming. The more we talk to each other, the better off we’ll all be as an industry and society.

0

Paul Rusnak is the Senior Online Editor for Meister Media Worldwide's Specialty Crops Division, which consists of American Vegetable Grower, American Fruit Grower, and Greenhouse Grower magazines, all Meister Media brands. He is based in Northeast Florida. See all author stories here.

Leave a Reply

Avatar for Matt Matt says:
July 15, 2015 at 4:28 pm

HI Paul,

I think some of the US vs. Them mentality comes from the original article itself. Companies that produce GMO products and the writers who promote them use terms such as “Bio-Technology” to try and paint an image of an organic or conventional farmer who does not agree with GMOs as backwards or not in favor of technology. Nothing could be further from the truth, yet that is not the picture that GMO producing companies and their supporters want to paint.

A well written article will look at both the pros and cons. And they will have REAL pros and cons not filler or cons that are designed to make the pros look even better.

Take GMOs for example:

Pros:
– Reduced tillage for the farmer. Potential time savings
– Systemic control of some pests
– Readily Available

Cons:
– Technology Fees to seed company. Inability to save seed for next year
– Increased Herbicide Use
– Potential development of herbicide resistant weeds
– Lack of consumer acceptance
– Lack of foreign government acceptance

I am leaving off the hot button issues of safety for the environment or whether they have an impact on health. I personally believe that GMOs lead to more environmental pollution due the drastic increase in the amount of herbicides that are used, the potential impact on pollinators, the loss of genetic diversity in a crop due to few breeding lines used or CMS techniques rendering lines unique to a given company.

More often I see writers use terms like “Those who do not favor the use of Bio-Technology” or “Modern GMOs can provide…..”. It is all how the writer presents his article. I personally think this type of writing is done for one of a few reasons. First it may be to intentionally stir the pot to drum up comments or links. Second it may be the bias of the writer who is attempting to look balanced, but really is not or third they are just ignorant an are repeating what they hear or read elsewhere.

When I ask most people how GMOs are developed or what “IS” a GMO, they can not answer it. Surveys of consumers who support one method or another (GMOS vs conventional vs organic) can be swayed by how the question is asked. I no longer trust any surveys done by anyone who is remotely connected to either industry. They are ALL biased and so are their results. I only trust my own surveys, what I read in Academia (who don’t receive money from industry to do the study) or my own results with a crop.

Too many people are just out for a buck and don’t care how or why we are at our current state of affairs. Things such as “It hasn’t killed anyone yet” or “It has been done this way for xxxx years” are not scientific or even reputable answers. You can drink water with fluoride in it most of your life. When you are old and your bones get brittle does anyone think to check what effect a lifetime of fluoride might do to bones? It is only when things happen quickly or have a severe effect that anyone takes notice. That is why I am very slow to accept new technologies until I am certain that it has been PROVEN to be safe or the previous method has been PROVEN to be unsafe or ineffective.

Let’s take Spinosad for example. Dow developed it for the organic market. It works so well that many conventional farmers are now using it to control Potato Beetles and other pests that many alternative synthetic pesticides no longer work against. If you look back just a decade MANY writers looked with disdain on bio-controls. Now the big companies are scrambling to have the next bio-control that works and can be certified organic. They can sell to both customers AND still get a premium. Yet, how many studies have been done on the long term safety of Bio-Controls? How long do they persist or their degradation products exist in the environment? Are they safe?

This has become a long comment, but I want to point out that comments to an article can be tailored by how the article is written. Well written articles usually have fewer comments. Poorly written or biased articles will bring out all of the expected comments.

Reply

Related posts