# data[].attributes.body
Learners need to be able to evaluate information found on the web every day. In our non-formal community setting, our learners need to be taught to recognize faulty sources. Especially when we are searching for information related to agriculture.

# data[].attributes.body
With the widespread use of technology, not only is this digital literacy important for our rising generations, but we can't forget about our more mature audiences that are still fairly new to all the digital changes. It is important for all learners to see the dangers associated with misinformation in the media and learn how to seek better sources.

# data[].attributes.body
When analyzing any source, look for the following:

Who wrote it?

What makes them qualified to write it?

When was it written?

Why was it written?

Does it give you the information you need?

Is there a favored viewpoint?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I have an affinity for the phrase, "fake news." Rest assured, that's not a political statement (set aside any worries about where this is headed). Rather, I like the phrase because it's so descriptive. It fully encompasses the occurrence of bad or false information that ultimately gets traction -- regardless of the topic.

Fake news is nothing new for the food system. We didn't describe it as such, but there's been a constant barrage of negative, unfounded, inaccurate stories about food and agriculture in mainstream and social media during the past 10 to 20 years. Food was fighting fakes news before we ever called it fake news.

In fact, I'd argue agriculture has absorbed the brunt of bad journalism over the years. The closest I've gotten previously to naming the fake news phenomenon for food and agriculture was a column several years ago describing it as "food gossip." That discussion went like this:

[In public] things don't always play out in a logical or objective manner. That can prove frustrating given we live in the information age where data and facts should mean something. But that's not always the case. Rather, what's changed is the rate and scope of information transfer - it doesn't necessarily improve quality of information transfer. In other words, it provides a platform for bad information to move around just as easilas good information. That leaves the door open for baseless misinformation getting traction. Consumers get bombarded by what essentially amounts to nothing more than food gossip. It all gets perpetuated, accelerated and amplified by their friends and/or the media.

The underlying cause or motivation for fake news is complex. It derives from several sources including the 24/7 news cycle and enduring incentive to fill time and space. Social media also has been an important driver of errant facts for the food world. It's the influence of social media that recently sparked my interest.

My thought process stems from a new book, Everybody Lies: Big Data, New Data, and What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are (Seth Stephens-Davidowitz). The book explains that, "On social media, as in surveys, you have no incentive to tell the truth. On social media, much more so than in surveys, you have a large incentive to make yourself look good. Your online presence is not anonymous, after all. You are courting an audience and telling your friends, family members, colleagues, acquaintances and strangers who you are."

The book provides a fitting example of how that plays out in practice in the real world:

To see how biased data pulled from social media can be, consider the relative popularity of the Atlantic, a respected, highbrow monthly magazine, versus the National Enquirer, a gossipy, often-sensational magazine. Both publications have similar average circulations, selling a few hundred thousand copies. (The National Enquirer is a weekly, so it actually sells more total copies.) There are also a comparable number of Google searches for each magazine. However, on Facebook, roughly 1.5 million people either like the Atlantic or discuss articles from the Atlantic on their profiles. Only about 50,000 like the Enquirer or discuss its contents.

In other words, the Atlantic Monthly vs. the National Enquirer are roughly equal in terms of popularity as measured by circulation and Google searches. However, when it comes to Facebook likes and/or shares, the Atlantic Monthly possesses roughly a 30-to-1 advantage compared to the National Enquirer.

There's little doubt that phenomenon has played out over the years around food and agriculture - being a critic has seemingly become popular sport. That's not surprising given that such a small portion of our population is directly involved with agriculture in some form or fashion. We're outnumbered and that opens the door for misinformation and serves as an outlet for the "incentive to make yourself look good."

It's a good thing "fake news" is now part of our vernacular. It draws attention to the importance of objective reporting (or the lack thereof). Hopefully, that'll improve accountability going forward. But that alone won't solve the problem.

In the meantime, there's still work to do. That's where we come in. To that end, Bill Lovette (President and CEO, Pilgrim's Pride) provided attendees of the 2017 Chicken Marketing Summit some best practices for the food industry:

* Don't sell your story, tell it with transparency and heart

* See it through their eyes

* It's not about being right, it's about respect of choice

* Fearlessly take on the issue, but let values lead the conversation

* Respond with speed and balance

* Empower people to advocate and innovate

Those are good tactics that need to be implemented every day across the food industry! And for good measure, let's add one more to the list: take a breath. Maybe, just maybe, spreading fake news is less about real convictions and more simply about the enduring "incentive to look good." And if that's the case, there's still hope to win the realm of public opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
As a non-formal educator, it is extremely important to always facilitate safe online learning. By teaching and showing learners how to spot false information in their resources, we can set them up to make better-informed decisions related to what we teach in the community.

Some extension programs have been involved in this effort by providing community training and getting different age groups involved. By mixing up the age groups, we can demonstrate how vital this information is for everyone.

# data[].attributes.headline
Example 1 of Where We See Misinformation in Agriculture

# data[].attributes.subject
Example 1 of Where We See Misinformation in Agriculture

# data[].attributes.body
The source is from a personal blog

No references are listed

Wrote in 2012 and hasn't been updated since

There is more relevant information available now

Explicit bias towards one side of the argument

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The promise of GMOs is alluring for many. We were all told that genetically modifying crops would make them immune to weed killers and pests, leading to an abundance of foods that would solve our world hunger problems. We were also told that these crops would require fewer pesticides and herbicides, but is this true? Did genetically modified crops live up to their promise?

In this week's House Call, I address a question tweeted to me by Christina, who asks "What is your view on GMO foods?"

For anyone who has never heard of a GMO before, it stands for genetically modified organism, which means any organism that has been altered using genetic engineering techniques.

Growers turn to genetically modified crops to address their challenges with insects or weeds that affect their yield and their bottom line in the long-run. Or, so they thought.

We now know from recent reports and studies that genetically modified foods do not meet their promise of increased yields and decreased use of pesticides; in fact, the opposite might be true. In 2016, released an extensive examination in which they compared two continents - North American (which embraces genetically modified crops and Europe (which banned them). What the researchers found was that there was no difference in crop yield, and the U.S. growers saw a 21 percent increase in herbicide use with the introduction of these crops.

One measure, contained in data from the United States Geological Survey, shows the stark difference in the use of pesticides. Since genetically modified crops were introduced in the United States two decades ago for crops like corn, cotton and soybeans, the use of toxins that kill insects and fungi has fallen by a third, but the spraying of herbicides, which are used in much higher volumes, has risen by 21 percent.

By contrast, in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage - 65 percent - and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 percent.

Well, that seems to settle that argument.

I believe that GMOs are bad for the environment. They are creating super-weeds and super-pests, leading farmers to use more pesticides and herbicides. Perfect example: Monsanto's Roundup which has been proven to be carcinogenic , negatively impacts farming communities, wildlife, our food and our health because of the toxins they leach into the fields, ground water and food.

It's important to educate ourselves on how our food supply is manipulated. Just think:64 countries have mandated transparency in labeling genetically modified foods or GMOs.Why, then, doesn't the U.S.? I'll give you one big reason: lobbyists - specifically Big Food and Big Ag lobbyists. The U.S. government policy appears to be "approve first and question later." Trans fats are a great example. Trans fats killed hundreds of thousands of people before they were banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2013 - 50 years after researchers found them to be harmful.

Even though there was a nationwide push to label all GMO foods, the labeling will not be easy to understand, and many of us can still be tricked into purchasing products containing GMOs. We need to properly label genetically modified foods. Clear labeling will deliver multiple benefits. It is essential for tracking the emergence of novel food allergies and assessing the effects of chemical herbicides applied to genetically modified crops. It will respect the wishes of a growing number of consumers who insist they have a right to know what foods they are buying and how they were produced. Genetically modified crops are now the agricultural products most heavily treated with herbicides and that may pose risks of cancer. We need clear, easy-to-read labels that any third grader can understand.

It's estimated that about 75 percent of the food in our supermarkets contains genetically modified ingredients. The top four to look out for are:

For more information on these items and other foods that might be genetically modified, visit Environmental Working Group's website .

Personally, I don't think there's enough information out there about what GMOs are doing to our bodies and our health.The research and studies that are available are not making a positive case for these foods. Why take any chances with your health? My biggest piece of advice for avoiding GMOs, and really all processed and packaged foods, is to eat real, whole, organic foods. If it says organic on the label, it's automatically GMO free.

Now I want to hear from you. What are your thoughts on GMO foods? Leave a comment on my Facebook page, and if you liked this video, share it with your friends and family on and . Also, tweet me your questions (@MarkHymanMD), and maybe next week, I'll make a House Call to you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
My Thoughts on GMO Foods - Dr. Mark Hyman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The promise of GMOs is alluring for many. We were all told that genetically modifying crops would make them immune to weed killers and pests, leading to an abundance of [...]

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.poll_choices[].choice_text
I could probably find a better source...

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.poll_choices[].choice_text
This is the guy I need to go to for my information

# data[].attributes.headline
Example 2 of Where We See Misinformation in Agriculture

# data[].attributes.subject
Example 2 of Where We See Misinformation in Agriculture

# data[].attributes.body
Now you practice! Read the article and answer the questions below.

Who wrote the article?

Is the article recent?

What makes the author credible?

Are there credible sources cited?

Is there more than one perspective shared?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story was originally published by Wired and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Agriculture is a big source of emissions. In the US, about 10 percent of greenhouse gases come from livestock or crops-and for a long time, agriculture has lagged behind other sectors when it comes to cutting its carbon footprint. Since 1990, total emissions from agriculture have risen by 7 percent, while emissions from sectors like electricity generation and buildings have declined.

There's a simple reason for this: Cutting emissions from agriculture is really hard. It's not like the energy industry, which has readily available low-carbon electricity in the form of renewables. Reducing agriculture's impact means making tough decisions about what gets farmed and how, and dealing with the notoriously tricky science of making sure carbon stays in the ground rather than being released into the atmosphere.

The US has started getting to grips with these tough decisions. President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act included $20 billion to help farmers tackle the climate crisis. And in February 2022 the US Department of Agriculture announced $3.1 billion in funding through a scheme called Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities (PCSC). The money was intended to fund projects that help farmers adopt more environmentally friendly ways of farming and create a market for what the USDA calls "climate-smart" crops and livestock.
Getting smarter with fertilizer use is one of the biggest changes that US agriculture could make to its emissions footprint.
According to the USDA, its plan has the potential to sequester 60 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents-the same as removing 12 million gasoline-powered cars from roads for one year. But some scientists are worried that the PCSC approach is the wrong kind of climate intervention. The government could be channeling billions of dollars to projects that are of uncertain benefit in terms of emissions-or, worse, actually end up increasing overall levels of greenhouse gases.

If the goal is to reduce overall emissions from agriculture, a good place to start is by figuring out where all those emissions come from. It turns out that over half of all agricultural emissions come in the form of nitrous oxide-a potent greenhouse gas released when microbes in the soil break down nitrogen-based fertilizers. Overuse of fertilizer is a huge problem in agriculture, says Paul West, an ecologist at the climate nonprofit Project Drawdown. On top of being a huge source of emissions, excess nitrogen leaches into waterways, causing algal blooms.

Reducing the amount of fertilizer farmers use would be a big win. Remote sensors and machines can help farmers apply fertilizer only when and where it is needed, while smarter forms of fertilizers might reduce the amount of nitrogen that ends up digested by microbes. The crucial thing about these kinds of interventions is that they stop emissions being released in the first place, says Dan Blaustein-Rejto, director of food and agriculture at the Breakthrough Institute. If you never put fertilizer on the ground, it's impossible for microbes to turn it into planet-warming nitrous oxide. Getting smarter with fertilizer use is one of the biggest changes that US agriculture could make to its emissions footprint.

But fertilizer management plays second fiddle to a different kind of climate project in the PCSC. Of the 60 finalized projects for which the USDA has published summaries, only 12 mention nutrient management or fertilizer application. A much higher number of projects focus on cover cropping-a technique that involves covering fields with crops between harvests in order to slow soil erosion, capture carbon, and keep nutrients in the fields. Since planting cover crops takes time and expense, and can lower the overall productivity of fields, only a relatively small number of farmers use the technique. If the PCSC is successful, however, the number of farmers planting cover crops should shoot up.
Researchers worry that the program prioritizes sequestering carbon rather than stopping emissions from being released in the first place.
Cover crops absorb carbon from the atmosphere and turn it into plant material as they grow, explains Deepak Joshi, an assistant professor at Arkansas State University and the author of a recent paper about cover crops. When the cover crops are harvested or left to rot on the soil, a lot of that carbon gets released back into the atmosphere, but a small amount can remain behind in the soil. If that soil remains undisturbed, then that carbon can potentially remain underground for years. Joshi's meta-analysis focused on cover crops grown in cornfields around the world and found that, on average, cover crops increased carbon stored in the soil by about 7 percent.

So far, so good. But once you dive down into the details of Joshi's study, things get more complicated. The research found that the amount of carbon stored varied widely, depending on location, cover crop type, plowing, and the amount of plant growth. A different review, this time examining cover cropping on US farms, found that, in lots of cases, fields with cover crops didn't gain extra soil carbon when compared to fields that hadn't been cover cropped. "In terms of climate benefit, it isn't all that great," says West.

One of the big limitations to cover cropping is that carbon added to the soil might eventually make its way back into the atmosphere. "What we find is that even where there is a build-up of carbon, once you plow those areas again you lose a lot-or all-of the carbon that has been stored up over time," says West. If money for cover crops runs out, farmers may start leaving fields bare during off-seasons and plowing them more, which would mean a lot of that sequestered carbon would end up back in the atmosphere. And if the cover crops reduce the overall productivity of fields, there's also the danger that the practice might encourage more land to be converted to agriculture, which is bad news for overall emissions.

Blaustein-Rejto and West both worry that the PCSC prioritizes sequestering carbon rather than stopping emissions from being released in the first place. One way to think about this is the difference between switching to an electric car today or continuing to drive a gas-powered vehicle while also planting a forest to sequester the carbon you emit. In both cases the overall carbon accounting may net out the same, but sequestering always carries the risk that the carbon might later be released if-for instance-that forest is replaced by a cattle ranch.

Robert Bonnie, the under secretary for agriculture for farm production and conservation at the USDA, says that criticisms of the PCSC aren't entirely fair. "These are pilots. We're actually going to go out and try some things. We don't have all the information we need," he says. He points out that a number of the funded projects do focus on fertilizer use. "We're not scared of the math; we're really interested in getting the math right," he says.

Bonnie says that the real challenge is to persuade farms to get on board with climate-smart farming. A big focus of the project is to create a market for climate-smart crops and livestock, encouraging buyers to pay a premium for goods made in an environmentally friendly manner. A top-down regulatory approach might discourage farmers from taking part, he says.
Livestock is the second-biggest source of US agricultural emissions, so reducing consumption of meat and dairy products is an obvious solution.
In lots of the PCSC projects, the USDA funding is supplemented by money from food companies that buy beef, corn, soy, or other agricultural commodities. One PCSC project run by the Iowa Soybean Association includes $62.1 million in corporate payments from companies including PepsiCo, Cargill, Target, JBS, and Coca-Cola. This is a relatively new form of carbon accounting called insetting, where companies pay for carbon offsets within their own supply chains.

Insetting is rising in popularity, but it has a lot of the same problems as offsets, says Sybrig Smit of the NewClimate Institute, a climate policy and global sustainability nonprofit based in Germany. It might be difficult to assess whether insets deliver their supposed benefits, and sequestering carbon is still less desirable than cutting emissions at their source, particularly when it helps sustain industries that are bigger emitters of carbon. Livestock is the second-biggest source of emissions in US agriculture, so reducing consumption of meat and dairy products is an obvious way to reduce emissions, says Smit. "As a society we're really scared to touch on our consumption patterns," she says.

The USDA scheme is stuck in an awkward place. It is supposed to reduce emissions but seeks to achieve that in a way that keeps farmers on board and doesn't fundamentally change the goods they produce. "We're going to have beef production and dairy production for a long time to come. And our job is to figure out how to work with those producers to reduce the greenhouse gas impacts to the maximum extent we can," Bonnie says.

In practice, that means that much money from PCSC will go toward farming soy and corn-a large percentage of which will end up as livestock feed or as ethanol for biofuels. Cover cropping is good for soil health, but its potential to lead to long-lasting carbon storage is uncertain at best. At worst, it could see the US avoiding the kind of fundamental changes to food production that could really bring emissions down.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The way we farm is bad for the climate. Our solution isn't much better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some scientists find the multibillion-dollar us reform effort wanting.

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.poll_choices[].choice_text
I should keep looking for more information...