Bayer and Corteva Agriscience recently announced they have joined the #stophateforprofit campaign, backed by organizations including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), NAACP, LULAC, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, Common Sense, Free Press, Color of Change and Sleeping Giants and not-for-profit software firm Mozilla.

The campaign bills itself as a means to “convince social media companies to finally put people over profit” and asks advertisers to pause ad spending on Facebook — and on Facebook-owned Instagram — for July.

The campaign’s founding organizations “have been working with Facebook for years and we’ll continue to work with them” in the future, but say that “when it comes to dealing with rampant hate and harassment, the platform continues to come up short.”

Facebook’s “hate speech, incitement and misinformation policies are inequitable. Their harassment victim services are inadequate. Their advertising placement’s proximity to hateful content is haphazard,” the groups said on the campaign site.

“Every day, we see ads from companies placed adjacent to hateful content, occupying the same space as extremist recruitment groups and harmful disinformation campaigns… at the expense of vulnerable and marginalized communities who are often targets of hate groups on Facebook.”

Among its other recommendations, the campaign calls for Facebook to allow independent audits of “identity-based hate and misinformation;” to refund advertisers whose ads turn up next to content later removed for violating terms of service; and to find and remove “public and private groups focused on white supremacy, militia, antisemitism, violent conspiracies, Holocaust denialism, vaccine misinformation and climate denialism.”

In a statement on social media announcing its participation, Corteva said its purpose, “to enrich the lives of those who produce and those who consume, ensuring progress for generations to come” is at “the centre of all decisions we make as a company.”

The ag chem firm said it aims to “lead the agriculture industry in a way that is equitable for all people, current and future generations” and will also be “taking a hard look at additional, meaningful actions to address racism and hate speech.”

Bayer confirmed via email Tuesday it has “made a global commitment to halt advertising with Facebook this month” including its Canadian business and all divisions.

The chemical firm said Tuesday it “believes in, and actively supports, both freedom of speech and freedom of the press” and at the same time “is strongly committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of inclusion, diversity, equality and respect for all.”

Other major firms taking part in the advertising pause include food and consumer product manufacturers such as Diageo, Unilever, Beam Suntory, Hershey and J.M. Smucker and drugmaker Pfizer.

Facebook global affairs vice-president Nick Clegg, in a statement last week on the company’s website, said it “does not profit from hate.”

Users, he said, “don’t want to see hateful content, our advertisers don’t want to see it, and we don’t want to see it. There is no incentive for us to do anything but remove it.”

In a separate statement Tuesday, campaign organizers said after a meeting with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and company brass that it was clear the company “is not yet ready to address the vitriolic hate on their platform.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Bayer, Corteva among companies stepping off Facebook appeared first on Country Guide.

Take, for instance, these gems that persist despite (or perhaps because of) an online world of information at our fingertips: bovine flatulence and belching are single-handedly causing climate change, a persistent belief in cow tipping and brown cows give brown milk.

Misinformation creates myths — and once myths start to propagate on social media, they are next to impossible to correct. A combination of rampant, viral misinformation and a general inability for people to distinguish credible information from lies, myths and hoaxes can make it difficult to break through the static with the facts.

A combination of various complex cognitive processes (such as mental shortcuts, or “heuristics,” and cognitive biases) make it very difficult to refute a myth. For example, the confirmation bias is the tendency for us to “cherry-pick” and favour information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses.

We learned in last month’s column that you can’t just throw more facts and information out there in the hope that something will stick and people will finally “get it.” And trying to disprove myths can actually have the opposite effect. The “backfire” effect, which says that people actually double-down on their beliefs when presented with contradictory information, can make myths seem even more real. This leads us into dangerous territory where things that seem familiar are better remembered and perceived to be true.

Additionally, telling someone outright that what they believe is ridiculous and untrue threatens their world view. Challenging someone’s deeply held beliefs around how they think the world works trips off the “fight or flight” response since you are essentially asking them to question their identity, an incredibly stressful proposition. Neither reaction is conducive to receiving new information.

So, how can you present facts and information in a way that won’t backfire and add power to the myth you’re fighting?

The Debunking Handbook (published in 2012 by John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky) suggests three key points to successfully debunk a myth:

1. A refutation must focus on the facts, not the myth, to avoid the misinformation becoming more familiar. Your goal is to increase people’s familiarity with the facts.
2. Any mention of a myth should be preceded by explicit warnings to notify the reader/listener that the upcoming information is false.
3. When you blow a belief out of the water, you must immediately include an alternative explanation to fill in the resulting knowledge gap.

You should also keep the following in mind:

• Once something is added to a person’s collection of beliefs, they will do almost anything to protect those beliefs. To insert new or correct information, find small openings in their belief armour by connecting to what they value, what they love or fear, or what prompts them to action.
• Show them that swapping facts doesn’t necessarily mean changing their world views. Since people internalize their sense of self through their values and roles, understanding how they see themselves will provide insight as to why they hold a particular opinion. Remember that when someone’s identity is threatened, they will feel attacked; by framing information in a way that helps them realize that new information doesn’t have to conflict with who they are, it makes your information less identity-threatening and they’ll be more receptive to it.
• Choose the information you share and how you present it wisely: “When you start to pull out facts and figures, hyperlinks and quotes, you are actually making the opponent feel as though they are even more sure of their position than before you started the debate. As they match your fervour, the same thing happens in your skull. The backfire effect pushes both of you deeper into your original beliefs,” says David McRaney of the website and podcast “You Are Not So Smart.”
• Be mindful of the gaps you create when trying to debunk a myth. To make sense of what’s important, relevant and urgent, our brains connect the dots of incoming information and then fill gaps with stuff we already know, concepts we’re more familiar with, or information from trusted sources (friends, family). When a myth is debunked, there’s a hole left in that person’s knowledge repository — like the empty space that’s left when you remove a book from the library shelf. As Cook and Lewandowsky point out, you must immediately provide an alternative explanation to fill that gap or other potentially incorrect information will seep in.

Ultimately, it’s important to keep in mind that even after debunking efforts, “fake news” can still distort people’s beliefs, because you can’t “unring the bell.” The best approach is to not repeat the false information since repetition = familiarity = believability (i.e. what talk show host Stephen Colbert famously called “truthiness”). While you can’t turn back to a point in time where your audience hasn’t heard the misinformation, you can choose not to feed the monster, or, at the very least, feed it a healthy diet.

April Stewart is a sixth-generation dairy farmer in Quebec, president of Canadian Young Speakers for Agriculture, and principal of Alba PR, whose latest project is The Farmer’s Survival Guide.

The post Get the story right appeared first on Country Guide.

The result? Too many North Americans are willing to disregard facts as ‘fake’ if they don’t align with our personal perspectives.

That’s bad news for agriculture unless farmers step up to the challenge of meeting fake news head-on.

No industry is as regularly, as intensively, and often as personally attacked by agenda groups as farming. Depending on where you turn, farmers are painted as alternatively (and sometimes, simultaneously) concealing, poisoning, destroying, abusing, devastating.

If the negative messaging makes you indignant, outraged or anxious, you’re hardly alone: farmers across the country and around the world report decreased overall contentment and increased stress associated with farming due to negative online attacks.

Where farmers often go wrong is in directing their anger, frustration and stress towards the everyday consumers who are reporting less confidence in agriculture and the food system. Often, those consumers are simply expressing a need for information. They’re victims of the fake ag news, just like farmers.

“In general, the consumer comes at it from a pretty honest perspective. They really do want more information,” says Andrew Campbell, a dairy farmer in southern Ontario’s Middlesex County, who is the founder of ag advocacy agency Fresh Air Media and the voice behind social media’s popular Fresh Air Farmer. “The challenge is if they all go to Google like we all do for everything. Whatever is on the first few pages is what sets their mindset on a particular issue. But what if those first five pages are fake news? Then ag is up the creek.”

Luckily, there is a way to help get agriculture back down that creek. Farmers need to guide consumers through the fiction-masquerading-as-fact confusion.

“At different junctures in agriculture we’ve had to add different features to our resumé. Now communication is one of those things we need to add,” says Campbell.

It comes down to building authentic, trust-based, transparent relationships with consumers.

“Our brains happen to be wired to believe sensational stuff immediately,” says Campbell. “But once we have a personal connection, that supersedes the sensational. If you can develop personal relationships — whether one-on-one or on a larger social-media scale, you’ll find that people are going to be far more likely to believe the facts that you present than the anonymous fake news page they read online.”

Building relationships is about building trust. While that might happen most easily via social media for some farmers, it can also happen after church, during a golf game, or while sitting in the stands at your kid’s hockey game. Be proud to be a farmer, and be willing to share the facts that go along with your farm reality.

“When was the last time you had a conversation about what you do on your farm? The people around you already have viewpoints on your production practices; you just haven’t had a conversation with them about it yet,” says Campbell. “And, chances are you’re coming from similar perspectives. You both care about what you feed your kids, about environmental issues, about animal welfare.”

So, start the conversation. All it takes is:

A willingness to be open and accessible

Consumers want real information about the things they care about. If you aren’t willing to provide quality, timely, honest information, they will collect their information elsewhere.

“I’ve had people telling me that if they know information is coming from an activist, they take it with a grain of salt. But after they hear it so many times, they can’t help starting to think: ‘What if it is that way?’” says Campbell. “If you look at trust surveys, farmers are at the top and activists are down around lawyers and used car salesmen. But if that’s the only person they ever hear from, eventually they’ll believe it.”

An ability to listen

Consumers are not making up their fears. While the activists and sales people who have stoked the fears are motivated by money, the spark of concern existed before.

“You have to ask where the fake news is coming from? What’s made them believe it?” says Campbell. “If you pat them on the head and say, ‘Oh, don’t worry about that; we’ve got it taken care of,’ you haven’t answered any questions. But if you listen to the root cause of why they are concerned… then you can go about answering those specific issues.”

A commitment to communicating frequently

Your marriage, friendships, and working relationships wouldn’t survive long if you put in just one session of conversation per month or year, no matter how great the conversation at that time. The same goes for building trust with the wider public.

A whole lot of genuine care

“We have to be factual. You can’t make stuff up. But, remember that simply stating and arguing that ‘this is how it shall be’ is never going to get us anywhere,” says Campbell.

“The challenge we have in agriculture now is that, for each one of us, there is no such thing as fact. It’s all perception. You can argue till you’re blue in face about facts, but if someone doesn’t believe you, it won’t matter what you say.”

So, focus on building relationships and showing care. It’s a lot easier for someone to cross to your perspective if you’ve built bridges rather than walls between you.

Campbell believes agriculture is coming around to the idea that communication is the single and only way to counter fake news.

Many farmers used to ask him why he bothered trying to correct consumers’ food and farming misconceptions, advocate for agriculture, and invest in social media. Then, consumer pressure started to force changes that aren’t in either farmers’ or consumers’ best interests, like restaurant chains that started insisting on new production standards, and governments that started imposing new regulations.

Now, more and more farmers are stepping into the ring alongside him. And, he says, those who aren’t yet willing to speak up for agriculture are no longer so critical of his and others’ ag-advocacy.

“It’s coming. There is growing recognition that those who are participating in the conversation are doing it for good reasons and not wasting their time,” he says.

What a difference a few years make, points out Campbell. Not so long ago, farmers worried that consumers didn’t care about food production and farming realities. Now, consumers clearly care. If we can shift that care into pro-ag advocacy, imagine what an industry we can build.

People are paying attention, Campbell says. “They want to know, which means we’ve got our wish. Now we have to fulfil what we wanted. We have to give people the information they need and build the good will so if we need them down the road, we have relationships in place.”

Anti-ag messaging: it’s all about the money

A decade ago, people basically trusted their food and the farmers who created it. Today, there is an epidemic of untruths about agriculture and food swirling around the internet, cropping up in conversations, and having an impact on everything from what people put in their grocery carts to what laws our politicians hang their hats upon.

The average consumer is now three generations removed from a farm. Because they no longer understand the heart and soul of farming, convincing them to accept sensational, fear-based untruths about what agriculture does and doesn’t do is easy. And, it can be very, very lucrative.

In the new internet reality, anyone is allowed to broadcast anything they want, founded or otherwise. More importantly, anyone is allowed to profit from those broadcasts, provided they can capture and then effectively translate the attention they receive into product sales, advertising dollars or donations.

“Not knowing anything about (individuals involved in anti-ag messaging), I’m sure they got onto the scene from being concerned. They might have had concerns about big, broad-ranging issues, and they may want to do good at some point. But then all of a sudden they stumble into, ‘Whoa, there is money to be made here,’” says Campbell.

It turns out that fear — concocted or otherwise — can earn real money.

In 2014, Vani Hari moved from being relatively unknown to being a leading (i.e. well-known and very well compensated) food and health blogger and activist. Her blog, called Food Babe, achieved viral readership after she began attacking Subway’s use of azodicarbonamide, an FDA-approved dough conditioner, in its bread. Though the same chemical was used with no backlash in hundreds of other bread and bakery products sold from Starbucks to McDonalds to grocery stores, Food Babe specifically attacked Subway’s use of the “dangerous chemical.”

“If you can’t spell it or pronounce it, you probably shouldn’t eat it,” she was quoted widely as saying at the time.

Hari didn’t create the concern about artificial ingredients in food: that already existed. She simply tapped into a lucrative way to benefit from the concern.

“If you choose a specific word that is hard to pronounce, hard to remember, hard to spell, you can convince your audience it must be scientific and it must be worthy of concern,” says Campbell. “You just have to know how to pinpoint it.”

It’s not just individual bloggers who benefit from fanning flames of fear. Advocacy groups and agenda-based organizations might be manned by people with deep convictions who believe they are doing the right thing. But at the end of the day, the organizations have big capital investments, big budgets, big staffs, reminds Campbell.

“How do they make those budgets? By getting big donations. By selling books, selling keynotes, selling natural medicinal products that haven’t been tested.”

Take it one step further: it’s not just individuals or organizations that benefit from fake news. Mega companies like Google and Facebook do too, says Campbell.

Google and Facebook’s power and wealth come from just one source: convincing users to spend time on their platforms. People online mean advertising dollars; more people online for longer mean more advertising dollars.

Google and Facebook know the best way to hold your attention is to feed you more of what you already want, already think and already prioritize. So, it uniquely customizes what it shows you based on one’s search history, demographic information and a shockingly robust understanding of one’s fears, biases, tendencies and priorities. If you’re already scared, Google’s search algorithm knows you’ll keep clicking if it prioritizes articles that build on that fear. If you’re already mad, Facebook will make you want to read more by embedded articles and ads that fuel your anger. Designed to serve their business, the algorithms’ unintended consequence is they polarize people, amplify fringe voices, and reinforce our (often negative) default opinions.

Is a mom a dupe if she stops sending her son to Subway over concerns about azodicarbonamide? Is the Facebook friend ignorant if he reposts a blatantly wrong opinion piece about farmers’ abuse of their livestock? Is the grocery store consumer crazy if he suspects conventional farmers are trying to kill him through chemicals? Actually, no. They’re just pawns in a very, very lucrative game. If we can see them as such, we’re positioned to open respectful conversations and, ultimately, tackle their fear with fact.

This article first appeared at AGCanada.com.

The post ‘Fake News’ and the farm appeared first on Country Guide.

So if information “smells” bad, shouldn’t we be wary of consuming it as well?

Dr. John McManus believes so, and he has developed the SMELL test for determining the validity of news and information. “The SMELL test is designed to help anyone discern reliable information in any medium,” McManus says. “So I think it would be helpful for farmers as well.”

McManus earned a master’s degree in journalism at the University of Michigan and a PhD in communications at Stanford. He has worked as a journalist, researcher, consultant, journalism educator, and media critic, and he is also an author and book publisher.

In his latest book Don’t Be Fooled: A Citizen’s Guide to News and Information in the Digital Age, McManus wrote, “I felt the need to share what I’ve learned to help others critically evaluate the enormous variety of what now passes for news as well as other information passed along as factual.”

The SMELL test is based on five categories, i.e. Source, Motive, Evidence, Logic, and Left Out.

Assessing these five criteria will allow you to evaluate any information for credibility.

“Source” simply refers to where the information is coming from. Is it an accredited institution or organization? Is it from a recognized news outlet? Is it from a published writer or author? Or is it the work of a blogger? Is there a byline with the writer’s full name, or simply a pseudonym? Can you even confirm the identity of the writer?

“Motive” is extremely important. Why is the information being presented? Is it simply to inform? Or is the motive of the presenter to persuade you to do something, such as to persuade you to purchase or sell? Or is the information intended simply to entertain.

“Evidence” refers to factual support within the information itself. How is the information verified? Is there peer-reviewed support for the information in the article? Is the information referenced? In short, how does the presenter back up their facts?

“Logical” means asking yourself whether the information makes sense. Does the evidence actually support the conclusions presented in the information?

That leaves “Left out” which can be the toughest test of a presentation. Is the information complete? What is the presenter not telling you? Is only one side of an issue presented or supported? Are omissions merely an oversight, or is it an attempt by the presenter to influence you?

These questions can and should be asked each and every time you receive new information, whether you read, hear or view it. It does not matter whether you encounter the information online, in mass media, in print, or even by word of mouth.

McManus’s easy-to-read book expands on each of these five criteria and illustrates them with examples of recent news events and how they were presented to the public. It should be required reading before anyone posts or re-posts anything online.

The SMELL test is needed more than ever.

In September I wrote of a world-wide movement to ban glyphosate based largely on misinformation. In subsequent articles, I tried to inform readers about how to address the glut of misinformation that is behind the push not only for a glyphosate ban, but for the banning of GMOs and many other modern farming practices.

• The target is glyphosate
• The other glyphosate ‘resistance’

I also reported on what some of the major agricultural organizations that claim to be the voice of farmers are doing to refute misinformation about our industry. I was disappointed in how little attention farmers and their organizations were and still are paying to the misinformation which is attacking us every day.

Opposition to glyphosate continues to grow. Since I wrote the September article on the push to ban glyphosate, the Italian ministry of health has instituted sweeping new restrictions on the use of glyphosate. I have confirmed through our consular office that under the terms of a decree with the extremely long name “Revocation of marketing authorizations and changing conditions the use of plant protection products containing the active substance glyphosate in implementation of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1313 of the Commission of 1 August 2016,” the Ministry announced that as of August 22, 2016, glyphosate could no longer be used:

• in areas frequented by the public or by vulnerable groups in such areas as: parks, gardens, sports grounds and recreational areas, playgrounds and green areas within school buildings, playgrounds for children and adjacent areas to health facilities;
• for pre-harvest use for the sole purpose of optimizing the harvest or threshing;
• for the purpose of protection of groundwater, for non-agricultural use in areas where soils contain a higher percentage of sand than 80 per cent; vulnerable areas and buffer zones as defined by the decree.

Especially troubling for Canadian growers is that Coldiretti, Italy’s largest farmer organization, immediately called for a ban on imported wheat from countries where glyphosate is used as a pre-harvest treatment.

In announcing the move, Coldiretti president Roberto Moncalvo said, “Italy is at the cutting edge in Europe and in the world with respect to policies regarding food security and environmental safety, but we will not be able to defend our citizens if we don’t block imports from countries that continue to use glyphosate pre-harvest.”

Moncalvo is now pushing the Italian government to regulate wheat used for pasta coming from the U.S. and Canada because of the use of glyphosate pre-harvest. This would have an impact on durum exports from Canada.

And so the misinformation continues to spread. For instance, on November 15, 2016, the Food Babe made a number of unsubstantiated claims based on a report published by Food Democracy Now about the toxicity of glyphosate. She went on to imply that Monsanto and the FDA have conspired to conceal glyphosate residues in food.

Her assertions attracted the attention of Snopes, an organization which investigates urban legends and misinformation. Based on investigation, Snopes labelled these Food Babe’s claims as false.

Last year, Snopes also rejected the article entitled “Half of All Children Will Be Autistic by 2025, Warns Senior Research Scientist at MIT” posted on the website “Alliance for Natural Health.”

The article stated: “One in two children will be autistic by 2025 due to the use of glyphosate (Roundup) on food crops.”

Snopes rated the claims made in the article as unproven and concluded: “Whether educated or not, guesswork is only the start of research in epidemiology, and no published research exists to prove (or even suggest) a link between glyphosate and autism. No evidence was presented in the article to provide context for why glyphosate (or GMOs) would be any more likely to account for the presumed increase than other environmental factors, and it appeared the only visible connection between the two was their inclusion on a graph presented at a conference of an indeterminate nature.”

Yet for every claim, article, or post that is discredited by an organization like Snopes, there are many more which are not fact checked and are accepted as fact by consumers.

Complicating the issue even more is the growing number of fake news sites. The Internet is providing a good living to talented fake news writers who profit from ads and visits to their sites. National Public Radio, the American media syndicator for about 900 public radio stations, tracked down and interviewed one very successful fake news entrepreneur. One of their questions in particular deserves our close attention: “What can be done about fake news?” The answer given by the fake news writer was: “Some of this has to fall on the readers themselves. The consumers of content have to be better at identifying this stuff. We have a whole nation of media-illiterate people. Really, there needs to be something done.”

The entire interview is extremely eye-opening and for anyone wanting an insight into the fake news world, the NPR story and interview it can be accessed online. (“We Tracked Down a Fake-News Creator in the Suburbs. Here’s What We Learned” by Laura Sydell. It aired November 23, 2016, and it can be found on npr.org.)

We only have to look at the recent U.S. presidential election to see how persuasive and acceptable misinformation has become. Politifact has won a Pulitzer Prize for its fact checking of American politics. It fact checked 334 statements made by the Trump campaign through the autumn and found 233 were mostly false (63), false (113) or outright Pants-on-Fire lies (57).

In his book, McManus wrote: “Information can be unreliable for three reasons: because it is deliberately biased, unintentionally biased, or simply inaccurate. While it is easy to point the finger at activists twisting the truth to persuade people, fake news writers and satire programs whose stories are sometimes accepted by a gullible public as fact rather than fiction, or even politicians stretching the truth, farmers are not without guilt. Online agricultural forums are full of misinformation re-posted by farmers without fact checking.”

McManus concludes: “We need to learn how to spot unreliable information ourselves and warn others.”

We act on what we believe to be true, but what we believe may not be reality. Unless we begin to critically question information, use tools like the SMELL test, and fact check the misinformation, the problem will continue to get worse, and so will the damage to the agricultural industry.

The post Before you believe it appeared first on Country Guide.

The bad news is that the way we respond may actually be increasing consumer opposition rather than alleviating it. We’ve been misinformed about fighting misinformation.

Agriculture is not the only industry to be threatened by misinformation. It is merely the latest, so it is important to look at how misinformation has affected others and how they have responded.

A good case study is the controversy about vaccinations and autism. The claim that vaccinations cause autism was first made about 18 years ago based on a single study of just 12 children in the U.K. Further clinical studies refuted the correlation, the medical journal that published the original study retracted it, and the doctor involved in the study lost his licence to practise medicine.

Yet today an estimated one-third of U.S. parents believe that vaccines are linked to autism, which is why measles, once nearly eradicated, have returned.

In this case, the response to misinformation has been totally ineffective.

There are a number of reasons why people cling to misinformation and why they do not want to give up their opinions, even when those opinions are scientifically discredited.

First, no one likes being wrong, so people will seek out information (i.e. misinformation) which proves they have been right all along. This is “confirmation bias.”

Also, it is often easier to get misinformation that reinforces your beliefs than it is to search out the truth about an issue or practice. This is particularly true if the misinformation is delivered by social media you subscribe to or by a public figure such as an actor or politician, and it is especially easy to fall for individuals who portray themselves as informed outsiders who are willing to challenge the corrupted establishment or corporate system, which they claim is only interested in profits, not the consumer.

It adds up to this. Confirmation bias can rarely be overturned with facts, data or evidence. People will simply discount all the evidence that disproves the misinformation they are using as the basis of their world view, and they will embrace any “information” they have found or heard that supports their world view and beliefs.

Research has actually studied the conundrum that this produces. Our efforts to use verified facts, research and data to set the record straight can actually cause people to deepen their belief in the misinformation that we are trying to attack.

This is known as the “backfire effect.”

Then it gets worse. Once the misinformation is firmly entrenched, we tend to look at and treat those holding such beliefs as idiots or a radical fringe, and this polarization further divides and encourages those who believe in the misinformation to spread their misbeliefs, thereby greatly reducing the chances of correcting the misinformation in the future.

Another trap we fall into when attempting to refute misinformation is by repeating that misinformation when we try to refute it. Every time misinformation is repeated, there is the possibility you are introducing that misinformation to people unaware of the misinformation in the first place.

Research has found if a falsehood is repeated just three times, up to 40 per cent of people will remember it and believe it to be true.

Possibly the step which most people ignore in fighting misinformation is to provide any alternative to the misinformation.

The Debunking Handbook

Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky, University of Bristol, U.K., says providing a narrative is a critical step. “It is not enough to debunk the myths, you need to provide an alternative that will fill the gap if misinformation is to be accepted as untrue. Explain the false information and the agenda of those pushing it. The most effective way to reduce the effect of misinformation is to provide an alternative explanation for the events covered by the misinformation.”

According to Lewandowsky, the other critical step is: “beware of a person’s world view. For example, understand that those opposed to GMOs have natural, environmental, and purity goals. You cannot attack these values. Instead you have to deal with the science behind GMO.”

In the case of GMOs, given the resulting increased use of glyphosate, and now the development of glyphosate-resistant weeds, Lewandowsky suggests farmers acknowledge that GMO crops have resulted in excessive use of glyphosate which has resulted in development of glyphosate resistance. He says a GMO supporter who begins a conversation with someone opposed to GMO by conceding this point will improve trustworthiness of the GMO proponent and make the person opposed to GMO more willing to reconsider their GMO position.

When asked who are the best to address misinformation about GMOs, Lewandowsky replied: “Those who people trust. Not Monsanto! Instead it should be independent university scientists who are not funded by corporate interests. It should be farmers who use GMO technology.”

Lewandowsky says farmers who address a misinformation issue like GMO should focus on discrediting misinformation with friends and family first. He recommends talking to those who are on the fence about an issue like GMOs rather than those firmly opposed to the technology. “There is very little to be gained by trying to change the position of hardcore believers in misinformation.”

However, Lewandowsky says it is very important to expose those hardcore believers and the reasons they have for promoting misinformation. Are they promoting misinformation for personal financial gain, for the fame, or perhaps for political reasons?

Lewandowsky has written The Debunking Handbook, an eight-page guide to why people believe misinformation and how best to debunk misinformation. He opens with:

“Debunking myths is problematic. Unless great care is taken, any effort to debunk misinformation can inadvertently reinforce the very myths one seeks to correct. To avoid these “backfire effects,” an effective debunking requires three major elements.

First, the refutation must focus on core facts rather than the myth to avoid the misinformation becoming more familiar. Second, any mention of a myth should be preceded by explicit warnings to notify the reader that the upcoming information is false. Finally, the refutation should include an alternative explanation that accounts for important qualities in the original misinformation.”

The Debunking Handbook should be read by everyone interested in challenging the misinformation that plagues the agricultural industry. It can be found online here as a downloadable pdf.

What works on your farm

Dr. Jason Lusk is a food and agricultural economist at Oklahoma State University, and he researches what we eat and why we eat it.

Lusk is concerned about the disparity between the beliefs of farmers and researchers versus the general public. He believes the problem is that two trends have emerged at the same time. First, North Americans have become less trusting of institutions. Second, there is a much greater diversity of information available to consumers, so people seek out what they want to hear rather than facts.

Lusk says there used to be a shared assumption that the experts have all the knowledge, so if the experts simply presented consumers with the information, then everything would come out right. But today, he says, that is not nearly as effective.

Instead, Lusk applauds farmers who actually engage consumers in conversations on a one-to-one basis about food safety and environmental concerns over modern farming practices.

Lusk urges farmers to listen to the concerns of consumers and respond by explaining how you actually address those concerns on your farm. For example, if in a conversation a consumer says, “I am concerned about… ” the farmer’s response should be, “I am concerned about that too, and this is how we handle that on our farm… ”

This response can apply to any issue from environmental concerns, to GMOs, to antibiotic resistance, to pesticide use.

Lusk says while science is important, it is not always persuasive. Responding to consumer concerns by quoting the latest scientific journal to justify a farming practice likely will not work. Instead, farmers should tell their own story and focus on why you do what you do.

Getting it right

A useful summary of the strategies that can be used on your farm can be found in a 2012 news release from the University of Michigan entitled “New study analyzes why people are resistant to correcting misinformation, offers solutions”:

• Focus on the facts you want to highlight, rather than the myths.
• Make sure that the information you want people to take away is simple and brief.
• Consider your audience and the beliefs they are likely to hold.
• Strengthen your message through repetition.
• Provide people with a narrative that replaces the gap left by false information.

Colorado State University has also published a fact sheet entitled Nutrition Misinformation: How to Identify Fraud and Misleading Claims. It lists the top 10 red flags for misleading claims in nutrition.

1. Recommendations that promise a quick fix.
2. Dire warnings of danger from a single product or regimen.
3. Claims that sound too good to be true.
4. Simplistic conclusions drawn from a complex study.
5. Recommendations based on a single study.
6. Dramatic statements that are refuted by reputable scientific organizations.
7. Lists of “good” and “bad” foods.
8. “Spinning” information from another product to match the producer’s claims.
9. Stating that research is “currently underway,” indicating that there is no current research.
10. Non-science-based testimonials supporting the product, often from celebrities or highly satisfied customers.

The post We’ve been misinformed appeared first on Country Guide.