In case you have missed it, heated debates have been raging across the Internet regarding our food and food production practices. Caramel coloring in that PSL, yay or nay? Labeling of foods derived from genetically modified plants? Conventional or organic agriculture? Is there glyphosate in breastmilk? Gluten-free? Paleo? Help!!!!!

Don't believe me? Get on social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) and prepare yourself to bombarded; EVERYONE has an opinion about EVERYTHING.

As a scientist, I have been dismissive of people who just don't seem to understand or, more importantly, trust science. And I think that there are (probably) a good many other researchers who feel the same way. The facts are the facts; how can you not accept them? 

Well, sometimes the facts may be less important to the discussion than people's perceptions of what those facts mean.

For example, my tomato research has shown that 6 oz/A of a commercial herbicide can effectively reduce the cover and density of small-seeded broadleaved weed species in tomato relative to an untreated control (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Weed control in processing tomato in response to herbicides. The untreated check plot is on the left; the plot on the right received an application of a herbicide registered for use in tomatoes at a rate of 6 oz/A.

Some of my followers on Twitter might be very impressed with this. "Season-long weed control with only 6 oz/A? Well alright!"

Others may react differently. "That product must be extremely toxic if it can control weeds for that long at a rate of only 6 oz/A."

Both of these hypothetical respondents didn't deny the facts; they both could see that the use of the herbicide improved weed control. They disagreed on whether the result was actually 'good' or 'bad'. Hmmmmm...

So, why do I care about this? I recently read a really interesting article by Alex Mongrain (4 September, 2015, in Vox) who thought "all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Until I married one." Mr. Mongrain wrote an excellent piece describing how people's backstories shape their understanding, their emotions, and their trust. In a nutshell, Mr. Mongrain stated that barraging people you disagree with using both science and scorn is unlikely to engage them in a productive way.

The same could be said for all of our agricultural debates. We have to present our data, along with our interpretations, to the public at large. At the same time, we probably have a duty to ask them their opinions about our research in return. We need to try a find out why their support for specific farming tools (be it GMOs, pesticides, cultivation, etc...) waxes and wanes. We live in a digital age, and mis/information is abundant. I, personally, think that agriculture will be best served if we try to connect with those that don't understand, or even fear, modern farming with a bit more empathy. 

I've not been perfect in the past, but I am willing to try in the future.