Baloney Detection – By Easton White

More than 2,500 years ago, the first evidence for a spherical Earth was discovered by the Ancient Greeks. Around 500 BC, Pythagoras noted that the moon was a sphere and reasoned the Earth was as well. A few hundred years later, Greek mathematician Eratosthenes used simple geometry to estimate the circumference of Earth. He had surveyors measure the heights of shadows cast by sticks in the ground. From this, he was able to estimate the Earth was 28,738 miles in circumference (the real number is 24,902 miles). Today, we have images from spaces, satellites, and have even sent people into orbit and beyond. Yet, in the 21st century there are people who believe the Earth is flat (deemed “flat-earthers”), and there seems to be a growing number of them. The list of flat-earthers includes those with considerable influences, such as celebrities and YouTubers, as well as your average Joe. Flat-earthers connect with one another through social media and can even attend conferences together. When presented with evidence, of say photos from NASA, this information is deemed “unreliable.”


Pictorial of how Greek philosopher Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the Earth.

The idea of a flat-earth is itself pretty innocuous. No one is going to die or be taken advantage of for believing in a flat Earth. But what happens when the same line of thinking bleeds into other domains of life? In place of cancer medicine is faith healing, in place of counselors are psychics, and in place of vaccines are, well, not vaccines. Believing in these forms of pseudoscience can become a matter of life or death. Further, people are frequently swindled out of huge sums of money in exchange for pseudoscience.

Ultimately, these issues can arise from an inability or unwillingness to think critically. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. But, not all hope is lost. People can be taught and trained to think critically. Thinking critically is one of the core aspects of being scientifically literate. There are many different definitions of science literacy. A 1996 National Science Education Standards report used:

Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity.

Science literacy is one-part domain knowledge (the content) and one-part understanding how science itself operates (the process). The process of science centers on skepticism, critical thinking, and experimentation. Of course, not everyone is going to become a scientist, nor should they. How do we then train others to think like a scientist, to be scientifically literate?

To overcome this challenge, I created a new course at UC Davis for first and second-year undergraduates. The course is titled “Living in a Post-Truth World: How to Build Your Personal Baloney Detection Kit“. The first half of the title was intended to be provocative given the modern political era, but the second half is an homage to a book that is now more than two decades old.

In 1995, astrophysicist Carl Sagan published The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. In the book, Sagan advocates for a more scientifically literate public, especially in the face of an increasingly technological society. Although the book was published two decades, many passages ring eerily true today:

“We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces”

image2The book served as motivation and an outline for my course. The course met for 1 hour a week for 10 weeks, which in the grand scheme of things is not a lot of time. We opened the course by discussing Sagan’s Baloney Detection kit chapter. In the chapter, Sagan explores various tools to think skeptically about the world. These tools include quantifying whatever you can, entertaining multiple working hypotheses, and rejecting arguments based solely on authority. A lot of his arguments boil down to the line, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” This chapter served as the backbone for the rest of the course.

We explored a different topic each week. The goal was to provide students with various tools to recognize and call out BS. For instance, we had an entire class on thinking like a scientist. Students had to form hypotheses and run experiments to determine the contents of black boxes. Another class centered on common advertising tactics, conveniently the week after the Super Bowl. We had another class on what are commonly termed Fermi calculations. I began the class with a question: what is the circumference of the Earth? Naturally, no one knew such an obscure number and I stopped them from reaching for their phones. Instead, I described how Fermi calculations can be used to make such an estimate. The idea is that a series of reasonable guesses for various numbers in a calculation can end up giving an answer within the right ballpark—a back of the envelope calculation. Let’s see how this works for the circumference of Earth:

  • What previous knowledge do I have that might help me on this problem?
  • I know that the distance from LA to New York is something like 3,000 miles. The exact number doesn’t really matter.
  • I also know there are three times zones from LA to New York. Thus, there are 1,000-ish miles for each time zone.
  • Given 24 time zones around Earth, this puts us at a circumference of 24,000 miles.
  • The correct answer? 24,901 miles. We were close, and, in this case, damn close. We didn’t estimate 2,000 or 200,000 miles. We had the right order of magnitude.

Why is this useful? It can help you better understand big numbers that you might hear in the media or online. Suppose your friend is complaining about the “huge” budget of NASA. It would of course be useful to know what the budget of NASA is compared to the total budget each year. With a back of the envelope calculation you can determine that the yearly NASA budget is about 0.5% of the annual budget of the US, which is half a penny on the dollar. With some facts established, you can now have a reasonable conversation about its budget.

In addition to in-class projects and activities, students were required to analyze a pair of news articles. They had to apply their newfound baloney detection tools to critically evaluate the arguments in the news articles. I was impressed by their attention to detail, especially in being skeptical of numbers presented in the articles. They dug up original sources for numbers and explained if they found the evidence presented convincing or not.

Ultimately, I think the class was a small dent in a much bigger picture. I would like to see this type of skepticism and critical thinking taught throughout the education curriculum. This is not going to happen in 300-person university science classes that are chalked full of material. How do we re-design courses, and entire degrees, to be sure students are well-informed citizens when they leave university?

This course will be offered again sometime in 2019. All the course materials are available here. It is also worth noting that Carl T. Bergstrom and Jevin West created a similar course, called “Bullshit Detection,” at the University of Washington. All of their course materials are available here.

Author: Easton White

Easton is a PhD Candidate in the Population Biology Graduate Group. His research involves using mathematical and statistical models to understand both ecological and evolutionary dynamics. He also teaches for the Biology Undergraduate Scholars Program and the non-profit Software Carpentry. You can read more about his work here.

An honest discussion on the labeling of GMOs

GMO labels are misleading, frustrating science and science-advocates

The marketing of non-GMO products agitates many scientists. Although the frustration towards fear-based marketing and the public’s frequent misperception of GMOs is warranted, the blame on marketing companies is somewhat misplaced. Instead, disgruntled scientists must heed advice from marketers themselves: perception is reality. The large portion of the public sees GMOs as negative (Pew Research Center). To change this, we, as scientists and concerned citizens, must mend the public’s attitude toward GMOs if we want progress.

“GMO” is a terribly vague term, but we are stuck with it (for now)

The term “genetically modified organism,” or “GMO”, is non-descript to scientists who actually study genetics (Escaping the Bench). There are multiple processes people can use to alter the genome of an organism (Biofortified).

Arguably, most modern plants that we consume have been genetically modified through evolution and selective breeding techniques used by farmers for centuries (Vox). Modern methods have evolved to hasten the process of improving plants, like mutagenesis or marker-assisted breeding. Recently, advances in scientific tools have allowed for more precision. Researchers can now change specific genes in an organism or add new genes to improve a crop, perhaps making it more resistant to drought or pests.

To many scientists, “genetic modification” describes all the approaches mentioned above, thus any product derived from any of those methods could be labeled as a GMO. However, many nonscientists may only describe the more modern techniques that enable precision adjustments to an organism’s DNA as GMO. To have an effective, productive conversation, everyone needs to be talking about the same thing. The World Health Organization (WHO) does not clearly define GMO. GMO-scare sites have broad definitions. And the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) itself does not even use the term GMO, preferring instead “genetically engineered” to describe products cultivated using modern biotechnology.

I will use what the National Academies of Sciences defines as “genetic engineering” to define GMO:

Genetic engineering means the introduction of or change to DNA, RNA, or proteins manipulated by humans to effect a change in an organism’s genome or epigenome. Genome refers to the specific sequence of the DNA of an organism; genomes contain the genes of an organism… The committee’s definition of genetic engineering includes Agrobacterium-mediated and gene gun-mediated gene transfer to plants as well as more recently developed technologies such as CRISPR, TALENs, and ZFNs.


In layman’s terms, a GMO has had its genes altered by humans using modern techniques that would not happen in nature*. GMO, in this article, does not refer to selective breeding or techniques involving mutagenesis, although it can be argued that those products have been “genetically modified”.

The layman’s definition is too vague for a scientist working with GE crops—they must speak in specific terms (jargon) within their community to communicate effectively. The field of genetic engineering has reached an advanced stage where one must specialize to understand all of its nuances. In reality, an average consumer will only ever care about the “gist,” and the underlined sentence is the gist.

*Nature is absolutely wild and always reveals unexpected phenomena. For all we know, nature may be employing weird genetic techniques we haven’t yet realized. This is a major reason many scientists cringe at the term “unnatural.” However, many people may be more comfortable with the term “natural.”

Products are being labeled as non-GMO as if there is an alternative

Upcoming conversations about GMO labeling are unavoidable. The FDA has no requirements for GMO/GE labeling (yet) but is trying to establish a clear system. In the meantime, Vermont established requirements for GMO labeling and similar initiatives to label GMOs have been pushed in many states. In response, many companies have begun to label their products as non-GMO, leading to a confusing consumer landscape and a frustrated scientific community.

The annoyance (and sometimes anger) felt by scientists and science advocates or allies towards GMO labeling is warranted. Products that are not even available as GMOs are being labeled as non-GMO.

First, some products will never be genetically modified:

  • Water
  • Salt


These products are non-living and not derived from living organisms. Thus, there are no genes to modify along the production line. Consequently, scientists get rightfully upset about the products’ nonsensical labeling because the labeling can play on a customers’ lack of scientific knowledge.

Other products are not currently sold as genetically modified:

  • Bananas
  • Grapes
  • Kale
  • Peanuts
  • Carrots
  • Strawberries
  • Almonds
  • Many, many more…


These products give the consumer the illusion that they have a decision to make. In fact, there are only a handful of genetically modified crops available in the US (Genetic Literacy Project):

  • Alfalfa
  • Apple
  • Argentine Canola
  • Bean
  • Carnation
  • Chicory
  • Cotton
  • Creeping Bentgrass
  • Eggplant
  • Eucalyptus
  • Flax
  • Maize
  • Melon
  • Papaya
  • Petunia
  • Plum
  • Polish canola
  • Poplar
  • Potato
  • Rice
  • Rose
  • Soybean
  • Squash
  • Sugar Beet
  • Sugarcane
  • Sweet pepper
  • Tobacco
  • Tomato
  • Wheat

For more information on any of the GMOs listed above, click here. Corn and soy are common GMO crops that are found in many products and are also fed to livestock used in meat and dairy production. (The use of GMOs in livestock cultivation further complicates the question about what is labeled.)

Non-GMO labeling, especially when a genetically engineered version does not exist, is misleading. However, nothing will be accomplished if we assign blame or stew in anger.

Take a hint from the grocery marketing community

Current labeling guidelines are dictated by consumer requests

Labeling products as non-GMO perpetuates the public’s confusion. Hence, many scientists believe marketing companies are to blame for this. I intended to write this article about how bad non-GMO labeling schemes are, but I’ve concluded that many misleading food labels are the outcome of poor public understanding, not the cause.

peteI spoke with a seasoned grocery marketer, Pete Tucci (pictured left), about his company’s experience with GMO labeling, and product labeling in general. Tucci has 40 years of experience in a private label company, assisting in the sales planning of merchandise. He has aided in the development of new items, interfaced with suppliers, and brought products to shelves.

I wanted to know why marketers would engage in labeling campaigns that are so seemingly destructive to the scientific enterprise. I would like to fully disclose that Tucci is my dad. Our relationship is the reason why a marketer would talk to someone with such great skepticism towards the role marketers play in our society.

Obviously, Tucci’s goal is to sell his clients’ products. When packaging a grocery item, companies need the labeling to be honest, but they want their product to stand-out. What makes an item stick out? At one time it was being “low cholesterol.” Then it was “low carb.” It has been “low sugar,” “high protein,” “gluten-free,” “organic,” and more. Now, being “non-GMO” makes a product stand out.

Who decides what makes a product stand out?

Tucci explained, “[We] are looking to call out the meaningful attribute of that item…We try to be very transparent. We try to be very ethical and honest with the customer. We identify items as non-GMO.”

Personally, I was annoyed that identifying an item as non-GMO was seen as an ethical decision. Scientists work tirelessly to perfect GE technology with the goal of feeding a hungry, growing population in the face of extreme climate instability. Many scientists are driven by a moral imperative to find solutions to global problems, and many of those solutions involve genetic modification of organisms.

But then, Tucci elaborated, “Customers catch things on the shelf.” If a customer wants to know what is in a product, we will tell them. Increasingly, the customers are asking if their products contain GMOs. Tucci’s experience with customer concern about GMOs is not unique, PEW research center found that many Americans are concerned about GMOs, with 50% of U.S. adults always or sometimes looking for GM labeling when they shop for food (PEW).


Moreover, “If customers are demanding non-GMO, we are going to see the possibilities of doing that.” Tucci’s clients (and many companies in the grocery business) are going to respond to the demands of their customers. If public opinion continues to steer people away from GMOs, GMOs will not be sold as much.

Then Tucci spoke a harsh truth: “In marketing, perception is reality. We don’t like to create a perception. We like to create the reality: This [the label] is what the item is. This is how you use the item. This is where we get the item.” Grocery marketers do not want to surprise their customers.

“A scientist might know more than the average consumer when looking at product labels. If marketers are putting ‘non-GMO’ on an item that would naturally not be a GMO item, that does not mean they are trying to mislead the customer. They are just telling the customer that doesn’t know [the product] is non-GMO. You might know it. But does every customer know it?” Most people are not scientists. Most people don’t know what GMO means. And sadly, a large amount of people fear GMOs.

As a last ditch, hopeful question, I asked, “Can a marketing company help to educate consumers about the science of GMOs?”

“Yes, I think… But, how much money can marketers put forward to tell the true story? Not enough. Not enough to overcome media, social media, free media. You’re stuck giving in. Look at what happened to organics. That’s the same thing that’s going to happen to GMOs.”

It is up to scientists to make perception equal reality. Marketers are not going to do it. They are neither equipped nor paid to educate the public.

Labeling can be good and consumers can be involved

Transparency is generally good, in my opinion. I do want to know what is in the products I am purchasing. When buying food, consumers may consider the nutritional value of the product, its safety, its environmental impact, or the business practices of the company that produces it. To weigh the factors considered when purchasing grocery items, products must be labeled.

Personally, I do not hesitate to purchase a product that is a GMO. However, I am not the only consumer. Scientists are not the only consumers—and not all scientists study and think about GMOs. The reality is that many consumers are now factoring-in whether or not the products they buy are GMOs.

If scientists and industries aggressively push back on the labeling of GMOs, this will create a narrative that GMOs need hidden. Historically, when consumers demand clear labels on food, industry opposes and distrust towards the food industry grows (Union of Concerned Scientists, sugar, overhaul of nutrition labels). Science is part of the food industry and part of that distrust, whether we deserve it or not. The majority of GMO labeling is a consumer-driven initiative. Do scientists want to deny the wishes of the consumer?

No matter your answer to that, the push for transparency is not going away. Label Insight is a company aimed at increasing transparency in industry. They are working with the FDA to create “the industry’s first scientifically accurate database of food ingredients, attributes and health claims.” Label Insight released  a report (not peer-reviewed) entitled “How Consumer Demand for Transparency is Shaping the Food Industry.” They argue that “lack of product information creates distrust and confusion amongst consumers.” Distrust and confusion are the exact opposite of what we want.

Furthermore, the majority of Americans do say the public should have a major role in GMO food policy decisions (PEW). If the public wants GMO food labeled, I think it should be. America is kind of democratic, right?


We need to change the public opinion, but how?

GMO education and advocacy efforts only go so far

Instead of denying the wishes of the consumer to have transparent GMO labeling, we need to both educate the consumer and challenge the negative attitude around GMOs.

Educating the consumer is an enormous challenge. One study about the public perception of GMOs found that “[r]espondents who had relatively higher cognitive function or held illusionary correlations about GM food…were more likely to have an opinion that differed from the scientific community.” This means that opinions on GMOs is not based on education level alone, since intelligent people have been known to disagree with scientists. That is a hard truth to behold. We must figure out how to talk with those who do not understand the science and, at the same time, those who do and still disagree with us.

Importantly, increased understanding of science does not equate to an improved public perception of GMOs (Scheufele). Possibly because opinions are based on more than intelligence and understanding. They often result from gut reactions (disgust or anger), relying on intuitive reasoning that can be easily exploited by anti-GMO activists (Blancke, Scott). Thus, education about GMOs alone is not a promising tactic for improving consumer buy-in for them. But, it can help to make sure that both sides of the GMO labeling discussion are informed about the science.

A 2017 documentary, Food Evolution, offered both rational and emotional arguments in defense of GMOs. Food Evolution proudly displayed the wonders of GMOs and underlined how public misperception is preventing GMOs from helping farmers supply food. For example, the director chronicled the policy debate surrounding the use of ringspot virus resistant papaya in Hawaii. The use of the GMO papaya saved the papaya industry, but public backlash led to significant regulations on growing GMOs in certain parts of the state, the papaya being the only GMO crop allowed on the island. Although Food Evolution received praise for its accuracy, some still find it too fact-based to change faith-based opinions on GMOs. Nevertheless, Food Evolution is a solid effort at educating the public’s more about GMOs.

The label is coming, let’s use it

Regardless of whether clear labeling of all GMOs in food is ever federally mandated, I believe most food companies will end up labeling their foods as GMO or non-GMO. If food labels can negatively change public perception, could they also be used to positively change public perception? Scientists from Dartmouth College propose GMO labels could be created to inform the public about the purposes of genetic engineering by subdividing GMOs based on their transgenic traits, like pest resistance or environmental stress response.

Campbell’s has been vocal in mandatory national GMO labeling and acknowledges the evidence that GMOs are safe and are not nutritionally different than non-GMO counterparts. They operate with a “Consumer First” mindset to build trust with their customers. They are not ashamed of using GMOs in their products and offer information to curious customers on their website: “What’s in my food?”. They also voluntarily label their products as containing GMO ingredients, but not with the Non-GMO Project’s seal for “GMO avoidance.” Instead, they use a simple label and direct consumers to their website.


(Consumer Reports)

These efforts are great, but we need more of them. More importantly, we need to figure out how to change the negative emotions about GMOs that have been built by expert fear-mongerers. We need to do more than brood and preach to each other about how annoying it is. I don’t know how to fix this whole mess, but do I think we need to learn how to actually market our product.

In the end, to really combat misunderstanding, the fear of GMOs must be replaced with the hope offered by them. GMOs can produce food in the face of climate change, feed a growing population, provide poorer agricultural communities with disease- and drought-tolerant plants. GMOs can have a major positive impact on our world if we let them.


Sam Tucci

Professor Sir Charles Godfray: The Future of Food Giving Us Food for Thought

Insects are the subject of fear for many – but not for Professor Sir Charles Godfray. Dr. Godfray developed an interest in entomology at the age of 8 that has only grown over the decades. As the Hope Professor of Zoology at Jesus College in Oxford, Dr. Godfray has partaken in both pure and applied research. He is currently interested in food and food security and how they relate with economics and anthropology. While Dr. Godfray is able to “just do his thing” at his entomology lab, he also participates in other projects spanning different fields. One of his favorite work perks is “having the excuse to knock on the door of a social scientist or economist and engage with his or her way of thinking about things.”1

Ten years ago, Dr. Godfray was asked to lead a project: the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food. This project raises questions about the science and policy issues that global governments must grapple with as population and food sources evolve. Dr. Godfray is proud of this well-resourced project and is excited about its interdisciplinary nature. Dr. Godfray is also involved with another large interdisciplinary funding group called the Wellcome Trust. The rising consumption of meat and dairy is the fastest changing component in the world’s food system and is especially stark in China. Producing meat requires more resources, such as water, land, and waste management. How will these environmental footprints change? What are some of the health implications of eating red meat? Dr. Godfray and his team will explore these outcomes in a socioeconomic context.

The work of Dr. Godfray and other food systems researchers will be paramount in directing how society handles transforming populations and economies. To be successful, it will be crucial to obtain scientific information while avoiding biases from lobbyists. Since people care so much about food, there will be groups that lobby very strongly for one particular view.

“One of the hardest things is that it’s such a complicated world with people quoting different evidence and there are relatively few systematic reviews or meta-analyses.” – Dr. Godfray

For example, groups in both the US and the UK are making enormous claims about what raising cattle can do to carbon sequestration (the storage of carbon dioxide) in soil, falsely stating that meat production is beneficial for the environment (read the counter-evidence here). Now, it has almost become a social movement, rather than an evidence-based field.

Though facts are not absolutely clear in many other cases, policy must be implemented by integrating information with personal value judgments and weighing the benefits that different stakeholders will get. Dr. Godfray has outlined a few important questions to deliberate on if we ultimately do decide that it makes sense to shift diets in one direction:

  • What is the best way to implement policy to shift diets (e.g., taxing certain foods)?
  • How should we educate the public and get society on board?
  • How can we manage other factors that influence how people make dietary decisions (e.g., the social aspects of food)?

It will certainly be interesting to see if/how these shifts come to fruition and how society will respond.

In addition to conducting beneficial research, outreach is an important part of Dr. Godfray’s agenda. He believes we should prioritize improving information access, especially in the area of food systems, since it is both complex and highly contested. Dr. Godfray emphasizes the need for more trusted sources of information. In his opinion, universities should be improving on institutionally providing information. Here, one may consider a consortium of universities getting together, looking at the evidence, being honest about the data, and presenting it to the public in an effective and efficient manner.


So, what’s next? Dr. Godfray believes that the development of a global source of protein – artificial meat made from plants or cultured in lab – is up-and-coming. This is a hyped, developing area, where many people are trying to make profits with startups. Read this TIME article for more information about the details of artificial meat. Dr. Godfray expects that we will likely see exciting, genuinely disruptive food products in the next decade.

This technology raises its own questions about health and environmental implications, as well as interesting social science questions. How will this play out in the public sphere if people are given a burger purely out of plant material? Is this cool or is this “fake food” – or maybe somewhere in between?

Another popular food trend you may have heard about is sourcing protein from bugs. There are parts of the world, especially in Africa, where people eat bugs as part of their diet. In the future, Dr. Godfray predicts that insects will be increasingly used as proteins for animal feeds. Technology seems to be maturing in that area – check out Insects as Feed in West Africa’s site to learn more.


In his free time, Dr. Godfray is a self-proclaimed fanatical natural historian and also enjoys music and opera. He enjoys spending time with his art-loving wife and states that it is refreshing to be married to someone that isn’t a scientist. Very recently, Dr. Godfray received the great honor of being knighted. When asked about how the experience was when he found out, he described it as “bizarre – very nice, but [he] always feel embarrassed talking to Americans about it… very, very funny feeling.”

Kind and humble, Dr. Godfray is a role model to the scientists of the world. He has provided his two most important pieces of advice for developing scientists:

 1) Never listen to advice given by old farts like me.

2) Do things that are intellectually fun. And be open-minded about what you think is fun!


Article researched and written by Hyun Jin, PhD Student in the UC Davis Department of Biomedical Engineering

The “Elvis of E. Coli:” Dr. Carl Winter

Scientists rock. They do amazing things, like explore space, invent new technologies, and find cures for diseases. Dr. Carl Winter is another scientist who rocks, only he literally rocks out on his synthesizer, creating catchy tunes about food safety and science.

Version 3

Winter started making music about 20 years ago. He loved music, but couldn’t risk waking his sleeping children, so he purchased a synthesizer to work quietly with headphones on.

Winter always realized that science communication is an integral part of science. At the end of his PhD from UC Davis, he earned himself a AAAS fellowship and became a science writer for the Richmond-Times Dispatch Newspaper. He was warned that leaving academia for media could discredit him, but instead, the novel experience bolstered his skills and helped him to land an academic job. (He also highly recommends TA-ing as a great experience for preparing for academia).

“Academia is a privilege,” Winter states. He loves the freedom that comes with academia and the people that make his work life so enjoyable. He boasts about the UC Davis Food Science Department and is incredibly proud and grateful to be working with and near such creative and brilliant scientists. He has been in Davis since graduate school and has loved it too much to leave.

Academia has allowed Winter to transform himself 4 or 5 times, following the research paths he finds most promising and interesting from food contaminants to mycotoxins to, most recently, pesticides. There is an interesting dichotomy between the allowable levels of pesticides and the regulations in place. It stems from a misinterpretation of how safety standards relate to effective pesticide standards. Winter grows frustrated at misleading headlines that scare consumers about mythical dangers like the “dirty dozen,” and that incite “grocery cart shaming” for those not buying organic. “If you want to be concerned about something, worry about the workers,” says Winter. The workers on the fields are the only people exposed to levels of pesticides at levels high enough for concern. Ordinary consumers should shop comfortably, and make sure to purchase fruits and vegetables regardless of whether or not there is “organic” labeling.

Winters’ work in food safety has often been topical. In the early 1990s, he testified before Congress, explaining facets of the Delaney report. His sharply honed science communication skills allowed him to translate the technicalities of toxicology to Congress, allowing them to vote on a measure in which they were not fully educated.

Although he hasn’t testified before Congress recently, Winter is still an active voice and serves as the Director of the FoodSafe Program at UC Davis and is a board member for the Institute of Food and Agricultural Literacy. He has a level-headed view of how science fits into society, and realizes that values are more important than science. If people believe organic-local-nonGMO food is safer for their family, they will chose safety over science, even if it’s wrong. After a particularly frustrating consumer report, Winter released an original song, Political Hay, as a cathartic exercise. He actively blogs in efforts to debunk food safety myths.

Science communication has never been a separate endeavor from academia for him. When he started making music, it became part of his research. His funny music parodies have ruffled some feathers over the years. “There is always a fear of losing your credibility in academia. There is an expectation of seriousness that forces many to lose their personalities.” Allowing his personality to shine through his musical endeavors has helped to bolster Winter’s career. He even earned a USDA grant to incorporate music into STEM education.

As a professor at UCD, Dr. Winter leads a science communication course and even published a first-person paper on his anecdotal experience with the course. He hopes to expand the course to train new generations of scientists to communicate with the public. He has led many media trainings as well. (His course is in session– UCD grad students, feel free to enroll in the future!)

Dr. Winter has evolved throughout his career and dabbled in many different areas of food safety research and science communication. He knows that exploring interesting paths and getting to know yourself is critical to success and satisfaction in ones’ career. He keeps this in mind as he mentors his own students. For those who aren’t one of Dr. Winter’s trainees, he advises to blog. Develop a portfolio. And get to know yourself.

Dr. Winter is still evolving as a scientist, communicator, teacher, and musician. Check out his research here, his course here, and his music here!