ÍáÍáÂþ»­

A regular reader of this column once told me that it tends to avoid controversy and asked why. I said it's because I prefer to stay positive and that maybe I'm a little cowardly.
I dislike the handful of profanity-laden emails and phone calls from readers who disagree with my column. To be clear, the vast majority of emails and phone calls from disagreeing readers are polite and use appropriate language, and I welcome their feedback.

But I do tackle difference-filled topics, and I decided to revisit the four most controversial ones. All remain highly relevant today and all involve issues containing what some see as government conspiracies. Given that, my own views warrant a quick look.

I distrust big government and believe strongly that the government which governs least governs best. That said, I worry about online "news" sites containing "information" on alleged government conspiracies, info that's dubious at best and downright devious and false at worst. An extreme example is the delusional, dangerous nonsense from QAnon, whose supporters claim that many "global elites" are secretly Satanic pedophiles who torture children from whom they extract a life-extending substance.

No, I don't exaggerate; they really do believe that. And, no, I'm not saying that anyone who believes a conspiracy theory is a QAnon supporter; of course that's not the case. Again, I use it as an extreme example of the danger of jumping into the Alice in Wonderland fantasy rabbit holes of government conspiracy theories.

In any case, here are my four most controversial column topics:

The column noted the strong consensus of U.S. experts that GMOs are safe for humans to eat. That's good enough for me, I wrote then, especially since GMOs increase food production in a world in which far too many people are hungry.

A few readers thanked me, but most respondents disagreed. They correctly pointed out that the majority of GMO-knowledgeable scientists in some parts of the world say GMOs aren't safe for humans. (I should have mentioned that in the original column; I rectify that error now.) Some critical respondents also claimed that U.S. GMO experts are stooges of big ag companies who toe the pro-GMO line solely to protect their funding from the pro-GMO federal government.

My response then and now: I don't have a good answer for the foreign scientists' stance. And maybe some U.S. GMO experts are influenced in its favor by government funding. Nonetheless, I have confidence in their overall integrity and professionalism.

Most (not all) U.S. ag groups support freer trade. (Pure free trade doesn't exist.) They say — and statistics and obvious real-world observations agree — that freer trade increases U.S. ag exports which in turn increases grain prices and farmers' profit. The column also noted that some sectors of the U.S. economy, and workers in them, are hurt by freer trade.

But my column criticizing former President Trump's trade-distorting, ag-harming trade policies drew angry responses from a number of his supporters, as well as a few officials from U.S. economic sectors hurt by freer trade.

My response then and now: Freer trade isn't perfect; the column noted that some U.S. workers are hurt by it. But freer trade helps American farmers, farm communities, ag-heavy states and the national economy overall.

For many years I was skeptical of climate change and even more skeptical of claims that human activity contributes to it. I was influenced by a few speakers at area ag shows and the heavy-handed denunciations by some climate change supporters of anyone who disagreed with them. It's always good to be leery of people and groups who profess to have all the answers. (I most definitely do not.)

But starting in 2002 or so, I began to get better, fuller, more accurate information. I learned that 97% of climate scientists believe climate change is real and human activity contributes to it. I talked at length with a climate scientist who patiently answered my many questions. And I read what reputable scientific organizations wrote on their websites. A good current example comes from NASA's website.

"Scientific   continues to show that human activities ( ) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have  This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization," NASA writes.

contributes to it, drew angry responses from a number of readers. Their main argument was that climate scientists must support the climate-change-is-real position or lose their federal funding.

But I also received positive responses from several respondents who believes that GMOs are safe and also that climate change is real. One wrote that "It's ironic that so many in ag praise the courage of GMO experts who tell them what they want to hear while they rip climate scientists who tell them what they don't want to hear."

My take then and now: 97% of climate scientists say climate change is real, and I respect their overall professionalism and integrity.

Studies show the percentage of rural residents vaccinated against COVID is far lower than the percentage of their urban peers. That's very troubling, I wrote in an and a subsequent personal column. Both article and column stressed the overwhelming consensus of experts in immunity, viruses and epidemics that COVID vaccinations are both good and important. Most experts strongly agreed that vaccinations limit the number of people who get COVID and often reduce the severity of symptoms of people who do get it.

Full disclosure: I was vaccinated in what was an easy, obvious call. I have cancer and my weakened immune system increased my need for vaccination, doctors told me. Almost all of my relatives were vaccinated; some did get COVID, but most said their vaccinations helped to limit its severity. My elderly parents both got COVID and said their vaccinations greatly reduced its symptoms, quite possibly saving their lives. In contrast, one of my few unvaccinated relatives died from COVID and two unvaccinated members of his immediate family nearly did, too, during long, grueling battles with COVID.

Again, I received both positive and negative feedback. And, again, I'll stick with the vast majority of experts who say vaccinations are both safe and needed.

The takeaway: It's easy to praise experts who say what we want to hear and vilify experts who don't. And it's altogether too easy to accept dubious, dangerous internet "facts" that lead to muddled minds and fanatical faith in bizarro-world conspiracy theories. Established science isn't perfect, but it's still the best bet available.

Jonathan Knutson is a former Agweek reporter. He grew up on a farm and spent his career covering agriculture. He can be reached at packerfanknutson@gmail.com.