Opinion: An agriculture columnist reviews reader reactions to his four most controversial stances

The value of Covid-19 vaccines is still controversial topic
for journalists to discuss. (The Forum News Service photo)

Public distrust, newsroom layoffs, 24/7 work cycles and frequent online updates are just a few of the daunting challenges journalists face. In the case of controversial stories, public responses can double the pressure. Farm Journal columnist Jonathan Knutson writes, "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." Knutson revisited his four most "difference-filled" stories.

Knutson covered GMOs and "The column noted the strong consensus of U.S. experts that GMOs are safe for humans to eat. That's good enough for me. . . 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. . . . My response then and now: I don't have a good answer for the foreign scientists' stance."

Knutson wrote on free trade's relationship to agriculture. "Most U.S. ag groups support freer trade. 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. . . . 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."

What about human activities and their relationship to climate change? Knutson had been a skeptic for years, but around 2002, his opinion shifted. "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.

"My column, which said that climate change is real and human activity 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. . . . However, I also received positive responses from several respondents. One wrote: '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."

Knudson tackled the Covid-19 vaccination debate and received angry and supportive responses. "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."