Gene editing achieves consistently higher favorability in social and traditional media than GMOs.

While GMOs have been the subject of negative discourse over a long time period, it is possible that newer breeding technologies like gene editing are viewed more favorably. We present data for a 5-year period between January 2018 and December 2022, showing that in content specific to agricultural biotechnology, gene editing achieves consistently higher favorability ratings than GMOs in both social and traditional English-language media. Our sentiment analysis shows that favorability is especially positive in social media, with close to 100% favorability achieved in numerous monthly values throughout our 5 years of analysis. We believe that the scientific community can therefore be cautiously optimistic based on current trends that gene editing will be accepted by the public and be able to achieve its promise of making a substantial contribution to future food security and environmental sustainability worldwide. However, there are some recent indications of more sustained downward trends, which may be a cause for concern.

Misinformation in the media: global coverage of GMOs 2019-2021.

Misinformation is a serious problem in scientific debates ranging from climate change to vaccines to nuclear power. In this study we quantitatively assess the phenomenon of misinformation - defined as information which is at variance with widely-accepted scientific consensus - on genetically modified crops and food ("GMOs") in the mainstream and online news media over a two-year period. We found an overall falsehood rate of 9% with a potential readership of 256 million. None of the misinformation was positive in sentiment; most was negative. About a fifth of Africa's media coverage on GMOs contained misinformation, a worrying finding given the potential for genetic engineering to deliver improved nutrition and food security in the continent. We conclude that misinformation about GMOs in the mainstream media is still a significant problem, and outranks the proportion of misinformation in other comparable debates such as COVID-19 and vaccines.

COVID-19 vaccine misinformation in English-language news media: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and track trends over time in traditional news media. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of a large database of online articles, July 2020-June 2021. SETTING: English-language articles from 100 news outlets with the greatest reach. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers and percentages of articles containing COVID-19 vaccine misinformation over the study period. Further analysis by misinformation themes and whether articles included primary misinformation, fact-checking or simply referred to misinformation. RESULTS: 41 718 (3.2% of all COVID-19 vaccine articles) contained at least one of the vaccine misinformation themes based on the Boolean string developed for this study. The volume of such articles increased beginning in November 2020, but their percentage of all articles remained essentially stable after October 2020. 56.2% contained at least one mention of a safety theme, followed by development, production, and distribution (26.6%), and conspiracies (15.1%). Of 500 articles through January 2021 randomly selected from those identified by the Boolean string, 223 were not relevant, and 277 included either fact-checking (175 articles), refers to misinformation (87 articles) or primary misinformation (15 articles). In eight study weeks, the reach of these 277 articles (defined as visitors to the sites containing the articles) exceeded 250 million people. Fact-checking accounted for 69.6% of all reach for these articles and the number of such articles increased after November 2020. Overall, approximately 0.1% (95% CI 0.05% to 0.16%) of all articles on COVID-19 vaccines in our sample contained primary misinformation. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine misinformation in traditional news media is uncommon but has the capacity to reach large numbers of readers and affect the vaccine conversation. Recent increases in fact-checking may counteract some of the misinformation currently circulating.

The state of the 'GMO' debate - toward an increasingly favorable and less polarized media conversation on ag-biotech?

Although nearly three decades have passed since genetically modified crops (so-called 'GMOs') were widely commercialized, vociferous debate remains about the use of biotechnology in agriculture, despite a worldwide scientific consensus on their safety and utility. This study analyzes the volume and tenor of the GMO conversation as it played out on social and traditional media between 2018 and 2020, looking at 103,084 online and print articles published in English-language media around the world as well as 1,716,071 social media posts. To our knowledge, our analysis is the first comprehensive survey of the shifting traditional and online media discourse on this issue during this time period. While the volume of traditional media coverage of GMOs increased significantly during the period, this was combined with a dramatic drop in the volume of social media posts of over 80%. Traditional media tended to be somewhat more positive in their coverage than social media in 2018 and 2019, but that gap disappeared in 2020. Both traditional and social media saw trends toward increasing favorability, with the positive trend especially robust in social media. The large decline in volume of social media posts, combined with a strong trend toward greater favorability, may indicate a drop in the salience of the GMO debate among the wider population even while the volume of coverage in traditional media increased. Overall, our results suggest that both social and traditional media may be moving toward a more favorable and less polarized conversation on ag-biotech overall.