(The blog has been written based on her Major Research Paper)

When I first set out to study Wassa Akyempim — a mining area in the Western Region of Ghana — I thought I knew what to expect: gold under the ground, big companies over it, promises of development somewhere in between. What I didn’t realize was just how complicated, personal, and often frustrating the process of “community development” through mining is.

At the heart of it all are Community Development Agreements (CDAs) — formal contracts between mining companies and local communities that are supposed to guarantee that host communities receive their fair share of the benefits. These may be infrastructure, jobs, wages, and social services. It sounds like a win-win on paper. But in fact, it’s often messy.

Who Gets a Seat at the Table? Really!

One of the first things that emerged from my fieldwork is how really skewed the power balance is when it comes to bargaining these contracts. You have big foreign-owned mining companies with legal teams and policy-advisory teams working one side of the table, and rural communities — many afraid to speak or not knowing how to speak for themselves — working the other.

The result? That plan was top-down, and communities often feel left out in processes that are ostensibly aimed at helping them. Sometimes, what are counted as traditional chiefs or a few “representatives” are consulted, while the young, female, and everyday residents are left out. People repeatedly said to me in plain local language: “We’re not making these decisions, but we have to live by them.”

The Misinformation Problem Is Real
Something else that came through very clearly in my research was the issue of misinformation — not as a tangential issue, but as a real impediment to trust and cooperation. What their CDA actually contained was not really understood by many residents. Others have confused Environmental Impact Assessments and signed benefit agreements. Others had heard false rumours of job openings or company promises, and other unscrupulous illegal miners have often tried to worsen the already unstable relationship.

Fake recruitment posters, I was told, also prompted people to walk off jobs in expectation of better mining wages that never materialized. When people feel they lack information or have been misled, mistrust builds quickly. And mistrust, as I discovered, can result in protests, discord, and the erosion of dialogue between corporations and communities.

Capacity Not Just a Fancy Word — It’s the Missing Link
One consistent theme in the literature and on the ground is that capacity counts. Communities can’t engage in informed negotiations for fair agreements that hold companies accountable if they don’t fully grasp the terms or implications. That’s not just a technical problem. It’s a justice issue.

There has to be investment in legal literacy, in negotiation training, in independent advisory support. Without it, “participation” can start to look performative. Communities don’t just deserve a seat at the table — they need interpersonal skills to speak, question, and decide.
Farther Than the Borehole: What Development Does and Does Not Do
I also knew that many community members were not praying for miracles — they were praying for honesty, for action that follows through on words, for an opportunity to have a say in the future that will be theirs. Yes, infrastructure matters. But people also spoke about a long-term need for support for their livelihoods, youth skills training, health, and the environment. And, most importantly, they want to be part of the conversation, not just passive consumers.

Where Do We Go from Here?
I didn’t find a one-size-fits-all answer in my research. But it did leave me with a stronger conviction that development can’t be delivered — it’s got to be co-created. CDAs could do that, but only if we rethink them as real social contracts rather than just corporate obligations, as is the case in a country like Ghana. That means:
Expanding everyone’s participation to all sorts of voices, not just the customary few elites. Developing capacity before negotiations start, so that communities know their rights and options. Confronting misinformation from our community head-on with straightforward, consistent community engagement. It means moving from extractive to collaborative thinking — from treating communities as stakeholders to treating them as partners.

Final Thoughts
Mining is not going away, especially in resource-rich Ghana. But the nature of community development in mining towns must change, too. I hope this work might add to that evolution in some small manner. The implications for researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers are clear: listen to those most affected and then design with — not just for — them.

The post Mining, Misinformation, and Marginality: Rethinking Development in Ghana’s Goldfields and Voices from the Goldfields appeared first on Misinforesearch.

By Nasir Khan

In April 2025, Meta (the company behind Facebook, Instagram, and Threads) officially ended its U.S.-based fact-checking program. This decision wasn’t secret, Meta announced it earlier this year, but now that it’s happened, we’re starting to see the consequences.

Instead of using professional fact-checkers to review false or misleading content, Meta has switched to a new system where users can add “context” notes to posts. These notes are voted on by other users. If enough people agree that the note is helpful, it becomes visible.

Meta says this gives people more control over the information they see. But here’s the issue: this change makes it much easier for false information to spread — especially about climate change and food systems.

Why Climate and Food Misinformation Spreads So Easily

Climate change and agriculture are complicated topics. They involve science, government policies, global trade, and personal lifestyle choices. That makes them easy targets for misinformation, especially when people are worried about their food, land, or future.

One common example of false or misleading claims that go viral online is “Climate change is a hoax to control what we eat.”

These kinds of posts often spread quickly because they tap into fear and frustration. They may contain a grain of truth, but they twist the facts or leave out important context.

Before April 2025, Meta had a system where independent fact-checkers could label this kind of content as misleading and limit how far it spread. That system is now gone.

What Replacing Fact-Checkers with “Community Notes” Means

The new system puts fact-checking in the hands of users. In theory, this sounds more democratic. But in reality, it’s risky.

Here’s why:

• Anyone can suggest a correction, but there’s no guarantee it’s based on facts or science.
• Posts only get corrected if a large group of people vote the same way, so truth becomes a popularity contest.
• Complex topics like climate policy or food production can’t always be explained in a short note.

As a result, many misleading posts may not get corrected at all, or worse, they might get liked or shared even more.

What Could Happen Next

With no professional fact-checkers reviewing posts, we may see:

• More viral falsehoods about climate solutions, food shortages, or farming policies.
• Conspiracy theories spreading unchecked, like claims that global climate goals are secretly about population control or land grabs.
• Less trust in real scientific research, as platforms no longer signal what’s verified and what’s not.

We’ve already seen how false claims about fertilizer bans or “globalist agendas” can lead to protests and political backlash, especially in Europe and North America. Now that Meta has stepped back, we expect these kinds of narratives to spread even faster.

Why This Matters

Climate change is real, and the way we grow, eat, and trade food is a big part of the solution. But real progress depends on people having access to accurate information.

If social media is flooded with fear, doubt, and misleading content, it becomes much harder for:

• Farmers to make informed decisions.
• Policymakers to introduce fair, science-based rules.
• Everyday people to understand what’s actually happening to our food and planet.

When a company as large as Meta steps away from fact-checking, the burden of truth falls on all of us, journalists, researchers, educators, and communities.

What We Can Do

Now that Meta has removed its professional fact-checking system, it’s more important than ever to:

• Stay alert to false or misleading posts, especially on Facebook and Instagram.
• Support independent news and research that explain climate and food issues clearly.
• Share accurate, evidence-based information with your own networks, it still makes a difference.

At University of Guelph, Canada, we’re tracking how climate and food misinformation is evolving in this new environment. We’ll keep sharing tools, updates, and verified facts, because truth still matters.

The post Meta Ended Fact-Checking. What That Means for Climate and Food Misinformation appeared first on Misinforesearch.

Climate change is not a distant threat in the Global South; it is a lived reality. Rising temperatures, unpredictable rainfall, and more frequent extreme weather events are already affecting the ability of farmers to grow food, earn livelihoods, and support their communities. In response, governments, researchers, and development organizations have promoted a range of adaptation strategies to build resilience. But many of these efforts are quietly being undermined by a less visible force: misinformation.

From widely circulated myths about genetically modified crops to rumors that climate change is a foreign hoax, misinformation is eroding trust in science and slowing down adaptation where it is needed most. Its impact on food security is significant and growing.

When Uncertainty Affects Climate Action

Adaptation strategies often rely on access to accurate, timely information. Whether it’s deciding which drought-resistant crop variety to plant or how to adjust planting schedules in response to changing weather patterns, farmers need to trust the information they receive. But in many regions of the Global South, false claims spread faster and further than verified knowledge.

Mobile phones and social media have become powerful tools in rural communities, but they also allow misinformation to spread quickly. Inaccurate weather forecasts, conspiracy theories about new seed varieties, and misleading videos on agricultural practices can cause confusion and hesitation. In some cases, farmers abandon promising innovations altogether after encountering false claims online or through word of mouth.

This hesitation is not irrational. Many communities have experienced a long history of broken promises, external interventions, and one-size-fits-all solutions that did not work in practice. Misinformation exploits these experiences and widens the gap between scientific knowledge and local realities.

Food Security Under Risk

The link between climate adaptation and food security is direct. When farmers cannot rely on the information they receive, they are more likely to take fewer risks or continue with outdated practices. As climate patterns shift and pests and diseases evolve, the costs of inaction or misinformed decisions grow. Yields drop. Recovery after climate shocks becomes more difficult. Entire food systems become more fragile.

This is especially true for smallholder farmers, who form the backbone of food production in many countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Without clear guidance they trust, and without the tools to verify what they see or hear online, their ability to respond to a changing climate is weakened.

Building Information Resilience

Addressing misinformation is not simply about correcting false claims. It requires building trust in public institutions, research bodies, and knowledge-sharing systems. It also means making space for local knowledge and experience and creating two-way communication channels where farmers are not just passive recipients of information, but active participants in shaping it.

Community radio, farmer cooperatives, local extension services, and trusted civil society organizations continue to play an important role. But these efforts must be supported and scaled. Training in digital literacy, especially among youth and women in rural areas, is also crucial. These groups are often the most affected by climate risks, yet the least equipped to filter misleading content.

At the same time, governments and international organizations must work with media platforms to ensure that climate and agricultural information in local languages is prioritized and verified.

A Shared Responsibility

Research institutions like the University of Guelph have a critical role to play. Beyond developing technologies and policy recommendations, universities must engage with the realities of how information is accessed, interpreted, and trusted in diverse contexts. Collaboration with researchers, practitioners, and communities in the Global South is essential for developing communication strategies that are context-specific, inclusive, and responsive.

Climate adaptation is not only a technical challenge, but also a communication challenge. Without a strong foundation of accurate, trusted information, adaptation strategies will remain out of reach for many.

Conclusion

The Global South is adapting to climate change under extremely difficult conditions. Misinformation adds another layer of complexity, weakening already fragile systems and undermining trust in solutions. Confronting this challenge requires more than fact-checking. It calls for rethinking how knowledge is shared, who is included in the conversation, and how we support communities in making informed decisions about their future.

Food security depends not only on what we grow and how we grow it, but also on what we believe to be true.

The post Misinformed and Underprepared: How Misinformation Undermines Climate Adaptation and Food Security in the Global South appeared first on Misinforesearch.

I was in Vila Real, Portugal, attending the 27th European Seminar on Extension & Education (ESEE), held on the beautiful UTAD campus. This year’s theme focused on inclusivity and transformation in agricultural extension education, and I had the opportunity to present on the emerging LLM applications in agriculture, as well as the opportunities and challenges for agricultural extension and advisory. My presentation drew attention to the social dimensions often overlooked in the excitement of technological innovation. It also explored what the rising use of LLMs might mean to us in terms of trust, capacity development, inclusion, and the evolving role of extension and advisory services.  It sparked some good conversations, and I was happy to share my thoughts.

I met others with similar interests in GenAI and agriculture, ranging from governance structures and policy frameworks to farmer-centered design and theoretical viewpoints. The diverse perspectives reminded me of just how complex this research area is, and how important it is to stay open, grounded, and critical. Another highlight was reconnecting with familiar faces from previous conferences. Whether forming new connections or rekindling old ones, conversations often evolved into discussions on ongoing projects, sparking opportunities for future collaborations. Such precious moments were spontaneous but truly unforgettable.

The plenary sessions offered an opportunity to engage more broadly with two key themes. One focused on the linkages between policy, research, and practice within AKIS (Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems). The second plenary was on digitization and AI in extension education. Speakers explored both the potential and the uncertainties surrounding emerging technologies such as AI. As I listened to their reflections, I was reminded that while AI holds enormous potential, its success will ultimately depend on the choices we make, how we harness its benefits, mitigate its risks, protect livelihoods, promote equity, and confront the growing challenge of agri-food misinformation. Coming from the Global South, issues such as digital access, representation, and capacity are often overlooked yet essential for building sustainable digital futures.

I also participated in a hands-on demonstration of the PREMIERE project, where I contributed feedback on a prototype toolbox developed to support multi-actor collaboration in the EU.

The field trip took us far beyond the walls of the conference into the historic landscapes of the Douro Valley, where we visited the Quinta das Carvalhas winery. Standing under the mid-morning sun, we listened to various strategies and vineyard practices adopted to protect soil health, preserve biodiversity, and manage the steep-slope vineyards amid climate extremes. It wasn’t just about the wine, though; for the record, it tasted incredibly good. What stood out was the passion and resilience reflected in the deeply rooted connections with the land.

I spent my final day visiting local shops, enjoying a quiet meal, and reflecting on the week. I’m deeply grateful to the Braithewaite Scholarship for making this experience possible. I left Portugal with a renewed sense of why my work matters, and the timing couldn’t be any better, as I take my next steps forward.

By Uduak Ita Edet

PhD Candidate, Rural Studies. University of Guelph

The post My ESEE 2025 Experience appeared first on Misinforesearch.

Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges we face today, yet misinformation about its causes and solutions clouds our understanding and delays action. As a researcher studying how actors in the agri-food sector perceive climate change misinformation, I’m struck by the parallels with recent news revealing how oil and gas companies are shaping children’s understanding of climate science in Canadian classrooms (Keary and Chesnut, 2025). In this blog post, I’ll explore how these different actors – responsible for significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – are influencing our perceptions, the benefits they gain from targeting specific groups, and why investigating climate change misinformation is vital for future research.

How Actors Shape Perceptions

In the agri-food sector, a complex web of actors – including farmers, agribusinesses, and food processors – navigates climate change narratives to protect their interests. One common tactic is greenwashing, where companies market their products as “eco-friendly” or “sustainable” with little evidence to back it up (Sciortino et al., 2025). Take palm oil, for example; a snack food company might boast about using “sustainable palm oil,” yet the certification often fails to address the deforestation and biodiversity loss tied to its production (Wilcove and Koh, 2010). Beyond greenwashing, these companies may fund research that highlights product benefits – like the nutritional value of processed foods – while glossing over environmental costs, such as methane emissions from livestock. They also lobby against regulations that would force them to cut emissions, subtly shaping consumer and policymaker perceptions to favor their practices.

Meanwhile, oil and gas companies are taking a bolder approach by targeting a captive audience: children in Canadian classrooms. Recent reports reveal that these companies are funding and supplying educational materials that present a skewed version of climate science (Keary and Chesnut, 2025). These resources might emphasize fossil fuels as essential for economic growth or question the viability of renewable energy, casting doubt on the urgency of climate action. By influencing young minds at a formative stage, these companies aim to embed a narrative that aligns with their industry’s longevity.

The Benefits of Shaping Perceptions

Why go to such lengths? The benefits are substantial. For agri-food companies, shaping consumer perceptions can drive sales and solidify brand loyalty (Tang and Li, 2023). When environmentally conscious shoppers see a “green” label, they’re more likely to buy, even if the sustainability claim is shaky. This facade lets companies avoid scrutiny and maintain profitable, often unsustainable, practices without changing their operations. It’s a win-win for their bottom line at the expense of genuine climate progress.

Oil and gas companies, on the other hand, are playing a longer game. By influencing children – who will become tomorrow’s voters, leaders, and consumers – they’re investing in future public support for fossil fuels. If young people grow up believing climate change is less urgent or that fossil fuels are irreplaceable, these companies can delay the shift to renewable energy. This tactic buys them time to maximize profits and maintain their dominance in the energy sector, even as the planet warms.

Why Investigating Misinformation Matters

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Misinformation in the agri-food sector perpetuates unsustainable practices that worsen climate change, from deforestation to high-emission farming. In education, distorting children’s understanding of climate science risks creating a generation less equipped to support vital policies or adopt sustainable habits (Mueller, 2009). Every year of delayed action amplifies the threat of extreme weather, food insecurity, and ecosystem collapse – consequences we can’t afford.

This is why investigating climate change misinformation is critical for future research. It obstructs effective climate action by confusing the public, eroding trust in science, and deepening societal divides (Chowdhury et al., 2023; Kabir et al., 2024). My work focuses on the agri-food context, unpacking how stakeholders perceive and respond to misinformation. By understanding these dynamics, I hope to inform strategies that cut through the noise – promoting transparency and accurate information to build more sustainable food systems. Beyond my field, studying misinformation across sectors like energy and education can equip us with tools to counter its spread, fostering a more informed public ready to tackle the climate crisis.

A Call to Action
As a researcher, I’m driven to uncover the truth behind climate change misinformation, connecting findings from the agri-food sector to broader issues like the influence of oil and gas in classrooms. But this isn’t just a task for academics—we all have a role. By staying curious, questioning the sources of our information, and supporting science-based policies, we can resist these distorted narratives. Together, through research and collective action, we can build a society capable of making the tough, necessary choices to safeguard our planet. The clock is ticking, and the truth matters more than ever.

References

Chowdhury, A., Kabir, K. H., Abdulai, A. R., & Alam, M. F. (2023). Systematic review of misinformation in social and online media for the development of an analytical framework for agri-food sector. Sustainability, 15(6), 4753. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064753

Kabir, K. H., Chowdhury, A., & Edet, U. (2025). Data-driven digital participation in agri-food context: Why should C4D and CfSC scholars and practitioners pay attention to information disorder? In Chowdhury, A. & Gordon, G. (Eds). Digital Communication for Agricultural and Rural Development (pp. 51-70). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003282075

Keary, A., and Chesnut, J. (2025). Polluting Education: The Influence of Fossil Fuels on Children’s Education in Canada. Report available at: Full-Report_Polluting-Education-The-Influence-of-Fossil-Fuels-on-Childrens-Education-in-Canada.pdf.

Mueller, M. P. (2009). Educational reflections on the “ecological crisis”: Ecojustice, environmentalism, and sustainability. Science & Education, 18, 1031-1056.

Sciortino, C., Sgroi, F., & Napoli, S. (2025). Greenwashing in the Agri-Food Industry: A Discussion Around EU Policies and the Italian. Food and Humanity, 100528.

Tang, W., & Li, G. (2023). Enhancing competitiveness in cross-border e-commerce through knowledge-based consumer perception theory: an exploration of translation ability. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-34.

Wilcove, D. S., & Koh, L. P. (2010). Addressing the threats to biodiversity from oil palm agriculture. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 999-1007.

The post From Farms to Classrooms: How Agri-Food and Oil Giants Shape Climate Perceptions—and Why Misinformation Matters appeared first on Misinforesearch.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming a central force in global development, offering solutions across various sectors, from agriculture to healthcare. AI promises exciting opportunities, improving efficiency, boosting productivity, and even tackling global challenges like poverty and climate change (Vinuesa et al., 2020). But alongside these benefits come significant social, ethical, and legal challenges that must be addressed.

Take, for example, the social implications of AI. It’s reshaping how we interact, work, and connect. Customer service virtual assistants and other AI assistants like Alexa have made our lives more efficient but have also reduced human interactions, leading to a loss of personal connection. For people who depend on human support like the elderly or those in rural areas, this shift can be isolating, further widening the digital divide. In agriculture, AI tools like Large Language Models (LLMs) promise improved productivity, but as Kuska et al. (2024) point out, farmers without the necessary digital skills may struggle, reinforcing existing social inequalities.

The challenges of AI does not end there. One of the most pressing issues is accountability. What happens when an AI system makes a mistake? Who is responsible? We saw this play out tragically in the case of 10-year-old Nylah Anderson, who died after participating in the “Blackout Challenge,” a dangerous viral trend promoted by TikTok’s algorithm. The challenge encourages participants to choke themselves until they lose consciousness. In 2024, a U.S. appeals court allowed her family’s lawsuit against TikTok to proceed, alleging that the platform’s algorithm promoted this harmful content directly to Nylah. The family argued that TikTok’s algorithm specifically targeted children, pushing dangerous content that ultimately led to her death. This case raises important legal questions about the duty of care that companies like TikTok owe to their users, especially vulnerable populations such as children (Justia, 2024). It also underscores the broader legal implications of regulating AI systems, particularly those used in public-facing platforms like social media.

Similarly, in agriculture, AI-driven crop management systems can make incorrect recommendations, leading to crop failures. Who should be held accountable in these situations? Farmers, tech providers, or developers? Uddin et al. (2022) highlight that legal frameworks need to keep up with the fast-evolving world of AI to ensure these systems are used responsibly.

In addition to these legal challenges, AI raises significant ethical concerns, particularly related to bias and transparency. AI systems can reflect and even amplify societal biases because they are often trained on historical data. Without careful human oversight, this can lead to unfair outcomes, such as biased hiring decisions or discriminatory loan approvals. Also, the collection and use of large amounts of personal data, especially in sectors like agriculture, pose serious ethical questions. As Uddin et al. (2022) explain, current laws often fail to address the complexities of data ownership, leaving farmers vulnerable to having their data used or monetized without proper consent, leading to distrust between farmers and technology experts.

While AI holds great potential for development, it also presents significant social, ethical, and legal challenges. The widening digital divide, issues of bias and transparency, and concerns over data ownership and accountability underscore the need for stronger regulatory frameworks. The need to address these challenges is crucial to ensuring AI promotes equitable and responsible development.

Reference:

Justia. (2024). Anderson v. TikTok Inc, No. 22-3061 (3d Cir. 2024). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/22-3061/22-3061-2024-08-27.html

Kuska, M. T., Wahabzada, M., & Paulus, S. (2024). AI for crop production – Where can large language models (LLMs) provide substantial value? Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 221, 108924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2024.108924

Uddin, M., Chowdhury, A., & Kabir, M. A. (2022). Legal and ethical aspects of deploying artificial intelligence in climate-smart agriculture. AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01421-2

Vinuesa, R., Azizpour, H., Leite, I., Balaam, M., Dignum, V., Domisch, S., … & Nerini, F. F. (2020). The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1-10. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-14108-y

The post Social, Ethical, and Legal Aspects of AI in Development appeared first on Misinforesearch.

The digital transformation of agriculture, often referred to as “Agriculture 4.0,” is reshaping how food is produced, managed, and distributed. This revolution, marked by the introduction of precision agriculture, digital platforms, and AI-driven technologies, holds immense promise for improving productivity and food security. However, there are growing concerns that these advancements may inadvertently reinforce existing inequalities, particularly for smallholders and marginalized communities in the Global South.

Digital agriculture is primarily driven by private firms, including global software companies and start-ups, which raises concerns about corporate control and the digital divide between large and small farms. Birner et al. (2021) note that although digital agriculture offers the potential for environmental sustainability and increased efficiency, it may also concentrate power among larger agribusinesses, leaving smaller players vulnerable to exclusion. These technologies can create barriers to access for smallholders, particularly in rural areas with limited infrastructure and digital literacy, leading to further marginalization of those who are already on the fringes of the agricultural sector¹.

As digital technologies proliferate, scholars like Ingram et al. (2023) argue that the directionality of these innovations needs careful consideration to avoid reinforcing industrialized farming models that favor corporate interests over smallholder needs². Without intervention, the adoption of precision agriculture and other digital tools could exacerbate power imbalances and reduce the autonomy of smallholders.

However, digital literacy and inclusion efforts offer a pathway to mitigate these risks. Digital literacy programs, particularly those embedded within local communities, can empower smallholders to take part in the digital transformation, allowing them to gain control over their data and decisions. Agricultural extension services (AES), as suggested by Chowdhury & Gow. (2024), are pivotal in supporting these efforts by providing training that aligns with the priorities of marginalized groups³. Through AES initiatives, smallholders can enhance their digital self-determination, giving them the skills to navigate the digital landscape and make informed decisions about technology adoption.

Moreover, community-driven ICT models, like the Keewaytinook Okimakanak (KO) approach in First Nations communities, highlight the importance of locally led digital transformations. This model, which integrates traditional knowledge with digital platforms, empowers communities to manage their resources and services, demonstrating how local leadership can guide effective digital transitions⁴. The KO model’s success underscores the potential for similar approaches in agricultural settings, where smallholders and rural communities can lead the way in adopting technologies that suit their unique needs and circumstances.

Digital agriculture offers tremendous potential for increasing productivity and enhancing sustainability. Still, without deliberate efforts to include marginalized voices, the sector risks deepening social and economic inequalities. By fostering digital literacy, supporting community-based ICT initiatives, and ensuring that smallholders have access to the tools and training they need, it is possible to bridge the digital divide. Agricultural extension services and local leadership will be crucial in ensuring that the benefits of Agriculture 4.0 are shared equitably across all segments of the farming population, creating a more inclusive and sustainable future.

References:

1. Birner, R., Daum, T., & Pray, C. (2021). Who drives the digital revolution in agriculture? A review of supply‐side trends, players and challenges. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43(4), 1260–1285. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13145
2. Ingram, J., & Maye, D. (2023). “How can we?” the need to direct research in digital agriculture towards capacities. Journal of Rural Studies, 100, 103003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.03.011
3. Chowdhury, A., & Gow, G. A. (2024). Digital Communication for Agricultural and Rural Development. Taylor & Francis.
4. Gurstein, M., Beaton, B., & Sherlock, K. (2009). A Community Informatics Model for e-Services in First Nations Communities: The K-Net Approach to Water Treatment in Northern Ontario. The Journal of Community Informatics, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.15353/joci.v5i2.2450

The post Digital Agriculture and Inclusivity: Empowering Marginal appeared first on Misinforesearch.

In today’s world, misinformation can spread faster than ever before. Misinformation is described as incorrect or deceptive information that is shared without the intent to mislead (Chowdhury et al. 2024). The agri-food sector is no exception, where false claims about farming and food safety circulate online, often with big consequences. Take, for example, the “plastic rice” rumour that caused widespread panic in West Africa. This story shows just how quickly misinformation can erode trust and disrupt entire markets.

The “Plastic Rice” Panic: What Really Happened?

In 2016, social media lit up with rumours that rice imported from China was not real, it was supposedly made of plastic. People shared videos showing rice being burned or melting, claiming this was proof that the rice was fake. Since rice is such a staple in West African diets, the fear spread rapidly. Even though investigations by officials in Nigeria and Ghana later confirmed the rice was perfectly safe and authentic, the damage was already done (BBC, 2017; Munoz-Pineiro & Toussaint, 2018). Businesses suffered, and people lost trust in something as essential as the food on their plates. Click to watch

Why Misinformation Spreads So Easily

The “plastic rice” scare is a textbook example of misinformation, most people who shared it genuinely thought they were protecting others. However, there was also some disinformation, where individuals likely spread the rumour to harm imported rice’s reputation and boost local products (Munoz-Pineiro & Toussaint, 2018).

Social media platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook fueled this viral rumour. Shocking videos spread without verification, creating panic faster than authorities could respond click video. This is the double-edged sword of social media, unverified information can go viral in minutes, leading to chaos (BBC, 2017).

The Real-World Impact of Food Misinformation

Misinformation in the agri-food sector does not just create confusion, it has real-world consequences. In the case of “plastic rice,” businesses lost money, and consumers became wary of imported foods. But this is not the only example. False claims about genetically modified crops or hormones in livestock have also influenced public perception and even policy decisions, often with little to no scientific support. This shows just how much damage misinformation can do to the food industry.

How to Fight Back: The Power of Digital Literacy

So, what can we do to prevent this from happening?

Critical digital literacy, the ability to assess critically what we see online is the way to go. By encouraging consumers to evaluate the truthfulness of online content and also recognize the economic, political, and technological factors that influence sharing such news. Governments and organizations also need to step up with fact-checking and debunking strategies to stop misinformation before it spirals out of control just like the Ghanaian and Nigerian authorities did (BBC, 2017; Munoz-Pineiro & Toussaint, 2018).

Let us Be Smart Consumers

The “plastic rice” scare is a reminder of how quickly misinformation can take hold of a society. As consumers, we have a responsibility to think twice about the content we see online and consider its source. Next time you see a shocking claim about food, take a moment to verify it.

 Let us take a stand against misinformation. Next time you hear a rumour about food safety, double-check the facts and help stop misinformation from spreading. Together, we can keep our food systems safe and protect our communities.

References:

Ablade TV.(2017,June 16). you won’t believe this: plastic rice as jollof in Ghana. [Video].Youtube. https://youtu.be/HT-30eg7uv4?si=xb-Sk6dvVtteNrNe

BBC. (2017, July 4). Why are people scared about ‘plastic rice’? BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-40484135

Chowdhury, A., Kabir, K. H., Asafo-Agyei, E. K., & Abdulai, A. R. (2024). Participatory and community-based approach in combating agri-food misinformation: A Scoping Review. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 5(2), 81-104.

Munoz-Pineiro, M., & Toussaint, B. (2018). “Fake rice” on African and Asian markets: Rumour or evidence? Factsheet – December 2017 (JRC110625). European Commission. Retrieved https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC110625

TV3 Ghana.(2016, Dec 23). FDA denies existence of plastic rice on market.[Video].Youtube. https://youtu.be/rm_ySE9oVDc?si=SYzdUfeHXZFNSPuT

The post Misinformation In Agri-Food : The “Plastic Rice” Scare and Its Impact On Consumer Trust appeared first on Misinforesearch.

Myth 1: Climate Change is a Natural Phenomenon

While our planet’s climate has naturally fluctuated over millennia, the current rate of warming is unprecedented. Scientific evidence is convincing that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are the primary drivers of recent climate change.

Myth 2: Global Warming Stopped in the late 20^th century

Skeptics often point to 1998, a year with exceptionally high temperatures due to a strong El Niño event, to argue that global warming has stopped. However, the long-term trend clearly shows a consistent rise in global temperatures, with the last decade being the warmest on record.

Myth 3: Carbon Dioxide is Not a Pollutant

Carbon dioxide is a natural part of Earth’s atmosphere, but excessive amounts act as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat and contributing to global warming. While not a traditional pollutant like smog, its elevated levels significantly negatively impact the earth’s climate.

Myth 4: Climate Models Are Unreliable

Climate models are complex, but they are based on well-understood physical principles and have accurately predicted many aspects of climate change. These models have successfully forecasted temperature trends, glacier melt, and even local climate variations.

Myth 5: Climate Change is Only About Temperature

While rising temperatures are a key indicator, climate change encompasses more than just heat. It includes changes in precipitation patterns, more frequent extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and shifts in ecosystems and wildlife populations. All this eventually affects livelihoods, food security, and public safety.

Myth 6: Humans Can’t Impact the Vast Atmosphere

The argument that human activity is too insignificant to affect the vast atmosphere ignores the cumulative effect of billions of people burning fossil fuels and changing land use patterns. The concentration of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by about 40% since the Industrial Revolution, primarily due to human activities.

Myth 7: Scientists disagree on the cause of climate change

A 2021 study revealed that 99% of peer-reviewed scientific literature found that climate change was human-induced. That was in line with a widely read study from 2013, which found that 97% of peer-reviewed papers examining climate change’s causes said it was human-caused.

“The idea that there is no consensus is used by climate deniers to muddy the waters and sow the seeds of doubt,” says Tsering. “But the scientific community agrees: the global warming we are facing is not natural. It is caused by humans.”

Myth 8: Renewable Energy Can’t Replace Fossil Fuels

Renewable energy technologies have advanced significantly, with solar, wind, and hydropower becoming increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Energy storage solutions and grid improvements address intermittency issues, making a renewable future feasible.

Myth 9: It’s Too Late to Do Anything About Climate Change

While some impacts of climate change are already occurring, it’s not too late to mitigate its worst effects. Immediate and sustained efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to sustainable practices can still make a significant difference.

Myth 10: Climate Change is a Future Problem

Climate change is happening now, affecting communities around the world. Extreme weather events, shifting agricultural zones, and rising sea levels already impact economies and livelihoods. Immediate action is essential to address these ongoing issues.

Conclusion

Debunking these myths is crucial for understanding the realities of climate change. By recognizing the human influence on the environment and the urgency of the situation, we can work towards effective solutions and mitigate the adverse effects on our planet. Embracing scientific evidence and sustainable practices will be key to safeguarding our future.

References

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Retrieved from IPCC
2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (n.d.). Climate Change: How Do We Know? Retrieved from NASA Climate Change
3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2020). Global Climate Report – Annual 2019. Retrieved from NOAA
4. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (n.d.). Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Retrieved from EPA
5. NASA. (2015). The Role of Climate Models. Retrieved from NASA Climate Change
6. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (n.d.). Climate Change Impacts. Retrieved from UNFCCC
7. National Geographic Society. (n.d.). The Industrial Revolution. Retrieved from National Geographic
8. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). (2020). Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019. Retrieved from IRENA
9. Union of Concerned Scientists. (2017). Is It Too Late to Prevent Climate Change? Retrieved from Union of Concerned Scientists
10. World Meteorological Organization (WMO). (2020). State of the Global Climate 2020. Retrieved from WMO

By Dr. Nasir Abbas Khan, Banting Post-doctoral Fellow, University of Guelph

The post 10 common climate change myths appeared first on Misinforesearch.

As the world grapples with the escalating climate crisis, the concept of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) has emerged as a light of hope. Designed to enhance adaptation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to food security, CSA promises a so-called “triple win.” However, as the popularity of CSA grows, it’s crucial to look beyond mere adoption rates and see its real impacts, particularly on human development. The complex dynamics of CSA reveal that while CSA has potential benefits, it can also inadvertently lead to ‘maladaptation,’ reinforcing existing vulnerabilities and inequalities within agricultural communities.

Understanding Maladaptation in CSA

Maladaptation in the context of CSA occurs when interventions intended to mitigate climate impacts end up exacerbating existing vulnerabilities. This often happens when CSA initiatives benefit powerful elites, leaving marginalized groups further behind, or when risks and exposures are transferred between different groups. For instance, a new irrigation technology might improve yields for wealthier farmers who can afford it, while poorer farmers without access to this technology see their relative position worsen.

This maladaptive outcome typically stems from adaptation programs that are too technical and driven by external objectives. Such programs frequently overlook the complex social and political drivers that shape vulnerability. When CSA initiatives do not consider the socio-economic contexts in which they are implemented, they risk failing to reduce rural poverty and improve equity.

The Emerging Perspective on CSA

A new perspective on CSA is increasingly gaining traction. This perspective emphasizes the importance of contextualizing CSA within the broader socio-economic dynamics of agri-food systems. It acknowledges that certain categories of farmers are particularly vulnerable to climate change due to these systemic factors. For CSA to truly contribute to reducing rural poverty and increasing equity, it must address these underlying structural contributors to vulnerability.

This realization has led to a growing focus on transformative approaches within CSA. These approaches go beyond superficial changes and aim for incorporating social, institutional, technological, and cultural factors. By addressing the structural factors that contribute to differential exposure to climate risks, transformative CSA seeks to create more equitable and resilient agricultural systems.

The Importance of Social Context and Power Relations

To achieve this transformative potential, it is essential to carefully consider the social contexts and power relations through which agriculture is both researched and practiced. Recognizing the heterogeneity among farmers is crucial. Not all farmers have the same capacity to adopt new technologies or practices, and not all will benefit equally from them. Therefore, CSA initiatives must be designed with an acute awareness of these differences to avoid exacerbating existing inequities.

Moreover, it is important to be aware of the risks of benefiting already better-off farmers at the expense of the most vulnerable. In some cases, focusing on farmers for whom agriculture is not a viable pathway out of poverty can lead to misplaced efforts and resources. Instead, CSA should aim to empower those who are most in need and who have the potential to benefit most from these interventions.

The Path Forward: Transdisciplinary Partnerships and Systems Approaches

The success of transformative CSA approaches depends on transdisciplinary partnerships and systems approaches. These partnerships should involve a diverse range of stakeholders, including farmers, researchers, policymakers, and civil society organizations. By working together, these stakeholders can ensure that adaptation and mitigation goals are aligned with broader objectives of equitable incomes, food security, and human development.

Adopting a systems approach is also critical. This means looking at the agricultural system as a whole, considering both agro-ecological and socio-ecological dimensions of resilience. By taking into account the complex interconnections within agricultural systems, CSA initiatives can be more effectively tailored to address the root causes of vulnerability and promote sustainable development.

Conclusion: Climate-Resilient vs. Climate-Smart Agriculture

The distinction between climate-resilient and climate-smart agriculture lies in the emphasis on social equity and human well-being. While CSA focuses on technical solutions for climate adaptation and mitigation, climate-resilient agriculture goes a step further by integrating social dimensions into its framework. This involves recognizing and addressing the diverse needs and vulnerabilities of different farmer groups, ensuring that CSA initiatives do not reinforce existing inequalities.

By prioritizing social equity and human development, climate-resilient agriculture can contribute to broader development goals, creating a more just and sustainable future for all. As we move forward in the fight against climate change, it is essential to embrace this holistic approach, ensuring that no one is left behind in the quest for a climate-smart world.

The post The Triple Win Revisited: the Need of Integrating Social Equity in Climate-smart Agriculture appeared first on Misinforesearch.