Published in Climate Policy, the study identifies three distinct perspectives: “Ideology Over Evidence,” “The Literacy Gap,” and “The Platform Problem.” Together, they show that climate misinformation cannot be addressed through fact-checking alone. Political and identity-based beliefs, gaps in critical and media literacy, and the ways digital platforms amplify misleading information all contribute to the problem.

The study highlights the importance of trusted local messengers, stronger media and climate literacy, capable extension and advisory services, and greater accountability in digital and AI-based information platforms. Across the three perspectives, a common concern emerged: misinformation can weaken trust in science and institutions, making evidence-based climate adaptation more difficult in agriculture.

The research emphasizes that strengthening the resilience of Canada’s agri-food sector requires not only better climate information, but also stronger capacity to assess, communicate and act on that information.

The post New research examines climate misinformation in Canada’s agri-food sector appeared first on Misinforesearch.

The article argues that strengthening Extension and Advisory Services (EAS) is not only about improving farm-level decision-making. EAS should be understood as part of the broader infrastructure for rural resilience and development—helping communities navigate misinformation, prepare for disasters, adapt to climate risks, recover economically and maintain trusted knowledge networks. This connects with recent University of Guelph work on food security, which also calls for stronger advisory systems and better capacity to navigate digital platforms, misinformation and AI-based advice. Together, these articles make the case that EAS is essential not only to agriculture, but also to the long-term resilience and development of rural communities.

The post Misinformation, Advisory Capacity and the Broader Role of EAS in Rural Resilience appeared first on Misinforesearch.

The agri-food sector is experiencing a quiet but significant shift as many farmers, advisors, and value-chain professionals step back from social media due to misinformation, toxicity, and declining trust.

A recent survey of Ontario agri-food sector participants found that 43.1% of respondents had reduced or stopped using at least one social media platform. Key reasons included misinformation, limited meaningful engagement, and anti-social behaviour.

These findings are important for agricultural communication and extension. When trusted experts disengage from digital spaces, the sector loses critical voices needed to counter false information, share evidence-based knowledge, and support strong professional networks.

This research aims to encourage deeper discussion on how the agri-food sector can build healthier, more trustworthy, and evidence-based online spaces for farmers, advisors, researchers, and industry partners.

The research was funded by the Food from Thought Program at the University of Guelph

The post Research Highlights Growing Social Media Disengagement in Ontario’s Agri-Food Sector appeared first on Misinforesearch.

Congratulations to the lead author, Carter Cousineau, and co-author Rozita A. Dara for this recognition. The publication came out of a project of Rozita Dara’s lab, AI for Food.

This paper advances the discussion of trustworthy AI from high-level principles to the realities of AI system development and organizational implementation. From the perspective of AI developers, it identifies key barriers such as fragmented global regulations, inconsistent definitions, limited engineering tools, and gaps in implementation standards. It also brings together governance mechanisms, role responsibilities, development processes, organizational culture, and data infrastructure into a unified framework for understanding how trustworthy AI can move from theory into practice.

Thanks to the editorial boards of the Data and Information Management, a journal with an impact factor of 8.3, and we hope this work contributes to ongoing efforts to build AI systems that are responsible, transparent, and trustworthy in real-world settings.

The post The Best Paper 2025 Award appeared first on Misinforesearch.

During the webinar, Uduak shared her research methods and fieldwork process. Building on an exploratory survey and interviews, she organized a capacity-development workshop for extension professionals in Southwest Nigeria. In the workshop, she led discussions on the need to evaluate AI outputs in resource-constrained settings, focusing on how to assess AI-generated information and ensure that the advice remains relevant to the local rural context. She highlighted generative AI limitations and risks, such as data privacy, misinformation, and the potential to widen gender and digital divides. Staff from the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) provided technical guidance on prompt engineering, equipping participants with foundational skills to craft effective prompts and ensure relevant output.

This workshop led into an action research phase, giving key actors hands-on experience in applying generative AI to their daily work. Through this fieldwork, Uduak demonstrated strong community engagement, research, leadership, and project management skills. Working directly with end users provided her with a deeper understanding of how user experiences and perspectives shape technology adoption. Uduak concluded her presentation by sharing initial findings, reflecting on lessons learned, and outlining her knowledge mobilization plans. Her research contributes to broader conversations on evidence-based policy development and user-centered design, aiming to build stronger agricultural information systems to tackle climate change and food insecurity.

The post Uduak Shared her insight during a webinar organized by Universities Canada appeared first on Misinforesearch.

(The blog was written by the author based on his Major Research Paper)

Since global agricultural systems are now facing the severity of climate change, unverified misinformation about climate change on social media is complicating agricultural decision-making. For example, inaccurate predictions of rainfall or severe weather may lead farmers to make incorrect assumptions about planting timing, which will immediately result in losses in crop yield (Daume et al., 2023). To address this, we conducted a study that investigated the potential of using the VADER sentiment analysis tool and a random forest model to effectively detect false information in agricultural climate-related text on Twitter.

We built a composite detection model based on sentiment, linguistic, and metadata features. It starts with the extraction of tweet sentiment polarity measures (compound sentiment scores and sentiment shift frequency) by utilizing a widened VADER lexicon. The text is, in turn, represented as a 5000-dimensional array using TF-IDF, and the number of times an exclamation mark/question mark has been used, and the frequency of occurrence of agricultural terminology is also counted. Metadata features include user influence (logarithmic transformation of the number of followers), user influence (seasonal weight), and time of publication. Once all the features have been concatenated into a 1510-dimensional vector, a random forest algorithm is used to train the model, which is then optimized via grid search and SMOTE over-sampling.

The experiment used 16465 agricultural climate tweets, and the model achieved outstanding performance in accuracy (0.912) and recall (0.931). Study disclosed that misinformation was highly emotionally polarized with a median composite sentiment score of-0.4 and 0.2 in the cases of authentic material. It is also important to note that the average number of exclamation marks in false tweets is 3, and the correlation coefficient between frequency and labelling as false was 0.86, the highest at which the element was used as a discriminative indicator. Misinformation was negatively associated with user influence (r = -0.79), implying that it was more likely to be propagated by low-influence accounts. The rate of emotional oscillations (r=0.67) also indicated that readers have much in common, as misinformation can easily influence a person by abruptly switching mood.

The real-time monitoring tool developed as part of the current study is being implemented and can quickly identify high-risk content (e.g., tweets with 4 or more exclamation marks and an emotion score of 0.7 or less) during rumour waves (e.g., extreme weather causing total crop failure). Nonetheless, the existing model is restricted in three aspects: first, the scope of its data includes only Twitter posts in English, which is unlikely to cover multi-lingual agricultural areas. Second, its contribution to the seasons is low, meaning the distribution of false information is not limited to the farming schedule. Third, the fixed emotion dictionary is inadequate for keeping up with changing topics, and an updated real-time information system must be created using a TF-IDF-based update mechanism.

In the next phase, the research may focus on developing multilingual models, integrating image-based sentiment analysis, and designing time-series features aligned with crop growth cycles.

Reference

Daume, S., Galaz, V., & Bjersér, P. (2023). Automated framing of climate change? The role of social bots in the twitter climate change discourse during the 2019/2020 Australia bushfires. Social Media+ Society, 9(2).

Choudhary, A., & Arora, A. (2021). Linguistic feature based learning model for fake news detection and classification. Expert Systems with Applications, 169, 114171.

Al-Rawi, A., et al. (2021). Twitter’s fake news discourses around climate change and global warming. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 729818.

The post Detection of False Agricultural Climate Information Based on Sentiment Analysis and Random Forest: Methods and Enlightenment appeared first on Misinforesearch.

(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.

One of our team members, Dr. Mahatab Uddin, participated in the event as a Lead Author of Working Group III of the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report (AR7). He joined more than six hundred experts appointed to the three Working Groups of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who gathered in Paris last week to begin work on the first draft of AR7. This was the first time in the IPCC’s history that the three Working Groups held a joint Lead Author Meeting.

At the invitation of the French government—through the Ministry of Ecological Transition, Biodiversity, and International Negotiations on Climate and Nature, the Ministry of Education and Research, and the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs—the IPCC’s joint Lead Author Meeting of the three Working Groups took place from 1 to 5 December. The authors, representing more than 100 countries, focused on the initial drafts of the three Working Group contributions to AR7 and on cross-cutting themes. Bringing together authors from all three Working Groups in one venue was intended to support an ambitious qualitative advance in the assessment of key interdisciplinary issues related to climate change.

The post Dr. Mahatab Uddin participated as a Lead Author of Working Group III of the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment appeared first on Misinforesearch.

Full article

This is another out of a series of upcoming publications from our agri-food, climate and rural misinformation research platform. https://lnkd.in/gqKESpDJ
We took a deep dive into the issue, after what we initially identified in this article (https://lnkd.in/gYymMJQE)
Listen to the podcast for insights into this study

Watch the video for full insights

The study emphasizes the urgency and significance of the agri-food misinformation topic, particularly as we transition to Artificial Intelligence for agri-food development and augmented advice, while already observed polarization in creating a shared reality of equitable global agri-food development.

Certainly reiterate the thought (https://lnkd.in/gjnMWw9z) shared by ACER Consulting Ltd. and Hanne Goetz, and our earlier studies (https://lnkd.in/grbXfeK3) highlighting increasing confounded advice in the Canadian agri-food advisory service

Summary:
Misinformation impact on Sri Lanka’s digital agri‐food advisory services
Q‐methodology revealed three distinct stakeholder perspectives
Misinformation threatens food security, farmer livelihoods, and sector resilience
Promoting digital literacy, moderation, and collaboration among stakeholders is urgently needed.

Stay tuned for more insights from studies by Khondokar Kabir, Nasir Abbas Khan Sultana Yeasmin, Hadis Azizi Edward Asafo-Agyei

The post How does misinformation influence the digital agri-food advisory service? Multi-stakeholder Perspectives from Sri Lanka appeared first on Misinforesearch.