Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Dr. Frank Mitloener is an expert in the contributions of livestock to climate change. He is a researcher that studies ways to mitigate the greenhouse gases from ruminant digestion, and a trusted expert in outreach to ensure the implementation of new strategies. In the first part of today's podcast Dr. Mitloener talks about the impacts of cattle on climate change and new strategies to decrease that impact. In the second half we discuss a targeted effort between Greenpeace and the New York Times to paint Dr. Mitloener's work in a negative light, providing the perception of malfeasance and industry influence-- where no evidence of such claims exists.
Talking Biotech is a weekly podcast that uncovers the stories, ideas and research of people at the frontier of biology and engineering.
Each episode explores how science and technology will transform agriculture, protect the environment, and feed 10 billion people by 2050.
Interviews are led by Dr. Kevin Folta, a professor of molecular biology and genomics.
Talking Biotech Podcast 369
Livestock, Climate Change, and Attacks on a Scientist - Dr. Frank Mitloehner
===
Kevin Folta: [00:00:00] Hi everybody, and welcome to this week's Talking Biotech podcast by Colabra. Now, there's a strange thing that happens when you become an expert in a controversial area and have the audacity to step into public conversations. When you're an expert in your field and you engage the public, you'll attract attention, and when you exceed expectations on a regular basis, you'll attract accolades, awards recognition.
But when you become the go-to source of information in your area of expertise, you might attract career assassination. And it's a sad progression of the academic scientist that when you become the notable expert that does your job and then when's the trust of stakeholders and the general public, you draw the ire of those whose feelings and hunches and politics don't fit with your.
And sometimes your objective science will [00:01:00] step on the financial toes of those that profit from bad ideas and false information. And once you're on the radar of those that want you silent, the hassles begin. Now today's podcast has two parts. The first part is a interview with Professor Frank Mittler from the University of California Davis.
He talks about the livestock contributions, particularly from cows to climate change and his efforts to reduce those impacts. His research generates new inform. And his outreach with the dairy and beef industries assures that that rubber hits the road. That, that he communicates the research from his lab and others with farmers and ranchers that need to implement it.
Dr. Mittler has earned the highest awards and accolades in the field, including the cast bore log award in agricultural communication in 20. That's a good one. The second half [00:02:00] of the podcast is a rather grim story that's pretty familiar to me, that when you gain the trust and you're making progress, particularly with changing hearts and minds in the public, there are interests that need to break that trust.
And they do this in many ways that are mostly just annoyances from bots and social media to other kinds of false balance, opposition to your work in, in print media, things like. , but sometimes it gets personal and nefarious and, and in a day where conspiracy is falsely claimed in many activist circles, like you know, mega corporations manipulating the media and public scientists, that kind of thing.
Here, a deliberate coordination between an activist group and our major media push a narrative that attempts to tarnish, if not assassinate the career of a distinguished researcher, teacher and scholar. An article this week in the New York Times gives the perception of a slimy malfeasance, but at the same time [00:03:00] provide zero evidence of slimy malfeasance
So we'll talk about the latest New York Times green piece hit piece that targets Dr. Bentler a. The fallout that's coming from it. So today's guest, as you may have guessed, is Dr. Frank Mittler. He's a professor at the University of California Davis, an air quality extension specialist, and the director of the Clear Center.
But most of all, he's been a researcher at the public interface when it comes to animal agriculture and its impacts on climate change. So welcome to the podcast, Dr. Mittler. Thank. Yeah, it's really great to have you aboard and we'll talk about the really the, the main reason I wanted to talk to you today about recent controversy, and we will talk about that later, but I wanna first talk about why.
You do what you do and what you do. So you, you've been recognized as a leaning expert in understanding greenhouse contributions from animal agriculture, and how much of this really is an issue when [00:04:00] contributing to greenhouse gases, climate issues. Where, where and what are animals producing that are the most detrimental products?
Frank Mitloehner: So globally, the contributions of animal agriculture to, to a changing climate is considerable. It's about 14% one four. In the United States it's less than that. It's about 4%, but still a sizeable chunk. And the main greenhouse gas is methane. And methane offers unique challenges, but also opportunities.
And that's my what, my research.
Kevin Folta: Okay, so methane, but they're breathing carbon dioxide, right? So that it is, is that also one, or is methane something that is coming from them? Kind of out of both ends, right? You're losing it through the ruen out, out the mouth, and then also just gas expend spelled from the other side, right?
Frank Mitloehner: N no, not really. So first of all, the CO2 does not really count because what the plants that the animals eat, What they had taken on CO2 wise during photosynthesis is then later expired by the cow. So that part doesn't count. The methane that comes from the Roman, [00:05:00] that's belched out. That's the main thing.
F flatlands doesn't really count, but the belching does. That's the main one. The second largest one is the methane that comes from the animal.
Kevin Folta: I see. So the real big one then is the ruen. And it makes sense that the, that the carbon dioxide would be carbon neutral because it's all fixed carbon that's now being liberated back to where it came from.
So the, the, the methane in the room. And can you describe a little bit about that and why methane is produced there?
Frank Mitloehner: Sure. Ruminants have a unique ability of digesting grasses. Nobody else can. Pigs can't. Humans can't and so on. But they can, because they have microbes in their very large stomach, their, their ru that digest that.
Celluloses, that carbohydrate that's contained in the grass and when they do so, and by the way, cellulose is the world's most abundant biomass and ruminants are the only animals that can digest it, as I said so, but when they do digest [00:06:00] it, then there is an unintended consequence. And that unintended consequence is that the very microbes.
That are able to digest that celluloses produce methane by doing so, and that methane needs to come out. And it does. So when the animal ruminates, when it regurgitates the feet that it had previously ingested,
Kevin Folta: Okay. And so when we talk about methane as a, as a greenhouse gas, you know, this is a biotechnology podcast.
We don't talk about these things too often. So bringing our audience up to speed, how much of a problem is methane relative to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases? And, and how is it how does it go away? I mean, does it have a different half life than some of these other types of maybe more legacy?
Frank Mitloehner: So CO2 is the carbon dioxide is the most important, greenhouse gas by total volume that is a result of burning fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and gas. That is what really drives the climate first and foremost. But methane is the [00:07:00] second most important greenhouse gas, and it is per molecule more potent, almost 28 times more potent in trapping heat from the sun.
So it is, it has a, it has quite the punch. That's the bad news. The good news is that in contrast to co2, which has a halflife of a thousand years nitrous oxide, a halflife of over a hundred years, both of them are long lived climate pollutants. Methane has a halflife of 10 years in contrast to the other gases, methane is not just produced, but methane is also naturally destroyed.
And this is really important because it changes the way this gas behaves in warming our. They don't behave the same. CO2 and methane, they behave differently, but currently they are treated as if they were the same. With the difference being that methane is more potent, and this is something that we have rectified through our research and which is now widely.
Accepted in the international community of scientists [00:08:00] that methane is a different can of worms and we need to treat it differently. We don't have to address it. We don't have to reduce it down to zero, but we need to reduce it a fair bit. And when we do, we can get whole industries to be climate neutral and that is what we're working.
Kevin Folta: Okay, well that makes a lot of sense. The thing, it helped me maybe with a little bit of atmospheric chemistry here, I think about methane. I think of a relatively highly reactive and unstable gas, at least when we burn it, terrestrially now it's produced in landfills, things like that. So what, What is it about being in the atmosphere that makes it last 10 years as a half?
Frank Mitloehner: So let me first start out telling you where methane comes from the carbon. So methane is CH four. It originated the carbon in the methane originates from the atmosphere. It used to be CO2 in the atmosphere, which during photosynthesis of the feet plans. is taken on by the feed plans, by the plants that animals eat, [00:09:00] and then converted.
The carbon is then converted into cellulose or starch. The animals eat that, and then the microbes in the room converted into methane. That methane is belted out. And after approximately a decade, another molecule in the atmosphere called a radical, a hydroxy radical to be precise a text the methane and converts it back to where it came from, Co.
But this is not new and traditional co2. This is recycled co2. It was there before. It is there again after about a decade. The net issue is the methane in the atmosphere while it's there. And here one thing is really important. If you have a constant source of methane, let's say a constant cata, hert and a given local locality, then you do not produce additional warming, but constant warming, no additional warming.
If you reduce methane, let's say by some means of mitigation or better genetics or so, if you reduce methane, you [00:10:00] reduce. And this is really important and this is what we have communicated very broadly, and the international community of climatologists agrees with that. A reduction of methane leads to reduction in warming.
Now the problem is when I say that as an animal scientist about animal agriculture, being able to do that, then. The people who I call my special friends, those who don't like me very much, or who don't like animal agriculture, very much feel that this is greenwashing or creative accounting, which it's not.
It's physics and chemistry.
Kevin Folta: Oh, very good. So it, it, it totally makes sense to me now, and, and I, you know, I'm a scientist and I, I follow this stuff kind of in a cursory way, and this is new to me, so you can only imagine your, your special friends out there, how much understanding they have of this. So, so I really am glad we're doing this.
So what's being done to mitigate the problem? How do we cause a decrease in that methane? So
Frank Mitloehner: here in [00:11:00] California where I live, we have the most aggressive methane legislation and regulations in the world. The goal is to reduce methane by 40% for zero, and at first all farmers felt there's no way they could achieve it, but the state partnered with the dairy industry, with the livestock sector and assisted them in purchasing technologies to reduce.
So there's a partnership approach, an incentive approach in reducing methane in California that's unique in the world. I am in the midst of this working with state agencies to deliver science, to inform policy. And the farming sector trusts me because my research is highly valued by them to come up with solutions that work.
What are these solutions? Well, there are two. The first one is a reduction of methane from animal manure. So here the manure, for example, on a dairy, is stored in what's called a lagoon, which is normally an open storage facility from where gases can go into the atmosphere. These open [00:12:00] lagoons are now being covered.
It's called a covered lagoon or anaerobic digester. When you cover that lagoon, you are covering the gasses that are generated from the animal. It's called biogas and 60% six zero off that biogas is methane. And then that biogas is not just simply burned and made into power, but we are taking the biogas and we are making it into transportation fuels.
For heavy, heavy duty trucks, for buses and so on, and now that biogas that becomes renewable natural gas is a transportation fuel that replaces diesel in the transportation fleet. The state loves it because we are reducing emissions on the dairy and we are reducing emissions from transportation. It's a double.
So that's the one approach. And the second approach is the one for enteric emissions, meaning the belching. And here my colleague in the department ums cab and I have done dozens of studies in finding feed [00:13:00] additives, feed additives, that once they're fed to the animals, we will reduce enteric methane.
And we have found several that reduce enteric methane anywhere between. To 30%. And that makes me very hopeful that we will achieve the 40% reduction of methane in the state of California by 2030.
Kevin Folta: So the feed additives are affecting the, the methane production in the room in though, so that's not going into you're not essentially cutting fuel production by cutting the methane that's being expelled in Bel.
Frank Mitloehner: If you reduce the enteric methane then you will also have the potential to reduce energy losses from this animal because about 10% of the energy you feed to a cow is lost as methane. It's a net loss. If you reduce that net loss, then theoretically more of that energy can be used to produce milk in other things.
And so it is a win-win situation to reduce.
Kevin Folta: Okay, so [00:14:00] when, when you've been mentioning milk and dairy cattle, how much of this is dairy cattle versus beef cattle out on the ranch?
Frank Mitloehner: So a dairy animal roughly produces twice as much methane as a beef animal does. And that's due to the. The increased amount of feed they consume.
And they require more feed because they are producing a large amount of product every day. And so it's roughly twice that in, in dairy versus beef.
Kevin Folta: And are there other interesting ideas that have come along in terms of mitigation other than maybe feed additives or ways of using the lagoon based met?
Frank Mitloehner: So these two tools alone, the manure management and the feed management will address. Largely what is asked of by those different agencies. But in addition to those two there's also a process called soil carbon sequestration, which is the process by which plants take carbon out of the atmosphere during [00:15:00] photosynthesis.
The carbon, the CO2 goes into the plant, and then some stays above ground is made into starch or cellulose, but the majority goes below ground into the roots, and then soil microbes take that carbon from the roots and they lock it into the soil. And that's that process called soil carbon sequestration.
And so carbon sequestration is responsible for locking away about a. Of all human cost carbon. So our healthy soils are incredibly important in our fight against climate change. And farmers and foresters are the only two sectors that effectively can increase soil carbon sequestration. So this is an important, a very important tool, one that we also investigate and we find ways of, of identifying practices to maximize soil carbon, eque.
Kevin Folta: Well, you mentioned farmers and farmers are traditionally a rather, I guess, dug in [00:16:00] lot, at least in my experiment. The experience, they like to do things the way they've always done things. So as an extension specialist and someone who interacts with farmers on a regular basis, how excited are they to employ these new technique?
Frank Mitloehner: So originally, I, I tell you, five years ago, if you would've mentioned the word climate change on most farms, they would've just escorted you off their premises. They didn't want to hear any, any mentioning of their industry, of their sector in and around this topic of, of a changing climate. But this has changed and I think our work has con.
For that to change because we have educated farms and ranchers and so on, that while their contribution is not as high as it's often portrayed, they do nevertheless have a contribution. And I explain to them what that is, and I explain to them that if they mitigate those contributions, if they reduce them, in other words, then they can [00:17:00] be part of a solution and they can do it in a way that's cost.
If they do it right, so, and that has generated quite some buzz. Because farmers now feel we can do something to be more green and stay in the green. Of course, that's very important. If you are just asked to reduce your emissions, then that generates a lot of resistance. But if you are asked to reduce your emissions, and those who ask you to reduce them help you to do so financially, and you have scientists who work with you alongside to make sure that.
Scientifically accurate and so on. Well, then you're building trust and that trust I have built and I'm very proud of that trust.
Kevin Folta: That, that's excellent. And, and your experiences really reflect what I've seen too in dealing with farmers around the issue of climate is that the, the folks who come in pointing fingers in fire and brimstone and saying, This is your fault and you're causing the problem, they don't help us advance.
The cause for mitigating climate or helping farmers [00:18:00] and to talk to farmers about, Look, you're, you're growing seasons a little bit longer. You're seeing new pests and pathogens, You're seeing new, new crops that you can grow here and take advantage of this. And these are things I want to help you with.
And this is because we're seeing a changing climate. Th they're on board. It just is the way in which you approach them. And, and it's, it's really makes me feel good to hear that you've had such.
Frank Mitloehner: Yeah, I, I'm really I'm really happy about that because what matters the most to me in my profession and in my professional life is on the one side, of course, I, I publish, I do all the things that I expected of an academic mission, such as teaching students, and I enjoy that a lot.
But what matters the most to me is to have real world impact. To see that the work that we do has a real world impact is invigorating.
Kevin Folta: You've been doing this for a while, probably back when climate was not front and center as a major issue. So how did your expertise kind of morph and evolve with more attention to climate change to really make it a marquee issue?[00:19:00]
Frank Mitloehner: Well, you know, I have worked in this general field for 30 years here as a faculty member at uc Davis for 20 years. And I'm an air quality specialist and so it is my area of work to quantify any kind of air pollutants. That includes greenhouse gases and to mitigate them. That is the work that I'm here to do.
And so whether I measure and mitigate ammonia or hydrogen sulfite or other classically air pollutants or whether I mitigate and measure let's say methane and nitrous oxide, to me these are, these are all just gases. And sometimes. The one is more of interest and sometimes more the other, but it doesn't really make a big difference to us.
What makes a big difference is that all of a sudden this topic has become front and center is of great international interest is the center of all kinds of political debates and and activism.
Kevin Folta: And when we come back on the other side of the break, we'll talk about that activism and some of the [00:20:00] ugly sides it can take.
We're speaking with Dr. Frank Mittler. He's a professor at the University of California Davis and Director of the Clear Center. This is Collibra's Talking Biotech podcast and we'll be back in just a moment.
And now we're back on collabs talking Biotech podcast. We're speaking with Dr. Frank Mittler. He's a professor at University of California Davis, who is an air quality specialist, and he is the director of the Clear Center, which we'll really focus on for the rest of the talk today. And in the first part of this talk, we talked about why you do what you do.
You know, using your expertise to MI, come up with novel strategies to mitigate livestock contributions. To climate change and good strategies that look like they may work and they're being deployed and everything looks great. This is exactly what we want our university scientists to do. So this week you and I are in a very similar club.
You made the front page of the New York Times [00:21:00] wasn't really a flattering story. So what was the story that they told?
Frank Mitloehner: That's a really good question. , I have read this article three times and I'm still not sure what the story is. I certainly don't see any scandal and to me it is just amazing that it made it into a, a one story in the New York Times that amounts to almost a one pager.
So I. What they were looking for was two things. They wanted to know where does my funding come from? Is any of that funding I get? Is there any of that fishy? And did I violate any kind of disclosure requirements? Because we, of course, have to. Declare funding that we receive, we have to declare it to the university, and then the university declares it to whomever they have to declare it.
And so they wanted to know is any of that fishy? Has any of that that should happen? Not happened.
Kevin Folta: [00:22:00] And all of the funding for the Clear Center is all above board, right? This is an industry funded initiative that was, would allow you to be able to do the work that you do and, and, and also communicate that with the public.
So, but all of that was above board, right?
Frank Mitloehner: So first of all, my lab, the, the actual lab and I have a large lab is almost entirely funded with public funds, but the Clear Center is a center that I established two years ago with the mission of doing research around sustainability and. Then using that research and informing the stakeholders, the public at large and so on.
That's the extension piece. That is how we are set up. And so of course, because the mission is to advance practices in the industry it's not surprising that the industry funds it. And I've been very transparent around the funding. If you go to. Dot uc davis.edu. This is our webpage. You go to the about section and you will find [00:23:00] that I was as crystal clear as one can be crystal clear about things that we are funded by the industry and that I have an advisory board.
Which is populated by members of the industry, and that is done by intention. I also was very clear, crystal clear again about funding and whether or not private funding can be trusted. When I wrote a block and published that last April, so long before any of this investigation started publicly available, anybody can read it known.
Yeah, but
Kevin Folta: the article frames you as an outspoken defender of meat . And, and this is, this is an interesting morphing here. You know, you're, you're an, a scientist, air quality specialist, a, a professor who studied this his entire career, and yet they're calling you a defender of meat. So are you really a defender of meat or are you someone who is simply interpreting the data that come from [00:24:00] livestock studies of live.
Frank Mitloehner: Kevin, I am a defender of science. Okay. I do hypothesis driven research and I do it well, and I'm widely appreciated for that. I have worked here in the state with all of our agencies. They trust my work. I have worked with the EPA on federal levels. I have worked with the National Academies. I was member on the presence Council.
Advisors on science technology, a work group member. I served at the international level, at the FAO level food and agriculture organization of the United Nations as chairman of a partnership committee. So I don't need to defend my credibility. It's up for everybody to see. It's, it's out there.
I'm not a defender of meat. I'm a defender of science, and I'm proud of that.
Kevin Folta: You know, the, the parallels here are amazing . Yeah. And I didn't, I didn't wanna, you know, talk about myself at all in this, but, you know, they called me an out outspoken [00:25:00] defender of GMOs. And I, I said, I just follow the science.
I talk about the risks and benefits to strengths and weaknesses, and from this, that, that's where I am, you know, and I'm recognized because I'm, I'm calling the balls, Balls and strike strikes. The activist group, the NGO that went after me. Didn't like the fact that I was simply telling the science as it is.
And, and like that you've been affected, you got on the radar of Greenpeace apparently. So can you talk a little bit about how they went after you in the beginning and what, what was it that really precipitated that?
Frank Mitloehner: So in the spring of 2022 a reporter for. Earth, which is a green piece. Outlet contacted me or contacted us and requested information about our funding and certain emails and we immediately supplied them with that.
And then later they sent me questions and asked me to comment. [00:26:00] They never talked to me, but that was that. And then I didn't hear back for quite. Until recently, two weeks ago, I was contacted by the, by the New York Times, and they requested from the university my financial records, and when I say my, I mean of course the ones of the clear center and of my lab.
And they received that right away. And then they came back with a second request saying, Well, in addition to those financial records, we also want to have all of the documents that you recently supplied in another request. And I scratched my head wondering what other requests are they talking about?
And my staff said, Well, the only other request was from Greenpeace. And so then it was obvious that the New York Times reporter, Co was in some kind, some level of coordination with the original Greenpeace folks asking for the exact same information. We immediately ferb them with that information. I waited [00:27:00] for a phone call, didn't receive a phone call.
Instead, I then recently received a written request from the New York Times 10 o'clock in the morning with request to deliver them all the answers to pages of questions by the end of the day, which left me about four hours. And and that was the only time no, that was not the only time.
I then had another follow up the next day where I was asked to answer a similar amount of questions. I did that again immediately because I don't want to be quoted as somebody who couldn't be reached for comment or something like this. So I answered all of those questions. The best I. And then I went to Singapore because I had to give a talk at an international scientific meeting and I almost fell over because all of a sudden I received two notices.
One that there is a New York Times title page article about me and two, there is a green piece article and both of them were published the same day largely following the same story. The one claiming credits for it, there was [00:28:00] Greenpeace. They claimed the credit for the investigation and obviously the New York Times fell for it.
So to me that was very surprising and highly annoying because I was very open about all the things that they were looking at, and they made a story out of. Well thin air,
Kevin Folta: and I, I have to share with you this, just because this, this will, it should make everybody who's listening, it should make your skin crawl and it should ge it should generate thousands of hate letters to the New York Times.
Back when I furnished my emails to us Right to Know, which I freely did no big deal, I actually picked up the phone and called them and I said, What can I give you? What do you. And they said, We just want the emails. I said, Yeah, but I can tell you all about everything. What? What can I help you with?
There's nothing hidden here. Oh, we just want the emails, . And they got the emails in June of 2015, and then at the end of August, 2015, I get an email or I get a phone call from the New York Times. From Eric Lipton, the reporter, and he says I got, I wanna do a story about [00:29:00] your your improper, you know, use of what funds or whatever you're doing, you know, And I was happy to talk to him.
No problem. Everything's above board. It turns out that I was just like you. He was handed a story by U S R T K that we found out legal disclosure later he was handed the story with the emails and all my stuff. A couple months before he called me and requested the documents from the University of Florida.
Hmm. So he just like Greenpeace did to you, They already had the story in their mind and they just needed a patsy to pull it off. Yeah. And so they, and, and then they found, They use, This is the same playbook. It is amazing to me. And when I talked to the reporter, I didn't feel too bad about it until the end when he said, What is it like to be a tool for the industry?
And it was at that moment that my skin got goosebumps and I knew I was screwed. And the next week the piece came out on me. And the fact that they were kind of forcing your [00:30:00] hand at giving you giving answers. In written form, you know, and giving you a couple hours to do it seemed really underhanded to me because these are complicated answers that when, especially when you know that there may be some nefarious reason on their side, you really needed to be personally interviewed
Frank Mitloehner: for this.
Absolutely. There's no doubt. I thought this was highly unfair, I have to say, because uh, you are absolutely right. These are detailed questions. Okay. I mean, the, the questions were very professional, the, the one from the New York Times, but they require you to really sit down and spend a couple days really to do it right.
They give you four hours and they insist that, you know, I told them that this is very short notice, and they say, Well, that's too bad. We need it by the end of the day. So you have no other you have no other chance. It is a very, very difficult situation and in my opinion, a very unfair situation because if you find yourself to be [00:31:00] in the center of a a one article in the New York Times a one.
About you personally, about you, and you are not allowed to talk to the reporter? Well then I think this is totally unfair and it's impro.
Kevin Folta: It's a severe breach of, of ethics, in my opinion. The, the thing that is really problematic, and you know, again, to go back to my case, when I sued the New York Times and we went after them on legal discovery and we found out that the reporter had his, we got the reporter's notes.
He left off whole parts of sentences to reverse their meaning. Hmm. And to put me into a false light that is extremely negative. They did, they, I don't know about the quotes and how they cherry pick things from your situation, but when you read the article, it makes you look negative all the way through at every turn.
I mean, every, every turn, every, there's all kinds of stuff about, you know, how it co how you coordinate with major livestock lobby groups on messaging campaigns. Yeah. [00:32:00] That is what we're supposed to do. We're supposed to help people communicate their science. It it, they take everything they can take that is standard operating procedure of you doing your job and doing it well and put a stink on it.
Did you get that feeling as you went through the article or did you feel this was an accurate representation of really what you do and the answers you?
Frank Mitloehner: So I have to say that the answers that I provided were accurately reflected in the article, and I think that when I read the article today that I come across as the only adult in the room, I, I know that sounds a little arrogant now, but I really feel that way.
And I've heard many people say the same thing. You know, I'm an animal agricultural scientist. I work with animal industries to reduce emissions. End of story. There were. Improper or fishy or any kind of issues identified? I was clearly vindicated in the article when the, when the [00:33:00] reporter said no disclosure regulations were violated by Dr.
Midler or the Clear Center. To me, that's the end of the story. Okay. Was something done that was done wrong? No. Move on. How can you make a one pager in the New York Times out of that? I don't.
Kevin Folta: And, And I'm with you. There's no story here, but here's the thing that happens is that when Greenpeace or U S R T K or the New York Times decides that they're gonna do this kind of article, they know that readers are not going deep doing a deep dive to find the adult in the room.
They're looking at a headline. They're may be looking at the poll quotes, and then they're taking home some sort of distillation that really comes from early in the article, which is this guy. Pro meat bias, and he's funded by industry. And the idea behind that, I feel, is to break the trust that you gain as a communicator, as someone who's at the front line of talking about the realistic edge of [00:34:00] contribution, contributions of animal agriculture to climate.
No,
Frank Mitloehner: I can, I can tell you if that was their intent. They will not succeed. They will not succeed because the trust that I have built is a trust to stay. The people who I seek to to influence are not the public at large. The people who I seek to influence are those people in agriculture whose emissions I am seeking to reduce.
And these people trust me. And these people do the things that I find in my research and they will not. Because of this article, there will not change. This trust is deeply rooted and it will continue, and those people who don't like me will continue not to like me. I don't think that this will change anything in any way in that regard.
Kevin Folta: When I read the New York Times article, it reads to me like an indictment that your work is somehow tainted, that there's no evidence of impropriety, but it's the perception that the article creates, that the average person is left with this feeling that, you know, you're somehow, there's a [00:35:00] scandal, there's a problem.
And do you think this was really the deliberate plan all.
Frank Mitloehner: Well, I would say that this is rooted in lack of understanding of agriculture and how act research really works. They see they seem to see a problem and they don't realize how these things work. Deliberate for sure on the side of Greenpeace, they want to undermine animal agriculture in any way they can.
I have no doubt. .
Kevin Folta: And when you're talking about the funding of research should this be something that the taxpayer is burdened with or should the industry should be stepping up and supporting more animal research? Well,
Frank Mitloehner: overall, the research funding in this field is dismal. Okay. There's hardly any public funding, federal or state So if the public wants the livestock sector to reduce its environmental footprint, then somebody has to pay for it.
The industry has decided, yes, we need to pay for it and they're doing it. I don't think the taxpayer should as much but. Critics seem to think that [00:36:00] way because they seem to be against industry funding. To me it doesn't make sense. Two thirds of all agricultural funding comes from industry across all disciplines, and so it's very very much normal.
Kevin Folta: If you had to guess intent, and it's really hard to do, but why do you think that green piece and the New York Times would conspire to take a cheap shot and try to tarnish the reputation of a respected scientist?
Frank Mitloehner: I would give this as a non-answer. You don't know, and I don't know. It would be speculative, and I don't think you want to get caught up on that.
Greenpeace does have clear motives. The times motives are not, not so clear. But this whole relationship and how they collaborated on this was really odd. If not telling, it's a good question, but you can only guess with respect to the times.
Kevin Folta: It it, but the funny part is about this, is that they point a finger at us [00:37:00] to say Greenpeace or activist organizations and say, Well, they are in cahoots and conspiring with industry, when really this really was, or at least looks like a coordinated, very carefully orchestrated hit piece against a scientist.
Do, do you get the feeling that this was something that they really coordinated?
Frank Mitloehner: W Well, I have no doubt because the the Greenpeace people claimed credit for the investigation. It was also addressed in the New York Times piece, and so it's clear that there is coordination and both pieces were published on the same day.
So nobody can tell me that that was not coordinated.
Kevin Folta: Okay, so there's been no personal fallout or has there been personal fallout like you know, people showing up in your driveway or, you know you know, asking me calls from the FBI saying, You better not . No. You better not go to this conference.
Frank Mitloehner: No, not like that.
But I have seen emails going to my graduate students that I would identify as. [00:38:00] Very negative to say the least. And I don't tolerate that. Okay. I mean, they can say what they want about me, but if they attack those who are under my supervision or my loved ones, then it gets personal and then they better watch out.
Yeah, I mean,
Kevin Folta: and I, I can definitely say as the guy who had to take the name off of his laboratory who had break-ins to his office. I mean, this was insane what happened. And that's why when I saw this article about you, I felt a very deep personal Sense to, to get involved because it, it is so unfair.
And if they're going after your graduate students, that's, you know, that's beyond the pale. I mean, that's just, that's just absolutely crazy. And so how has University of California Davis responded, have they been really supportive or have they jumped in this to, to just put the fire out?
Frank Mitloehner: Well, I feel well supported and I have been told that what we do here is the best science that we know of.
And as long as we do that we will always be on the right side of things. There [00:39:00] will always be people who don't like your science. That's just the way it is. There is nothing you can do about that, and I think we have accepted that as scientists, but what we don't have to accept are personal attacks of the kind we have just experienced here.
There is no room for this. There is no need for this. I've been responsive, I've been responsible, and I don't deserve that, and I'm not sitting here crying, saying, Oh my gosh, I've been treated badly. Of course I am saying that, but I'm not saying that to portray me as a victim, but to really show that it was improper what has happened.
And I don't want this to happen to others, particularly not to the younger colleagues who are watching this and saying, you know, What happened to Midler is something I certainly don't need to happen to me, so maybe I just need to be quiet. When it comes to controversial topics, this is what's really happening.
The damage of articles like this are much broader than the damages to me. They [00:40:00] are damages done to whole generations of young scientists who are. Shut down, and this is absolutely inappropriate because we need those young, bright minds to speak their mind. That is what democracy is about, and that's what science is about.
And the New York Times should not do what they did because it hinders this process.
Kevin Folta: Now you're 1000% correct there. When after the article about me came out, I went to national meetings and I had scientists come up to me, younger scientists as well as older scientists and give me a hug and say, I wish that I could say something about this, but I can't because I can't go under the bus.
Yeah. And whether it's. Them standing up for me personally, which is wonderful, not necessary, but, but to go out and say, and talk about controversial science and be that independent voice that they are so afraid of nefarious forces going through their emails and constructing stories from a sentence here in [00:41:00] a sentence there.
Is permanent. And that's the big problem with all of this in my eyes, is that, that in the old days, the New York Times would show up on Sunday morning, you would read it and then later that night it lined the birdcage. Now you're looking at A permanent, a touchstone on the internet that people can always point to and say, Well, look, here's an example of, in at least, you know, maybe not you personally, but here's industry being behaving in nefarious ways to skew information on climate.
And, and again, maybe not reading the whole article, but just the main gist of a title couple of poll quotes, and that's sort of real danger here and in the long run.
Frank Mitloehner: Yeah, absolutely. There's no doubt. I mean, if you have an article like this, this will always show up on your, on your search. So if somebody searches my name, that that thing will come up right away.
You know, I mean, some people will view this as a big problem and it is problem. Others will view this as a feather in your cap. You know, I mean, [00:42:00] if these organizations feel so strongly about what you do, then you must have some impact, otherwise they wouldn't care.
Kevin Folta: And, and that maybe is the take home message.
It, it's, it's how you survive this. And the best part is, is, is in the rear view mirror when you look back on this eight years from now. And I can tell you from experience, you look back eight or seven, eight years from now, and you were right. and the, the techniques that you were talking about, the ideas that you did, the, the things that were employed, deployed, they actually maybe made a difference, at least in some level.
So, and Greenpeace becomes even more irrelevant because of that. Yeah. You
Frank Mitloehner: know, I, I have one message to young colleagues who might listen to this. I mean, to all of our colleagues, but particularly the young ones. If you have a situation where you work in a controversial area, , all I can, all I can recommend to you is be mindful how you communicate with others, particularly in writing.
But most importantly, be transparent. Okay? If you receive funding [00:43:00] from whoever, be transparent about don't hide anything, okay? And if there's anything that you are nervous about, I'll stop doing that. You need to, you need to. Speak your conscience and you need to be transparent and once you are, you have done what you can do, what's in your power.
I have done that and that's why I feel really good. About where I stand because nobody can say he's done something wrong and nobody says I've done something wrong. That's the weird thing here. , nobody said Frank has falsified data. He has misinterpreted signs, he has done something wrong. He has stolen ideas from others.
He has you know, inappropriately spent funds. Nobody has said any of that. The only thing they said, He's an agricultural scientist. He works with agriculture. They fund part of his research. End of story .
Kevin Folta: And that is really the take home , that's the take home. You know, you, you, you did your [00:44:00] job that you were hired to do and you did a really nice job on it, and you went out and got lots of support to make, make it possible and do it better.
Frank Mitloehner: you know, I mean, I, I, I don't want to sound weird here, but I have received the highest praises from my univers. About the work I do in teaching, in research. I've received countless distinguished awards for teaching, for research, for service and so on. I feel very good at where I am. Okay. And if these people feel that they need to work on my reputation, well guess what?
Good luck. Good luck with that.
Kevin Folta: Well, let's let's end on that note because I, I really think that's a great way to go out. So Dr. Frank MIT Lerner, thank you so much for joining me and sharing your experience, and I really do hope that people understand. What is happening between these NGOs and be using something like the New York Times so that this can stop happening.
And if people wanna learn more about your, you know, your program and the good things that you do, where would they look on social media?
Frank Mitloehner: Well, I'm on Twitter and I will stay there. My handle [00:45:00] is G h G Guru, g h HD, Guru, and. I also have a webpage, which is clear dot uc davis.edu. That's the clear center webpage.
And there you'll find many explainers and you will find blocks and you'll find YouTubes, and you'll find all kinds of information around livestock. It's impact and ways to mitigate it.
Kevin Folta: Excellent. So follow him definitely on social media. It's, it's a great follow and it's a way that I've learned a lot over the years, so thank you.
Thank you very much for joining me. I really appreciate it, and I appreciate
Frank Mitloehner: you and what you've done. Thanks.
Kevin Folta: And as always, thank you very much for listening to the Talking Biotech podcast. You pay attention to these major issues and how the controversial areas that matter, things like climate, how the professionals in there are treated by activists in the major media because this kind of thing should not happen and we, it remains to be seen with the long term fallout of such attacks are, [00:46:00] But you can see how they're designed.
Diminish the trust that's earned among the experts among us. And it does matter to some degree how much of a ma, how much of a degree it matters is really up to you and how much you are involved in telling people the stories and sharing the science that folks like Dr. Mittler create. This is a Talking Biotech podcast by Col Labra, and we'll talk to you again next week.