As a global trade war jeopardizes agriculture worldwide, former President Trump’s tariffs have drawn scrutiny, yet the EU’s Farm to Fork plan also faces criticism. Jon Entine, editor-in-chief of the Genetic Literacy Project, expresses deep pessimism about the crisis. In an exclusive interview, he also shares his insights on the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s health policies, and the current state of science in the United States.
The European Scientist : You’ve been running the Genetic Literacy Project (GLP) website for years. Could you briefly introduce yourself and the GLP? You’ve stated a commitment to defending scientifically grounded information—what strategies do you employ to achieve this goal?
Jon Entine : I’m a lifelong journalist with over 40 years of experience covering science issues. The Genetic Literacy Project (1), now 14 years old, was initially focused on biotechnology innovations like GMOs, vaccine development, and biomedicine. This summer, we’ll rebrand as the Science Literacy Project to reflect our expanded mission of addressing all ‘disruptive’ science and technological innovations.
We’re not a news site—our goal is to challenge misinformation in media and policy, fostering constructive debate about fast-evolving technology. Social media is rife with ideologically driven disinformation, often pushed by groups with economic interests, like technophobic environmental organizations or alternative health providers selling ineffective supplements. We aim to counter this by providing a platform where corporations, governments, think tanks, and academic researchers can present evidence-based ideas without being drowned out by ideologues. And to engage with the emerging generation of leaders, we’ve extended our reach into younger-oriented social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram where misinformation is the norm.
Our small internal team of five people collaborates with dozens of contributors worldwide—scientists, farmers, and journalists from Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. While our focus is primarily North America- and Euro-centric, the impact of agriculture, a key area for us, is global. Trade is interconnected, and regions like Africa and Southern Asia, despite being economically challenged, are making significant strides in agricultural productivity. We see ourselves as part of this global effort to promote science-based solutions.
TES. : With the Trump administration’s return, international trade is facing significant changes. How do you view these developments broadly? What specific impacts do you foresee for U.S. agriculture? Secretary Brooke Rollins recently (2) claimed that tariffs will benefit farmers and ranchers. What’s your perspective on this assertion?
J.E. : The Trump administration’s trade policies are chaotic, unpredictable, and deeply concerning. There’s no coherent strategy—decisions shift daily, often influenced by stock market fluctuations rather than rational planning. This is particularly alarming for U.S. agriculture, especially in rural America, a stronghold of Trump support. Secretary Brooke Rollins, a former free-market conservative, now defends tariffs, which contradicts her previous stance and ignores their proven downsides.
Tariffs have historically damaged U.S. agriculture. During Trump’s first term, soybean exports to China, a top buyer, dropped by over 75% in a single year due to retaliatory tariffs. The government responded with a $28 billion bailout for farmers, offsetting losses that tariffs were supposed to prevent—a self-defeating policy.
Today, we’re seeing falling global commodity prices for agricultural products, which hurt farmers’ incomes, alongside supply chain instability and increased reliance on government support. Costs are already increasing for tractors and irrigation equipment, as well as processed fertilizers and generic pesticides, all mostly supplied by China. Sure, China will be hit by the tariffs as well. But they have means to circumvent at least some barriers, redirecting exports to countries with lower tariffs, bypassing U.S. policies.
This approach may feel good to ‘America first’ advocates, but it makes little economic sense, as China is supplying goods that would be too expensive to start producing in the U.S. The instability isolates the U.S., undermining its reliability as a trade partner for Europe, Canada, Mexico, and even friendly Asian nations. It’s anti-science and anti-productivity, eroding decades of economic cooperation. While tariff reform could be beneficial if executed thoughtfully, the administrations reckless approach risks long-term damage to global trust in the U.S. and its agricultural sector.
TES. Some argue that the EU’s Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy acts as a form of protectionism against U.S. agricultural products. Do you agree? You’ve been critical of F2F, particularly its emphasis on organic food and tools like the Nutri-Score system, which you’ve suggested may favor certain products. Could you elaborate on your critiques? (3)
J.E.: The Farm to Fork strategy is a well-intentioned concept, aiming to address food and agriculture holistically from consumer, producer, and health perspectives. However, its execution is flawed. F2F prioritizes organic and regenerative agriculture without defining these terms or assessing their effectiveness, which reverses the proper approach. A sound policy should first identify the best techniques to sustainably feed a growing global population amidst climate instability and limited arable land, then develop strategies accordingly.
F2F’s focus on organic farming ignores the need to increase food production by 40-50% over the next few decades, especially in regions like Africa and Asia where nutritional demands are rising. Independent European studies suggest F2F could reduce yields, turning the EU from a food exporter into an importer. This would have dramatic and unfortunate environmental consequences, such as increased deforestation in places like Brazil to meet Europe’s demand. It would also almost certainly spike global food prices, which would fall most hard on less affluent, already stressed developing countries.
The Nutri-Score system, heavily promoted by France, is another concern. It uses a controversial algorithm to label foods as healthy or unhealthy based on emotive rather than scientific criteria. For example, it favors French industrial foods over olive oil, a staple of the healthy Mediterranean diet, reflecting a French-centric bias.
F2F also perpetuates the unscientific notion that synthetic chemicals, which critics link to the adoption of genetically modified crops, are inherently harmful. Europeans often see themselves as a haven from chemical-soaked America. In reality, EU countries like France (3.6 kg/hectare) and Belgium (3.8 kg) use 50 percent more pesticides per acre based on toxicity as compared to the U.S. (2.5 kg) and Canada (2.37 kg). That’s driven in part by Europe’s heavy reliance on copper sulfate—a natural but toxic fungicide that can harm wildlife and waterways.
Another key factor is North America’s embrace of genetically engineered crops such as insect resistant corn, soybeans and glyphosate, which more than a dozen global risk agencies including the European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemicals Agency have determined, repeatedly, is safe and effective (4).
In terms of agricultural technology, if Europe continues its lunge toward F2F, it risks falling behind even some countries in the developing world. Bangladesh’s adoption in 2014 of GM brinjal (eggplant), engineered to produce natural insect-repelling toxins, has reduced pesticide applications by more than 50%, protecting women and children who do most of the small-scale farming. Yet, many if not most F2F supporters remain ideologically opposed to even these proven, environmentally friendly, technological genetic modifications.
F2F risks functioning as a form of protectionism. The EU has long used its “natural” food branding to justify restrictive policies, despite its higher chemical use compared to the U.S. Organic farming, while useful in specific contexts, is not sustainable at scale—it releases more CO2 through tilling, yields 20-40% less, and requires more land, often leading to deforestation. A science-based policy would prioritize judicious chemical use and high-yield, low-impact methods, including cutting edge gene editing, and not outdated ideals of organic farming, recently rebranded as regenerative farming
In sum, F2F as it is currently constituted would disrupt global trade, increase food insecurity and risk environmental degradation as the world scrambles to produce more food to meet soaring demand.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new Health Secretary, has adopted the slogan “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA). What are your thoughts on this initiative? Are you aware of any specific measures he plans to address obesity? Critics have labeled him a pseudoscientist and anti-vaccine advocate—how do you evaluate these criticisms? (5)
J.E.: I know some critics of modern agriculture in Europe look kindly on RFK Jr.’s attacks on so-called Big Agriculture and its embrace of gene editing and genetic modification. But a sober review of his recommendations reveals policies that are deeply troubling to advocates of both human health and agriculture. Most of his proposals lack scientific rigor and draw on fear-mongering and conspiracy theories, undermining farm efficiency and modern technologies like genetically engineered crops and agricultural chemicals, which he blames on the rise of what he simplistically calls “industrial agriculture”. His proposed food and farming revamp is based on thin to non-existent scientific research, and there is strong evidence it will make our food less healthy and more expensive (6)
Specifically, when it comes to the health impact of things like agricultural chemicals and seed oils, Kennedy ignores evidence that contradicts his claims. While he correctly identifies issues like obesity, autism, food allergies, and chronic diseases, his solutions by and large, are counterproductive. On obesity, he blames GM crops and trace pesticides, despite no evidence linking either of them to health issues. Obesity is tied to excess calorie intake and socioeconomic factors—challenges he ignores.
His health policies are even more extreme, and less science grounded. On autism, he promotes the debunked vaccine link, ignoring evidence that rising rates stem from better diagnostic criteria. His solution: ending childhood vaccines altogether. His lackadaisical response to a resurgence of measles is particularly troubling. His treatment recommendations? Take vitamin A and drink cod liver oil, which has already resulted in a few deaths among the unvaccinated.
His latest distraction is banning the use of synthetic chemicals in dyes, which he claims, with no evidence, cause food allergies or even cancer. EU regulations, which he praises, are sometimes less strict than in the U.S. The natural dye substitutes he is pushing for are made in China, Arica and other developing countries with little production oversight, and often contain heavy metals and harsh chemicals like hexane and acetone, and which unlike safe-tested synthetics are not proven safe. Perhaps most dangerously—and the proliferation of measles exemplifies this—Kennedy claims that chemicals are the cause of the surge in autism and many other maladies contradicts decades of research.
RFK. Jr. exemplifies a disregard for evidence and expertise. His approach diverts resources and attention from real solutions, instead promoting grifters among activist environmentalists and alternative medicine and supplement industries. His policies risk reversing progress in health and agricultural innovation, not just in the U.S. but globally, at a time when science-based solutions are critical (7).
TES.: Reports suggest some American scientists are considering relocating to Europe, while figures like Elon Musk, closely tied to the administration, push ambitious goals like Mars exploration. How do you see the trajectory of U.S. science and innovation in this context?
J.E.: It’s a fair question to ask. How will science survive Trump 2.0? The massive, haphazard and ideological way his administration is cutting research is destabilizing, that’s for sure.
The U.S. has been a global leader in basic research, particularly in biotechnology, medicine, and AI technology, outspending their European counterparts. That may not last with Trump’s targeting of prominent research universities. Billions of dollars in grants and support for various programs have been cancelled. And it could get worse. To support his pledge to reduce taxes on upper income Americans, NASA’s budget could be cut nearly in half and at the National Institutes of Health by 40%. A recent survey in Nature found 94% of respondents are worried about the future of science in this country. That’s eye popping.
The irony is that Europe is not a pristine alternative—it has long struggled with its own ideological barriers, like the precautionary principle, which has stifled research and innovation for decades. Both regions face growing anti-science sentiment from political extremes, creating an unsettling period for global science. It’s a scary time for science.
(1) https://geneticliteracyproject.org/
(2) https://x.com/annarmatson/status/1910455879985750334?s=46
(5) https://x.com/annarmatson/status/1910457258854801599?s=46
(7) https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2025/04/21/undermining-science-rfk-jr-s-war-on-expertise/
Further reading
Defying all predictions, Africa is the global COVID-19 ‘cold spot’. (Part 1)
Africa, DNA and the historical dance of genes and environment (Part. 2)
Europe’s Green Deal ‘Farm to Fork’ Plan: How Not to Grow Food Sustainably
Leave a Reply