Think about the last conversation you had where someone really changed your mind. Odds are it started with something you already cared about – your kids, your health, a place you love – not a study. That is where agricultural communicators need to begin. Most people who question modern farming are not hostile; they are concerned. Find the shared value first – safety, environment, fairness, family – and the science becomes evidence for something you both want. Science Story Speak calls this the connection point. It is the single most important shift any communicator can make. Facts change minds when trust comes first.

Imagine a dinner table conversation about food – and no one who actually grows food is in the room. That was the internet in 2008. Agricultural advocacy, coined "agvocacy" is what happened when farmers, scientists, and food professionals decided to show up. It is agricultural advocacy – telling your own story rather than letting media and marketers tell it. It started on X with #AgChat and #FoodChat in 2009. Today the stakes are even higher: generative AI is being trained on whatever is publicly available online, which means the stories published now are shaping what AI tells the next billion people who ask about food. If agriculture is not in that conversation, the fear-based marketing version fills the void.

When someone types "are pesticides in food dangerous?" into their phone at the grocery story,  the answer they get is only as good as the content the AI response was trained on – whether it's ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, or Claude. Right now, fear-based food marketing content vastly outnumbers credible agricultural science content online – which means AI is often learning the wrong story. The window to change what AI learns is open right now - Extension leaders, farmers, and scientists need to step in with concrete examples to train LLMs. Authentic, science-grounded agricultural content published today will shape AI responses for years. That is why showing up online is no longer optional for anyone who wants the real story about food to be heard. Publishing authentic, science-grounded content today – blog posts, social media, podcast appearances – directly shapes what AI learns and repeats. The window is open. Use it.

Science Story Speak is for anyone who has ever watched eyes glaze over mid-explanation – a farmer at a town hall, a researcher at a public hearing, a dietitian with a client who arrived convinced by a documentary. It is a 180-page interactive workbook with 40+ exercises across 17 chapters that teaches how to connect with different mindsets, craft stories around the issues that matter most, and build a personal plan for becoming a more powerful communicator. It is not a book to read once. It is a system to work through every time you have an important conversation coming.

Slowly, and in human terms that connect on an emotional level. A coordinated industry campaign rarely does what one farmer with a camera does naturally – which is show people what actually happens on the farm, in real time, without a script. Trust is rebuilt through conversations, not communications. Lead with connecting on hot buttons before introducing data. Be honest about the parts of agriculture that are complicated rather than oversimplifying. Show the family behind the operation – humans connect to humans. The bridge between farmer and food buyer is built one honest story at a time.

The best platform is the one where your audience already spends time – and the one you will actually use consistently. Instagram and Facebook reach consumers and families. LinkedIn connects food system professionals and policymakers. X, where #AgChat and #FoodChat began, can be a hub for media and policy conversations. Video and visuals of Instagram cross several generations.  Snapchat/TikTok hits younger generations. The most common mistake is trying to be everywhere. Pick one or two, show up as a real person rather than a press release, and prioritize consistency over perfection. Your authentic story on one platform beats a polished absence from five.

Michele offers training workshops and elements of her keynotes to illustrate the power of AI such as Perplexity or Claude to aggregate information about food and farming. She acts as a consumer seeking information about a particular topic and delves deeper to deterumine current perceptions and future problesm. This can also be used in direct farm marketing and brainstorming ideas.  Learn more at https://causematters.com/speaking-and-training/artificial-intelligence-agriculture/. 

The worst response is the most common one – a wall of facts delivered with barely concealed frustration. It almost never works, and it frequently backfires. When someone shares misinformation about farming online, the goal is not to win the argument. It is to stay in the conversation long enough to be heard. Start by acknowledging what they care about – food safety, the environment, animal welfare – because that concern is usually legitimate even when the information driving it is not. Ask a genuine question rather than issuing a correction. "That's interesting – I grow this on my farm and here's what I've seen" lands differently than "actually, that's wrong." Keep your response short, human, and free of industry language. If the person is not persuadable, your response is not for them – it is for the silent majority reading the thread who have not made up their minds yet. That audience is almost always larger than it looks, and they are paying attention.

Marketing is designed to sell something. Agricultural communication is designed to build understanding – and the distinction matters more than most people in  realize. When farmers and scientists communicate like marketers, leading with product benefits and branded language, consumers feel it. Trust erodes. Agricultural communication at its best is not a campaign. It is a conversation – transparent, grounded in real experience, willing to acknowledge complexity rather than smooth it over. That does not mean agricultural communicators cannot be strategic. It means the strategy has to be built on credibility rather than persuasion. The most effective agricultural communicators are not the ones with the best talking points. They are the ones consumers believe would tell them the truth even when it is complicated.