It's pretty easy to identify sites with skeptical content, for example if you search the term "vaccine" on Ecowatch you will get quite a bit of Anti-vaccine pseudoscience articles, the same can be said if you look up "GMO". Also the tone in which they write about subjects is usually bias, either endorsing or attacking a subject, credible scientific publications tend to utilize an even tone and usually link to peer reviewed data.
Also is you look at their writers/contributors you'll note that none of them have written for any scientific publications and that while one individual is listed as "graduate from the University of Southampton where he studies Environmental Sciences (BSc)" there are no actual scientists among their writing staff. https://www.ecowatch.com/about-ecowatch-1886104674.html
Also there's a handful of sites that list them as pseudoscience, however in the age of the internet it is pretty easy to find a post somewhere that agrees with your position on a matter no matter what it is so relying completely on such sites is a weak position.
https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=80973
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ecowatch/
https://www.agdaily.com/insights/farm-babe-internets-biggest-culprits-fake-news-agriculture/
Thanks for the interesting links. With a name like Ecowatch, you certainly expect them to be presenting for a certain audience. Two of your links relate to mediabiasfactcheck.com (MBFC) and their comment on Ecowatch is:
Environmental activist group. Has many legitimate articles, but dabbles in pseudoscience on certain scientific issues.
Not exactly scathing. Concerning their own funding MBFC writes:
Funding for MBFC News comes from site advertising, individual donors, and the pockets of our bias checkers.
Not that I have reason to distrust them, but even they don't claim to be bias free because it's an impossible goal.
Your other source, agdaily.com, has bias written into its name just as Ecowatch does. The article you link to is written by Michelle Miller aka "Farm Babe" whose prime qualification seems to be working on a farm, and whose tone is at least as biased as the environmental articles of Ecowatch.
I would wait until his claims are more thoroughly examined and there has been some evidence based research on his claims.
His claims are in direct conflict with the income of large powerful corporations - clearly if it was up to them they would never be examined or researched.
PS: I think expecting many actual scientists among writing staff is too much for media organizations.
PS: I think expecting many actual scientists among writing staff is too much for media organizations.
Sorry to open this can of worms but if you look at a site like phys.org's list of contributors/editors nearly every one has some scientific background.
https://sciencex.com/help/about-us/
If you go to Newscientist and look up some of their authors you have people like this (randomly picked, from clicking on articles, then googling, easily reproducible):
https://cosmosmagazine.com/contributors/phil-dooley
https://influencing.com/au/story/new-scientist-hires-alice-klein-as-australian-reporter
In my opinion to credibly report on science you need at least one person, whether it be editor (ideally) or a consult who has training in the area.
His claims are in direct conflict with the income of large powerful corporations - clearly if it was up to them they would never be examined or researched.
JR Simplot only has about $6 Billion in revenue https://www.forbes.com/companies/jr-simplot/#73d027924cea
That puts them pretty close to Linux Developer Redhat
https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/13/red-hat-continues-steady-march-toward-5-billion-revenue-goal/
Now it you look at the revenue of the largest companies (all over $111 billion):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue
You'll notice BP, Exxon, Foxconn, etc.. All who failed miserably at using their money/influence to suppress bad press.
Even McDonald's which has revenue of roughly 20-25 billion has been utterly unsuccessful at stopping research against trans-fats, obesity, etc..
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MCD/mcdonalds/revenue
Monsanto which can be recognized as the most well known example of the GMO debate only hovers around $15 billion and really has been unsuccessful at suppressing contrary research/bad press (in fact their name has become synonymous with the furor of many movements)
https://monsanto.com/investors/reports/annual-reports/financial-highlights/
I'm not saying you can't believe Ecowatch is a credible site but I can say that they do not meet my personal criteria for credible scientific journalism
Referenced by whom? Do you have sources or examples?