So What? Implications of the Anti-Science Foods Movement
![Picture](/uploads/9/2/0/2/92029130/difference-between-public-and-scientist-on-gmos_2.png?316)
The anti-science foods movement is a product of change, change in public attitude as well as political, social, and economic climate. This change is due to a number of sociological factors, explored in The Shift page of the site, which together have led to the phenomenon we are seeing today: a rejection of science. Society today, or at least a significant faction of it, is unwilling to confront the complexities of science in order to find truth or make progress. This is what makes the anti-science foods movement so dangerous, and therefore significant and worthy of study. Not only is the movement scientifically-flawed, it is also responsible for the stagnation of progress and the obfuscation of truth and fact. By protesting the production of GMOs and the consumption of "unnatural" ingredients, these people spread false ideas and contribute to the cloud of ignorance that already looms low over our society.
The Pew Research Center conducted a study in 2014 to gauge the differences in opinion between the public and the scientific community on a number of issues related to science and technology. They surveyed about 2,000 randomly chosen U.S. adults and about 3,750 randomly chosen scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The chart on the right displays the difference in opinion on the topic of GMOs. It shows that 88% of AAAS scientists believe GMOs are safe, while only 37% of the general public believes they are safe. This is a startling difference. While the majority of the scientific community vouches for GMOs, the public still refuses to believe them. This illustrates just how how firm of a hold the anti-science foods movement has on our society.
Additionally, the second graph shows that 67% of the public believes that scientists do not have "a clear understanding" of the safety of GMOs. Thus, the public is not only skeptical of the scientific evidence supporting GMOs (of which there are mountains), they are skeptical of the very authorities that support them time and time again: the scientists. This comes back to the issue of trust. As I have already noted, it is this startling rise in public distrust of authority has helped to create and fuel the anti-science foods movement.
Scholars have proposed many methods to try to reinvigorate public enthusiasm for science. These include: better education of our youth, open communication between the scientific community and the public, the restoration of the traditional scientific social contract and the reduction of so-called "Big Science," and even a massive public marketing campaign on behalf of the scientific community. Though it is impossible to know how successful any of these strategies would be, one thing is for certain. If we do not do something to restore the public's trust in scientific authority and fact, we are doomed to a future of ignorance and stagnancy.
The Pew Research Center conducted a study in 2014 to gauge the differences in opinion between the public and the scientific community on a number of issues related to science and technology. They surveyed about 2,000 randomly chosen U.S. adults and about 3,750 randomly chosen scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The chart on the right displays the difference in opinion on the topic of GMOs. It shows that 88% of AAAS scientists believe GMOs are safe, while only 37% of the general public believes they are safe. This is a startling difference. While the majority of the scientific community vouches for GMOs, the public still refuses to believe them. This illustrates just how how firm of a hold the anti-science foods movement has on our society.
Additionally, the second graph shows that 67% of the public believes that scientists do not have "a clear understanding" of the safety of GMOs. Thus, the public is not only skeptical of the scientific evidence supporting GMOs (of which there are mountains), they are skeptical of the very authorities that support them time and time again: the scientists. This comes back to the issue of trust. As I have already noted, it is this startling rise in public distrust of authority has helped to create and fuel the anti-science foods movement.
Scholars have proposed many methods to try to reinvigorate public enthusiasm for science. These include: better education of our youth, open communication between the scientific community and the public, the restoration of the traditional scientific social contract and the reduction of so-called "Big Science," and even a massive public marketing campaign on behalf of the scientific community. Though it is impossible to know how successful any of these strategies would be, one thing is for certain. If we do not do something to restore the public's trust in scientific authority and fact, we are doomed to a future of ignorance and stagnancy.
"The only way to end this fight is to educate ourselves and make it clear to everyone—European governments, trend-setting grocers, fad-hopping restaurant chains, research universities, and biotechnology investors—that we’re ready, as voters and consumers, to embrace nutritious, environmentally friendly food, no matter where it got its genes." -William Saletan
![Picture](/uploads/9/2/0/2/92029130/starving-kid-comic.jpg?447)
The above quote is from an article by William Saletan entitled, "Unhealthy Fixation," which adresses the many misconceptions that have fueled the anti-GMO campaign. The article effectively debunks all of the myths and lies that anti-GMO groups and individuals use to support their beliefs, while convincingly and logically arguing in favor of the acceptance of GMOs.
The most interesting point that Saletan makes is just how useful GMOs could be. Because GE crops are much sturdier, easier to grow, and more fruitful, they could help better feed millions of starving people in third world countries, effectively ending the world hunger crisis. GMOs could also help people who suffer from specific nutritional deficiencies. Scientists have successfully modified several crops so that they contain extra or special nutrients. One example is "golden rice," which was created in 1999 to contain high levels of the compound beta carotene, which produces vitamin A. Millions of children around the world suffer from vitamin A deficiency, and many of them go blind and die as a result. These children could be saved by this GMO. Yet it has been blocked from commercial sale by Greenpeace and other anti-GMO groups for the past 17 years, despite numerous studies proving that the rice is safe and effective.
Many people say that eating organic, non-GMO food is a personal lifestyle choice. It is their food and therefore their decision. This is true, but what these people do not realize is the much larger impact they are having on the world around them by choosing to live this way. It is due to anti-GMO groups and the larger, more general anti-science foods movement that life-saving GMOs such as golden rice are unavailable to the people who need them most. By rejecting modern science and technology in our food supply, we are simultaneously condemning the third world to a future just as bleak as the one they are living in now.
So the next time you go to buy your organic kale, think about what a child in Africa would do just for your scraps.
The most interesting point that Saletan makes is just how useful GMOs could be. Because GE crops are much sturdier, easier to grow, and more fruitful, they could help better feed millions of starving people in third world countries, effectively ending the world hunger crisis. GMOs could also help people who suffer from specific nutritional deficiencies. Scientists have successfully modified several crops so that they contain extra or special nutrients. One example is "golden rice," which was created in 1999 to contain high levels of the compound beta carotene, which produces vitamin A. Millions of children around the world suffer from vitamin A deficiency, and many of them go blind and die as a result. These children could be saved by this GMO. Yet it has been blocked from commercial sale by Greenpeace and other anti-GMO groups for the past 17 years, despite numerous studies proving that the rice is safe and effective.
Many people say that eating organic, non-GMO food is a personal lifestyle choice. It is their food and therefore their decision. This is true, but what these people do not realize is the much larger impact they are having on the world around them by choosing to live this way. It is due to anti-GMO groups and the larger, more general anti-science foods movement that life-saving GMOs such as golden rice are unavailable to the people who need them most. By rejecting modern science and technology in our food supply, we are simultaneously condemning the third world to a future just as bleak as the one they are living in now.
So the next time you go to buy your organic kale, think about what a child in Africa would do just for your scraps.