The Shift: from science as savior to science as intruder
![Picture](/uploads/9/2/0/2/92029130/gmo-protest.jpg?365)
In the second half of the 20th century, a number of changes came about that paved the way for the anti-science foods movement to take hold. Before this time, science was seen as a force for good. Though not everyone could understand it, society as a whole accepted and embraced science. Overall, they trusted the findings of the scientific community and welcomed the improvement and progress they could bring about. Then this all started to change. Gradually, people began to distrust the scientific community and to regard new findings with skepticism. They started to feel as though science was encroaching on their lives, rather than improving it. This new perspective evolved and gained popularity over time, eventually leading to the formation of many different activist groups. One of the largest (so large, in fact, that many of us do not even see it as a radical activist group) is the anti-science foods movement.
So what happened? What were these changes that brought about this radical transformation in public opinion? Dr. Venni Krishna devotes much of his research to this subject, and he claims in his journal article "Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges" that the factors responsible for this shift are globalization, industrialization, and global warming. Other scholars cite some of the events of the 1900's, such as The Manhattan Project or the publishing of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (for more on the history of these events, see the Setting the Stage page of this website). Drawing from these sources and my own research, I have created a list of the 5 main factors that I believe contributed to the shift from embracing science to rejecting it. They are:
Below is a brief explanation of each of these 5 factors.
So what happened? What were these changes that brought about this radical transformation in public opinion? Dr. Venni Krishna devotes much of his research to this subject, and he claims in his journal article "Changing Social Relations between Science and Society: Contemporary Challenges" that the factors responsible for this shift are globalization, industrialization, and global warming. Other scholars cite some of the events of the 1900's, such as The Manhattan Project or the publishing of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (for more on the history of these events, see the Setting the Stage page of this website). Drawing from these sources and my own research, I have created a list of the 5 main factors that I believe contributed to the shift from embracing science to rejecting it. They are:
- Events of the late 20th century
- Public attitude of skepticism
- Government cowardice
- The inaccessibility of modern science
- Industrialization and the emergence of “Big Science”
Below is a brief explanation of each of these 5 factors.
1. Events of the late 20th century
The 1960's and 70's were a tumultuous time in American history. The civil rights movement, the rise of the counter-culture, and The Vietnam War all contributed to a growing attitude of rebellion and distrust in authority. This attitude can still be felt in society today, both in the political and social sphere. It is a clear influence for the anti-science foods movement, whose core principles are based on the rejection of modern science and technology.
Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring also contributed to the shifting attitude. On the most basic level, the book is often said to be responsible for starting the environmental movement, which is certainly closely related to the anti-science foods movement. Yet it also had a more nuanced, perhaps even more significant impact. Some scholars believe that the book was responsible for the modern politicization of science. They say that it is because of Carson that environmental and scientific issues are so hotly debated in politics and, accordingly, deeply divided across partisan lines. Furthermore, many argues that Carson is guilty of the very action that makes the anti-science movement so deplorable: the anti-science. Eliza Griswold writes that "Carson was among the first environmentalists of the modern era to be charged with using 'soft science' and with cherry-picking studies to suit her ideology."
2. Public attitude of skepticism
Until recently, society tended to accept and embrace scientific progress. People wanted their lives to improve, and they saw new science and technology as the way to do it. In the past few decades, though, American society has become increasingly more skeptical of new ideas and information. Now this is not to say that the modern era is defined by pessimism and the past by optimism, nor is it implying that one is better than the other. Nevertheless, it is apparent that in recent years, our society has become hardened by individual doubt and distrust of authority. This can be seen not only in regards to the scientific community, but to the government as well.
Part of this phenomenon is due to the media's influence. Arthur Lupia and James Druckman claim that the modern media greatly contribute to the "politicization of science" by highlighting the uncertainties of new research rather than the big picture, which is often one of overall consensus. They quote Mike Steketee, who explains that the media focuses on "the inevitable uncertainties about aspects of science to cast doubt on the science overall... thereby magnifying doubts in the public mind." As a result, the public refuses to accept the scientific validity of a new idea or invention simply because they cannot see past their preexisting doubt, which Steketee points out, is inevitable in science.
People today do not want to accept new ideas, be they scientific or not, on faith alone. Unfortunately, they also do not want to do the research on their own to either verify or disprove these ideas. Instead, they choose to blindly reject new ideas, which only strengthens the anti-science movement.
3. Government cowardice
Just as the media contributes to public skepticism and rejection of science, so too does the government. As anti-science movements have grown, the government has been forced to intervene and regulate these issues. Instead of siding with science, though, the government often acquiesces to the public's demands. Krishna states that "decisions about scientific research . . . depend profoundly on political cultures, religious beliefs and what government accepts on the basis of public mood." This is not surprising, as our government is made up of elected officials, who therefore want to please the people in the hopes of being reelected. If that means sacrificing scientific truth, then so be it. Yet it is this government cowardice that allows public ignorance to fester.
4. The inaccessibility of modern science
Science has come a long way in recent years. Less than 100 years ago, scientists were still discovering what DNA is and today they can sequence an entire human genome. While new scientific discoveries have always been met with uncertainty and confusion, the difference today is that science is much less accessible to the public. In other words, the scientific advances of today are much harder to understand and conceptualize than they were just a few decades ago. In the 1960's for example, two of the most groundbreaking scientific achievements were NASA's moon landing and, on the more local scale, the invention of the counter-top microwave. Both of these achievements are easy to understand on a basic level, even if one does not know the science behind them. Anyone can imagine that fantastic moment of a man finally walking on the moon, just as anyone can imagine cooking a baked potato in a few minutes (though this was quite the revolutionary development at the time). Today, however, science is much more elusive. This is especially true in the science relevant to the anti-science foods movement.
The science behind GMOs is confusing. The research and reports are full of technical details and scientific jargon. What is most confusing, though, is the idea itself. It is fundamentally hard to understand how a scientist can physically manipulate the genetic makeup of another organism. As a result, it is much harder for us to conceptualize this than it is to picture a steaming baked potato. This is just the nature of modern science, though, as we have reached an unprecedented level of innovation and progress today. What society has trouble with is accepting the fact that a practice can be safe and normal even if they may not understand it. As a result, society often labels these new forms of science as "dangerous" or "risky." Many people have called genetic modification "playing God" purely because they do not understand the plausibility and normalcy of the science behind it.
5. Industrialization and the emergence of “Big Science”
Our society today is highly industrial. It is driven by economic ideals, mass production, and, ultimately, the pursuit of profit. This approach has expanded into every corner of society, including that of science.
In the past, science was driven purely by the pursuit of knowledge. This is sometimes referred to as the "scientific social contract," which essentially states that science is autonomous, managed by peer-critique, and dedicated to the advancement of knowledge. As our country became more industrialized, though, this contract began to change and to align instead with the ideals of an economically-driven society. Science became more industrialized, and according to Krishna, "market good" became more important than "public good." Specifically, many scientific research institutions were bought out by large corporations in the late 20th century. These corporations were often more interested in producing new, profitable technology rather than performing basic scientific research.
This is certainly not to say that all modern science has been corrupted by industry. Rather, I am pointing out what the public witnessed in the past few decades. As industry grew, so too did industrial science. This led to what is sometimes referred to as "big science." Similar to "big government," it is the idea of science as a large-scale group effort that often impedes on our lives. This term really embodies the shift in attitude to which this page is dedicated. With this new perception of science as an industrial, corporate entity (big science), many people began to see scientific innovation as something to be avoided rather than embraced.
Gradually, this belief grew and changed and eventually found an arena in which it could really captivate society: food. People began to believe that, if science is evil, then science in our food must too be evil, undesirable, and unhealthy. Things such as GMOs, additives, preservatives, and artificial colors and sweeteners became the enemy, while "natural" became the new vogue.
The 1960's and 70's were a tumultuous time in American history. The civil rights movement, the rise of the counter-culture, and The Vietnam War all contributed to a growing attitude of rebellion and distrust in authority. This attitude can still be felt in society today, both in the political and social sphere. It is a clear influence for the anti-science foods movement, whose core principles are based on the rejection of modern science and technology.
Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring also contributed to the shifting attitude. On the most basic level, the book is often said to be responsible for starting the environmental movement, which is certainly closely related to the anti-science foods movement. Yet it also had a more nuanced, perhaps even more significant impact. Some scholars believe that the book was responsible for the modern politicization of science. They say that it is because of Carson that environmental and scientific issues are so hotly debated in politics and, accordingly, deeply divided across partisan lines. Furthermore, many argues that Carson is guilty of the very action that makes the anti-science movement so deplorable: the anti-science. Eliza Griswold writes that "Carson was among the first environmentalists of the modern era to be charged with using 'soft science' and with cherry-picking studies to suit her ideology."
2. Public attitude of skepticism
Until recently, society tended to accept and embrace scientific progress. People wanted their lives to improve, and they saw new science and technology as the way to do it. In the past few decades, though, American society has become increasingly more skeptical of new ideas and information. Now this is not to say that the modern era is defined by pessimism and the past by optimism, nor is it implying that one is better than the other. Nevertheless, it is apparent that in recent years, our society has become hardened by individual doubt and distrust of authority. This can be seen not only in regards to the scientific community, but to the government as well.
Part of this phenomenon is due to the media's influence. Arthur Lupia and James Druckman claim that the modern media greatly contribute to the "politicization of science" by highlighting the uncertainties of new research rather than the big picture, which is often one of overall consensus. They quote Mike Steketee, who explains that the media focuses on "the inevitable uncertainties about aspects of science to cast doubt on the science overall... thereby magnifying doubts in the public mind." As a result, the public refuses to accept the scientific validity of a new idea or invention simply because they cannot see past their preexisting doubt, which Steketee points out, is inevitable in science.
People today do not want to accept new ideas, be they scientific or not, on faith alone. Unfortunately, they also do not want to do the research on their own to either verify or disprove these ideas. Instead, they choose to blindly reject new ideas, which only strengthens the anti-science movement.
3. Government cowardice
Just as the media contributes to public skepticism and rejection of science, so too does the government. As anti-science movements have grown, the government has been forced to intervene and regulate these issues. Instead of siding with science, though, the government often acquiesces to the public's demands. Krishna states that "decisions about scientific research . . . depend profoundly on political cultures, religious beliefs and what government accepts on the basis of public mood." This is not surprising, as our government is made up of elected officials, who therefore want to please the people in the hopes of being reelected. If that means sacrificing scientific truth, then so be it. Yet it is this government cowardice that allows public ignorance to fester.
4. The inaccessibility of modern science
Science has come a long way in recent years. Less than 100 years ago, scientists were still discovering what DNA is and today they can sequence an entire human genome. While new scientific discoveries have always been met with uncertainty and confusion, the difference today is that science is much less accessible to the public. In other words, the scientific advances of today are much harder to understand and conceptualize than they were just a few decades ago. In the 1960's for example, two of the most groundbreaking scientific achievements were NASA's moon landing and, on the more local scale, the invention of the counter-top microwave. Both of these achievements are easy to understand on a basic level, even if one does not know the science behind them. Anyone can imagine that fantastic moment of a man finally walking on the moon, just as anyone can imagine cooking a baked potato in a few minutes (though this was quite the revolutionary development at the time). Today, however, science is much more elusive. This is especially true in the science relevant to the anti-science foods movement.
The science behind GMOs is confusing. The research and reports are full of technical details and scientific jargon. What is most confusing, though, is the idea itself. It is fundamentally hard to understand how a scientist can physically manipulate the genetic makeup of another organism. As a result, it is much harder for us to conceptualize this than it is to picture a steaming baked potato. This is just the nature of modern science, though, as we have reached an unprecedented level of innovation and progress today. What society has trouble with is accepting the fact that a practice can be safe and normal even if they may not understand it. As a result, society often labels these new forms of science as "dangerous" or "risky." Many people have called genetic modification "playing God" purely because they do not understand the plausibility and normalcy of the science behind it.
5. Industrialization and the emergence of “Big Science”
Our society today is highly industrial. It is driven by economic ideals, mass production, and, ultimately, the pursuit of profit. This approach has expanded into every corner of society, including that of science.
In the past, science was driven purely by the pursuit of knowledge. This is sometimes referred to as the "scientific social contract," which essentially states that science is autonomous, managed by peer-critique, and dedicated to the advancement of knowledge. As our country became more industrialized, though, this contract began to change and to align instead with the ideals of an economically-driven society. Science became more industrialized, and according to Krishna, "market good" became more important than "public good." Specifically, many scientific research institutions were bought out by large corporations in the late 20th century. These corporations were often more interested in producing new, profitable technology rather than performing basic scientific research.
This is certainly not to say that all modern science has been corrupted by industry. Rather, I am pointing out what the public witnessed in the past few decades. As industry grew, so too did industrial science. This led to what is sometimes referred to as "big science." Similar to "big government," it is the idea of science as a large-scale group effort that often impedes on our lives. This term really embodies the shift in attitude to which this page is dedicated. With this new perception of science as an industrial, corporate entity (big science), many people began to see scientific innovation as something to be avoided rather than embraced.
Gradually, this belief grew and changed and eventually found an arena in which it could really captivate society: food. People began to believe that, if science is evil, then science in our food must too be evil, undesirable, and unhealthy. Things such as GMOs, additives, preservatives, and artificial colors and sweeteners became the enemy, while "natural" became the new vogue.
The Rise of Panera Bread, Chipotle, & Whole Foods
![Picture](/uploads/9/2/0/2/92029130/whole-foods-label.jpg?250)
The anti-science foods movement is also responsible for catapulting several corporations to unprecedented levels of success. These businesses include Panera Bread, Chipotle, and Whole Foods. In the past five to eight years, all of these companies have seen their popularity grow rapidly and, accordingly, their stocks have risen steeply and consistently. They are now the leaders in the food industry, forcing other companies to alter their strategies to keep up.
These companies have been so wildly successful because they cater specifically to the new consumer tastes produced by the anti-science foods movement. That is, the desire for more natural and organic food, as well as a transparent menu that allows consumers to know and understand exactly what it is they're eating. That means getting rid of GMOs, artificial ingredients, and anything else that a consumer might view as "unnatural" or foreign. Thus the appeal of these businesses is not just their delicious or trendy food, but their overall philosophy. Whole Foods, for example, sets strict guidelines that food and beverages must meet to be sold on their shelves. Their advertisements highlight this fact and boast that their foods are of superior quality. Other specialty grocery stores and super markets, such as Trader Joe's, have also enjoyed increasing popularity in recent years due to these changing consumer preferences.
These companies have been so wildly successful because they cater specifically to the new consumer tastes produced by the anti-science foods movement. That is, the desire for more natural and organic food, as well as a transparent menu that allows consumers to know and understand exactly what it is they're eating. That means getting rid of GMOs, artificial ingredients, and anything else that a consumer might view as "unnatural" or foreign. Thus the appeal of these businesses is not just their delicious or trendy food, but their overall philosophy. Whole Foods, for example, sets strict guidelines that food and beverages must meet to be sold on their shelves. Their advertisements highlight this fact and boast that their foods are of superior quality. Other specialty grocery stores and super markets, such as Trader Joe's, have also enjoyed increasing popularity in recent years due to these changing consumer preferences.
![Picture](/uploads/9/2/0/2/92029130/1477361951.png?250)
Chipotle, a fast-casual Mexican food chain, is known best for its bold marketing strategy which praises fresh, simplistic ingredients while vehemently denouncing GMOs. Several years ago, the company announced that they would entirely eliminate GMOs from its menu, which it succeeded in doing in 2015. This move is part of what makes Chipotle so unique. In trying to attract the new, trendy, anti-science consumer, Chipotle essentially staged a public war on GMOs and the rest of the restaurant industry. They made it clear in all their commercials and advertisements that they see GMOs as unhealthy and dangerous. They even have an entire page devoted to the subject on their website: https://chipotle.com/gmo. Unfortunately, this website and Chipotle's overall philosophy are products of misinformation and a complete lack of science. And because Chipotle is so public about its values, they contribute to the belief that GMOs are dangerous when scientists have again and again proven otherwise. In essence, then, Chipotle creates an endless cycle; it attracts those who buy into the anti-science foods movement, while simultaneously producing more misinformation through its advertising, which in turn attracts even more people. This is a fantastic business scheme in terms of making money, but it is highly damaging to our society, furthering the ignorance that fuels the anti-science foods movement.
![Picture](/uploads/9/2/0/2/92029130/clean-eating.jpeg?215)
Panera Bread has also embarked on a new marketing campaign, targeted at this same, ever-growing market. They call it "clean eating." Their commercials feature scenes of family and friends talking, laughing, playing, and, of course, eating Panera's food, which they cheerfully say "is now clean." These commercials always leave me wondering, what in the world does "clean eating" mean? The term is thrown around a lot among anti-science food enthusiasts, but it does not seem to have a clear definition. It certainly is not defined by any official group such as the FDA or USDA, the agencies responsible for regulating our food. As it turns out, even Panera itself does not have a concrete definition of "clean," the term which their entire marketing strategy is built on. Its web page on the subject, https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html, seems to merely dance around the core of the issue. The closest it gets is the statement, "we have made a commitment to remove artificial additives from our menu before the end of 2016." Yet it is unclear whether this is the definition of "clean eating" or merely another one of Panera's values. The web page continues by denouncing "questionable" ingredients in food, although, again, the term "questionable" is ambiguous and wholly unscientific.
The philosophies of these three companies have always been built upon the ideals of natural, less artificial ingredients and a healthier menu. But in the past few years, they have each drastically increased their focus on these ideals in order to cater to the anti-science foods movement, which continues to grow and make up a significant portion of the consumer market. It is, ultimately, a marketing ploy. Restaurants like Chipotle and Panera can see that consumers want more "natural" food, so that's how they market it. And since it's working, it's not going to stop anytime soon. Unfortunately for the scientific community, this will only add to the public's already tainted understanding of food. Panera's website says, "There’s a connection between food being simpler, and food tasting better." As nice as this may be to believe, it would be hard to come by a scientist who would support that claim.
The philosophies of these three companies have always been built upon the ideals of natural, less artificial ingredients and a healthier menu. But in the past few years, they have each drastically increased their focus on these ideals in order to cater to the anti-science foods movement, which continues to grow and make up a significant portion of the consumer market. It is, ultimately, a marketing ploy. Restaurants like Chipotle and Panera can see that consumers want more "natural" food, so that's how they market it. And since it's working, it's not going to stop anytime soon. Unfortunately for the scientific community, this will only add to the public's already tainted understanding of food. Panera's website says, "There’s a connection between food being simpler, and food tasting better." As nice as this may be to believe, it would be hard to come by a scientist who would support that claim.