Sugar Producer

22 Sugar Producer APRIL 2016 Irving Langmuir, a chemistry Nobel laureate and all-around brilliant guy, coined the term "pathological science" many years ago. He described it as the "science of things that aren't so." While the term "pathological science" may be new to many growers, most are already familiar with its implications. The "science of things that aren't so" has become the specialty of agriculture's critics—folks like right-wing think tanks and extreme environmentalists who want to scare folks away from whatever policy, product or technology they happen to oppose. Here's how it works. Some group with an official sounding name—like Americans for Sound Science (ASS)— pens a study that is not peer-reviewed and makes baseless accusations designed to shock people. For example, ASS might proclaim that "a new study finds arsenic where sugarbeets are grown." ASS leaves out the part about arsenic being a naturally occurring element that is found in the soil, rocks, air and just about everywhere else on Earth in harmless levels. But the general public doesn't know that and only knows that arsenic sounds really dangerous. It sounds like poison and by linking it to sugarbeets, ASS is able to alter purchasing habits. FROM THE ASA By Phillip Hayes | Director of Media Relations The Science of Things That Aren't So Americans for Sound Science is a made-up group, and this is a made-up example, but it gives you an idea of just how dangerous pathological science can be. Especially when combined with the two other factors we examined in previous columns—generational shifts and a radically altered media landscape. Younger generations tend to be far more skeptical than their Baby Boomer peers, and as such, are far more receptive to stories about unhealthy food or evil technologies created by big business. What's worse, the new online world gives pathological scientists a limitless platform to spread their agenda without fact checking or the need to be balanced. As a result, we get bombarded by headlines like: "Study: Sugar…eight times more addictive than cocaine," "Monsanto's GMO herbicide doubles cancer risk" and "Toxic weed killer found in breast milk, infant formula." Those are not made-up examples. They are real ones clipped from online news outlets after a Google search on my smart phone that took less than two seconds. And the volume of these kinds of headlines continues to grow. Such scare tactics are not new. Remember when red M&M's caused cancer? Research coming out of the Soviet Union during the Cold War found that red food coloring could kill you. It was complete poppycock—like a lot of stuff coming out of the Soviet Union during the Cold War—yet red M&M's disappeared from grocery store shelves from 1976 to 1986. We all get a big laugh now about how silly it was to fear those delicious red M&M's. But what if the pathological science study led to real health concerns instead of harmless laugh lines? It has. A lot of people stopped vaccinating their children in the early 2000s out of a perceived linkage to autism. The medical community disproved that any link existed, but even a decade later, people are still forgoing vaccinations. Last October, doctors at Emory University found that one in every eight U.S. children were now at risk of contracting measles due to gaps in vaccinations. It's not just vaccinations either. Young parents are being told to avoid certain vegetables. Then they are warned that moist chicken, meat and fish options can cause cancer. They are told that sunscreens are harmful to babies. They are told that both bottled and tap water can hurt their kids. They are told that processed foods with long shelf lives could prematurely end their own. And they are shamed into needlessly paying small fortunes at the grocery store. Those last examples all come from our friends at the Environmental Working Group (EWG). And when it comes to demonizing agricultural policy and technology, no pathological science organization is as adept as EWG. If you've followed the whole GMO debate or the farm bill, then you know this group well. What you probably don't know is that EWG's whole fundraising apparatus is fueled by scaring people and that these "studies" always seem to lead to a big EWG payday. Between groups like EWG, changes in the media and new generations, it is no wonder that agriculture is losing consumer connectivity and feels helpless. In my next column—the last of this series—we will examine what can be done about it. Editor's note: Contact him at phillip@ sugaralliance.org. Read his previous columns at www.sugarproducer.com. n IMPLACABLE FOES Groups like the Environmental Working Group are adept at using any and all tactics to win the GMO debate.

• Cover