A few scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It's this: Facts don't necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. Researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger. (1)
"The general idea is that it's absolutely threatening to admit you're wrong," says scientist Brandon Nyhan. The phenomenon--known as 'backfire'--is a "natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance."
Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we're right, and even less likely to listen to any new information. (1)
This effect is only heightened by the information glut, which offers--alongside an unprecedented amount of good information--endless rumors, misinformation, and questionable variations on the truth. In other words, it's never been easier for people to be wrong, and at the same time feel more certain that they're right. (1)
GMO Crops
An example is the work of a team of Belgian philosophers and plant biotechnologists who have turned to cognitive science to explain why opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has become so widespread, despite positive contributions GMO crops have made to sustainable agriculture. They argue that the human mind is highly susceptible to the negative and often emotional representations put out by certain environmental groups and other opponents of GMOs. (2)
"The popularity and typical features of opposition to GMOs can be explained in terms of underlying intuitions and emotions. Negative representations of GMOs- for instance, like claims that GMOs cause diseases and contaminate the environment--tap into our feelings of disgust and this sticks to the mind. These emotions are very difficult to counter, in particular because the science of GMOs is complex to communicate says lead author Steffann Blancke of Ghent University. (2)
While religious beliefs, particularly those that hold a romantic view of nature, have been accused of generating some of the negativity around GMOs, Blancke and his co-authors argue that there's more to the story. They propose that it is more a matter of messages competing for attention--in which environmental groups are simply much better at influencing people's gut feelings about GMOs than the scientific community.
Then there are charismatic charlatans and quacks--and there is hardly a shortage of them--who purvey miracle cures and 'nutritional supplements' to supposedly healthy bodily functions. As Gil Ross observes, "Unfortunately, all too often the snake-oil pitchmen do not appear as they did when P. T. Barnum was running the show. These days, they come all dressed up, often in scrubs and a stethoscope and do their pitching to a mass audience on popular TV shows, Some are 'communications' experts with major food chains, yet their messages do much more harm than the carnival barker. For example, the latest travesty came from Chipotle, which has decided to ban GMOs from its calories and salt laden menu, giving the 'rationale' that the science on GMO ingredients is as yet unsettled. Those with any scientific insight can recognize such a lame excuse for what it is: a brazen corporate attempt to pander to fearful consumers and stigmatize a nutritional miracle while doing so. Ironically, Chipotle is using GMO ingredients in their products--something they either don't know, or, more likely have chosen to downplay." (3)
Where, then, does that leave Chipotle's 'no genetic modification' promise asks Henry Miller. That should limit their menu to wild berries, wild game, wild mushrooms, and wild-caught fish and shellfish. Virtually all of the other foods in our diets come from organisms that have been genetically modified in some way: and about three-quarters of the processed foods in American markets contain ingredients from organisms genetically engineered with molecular techniques. (4)
Artificial sweeteners in Pepsi
Then there's artificial sweeteners. Pepsi will remove the artificial sweetener aspartame from all diet foods sold in the US and replace it with sucralose. The reason? Flagging sales, according to
The Wall Street Journal. Consumer surveys had showed 'the presence of aspartame to be the number one reason that Americans are scaling back on diet colas.' (5)
Yet this trend appears to be driven by a widespread--and largely unfounded--fear the public has about aspartame. This move might be good for Pepsi's business. But it probably won't help dispel any of the myths about artificial sweeteners that have persisted for decades. Aspartame has been studied for more than 30 years, and there's no good evidence suggesting it causes harm to humans. The European Food Safety Authority recently completed one of the most thorough risk assessments of aspartame ever done, looking at all the available research evidence. Its conclusion: following a thorough review of evidence provided both by animal and human studies, experts have ruled out a potential risk of aspartame causing damage to genes and inducing cancer. Aspartame does not harm the brain or nervous system, or affect behavior or cognitive function in children or adults. Similarly, the National Cancer Institute found that artificial sweeteners, including aspartame, don't appear to cause cancer. As Julia Belluz reports, "Pepsi is responding to consumer demand-not science.' (5)
As mentioned earlier, major media are far from immune to the temptation to parlay these issues into 'newsworthy' issues--i.e., to seduce viewers and readers--by sensationalizing scary stories about 'toxic chemicals' and 'endocrine disruptors' poisoning our children in the womb. Great for selling newspapers. (3)
Chemistry Professor Gordon Gribble argues that low doses of chemicals in modern food are inherent, typically harmless and often highly beneficial. He says most people don't know they are routinely exposed to a host of compounds in non-toxic concentrations in what they eat and drink each day. (6)
Even the air we breath, whether in big cities or the countryside, is full of naturally occurring and synthetic chemicals, including wine 'aroma', flower 'bouquet', perfume 'fragrance', bakery 'smell', and garbage 'stench'.
Dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and DDT
Gribble cites the example of halogen compounds, which many people--even some scientists--assume are all uniquely man-made poisons found in dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and DDT. But he adds that thousands of halogen compounds are, in fact, part of our natural environment made by plants, animals, and even humans for their own defensive purposes. Some species even use organohalogens, which contain carbon along with chlorine, bromine, iodine, or fluorine, to mount chemical offensives against encroaching competitors. (6)
Then, there's Alex Berezow's adventure at San Francisco airport. He found a sign at an airport gate that said, "This area contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm."(7)
He looked around. There was a sandwich shop, a few trash cans, and several tired passengers in the waiting area. No cataclysmic carcinogens there. The carpet looked clean. Was the sign referring to carpet cleaner? Or was it referring to the jet bridge, where you might get a whiff of jet fuel? The absurdly ominous and vague sign left the threat entirely to your imagination.
Who put the sign there he asks? His answer--the people of the State of California. Back in 1986, they passed Proposition 65, an attempt by environmental do-gooders to create a carcinogen-free utopia. In accordance with the law, the governor must publish a list of 'known' carcinogens or chemicals capable of causing birth defects. The 23 page-long list includes such terrifying molecules as aspirin, alcohol, nickel, testosterone, and wood dust among others. The fact that testosterone made the list is particularly problematic since every human being alive produces testosterone. According to California, we're doomed says Berezow. (7)
The foolishness of California is the inevitable consequence of a chemophobic society that wields the evil twins of regulation and litigation as weapons in a fruitless effort to achieve the impossible: a life completely free of any risk or chemical whatsoever.
Warning labels that appear everywhere are meaningless and absurd. Also, there are other pernicious effects of a proliferation of warning labels; First, people start ignoring them. That is not a good thing. Second, warning labels encourage manufacturers to seek alternatives to alleged 'carcinogens'. Unfortunately, the alternatives are often less studied and potentially more carcinogenic. (7)
Gil Ross sums this up well, "Those desiring a 'chemical-free world' will be frustrated eventually, as we are all made of chemicals , as is everything surrounding us. Synthetic chemicals are not essentially more toxic than natural ones, and the mere detection of a chemical in our bodies does not mean that it is a health threat." (3)
References
- Joe Keohane, "How facts backfire," boston.com.bostonglobe, July 11, 2010
- Stefann Blancke et al., "Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition," Trends in Plant Science, 2015; DOI:10.1016j.tplants.2015.03.011
- Gil Ross, "Chemophobia rampant, science in retreat. It cannot end well," science20.com/tip, May 7, 2015
- Henry I. Miller, "Chipotle: the strangest restaurant menu ever," forbes.com, April 27, 2015
- Julia Belluz, "Pepsi is ditching aspartame--based on no evidence whatsoever," vox.com, April 25, 2015
- Gordon W. Gribble, "Food chemistry and chemophobia," Food Security, 5, 177, April 2013
- Alex Berezow, "Getting cancer at San Francisco airport," realclearscience.com, October 14, 2014
