Why do people have opposing viewpoints on scientific issues?

Hello readers!

As promised, we are now going to look a little bit deeper into the possible reasons that people feel so strongly, one way or another, about GMOs. To do this, we will be discussing an article called How Politics Makes Us Stupid. Although the article doesn't talk specifically about GMOs, it does use another controversial issue, climate change, as an example throughout the article, and in terms of public opinion, the two issues seem to parallel each other.

One of the most typical explanations (usually used by the scientific community) for why people are anti-GMO is because they simply do not understand the information being provided enough to thoroughly judge the debate. As much as I hate to admit it, I used to think this exact same thing, and it made me angry why people couldn't just see and understand scientific evidence pointing towards the fact that nothing has been shown to suggest GMOs are harmful to human health. I then realized that there was so much more to why people believed the way they do; it's not just a black and white issue, and the purpose of my blog is to explain why this is the truth and possibly derive a solution to the madness.

The article calls this idea, the one that says the public doesn't understand the information enough in order to make an informed opinion on an issue, the Science Comprehension Thesis. It is similar to the concept that Yale Law Professor Dale Kahan and his team describe as the More Information Hypothesis, which says that a better educated public wouldn't have the all the problems dealing with accepting scientific evidence. However, Kahan doesn't believe that these theories actually explain what is going on. His thinking is that "Perhaps there are some kinds of debates where people don't want to find the right answer so much as they want to win the argument. Perhaps humans reason for purposes other than finding the truth--- purposes like increasing their standing in their community, or ensuring they don't piss off the leaders of their tribe." He then added that if this was true, a better-educated public wouldn't end the disagreements; it would only give the different sides the ability to better argue for their own point of view.

To test this, Kahan surveyed 1,000 Americans on their political views and then gave them the following problem to test their math skills:

The participants of the study were asked to conclude whether the rash of those who used the skin cream got better than those who didn't use the skin cream or if the rash of those who used the skin cream got worse than those who didn't. When first looking at the numbers, it appears that the cream did in fact help to alleviate the rash, and this is what most of the surveyed public reported. But in reality, after calculating percentages, 25% of the people's rashes who used the skin cream got worse while only 16% of those people's rashes who didn't use the cream got worse; only those reporting strong math skills got this right. The fact that the majority of people surveyed came to the wrong conclusion due to the lack of working out the problem supports the Science Comprehension Theory.

However, Kahan also made a problem very similar to the skin cream one, but about a proposal to ban people from carrying concealed handguns in public. The results were very different. There was no longer a correlation between strong math skills and getting the answer right. Conservatives were able to correctly solve the problem when it pointed in their favor, but when they received the version of the problem where the answer pointed in the other viewpoint's direction, they failed. The same thing was observed in liberals. In fact, people of either party who reported as having strong math skills were 45 percentage points more likely to get the answer right when it matched what they believed in. The article concluded that "the smarter the person is, the dumber politics can make them" and "people weren't reasoning to get the right answer; they were reasoning to get the answer they wanted to be right".

So what does this exactly mean in terms of the GMO debate, or any controversial issue for that matter? It seems to be that the way our society thinks about scientific or political issues is US vs. THEM, with no in-between. And the big gap that fills the void is what is stopping any progress in moving forward or getting to the bottom of the issue from happening. In terms of GMOs for example, those pro-GMO and those anti-GMO are so caught up in being what they are that they fail to step back and really looking at the implications of their, for a lack of better word, stubbornness. Some of these implications involve the inability for the technology to be further tested and developed to ensure its safety as well as, perhaps most importantly, the inability to utilize GMOs as a tool against the fight for world hunger.

We then again question why people have such a hard time abandoning their predisposed thoughts. Kahan explains this behavior as Identity-Protective Cognition, or "As a way of avoiding dissonance and estrangement from valued groups, individuals subconsciously resist factual information that threatens their defining values." This completely makes sense if you think about it. For example, if I went home to the farm where we eat beef upwards of 5 times a week and told my dad I wanted to be a vegetarian, I would probably be shunned and ridiculed until I changed my ways. So in reality, I would never consider becoming a vegetarian or even looking into the benefits of being a one because the conflict I would cause at home wouldn't be worth it. Instead, I have a fairly narrow minded view on the subject just because that was the attitude I have been subjected to all along. (For clarification, I have absolutely no problems with those who choose to be vegetarians, and I commend them for being able to do something that I could not.) But the same narrow-mindedness that I experienced in this scenario happens all the time to both pro-GMO and anti-GMO supporters.

These opinions are only strengthened because this leads to people seeking out information to validate that they are right rather than looking at information spanning the entire breadth of the topic. And often, as we saw in the test by Kahan earlier, this leads to people seeing things and making conclusions that aren't actually there. The article points out that it is fine and almost unnoticeable when individuals act this way, but it is when groups act this way when it becomes a problem. Personally, I think that people are too afraid to actually look at the evidence being presented to them for fear that it might prove their opinions wrong one way or another, so instead they resort to ignoring most of the credible evidence. I also think that this particular issue could be solved with a better science-communication standard but that is an entire post in itself.

To wrap things up, I want to touch on some ways that we can avoid setting ourselves up for this tunnel vision attitude towards scientific issues. Although Kahan himself said its almost impossible to completely avoid bias, he recommends that people try and find a group of people who you can basically agree to disagree with. He says, "I try to find people who I actually think are like me--- people I'd like to hang out with--- but they don't believe the things that everyone else like me believes. If I find some people I identify with, I don't find them as threatening when they disagree with me." I agree with this tactic, but I still think that it could eventually lead to a lack of communication on these disagreed upon issues, again because you will not want to disappoint your friends. The solution I propose is for everyone truly push themselves outside their current ideologies. Make it a point to read information that goes against current beliefs, and don't take everything you see for face value because chances are there is more to it. I understand that this will probably take years and even decades to turn an entire population's attitude from being blinded by the human necessity of needing to fit in, to the attitude that everyone fits in no matter what they believe. Then and only then will we actually be able to solve some of the world's most daunting problems.


References
Klein, Ezra. "How Politics Makes Us Stupid." Vox. Vox Media, 06 Apr. 2016. 16 Apr. 2016

Do the Public's Opinions of GMOs correlate to their opinions on scientific research?

Hello readers!

For this post I want to share a series of visuals I put together for another project I was working on. The overall goal of these visuals was to show the relationship between the public's opinions regarding the safety of GM foods and their opinions on continuing research in regards to these foods. If you are like me, you would guess that those in favor of GMOs would generally support their research and development and those against GMOs would probably be on the more cautious side of their testing and development, but what I found instead really surprised me.

Before we dive in, I should first note what and where the data that was used to create the following visuals came from. It was collected during a 2014 Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults about science issues. The survey was conducted with a sample of 2,002 adults throughout all 50 United States and the District of Columbia. Questions asked included views on climate change, energy issues, genetically modified foods, and bio-medical issues, as well as questions to measure science knowledge.

Without further ado, here are the graphics:

With this first visual, I wanted to get a good overall sense of how the general public felt about the safety of GM foods. To break down this data, I chose to compare the different beliefs of GM Foods, generally safe, generally unsafe, or didn't know/refused, against population in regards to urban, suburban, or rural (these designations were achieved by self-reported zip codes) geographic areas. From my general experience of talking to people at home on the farm and on campus, I noticed that those closer to agriculture seemed to be more accepting of GM foods, presumably because they produce them by the tons of bushels each year, and so I assumed that this trend would also appear in this data. However, I was very wrong. As you can see, opinions differed by less than a percentage point in each category for each different population group. This got me curious, so I analyzed the data a little further.

For my second graph, my main goal was to see what the correlation was between those who felt GM foods were safe or unsafe and how much trust these same people had in the scientists who were testing these foods. To do this I questioned these people, in two separate groups respectively, on whether or not they thought scientists have a clear understanding of the health effects of genetically modified foods. I did this because it would probably be assumed that those who think GM foods are safe also think scientists understand the health effects of GM foods. The green people on the left of Figure 2 represent those who think GM foods were generally safe as shown in Figure 1. The red people on the right of Figure 2 represent those who think GM foods were generally unsafe as shown in Figure 1. Within each of these two groups, the people are broken down into shades of green or red based on their response to whether or not they thought scientists have a clear understanding of the health effects of genetically modified foods. The major thing to point out about this graph is that about 65%  of the people who think GM foods are safe also think that scientists do not have a clear understanding of the health effects of genetically modified foods (the medium-green colored people). How can this be?? The fact that people who think GM foods are safe but don't think scientists understand the health affects brings up a few very serious questions: Are these people's opinions based off evidence? If so, is the evidence from credible scientific work? The same scientists' work who the public doesn't think understands the health affects? Or rather are their opinions created from emotion? On to the third graph. Don't be too intimidated at first.

For my third figure, I wanted to conclude by tying the information from Figures 1 and 2 to the idea that some groups may support more government investment in research than others. For example, I would have guessed that the people who thought GM foods were unsafe and scientists did not understand their health effects would generally agree that investments in scientific research aren’t worth it. To do this I, looked at the total number of people who answered “Investments do pay off in the long run” and “Investments aren’t worth it” and broke those categories down into the same groups used in Figure 2: People who believe GM foods are unsafe and think scientists do understand their health effects, People who believe GM foods are unsafe and think scientists do not understand their health effects, People who believe GM foods are safe and think scientists do understand their health effects, and People who believe GM foods are safe and think scientists do not understand their health effects. I think the really important thing to take out of this last figure is that out of all the people who answered the surveys, no matter their opinions regarding GMOs, most of them believe that long-term investments in scientific research will pay off in the long run. The implication of this is that the people are willing to keep an open mind to the development of new technologies, including GMOs.

So now that we know how much power the public's opinions really have and how this correlates to both agriculture and future research, we can explore the meat of the issue: what causes people to feel so strongly, in either direction, for or against GMOs. Is it politics? Is it personal background? Stay tuned for the next post to find out.

Millennials' Opinions are Changing the Face of Agriculture

Kristen Porter, 32, from Des Moines, Iowa,
author of the food blog, Iowa Girl Eats, and
her son Lincoln.

Hello readers!

As we first explored some of the outlets that people use to express their views on GMOs, I thought I'd shed some light onto how much power the general public's opinion really has on the agricultural and food industries as we know them. I think understanding this is important before we further explore why these beliefs occur in the fist place. So to do this, I want to share an article I recently found (or that my dad found in the stack of farming magazines we have lying around the house) in an issue of Successful Farming entitled "Meet your new boss: Moms, Bloggers, and Foodies- these millennials are driving the new food and ag economy" (Cover at right and cited below).

The reason that I think this article is more interesting compared to others in regards to this topic is because the primary audience of the magazine is farmers and ranchers across the United States. And when talking about the public's opinions on issues like GMOs or mandatory food labeling, I think farmer's voices are often overlooked, which seems ignorant to me in the fact that these people are at the heart of the food production line. So, as you read this, keep in mind that this is the information the people who grow the food you eat everyday are getting in regards to the public's changing views on food.

Now on with the article...

It starts by saying that the baby boomer generation, which once ruled the way that the agriculture industry and food corporations operated, is on its way out, and the millennials are taking over. Millennials, who were born in the 1980's and 1990's, are now the largest demographic in United States, numbering around 80 million. This means that the food industry must now cater to their needs and the needs of their children.

Although consumers have always been the ultimate boss of farmers, the millennials, who will outnumber baby boomers by 22 million in 2030, are going to recreate the food system through their search for healthy, locally grown foods. This is in severe contrast to the processed, packaged convenience foods that the baby boomers craved and the foods in which we know to line most of the grocery store shelves. Here are a few statistics the article gives to explain the growing trend of healthy foods in correlation with the millennials' change in taste:

• American women say they would pay 25% more for foods they perceive as fresher, healthier, and more nutritious.

• 35% of consumers crave locally grown food information.

• 76% of millennials use locally produced foods, up 20% in just two years.

So what brought on this change in attitude? Scott Mushkin, the lead food trends researcher at Wolfe Research in New York, says the driving force behind the millennials' opinions is growing distrust of big businesses and government. He also says that social media, which millennials are seemingly experts in, plays a large role in the skepticism of the current food system, "You can see stories everywhere in conservative or liberal media about something that causes cancer. That builds distrust, and it spreads." In conclusion of all of this information, Mushkin's one word of advice to farmers is "transparency."

Jessie Price, Editor in Chief of EatingWell Magazine echoes the same points Mushkin noted. She says, "There's a lot of noise out there, especially online, about food and what we should all be afraid about. Our readers tend to trust science and be skeptical about fads, but they are not immune from believing some of the buzzy myths about food. They are gobbling up information wherever and whenever they see it. They yearn for transparency around how farmers are producing food."

Again we see the word "transparency". What does that exactly mean for farmers and what advice does the magazine give them to adapt to their new "bosses"? The bottom-line for transparency is that young consumers want to know the actual source of their food, and the idea of a family farm is highly appealing to them. So as farmers, the ideal solution would be to grow new crops to meet the new demand. However, most farmers do not like to change their ways. Tim O'Connor, president of the Wheat Foods Council, thinks farmers will have to decide between new crops and traditional crops in the near future in order to stay afloat in the changing ways of the food system.

So what does this mean for the case of GMOs? Well, the magazine also shares some stats in regards to the millennials' views on them:

• 66% support mandatory labeling of GMO products.

• 40% reduce or avoid GMO ingredients.

• 48% say GMO-free is important in food decisions.

If the same occurrence of fresh, locally grown produce making a drastic push in the agriculture markets based on the public opinions happens in regards to these opinions on GMOs, we will soon see that foods containing them will be on their way out too. Right? Well, I am not so sure that will be the case quite yet. Coming from experience, large-scale farmers aren't going to readily abandon their RoundUp ready corn or their LibertyLink soybeans anytime soon. This is mainly because they need these tools to make a profit in a world of $3.50/bushel corn. For those who don't know much about corn prices, there was a time when $7/bushel corn was a reality. I think this right here, the disconnection between the people who are consuming most of the food (98% of consumers don't live on a farm) and knowing what is actually feasible on a farm to grow the food, is a main source of the grayness that blurs the sides of the great GMO debate.

Two food bloggers, from two very different geographic backgrounds also share their opinions on the relationship between consumers and farmers. Kristin Porter (pictured above) from Des Moines, IA, says, "Through my visits, I learned that farmers are doing everything they can to grow safe crops, to raise healthy livestock to feed their families and communities, and to preserve Iowa's farmland for future generations." Sanura Weathers (MyLifeRunsOnFood.com) from Brooklyn, New York, says, "Lasts summer, I was in a program where I had the opportunity to talk with farmers. I learned there is a difference between what consumers demand and what farmers can actually produce. There's so much to farming that people don't understand. Consumers need more education! I want farmers to know that I trust our food system, and I thank them for their hard work."

Overall, filling the gap between consumer and farmer is not going to end the GMO debate, but it is sure to open dialogue and find solutions that weren't available before. However, this is going to require major effort by both parties. Farmers, face it, the consumers are ultimately your bosses and you're probably going to have to eventually give them what they want. But think about it this way, what they want is to see what you are doing and how you are operating your farms; for the first time the general public is taking an interest. It is your job to try and let them in, be transparent in your ways, and teach the consumers what is going on. Consumers, it is your job to not be judgmental or jump to conclusions about the way agriculture is being done because you have not been a part of it in decades. By doing these things, we may be able to get to the roots of the GMO debate.

References:

Johnston, G. (2016). Meet Your New Boss: Moms, Bloggers, and Foodies- These Millennials Are Driving the New Food and Ag Economy. Successful Farming, 114(3), 26-38.

Additional Readings of Interest:
"A Seismic Shift in How People Eat" by Pamela Koch and Hans Taparia
- Explains how large food companies like General Mills and Kraft are dealing, or not dealing with the new demand for healthier foods

Why is this an important topic to discuss?

Hello everyone!

First off, I would like to welcome all people, both pro-GMO and anti-GMO, to read my blog, Deciphering the Debate on GMOs: A look into the public perception of genetically modified organisms. The purpose of my blog is not to sway you to think one way or another on the topic, but rather to remind you to step back and take a look at the debate itself. Throughout the posts, we will discuss ways in which the public's opinion plays a role in agriculture, the food industry, and research. Instead of discussing who is right or wrong, we will explore why the conflicting views exist in the first place and the implications that these differing viewpoints have on both the developed and developing countries. It is my hope that after you read some of the things on the blog, you will take a look at your beliefs and critically analyze them. Ask yourself: Do I think genetically modified organisms are right or wrong? Safe or unsafe? Do I know why I think this? Do I have credible evidence to support my beliefs? Would I be afraid to share these beliefs with the people I am close to? Could I provide evidence in support of the opposing viewpoint? Do I know the power my opinion holds?

So now you may ask: why is it important to do this?

In 2002, Zambia experienced a severe famine in which 14 million people were at risk for starvation. However, officials rejected food aid in the form of genetically modified maize based on a "precautionary principle". The aid would have been enough to supply emergency support to half of the affected people (BBC News). As a society, we must decide:

Was it right for the officials to deny food to their food insecure citizens--- based on potential effects? 

Zambia's Agriculture Minister Mundia Sikatana said in regards to the issue, "In view of the current scientific uncertainty surrounding the issue... government has decided to base its decision not to accept GM foods in Zambia on the precautionary principle. The country should thus refrain from actions that might adversely affect human and animal health as well as harm the environment" (BBC News).

What is causing this uncertainty? Was the decision really based on scientific evidence or opinion? Is it fair for certain people's opinions to drastically affect what the poorest people in the world eat, especially if these opinions are from people in developed countries? (Africa, because of its close cultural, political, and economic ties to Europe, is heavily influenced by Europe's generally anti-GMO culture.)

It is these questions and the consequences of these questions that we will discuss in the context of this blog, so let's get started! In order to provide a little more context to the debate on GMOs in terms of how, for lack of better terms, ridiculous the types of media used to support both sides of the argument are becoming, I want to walk through a few examples that I have stumbled upon on the web.

http://www.socialmemegenerator.com/user-submitted-memes/i-argue-with-anti-gmo-trolls-for-shits-and-giggles-baby/

First, I like this meme because I think it actually represents how some people feel when they are arguing about GMOs. But it also brings up a good point that I would like to mention about the origin of such extreme arguments. My personal opinion as to the cause of this two-sidedness is simply that emotion trumps science. While scientists were releasing papers and papers explaining why GMOs are awesome and can do so many things, the general public (who chooses not to read scientific papers because they are very hard to understand and just all around awful) back-lashed with their beliefs and their concerns. And this makes sense; all good movies, gripping books, and successful add campaigns make you feel things rather than throwing scientific facts and statistics at you. And now, instead of listening to each other, scientists have built up a wall with their facts to keep the pro-GMO people on their side, while anti-GMO people have built up another wall with emotion to keep people on their side. What's in-between these two walls? Neither progress nor discussion. This relates to the above meme because even though people use some ridiculous arguments either against or in support of GMOs, the anti-GMO people have one thing going for them that the pro-GMO people do not: they are willing to argue and fight and put emotion into what they believe.

https://randomrationality.com/2014/09/24/genetically-modified-memes/

Images like this one are pretty typical on the web, whether with corn, or tomatoes, or bananas. I think the point of them is to show that no one has probably ever gotten sick from eating the "MANipulated" version of the banana, so genetically modifying foods are a good thing. But does it do a good job in persuading the viewer that this is true? Even though this photo came up when I searched for "GMO memes", the genetically modifying that has been done over the past 6,500 years (Rhodes) to create the banana we all know and love isn't the type of genetic modifying that we are generally referring to in this blog. Rather than using molecular genome editing techniques in the laboratory, the banana on the right was derived from thousands of years of domestication, or conventional breeding, in the fields of ancient civilizations (Rhodes). In fact, it is derived from the plant on the left called Musa acuminata (Rhodes). So overall, when looking at this photo, I would much rather eat the banana on the right, and I think most people would agree. However, would people think the same if they thought the modern banana was created in a lab, or would they go back to eating the seed-filled Musa acuminata that is "natural"? I think the important thing to take away from this photo is the need to decide whether or not the genetically modifying of foods in labs is the same as conventional domestication of plants, only sped up. If you are against one form of genetically modifying do you have to be against the other?

https://nogmomeansnoaloha.com/tag/mike-gabbard/

These types of pictures definitely have to be my favorite. There is so much going on here to talk about, and I think most people would admit that this is a little extreme. But on the other hand, I'm sure there's a lot of people who think it does justice to the topic. Obviously the picture was generated by someone who has a deep hatred for GMOs, but is there more to the story? I think the real hostility here and in a lot of other anti-GMO arguments is more associated with the presence of big-business in agriculture than with GMOs themselves. One big clue to this is the reference to agent orange. Although Monsanto was a producer of this carcinogenic chemical in the 60's and 70's, we need to ask: what does that have to do with genetically modified organisms and our food today? An article we will discuss later talks about the following a little more in-depth, but our current generation is sick of corporations ruling the food and agricultural industries. Instead, they want food fresh from the family farm. So the question here is: do these people really care about being anti-GMO as much as they care about getting rid of large corporations ruling the agricultural industry? If a series of smaller companies and independent producers would have been the first to develop and market GMOs, would the story be any different?

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/05/even-first-gmo-field-tests-controversial-will-ever-end-fight/

This photo gets a little trickier to talk about. First, no matter how you feel about insecticides or herbicides, you still do not want to get them on your skin. In fact, there is a recommended period of time before one enters a field after it has been sprayed with these chemicals in order to avoid exposure to them. So, in this picture, I believe that the purpose of the yellow suits is not because they are afraid of the GMOs, but maybe because they are testing the effects of a new pesticide on the crops. Also, by looking in the background, you can see that this is in a greenhouse or some type of contained testing facility. Just based on this, I am sure the area is highly regulated in trying to avoid contamination, especially if they are testing products for human or animal consumption, just as any food testing facility is. Finally, have you ever walked through a corn field that is shedding pollen (in the picture it looks as if there are tassels)? I worked as a crop scout for a summer, and I experienced this first-hand. You are covered in a thin layer of the yellow, itchy powder. It gets into your eyes and and causes them to swell and itch, and it makes you sneeze because it covers the inside of your nose. I have even gotten rashes from it sticking to my sweat. So in order to avoid this, it is necessary to wear a full rain suit with a wet towel rapped around your face to prevent the pollen from bothering you; in fact, I probably looked like one of the guys in the picture. Again, the main point of this picture is to remind everyone to take a second thought about what you see because there are so many possible explanations to what is going on.

https://randomrationality.com/2014/09/24/genetically-modified-memes/

Just for fun as we wrap things up, can you spot what is wrong with this one? I'll give you a hint; salt doesn't have DNA, and therefore can't be genetically modified. So yes, it is GMO free!

The main point of the above images is to remind you that when looking at evidence to support your point of view, make sure that you get it from a trustworthy site or take it with a (GMO free) grain of salt. As you can see by the links under each picture, none of them came from sources that I would consider credible. Better yet, look for evidence that conflicts your point of view to see if you can discredit what you think you know before you use it to support your argument. If we can get everyone to do this, we might be able to break down the walls and start having meaningful and progressive conversations about important scientific issues.


References
BBC News. (2002,). Famine-hit Zambia rejects GM food aid. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from       http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2371675.stm

Rhodes, J. (2011). Taming the Wild Banana. Retrieved April 22, 2016, from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/taming-the-wild-banana-33985103/