Pink Slime

One of the principles of the behavioral approach is to address the behavior and not the person.  This automatically eliminates the acceptability of insults, name-calling and other personal attacks so common in our political process.  Addressing behavior replaces those destructive and often erroneous activities with attempts to solve problems with relevant facts and intelligent debate.

Now we get the case of “pink slime,” a derogatory term used to refer to, and gather support against, a beef product that has been in our food supply for years with no ill effects.  Why do people stoop to such name-calling?  Either they have no valid arguments or they are trying to catch us up in an emotional reaction to promote their particular cause (or as this news article calls it, a crusade).  And who thinks about the jobs lost?  Why are people who speak out against waste in other areas silent on this issue?  How can Kroger and the others offer twenty different kinds of dishwashing soap but not offer a simple choice to those who are not swayed by these scare tactics and want to buy the same kind of ground beef, less expensive and less fatty, that they have been buying for the last 20 years?

The uproar about the coloring ingredient in Coke and Pepsi that I addressed on March 19 had a similar dynamic - get people all riled up to rally behind a cause or complaint based on poor or sometimes even deceptive evidence.  The problem is that with social media it is now far easier to start a crusade or get people fired up about an issue using an emotional appeal.  Before you know it governments are banning products or ingredients or companies that sell them are back-pedaling due to the bad press on Facebook or Twitter.  Most consumers have little formal science education in such areas as human biology or experimental design, but they loudly express their “concerns” based on information from social media or the Internet.  The masses are howling, the ringleaders are name calling, and we are moving closer and closer to a kind of mob rule where we end up paying the extra costs, enduring the unintended consequences, and having our free choice eroded.

In this fast moving society one subject does not stay in the news long, so the following week, "concerns" arose over the use of BPA in food packaging.  At this rate we could be banning or otherwise losing access to 50 products a year based not on science but on public outcry!

Along similar lines this article tells about how old photos were intentionally used by the press to influence public perception in the Florida shooting case, which has sparked so many protests.  The article suggests that this type of manipulation by selective presentation of pictures and videos has become common practice in the media.  Another article sheds additional doubt on the accuracy and completeness of some news reports.

So my question is, when are we going to stop being influenced, frightened and manipulated, and start thinking for ourselves?  One way leads to reasonable outcomes, the other to the consequences of chaotic, knee-jerk reactions to each new manufactured crisis or well-intentioned crusade.