Being Afraid of the Wrong Things

A few days ago, a headline appeared in Science Daily: “Why do we love bees but hate wasps?” It’s an interesting question and the reason seems totally emotional.

“Both bees and wasps are two of humanity's most ecologically and economically important organisms. They both pollinate our flowers and crops, but wasps also regulate populations of crop pests and insects that carry human diseases.” But their survey showed that almost everyone sees bees as the good guys and wasps as scary and unwelcome. Although, both are known to sting humans, bees are associated with honey and wasps only with stinging. The researchers assert that this universal antipathy “is most likely due to a low-level interest in nature and a lack of knowledge about the benefits wasps bring to our planet's health and function.”

One example of the pest control aspect was a hornworm I found on one of my tomato plants the other day. It was no longer eating leaves because it had become a meal for many wasp larvae. Wasps are our friends.

Wasps are one example of things we should not be afraid of, but the fear of wasps doesn’t have a devastating effect on the future, beyond the fact that all pollinators should be encouraged to thrive in the interest of our future food supply. But there are other examples that are far more crucial.

One is nuclear power. People are scared of nuclear power. They hear of a nuclear power plant and picture a mushroom cloud, a Chernobyl-like meltdown or a disaster from an earthquake or tsunami. This attitude put the brakes on the development of nuclear power in the US 40 years ago. The German government decided to shut down nuclear plants and revert to coal in the face of “mass anti-nuclear protests…in the wake [of the] Fukushima event. Hence, Germans are giving up a source of non-polluting energy with a much smaller physical footprint than wind or solar. Back at home, as Americans have seen firsthand major technological advances in computers, telephones, transportation, and so many other areas, they have been stuck on the assumption that nuclear technology would have been stagnant since the 1970s. Had we adopted a different attitude then, it’s quite likely that the majority of our energy problems today would have been solved.

Another example is GMOs. Last month I wrote about the effects unreasonable fears of GMOs have on the world’s food supply. Americans are demanding labeling on packaging, so they know what they are eating. In Europe the government agencies confirm the safety of GMOs, while public opinion prevents their spread. People are starving in poorer countries for lack of food while the rich and middle class in the richer countries fuss about imaginary dangers.

Finally, add the idea of irradiating food for safety. From the FDA: “Irradiation does not make foods radioactive, compromise nutritional quality, or noticeably change the taste, texture, or appearance of food.” The technology “improves the safety and extends the shelf life of foods by reducing or eliminating microorganisms and insects.” It doesn’t make food glow in the dark; it makes it safer to eat. 

But when people hear anything that sounds like radiation, they panic; unaware perhaps, that all the sunshine they were soaking up on vacation a few weeks ago is also radiation. The vast majority wants it labeled, just in case. Then, when people avoid it and it doesn’t sell, we are all exposed to less safe food!

All these fears stem from the same source, captured in the above article about wasps, “a low-level interest in” science in general “and a lack of knowledge.”

The real cause for concern as we move further into the 21^st Century should be how public opinion will continue to work against public welfare. When we allow the "activists" and fear-mongers to keep winning, where does it lead?

A More Complex World Requires A Wiser Approach

A couple of years ago, CNN began an investigation based on a government mail fraud case against a Canadian company accused of processing payments for many rip-off artists from around the world with millions of victims in the US. “Many of the schemes are remarkably similar. They prey on the desperate, sick and elderly -- sending out letters that trick people into thinking they've won the lottery or found a psychic adviser who will turn their lives around.” Every year the scammers stole millions and laundered it through that company.

As follow up and as research for a book on the subject, they wanted to meet and interview a famous French psychic whose name is at the bottom of letters that appeared to be handwritten and personally signed. Addressed to the elderly, sick and lonely, "the letters promised that Maria Duval would use her powers as a world-renowned psychic to help solve their problems. They could recover from ailments, avoid terrible misfortune, win the lottery.” They only needed to send her money first. “At least 1.4 million Americans fell for the scam.”

To be convincing, the “letters contained personal details, like a recipient’s name, age or hometown” but this information is easily obtained on line. They bought mailing lists of people who would likely fall for such a scam. These people would then send in about $40 for each letter giving them guidance from the psychic along with lucky numbers and magic charms. The total collected in this one operation is estimated at over $200 million.

This continued for more than 20 years, but was only the tip of the iceberg. When they got an interview with the psychic, they found that she sold the rights to her name for a fraction of the proceeds. The psychic letter ploy along with other similar scams had become big business with professional copywriters and marketers scattered around the world and linked together by the Canadian payment processors.

It’s true that not enough Americans understand that psychic powers don’t exist. Those that can’t distinguish coincidence from the universe sending messages (or some such nonsense) are easily taken in. It’s true that some Americans don’t understand that you can never win a lottery that you haven’t bought a ticket for. But that’s not the main point.

There is a broader issue here. More sophisticated Americans, who scoff at the victims of these scams, follow fads and trends, are taken in by advertising for products of dubious value and respond with fear to manufactured crises. 

Their lack of critical thinking is evident and somewhat frightening. On one hand, they argue that climate change is real, based on the testimony of so many scientists. On the other, they will reject scientific consensus on many other subjects like the safety of genetic engineering, glyphosate (brand name Roundup) and irradiation of food. They will buy into the concept that locally grown and organic produce is always superior. They put their families on a gluten-free diet when there is no medical reason to do so. They believe there is something magical about sea salt. They put their faith in all sorts of untested dietary supplements. Experts warning against these actions are considered corporate shills or just mistaken. They buy products based on nothing more than endorsements from friends, strangers or celebrity spokespersons. They flock to purveyors of “secrets” that drug companies, doctors, credit card companies, Wall Street and the government “don’t want you to know.”

All this goes on as the world gets more complex every day. Incredibly fast communications bring real and false offers and threats. Advanced robots, AI and autonomous vehicles lurk in the near future, while hackers try to steal our identities and influence votes. Are Americans ready for the future? Behavior shows that today far too many are struggling, victims of scams and their own poor decisions.

Social Media vs. Reality

Given the choice to believe information passed around by friends, family and Facebook or the often-contradictory information passed around by doctors and experts based on scientific research, why do so many people go with the former?  Some of this effect may be blamed on the prevalence of what used to be called old wives’ tales and later urban legend, but are now sometimes referred to as a "psycho fact" – defined as a belief in the truth of an assertion based only on constant repetition.  A textbook example of a psycho fact is the myth that we use only 10% of our brain, an assumption easily disproved by MRI or other imaging technology as well as some common sense reasoning.

Now the formula for Diet Pepsi is being changed, not for any scientific or health-related reasons, but because of the public belief that aspartame currently used as a sweetener is unhealthy.  The company attributes a 5% reduction in sales to this widespread misinformation, so they have no choice but to succumb to public opinion and loudly advertise that they are changing.

In most articles, the press reports this fairly and emphasizes the fact that aspartame is, according to the FDA, “one of the most exhaustively studied substances in the human food supply, with more than 100 studies supporting its safety."  As reported in the Guardian from the UK, “the decision is a canny marketing move to allay the fears of US consumers, rather than one based on science; aspartame will still be used in Diet Pepsi for the rest of the world.”  As with many other substances, when taken in high enough doses, the individual ingredients can be dangerous; but as I have pointed out several times before, even water can be fatal if too much is consumed.

This LA Times report explains how wrong these rumors of danger are and how often they have been debunked.  For example, a 1996 paper purported to link exposure to it to a rise in brain tumors, but the increase in tumors was shown to began in 1973, “eight years before the introduction of aspartame, and mostly to affect people 70 and older -- not a major market for diet drinks. A team from the National Cancer Institute in 2006 found ‘no support’ for the hypothesis that the chemical posed a risk to humans.”  Nevertheless, the fear mongers persist, often quoting each other’s warnings and supposed research as proof of their point.

These aspartame rumors are not an isolated example.  It is just one small example in a growing list of fears driven by a small group of presumably well intentioned, but ignorant people who use fear tactics to promote their agendas.  Consider the bad reputation and continued assault on other safe products and practices:  fears spread about the use of Deet in mosquito repellant; claims by anti-vaccines and anti-fluoridation of drinking water movements; irrational resistance to irradiation as a food purification method, bold lettering declaring problems with milk from rBGH-treated cows, misperceptions about the health effects to animals and children of radiation from electrical powerlines and far too many others to mention.

We are left with a choice.  We can spend our resources worrying about these fabricated dangers in the environment and the food supply, participating in protests, spreading unfounded rumors on social media, and spending money on more expensive products that have been forced to meet every artificial restriction and preference of a non-scientific public; or we can use some critical thinking to look for the real science behind these supposed fears.  Don’t we have enough problems without letting these scaremongers, who may be profiting from the rumors they spread, invent more for us?  And just as the housing boom/bust was not caused by the prudent homebuyer but affected everyone regardless of financial responsibility, this surge in anti-science misinformation on social media, on television and in casual conversation perpetuated by an increasingly gullible public will have long-lasting and unnecessarily detrimental effects on our economy and our lives.

Food Paranoia

There is a big movement toward eating healthier.  In fact, it’s many movements that overlap.  Grocery stores, food companies and farmers are appealing to these new trends by increasingly offering organic, non-GMO, gluten-free and other options that some consider healthier.  A sincere effort to eat better diets is admirable, especially in a society that faces an obesity epidemic, but the real motivation is primarily not about eating better or some elitist notion of serving the family only the best.  Most of the changes are driven by fear – and an unreasonable fear at that!  Here are some examples.

Irradiation:  When people hear the word radiation, or one that even sounds like it, they are filled with visions of mushroom clouds and Chernobyl.  They don’t appreciate that we are exposed to many different kinds of radiation daily:  cosmic rays from space, sunlight that people bask in, radio waves in the air, x-rays at the dentists office, and more.  The process of irradiation of food is simple and safe.  The EPA approves it, and the sites are monitored and inspected.  It’s no scarier than microwaving some popcorn (another example of radiation).

Organic:  Objections to non-organic foods (often led by a wellness coach with no scientific education or someone whose credentials read “mom and activist”) claim that the food is more nutritious and tastes better, but the primary argument is about the dangers of ingesting pesticides.  Facts from reliable and unbiased sources differ. 

 “The results of 237…studies were combined into a four-year meta-analysis — the largest scientific review to date. The conclusion:  organic foods deliver no more nutrients, and aren’t even completely pesticide-free.”  “Researchers found a significant difference in the amounts of detectable pesticide residue. Traces of pesticides were found in 38 percent of conventional produce, and in 7 percent of organic produce. (However, almost all of these levels were below government safety limits.)”  Furthermore, everyone should be washing all fruits and vegetables before eating them.  In most cases this simple practice eliminates any minor problem.  “The overwhelming conclusion of all studies is that the health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure.”

What about fertilizer run-off with chemical fertilizers?  Actually chemical fertilizers are easier to handle than natural fertilizer (think cow poop).  Manufacturers are required by law to list ingredients and the amounts of each soil nutrient.  New farm techniques use satellite-guided navigation on tractors, some of which don’t even need a driver to plow, plant, fertilize and harvest precise rows.  It is in the farmers’ interest to not waste fertilizer and some of the newer equipment highly increases the precision of application.  With a chemical they know what they are getting and the release timing and not just spreading natural product over the whole field waiting for it to breakdown randomly into the same nutrients.

Processing:  Other fears include manufacturing processes such as the additive derogatorily labeled Pink Slime.  This artificial crisis in the last couple of years caused a knee-jerk reaction that cost people jobs and increased the price of ground beef for everyone.  Even vegetarians get to worry needlessly about hexane-processed soy used in their veggie burgers.

Gluten-free:  This fad has pushed gluten-free annual sales to over $4.2 billion.  In the opinion of this Montreal cardiologist and many other health experts:  “If you really want to be healthier, cutting out gluten is probably not the answer” unless you have celiac disease.  According to Dr. Nancy Snyderman of NBC, “nobody is actually ‘allergic’ to gluten.”  It’s not a recognized allergy.  Reactions to wheat flour are caused by celiac disease, a wheat allergy or gluten sensitivity.  Consult a doctor about these symptoms rather than self-diagnosing and expecting this new fad to lead to magical weight loss.  The professional advice from all corners is again, eat a good, varied diet with plenty of fruits and vegetables and forget those myths promoted by celebrities.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO):  I covered this topic at length recently.  Suffice it to say that the FDA does not use the term GMO because “people have been modifying plants for thousands of years through breeding and selection.”  When they modify plants naturally, we have no better idea of their safety than when they do it by genetic engineering.  Take bananas for example.  Here is one article telling the many ways bananas are good for you.  (Of course healthy-eating advocates wrote it, so it emphasizes organic bananas – even though any pesticide on the peel ends up in the trash.)  This is followed by another article from England telling how zoo keepers don’t feed bananas to monkeys anymore because they have been (naturally) bred to be higher in sugar and lower in fiber which is bad for the monkeys’ teeth and can cause gastrointestinal problems.  These bananas were modified naturally not by GMO methods and still there were undesirable results.  Natural methods do the same thing; it just takes longer.  GMO also reduces the guesswork in plant modification.  It’s not some kind of Frankenstein lab experiment with us as the guinea pigs.  The summary of this AP article pretty much says it all:  "Genetic modifications to a plant can improve its quality, hardiness or resistance to pests or disease. Scientific studies have found no evidence that GMOs are more harmful than foods without genetic modifications." [emphasis added]

The fighters against GMO say, "We just want them labeled - we have a right to know what we're eating."  But if there weren't an underlying effort to scare people about GMO, they wouldn't really care about those contents and would resent the added cost from another labeling regulation.

This discussion of facts and myths brings us back to a kind of moderate approach:  eating a lower calorie, healthy diet and disregarding the fear tactics of the mostly well-intentioned “natural food” or “real food” promoters.  It’s not necessarily bad to make good decisions out of fear.  But when the fears are unwarranted and the decisions lead to wasting time and money looking for magical solutions, that’s not really healthy.