Why Ag Loses When Politics and Emotion Win Out Over Science
August 24, 2020 Let’s begin by saying this is nothing new, but the coronavirus has exposed our tendency to retreat to our political and cultural teams when we face uncertain times. No doubt, this novel virus has put the world in most uncertain times. It is a situation where scientists and doctors are working hard trying to learn more and catch up with the fast-moving scourge.
There is science out there, but it is clouded by what appears to be more a political discussion rather than what science has to offer. Masks! No masks! This therapeutic treatment will save you! No, it will kill you! School now! School, no way!
Wherever you find yourself on the spectrum of these debates, there is an “expert” to be found permeating through the channels of media to support your point of view. But is it right and really science-based? When it comes to coronavirus, I’ve mostly given up trying to sort through all that chaff.
The virus is doing what viruses do, but it does put a point to the question: What happens when science is overwhelmed by politics, rhetoric, emotions, and the vessels now used to perpetuate it — social media, the world “wild” web, and news media?
Let’s set that evil virus bug aside and look at some other consequential science debates that have impacted agriculture in a world where modern agricultural practices have been singled out for attack. In 2018, France became the first country in Europe to ban all neonicotinoid insecticides for use in farming. The insecticide has been under intense scrutiny for potential impacts on pollinators. It also has been recognized as one of the most effective chemistries in modern times to control important pests of many crops. If you go down the rabbit hole of the expert opponents and proponents of the neonics, you will come out the other end scratching your head.
The opponents won the day in France, but what happens when you ban a crop protection tool? For sugar beet farmers there, it was bad news. This year, growers have reported devastating crop losses of 50% or more from an aphid-transmitted disease. Neonics were a critical tool to control the aphid. This on a crop that does not flower — something pollinators generally seek out.
To the French government’s credit, according to Reuters, an amendment to the law has been proposed that will exempt sugar beet growers from the general ban and allow the use of neonics as a seed treatment. I guess they recognized the ban threatened these farmers’ very existence.
Here in the states, Bayer recently settled thousands of class-action lawsuits from plaintiffs claiming glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, had caused certain forms of cancer among those who have handled the product. Again, a situation where arguments were put forward to support both sides that are hard to decipher, especially if you are not a scientist. Many global regulatory agencies have deemed the product safe for many years, but that $10 billion-dollar settlement suggests neither side really proved their case. Will it encourage more lawsuits of a similar ilk? You bet.
It seems science is losing the battle these days. This is because people have lost trust in the fundamental institutions needed to make society work. It makes us more likely to believe what we want to believe and perpetuate it through sharing and supporting the media of our choice. We can turn that around, but it will be a long slog. One small step on that journey is to let scientists do their job and be willing to accept the truth when it is presented to you.
Subscribe Today For
