I Expose Possible Problems In Pew Research Study

Are Scientific Studies Always 'Right'?
.................

I'll admit, I'm prejudiced when it comes to organic food, food additives, and GMOs (genetically modified organisms).  And when I saw the headline "The Less People Understand Science, The More Afraid Of GMOs They Are" in Pacific Standard I was looking to debunk.  And I think I succeeded--at least in my own mind.

My first step was reading the study, done by Pew Research, a well-respected organization.  One key to finding out whether the study was legit was knowing what questions they used to determine who understood science and who didn't.  And, because Pew is an honest, trustworthy outfit, they included all the background information one needs to review their study.

So, overall, what's my problem with their finding?  Three things:

* Organically grown food is unavoidably superior--though it's often more expensive
* "Food additives" is much too general a term; the FDA hasn't even studied some
* GMO foods are inherently risky

Plus, statistically, the difference between science-savvy and non-savvy respondents was just barely meaningful (see the study's footnotes).

Then there's the predisposition on the part of those who're scientifically trained to view reality abstractly.  Of course they'll tend to follow abstract logic that wants to manipulate food.

Even the phrasing of the "additives" question seemed unfair: "Additives in the food people eat every day pose a serious risk to health".  Even I would hesitate at "serious risk".  That's a loaded word, in my opinion.

And what about unconscious group-think that favors conventional, rather than unconventional (organic) food, because most everyone eats the former?  There's even the question of whether journalists who're advocates for GMOs, aren't actually, in the back of their minds, eager to be noticed by a powerful biotech company that might hire them for big bucks.  Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if our big ag and biotech companies have invested in promoting the "scientific" case for their side of the issue.  Is this why the European Union bans GMOs and the US doesn't?

And perhaps the biggest problem with conventional food, especially GMO agriculture, is that much of it relies on chemicals whose effectiveness tends to disappear over time.  New toxins are then needed to take over from those to which pests are now immune.  This tends to nudge us into tolerating harsher and more powerful herbicides and pesticides.  And of course organic agriculture has no problem here; that's because up until the early 1900s everything was organic, and relatively sustainable.  And let's not forget that organic soils are inherently carbon sponges, not to mention nutrient rich when fed carbon.