In a previous post, From Mad Scientists to Maddening Science Perceptions, Stuart discussed how society’s fear of science has deep cultural roots. This post takes that discussion a step further, looking at how those same fears have been used to mislead consumers about food and agricultural innovations.
Happy Halloween, from SAIFood’s Staff
Frankenstein to Frankenfood, using science to scare consumers
Mary Shelley’s 1818 book Frankenstein is a societal pushback against the scientific practices of the time. The scientific practice Shelley was disturbed by was the undertaking of autopsies within the emerging science of pathology. In the early 1500s, Renaissance artists such as Michelangelo and Da Vinci dissected corpses to study tissue structures so their carvings would look more lifelike. It wasn’t until the mid-1700s that autopsies became more common and the science of pathology was founded by Giovanni Morgagni, who is considered the father of pathology. Given the domination of religion at this time and the uncertainty of the difference between science and witchcraft, societies were incredibly nervous and uncertain about this emerging science. Her book was an effort to misinform and scare the public about pathology, autopsies, and science.
Scaring society common tactic
The general lack of science knowledge among societies plays into the hands of those opposed to scientific advances, as it allows them to spin false stories about innovations that can improve food security and human health. The vast majority of societies don’t receive information about science in a formal education setting, but rather in the political setting of mainstream and social media, as is demonstrated in the American illustration below.
Illustration by Tom Dunne.
Arguably, present day societies are only marginally better informed about scientific practices, such as plant breeding or vaccine development, than previously. Previous research by my team and I found that only 5% of individuals felt they were ‘relatively well informed’ about the technologies used to develop new crop varieties in Canada. Subsequent questions in the survey determined that this level of knowledge was very optimistic. In reality, social awareness of technical scientific advances and innovations hasn’t advanced much at all over the past 200 years.
False boogeymen are profitable
Innovations can scare societies and people, as technologies or products are different than previous ones. When vaccines were first commercially available, many medical doctors advocated against vaccinating children. In 1796, Edward Jenner found that cowpox could be used to make people immune to smallpox, which killed an estimated 400,000 people every year. Given that there was very little that doctors of this time could do to improve the health of their patients, many prescribed their patients sugar pills, which was a very lucrative practice. When smallpox vaccines and other vaccines became available, offering a real treatment that would improve a patient’s health, medical doctors quickly realized this would reduce their revenue from selling sugar pills. Two hundred years ago, doctors advised their patients not to vaccinate their children against smallpox as it was developed from cowpox and would result in their children developing big floppy ears and changing to run around on all fours, bellowing like cattle!
A more recent example projected by experts has been the adoption of cell phones. In the 1990s, when cell phone technology exploded, claims abounded that there was a significant risk of developing brain tumours due to holding a lithium-powered cell phone close to your head for extended periods of time. Many of these claims came from people within the medical community. Studies have since investigated cell phone use for any changes in the rates of brain cancer and have firmly concluded there is no way any correlation.
Environmental organizations, the organic food sector, and individual activists have created a business strategy for the promotion of false and misleading information that is deliberately designed to scare consumers into paying needlessly higher prices for food that is no more nutritious or safer than conventional food products. As the figure above demonstrates, adults receive most of their science information through political formats, which readily enables false narratives to be created and widely shared. Secured with this knowledge, these environmental organizations, the organic food sector, and individual activists disseminate false information about nutritious, safe food products, which are cheaper to purchase, in their efforts to establish the idea in consumer minds that these products are somehow ‘monstrous’. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, evidence is confirming that new innovative food products, such as genetically modified corn is safer to eat than non-GM or organic corn, due to the drastic reduction in the presence of carcinogenic toxins.
Frankenfood
The term ‘Frankenfood’ was coined by those opposed to food innovations to scare societies into being terrified of innovative crop and food production technologies. Like the examples above, it was deliberately designed to provide false information about technologies and products that are completely safe and provide benefits to humans and the environment. Establishing this false fear into the social conscience has been very profitable for the organic industry, which constantly makes false claims about the safety of innovative food products, and those deliberately opposed to these products, such as the Non-GMO Project. Both organic and non-GMO labelled products are priced far higher than conventional products. This is yet another example of those opposed to innovation attempting to deliberately misinform consumers, in this case, to pay more for no safer products, nor provide any kind of additional benefit.
Fortunately, consumers are recognizing the false narrative associated with innovative crops and food technologies and products. Groceries labelled as organic or non-GMO are priced far beyond the means of the majority of consumers, resulting in them really only being a viable option for the wealthy. Price and nutrition are the top factors in making food purchase decisions, which is what innovative food has been providing for 30 years now. Consumers are shifting perspectives, rejecting the false boogeyman notion of innovative food technologies and increasingly embracing these new products, which are much cheaper than organic and non-GMO labelled foods.
If Frankenstein once symbolized fear of the unknown, today’s scientists and communicators have the chance to rewrite that narrative. By demystifying the science behind our food, we can replace fear with understanding and misinformation with trust. However, maybe the bigger concern is that we are trusting individuals, and it is so easy to put out misinformation and therefore create fear and to profit from this. It’s as simple as a Facebook post, a comment on Twitter/X, or a graphic which falsely accuses a chemical of causing cancer in rats to build and project this Franken Monster view. As food prices continue to increase, it’s expected these false narratives will increasingly be ignored, as environmental organizations have admitted they’re unable to defeat society’s trust in science.
