We
live in a time of bullshit, and our ability to see clearly and to
face the challenges ahead is undermined by the nonsense and fake news
pushed at us. Opportunist politicians use the word 'expert' as a term
of abuse to get us to disregard evidence; they talk to us in ways
previously only heard when unfortunate enough to be drinking next to
the pub blow-hard.
The
right, populist politicians, the fossil fuel industry and climate change deniers
stand rightly accused. But before any of us on the side of science gets too self righteous, we need to recognise that some of
us are fully capable of sabotaging the cause ourselves.
***
In the UK not so long ago we were told by a legitimate government food watchdog, the Food Safety Agency, that eating well browned toast, or somewhat overdone barbecued meat puts us in danger of getting cancer because they contain acrylamide, a carcinogen. The whole thing was wrapped up in a proper-job campaign launched with the title Go For Gold, as in, that's the safe colour to eat. It was nonsense - research shows that acrylamide is there, but in vanishingly small amounts, posing no discoverable risk to humans.
According
to an article on the NHS website, in 2002 Swedish researchers found
that laboratory mice showed an increased risk of cancer when fed
acrylamide – in quantities 900 times greater than any human is ever
likely to eat. So yes, technically, it belongs in the carcinogen
category, but as a risk it is negligible. The
campaign has now been taken down in response to the derision it
received. But the damage this kind of thing does to the credibility
of science and the ammunition it gives to the assholes wishing to demonise
the 'expert', can't be so easily erased.
It was that campaign which prompted
me to write this post, as I first heard of it in the pub from a mate
who began by saying, 'Have you heard what the buggers are telling us
now?'
Our
ability to deal with real problems is horribly undermined by this
stuff. A public used to ignoring an allegedly science based warning
because they have no respect for it are likely to approach other,
better founded, concerns in the same way. The zealots who lobby away
at pushing this stuff at us are crippling our ability to deal with
the real problems.
***
The Menace of Coffee …
Since the 1980's the sale of coffee in California has had to be accompanied by a warning that it carries a risk of cancer. This is because it contains the same substance that is in that barbecued food. There has been endless dispute in court over it. In 2018 it seemed to have been backed up by a court ruling; then in 2019 the ruling was overturned and the warning no longer has to be given. The issues are the same – the substance is undoubtedly there, but in negligible amounts, no risk to humans having been discovered. So at the moment the warning is not there – but for how long I wonder.
I'm not going to explore the coffee arguments here, there's plenty of stuff out there already. Here are reports, one year apart, of the two verdicts described above.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/08/ruling-cancer-warning-labels-coffee-california
Another own goal is scored in the 'Insect Armageddon' story.
It tells us that insect numbers are declining at the rate of 2.5% a year, which means they will all be gone in 100 years.
Nobody knows this to be true because no research exists to show that it is true.
It comes from a clumsy attempt at a meta analysis by Francisco Sánchez-Bayo from the University of Sydney and Kris Wyckhuys from the University of Queensland.
Here's a good discussion about it:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0004f6h (From 4mins38secs)
Another
way of contributing to the problem is to yield to the 'And another
thing!' temptation, as in the next case.
I
worry about the state of our agricultural land and the effects of
pesticides and herbicides. So I am inspired by Isabella Tree, a
landowner, farmer and rewilder, whose book about reinstating the
condition of her land - and along with it the wildlife it supports - is
essential reading.
The
book, Rewilding is based on
deep experience, is well argued and is supported by good evidence.
And there she should have left it. Instead, she yielded to the urge
to shove in additional stuff she thought might add extra weight to
her already more than sufficient arguments. But the extra stuff isn't
good and is easily shown to be wrong. So
instead of supporting her case it undermines it by handing the opposition weak points they can play up.
She
cites the National Farmers Union as saying that in the UK we have
only 100 harvests left in our soil. While I have a creepy feeling
that could well be true, there is no evidence about that specific claim
one way or the other.
The
trade paper, Farmers Weekly,
reported it in 2014:
'Only
100 harvests left in UK farm soils scientists warn', says their
headline. It's plausible and if scientists say so it must be true. Or
not, depending on your view of scientists. Well, it seems scientists
don't say anything about 100 harvests. And there is no research to
demonstrate that conclusion. So here we have another swipe at the
credibility of scientists dished up by the well-meaning but wrong.
(Below
I give links to the Farmers Weekly article, and a piece in the New
Scientist which cuts it down to size.)
On
the British radio show, Desert
Island Discs,
she claimed that, today, 'You have to eat 10 tomatoes to get the
nutrition out of one tomato in the 1950's' [sic]. Now I have loved
tomatoes all my life and probably get through an average of at least four a day. Would I really have to eat 40 a day to get the same
nutrition as I was getting when I was boy? Well no. Or to be more correct, I don't know. I have no idea
where this figure comes from, but it is efficiently dismantled here,
in the BBC World Service's podcast, More
or Less':
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csz3ry
There
are media, politicians and assholes in general who want to destroy
the credibility of science, of the despised 'experts'. So thanks
Farmers Weekly, for nothing. And Isabella Tree – your work is good
enough to stand on its own. You don't need to pile on the agony by
uncritically shoving in any old tosh just because you think it might
add an extra microgram to the weight of your argument. All it does is
provide material for the scripts of those who wish to turn ordinary
people away from modern science and environmental concerns.
And
when issues such as environment, CO2
emissions, plastics, degradation of the sea and soil and urban air
pollution are reported, the man in the pub complains, 'Have you heard
what the buggers are telling us now?'.
Finally, I want to be clear about where I am coming from:
- I think we face a climate emergency and I support Greta Thunberg.
- I think nature is essential to the functioning of the planet, and that it is under very serious threat from human activity, a major part of which is destructive agricultural practice.
- I have argued in other posts that the problems we face are to be expected: consequences of the fact that we are a prolific species and, like any prolific species, we are having an impact on our habitat. Naturally then, we should, and can, take steps to prevent it being damaged to the point where it no longer supports us.
Notes and more:
Here
is Isabella Tree's book. Despite my criticism of her added extras I
think it is an absolute must-read: convincing, uplifting and
inspirational - a signpost to a better future.
The
Sun newspaper did a demolition job on the Go for Gold
campaign. It's a good read, here:
Here's
the NHS on the mice and 900 times human consumption:
… and
again here:
The Farmers weekly 100 harvests
article is here:
Find the New Scientist demolition
job here:
And in the wider context, I'm a big fan of Ben Goldacre, a doctor who pursues publishers of dodgy research papers, journalistic health scare mongers, snake oil peddlers, big pharma and bad and lazy research in general. He is also very entertaining. Here he is on YouTube:
And here's his website:
And here's his website:
And - this essential resource should be routinely used by us all: https://fullfact.org/
Once
again I will reiterate that I believe we have a very serious problem. I also believe that most people,
given proper information have the potential to try to put things
right.
