Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Biofortification: The New ‘Green Revolution’ Of Genetically Engineered, More Nutritious Crops

The Green Revolution that began in the 1940s and 50s brought about large increases in crop yields and saved millions of people from mass famine. Yet malnutrition remains widely prevalent around the globe. And, while many people eat enough calories, many do not get enough nutrients.

Now, plant breeders and biotechnologists are working on a new Green Revolution to make crops produce more nutrients, a process called biofortification. Recently, several new biofortified crops have been in the news: an orange ‘super banana’ genetically engineered to produce elevated levels of beta-carotene currently undergoing human testing in Iowa; pearl millet bred to contain large amounts of zinc and iron in India; beta-carotene-enriched cassava recently released in Nigeria and iron-fortified beans in Rwanda.

Hidden hunger

Some 870 million suffer from hunger, but almost a third of the world’s population still do not get enough essential nutrients and suffer from hidden hunger, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Hidden hunger is more prevalent in poorer countries in Asia and Africa, but it also exists in wealthy countries like America.

“Many Americans can get enough calories, but not enough nutrients,” said Mary Lee Chin, a registered dietician.

Nutrition is a complex issue, Chin says, and there are many factors that can contribute to malnutrition. In rich countries like America, staple foods that are consumed regularly are fortified with vitamins and micronutrients in order to provide Americans with enough nutrition. Some common examples include fortifying milk and orange juice with vitamin D and bread with folate, a very important nutrient for fetal neurological development. But because of poor food choices or lifestyle habits, many Americans still do not get enough calcium, vitamin D and potassium, according to Chin.

In poor countries, many people don’t have access to such large varieties of food and instead rely on one or two staples. In many parts of Asia, the staple is rice; in African countries, it’s tubers like cassava or fruit like cooking bananas. These staple foods fill people’s bellies, but they often do not have enough essential vitamins and micronutrients. Two billion people in the world are anemic because they do not get enough iron, according to Chin, and children under the age of five who don’t have enough vitamin A and live in places that are susceptible to diseases are ten times more likely to die from diarrhea or pneumonia.

Many nutritional deficiencies are complex problems, but vitamin A deficiency worldwide had been identified as a “simple” problem with a “simple” answer. In 1992, scientists from John Hopkins University calculated that 1.3 to 2.5 million deaths among infants and preschoolers could be prevented every year if they just received enough vitamin A; no other nutritional interventions or improvements were needed.

Teaching a man to fish

Problems like vitamin A deficiency are easily fixed in wealthy countries, where supplementation or fortification of foods is relatively inexpensive, but in poor countries where people live in remote, rural areas, supplementation programs can be expensive and difficult to sustain. This is where biofortification of staple crops comes in.

Scientists working on crop biofortification have to select their crops carefully. “There has to be a cultural acceptance of food,” Chin said. That’s why one of the most well-known biofortification projects, Golden Rice, has focused on rice: a staple food for half of the world’s population and especially in regions where vitamin A deficiency is endemic. Researchers at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia, chose to work on increasing beta-carotene levels in cooking bananas for the same reason: because they are already commonly eaten and well-accepted in Uganda. HarvestPlus, a food aid organization, selected seven staple food crops to work on, including beans for Rwanda, pearl millet for India and cassava for Nigeria.

Recipients of the biofortified seeds have always planted and depended on those crops. By improving the nutritional content of the same staple crops that they already consume rather than providing supplementation, researchers have likened the idea of crop biofortification to the old “teaching a man to fish” adage.

Golden Rice “can be planted by the farmers using seeds from their own harvest and that would provide sustained supply of beta-carotene,” Antonio A. Alfonso, the Golden Rice project leader at the Philippine Rice Research Institute said.

There are also biofortification projects targeted to help address nutritional deficiencies in America. One such project focuses on increasing folate levels in potatoes to ensure that pregnant women have enough folate for normal fetal neurological development, especially during the first few weeks of pregnancy. “The problem with supplements is that most pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned,” Aymeric Goyer, chief scientist of the project at Hermiston Agricultural Research and Extension Center, said. “By the time a woman realizes she is pregnant, the first few weeks have already passed.”

How biofortification works

Crops can be improved to produce higher levels of certain desired nutrients by manipulating their genetic makeups. This can be done through conventional plant breeding or genetic engineering.

Plant breeding methods involve testing many wild relatives of a domesticated crop for a certain nutrient, selecting the ones that contain higher levels of that nutrient and crossing those wild relatives with the domesticated crop. The crossings can remove desired qualities of the domesticated crop, such as edibility (many wild relatives are inedible), appeal and yield. Because of that, it often takes a long time for crops to be biofortified using this method.

Genetic engineering is more precise and involves isolating individual genes from the wild relatives of a domesticated crop or other species that code for increased production of certain nutrients and transferring them into the plant. It is also possible for different genes coding for increased levels of different nutrients to be “stacked” in a crop using genetic engineering methods, so that a crop can be biofortified with more than one desired nutrient.

Traditionally, plant breeders have bred for size, visual appeal and yield in their crops, often neglecting or sometimes unintentionally removing qualities such as flavor and nutrients, according to Kevin Folta, professor of horticulture at the University of Florida, Gainesville. Crop biofortification is much more expensive and time-consuming through plant breeding, although techniques like marker-assisted selection have dramatically reduced the time and resources required for plant breeding. “Imagine screening tens of thousands of plants for levels of different nutrients,” said Folta.

There are also other ways that manipulating genetics can improve crop nutrition. Many fruits and vegetables lose nutritional value as they are bruised or improperly handled and stored, according to Chin. “Handling fresh produce correctly every step of the way, from producer to consumer, makes a difference in preserving the nutrients,” said Chin. To address that, fruits and vegetables can be genetically modified to be more robust, less susceptible to bruising or to have longer shelf lives.

Another method is to improve the taste of nutritious crops. “It’s not just a question of fortifying plants,” Folta said. “What about plants that are nutritious but taste bad?” One example would be the commercial tomato. Many now liken its taste to that of cardboard, and research groups are working to bring its flavors back.

Public opinion matters

The advantages that genetic engineering has over plant breeding in crop biofortification projects seem to be nullified by widespread public dissent. The Golden Rice project began in 1992, but it is still languishing in research institutes. Meanwhile, HarvestPlus has successfully distributed iron-fortified beans in Rwanda, iron-fortified millet in India and beta-carotene-fortified cassava in Nigeria, all produced through conventional plant breeding methods.

HarvestPlus program director Howarth Bouis says that the program has already reached approximately seven million people worldwide. “At HarvestPlus we took the decision not to invest in transgenics, because we wanted to avoid the controversy,” he said.

For now, it looks like they were right.

Biofortification: The New ?Green Revolution? Of Genetically Engineered, More Nutritious Crops
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Read it. You even highlighted it as a bold quote.

I read it.

It points out how people mischaracterize scientists and choose to distrust them.

Your post was about people not trusting other people.


You are getting upset over me agreeing with you.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
If I had a business plan that included growing hemp in Alberta the biggest issue would be what kind of seed to plant (and harvest and replant the next year). At the moment there might be 6 varieties that fit the THC content but they come from Europe. Would it not be in my financial interest to get seeds from the Frankenstein plants that grow taller and have fewer branches per plant and cultivate them year after year so in 10 generations the seed is quite different from the original one planted.

When Mt St Helens blew her top off if you wanted to do some terra-forming that would be the time to do it and seeding would be done with water bombers, after the fire has moved on. In my case it would have been a pine forest go up so ground cover that does well in sandy acidic soil (vines) would be dropped to help speed up the recovery. A bit of custom tall grass might be what cows need when in a winter pasture, or elk, etc. Starting a fire to get this started would be on the bad planing side. Plants that come in 16ft lengths are more valuable that short fiber bales.

It won't do anybody any good to grow a sterile plant unless it is to help in the eradication of a 'weed' and steaming hot water or a dilute solution of wood ash and water.

Scientists are not people? What then? Dieties?

How do different species interbreed?
Are they better at their job than hobbyists who have equal funding when advancements alone is the goal? Even going down the 'wrong path' only means that path belongs to a different question and it should also be explored to see where it leads to.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Scientists are not people? What then? Dieties?

How do different species interbreed?

Who said scientists aren't people?

My point was precisely that they are and that as you said, others choose not to trust them.


Are you still mad that we agree with each other?
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Science is the new religion. Their are subject to fallibility and corruption the same as any priesthood. Blind faith will cause blindness.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Science is the new religion. Their are subject to fallibility and corruption the same as any priesthood. Blind faith will cause blindness.

Which scientific discipline has been corrupted?

Physics?

Biology?

Chemistry?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
we are SUPPOSED to doubt scientific results.

You should only doubt results because there is credible evidence that calls those results into question. The fact that I work for a pharmaceutical company that makes money, is not a good enough reason to doubt my results.

And there's the rub. Most people don't have a clue about what results are good, and which are bad. So they default to their internal biases. I don't think the OP question is really that hard to answer. We know that repeating false claims while debunking them, tends to make the people who hold those views stronger in their resolve.

This forum is a good example of the bubbles that people tend to gravitate to. You have groups here that tend to think the same things, and predictably will respond in the same way for certain topics. You can probably think of a few, and predict what kind of responses you'll see when opening a thread on a certain topic, or even posted by a certain poster.

This is an old problem, with an old name. Cognitive dissonance. Well older than I am anyways :lol:
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
You should only doubt results because there is credible evidence that calls those results into question.




I see, so as a layman, we should take everything the scientists tell us as gospel truth unless some other scientist tells us differently?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I see, so as a layman, we should take everything the scientists tell us as gospel truth unless some other scientist tells us differently?

Hmm, not what I said, but I have two points. First, it doesn't need to be a scientist, or even someone else that tells you differently. However that said, I tend to weight expert opinions higher than layman, as a rule. Second, about what you should do. Both of these extreme starting positions are necessarily false:
If you assume everything a scientist says is true, then you're wrong.
If you assume everything a scientist says is false, then you're wrong.

I went on to talk about biases, well one of mine is that I believe the system of science is the best we have for understanding the universe, and as I said above I tend to value expert opinion more than the chatter in a Tim Hortons every morning. It's impossible for someone to be neutral in that dichotomy I made above. I would obviously lean more to the assuming they are being truthful, than assuming everything they say is false. That means sometimes I'll be wrong, but I'm ok with that.

Like I said, I don't think the answer to the OP question is hard, or that it's even a new problem. I do think that scientists are less trusted now then they were, say in the 60s when science was leaping ahead. I think part of that is also a bit related to cold war propaganda. Whether or not it's a big problem? Hard to say. I definitely think it's a problem though, and if I had the solution I could be a very rich man.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
and after 2 posts where you say the question isn't hard to answer, you haven't answered it.