Opinion: Sound Science Not Always Enough
November 1, 2007 Those of us in agriculture are fond of saying, “Use Sound Science.” It makes perfect sense, of course. After all, what else can you reliably base decisions on? For instance, as harvest nears and you wonder about the possibility of a devastating storm, are you going to fire up your PC and check the weather forecasts, or whip out your phone and call Aunt Millie to see if her corns are throbbing? (Well, you may do both, but there’s nothing wrong with being thorough.)
I’m not saying there isn’t an element of art to fruit growing, in part because I’d venture to say it’s one of the things you love about a business in which your immediate fate, quite literally, can be riding on the wind. But only a fool would argue that agriculture isn’t a science. We believe in science so completely, in fact, that I think it gets us into trouble when dealing with the public at large. Whether the topic is food safety or pesticide runoff, we seek to ground our arguments in reality. The only problem is it doesn’t always work.
Why? We’re talking about people, not computers. Sure, you’ll hear people say, “Use your head.” But not with nearly the gusto as when they say, “Go with your gut.” Now I’m not saying we should abandon using sound science in defending agriculture. I just think it’s important that we recognize that logic doesn’t always carry the day.
Conspiracy Theory
I was reminded of this fact recently in reading a newspaper story about residents of California’s Monterey County, who were concerned about the state Department of Food and Agriculture’s (CDFA) efforts to rid the state of the light brown apple moth. I was surprised, to say the least, because the state had been bending over backward to do all it could to allay the public’s fears. Instead of spraying pesticides, as it had done in the past, the CDFA was spraying synthetic pheromones. Instead of killing the moths outright, CDFA was attempting to confuse the males so they couldn’t mate.
It seemed like a great approach to me. The state needs to do all it can to get rid of this Australian native, which threatens to wreak havoc on California’s roster of crops. (Though I’m not sure I agree with those who contend the pest is new to the U.S. The moth’s been found in too many areas — 12 counties and counting — for it to be a recent arrival. I think we just discovered that it was here.)
How could anyone be against pheromones? By being not only paranoid, but creatively so, it turns out. One man who protested the spraying told the San Jose Mercury News that if pheromones can confuse male moths, couldn’t a homophobic biochemist one day use it against gay men? “Anytime they say, ‘Trust us,’” the man was quoted as saying, “alarm bells go off.”
No, I’m not making this up. In fact, the protesters went so far as to get a restraining order against the spraying based on the fact that the manufacturer didn’t initially disclose the nature of the inert ingredients. Fortunately, however, in mid-October a judge determined that the pheromone spray was not a danger to the public, and the CDFA announced it would resume spraying. At least the judge responded to sound science. But for a good portion of the public, sound science holds no currency. They’re going to believe what they want to believe, and we’re just going to have to recognize that fact. I mean, “homophobic biochemist?” Give me a break.
Subscribe Today For
