People's ability to blatantly disregard logic and reason astounds me. I have never understood how an otherwise logical and reasonable person can throw that all out the window and only act emotionally when it comes to a topic they care about. Yes, I think my beliefs are correct, and I will passionately defend them, but when new information is presented to me that contradicts my views, I have no choice but to rethink my opinion and either correct it or discard it for a new one. There is no point to fighting over a wrong hypothesis. I am a scientist, and science can only develop theories based on actual data. You can argue and debate and stretch the truth as much as you want to try and save face, but in the end, you are still wrong. I'd much rather be right and a flip-flopper than wrong and consistent.
The worst, to me, are the people who apply half-truths or pseudoscience to validate their point. Done innocently, I will forgive, but in my experience it is done on purpose to try and win an argument, even when the facts do not support their point. This malicious behavior may be subconscious, but even so it is inexcusable to lie to prove a point. One of the reasons there is a separation between adults and children legally is because until you are an adult, your ability to apply reason is not considered fully-functioning. It is just incredible that there are so many adults who either do not know how to apply reason properly or actively ignore reason in order to support their beliefs.
 |
| GM corn constituted 88% of all corn planted in the United States in 2012. |
GM Crops Should not be Analyzed by a Fashion Magazine
Last week I came across a story that used the same tactics of half-truths and pseudoscience in order to prove a point (and more than likely sell magazines). In the August issue of Elle, Caitlin Shetterly wrote The Bad Seed: The Health Risks of Genetically Modified Corn, a scathing article demonizing genetically modified crops and the companies that created them, particularly Monsanto. In the article, Shetterly blames GM corn for the terrible allergies she had for years, and goes on to "prove" that all genetically modified crops are potentially dangerous and the agro-companies are performing some sort of giant experiment on the general public for the sake of profits.The article really irks me for a few reasons. First, you should be highly suspect of a science article in a fashion magazine. I have yet to figure out why it isn't weird to see a fashion or arts or entertainment magazine tackle a science topic now and then, but it would be weird to see Scientific American write about the benefits of proper hair-care. Second, Shetterly is either unaware of how to form a proper argument and provide evidence that actually supports her hypothesis, or she is aware, but chooses not to use reason in order to make a more frightening article that will sell magazines. It is likely a bit of both, though I still debate in my head whether it is worse to be ignorant of how to properly apply logic, or to be consciously misapplying logic to argue a point.
Correlation versus Causation: Breaking Down the Lies
I could go into a long, step-by-step breakdown of this article and cover each point where the author was either wrong or misguided, but Slate has already done this for me, so if you want to see a well-written deconstruction of the Elle article, check it out once you are done here. What I am going to focus on is the significant difference between correlation and causation. One of the tactics Shetterly used to make her point more compelling (at this point I have assumed she has purposefully deceived her readers at least a little) is confusing correlation with causation. This is used far too often by people hawking worthless crap to gullible people. The difference is actually quite simple, though it is not quite as easy to see when a charismatic personality is trying to sell you something.What is Causation?
Causation is what scientists look for when researching any subject. They are trying to show that Event A caused Event B. As a simple example, you stayed up late last night, so now you are more tired in the morning. Staying up late caused you to lose sleep, which caused you to be more tired than usual. It seems simple enough. In science, showing causation is not usually this simple. There are usually many factors that could cause something to happen. Just showing that Event B happens more frequently than Event A is not enough to show causation. Event A could be influencing Event B, or Event B could be influencing Event A. It could also be that Event C is influencing A and B, so just changing A will not affect B. Causation is not as easy to show as the first example would make you think it is. Proving causation requires collecting a lot of data, doing as much as possible to remove other potentially influencing factors, and repeating tests to ensure you get similar results.What is Correlation?
Correlation, on the other hand, is easy. All you need to show to have correlation is two sets of data that trend similarly. For example, you ate pizza for dinner every night this last week, and this entire week you have not slept well. This is correlation. Both sets of data appear to link eating pizza with sleeping poorly, but there is not enough information here to prove causation. There are so many other factors that could have caused your sleeplessness. Were you working late every night, and didn't have time to make a good meal, so you ordered pizza every night? This would be Event C (working late), causing both Event A (eating pizza) and Event B (sleeplessness). Or is your sleeplessness causing you to be too tired to do anything other than order pizza? This would be causation, but not the causation we were trying to prove. It could also be just a fluke, and your sleeplessness has nothing to do with your pizza consumption. It just so happens that your week of pizza eating correlates with your week of sleeplessness. As you can see, taking the leap from correlation to causation is quite a difficult one, but it is a leap that writers and speakers can make you take without sufficient proof by telling a compelling story and using your preconceived notions on how the world works.People Lie to You and Get Away With It
It seems like people would be able to catch on pretty quick if someone was trying to trick them with data that doesn't support the conclusion, but this happens all the time. It is all due to charisma and emotions. The writer or speaker pulls people in with a compelling story, makes the audience believe what they are saying emotionally, so when they make an illogical leap, the audience is none the wiser. The conclusion the writer is going for is already hinted at throughout the article, including the title, and gives a plausible enough explanation that most people won't question it.Just look at what Caitlin Shetterly said in her article. It is titled The Health Risks of Genetically Modified Corn. You are already assuming that somewhere in it, you will be presented with facts proving the health risks of GMOs. When you finally get to the "evidence" it seems reasonable enough and most readers buy into it. This is significantly helped by Shetterly's writing style, which is essentially story-telling. Not that everything she says is false, but it reads like a novel. ;Here is the first paragraph:
The office of allergist Paris Mansmann, MD, sits on a grassy slope overlooking the Royal River, a wide waterway that originates in inland Maine and winds down across farmland and under train tracks until it hits the coastal town of Yarmouth, where it sloshes into the Atlantic Ocean.When I first came to Mansmann in February 2011, the river was covered with ice, and bare trees stood silver sentry on its shores. I was 36. I'd been sick for three and a half years.This is obviously not a scientific article. This is a story of Shetterly's life, one that is emotional enough for the reader to connect with the protagonist, her, so when she tries to sell her opinion on GM corn, the reader buys it. It is a brilliant trick. There is even an antagonist (Monsanto, the government), a struggle (terrible allergies), and an unsuspecting hero (Dr. Paris Mansmann). The reader gets sucked into the story and will believe anything presented to them.
Causation is not Shown in the Elle Article
I'd like to start out by saying I am very sorry that Caitlin Shatterly had to endure such terrible symptoms as she described in her article. I am also glad that she was able to rid herself of allergies by something as simple as changing her diet. I am not arguing the results. Where I find fault with the article is the point which she blames GM corn for her allergies, because while she feels the removal of corn from her diet alleviated her symptoms, this is far from causation. For one thing, she doesn't just remove GM corn from her diet, she removes all corn. At best she has shown causation that corn was causing her allergies, but to blame it on GM corn specifically is impossible to show. What she saw was her allergies getting better at the same time she stopped eating corn. The only reason I can see why she singles out GM corn is because her allergist mentioned it.In the real world, nothing happens in a vacuum. She may have consciously removed corn from her diet, but inevitably she would have replaced those lost calories with some other food. Likely she would have changed her diet significantly, since corn and corn-based foods are a large percentage of the average person's daily caloric intake. I'd be willing to bet she ended up removing more than just one food from her diet, and likely added a few too. I certainly see something worth studying more, but there is not any data here that points to GM corn, or GMOs in general as the culprit.
Shatterly uses causation/correlation confusion again later to provide more "evidence" of the link between genetically modified organisms and allergies.
While I quickly discovered that blaming GMO foods for any kind of health problem is controversial in the medical and biotech worlds, what's beyond debate is the increase in the incidence of autoimmune disorders such as type 1 diabetes, lupus, and celiac disease, as well as of allergies. As for the latter, the National Health Interview Survey found, for instance, that since 1999, the number of children with food allergies has jumped by 50 percent, and those with skin allergies by 69 percent (and the increase isn't merely a by-product of fuller reporting by parents, experts say).No one is going to argue that the incidence of any of these disorders is on the rise. The difficulty is pinpointing a cause. While this article never accuses GM crops of causing any of these disorders directly, it does point out the correlation between the increase of GM crop use and the rise in allergies worldwide. Interestingly, Shatterly mentions diabetes, lupus, and celiac disease too, though with these three she doesn't directly suggest they are caused by GM crops. They are presented merely for effect, to make GM crops look worse, even though she never brings them up again.
Genetically Modified Crops have no Increased Incidence of Allergies
The correlation between allergies and GM crop use is an interesting one. Certainly, foods can cause allergies, and a rise in the use of a new food that appears to link to an increase in allergies is worth taking note. To only present this small sample of data however and try to show causation is misguided at best, and deliberate deceit at worst. If we want to show causation, other possible factors have to be ruled out, and the effect (in this case allergies) must track along with the cause (in this case GM crop usage) through both ups and downs. The Slate article points out that the incidence of allergies does not just trend with GM crop usage, but also New England Patriot wins, Chin's GDP, and consumption of organic foods. While all true, the first two obviously are not the cause of an increase in allergies. Shatterly is able to make her readers believe her unsubstantiated claims because there is already a link between food and allergies. So while I could show hundreds of correlations between random data sets and incidence of allergies, I am going to stick to those that have the potential to be a causal factor.To start, lets look at the rate of GM adoption in the United States. As you can see from the charts below, the adoption of GM crops in the US has increased significantly since the mid 1990s.
It is obvious from these charts that GM crops have gained widespread use in the United States over the past seventeen years, while in other countries, especially those in Europe, have seen slower or no growth in the use of GM crops. I have done my best to collect as much data on allergies as possible over this same time period.
What you see is a slight increase in the percentage of children reporting food allergies, a slight increase in the percentage of adults reporting asthma, and a slight decrease in the percentage of adults reporting hay fever. All this during a time of rapid growth in the use of GM crops in the US. This is not even a good correlation. In Europe, specifically in the United Kingdom, genetically modified crops have either been banned or partially banned. Interestingly, there appears to be a similar rise in allergies in the UK, even though no GM crops are grown.
The data from the UK shows that the rise in allergies is not confined to those countries growing GM crops. In fact, it appears that the rise in allergies has nothing to do with GM crops, as allergies appear to be on the rise globally, yet most countries in the world do not use GM crops. Is it possible that Caitlin Shetterly's allergies were from some protein or other part of GM corn? Yes, however not likely. Even more unlikely (as in 0% chance, for all intents and purposes) is that the global rise in allergies is due to GM crops. Shetterly tells a compelling story, one that makes you want to believe her and side against the "evil" corporations and government officials. The reality is, however, based on empirical data, GM crops do not cause allergies at any higher a rate than unmodified crops.
No comments:
Post a Comment