Trust Science - Unless You Can't Trust Science, Say Scientists

That’s the title of an article that appeared in Science 2.0.  The article points out that “anti-science” attitudes are a bipartisan issue.  Biotechnology is emerging for the left what climate change has been for the right. 

Here are a couple of key paragraphs:

AAAS was likely also considering something only Science 2.0 had considered during the last presidential election, since the tale spun by science media during the Bush administration days was that Republicans took some sort of blood oath against science while Democrats were born being rational and super-smart and science-y, even if they were poetry majors; you can't expect people to trust the science consensus on global warming if you tell them to deny the science consensus on biology. It's as simple as that. Doing so just makes science look like an opinion.

Every American left-wing activism group tells its members that science is on their side when it comes to global warming but scientists are out to kill us when it comes to food and energy. From the Union of Concerned Scientists to Greenpeace to Sierra Club, they are all tripping over each other to declare that 'the science is not settled' on those things. The reason is because they are not in the science business, they are in the fundraising business and they are competing for the same demographic that is both scared of biology and inclined to believe global warming caused a hurricane.

Who Will Cover the Costs of California's Prop 37?

Friday Forbes.com published an article written by Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes and me.  Here  are a couple key paragraphs:

Lower income households across the United States spend a larger portion of their income on food than higher income households.  Lower income households also spend most of these dollars for food at home. High income individuals spend more at restaurants and eateries.  Similar trends exist for older relative to younger consumers.

And

Proposition 37 calls for mandatory GMO labeling of foods bought at the grocery store and consumed at home, but does not require the same for foods consumed in restaurants, cafeterias, catering, schools, and the like.  It also excludes all organic foods from mandatory GMO labeling irrespective of where they are consumed and of their GMO content.

Given these rules and exclusions, younger and more affluent consumers who spend more on organics and on food away from home would be less affected by Proposition 37. Poorer and older consumers could instead be called to foot the bulk of the bill implied by the Proposition while spending a larger portion of their limited income in doing so.

David Zilberman at UC Berkeley put out a blog post the same day covering some of the same themes.

Support for Prop 37 Dips Below 50%

According to the results of the latest poll by the California Business Roundtable and Pepperdine University, support for the GMO mandatory labeling dipped below 50% for the first time.

This graph from their consecutive polls is remarkable:

I'm not sure I've ever seen so dramatic a change in support for an issue in so short a period of time.  

I should note that the high level of support we found in our study conducted in late September is not inconsistent with the above polls once undecideds are factored in.  

My understanding is that a new wave of "YES 37" commercials has hit the airwaves in recent days.  Hard to know what effect they'll have but our research suggested that positive ads were not nearly as effective as negative.    

It will be interesting to see how it turns out on November 6.  I am frankly shocked it is so close.  

Why should you care about California's Prop 37?

That's the title of my my latest article on foxnews.com.  Some of the key paragraphs:

Proposition 37, if passed on November 6th, will require mandatory labeling of certain foods containing genetically engineered ingredients.  Because California is such a large consumer of agricultural products grown in the rest of the US and because food manufacturers work across state lines, the implications (and costs) of Proposition 37 could expand far beyond the Golden State.  

and

Everyone wants to know what’s in their food.  That issue is not at stake.  The real question is how much consumers are willing to pay to know what’s in their food, and whether it makes sense to force companies to provide information.  If consumers really value information about the biotech content of their food, there are plenty of opportunities for enterprising farmers and food manufacturers to provide the feedstuffs consumers want.  And, indeed they have.  

and

Yet, every major scientific authority on the subject – from the American Medical Association to the National Academies of Science to the American Dietetic Association to the World Health Organization – has confirmed the safety of eating currently approved foods made with biotechnology.  

Consumers in a free society have the right to disagree.  But, the rest of us shouldn’t be asked to pay the costs of their skepticism.    

The only thing I'd add is that American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the publisher of the most prestigious academic journal, Science, yesterday released a statement in support of genetically modified food.

Prop 37 Appears to Be Losing Support

A new poll reported in the LA Times suggests support for Prop 37 has fallen substantially since the poll we conducted about a month ago.  Our study showed weakness in support - with people reacting much more to negative than positive ads, but I am surprised support has fallen this far.  We also found acceptance was sensitive to the anticipated costs of the mandatory label.  

Here is the summary from the LA Times:

After a barrage of negative television advertisements financed by a $41-million opposition war chest, a USC Dornsife / Los Angeles Times poll released Thursday showed 44% of surveyed voters backing the initiative and 42% opposing it. A substantial slice of the electorate, 14%, remains undecided or unwilling to take a position.

The critical drumbeat of television advertising is having a big effect, voters said. The anti-Proposition 37 spots "made me start looking more into" the issue of genetically engineered plants, said Josie Prendez, 63, a retired school employee in Fresno. She said she concluded that farmers should not be hit with more regulations.

​and

The opposition advertising is paying off, said Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC and former Republican political strategist. "The challenge for the opposition is to convince voters there are economic consequences involved here. It appears they are in the process of doing that."