Scientific American Destroys Public Trust in Science
This is a sad epitaph, parting words to an old friend that is now
gone, leaving in a puff of bitter betrayal.
When I was a kid it was common for my mom to buy me a magazine if
I was sick and home from school. I didn't want MAD Magazine or comic
books. I preferred Scientific American.
The once stalwart publication held a unique spot at the
science-public interface, bringing us interesting and diverse stories of
scientific interest, long before the internet made such content instantly
accessible. It was our trusted pipeline to the new edges of scientific
discovery, from the mantle of the earth to the reaches of space, and every
critter in between.
But like so much of our trusted traditional science media, Scientific
American has traded its credibility for the glitz of post-truth
non-scientific beliefs and the profits of clickbait. The problem is that when a trusted
source publishes false information (or worse, when it hijacked by activists) it
destroys trust in science, trust in scientists, and in the case presented here,
destroys trust in American agriculture.
The following article was published on August 20, 2019. The authors are Louise Elizabeth Maher-Johnson and Ayana Elizabeth Johnson. The work has drawn strong criticism from others. A semi-complete line-by-line refutation of claims presented is presented here. While the entire article is filled with egregious errors, I have highlighted several doozies below.
1. First, the
clickbait title. Fail. Broccoli production is just fine, with new
varieties grown in expanding acreage. Corn is not toxic. The microbiome, a collection of microbes in a
given environment, has become the darling of credulous movements, as their
known complexity can be manipulated to fit non-scientific conclusions. That is
what we are seeing here.
2. The first
paragraph cites a food author, not peer-reviewed research, stating that food is
“literally… poison.” This is a profound
slap in the face of the farmers that produce the safest food in human history.
3. They
cite Planetary Health, a website
that presents the hypothesis that "Ebola originated in
modern agriculture and food practices..." and while they say
there's no evidence for it yet, they certainly are looking for evidence to
support that concept. The website promotes remedies for Ebola based on
a smoothie made from fermented plums, soy sauce and kudzu.
4. The next
paragraph claims that food has lost between “10 and 100 percent” of nutrients,
a common claim. It is based on the fact that modern breeding of crops has made
them larger, yield better and face less disease. That means higher fresh weight
that dilutes nutrients. Others have
corrected for water differences and show slight decreases, but note it is a
trade off for size and yield (Davis et al., 2004). Others have analyzed cost and show that
calories and nutrients per unit cost have improved (Darmon et al., 2005). In short, there are many comparisons in this
area, and all are limited by the veracity of old data. Today we have
unprecedented access to more diverse food, through more of the year, that costs
less, that is safer, than at any time in history.
5. “Not only are
plants getting less nutritious, they are getting more toxic.” The authors
present this argument without reference.
In reality there is clear evidence that the use of genetic engineering
decreases crop damage and less toxicity due to lower levels of mycotoxins (eg.
Bakan et al., 2002), fungal compounds with strong associations with cancers.
6. 2,4-D is not
“similar to dioxins and Agent Orange”, it is an herbicide, a synthetic version
of the plant hormone auxin that causes rapid growth and distorted gene
expression in plants. Agent Orange was used as a military defoliant in
Operation Ranch Hand in Southeast Asia. It was contaminated with dioxins from
the synthesis of 2,4,5-T, another synthetic auxin that is no longer used.
7. The claim that
glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup and a chemical used in weeding
genetically engineered fields) is in “air [and] rainwater” comes from a study
by and Battaglin et al., (2014).
Battaglin detects glyphosate and its breakdown products in surface water
and rain, but in vanishingly small amounts. The work by Majewski et al, (2014)
detects glyphosate in air samples at 26 ng per square meter, and immediately
adjacent to a cotton field where it is used.
The authors of the Scientific American article imply that this compound
is present everywhere and in dangerous levels. It frames the deceptive nature
of this article.
This is yet another example of how
our scientific literature is being distorted by predatory publishers and the
predatory nature of motivated authors looking to promote non-scientific
information as legitimate science. Maybe they’ll publish that vaccines cause
autism next.
This kind of
journalism destroys trust in agriculture, food, and science in general. The type of false information presented has a
well-established home in Netflix documentaries and on the pages of
anti-farming, anti-scientist websites, not the child of the Springer-Nature Publishing
Group, and the flagship periodical for science connections to the general
public.
In these times
where new discoveries happen every day we need to demand the highest standards
of our legitimate scientific brands.
Scientific American was just used by misguided activists that seek to
destroy the food system and revert to a non-existent model that is not
sustainable. Scientists, farmers, and
anyone that likes to eat needs to stand firmly against efforts to commandeer
our trusted brands for promoting non-scientific ideas.
Stop here. Swallow your coffee or you'll spit it at the computer screen when you see the cover of the September 2019 edition.
B. Bakan,*, D. Melcion,D. Richard-Molard,
and, and B. Cahagnier Fungal Growth and Fusarium Mycotoxin
Content in Isogenic Traditional Maize and Genetically Modified Maize Grown in
France and Spain Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2002 50 (4),
728-731
, , ,
and , 2014. Glyphosate and Its Degradation Product AMPA Occur Frequently
and Widely in U.S. Soils, Surface Water, Groundwater, and Precipitation. Journal
of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 50( 2): 275‐ 290. DOI: 10.1111/jawr.12159
Darmon N, Darmon M, Maillot M, Drewnowski A.J
Am Diet Assoc. 2005 Dec; 105(12):1881-7.
