Share Facebook

Twitter

Whatsapp

Mail

Whatsapp An anti-GM crop protest in Long Marsden, England

Having witnessed too many dinner parties derailed by arguments about genetically modified foodstuffs, PhD student Diana Zanfirache has had enough. She presents a strategic guide to winning an argument with an ardent anti-GMO type.

If you bring up the subject of genetically modified crops or organic foods at a dinner party, and I am sure it will stir up contentious debate and everyone will be an 'expert' on their topic of choice.

It'll be easy to spot the science denialist at the dinner table: while unknowingly chewing away at their genetically modified brussels sprouts, they are going to nitpick every bit of valid evidence you have and throw out badly misinterpreted science faster than you can clarify it.

We continuously object GMO food, yet we fail to understand that almost everything we eat has been modified by man and is the product of artificial selection.

They will either be saying something that is wrong or something that they really don't understand, while reinforcing their own beliefs and opinions.

Their goal isn't to help people understand the science behind genetically modified foods, but to make you look like you lack credibility.

This is the common feature of most denialists. It shows that the issue is not science—but rather how we make decisions based on our emotions and values.

Simply bring up the issue of food, and a new battle between reason, opinion and emotion will erupt over biotech crops. Environmentalists and the media have successfully branded genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as 'Frankenstein foods'.

This movement embodies the naturalistic fallacy, where everything 'natural' is good and everything 'unnatural' is bad.

We continuously object to GMO food, yet we fail to understand that almost everything we eat has been modified by man, and is the product of artificial selection.

We don't associate these types of foods as genetically modified as they haven't been 'made' in a lab—even though they have genetic codes that are simply not found in nature.

Simply put, it doesn't matter if a new organism was produced by the merging of two different genes in a laboratory or by careful breeding. GMOs are simply a natural extension of what farmers have been doing for thousands of years.

When you realise this, the majority of arguments against GMO technology fall apart.

Already, we've seen vitamin A-enriched rice with the potential of easing global malnutrition problems become available.

Sadly, this technology's potential is obscured when emotionally driven mobs are raising their pitchforks in anger—muddying the waters by associating GMO foodstuffs with chemicals, pesticides, hormones, the loss of biodiversity and the issues of product labelling.

There is also the problem of traditional farming practices being undermined by the monopolisation of seed markets. I agree with a lot of these sentiments, however these arguments are about law, morality, patenting—not science.

It seems that on a deeper level, this debate has evoked tension because it is not just about science, but a contest of values. What I'm asking is that people trust the experts and the scientific method—it works.

Activists often cite the alleged potential health risks of genetically modified foods, however these claims are usually cherry picked from sources that lack scientific credibility.

The current scientific consensus regarding GMOs remains unchanged: they are safe and do not pose a health risk to humans.

The reality is that in the next 50 years we're going to have to grow 70 per cent more food than we do right now. We need to rely on the scientific method to fix these issues.

So, next time you're at a dinner party and find yourself sitting next to a science denialist, latch onto every logical inconsistency they throw at you and force them to address it.

Find out exactly what they object to and where they have been getting their information from.

I doubt they'll have an epiphany by the time dessert is served, but you can be part of the process that breaks down the barriers and begins to change peoples' minds.

It was the English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley who once stated that science is nothing but trained and organised common sense.

I remain optimistic about the future of science and technology, and I hope that humans will increasingly realise that rational thinking is better than irrational thinking.

Non-scientific thinking will always have its appeal, however, so I'll just have to pick my battles, one dinner party at a time.

Hear the full talk Has society lost trust in the scientific method?

This is an edited extract of a talk first delivered Ockham's Razor. Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, ABC Radio or your favourite podcasting app.

