When Scientists Get It Wrong

On December 26 last year, Coles Supermarkets announced that starting with the new year they would henceforth be selling only beef produced without hormone growth promotant (HGP). They said this was to provide their customers with more tender beef. Coles had also made an earlier commitment to phase out sow crates in the production of their pork products.

On January 10 this year, thirty-five agricultural and veterinary scientists, most of whom work in areas related to livestock production, published a full-page ad in Australia’s only national general newspaper in which they decried both moves. They claimed that Coles’s initiatives “might convey the impression to consumers that production using these methods results in unsatisfactory quality beef and unethically produced pork”. They further believed such moves could “threaten the sustainable and ethical production of food by Australian farmers”, “damage the security and efficiency of Australian food production”, “harm the environment and animals”, restrict consumers’ ability to buy “safe affordable food”, “threaten the security and sovereignty of Australian food production” and hamper attempts to feed a growing world population. These are serious and sweeping concerns. Not surprisingly, the ad received broad media coverage. Some called it the “beef war”.

The ad, written and published in apparent haste (thirty-five scientists, fourteen days), provides an excellent insight into just why ordinary people are suspicious of scientists. And anyone interested in how scientists can become their own worst enemy should scrutinise the ad line by line for its unstated assumptions, implicit values, especially those involving politics, and use of rhetoric. It might also be informative to compare the arguments of these “beef scientists” with those of the GM (genetically modified) food scientists. This is not the place for such a detailed scrutiny and comparison, but while the issue of the ad itself is still fresh, it is worth pointing out some of the ways in which it may have contributed to public scepticism about scientists.

The worst mistake the scientists made was that they did not acknowledge that the ad had been partly paid for by the Animal Health Alliance, an association of agricultural drug manufacturers. They could have done this in a few words in small print at the bottom of the page. The notion of disclosure would not have been strange to them, as the journals they publish in, to say nothing of their societies’ and institutions’ codes of conduct, most probably require declarations of conflicts of interest, including nil returns.

The fact that the scientists did not make this declaration suggests they believed, perhaps incorrectly, that such an acknowledgment would be detrimental to their case. In any event, their oversight almost certainly diminished their argument for many readers and, worse, might have led to the conclusion that “they were hiding something”. In fact, it turns out that not only did the industry help pay for the ad, but the instigator of the ad and the group’s leader, as well as some of the other scientists, “have had research partially funded by pharmaceutical companies”.

The scientists were also vague about Coles’s rationale and motives. They began their ad by discounting Coles’s rationale of wanting to provide their customers with leaner beef. But in the ad itself, they admit that HGP is in fact one of several determinants of tenderness in beef. So at best they seemed to be arguing that Coles was overestimating the effect. But in fact they were really thinking worse. In an interview the day after the ad appeared, the group’s leader simply accused Coles of telling an outright porky: “For Coles to go out and say it’s about tenderness is absolutely not correct.” Many readers might have thought such an evidence-free assertion both uncharacteristic and unbecoming of a scientist.

As to motive, the scientists stated that Coles had developed its strategy “to take market positions”. Many readers might have found this declaration against a fundamental principle of a capitalist, consumer-orientated economy a bit odd. In any event, many readers might have simply thought that it was a matter for Coles and their customers, not a group of scientists.

In the same sentence about Coles’s quest for market position, the scientists used a single word that may be the key not only to their belief about Coles’s motives but also their wider concerns. The word was activists. The scientists wrote: “these [HGP-free beef and no sow crates] and other changes proposed by activists …” Some readers may have been surprised by the scientists’ use of a dog-whistle word, a tactic more commonly associated with the least sophisticated form of public discussion.

By leaving the goals of these “activists” unstated, the scientists invite us to speculate about just what those goals may be. Activists for leaner beef? Unlikely. Activists for no additives in our food? Very likely. Activists for more natural methods of food production? Even more likely. Could it be that what was really eating the scientists was that they believed Coles had decided to position itself to take advantage of what its market research may have identified as a growing consumer demand? Coles denies this, but if it is what the scientists believe, it is important to pursue the line of thought.

The scientists warned that “we must not allow the choice of many to be placed at risk to meet the preferences of some”. But what if Coles, being as well attuned to Australians’ preferences in food as anybody, was simply addressing what might soon become the actual choice of the “many”? Would the scientists be against this? Like politicians on the wrong end of a trend, the scientists cannot afford to attack the stupidity of the voters (consumers), so they displace their frustration onto the service provider: Coles “appear to [be appealing] to the emotions of … consumers”. The scientists’ reluctance or inability to state clearly their real concerns makes for a less coherent argument. 

Whatever the scientists imagined the goal of the “activists” to be, they focused their concern on two specific issues, specifically health and more generally, the environmental and humanitarian need to continue with traditional methods of food, mainly beef, production.

They dealt with the health issue by pointing to Australia’s track record in producing healthy affordable food, attributing this primarily to the relevant regulatory agencies, which presumably are part of “the context of modern farming”. Fair enough. This invites scrutiny of these bodies.

Many people will realise that such authorities include a high proportion of scientists. Indeed, most of the scientists who wrote the ad would be eligible to sit on these authorities’ review panels and offer advice to them. But few may realise that the authorities operate, initially at least, by evaluating data presented to them by industry proponents. In the case of veterinary drugs this would be data either gathered directly by, or under contract to, the agricultural drug companies. Indeed, many of those who wrote the ad would be eligible to do contract research for those companies to present to the regulatory authorities.

A system that allows a self-interested party to provide the basis of the inquiry into a proposal from which it potentially stands to gain large amounts of money and involve the well-being of large numbers of individuals may be the best system humans can devise to protect themselves from potentially dangerous new products. But considering the remaining inherent shortcomings of this best practice, plus the undeniable fact that products approved by regulatory authorities are sometimes “recalled”, it is not surprising that many people are increasingly demanding complete labelling on critical products such as food, so that they can decide if and when to enter themselves and their families into this largest and most long-running of all “test populations”.

The scientists acknowledged the right of consumers to choose, but their examples were limited to “organic and specialist ranges”. Readers may have wondered why they did not include “additives” as well. This would be a tidy solution to at least part of their concern. Explicit labelling would allow a full range of different products to be offered and fully informed choices made. The market would sort it out.

The scientists’ concern that traditional methods of production would lead to greater environmental degradation and hamper our ability to provide enough food for the world’s growing population also seemed to be poorly thought out in the light of the public’s understanding of environmental issues. For example, many people know that the easiest way to increase food for people is to decrease the amount of potential human food, such as grain, that is fed to animals, especially beef. In other words, if humans fed more often lower down on the food chain, that is, included a greater proportion of plants in their diet, much more food would be available for all. Furthermore, if less meat was consumed, it would lead to even greater environmental benefits than those claimed for HGP beef. The fact is, although meat adds variety to a meal, adult humans do not need to eat any meat to have a nutritious and healthy diet. Many readers may ask just how deep the scientists’ concern is for feeding the world’s growing population if they did not see fit to mention this particular option, even as a partial remedy.

Many people also now appreciate the fundamental logic that in the absence of a stable, and perhaps even smaller, world population, there is no realistic hope of ever being able to provide enough food for people. An ever growing population brings ever new demands for food that become increasingly difficult to meet. The Green Revolution was an urgent response to address the food crisis of the middle of the last century but now fifty years later we are having to deal with the same problem but with even less room to manoeuvre. Just how many Green Revolutions can we conjure up? Again, the public may wonder at the scientists’ inability or unwillingness to start addressing the cause instead of treating the symptom. The scientists may claim that they are not into political issues such as population growth and size. But their ad is replete with values that are a matter of political debate.

The scientists write that “reducing our ability to sustainably feed the world to prioritise the food choices of those fortunate enough to be able to afford such choice, is a questionable moral position”. But promoting the “expert opinion” that scientists will always be able to produce enough food to feed an ever growing population is itself a questionable moral position. It is certainly a position that is contrary to the evidence. Furthermore, what is eating meat such as beef if not a food choice of the fortunate? While the scientists have missed the irony of their moral stance, many other people will not. 

Finally, it is probably fair to infer that another thing that really gets the scientists’ goat is that decisions about food production are not always based on science alone. In this conceit, they either misunderstand or wilfully disregard the fact that the food people eat and the wider effects of its production are as much a matter of culture (and politics) as of science. And because it can in some cases be perceived as a matter of life and death, they will act conservatively. In the end, people will simply do whatever they think best in protecting themselves and their families. Scientists may find this attitude extremely frustrating, but it is up to them to make cogent and disinterested arguments to change people’s minds. And if they fail, they have to decide whether the arguments are, if not wrong, then incomplete or misplaced and adjust accordingly, or accept that their argument contributes only one part of the total consideration. To condemn the European Union (and Tasmanian) bans on HGP beef as “political” is to correctly understand the answer but to misunderstand the issue. And again, readers of the ad may appreciate the irony of the scientists’ complaint about taking a political view, even if the scientists don’t.

Most of the scientists’ ad was about beef production. But they manifestly included the phasing out of sow crates as another Coles initiative that would lead to the dire consequences they predicted to flow from changes to traditional food production in general. They said little further about sow crates, but in leaving the issue undiscussed, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they implicitly support the crates as an ethical practice. They do so while also professing their commitment “to [improving] the well being of animals” and noting implicitly that the crates have been “reviewed and accepted by the relevant regulatory bodies”. Again, many readers may wonder at the scientists’ position on this as well as the work of the “relevant regulatory bodies”. Of the many traditional food production methods that have been examined on animal welfare grounds and found wanting, sow crates are among the worst. In fact, the pork industry association itself has committed to ending the practice by 2017. The scientists who signed the ad may be among the few well-informed people who still see nothing wrong with this practice.

Most of the scientists behind the ad included, variously, their titles, institutional affiliations, societal affiliations, academic degrees and, in one case, even an awarded medal. Scientists often use such annotations as a shorthand way of indicating they know what they are talking about, at least in their particular disciplines. But they also usually add a disclaimer saying their views are personal and not those of their institutions. As the scientists writing the ad did not include any such disclaimer, it is reasonable to assume that their methods and views, including nondisclosure of potential conflicts of interest and unequivocal support for sow crates, are also supported by their institutions. It would be interesting to know what the relevant university vice-chancellors and institutional directors think.

Allen Greer is a biologist who writes about science and nature. He declares a nil conflict of interest in this matter.