Arguing for sensible science in policy-making By Mark Ross
New Zealand’s strong export focus is unique because our GDP relies heavily on our primary industries and export markets.
Revenue from these exports is estimated at $36.7 billion this year, but is at risk from unsubstantiated over-hyped
nonsensical claims that dominate the sector.
The products we use to protect our animals and crops from pests and diseases have never been more thoroughly tested and
screened to ensure product safety. But pseudo-science puts New Zealand farmers and growers’ chances of being world
leaders in productivity at risk.
Pseudo-science describes beliefs or statements for which there is no evidential basis. Those who practice it frequently
play on people’s fears and cause needless confusion. Dr Doug Edmeades, an independent soil scientist and managing
director of agKnowledge, writes about the damaging effect of pseudo-science on agriculture.
Pseudo-science, he says, sets aside evidence and asserts that the ‘truth’ is what you believe. Opinions are given equal
authority; irrespective of where the evidence lies. He says that this led to laissez-faire politics – less government is
good government!
The role of science is no longer about discovering new ‘truth’, but supporting the ‘story’ which is perceived to be the
truth. He says, this allows scientists to ignore contrary evidence, or worse, manipulate the evidence, if the cause is
noble. Edmeades says that science has been eroded to the finding of research dollars and/or serving a political agenda.
There is evidence of this in New Zealand as agricultural science ‘cuddles up’ to the ‘organic dollar’ and in the process
imbues pseudo-science with a credibility it does not deserve.
But science must be open to scrutiny, especially if it is used to inform government policies. One agency that has caused
much confusion is the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The World Health Organization's cancer agency
publishes evaluations - known as monographs - on whether certain chemicals, lifestyles and activities may cause cancer.
The agency’s assessments have led to a number of everyday products, including coffee, aloe vera and talcum powder, being
categorised as “possibly carcinogenic”. The assessments call into question the safety of the food we eat, the jobs we do
and the products we use in our daily lives. The agency’s work only defines the potential hazard of a substance. This can
cause confusion as a hazard can be prevented by the risk principals put in place by policy-makers.
In the United Sates, the American Chemistry Council is launching what it calls a campaign for accuracy in public health
research, and proposes a reform of the IARC’s processes.
The council which represents the US chemical companies says that the IARC's work "suffers from persistent scientific and
process deficiencies that result in public confusion and misinformed policy-making."
Conclusions about a matter as important as our health must be non-biased, thorough and based on quality science that
adheres to internationally recognised standards. Agcarm is focused on ensuring that our regulators are able to continue
to make decisions based on well-researched, sound science. Policy makers need a process for review that is consistent,
transparent, science-based and as efficient as possible.
It is concerning that bad, incomplete, or misused science can cause public drama over the wrong things, yet it is rarely
called out, whether wielded by the public, industry or regulators. Have facts ceased to matter as we march toward 100
percent fact-free decision-making? As politics goes, so could public policy if we are not careful.
• Mark Ross is chief executive of Agcarm, the industry association for companies which manufacture and distribute crop
protection and animal health products.