According to recent research findings, people who are strongly opposed to genetically modified organisms tend to know the least about food science, but believe that they know the most about it. And their negative opinions about GMO safety aren’t influenced by exposure to relevant research findings. One of the principle investigators in the study hypothesized that “people might feel extremely about genetically modified food because it’s very unnatural in a way they find almost morally upsetting.” The article cites a 2001 psych research study that concludes:
Beliefs tend to persevere even after evidence for their initial formulation has been invalidated by new evidence… People spontaneously generate explanations for events as a way of understanding events, including their own beliefs. If an explanation is generated, this explanation becomes a reason for holding an explained belief, even if the belief is eventually undercut by new evidence.
I find these sorts of findings disturbing. It’s not that I know a lot about GMO safety, because I don’t (and I admit it). I’m disturbed by the resistance of belief to knowledge. What I believe about some aspect of the world is never the same as the world itself, any more than your belief about what I’m presently drinking is the same as the drink itself. But if you believe that I’m drinking a gin and tonic, I’d expect you to hold that belief loosely in your hand, ready to set it down and to pick up another depending on what I tell you I’m drinking, what you see in my glass, what it tastes like when you take a sip.
For what it’s worth, I’m less concerned about GMO safety than about corporate monopolistic control over food production by patenting their engineered organisms. But Big Ag has for a long time been patenting hybrid organisms developed the old-fashioned way, through systematic cross-pollination rather than genetic engineering.
Time for a refill.