Pseudoscientific movements follow patterns. They disregard statistics and evidence that contradict their beliefs, draw generalizations from isolated cases, and cling to conspiracy theories.
This behavior is not restricted to anti-vaccine activists: it is also common among environmentalists.
Last week, for example, deputies approved new rules for the approval of pesticides in Brazil. For the Climate Observatory, the law came about because “the cancer bench wants to put more poison on your plate.”
In making such a statement, the organization reproduces a conspiracy theory very close to “the vaccine bench wants to implant chips in your brain”.
Greater diversity of substances does not result in greater quantity. On the contrary, new products tend to retire old ones, which are generally less accurate and more harmful.
Anyone who cares about health and the environment should support, rather than oppose, innovation and science in this area.
When it is said that eating food from traditional agriculture is “putting poison on the plate”, years of work by researchers who have studied the risks, toxicity and acceptable daily intake of substances are thrown away.
And it makes a generalization similar to “I don’t take drugs from the pharmacy because they cause cancer”. Now, what makes the poison is the dose. That’s why we trust scientists to know the recommended dosage of medicines for both humans and plants.
The unscientific stance is even more evident with glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world.
As biologist Natalia Pasternak has explained several times, glyphosate blocks an enzyme pathway that exists in plants, not animals. Therefore, the toxicity to humans is very low, lower than that of salt, coffee or chocolate.
The WHO rejected in 2016 the idea that this substance would cause cancer or affect the endocrine system of consumers or rural workers. Dozens of recent reviews go along the same lines.
Despite this, Greenpeace continues to reproduce the fake news that glyphosate is carcinogenic and is related to miscarriages or fetal malformations.
Another example is nuclear energy. In early February, a commission of experts from the European Union recommended classifying it as green, in order to facilitate investments in the energy transition.
For anyone concerned about climate change, this was excellent news. Nuclear power plants emit 3 tons of carbon per gigawatt-hour, less than solar (5 tons), wind (4) and hydroelectric (34), according to Our World in Data.
But the WWF, Greenpeace and activist Greta Thunberg remain terrified of the Chernobyl accident. They pressure the European Parliament to vote against the opinion.
It is a posture very similar to that of someone who prefers to travel by car because they have seen news of plane accidents on TV.
Contrary to popular belief, statistics show that nuclear power is one of the safest out there. It causes 0.08 deaths per terawatt-hour generated, against 2.82 for gas and 18 for diesel-fired thermoelectric plants.
Climatologists James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha concluded that the diffusion of nuclear energy between 1971 and 2009 prevented 1.84 million deaths by replacing more harmful sources.
If environmentalists so readily call for “listening to the science” when it comes to climate change, they themselves should listen to the science when it comes to crop protection products and nuclear energy.
