[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Alan Levinovitz might seem like an unlikely author of a book about nutritional science\u2014especially one that is being called a source of fresh insights on how to communicate the benefits of GE foods. Levinovitz, after all, is a professor of Chinese philosophy and religion at James Madison University.<\/p>\n
But in his new book, The Gluten Lie<\/em>, the classical Chinese scholar presents a powerful expos\u00e9 of how pseudo-scientific arguments have been used to promote diets throughout human history, from the grain-free diets of ancient China to the Paleo and gluten-free crazes of today.\u00a0Levinovitz\u2019s deep dive into the world of nutritional science and 2000-year tour through dietary history also helps answer a burning question for science communicators and policymakers: Why do people \u00a0\u2014 from ancient China to today \u2014 keep believing in food fears and fads that aren\u2019t supported by the scientific consensus? In The Gluten Lie<\/em>, Levinovitz shows that the real problem isn’t bad science, but rather powerful myths and superstitions that underlie popular food beliefs and are often disguised under scientific rhetoric.<\/p>\n Last week, we sat down with Levinovitz for a far-ranging conversation about how a religious scholar became interested in nutritional science, why GMOs are the \u201cperfect villain,\u201d and why science allies should start lobbying for high school classes in history and philosophy of science.<\/p>\n Food taboos and sacred diets are a part of virtually every religious tradition. Most people don\u2019t know it, but 2000 years ago, ancient Chinese monks had their own miracle diet. Going grain-free, claimed these rebellious, free-thinking monks, would result in clear skin, immortality, freedom from disease, and the ability to fly. To make their story more appealing, they pointed to a time in the distant past\u2014before corrupt modern culture!\u2014when everyone was healthy and happy. Sound familiar? I realized that lots of people talk about the science behind certain food fad and fears, but we don\u2019t see much about the recurring myths and superstitions that shape fads like the Paleolithic diet, or eating \u201call-natural.\u201d So I decided to use philosophy, history, and religious studies to help illuminate the real reasons why people believe what they do about food \u2014 and explain why people are so sensitive when those quasi-religious beliefs get challenged.<\/p>\n Time and time again, superstition and fear of modernity gets wrapped in scientific vocabulary. In ancient Greece, people justified the magical thinking of \u201cyou are what you eat\u201d using humoral medicine. In ancient China they rationalized grain-free diets or vegetarian diets with traditional Chinese medical theories. Of course, the real basis of most dietary beliefs is unscientific. That\u2019s why you see \u201cscientific\u201d arguments for veganism right alongside \u201cscientific\u201d arguments for eating lots of lean, grass-fed meat. The truth is that, other than moderation, there is no \u201cscientifically proven\u201d superior diet. There\u2019s just superstitions decorated with studies and jargon. And that means the problem isn\u2019t with nutrition science contradicting itself. The real problem is with people pretending that science has conclusively supported their pet superstitions.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a familiar story: Long ago, humans lived in an organic, all-natural, divinely designed garden, free from pesticides and GMOs and processed grains and sugar. But one day an evil advertiser came along and hissed, \u201cJust eat this fruit.\u201d Bam! Suddenly we were cursed with mortality, marital strife, labor pains, and agriculture. This story, or variants on it, is extremely common in rationalizations of food fads. We like to believe in a paradise past, free from disease, to which we can return by eating the way we did in Eden. Since Adam and Eve are not scientific, a more popular secular myth is that of the noble savage. In this version of the story, Adam and Eve are replaced by Native Americans, or indigenous tribespeople, all of whom are lean and healthy and happy. In its most modern incarnation, Paleolithic man is the noble savage, and instead of disobeying God, we modern humans are disobeying the law of evolution. Both of these myths \u2014 the noble savage and paradise past \u2014 also involve an appeal to the ancients. This intuitive superstition tells us that people in the past, innocent of modern knowledge, were also wiser than we are today. So you\u2019ll see people citing the Bible, or classical Chinese texts, as if these have authority by virtue of their place in the distant past. Sadly, appeal to the ancients, like the myths of paradise past and the noble savage, is nonsense. People practiced exorcism for thousands of years in many cultures \u2014 but that doesn\u2019t prove exorcism worked, or that we ought to revisit this ancient long-lost wisdom. The same is true of ancient lifestyles and dietary habits.<\/p>\n GMOs are perfect villains in all of the traditional dietary myths and superstitions. Often nature, with a capital \u201cN,\u201d gets substituted for God in narratives of dietary falls from grace. Everything was better when it was natural, and noble savages lived in a paradise of simple living, simple farming, and simple eating. GMOs pose a tremendous threat to that vision, which has a sacred importance to many, many people who wouldn\u2019t recognize their own beliefs about nature and food as religious. This is why scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs will never convince people. Ultimately, the argument isn\u2019t about science, but rather about what sacred narrative is most appealing.<\/p>\n In order for people to accept solid evidence and settled science they have to know what those things look like. Pseudoscience has become extremely sophisticated, so it\u2019s very, very difficult to recognize a bad arguments and flawed science. The solution, as I see it, is to start teaching philosophy of science in middle school and high school. After doing an experiment, students should ask themselves: How many times do I need to do this experiment before I\u2019ve proved something? What does it mean if a single experiment, or a single study, has positive results? Instead of memorizing the Krebs cycle, everyone should learn the real history of scientists like Galileo and Einstein, and understand what their work means for science in general. Diet gurus often hold them up as examples that justify believing in whatever crackpot fad they happen to be selling. Hey, no one believed Galileo either! Before Einstein, physics was in a totally different paradigm, just like nutrition science today! <\/em>After a high-school level course in philosophy of science, these kinds of argument are laughable, and the flaws in them become clear. But for many people it\u2019s one step from Galileo and Einstein to believing that veganism can cure cancer. People also believe that at one point, tobacco companies were able to buy a scientific consensus on their products. The history, of course, is far more complicated, and should actually strengthen our confidence in the scientific process rather than eroding it.<\/p>\n On April 23, Jon Stewart\u2019s popular news satire show took a look at activist Jeffrey Smith\u2019s claims about the health risks of a GMO potato recently approved by the FDA.1. So how did a scholar of Chinese religions become\u00a0interested in the world of food nutrition and food myths?<\/h4>\n
2.\u00a0 You looked at many food beliefs \u2014 from gluten-free, salt-free diets, and low-fat diets, to rice- and banana-only diet, to veganism, and much more. What pattern did you see when you looked at food beliefs throughout\u00a0history?<\/h4>\n
3. You used your perspective as a religious scholar in The Gluten Lie. Tell us how terms like \u201cparadise\u00a0past,\u201d \u201cnoble savages\u201d and the \u201cappeal to the ancients\u201d can help us understand food beliefs such as the Paleo diet?<\/h4>\n
4. You didn\u2019t write about the GE debate in your book, but how does some of\u00a0your work in “The Gluten Lie” shed light on the GE debate?<\/h4>\n
5. At one point in the book, you write that, \u201cfor true believers, the myth will always be more sacred than the evidence\u2026\u201d\u00a0If that\u2019s the case, what can change minds in favor of solid evidence and settled science?<\/h4>\n
The Daily Show Examines Activist Jeffrey Smith\u2019s Claims about GMO Potatoes \u2014 And Comes Out in Favor of Science<\/h2>\n
\nThe Daily Show has frequently tackled science-related issues such as climate change, evolution, and vaccines, but has shied away from GMOs. In a hugely encouraging sign that the cultural tide is changing in favor of the scientific consensus on GMO, the Daily Show\u2019s Aasif Mandvi interviewed Jeffrey Smith about the J.R. Simplot company\u2019s Innate potatoes, and then checks Smith\u2019s claims about the potato\u2019s health risks with a leading scientist, Cornell\u2019s very own Walter De Jong, Associate Professor of Plant Breeding and Genetics. Watch the Daily Show\u2019s hilarious \u201cThe Return of Simplot Conspiracy.\u201d<\/p>\n