best fat burner<\/a> make you feel better, take them. If the Paleo diet helps you eat fewer TV dinners, that\u2019s great\u2014even if the Paleo diet is probably premised more on The Flintstones than it is on any actual evidence about human evolutionary history. If non-organic crumbs bother you, avoid them. And there\u2019s much to praise in Whole Foods\u2019 commitment to sustainability and healthful foods.<\/p>\nStill: a significant portion of what Whole Foods sells is based on simple pseudoscience. And sometimes that can spill over into outright anti-science (think What Doctors Don\u2019t Tell You, or Whole Foods\u2019 overblown GMO campaign, which could merit its own article). If scientific accuracy in the public sphere is your jam, is there really that much of a difference between Creation Museum founder Ken Ham, who seems to have made a career marketing pseudoscience about the origins of the world, and John Mackey, a founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market, who seems to have made a career, in part, out of marketing pseudoscience about health?<\/p>\n
Well, no\u2014there isn\u2019t really much difference, if the promulgation of pseudoscience in the public sphere is, strictly speaking, the only issue at play. By the total lack of outrage over Whole Foods\u2019 existence, and by the total saturation of outrage over the Creation Museum, it\u2019s clear that strict scientific accuracy in the public sphere isn\u2019t quite as important to many of us as we might believe. Just ask all those scientists in the aisles of my local Whole Foods.<\/p>\n
So, why do many of us perceive Whole Foods and the Creation Museum so differently? The most common liberal answer to that question isn\u2019t quite correct: namely, that creationists harm society in a way that homeopaths don\u2019t. I\u2019m not saying that homeopathy is especially harmful; I\u2019m saying that creationism may be relatively harmless. In isolation, unless you\u2019re a biologist, your thoughts on creation don\u2019t matter terribly much to your fellow citizens; and unless you\u2019re a physician, your reliance on Sacred Healing Food to cure all ills is your own business.<\/p>\n
The danger is when these ideas get tied up with other, more politically muscular ideologies. Creationism often does, of course\u2014that\u2019s when we should worry. But as vaccine skeptics start to prompt public health crises, and GMO opponents block projects that could save lives in the developing world, it\u2019s fair to ask how much we can disentangle Whole Foods\u2019 pseudoscientific wares from very real, very worrying antiscientific outbursts.<\/p>\n
Still, we let it off the hook. Why? Two reasons come to mind. The first is that Whole Foods is a for-profit business, while the Creation Museum is the manifestation of an explicitly religious and political movement. For some reason, there\u2019s a special stream of American rage directed at ideological attacks on science that seems to evaporate when the offender is a for-profit corporation. It wasn\u2019t especially surprising that Bill Nye would go and debate Ken Ham; it would have been unusual had he, say, challenged executives at the biotech company Syngenta\u2014which has seemingly been running a smear campaign against a Berkeley biologist\u2014to a conversation about scientific integrity, or challenged Paleo Magazine\u2019s editors to a debate about archaeology. For those of us outside the fundamentalist world, I imagine that the Creation Museum gift shop is the one part of the museum that makes some kind of sense. Well, okay, they\u2019re trying to make money with this stuff. Meanwhile, Whole Foods responds to its customers, as any good business should.<\/p>\n
And, second, we often have it stuck in our heads that science communicators have only failed to speak to the religious right. But while issues of science-and-society are always tied up, in some ways, with politics, they\u2019re not bound to any particular part of the spectrum. Just ask Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., liberal political scion and vaccine skeptic extraordinaire, or Prince Charles, who pushed British health ministers to embrace homeopathic medicine.<\/p>\n
Bringing sound data into political conversations and consumer decisions is a huge, ongoing challenge. It\u2019s not limited to one side of the public debate. The moral is not that we should all boycott Whole Foods. It\u2019s that whenever we talk about science and society, it helps to keep two rather humbling premises in mind: very few of us are anywhere near rational. And pretty much all of us are hypocrites.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Article: Whole Foods: America\u2019s Temple of Pseudoscience by Michael Schulson in The Daily Beast. The Text: If you want to write about spiritually-motivated pseudoscience in America, you head to the Creation Museum in Kentucky. It\u2019s like a Law of Journalism. The museum has inspired hundreds of book chapters and articles (some of them, admittedly, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[259],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Whole Foods Is An American Temple Of Pseudoscience<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n