The current wave of food anxiety stems, in large part, from a misunderstanding of hazard versus risk. A substance can be hazardous at high doses but pose minimal risk at typical exposure levels. Yet social media influencers often highlight studies where ingredients caused harm in animals—at doses hundreds or thousands of times higher than any human would consume.

The irony is that many practices under attack actually reduce environmental and health risks. Take genetically modified organisms: A meta-analysis of 147 studies found that GMO adoption has reduced pesticide use by 37 percent, increased crop yields by 22 percent, and improved farmer profits by 68 percent. Without modern pesticides, global crop losses would be staggering: an estimated 78 percent for fruits, 54 percent for vegetables, and 32 percent for cereals. These figures represent millions who can currently afford healthy food—thanks to technologies we risk abandoning.

[W]hile not perfect, industrial-scale farming enables us to feed a global population that has more than doubled since 1960, using less land per calorie produced.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here