We have been pointing out for some time that many anti-biotech activists “go on feelings” instead of using scientific evidence. Now, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is telling us that’s exactly what’s behind many regulations. According to the Los Angeles Times, CSPI’s director for biotechnology said that “regulations are not based solely on science.”
We really didn’t need him to tell us that. Time and time again, we see the problem of “feel-good” regulation and policies. Remember the false sense of being “green” from promoting a bag tax? And doesn’t eating organic just make you feel swell? (Forget those organic pesticides or the absence of dangerous levels of pesticidesin most food.)
Still, our favorite feel-good policies are anti-soda measures. From the original soda taxes to, well, new soda tax plans and Bloomberg’s big-soda ban, we’ve learned that the need to feel like we’re doing “something” outweighs science.
Despite opposition from the public, Bloomberg’s ban is scheduled to go into effect next year. And to what end? Supposedly it will reduce obesity, but no number of studies will be enough to show Bloomberg and others like him that the means does not even reach the ends.
Regulators and food scaremongers are quick to tell the public (whom they view as their “patients”) that “if it feels good, do it” is not the way to live one’s life. They rarely follow that advice themselves.