http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ience.html"Americans get riled up about creationists and climate change deniers, but lap up the quasi-religious snake oil at Whole Foods. It’s all pseudoscience—so why are some kinds of pseudoscience more equal than others?"
IMO, while people love to rant about global warming (myself included), the most prevalent junk science today is the stuff filling our stores that everyone apparently takes for granted. It's amazing how good marketing can take otherwise rational people and convince them that organic "Sacred Healing Food" is the only thing they should ever feed their families. At twice the price.
And in the context of the Science! debates that people love to get into, the conclusion is especially poignant.
"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’re 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.
Bringing sound data into political conversations and consumer decisions is a huge, ongoing challenge. It’s not limited to one side of the public debate. The moral is not that we should all boycott Whole Foods. It’s 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."

