Although in the end it was partially removed from the bill to promote the protection and development of organic agriculture, the equation of biodynamic practices with this type of cultivation has sparked heated debate and has made the need for organic farming even more relevant. understand why so many “unscientific” beliefs are so widespread today. It must in fact be remembered that the peculiarities of biodynamics, as the scientific community of the sector, the life senator Elena Cattaneo and the Nobel Prize for physics Giorgio Parisi have strongly emphasized in recent days, are not supported by scientific evidence that certifies their effectiveness or existence. This is not an isolated case, the examples of the success of these theories are numerous. Just to name a few: the popularity of the Stamina method, the spread of antivaccinist positions, the denial of Xylella, homeopathic treatments and the condemnation of the use in agriculture of glyphosate, a safe herbicide as highlighted by the European authorities, but that the public ( often confusing risk and danger) considers harmful.
It is a real “anti-scientific drift”, a very complex phenomenon, which presents itself as a rejection of scientific evidence. We must undoubtedly be concerned about it. To do this, I borrow the words of the President of the Republic Sergio Mattarella during the visit to my University: this drift blocks the future and brings everything back to the past. Not in the “idealized” past, beautiful and simple, but the real one, studded with easy risks of death due to lack of food or other causes now considered banal. Science is the only proven means of progressing and distinguishing what appears to be true from what actually is, but sadly, it takes time, effort, and counterintuitive thinking.
In what sense are science and its method opposed to intuition? Because they think about data and not about impressions. Our brains, on the other hand, have evolved to think quickly about the pitfalls of a world other than the current one. In that world, thinking that a twig could be moved by a predator and not by the wind could save life, despite the possible waste of energy (always lacking) to escape. For the same reason, populations tended to change as little as possible: novelties were often lethal. The world has changed, but the structure of the brain has not. And the legacy of the past as safe and the new as uncertain and dangerous has never faded into the brain.
The debate on synthetic active ingredients in agriculture is not dissimilar: scientific evidence and public controls make it clear that they do not pose concrete risks to health, but the population fears them. Yet, these substances, together with genetics, plant nutrition and mechanization, have increased the availability of food, counteracting the pathogens, pests and weeds of crops that for thousands of years have decimated the production of the fields. Furthermore, their use allows to increase yields and therefore indirectly reduce deforestation and environmental impact studies make it clear that the systems that use them are even more sustainable than those that do not.
It is therefore important to legislate based on scientific evidence. If we lose the compass of science we risk justifying irrational choices, favoring partisan interests, sometimes of an economic nature.
Sergio Saia is professor of Agronomy and herbaceous crops at the University of Pisa