Science and opinion in decision making: A case study of the food security collapse in Sri Lanka

Making decisions related to security, whether at the community, national, or regional level, is a highly intricate task. This requires a multi‐criteria decision‐making approach that incorporates inputs from various perspectives, including those of science, culture, economics, sustainability, and climate change. In order to make successful decisions, it is imperative to compare alternatives and rank the consequences and relative impacts associated with each option. Such comparisons and rankings require a careful balance of evidence‐based scientific data and diverse opinions. The recent scenario of the food security collapse in Sri Lanka provides a poignant reminder of the importance of this decision‐making process and the consequences of unacknowledged or unidentified misinformation. Sri Lanka responded to an unexplained health condition and a desire to enter a new sales market by swiftly transitioning to organic farming. However, this abrupt change led to the rapid collapse of Sri Lanka's food supply, a significant decline in GDP, and hardships for both rural and urban communities. While the government eventually reversed its policy, Sri Lanka faced challenges in recovery. It is evident that disinformation and misinformation played a role in this unfortunate situation. This paper offers an in‐depth exploration of the events, underlining the necessity to distinguish between disinformation and misinformation in policy development.


INTRODUCTION
The process of major decision-making within government entities is frequently characterised by its complexity and inherent difficulty.When such decisions are made erroneously, the consequences can be severe and far-reaching.The organic agriculture movement in Sri Lanka serves as a recent case study that exemplifies the detrimental outcomes that can arise when major policy decisions go catastrophically wrong.This article emphasises the importance of a comprehensive understanding of the associated risks and uncertainties involved in policy implementation, specifically in the implementation of Sri Lankan agriculture policy.Risk is defined as the uncertain result of an event or activity in relation to the value, while uncertainty refers to the unclear probability of an event happening. 1Ignorance regarding potential risks leaves individuals who are affected by policies vulnerable and ill-prepared to navigate uncertain situations.Therefore, knowing the associated risks when implementing policies is of utmost importance for governments.
Policies are vital for a country as they establish a structured framework that guides governance and societal behaviour.6][7] Economically, they stabilise the nation by guiding fiscal and monetary strategies. 8,96][7] However, implementing novel policies carries inherent risks.][12] Particularly in complex situations, governmental bodies must diligently consider and account for associated factors before proceeding with policy implementation.4][15] Policymaking involves addressing multiple factors that impact a wide range of stakeholders.Before implementing a policy, governments must conduct thorough research and analysis about it and its potential impact on others to understand its potential consequences, both intended and unintended.One crucial strategy is employing a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) process, which takes into account multiple factors and objectives of policy formulation and implementation. 16,17Factors such as economic implications, social impacts, environmental considerations, community attitudes and beliefs, and political feasibility need to be carefully evaluated in policy formulation. 18,19Additionally, policymakers must anticipate and account for uncertainties, as unexpected events and changes in circumstances can significantly influence policy outcomes.By diligently assessing associated risks and taking a holistic approach to policymaking, governments can enhance the likelihood of successful policy implementation and minimise the negative repercussions that may arise from unforeseen challenges.
The MCDM approach allows the balancing of different criteria, such as economic viability, environmental sustainability, social equity, and political feasibility for policy formulations.Scientific evidence plays a vital role in this process, as policies grounded in evidence and experience, including empirical research and expert advice, are more likely to yield positive outcomes. 20,21Moreover, policies should consider the perspectives of the people they impact, considering factors like cultural, religious, and community values. 22,23Recognising and respecting diverse viewpoints fosters inclusivity and helps shape policies that are both effective and widely accepted.However, the presence of misinformation and disinformation (Box 1) poses a challenge during the MCDM process. 24,257][28][29][30] By incorporating these elements during policy formulations, policymakers can develop robust policies that address complex challenges while aligning with the values and needs of their communities.
The main features of the Sri Lankan catastrophic failure in organic farming involved its political system, economy, and agricultural landscape, and therefore constitutes an excellent case study to highlight the need for evidence-based MCDM formulation of public policy.The prevalence of 'Chronic Kidney Disease of unknown etiology' (CKDu) led to a dramatic political movement in the country in 2021 in support of organic farming, aiming to promote sustainable and environmentally friendly agricultural practices. 31,32Although, Sri Lanka operates under a democratic political system, where the will of the people is reflected in the governance and decision-making processes, 33 misinformation and disinformation empowered a political movement to play a crucial role in influencing the ruling government by shaping agricultural policies and practices in Sri Lanka in 2021.This political movement included those that promoted organic farming to improve sustainability, advocated reductions in the use of chemical inputs, and those promoted healthier food systems.

BOX 1
Adopted from The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) of the Australian Government. 109

Disinformation
Intentional creation and dissemination of wholly or partly false and/or manipulated information that is intended to deceive and mislead audiences and/or obscure the truth for the purposes of causing strategic, political, economic, social, or personal harm or financial/commercial gain.

Misinformation
The creation and dissemination of wholly or partly false information, spread unwittingly by error or mistake.Such information has the potential to mislead or deceive but is neither created nor transmitted with the intention of doing so or causing harm.

MODERN AGRICULTURE
If not carefully planned and implemented, political decisions related to the national interest, like the one made about Sri Lankan organic agriculture, can potentially negatively impact a whole nation and lead to disasters such as food insecurity, particularly in vulnerable populations.This article emphasises the importance of science-based and holistic decisionmaking with specific reference to the failure of Sri Lanka's agricultural industry.It demonstrates that, in this case, the decision-makers should have considered the complex interactions between organic agriculture, food security, and socioeconomic factors to promote sustainable agriculture and ensure food security and identified and excluded misinformation and disinformation.

DISCUSSIONS Background to the failure in agriculture in Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka has seven agro-climatic zones further subdivided into 46 agroecological regions. 346][37][38][39] A research team controversially claimed that arsenic caused CKDu disease in the dry zone of Sri Lanka.This research team was led by a group of university professors who are pronationalists and political ideologists.1][42][43] Also, they claimed that they would not have discovered the link between arsenic and chronic kidney disease using Western scientific methods. 40A graduate student who joined this team later published research linking arsenic and other heavy metals in groundwater to CKDu, attributing the contamination to the use of chemical fertilisers.Indeed, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is linked to the World Health Organization, stated that glyphosate (a herbicide containing arsenic) "probably" causes cancer. 44However, this story was disinformation in that it ignores the fact that the link was supported only at extremely high concentrations of glyphosate, which are well beyond that detected in standard practice in Sri Lanka and well beyond recommended usage.][47][48][49][50] This provided a boost to the lobbying effort to prohibit glyphosate in Sri Lanka. 44The two most eminent scientists who claimed glyphosate may contribute to Sri Lankan CKDu were awarded the 2019 Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award in recognition of their efforts to uncover the truth about the dangers posed by industrial herbicides. 51This, however, was later retracted 52 on the basis that there was no actual scientific evidence for their claims. 535][56] Compared to 94% of all herbicides, glyphosate has a lower risk of causing immediate harm to humans, and when it comes to long-term exposure, glyphosate has a lower risk of causing harm to humans than 90% of all other herbicides. 579][60] It is also not a genotoxic, carcinogenic, immunotoxic, or endocrine-disrupting substance. 58Based on ecological evaluation, the use of glyphosate in various settings, such as agriculture, forestry, residential areas, and habitat restoration, is unlikely to pose significant risks to non-target species in either terrestrial or aquatic environments. 61Although no causal link between glyphosate and kidney disease has yet been established, 38,39,62,63 the original hypotheses of the claimants proposing such a link became accepted as fact by Sri Lankan public, and in 2014, glyphosate was prohibited from use in Sri Lanka.
Representatives from the "Viyathmaga" lobby were elected to the parliament, and a member of this lobby who led a research team became the Minister of Health, and the State Minister of Production, Supply, and Regulation of Pharmaceuticals under the then 2020-2022 government. 64During this period, this minister and his colleagues were able to influence the government's agricultural policy, which popularised organic farming in 2021 31,42 and led to a ban on agrochemicals and synthetic fertilisers by implementing a hasty policy change (Figure 1) and popularised organic farming in 2021. 31,42Subsequent agriculture failure and economic loss fueled strong push-back from farmers and scientists and caused the government to revoke the ban within less than a year of its implementation (Figure 1).

Consequences of not understanding relative risk and uncertainty
These agrochemical and fertiliser bans came with a significant financial price tag and shock waves continued reverberating. 72Diplomatic issues arose from an organic fertiliser import deal with the Chinese government. 73,74Owing to the higher production expenses and cost of organic fertiliser -as much as double for paddy crops -a reduced percentage of farmers chose to prepare for the 2021 Yala season (March-September, South-West monsoon). 70,71Farmers who, until 2021, had been reliant on government subsidies for synthetic fertilisers unexpectedly found themselves in May 2021 having to shift to organic farming.However, because the government had not expanded the production of organic fertilisers nor imported sufficient soil nutrients to satisfy farmers' requirements 75,76 prior to the actual ban on synthetic products, agricultural production during the growing season, which concluded in the 2021 Maha season (October-February; the North-East monsoon), declined by between 20% and 70%, depending on the crop. 77For example, the production of rice, which is a significant part of Sri Lankan diet, dropped by between 40% and 50% across the country during the Maha 2021 growing season.As a consequence, 300,000 metric tonnes of rice were imported into Sri Lanka in the first 3 months of 2022.This was a significant (20-fold) increase in the 14,000 metric tonnes imported in 2020. 77Fluctuations in the rice planting area could not account for such a large drop in yield (see Figure 2).The maize yield also dropped and failed in 2021/2022 by 202 metric tonnes, a considerable decline from 2020/2021. 77,78ll farmers in Sri Lanka experienced difficulties in purchasing alternative inputs to the original agrochemicals, being impacted both logistically and economically 79 by the prohibition on chemicals.As a consequence, agricultural production in Sri Lanka dropped by 54% in the 2021 Maha season. 79The most noteworthy report finding of all was that 25% of Sri Lanka's farmers would have seriously considered leaving the farming industry if the ban on conventional pesticides had been enforced until 2022. 79Disturbingly, it was reported that as a result of the limited availability and reduced use of traditional pesticides, 81% of farmers had increased weed, 73% had an increase in insects, and 77% experienced disease infestation. 79It was also discovered that 75% of Sri Lankan farmers intended to utilise conventional pesticides in the future, citing high control levels, faster control, and convenience of usage as advantages of doing so. 79he Kynetec for CropLife Asia Institute study found three unforeseen outcomes of the prohibition of synthetic agricultural inputs in Sri Lanka. 79First, one in five farmers pondered using illegal and dangerous chemicals that could harm persons and the environment in the short run.Second, 51% of farmers have reduced F I G U R E 1 Milestones in the major politicalised events that led to the fertiliser and agrochemical ban in Sri Lanka.On December 22nd, 2014, the Sri Lankan government, specifically the Registrar of Pesticides, issued a government notification No. 1894/4, thereby prohibiting the use, offer for sale, or sale of pesticides containing active ingredients such as carbaryl, carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, glyphosate, and propanil within the CKDu prevalence areas.These areas were delineated within the Districts of Anuradhapura, Polonnaruwa, Kurunegala, Monaragala, and certain Divisional Secretariats and Divisions including Mahiyanganaya, Rideemaliyadda, and Kandaketiya in the Badulla Districts. 65Then, on May 6th, 2021, the Sri Lankan government took further action by restricting and banning the importation of mineral or chemical fertilisers and agrochemicals, which encompassed pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides/weedicides.This decision was documented in the Extraordinary Gazette No. 2226/48. 66Subsequently, on July 31st, 2021, the Finance Ministry revoked the regulations related to importing chelated minerals and micronutrients to produce fertiliser, as per the Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 2238/45. 67owever, significant changes occurred on November 22nd, 2021, due to the recommendations put forth by the Pesticide Technical and Advisory Committee.The Registrar of Pesticides annulled the order specified in the 2014 gazette through the issuance of Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 2255/5 of November 2021.This notification banned the sale of five pesticides. 68Just 2 days later, on November 24th, 2021, the government reversed the restrictions outlined in Extraordinary Gazette No. 2226/48 through the issuance of Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 2256/23.Consequently, importation restrictions on chemical fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, and glyphosate were lifted. 69astly, on April 18th, 2022, the president of Sri Lanka publicly acknowledged his mistakes, emphasising the need for rectification in his approach. 70,71DERN AGRICULTURE the usual dose rate of conventional pesticides and 39% of them have reduced the frequency of pesticide application, both of which latter practices are scientifically known to encourage the breeding of resistant pests over time.Thirdly, one in four farmers pondered quitting farming, which would have harmed national food security.In 2020 in Sri Lanka, 27.1% of the population was employed in agriculture, 41.8% of the land area was devoted to it, and agriculture was 7.4% of GDP. 80This is 2.4% lower than in 2019, which could be largely due to the social and economic effects of COVID-19.Nearly one-third of GDP was lost in 1 year because of the failure in the agricultural sector. 81he failure in agriculture was only one factor that has recently negatively impacted the economy of Sri Lanka.Unfortunately, the impact of radical political decisions can be greatly exacerbated by unforeseen circumstances that nevertheless need to be considered as part of any decision-making matrix.In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic damaged its tourism sector, which usually generated over half of its foreign exchange.6][87] During 2018 and 2021, the ratio of Sri Lanka's governmental debt to GDP increased from 91% to 119%.][90] Just as risks can be confounding, they can also have long-term consequences.In the months since the agrichemical ban was revoked in November 2022, agricultural productivity in Sri Lanka has continued to suffer severely with a nearly 40%-50% reduction in agricultural outputs for the following Maha and Yala seasons because of insufficient foreign exchange dollars needed to purchase fertiliser and synthetic agrochemicals.UNICEF has estimated that roughly 56,000 children suffer from severe acute malnutrition in the nation 91 as a result of the agricultural food production failure in 2022.According to the most recent World Food Program statistics, 30% of Sri Lankan households are food insecure, and 86% of families are unable to afford nutritious food, do not have a stable food supply, and have cut down their meal portions. 92,93ri Lanka's welfare system, which is modeled after the British system, includes free health care and education and the Samurdhi poverty reduction program for 1.2 million families. 94,95However, these strategies have not been sufficient to call a halt to the worsening poverty and the widespread discontent caused by food and fuel inflation. 88Sri Lanka's unsustainable debt and balance of payments crisis have greatly hurt economic growth and increased poverty.Attributed to the serious balance of payments issue and unmanageable debt, the latest World Bank, in describing the 9.2% drop in real GDP in 2022 and 4.2% drop in 2023, predicted that Sri Lanka is now experiencing slow economic development.Its economic future is markedly unclear due to its unstable political environment and its worsening imbalances in the fiscal, external, and financial sectors. 96

How could the change to organic farming have been better managed?
The collapsed food security in Sri Lanka serves as a poignant case study that underscores the criticality of discerning between science and opinion in government decision-making, with a specific focus on the importance of combating disinformation.The adverse consequences of misinformation come to the forefront, especially where its pervasive presence can significantly hinder the early identification of pressing issues.When subjective opinions and unfounded beliefs overshadow scientific evidence, 97,98 the true extent of challenges like food security, global political movement, associated economic factors such as the cost of production, supply and demand, farmer preferences, and unforeseen pandemics like COVID-19 may remain unrecognised until the challenges reach a critical point.Consequently, addressing the issue of misinformation becomes paramount, as it incurs substantial costs that may extend beyond economic implications, impacting the well-being and resilience of societies at large.
In the case of Sri Lanka's political and agricultural policymaking, the decision to ban the use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides was influenced by a significant amount of misinformation and disinformation.The government's intention to promote organic agriculture was driven by the belief, fueled by misinformation, that synthetic fertilisers and pesticides posed significant harm to human health and caused CKDu.Additionally, there was a concern, largely based on unfounded claims, that these chemicals were compromising the safety of Sri Lanka's food supply.This misinformation and disinformation created a false narrative that distorted the understanding of the potential benefits and risks associated with synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, ultimately leading to a policy decision that had severe consequences for the country's agricultural sector and food security.The lack of accurate scientific evidence and the dominance of opinion-driven misinformation demonstrate the detrimental impact of relying on subjective beliefs rather than objective scientific analysis in government decision-making.
The decision to ban the use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides was made without a clear understanding of its potential consequences.For example, the government presumably did not consider the fact that organic agriculture can be less productive than conventional agriculture and that it can take several years to transition from conventional to organic agriculture.As a result, the ban on synthetic fertilisers and pesticides led to a sharp decline in crop yields, which caused food shortages and economic hardship and therefore led to dire political and social outcomes.
The change to organic farming policy in Sri Lanka could have been better managed by addressing several key aspects.Firstly, the government should have recognised the danger of not knowing the associated risks and uncertainties of their policy change.Policymakers should have conducted thorough research and assessments of the policy life cycle to understand the potential challenges and uncertainties that might arise from transitioning to organic farming.As it was evident that the Sri Lankan government had not looked into associated risks like lack of organic fertiliser availability and cost of production, farmers' preference to go complete organic farming, lack of planting materials responding to organic fertiliser, pest and disease, country's increasing debt to GDP, external debt service payments, and diminishing foreign reserves and uncertainties like COVID-19 pandemic and international conflicts in Ukraine and Russia that affects Sri Lankan export agriculture market, therefore, secondly, employing MCDM approaches would have been beneficial.Moreover, tackling the issues of misinformation and disinformation is vital.Effective communication and education campaigns should have been implemented to counter misleading claims about organic farming practices and promote accurate information about them.Lastly, the need for evidence-based decision-making cannot be overstated.Conducting robust studies and collecting reliable data would have provided a clearer understanding of the relative impacts of organic farming on crop production and economy compared to conventional methods.Overall, a more cautious and evidence-driven approach, coupled with comprehensive decision-making techniques, could have facilitated a smoother and more successful transition to organic farming in Sri Lanka.
To prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation, government organisations and individuals should follow a set of principles. 99These principles include identifying the person responsible for information and information dissemination, analysing information, and organising information. 99In the fight against information disorders, it is important to recognise the potential harm that false information can cause. 100alse information can negatively influence decisionmaking and productivity within organisations, and it can also harm democratic institutions and public health and safety. 101By employing critical cross-referencing multiple sources, evaluating credibility, scrutinising evidence, considering context and intent, utilising factchecking organisations, and fostering a questioning mindset, decision-makers can develop the necessary resources to navigate the complex landscape of information and accurately identify and distinguish reliable sources from deceptive ones.
The integration of science-based research within, for example, national or international non-for-profit and government research organisations fosters effective, efficient, and equitable policy-making, thereby strengthening public trust in policy-making organisations. 102,103For this aspect, science provides a robust, empirical foundation for policy-making. 104The contribution of science promotes effective, efficient, and equitable policies and builds public trust in policymaking organisations.For example, two highly successful policy initiatives from Australia, demonstrating principles of good public policy, are Australia's response to the public health challenges of HIV/ AIDS 105 and Australia's gun control legislation implemented after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. 106hese two examples demonstrate the effectiveness of evidence-based approaches, public health prioritisation, collaborative strategies, political will and bipartisan support, comprehensive interventions, and long-term commitment.The combination of these factors contributed to the success of these policies, highlighting their significance as model examples of sound public policy in addressing complex societal issues.However, mechanisms for science-policy interaction are still frequently based on models of information transmission that are linear and one-way, or affected by misinformation and frequently fail to affect the behaviour of policymakers or the general public. 107Instead, evidence-based decision-making increased the MODERN AGRICULTURE likelihood of achieving the intended objectives.For example, the American Chemical Society firmly endorses the utilisation of intelligent, exhaustive scientific and engineering expertise in the creation and assessment of policy alternatives.ACS also promotes the implementation of scientific integrity policies that assist federal, state, and local governments in acquiring and incorporating scientific evaluations into the processes of policy formulation and execution. 108

CONCLUSIONS
The case study of collapsed food security in Sri Lanka underscores the critical role of early identification of disinformation in government decision-making processes.This investigation illuminates the detrimental consequences that arise when scientific evidence is overshadowed by false or misguided information.By recognising the implications of misinformation and actively working to counter it, policymakers can mitigate the adverse effects on vital sectors such as food security.The point highlighted here is not that diverse voices should not be heard loudly and clearly, but that a voice proposing to speak of science must have rigorous supporting evidence.Consequently, fostering a culture of evidence-based decision-making and promoting the rigorous scrutiny of information sources are imperative steps towards ensuring the welfare of societies and the effective functioning of governments.As the global landscape continues to face complex challenges, the ability to distinguish between genuine scientific insights and unverified claims becomes ever more crucial for the well-being and progress of nations.

F I G U R E 2
Change in rice cultivation area, yield, and production in Sri Lanka (2011-2023).The red shaded area depicts the growth seasons affected by fertiliser and agrochemical ban led organic farming movement.(a) The average total cultivated rice area in Sri Lanka is 960.84 thousand hectares.The largest areas were cultivated in 2021/2022 with 1130 thousand hectares.(b) The total rice production in Sri Lanka between 2011 and 2023 was an average of 3049 thousand tons.The maximum total production was in 2020/2021 at 3390 thousand tons, and it dropped by 865 thousand tons after the fertiliser ban.(c) The total yield decreased from 4.6 Tons/Ha in 2020/2021 to 3.4 Tons/Ha in 2022/2023.Data Source: Sri Lanka Ministry of Agriculture, Crop Production Programme and U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service.