Ranthropologist

Tag: food

  • Daily Read: Pill Poppers

    Daily Read: Pill Poppers

    Dietary supplements have been in the news a lot lately. Ever since an investigation in New York found that many supplements don’t even contain the active ingredient listed on the label (in other words, there might be NO St. John’s Wort in your bottle of St. John’s Wort), supplements have been getting attention. And now yet another study shows that many popular supplements contain amphetamines which, of course, were not listed on the label (and which the FDA apparently has known about for two years) . Julia Belluz writes about these stories and the overall lack of regulation of the supplement industry in today’s Daily Read. Amazingly, supplement makers are allowed to make unsubstantiated claims about their products on the product label. You know that little box on the supplement bottle that says “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease”? That’s the supplement industry’s get out of jail free card. Unlike regulated drugs, which have to be rigorously tested for safety and efficacy before they are approved, the burden of proof for supplements works in reverse: the FDA must prove that supplements are harmful before they can be taken off the market! Basically, supplement makers can make any claim they want and they don’t have to prove it. Now, I realize that not all supplements are harmful, but the regulatory loopholes are still far too vast (see many supplements don’t even contain the active ingredient listed on the label above). As far as I’m concerned, I won’t trust any supplement claims unless I’ve done the research myself; and I’ll change my mind if presented with convincing new evidence (for example, I reevaluated my daily multivitamin after new studies showed that they are not only not helpful, they may be harmful. I no longer take a multi.). So be careful, and don’t take the supplement makers’ word for it. There are more damning details in the article, so don’t take my word for it either – read it yourself.

    How dietary supplements evade regulation — with dangerous results

  • Daily Read: Anti-Food Babe

    Daily Read: Anti-Food Babe

    I haven’t posted a Daily Read for a while – sorry about that. Let’s get back on track with this great article from science blogger Yvette d’Entremont, who blogs as the Science Babe. Writing for Gawker, d’Entremont makes short work out of debunking the unbelievable bullshittery hawked by Vani Hari, otherwise known as the Food Babe (I won’t link to her site but you can Google it if you really want to look). Hari has made a career out of scaring people about what is in their food and taking advantage of the general public’s overall ignorance about science (I don’t say this as an indictment of the public, just as a factual observation). Hari seems to be utterly incapable of understanding science, nutrition, health, or any of the subjects about which she rails so hysterically. D’Entremont’s article abounds with examples of Hari’s stupidity (I can’t call it ignorance in this case, because she’s been corrected by experts too many times to count and still holds to her irrational beliefs). People like Hari are a danger to the public because they play on people’s fears and employ scientific-sounding words to generate sophisticated nonsense (h/t to Steven Novella of The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe for that phrase). Hari’s recent popularity is frightening and bad news for critical thinkers everywhere.

    The “Food Babe” Blogger is Full of Shit

  • Daily Reads: Anybody Want A Peanut?

    Daily Reads: Anybody Want A Peanut?

    Today’s Daily Read relates to the one I posted a few days ago about hygiene, but this time it’s about food allergies – specifically, peanut allergies. Rob Stein writes for NPR’s blog The Salt that children who are fed foods containing peanuts from a young age are much less likely to develop a peanut allergy by the age of 5. This mechanism may operate by training babies’ immune systems very early to recognize peanuts and thus prevent an allergic overreaction. This is superficially similar to how vaccination works, and also how the hygiene hypothesis* works – early exposure means a stronger, more resistant immune system. The article appropriately cautions that parents who haven’t already fed their young children peanuts need to proceed carefully; but it seems that starting to give peanut-containing foods between 4-12 months may just prevent peanut allergies later. I’m loving all these new studies showing that coddling kids is not actually protecting them; instead, it seems that what we think is protecting them might be making them weaker in the long run.

    Feeding Babies Foods With Peanuts Appears to Prevent Allergies

    *And here’s a bonus article about the hygiene hypothesis that relates to allergies as well – but this one proposes that using automatic dishwashers instead of letting kids do dishes the old-fashioned way might also be contributing to the uptick in allergies. Who knew that washing dishes could be good for you?

  • Daily Reads: Labeling Knowledge

    Daily Reads: Labeling Knowledge

    This article in the Washington Post by Ilya Somin proposes an interesting idea about the scientific literacy of the general public: we don’t need to be highly knowledgeable about science – or many other topics, for that matter – to get by in our daily lives. So when a survey comes out such as the one with which the article opens, illustrating that 80% of the American public would support labeling of foods that contain DNA, it is misleading for us to assume that 80% of Americans are stupid. Yes, it pains me greatly to realize that that many people don’t know what DNA is and that it is present in just about everything we eat, but Somin is correct in concluding that with the vast quantities of information that exist, it is unrealistic to expect people to be knowledgeable of everything. (This principle is used in tongue-in-cheek “warnings” about the substance dihydrogen monoxide – otherwise known as water – and how dangerous it can be. This capitalizes on people’s lack of knowledge about chemical names and trades in the rather elitist assumption that people who don’t know the chemical structure and name of water are stupid, rather than merely untutored.) That said, I think this is why critical thinking is so important. People need to be taught to admit that they don’t know things and that they may need more information before coming to a conclusion. If we all realize and admit how much we don’t know, rather than forming opinions without doing more research, then I think perhaps a lot of our problems with scientific misunderstandings would end.

    Over 80 percent of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA”

  • Daily Reads: The Real Cause of Obesity

    Daily Reads: The Real Cause of Obesity

    I do a lot of reading about health and nutrition because I find it to be interesting both anthropologically and personally. I have long come to embrace the conclusion that diet-related health issues such as obesity are linked to social and cultural causes and not (just) to personal decision-making. Thus, today’s Daily Read is about that very topic. James Hamblin of The Atlantic writes about a meeting he attended with policy makers, researchers, and medical professionals where the link between culture and the obesity crisis was the topic. What I found most interesting about the article was a study showing how attitudes towards obesity split along political lines – that is, liberals are more likely to see obesity as a societal problem that requires government intervention than conservatives are. But even more fascinating, to me, is the fact that most people still don’t seem to link social causes with obesity and instead are much more likely to pin it on personal choice, which as Hamblin points out, is an extremely reductionist approach to a complex problem.

    Body Weight, Clash of Ideologies

  • Daily Reads: The Gluten-Free Craze

    Daily Reads: The Gluten-Free Craze

    In my post on the bandwagon fallacy, I used the popularity of certain food fads as my example. One of those fads is the current gluten-free craze. This article from NPR by James S. Fell discusses how this fad has created difficulties for people who have actually been diagnosed with celiac disease. These folks, unlike those who refer to themselves as gluten intolerant, experience severe health consequences from eating gluten – and they comprise only about 1% of the population. Just like with everything else, fads like this must be considered with a critical eye. Anecdotal evidence from people who say they feel better when they cut gluten out of their diets is not the same as the results of rigorous, controlled, peer-reviewed studies of the effects of dietary gluten. It may well be that the so-called and frequently self-diagnosed gluten intolerant feel better because they are eating more healthfully in general – e.g., if you have cut out gluten, then you’ve probably cut out a lot of processed junk foods like pastries, donuts, etc. and substituted with less processed foods. So beware of fads, be compassionate and understanding of those who actually have celiac disease, and don’t be too quick to jump on the bandwagon.

    Gluten-Free Craze is Boon and Bane To Those With Celiac Disease