Ranthropologist

Tag: science

  • Daily Read: Matters of Taste

    Daily Read: Matters of Taste

    If you are like me, you struggle daily with the temptation to eat food that you know isn’t good for you. I have a terrible weakness for sour cream and onion Ruffles; Mother’s taffy cookies; and just about anything chocolate, fried, or both! I have done a good amount of reading on nutrition science as it relates to obesity, and the focus is usually on the big three offenders: fat, sugar, and salt. But as we all know, fat, sugar, and salt don’t tempt us if they aren’t delivered in a package that tastes good. That’s where today’s Daily Read comes in. Julia Belluz of Vox interviews Mark Schatzker, a journalist and author of the book The Dorito Effect: The Surprising New Truth About Food and Flavor. Schatzker makes a connection that should be obvious: if it doesn’t taste good, we aren’t as tempted to eat it. And food manufacturers know this, which is why foods like the titular Doritos did not become wildly popular until they were dusted with flavor enhancers. I’m amazed that such a simple idea hasn’t garnered more attention, but the focus on fat, sugar, and salt has sucked all the air out of the room. Schatzker’s conclusions aren’t necessarily going to help me resist my cravings – I already know how good sour cream and onion Ruffles taste! – but knowing how taste affects our appetites, cravings, and choices may help us find ways to make food that’s actually good for us more palatable.

    The Dorito Effect: Healthy food is blander than ever — and it’s making us fat

  • Daily Read: Chocolate-Dipped “Science”

    Daily Read: Chocolate-Dipped “Science”

    Are you confused by science reporting about health and nutrition? Have you given up listening to what the media reports about our diets and what foods are good (or bad) for us? If you answered yes, I’m not surprised, and I fear that reading this article will give you even less confidence in media reporting on these important topics. But I still think you should read it. John Bohannon explains the hoax he perpetrated with the help of some German researchers in a bid to illustrate how easy it is to dupe the media into publishing bad science. In brief, Bohannon did an actual scientific study that generated real results showing that eating a bar of dark chocolate every day accelerates weight loss – but his methodology was full of holes and his conclusions were weakly supported. Nevertheless, when he got his study published in a pay-to-play “science” journal  that will take any study as long as the author pays the fee (an enormous problem itself and the topic of a future rant), and then released an accurate – but detail-scant – press release trumpeting his results, it was snapped up immediately and uncritically by media outlets throughout the globe and published with no scientific fact-checking.

    The upshot? We need more critical thinking not just in our media but in media consumers. People need to be taught how to critically evaluate how a study was conducted and ask the right questions: what was the sample size? What statistical tests were used to calculate the results? How many parameters did the study measure? I realize that learning how to do this takes education and experience, but we need it. It’s not enough to rely on media outlets to do it for us when their bottom line is driven by clicks, shares, and page-views. And this article also illustrates why it is so unbearably easy for the unscrupulous purveyors of modern snake-oil to fool their customers with sophisticated nonsense. It’s a large part of the reason the anti-vaccine movement has any traction at all, why the Food Babe has any followers, and why homeopathic remedies have yet to be banned from store shelves. We have to learn for ourselves how to spot bad science.

    I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here’s How.

  • 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 Read: Critical Medicine

    Daily Read: Critical Medicine

    In this article from Vox, Julia Belluz uses the example of medical research to highlight the problems with mainstream media reporting on science. The article points out that reporters have a different idea of what is newsworthy than scientific researchers do, and that is reflected in the way medical “breakthroughs” are reported. Scientists write their reports and articles for a very specialized audience, while reporters must present scientific findings in ways that are accessible to the public. Furthermore, reporters are looking for a hook in their reporting – something that will get eyeballs on their stories. This means that there is often a profound disconnect between the actual findings of scientific research, and the way that research is reported to the general public. The upshot, according to Belluz, is that the general public needs to take reporting on medical studies with a grain of salt because many, if not most, of the most apparently breathtaking findings turn out to be undermined or disproven by further research. This is also true of the seemingly endless stream of reports on diet, exercise, supplements, etc. I can’t stress enough that revisions and refinements of existing research are actually the biggest strengths of science; yet, when the media reports that previously promising treatments or techniques turn out not to work, the general public loses faith in the scientific community. I empathize with Velluz’s rumination on whether it’s a good idea for these studies to even be reported: “I often wonder whether there is any value in reporting very early research. Journals now publish their findings, and the public seizes on them, but this wasn’t always the case: journals were meant for peer-to-peer discussion, not mass consumption.” She is right that early reporting is harmful for the false hope it can give people and for the damage it does to people’s faith in science.

    This is why you shouldn’t believe that exciting new medical study

  • Daily Reads: Pest Control

    Daily Reads: Pest Control

    Today’s article is a must read because it is reporting on an issue that has become divisive in the public eye. A new review of the research on glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, shows that it is probably a human carcinogen. As Dan Charles from NPR’s The Salt points out, while this news sounds bad, the truth is really much more nuanced. Yet, as expected, this news is already being trumpeted by those opposed to Monsanto, the company that manufactures Roundup. Monsanto also creates and sells seeds for the genetically modified (GMO) crops that are resistant to glyphosate. To those opposed to the use of GMOs, Monsanto is the devil. So now, there is a review that seems, on the surface, to prove that both glyphosate and by extension, GMOs, are unsafe for humans. Critically, this is not actually what the review concludes. This is a perfect example of how selective reporting on scientific research can confuse and mislead the public. This is incredibly important, because both sides of a debate can leverage these reports to bolster their side, when the truth is usually somewhere in between. I’ll leave it to you to read the article, but here are some of the most important takeaways:

    “…the IARC is saying that glyphosate probably could cause cancer in humans, but not that it probably does.”  “… society often chooses simply to accept certain hazards. Among the other things that the IARC says probably cause cancer are burning wood in home fireplaces, disruption of circadian rhythms by working overnight shifts and working as a hairdresser.” What this means is that the dose makes the poison: yes, glyphosate causes changes in cellular DNA that could lead to cancer, but the report does not say under what circumstances and at what dose. This is a very important area for more research, because there are countless substances in our daily environments that are technically carcinogens, but that you’d have to be exposed to in huge quantities to actually be put at risk.

    “…studies of human health records did not turn up convincing evidence of glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential. A long-running study of farm workers, for instance, did not show higher rates of cancer among those exposed to the chemical.” This conclusion from the report will definitely not be showing up in the responses from those organizations that are anti-GMO and anti-Monsanto.

    “…Glyphosate residues on food, however, are not of great concern. The chemical is used in the early stages of growing crops like soybeans, corn, and canola. Those crops, if they even reach human consumers at all, are heavily processed first, destroying any glyphosate residues.” Again, this fact is not likely to be highlighted by those who are motivated to cherry-pick only those parts of the report that fit their beliefs.

    All this said, I also want to point out that I am disappointed (although far from surprised) in Monsanto’s response that the report is biased and constitutes “junk science.” The research cited in the report does show a probable carcinogenic effect that needs more study, and it’s disingenuous for Monsanto to dismiss it simply as bad science. Monsanto has an agenda too, so they are just as likely to cherry-pick as the anti-GMO crowd. True skepticism and critical thinking means taking account of all the data; but I realize that’s a lot to ask when it comes to these controversial issues. If you are anti-GMO or if this report scares you, please read the article and realize that this is not the final word, and that frightening buzzwords like “carcinogen” and “cancer” should not derail your responsibility to think critically.

    A Top Weedkiller Could Cause Cancer. Should We Be Scared?