That article is a shining example of why I'm quite happy to pay my TV licence fee. I'm not exactly sure where the funding for BBC.COM comes from and until recently I was excluded from .com due to being British (odd thing, now sorted).
However, ignoring how the article was funded, it is a good example of proper journalism.
Why on God's good earth is quackery still a thing?
The article notably excludes Orrin Hatch - if you are wondering how politics could possibly play into this, he made the entire supplements industry possible by using his power to exclude dietary supplements from oversight by the FDA and creating a cycle where the industry kept on funding Hatch in order to get favourable legislation. Utah is the home of quack medicine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/opinion/the-politics-of-f...
Brady doesn’t eat eggplant, Paltrow takes coffee enemas. Seems pretty obvious that the pseudoscience critic Caulfield is right, right?
"There is almost no evidence to support this monk-like approach to eating,"
Well, here is some evidence: Tom Brady.
"Brady's approach seems to be loosely based on the alkaline diet, which is the idea that you can control the pH of your blood through the food you eat. (Spoiler: you can't.)”
So Caulfield will now shoot down a diet that is not Brady’s diet?
“As noted in a 2016 systematic review of the relevant evidence, 'there is almost no actual research' to support the ideas behind the alkaline diet."
The study concludes that food and drink pH have no influence on cancer, as if cancer is the only health problem.
Is it proper journalism to pit nutty celebrities against science and say science wins because it is science?
Has science concluded that food has no effect on pH in the body? Can a daily green breakfast smoothie erode tooth enamel? Do meat and dairy cause osteoporosis? Is the relationship between food, pH, inflammation, and disease fully understood?
I won’t be spending $200 on Brady’s book, but there might be something to his monk-like approach to eating, especially as compared to say his offensive line’s approach.
With all of these terms, do you understand what people mean when they use them? Artificial and natural likewise can be criticized, but is it helpful? Are you perhaps dereferencing them to a different definition than what they intend? Human language is very fluid and understanding depends at least in part on context. I have my own pet peeves with respect to imprecision in language, but I work against that from getting in the way of the real goal, which is understanding.
"Organic" and "Chemical" are words that already have a clear meaning. In the alternative context in which these words are used, they have no meaning. You won't find a consistent or concise definition that describes the alternative context in which these words have come to be used. What those words really mean in that context, is completely arbitrary, varies greatly depending on who you're talking to, and has noting to do with the use of chemicals, or organic chemicals. Worse yet, products that are deemed to be either "Organic" or "Chemical Free" often fail to meaningfully differentiate themselves from the products which are "not organic" or "chemical".
At best, the use of these words is a deceitful marketing ploy used to manipulate people who don't understand chemistry. At worst (as is the case with "organic certification"), it is simply a scam used to con money out of producers and consumers.
You're fighting a losing battle if you try to enforce traditional meaning to language in a contemporary environment. Context is the key.
The word "organic" takes on a very different meaning if you're describing a brake rotor compound, instead of a bunch of bananas in a supermarket, for instance. However it's by no stretch devoid of meaning in either context.
"Traditional [farming techniques]", a mouthful, might be a better descriptor, but traditional now refers to modern farming techniques, so it too would be confusing.
IMO this is just an extreme extension of the bs which has been peddled by multi national for ages (through celebrities no less). Have sugar laden cereals for breakfast, it helps in keeping your child active or this particular stuff has "added" or fortifies with minerals and vitamins. Or celebs endorsed cola brands.
What is happening now is that people, specially celebs, are realizing they that production assembly lines are now commoditized and advertising has become less and less problematic, thanks to twitter, Facebook and other social media outreach. So, they don't need a multi national brand like Nestle, Kellogs etc to peddle their stuff - there is no need for "Tom Brady" approved Cola or something. They can reach directly to their core audience.
Oxycontin was supposedly non-habit forming. Decades ago DES was sold to prevent miscarriages, but actually caused them, and gave those women's daughters vaginal cancer.
No one can actually be fully trusted, so people trust who they think is trust-able. I prefer the middle path... Consult with the professionals, but take their advice with plenty of salt [0].
16 comments
[ 0.17 ms ] story [ 56.6 ms ] threadHowever, ignoring how the article was funded, it is a good example of proper journalism.
Why on God's good earth is quackery still a thing?
"There is almost no evidence to support this monk-like approach to eating,"
Well, here is some evidence: Tom Brady.
"Brady's approach seems to be loosely based on the alkaline diet, which is the idea that you can control the pH of your blood through the food you eat. (Spoiler: you can't.)”
So Caulfield will now shoot down a diet that is not Brady’s diet?
“As noted in a 2016 systematic review of the relevant evidence, 'there is almost no actual research' to support the ideas behind the alkaline diet."
The study concludes that food and drink pH have no influence on cancer, as if cancer is the only health problem.
Is it proper journalism to pit nutty celebrities against science and say science wins because it is science?
Has science concluded that food has no effect on pH in the body? Can a daily green breakfast smoothie erode tooth enamel? Do meat and dairy cause osteoporosis? Is the relationship between food, pH, inflammation, and disease fully understood?
I won’t be spending $200 on Brady’s book, but there might be something to his monk-like approach to eating, especially as compared to say his offensive line’s approach.
At best, the use of these words is a deceitful marketing ploy used to manipulate people who don't understand chemistry. At worst (as is the case with "organic certification"), it is simply a scam used to con money out of producers and consumers.
The word "organic" takes on a very different meaning if you're describing a brake rotor compound, instead of a bunch of bananas in a supermarket, for instance. However it's by no stretch devoid of meaning in either context.
"Traditional [farming techniques]", a mouthful, might be a better descriptor, but traditional now refers to modern farming techniques, so it too would be confusing.
What is happening now is that people, specially celebs, are realizing they that production assembly lines are now commoditized and advertising has become less and less problematic, thanks to twitter, Facebook and other social media outreach. So, they don't need a multi national brand like Nestle, Kellogs etc to peddle their stuff - there is no need for "Tom Brady" approved Cola or something. They can reach directly to their core audience.
https://www.propublica.org/article/when-evidence-says-no-but...
Oxycontin was supposedly non-habit forming. Decades ago DES was sold to prevent miscarriages, but actually caused them, and gave those women's daughters vaginal cancer.
No one can actually be fully trusted, so people trust who they think is trust-able. I prefer the middle path... Consult with the professionals, but take their advice with plenty of salt [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_of_salt