The Pile-Up on the MisInformation Highway
According to Ed Ayred, “most of today’s TV and print media seem to abandon themselves to a kind of junk-information binge” (Ayres, E., Note to Readers, World Watch, May/June 1994). If this is the case, then how does the average person figure out what is real and what isn’t? Studies seem to come out daily, but how do we know that the research on the latest nutritional facts or on environmental pollutants are not tainted themselves by corporate interests?
Martijn Katan writes a nice short piece that can be found on; http://www.oupcanada.com/documents/File/bev%20study%20perspective.pdf. He points out that although many of us are familiar with the big drug companies and often dismiss pharma trials as biased (even though accepting the results), we often fail to remember that this happens in other industries. He notes, “when an industry is the major sponsor of research on its own product, unfavorable effects of that product are less likely to be investigated” (Katan, 2007).
So if this is the case, how do we do know truth from biased truth? Take fish for example. Studies have shown (ALWAYS be wary when sentences start out this way!) that pregnant women should eat a minimum of 12 ounces of fish a week for omega-3s and other benefits. At the same time, the FDA says pregnant women should not eat fish because of the mercury found in some fish.
Who is telling the truth?
The “studies” promoting fish eating–not surprisingly–are sponsored by K Street fish industry lobbyists, as Richard Wiles from the Environmental Working Group noted on The Huffington Post. See: http://www.ewg.org/node/25445.
Does that mean all fish is bad? Not necessarily. Pregnant women do need omega-3s (or at least according to nutritionists…. So who is funding the nutritionist?), but…..
Take the Alar scare. Some of you may recall that in 1989, a 60 Minutes show caused panic about Alar, a chemical sprayed on apples because it showed to a be a human carcinogen that were risky to children. The apple industry lost $375 million after tons of apples and apple juices were thrown out and the product was thrown off the market. Ten years later, Jane Brody wrote a piece in the New York Times that the Alar scare was unfounded and that tests failed to prove its link to cancer. After that article, many people accepted the Alar scare to be a myth.
Just as quick as people were to accept that Alar was harmful to children, they were just as quick to accept that the scare was just a scare. However, the EPA, National Cancer Institute and the National Academy of Sciences never cleared Alar as a carcinogen. In fact, the source of Brody’s article was the American Council on Science and Health. While the ACSH sounds authoritative enough, according to the Environmental Working Group, the ACSH receives over $1 million in funding from food processors and chemical companies – including Uniroyal, the manufacturer of Alar.
For more information, see: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/alar3.pdf or listen to Michael Pollan (one of my favorite writers) talk about just a month and a half ago:
So who is telling the truth? It might take some extra digging, but it might save your life.
What it means is when it comes to food, beware the messenger.
Category: Featured Articles: Food Politics, Featured Articles: Health & Nutrition, Food Politics, Health & Nutrition
