Flashback – Coke and Pepsi Warnings

Much as the news media tries to upset us at every turn and on every subject, we don’t have time or the energy to be afraid of everything. That’s where perspective and critical thinking come in.

 

The following entry from 2012 gives a couple of examples of how the news media plays to our emotions, not only to enhance their profits, but often hoping we will take the bait and panic. It’s a power play, pure and simple, to push the public in a desired direction. If enough people back a belief, whether it's true or false, the government steps in with more regulations.

[One day I overheard discussion of a news item about using radiation to kill bacteria on vegetables. A colleague asked the rhetorical question, “Who would buy that?” I told her that I had done some reading on the subject recently and the irradiated vegetables were perfectly safe to eat. In fact, those vegetables had been exposed to radiation for at least half of the time they were growing and couldn’t have grown without it. It’s called sunlight. But people don’t think of sunlight as radiation. They don’t consider cellphone signals as radiation (except when falsely warned about cancer dangers). Radiation is thought to be always bad and dangerous – no distinction is made between harmless and dangerous. That would take some critical thinking.

People also fear carcinogens. If it might cause cancer, regardless of the conditions or dosage level, it’s bad. But so many things have been shown to cause cancer (including good-old sunlight, by the way) that comedians joke about it. There are even substances that were once considered dangerous but have earned a reprieve. It seems you can hardly move without bumping into something that at one time or another wasn’t considered deadly.

Now we get a recent news article about a substance in Coke and Pepsi coloring being banned in California because it caused cancer in lab animals. Later in the article it states that humans would have to drink over one thousand cans per day to reach the dosage level given to the rodents. Of course, if you tried to drink that much in a day the amount of water would kill you long before you reached the danger point for developing cancer. (Yes, you can overdose on water!) 

Perspective is about moderation, understanding that you can keep trying to make your food, your beverages and your environment purer but you reach a point where an extra dollar of effort yields pennies in benefit, and finally a point where an extra dollar of effort yields no benefit at all. Yet there are still those with so little perspective and no understanding of science who insist that the water and the air are never clean enough (and the soda never pure enough). Then it’s left to politicians and judges, not scientists, to sort it out.  And who pays any additional costs? – you guessed it!]

MSG and Elections

Throughout the years under a number of different topics, I have made the point that people tend to strongly hold onto ideas, whether they are true or false. They may have heard them repeatedly, heard them from an authoritative source or just liked the idea because it reinforced their favorite biases. In any case, ideas tend to stick.

 

Just a few weeks ago I reran a flashback about the misconception that electric power lines are health hazards. This idea was passed around by the news media back in the 1980s based on flimsy evidence. The idea stuck despite it being firmly disproved within ten years. People still believe it today.

 

In "More Secrets to a Longer Life" on September 28, I discussed the myth that vitamin C reduces the duration and intensity of a head cold. Companies take advantage of this decades-long misconception, making money by offering vitamin C in several forms. I also made reference to other persistent misconceptions: the power of cranberry juice to treat urinary problems; that cutting back on fat is the key to a healthier lifestyle; and the exaggerated benefits of antioxidants.

In light of that, I read some interesting information about monosodium glutamate (MSG) in Bill Bryson’s book, The Body. Here is part of the first paragraph on page 106:

MSG has had a hard time of it in the West since1968 when The New England Journal of Medicine published a letter – not an article or a study, but simply a letter – from a doctor noting that he sometimes felt vaguely unwell after eating in Chinese restaurants and wondered if it was the MSG added to the food that was responsible. The headline on the letter was “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome,” and from this small beginning it became fixed in people’s minds that MSG was a kind of toxin. In fact, it isn’t.

Further investigation bears this out. From the MSG Fact Sheet: “The scientific research supporting the safety and benefits of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is extensive.”

Another source, the Healthline website states, “While some people assert that the glutamate from MSG can act as an excitotoxin, leading to the destruction of nerve cells, no human studies support this.”

After discussing common complaints, the Mayo Clinic summarizes, “However, researchers have found no definitive evidence of a link between MSG and these [reported] symptoms.”

 

There is no scientific or medical evidence, yet people still report symptoms because they heard it and believe it.

 

What does this have to do with elections? 

 

If you can expose voters to enough misrepresentations, quotations taken out of context, made up stories and unfounded accusations against an opponent and get them to buy it, why not say them over and over and arrange for others to repeat them? Most people don’t do the research/critical thinking; they hear it and it sticks, especially if their mind is already made up. (Right now people on each side are thinking I am talking only about lies spread by the other side!)

 

Politicians and biased news organizations (aren't they all?) do it because it works. And the tactic continues to get more intense. The underlying cause is that voters let them get away with it. They get so stirred up by the "news" that doing cool, critical thinking becomes more difficult than usual, and every new lie stirs them up more. 

 

It reminds me of a casual definition to explain differences in drama: comedy is when the protagonists get what they want; tragedy is when they get what they deserve. By passively following along, buying all of the drama served up by politicians, the media and partisans on social media instead of critically challenging the talking points; Americans will continue to get the leaders and the government they deserve. And it will be a tragedy.

Flashback – Plastic Straws

I originally called this one "How Much We Take On Faith." At the time it was clear that many information sources are not reliable, a notion reconfirmed by many experiences since then. Politicians, advocates and pundits confidently make assertions to support their agendas. We can never tell what is true, what is pure fantasy, or how much is just so much hot air. 

 

Plastic straw mandates are examples of many symbolic acts. Using bad data or no data, authorities try to fool us, and probably themselves, into believing that they are really making a difference. They want to appear caring about all the right things, then garner enough support to pass laws and regulations forcing everyone to comply.

 

Here is the piece from 2018.

[The other day I got into a discussion with a colleague about plastic, which led to a comment about the amount of plastic in the ocean and what a problem it is. My response that only about 1% of the ocean plastic comes from the United States was met with stares of disbelief. Instead of arguing the point with someone who firmly believed the opposite, I offered to send references. The next day I emailed an explanation of the situation from a number of reputable sources.

From National Geographic in a story about the large accumulation of waste in the Pacific: "Microplastics make up 94 percent of an estimated 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic in the patch. But that only amounts to eight percent of the total tonnage. As it turns out, of the 79,000 metric tons of plastic in the patch, most of it is abandoned fishing gear—not plastic bottles or packaging drawing headlines today."

My next stop was a Bloomberg article with a sub headline of: “Skipping straws may be hip. But there are much better ways to fight pollution.” They first point out that the original estimate, the one activists and news media cite with confidence, that Americans use 500 million straws per day is based on highly dubious data that came from a small survey by a nine-year-old for a grade school science project. Then it was spread without any attempt to verify it by those who wanted to emphasize the problem. "Similarly, two Australian scientists estimate that there are up to 8.3 billion plastic straws scattered on global coastlines. Yet even if all those straws were suddenly washed into the sea, they'd account for about .03 percent of the 8 million metric tons of plastics estimated to enter the oceans in a given year.” So what we have been told about straws being the problem is a gross exaggeration.

A Science report on marine pollution verifies exactly what I was saying with a table on their site,  Table 1 titled: “Waste estimates for 2010 for the top 20 countries ranked by mass of mismanaged plastic waste (in units of millions of metric tons per year).” The US is listed at the bottom of the table with a contribution of .09% – less than one percent. That same information is repeated in pie charts on other sites.

So all this fuss about banning straws is bogus. It is a feel-good exercise that grows because so few people take the time to do the research. Ocean pollution is a problem, but the advocates and politicians are misinformed and are passing along that poor information to the rest of us – and we are buying it.

This and many other trends and movements have become their own religions. They depend on blind faith. The preachers stand up and confidently make ignorant and absurd allegations about chemicals, food safety, pollution, economics and a host of other subjects. The general population takes it on faith, chanting “amen” in all the right places. This leads to poor policies and results in those responsible for poor policies being reelected on the basis of making their followers feel good about themselves, about how pure they are, about how caring they are. It’s much more about ego and self esteem than science or actually saving the planet.

In reality these policies deliver little or no benefit and may have unknown side effects or unforeseen consequences. They are at best a waste of time. Critical thinking is the answer, but no one wants to deal with facts or reality.] Feeling good is more important.

Food Labels are Confusing

It began with a local health-news report that led me to the Consumer Reports website. The problem: Food labels are confusing. Not all claims and seals on food packaging can be trusted. 

Consumer Reports wants to help shoppers by making sense of some of the more common labels. But the labels they refer to are the ones designed to lure uninformed shoppers, enticing them to pay more for imaginary benefits like all-natural, non-GMO and organic.

I’ve written before about the science behind GMO foods and organic growing practices. Genetic modification acts as a short cut to the crossbreeding that has been practiced in farming for thousands of years. In some cases it will be the only way to save certain crops from going extinct due to diseases or pests. Organic produce has been tested and found to be marginally cleaner than traditionally grown crops, but if you wash your fruits and vegetables before preparing them, as everyone should, it makes no difference. (See the links for a fuller explanation or enter GMO or Organic in the search box in the upper left of this screen.)

Consumer Reports lists 6 seals of certification rated from fair to excellent: Grass Fed, Certified Humane, Animal Welfare, Non-GMO Project Verified, United Egg Producers, and USDA Organic. A deeper dive tells more about the certification process of each. For example, United Egg Producers Certified is rated fair overall for being very good in terms of verification but poor for animal welfare. Three labels are rated poor: Natural or All Natural, No Antibiotics, Non-GMO.

At a local grocery store I found seven different varieties of large eggs. Prices ranged from $1.09 for one dozen generic eggs in a gray container to $5.79 for a dozen labeled as organic and pasture raised. Priced between them were the cage free; cage free brown; free range; and the no-hormone, no antibiotic eggs. Apparently people will pay five times more for eggs to be reassured that the hens were leading a happy life, frolicking in a pasture. Of course, there is no label to tell how the hens are treated after they reach their 5- to 7-year period of peak production.

These decisions are mostly made by people who have never seen a chicken, pig or cow close up or visited a farm. They get their news from websites like this one that claims “rearing of farm animals today is dominated by industrialized facilities…that maximize profits by treating animals not as sentient creatures…” Each animal, according to them, is a “social, feeling individual capable of experiencing pleasure. The vast majority, however, are only familiar with deprivation, fear, and pain.” (Perhaps they called in an animal psychic or Dr. Doolittle to confirm this statement.)

Another site, with a more realistic and less of a concentration camp concept of farms, contradicts the factual part of the above statements. “About 98% of U.S. farms are operated by families – individuals, family partnerships or family corporations (America’s Diverse Family Farms, 2018 Edition).”

 Is this another form of virtue signaling, paying almost $6 per dozen for eggs because we care so much about chickens we will never meet? It’s no wonder that earlier this month the headline read: Consumer debt reaches record-high of $14 trillion.” As long as the cows, pigs and chickens are happy, what’s five dollars here and there?

Perhaps instead of trying to make sense of the seals and claims to help you understand the meaning behind them, Consumer Reports should have published the fact that most of those are simply marketing tactics playing on the egos, guilt and fears of consumers following the popular sentiment of the day.

What comes in the next issue, how to buy the right saddle for your unicorn?

GMO Green Beans?

On a weekly shopping trip we picked up some whole green beans, a favorite at our house. As she opened them later, my wife commented that they were labeled as Non-GMO. The GMO labeling is a subject of mockery in the family – as is gluten-free, natural, organic and a number of other scientifically meaningless qualifications when it comes to healthy eating for most people.

The first thing I wondered was whether anyone was selling genetically modified green beans. This was not an idle thought. I have previously written about orange juice and tomatoes labeled as non-GMO when, in fact, it is impossible to buy the modified version of either.

I looked up “GMO green beans” and discovered this website which answers the question directly saying, “To date, no GMO green beans have been commercialized.” They go on to say that researchers in Brazil are trying to get approval to work on it. Until then, “breeders of green beans in many world areas are also applying traditional plant breeding methodologies to develop new varieties with better combinations of characteristics…to improve yield, eating quality, and resistance to fungal, bacterial and viral diseases…to enhance the green beans grown and eaten by people, as a component of nutritious and healthful diets.” They are using the slow, old-fashioned method of modification that no one is afraid of.

Because that site seemed to be in favor of GMO technology, I continue to look for more evidence from a source on the other side. The Seattle Organic Restaurants site lists the “Top 20 Foods and Products that have been Genetically Modified.” Green beans are not on the list.

A site called superfoodly asks: "Are Canned Beans Healthy? Here’s The Biggest Safety Danger.” GMOs are not mentioned. The biggest danger according to them is BPA in the packaging. But as they report on it, they admit, “what the science suggests about it doesn’t appear to match the risk perceived by the public.” What is believed to be the number one danger turns out to be a case of ignorance. “Even when rats were fed up to 70,000 times the concentration of BPA that the typical American eats, they didn’t experience a change in hormone levels, weight, or reproductive orders.”

How does Delmonte respond to the challenge? Their website states, “The FDA, USDA, World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association have concluded that products containing genetically engineered ingredients are safe. Even though there are no health risks (allergens or negative nutrients) associated with GMOs, we decided to provide information about GMOs in our products to consumers so that they can make informed choices.” Apparently the informed choice is whether or not to avoid something that has been deemed safe. That makes no sense except by understanding that the job of Delmonte is to sell beans and other food, not to educate the public; and they can certainly sell more by appealing to unwarranted fears of GMOs stirred up by rumors and other misinformation, some of which is purposely disseminated by parties with a financial interest.

That explains why they take a similar stance on BPA. “Cans are lined with epoxy resins, of which BPA is a component…to make the plastic flexible so it completely covers the inside of the can. Based on extensive research, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and many other regulatory agencies around the world have concluded that BPA is safe to use in packaging.” But Delmonte goes on to proudly announce that they don’t use it anyway.

It doesn’t end there. The other side of the label at the top says, “With Natural Sea Salt,” just another phrase with implied (but not real) health benefits targeting superstitious food shoppers. 

The real motive for all these enticing myths displayed on the packaging may be to distract shoppers from the writing on the bottom of the label – 14.5 oz. on a can that used to be 16 oz. That’s the real deception – shrinking packaging with or without BPA raises the price.

This is not intended to pick on Delmonte, everyone does it. It’s easy selling fake benefits to the ignorant public, and it will persist as long as Americans continue to get their health and science information from celebrities, charlatans and social media.

Opposites Confuse

Observing the news and everyday choices, I find a series of opposite reactions that seem confusing. In one case, Americans have an overwhelming sense of safety, while being constantly on guard against a multitude of possible dangers. In another, they praise diversity while at the same time seem averse to the idea.

The first thought comes as a result of a news item on a proposed law banning texting while crossing the street in New York. As the USA Today reports, “The law would be simple enough, the bill states: ‘No pedestrian shall cross a roadway at any point while using any portable electronic device.’ ” Police could issue tickets charging from $25 to $50 for a first offense – “unless you can prove it was an emergency.”

Here is the contradiction. Americans were constantly reminded that texting and driving can be very dangerous. Now they must be told that texting while walking across the street is dangerous. Apparently “look both ways” is just for kids. We are too busy for that! States feel they must add the threat of a fine to get people to comply. The same applies to the 10% who still do not wear seatbelts on a regular basis. As a driver or pedestrian, Americans act as if they are indestructible.

Now shift the scene to the grocery store, and some of the same people go to the opposite extreme. Advertisers and food packaging attract customers by boasting that their products have none of the ingredients that have, usually erroneously, been tagged as scary or dangerous. Walking down the aisles we read of foods that contain no artificial ingredients, are gluten-free and contain no GMOs. They have no high fructose corn syrup but do contain sea salt and are locally sourced or organic. These scare tactics must be working because they spread with new fears being invented by influencers, celebrity chefs and marketing departments.

How can we be so casual about truly dangerous behavior while being so hyper-vigilant about details that make little or no difference?

The second example came to light from a CBS This Morning report. “West Point says the class of 2019 is its most diverse ever, both by race and by gender,” including 34 African American women, the most ever to graduate. That is very nice, but look closely at the comments of a couple of the representative cadets.

"We don't want everybody in the Army to look like me," says First Captain David Bindon.  He believes that working with people who don't look like him “brings different perspectives” leading to better solutions. (That, of course, assumes that diversity of gender and skin color is always a reliable indicator of diversity of thought and experience.) 

Immediately following came the opinion of another cadet that “it really helps if you can look up to a leader who looks like you who comes from the same background as you." Everyone nodded in agreement.

Which is it? Does the army, and everywhere else, need diversity for different perspectives or do we need diversity so that those who identify a certain way can feel more comfortable? Do we need role models who look like us or role models who show that hard work and perseverance pay off?

The news media often celebrate firsts by race and gender to achieve certain milestones and positions. Those firsts had no mentors or role models that looked like them, yet they made a difference. Are we teaching our children that they are not capable of doing the same? Especially as society recognizes so many more ways to identify, that seems like a negative, defeatist message.

Instead of pulling everyone together to share perspectives and come up with better solutions, is the current emphasis on diversity actually highlighting and emphasizing differences, acting as a subtle divisive force?

Opposite reactions to similar situations can be very confusing, and it can’t be sorted out without some critical thinking.

Natural Food and Holy Water

True story: Some years ago an older woman visiting her Catholic church noticed the baptismal font was empty. She saw the maintenance worker nearby and told him about it. She was shocked when she saw him run a garden hose through the window to refill it. He explained that the priest would come by to bless it later. 

In a sense natural food is a lot like holy water. It is often as much about faith as anything else. And now people are fighting like a bunch of theologians about what is and is not natural.

The question arises from a lawsuit against LaCroix sparkling water. The company advertises that the beverage contains no calories or artificial flavors and that it is enhanced with natural essences. But what those essences are is a trade secret. Customers don’t have a clue as to the meaning of “naturally essenced” written on the cans. They assume that natural means good. 

But the class-action lawsuit filed last month claims that “LaCroix's all-natural claims are false and that these natural ingredients are actually synthetic.” Although some of the ingredients can be derived naturally, they are listed by the FDA as synthetic and can be found in such products as insecticides. “Popular Science breaks down why the argument doesn't seem to hold up, noting that none of the ingredients mentioned in the case are considered dangerous.”

This is reminiscent of the “devastating news” a few years ago about wood fiber in grated cheese. Actually it was cellulose, but wood fiber sounds scarier. It’s used to reduce clumping, but some companies were adding more than the allowable 4%. No one was hurt and the fuss was far out of proportion to any actual impact. It was more about the principle of purity and the fact that wood fiber in cheese makes a good headline.

Another example comes from the makers of Prevagen, a highly advertised memory supplement derived from jellyfish protein. A minor problem is that they don’t actually get the protein from jellyfish. They synthesize it in the lab. A much bigger problem is that it has not been shown to be effective – it doesn’t do what it claims.

But the natural labelling issue is troubling for some. The main objection is the lack of a clear definition for the term as shown in the following statement. “Although the FDA has not engaged in rulemaking to establish a formal definition for the term ‘natural,’ we do have a longstanding policy concerning the use of ‘natural’ in human food labeling. The FDA has considered the term ‘natural’ to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic...has been added….” 

But does a formal definition make that much difference? There is no question that green tea is natural. BBC Good Food told us about it last July. “With origins going back as far as 5,000 years, green tea is commonly drunk and widely grown in the Far East where the health properties are well regarded.” Later in the same article they say that evidence of its health benefits are "largely inconclusive" and that although “many ‘health’ products now include traces of green tea…there is limited evidence to suggest these products are effective.”

Last week came a sterner warning from BBC Health on the same subject. “When Jim McCants started taking green tea pills he had hoped he was giving his health a shot in the arm. Instead, it appears the pills caused such serious damage to his liver that it required an urgent transplant.” Though this is highly unusual, it can happen.

So natural doesn’t necessarily mean healthy; it doesn’t even always mean safe. Many other substances are natural and not safe, nicotine, for example. The shock when people hear this is like finding out holy water can come from a garden hose. It drives many into denial.

The difference is that holy water is a matter of faith and healthy food is a matter of science. What’s important is whether it is safe and beneficial, not whether it’s natural (whatever that means).

Fear of Science and Technology

Last week I attended a presentation on GMOs by a Purdue University professor in the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology. He was very knowledgeable with impressive credentials, but he said things some people didn’t want to hear. 

The primary point of contention was that a vast majority (near 90%) of scientists agree that genetically modified plants are safe to eat, but only 37% of the general public agree. Somehow when a majority of scientists are cited as agreeing with man-made global warming, everyone is so convinced that they will try to cut off any further discussion; they shudder to think of the US pulling out of the Paris Agreement; but when a majority of scientists say that GMOs are safe to eat, they must all be working for Monsanto. 

The difference is that climate change is not as scary as eating something potentially harmful. The resistance arises from a fear of something that sounds very unnatural.

However, the speaker pointed out that farms, and agriculture in general, is not natural. Even in backyard gardens, people remove the weeds that naturally grow to plant seeds that have been developed through thousands of years of selection. As nature caused genetic modifications in plants, people preserved those with the best characteristics: size, juiciness, drought-resistance. Humans have been eating and enjoying unnatural foods for millennia (fresh from the garden).

Furthermore, the introduction of plant science has enabled great leaps forward in agriculture, allowing farmers around the world to feed the growing population, now 7.6 billion. For example, the average yield of corn per acre in the US in 1900 was 25.9 bushels per acre. That increased to 77.4 by 1965 and to 137.0 by 2000. The yield in 2017 was 176.6 bushels per acre. The application of science increased the amount of corn by almost 7 times when it would have been impossible to increase the acreage.

But the myth exists that natural automatically equates to good and healthy, and promoters of food and supplements use that to our overall disadvantage.  Another glaring example of this came across the Internet a few weeks back.

A product called kraton is being aggressively promoted as a possible solution to the opioid epidemic. They say it is harmless and no more addictive than coffee. But there is “no reliable evidence that kratom can help addicts safely wean themselves off of heroin or prescription opioids, or that it offers any other therapeutic benefit, according to the FDA, which has issued a public health warning about its potential for addiction."

Various scientific studies show that it causes withdrawal symptoms similar to those of opioids, and it has been linked to episodes of psychosis, seizures, and to deaths, along with mild, moderate, and life-threatening medical outcomes reported in 660 phone calls to U.S. poison control centers from 2010 through 2015.“The CDC has issued four reports of Salmonella infection outbreaks linked to contaminated products.”

But here is how it’s promoted. It is marketed as a dietary supplement that grows naturally in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea with friendly sounding brand names like Botany Bay, Enhance Your Life and Divinity. They claim it helps overcome opioid addiction and withdrawal, lowers pain and blood pressure, prevents cancer and reduces nerve damage caused by strokes. (There is no evidence for any of these claims.)

Meanwhile Americans continue to buy it as the industry association fights government attempts to take it off the market. Again it’s a matter of valid science vs. perceptions, of critical thinking vs. feelings. It all comes down to that persistent misconception that natural stands for guaranteed goodness. (The Salmonella that contaminated some samples was also natural!)

Are We Poisoning Our Kids - Again?

Now here is a headline to get your attention: “Weed Killer in $289 Million Cancer Verdict Found in Oat Cereal and Granola Bars.” The story goes on to tell how EWG (Environmental Working Group) scientists found that almost three-fourths of their samples of oat products, including children’s cereals, contained glyphosate (the chemical in the weed killer, RoundUp) at levels higher than they consider “protective of children’s health with an adequate margin of safety.” 

This news came out last week and, in a fit of confirmation bias, social media picked it up and ran with it. It gave the food purists a chance to say, “I told you so,” while giving the environmental groups and natural news outlets a chance to scare parents with another threat to the health of their children.

Another website announced: “Kellogg's cereals found to be contaminated with Monsanto's cancer-causing glyphosate.” They went on to call the situation “horrific,” “health-destroying” and “shocking,” noting, “a research division of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the ingredient as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans.’” 

In the face of this panic, NBC tried to be a calming influence in light of those “startling headlines” about RoundUp in cereals “swamping social media and scaring parents.” Their headline read: “A report by an environmental group disregards accepted evidence about safe levels of the chemical.” They point out that EWG has been waging an on-going campaign against the chemical and that the study making headlines “was not published in a peer-reviewed journal.” That means other scientists had no opportunity to review methods and findings before publication, checking that they followed valid scientific procedures and that their conclusions are trustworthy.

NBC goes on to remind readers that both the Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority have said glyphosate probably doesn’t cause cancer in humans and to remind them as well that jury rulings aren’t required to consider the scientific evidence and often don’t. Finally, it’s an accepted fact in toxicology that the dosage makes the poison – during the same week the media featured a story about how too much water can be harmful, and don't forget that too much sunlight also causes cancer.

WebMD does not deny the presence of the chemical but quotes toxicologists as saying, “a single serving of most of the foods [EWG] tested, eaten each day for a lifetime, would cause just one additional case of cancer in every million people.” The danger is extremely low and “definitely wouldn’t outweigh the health benefits of eating oats.” 

Many toxicologists argue that the WHO’s finding of “probably carcinogenic” is particularly cautious and leaves much room for doubt. But this opinion is a staple in any anti-RoundUp publication.

It’s important to note that these last two sources don’t have an ax to grind with Monsanto or its products, whereas the first two come into the discussion (and research) with an established bias. (It’s like inviting vegetarians to a bacon tasting event.) Furthermore the first was posted by the very group that ran the (not-peer-reviewed) tests and the second was posted almost three years ago (Thursday, September 10, 2015). They have been pushing this agenda for a long time.

Very little research and critical thinking can avert the panic. These stories will continue to crop up from time to time and are sure to spread now that so many people primarily get their news from dubious sources like FaceBook.

Most people don’t remember the headline: “Hazardous Chemical In Children’s Cereal.” About 18 months ago some were also outraged about chemicals in cereals our children eat. They wanted this carcinogen removed even though it is found in toothpaste, mouthwash, shampoo and cosmetics but has been declared safe by the FDA. It was not glyphosate; it was Trisodium Phosphate. The website said they had been warning about this danger for over 3 years.

When in doubt, they resurrect a scary story about poison cereal!

Food Labeling

It’s interesting how many food items are being relabeled to take advantage of all the misinformation in the news and on social media. They label food as containing no high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). That simply means it contains sugar instead.  One is no better or worse for you than the other. If something is labeled as containing no sugar, it’s likely to contain an artificial sweetener. There are all kinds of rumors about how dangerous artificial sweeteners are. Some are labeled as no sugar added, but may have more natural sugar than a comparable product without the label. Everyone should easily be able to figure out that these special labels make little difference to the actual wholesomeness of the food. So why do the food companies make such an effort?

Apparently, it’s because most people don’t go to the trouble to figure this out.  The labels are shortcuts allowing them to follow their superstition of choice – yes, superstition. They are no different than the Salem Witch Trials except no one is killed, but they use the same tactics of mass hysteria.  Someone or some group pick up the chant of avoiding sugar or HFCS or artificial anything or GMOs or gluten (for most healthy people) and people choose to ignore evidence and climb on board the Superstition Express. 

One of the worst cases is the anti-GMO movement. The unreasonable opposition to GMOs starves people and adds to climate change. The promise of increased yields from smaller fields along with reduced reliance on pesticides and fertilizers supports the effort to reduce greenhouse gases and should be embraced by anyone concerned about climate change, but they pick and choose their cause. Mitch Daniels, president of Purdue University, calls the stance against GMOs both anti-science and immoral emphasizing the absence of evidence that these products have hurt anyone or have been a detriment to the environment –“no disruption of an ecosystem nor any adverse human health or even digestive problems, after 5 billion acres have been cultivated cumulatively and trillions of meals consumed.” It’s a distraction and political football that keeps good food from hungry people in less-developed countries.

The typical reaction is referred to in this article as the “healthy halo.” Food companies have found that certain labels elicit a positive response, regardless of logic, making consumers more likely to buy and more likely to pay more. To test this, researchers from Cornell University asked 115 shoppers to give their opinions of the value of snack foods based only on their labels. “People thought foods labeled ‘organic’ were more nutritious, lower in fat, and higher in fiber than the ‘regular’ foods, and were willing to pay up to 23.4 percent more for the food labeled as organic.” The difference was in the labels only: all the study participants were eating the same foods. The ink is cheap and the ability to increase the price by over 20 percent merely by adding one word to the label would be a marketing homerun for any company! And millions of superstitious Americans let them get away with it.

The manufacturers don’t care. And if it gives them an advantage in the market, they will even endorse any error or misconception their customers may have. It’s really sad.

Foods That May Kill You

Nothing the media and others like better than to find ways to scare us.  If one subject works, gets followers or assists in raising funds, we hear it over and over.  A reliable standby continues to be food safety.  Here are two examples: one with an erroneous, but widely believed, message; and one with possibly serious, but mostly ignored, consequences.

Everyone should know that when you pick fruits or vegetables from the garden or fresh at the grocery store, they must washed (sometimes soaked) before anyone eats them.  If this is not yet common knowledge, it would be quite reasonable to start a campaign to inform and remind the public.  Instead for the last 15 years we have gotten the "Dirty Dozen" list from the Environmental Working Group (EWG).  They use inspections of popular fruits and vegetables to rank them according to pesticide contamination.

“EWG emphasizes studies that show pesticides in high concentration can lead to health problems, especially in young children.” But they fail to point out that the resulting levels, based on USDA- and FDA-sponsored tests of almost 39,000 non-organic fruit and vegetable samples “found that overall pesticide chemical residues…are far below what has been scientifically deemed tolerable for human consumption…[and] do not pose a health risk.”  Nevertheless, the group, characterized by CBS in this report as an “activist group,” continues to peddle the fear.

Notice that the list is based only on non-organic fruits and vegetables, which allows the EWG to promote organic food.  But there’s a catch.  As another site correctly points out:  “Your Organic Food Is Treated With Pesticides, Too.” Not only that but the USDA organic program allows some pesticides not classified as synthetic, and tests for only those pesticides disallowed by the organic program.  “So the EWG is reporting the stuff on conventional crops without considering what’s present on organic crops.”  That makes a difference, because according to What Gardeners Should Know About Pesticides(Purdue Extension PPP109), organic pesticides “are not necessarily safer” and “all products – organic or synthetic – have the potential to be toxic.  In some cases, buying organic might expose you to more pesticide residues, just a different pesticide.

Forbes calls the list “an egregious, science-free misinterpretation," and adds "What that [USDA] data actually demonstrates is the outstanding safety profile of the U.S. food supply, but EWG twists it into an argument for consumers to pony up the extra dollars to buy organic.”

In contrast, there is a frequently disregarded real danger, not within the food supply itself but in the realm of food preparation.  The USDA stresses on their website the absolute necessity of following proper procedures in handling, cooking, and storage of food.  This includes washing of all fresh fruit and vegetables, but it goes beyond that.  The experts also stress the need to cook beef, pork, veal, lamb, steaks, chops, roasts to a minimum internal temperature of 145 °F and allow a rest time of at least 3 minutes. (It keeps cooking when it rests.)  The reason for these precautions is that it is impossible to “see, smell, or taste harmful bacteria that may cause illness.”

But it has been the trend for quite some time to order steaks medium-rare. Those of us who prefer our steaks cooked longer are considered gauche and uncivilized.  “At Porter House New York in Midtown, executive chef and co-owner Michael Lomonaco says more than 60 percent of his customers order medium-rare.”  How does this compare to the recommendations?  “Most chefs regard beef cooked to medium-rare – with an internal temperature of 130 degrees off the grill and 135 degrees after resting – as the best way to bring out flavor and retain moisture in tender cuts such as rib-eye and top loin.”  That’s about 15 degrees out of the safe zone.

But a second problem compounds the first.  If a steak is overcooked and sent back to the kitchen, the only recourse is to cook another one.  But if a steak is undercooked and sent back, it can be cooked a little more, avoiding waste and financial loss.  It makes better business sense to give a customer a slightly undercooked steak, pushing up the possibility of illness a bit more.

So once again we find an example of Americans getting upset, changing behavior and spending more money based on faulty information, while they ignore valid advice about a real potential problem.  All we need to do is wash our fresh produce and cook our meat a little more, and there is nothing to worry about.

Food Production Differences

Since I read this information about different methods of food production on a four-year-old posting, it should be fairly well known.  Unfortunately forces are at work, misrepresenting and politicizing what should be straightforward, honest information.  Let’s get back to the basics.

There are a number of ways to develop seeds used to grow our food:  Conventional breeding, mutagenesis and Genetic Engineering (GE).  

The first can be split into two categories.  Purists prefer heirloom vegetables.  “Most heirlooms come from seed that has been handed down for generations in a particular region or area, hand-selected by gardeners for a special trait.”  Usually they were developed over 50 years ago in the early days of commercial breeding.  They tend to have relatively stable characteristics from generation to generation.

Hybrid veggies on the other hand are the result of intentional cross-pollination of two different plant varieties to try to capture the best traits of each such as bigger size, earlier fruit bearing or better disease resistance.  Cross-pollination may also happen in nature without human intervention.  “The process of developing a hybrid typically requires many years.”  Unlike heirlooms, if you save the seeds from hybrids, the new plants will not retain the same advantageous traits as the original and may show other unexpected characteristics.

Technically, all seeds have been modified over many thousands of years as early farmers collected seeds from the best plants in an attempt to improve flavors and yield.  (A quick Internet search shows pictures of how unappetizing these ancient crops really were.)

Genetically Engineered (GE) crops are well known due to a bad reputation invented and spread by non-scientists and fear-mongers, most of whom have an interest in promoting organic products or raising funds for their environmental projects.  These fears are further spread on social media by the uninformed and are totally unfounded.  

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states very clearly, based on hundreds of studies:  “Credible evidence has demonstrated that foods from the GE plant varieties marketed to date are as safe as comparable, non-GE foods.”  They explain that traditional cross-breeding also introduces a number of genes into a plant, and both are done for the same reasons. No person has ever been harmed by eating GE foods; there is no link to cancer.  They increase yields and lower pesticide applications, which is good for the environment.  Golden Rice, a GE crop, was developed to reduce blindness in Third-World children that don’t get enough vitamin A in their diets.

The other way to modify seeds is called mutagenesis, “wherein plants are subjected to radiation treatments or doused in toxic chemicals that randomly scrambles genes to produce new traits.”  They then plant the seeds to see what comes ups and keep trying until there seems to be a desirable improvement.  “Despite the fact that this process is much less precise than genetic modification…mutagenesis is unregulated and widely used.”  

Mutagenesis sounds much scarier and haphazard than GE, yet it receives little attention, has no one screaming for labels “so we know what we are eating,” has the potential for more unintended genetic changes and can be sold as organic!  Both are deemed safe for human and animal consumption.

So why the emphasis on and fear around GE crops? Despite having been proven false over and over, some continue to warn of dangers.  And we never see news reports that yet another study reaffirms the safety of GE crops.  Others, who have a direct stake in organics, call for GMO labeling supposedly calling for clarification, but really hoping the misinformed public will erroneously see them as warning labels and needlessly spend more money on organic food.  With a coordinated campaign and a few ardent followers, it’s easy to scare people into making foolish choices.

Some research suggests that the environment, year-to-year temperature changes and location, “has more impact on the plant’s genome than whether it was genetically modified or conventionally bred.” In reality, food safety should be based on the product itself rather than the method used to develop the variety.

But this is what happens when rumors abound, when advocates push an agenda until it achieves a “common knowledge” or urban myth status, and when Americans don’t exercise the critical thinking so crucial to survival in an increasingly complex society.  How do you modify your behavior when you realize that no one else is looking out for your best interests?

More Problems With Bottled Water

I have never been a big fan of bottled water.  On several occasions I have pointed out that, compared to the tap water in the vast majority of municipalities, bottled water is no safer and far more expensive.  In fact, bottled water, those brands that are not just tap water repackaged, is inspected less often and less thoroughly than water delivered to our house in pipes.  Blind taste tests yield mixed results.

The only advantage is the portability, which anyone can duplicate by filling his or her own container with tap water.

So when this story about bottled water containing little bits of plastic came on the news, it should have cheered me up.  Instead I was skeptical.

The headline in Fortune reads: “Bottled Water You're Drinking May Contain Tiny Particles of Plastic.”  It goes on to tell of tests done by a group called Orb Media at the State University of New York on more than 250 bottles from 11 different brands, sold in nine countries.  They found particles in more than 90 percent of some of the most popular bottled water brands.

CBS News added that the average number of particles found was 10.4 per liter meaning that people could easily ingest thousands of these particles each year. The World Health Organization is looking into the problem.  This makes it sound very scary, but at no point in the report did CBS answer the obvious question about the danger of ingesting tiny particles of plastic.  Do they just go through the system or do they hang around and cause major problems later in life?

Fortune asked the same question:  Is this a problem? No one’s really sure, because there isn’t enough data on the health effects of ingesting plastic.”  At this time health experts think most of the micro-plastics pass through our systems.  It is possible that some very small particles may be absorbed into our organs, such as the liver and kidneys, or that even the particles that pass though may give off toxins along the way.  But not enough research has been done to confirm either of these suspicions.

It turns out the same organization has tested for and found micro-plastic, invisible to the naked eye but detectable with a standard infrared microscope, in tap water from different countries as well as in beer, honey, table salt and seafood.  Sounds like they have an ax to grind.

There is no rational explanation for the fascination Americans have developed for bottled water over the recent past.  It’s not taste, safety or purity.  Fluoridated tap water is better for children’s development.  It’s not concern for the environment since, given that the majority are not recycled, the bottles themselves are a source of pollution.  It may be a slight convenience, but how does this justify the billions spent each year for a resource that falls from the sky.

Critical thinking cannot make sense of it.  But I’d rather people go on making bad decisions than to be frightened into making the wise choice by some half-baked new report spurred by an organization that clearly has an agenda to push.

Deceptive Truth

Forget about fake news and alternative facts.  The truth can be used to deceive just as easily.  As Emily Dickenson wrote:

Tell the Truth but tell it slant –

Success in Circuit lies

This came to mind when I received the following graphic from a loyal reader forwarded from the local newspaper.

This is probably a true estimate of how many Americans (56%) believe their drinking water is unsafe.  It’s also true that they are mistaken in that belief.

According to the government Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):  “The United States has one of the safest water supplies in the world.  The EPA requires every municipality to test for the presence and levels of over 90 different contaminants in public drinking water and to provide an annual report to all customers.

Wikipedia adds that in 2016, “over 90 percent of the nation's community water systems were in compliance” with those EPA standards.

A Harvard site warns about polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), saying they “exceed federally recommended safety levels in public drinking-water supplies for 6 million people in the United States, according to a new study…”  But as a fraction of over 320 million people in the US, that’s less than 2%.

Instead of reassuring, the media emphasizes disasters and calamities about safe drinking water like this example from National Geographic.  But at the end of that article, after presenting the scary stuff,  they admit, "in spite of all the good reasons to be concerned about drinking water safety, resorting to bottles is not a sensible reflex."  Quoting their expert, an environmental scientist at Duke University, "People think bottled water is safer, but there is zero evidence that is true. The quality of water in city tap water is regulated far more closely than bottled water."

So municipalities spend billions of dollars annually so we can wash our clothes and dishes and take showers in water that’s safe to drink while the majority of Americans believe it’s toxic and spend billions more on bottled water.  This newspaper could have easily looked this up, but it’s not their job to educate.  It’s their job to sell newspapers, and scary “facts” sell better.

The next day I set a ketchup bottle on the table and saw (proudly displayed) on the label:  No High Fructose Corn Syrup, No GMO Ingredients.  Although these two statements are technically true, they are mainly intended to lure uninformed shoppers.

First, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) for some reason has gotten a bad reputation among food purists; but fructose, glucose and sucrose are all sugars.  This FDA website explains the tiny chemical difference between HFCS and sugar.  They conclude:  “We are not aware of any evidence…that there is a difference in safety between foods containing HFCS 42 or HFCS 55 and foods containing similar amounts of other nutritive sweeteners with approximately equal glucose and fructose content, such as sucrose, honey, or other traditional sweeteners.”

These facts of no chemical or health differences are backed up by other sources.  And even those that give reasons to avoid HFCS say it is no worse for us than sugar.

So it’s true, but slightly deceptive – the ketchup contains no HFCS; it contains sugar instead!

Second, the main ingredient in ketchup is tomato concentrate from tomatoes.  As I’ve written before, there are no GMO tomatoes!  Likewise, the label on the Non-GMO orange juice doesn’t mention that there are also no GMO oranges.  Non-GMO statements in both these cases are totally true – but meaningless – except to those incurious people who don’t care about real truth.

That brings us to a recent CBS story about a Facebook executive concerned that “the social media platform may be hurting American democracy” and that they were “too slow to recognize Russian interference in the 2016 election” intended to further divide society as the Russians weaponized information to sow discord.

How can anyone “weaponize” information?  It starts with Americans jumping to conclusions on the basis of popular opinion, weak evidence, information that reinforces their own biases and truths that “tell it slant.”  The distress here should not be over the negative aspects of Facebook or any other media but over a severe weakness in critical thinking, a skill in great demand as we cope with the every-increasing speed and breadth of dissemination coupled with a serious decrease in quality of information.  The problem is not with the Russian posters or the platform; it's with readers who don't question and research.