One More Time: Gluten-free

I have met people who are dedicated to following a gluten-free diet and persuading their family to do so.  I have been at functions where food was served with the assurance that it was gluten-free.  I want to turn to the host and say, “Thank you, but fortunately I don’t have celiac disease.”  I’m sure they wouldn’t get it.

A gluten-free diet (GFD) has become a fad with people strongly committed to it to the point where more and more companies are advertising that their products are gluten-free.  I recently heard an ad on a public radio entertainment show where a brand of vodka closed with the words “and it’s gluten-free.”  Thereupon I could hear in the background light laughter from the audience, who apparently thought it was a joke as part of the show, but the ad was totally serious.  The audience was right to chuckle though.  Scientific American (among others) points out:  “Distilled spirits, because of the distillation process, should contain no detectable gluten residues or gluten peptide residues.” 

But all those companies know their potential customers are getting information that gluten free is healthier from celebrities and other unreliable sources.  “The gluten-free industry enjoyed a growth of 136% from 2013 to 2015, reaching estimated sales of $11.6 billion” unrelated to any increase in celiac disease.

But where is the harm, besides paying more for something you don’t need?  According to this article in The Pediatric Journal, “there are no data supporting the presumed health benefits” of a gluten-free diet.  “Gluten-free packaged foods frequently contain a greater density of fat and sugar than their gluten-containing counterparts,” which can lead to problems for children such as obesity and new-onset insulin resistance.

Furthermore, a gluten-free diet for children can delay a real diagnosis of celiac disease, which has been linked to anemia, osteoporosis, diabetes, autoimmune thyroid disease and intestinal cancers.

The article goes on.  “There is emerging evidence that those consuming gluten- free products without sufficient diversity may be at greater risk of exposure to certain toxins than those on an unrestricted diet. Arsenic is frequently present in inorganic form in rice, a concern for those on a GFD given that rice is a common ingredient in gluten-free processed foods. Serum mercury levels were 4-fold greater among adults with CD consuming a GFD than controls not restricting gluten.”

So what many uninformed or misinformed people see as a panacea is potentially a danger.  But it seems that bad information drives out good information and once the superstitions get a foothold, they are hard to dislodge.  (More about the new mythologies and the battle with critical thinking in the near future.)

Correcting Colorblindness?

An article in an alumni magazine caught my eye.  The headline read:  “Recent graduate focuses on myth of color-blindness correction.”  The clear implication by labeling it as a myth was that colorblindness correction was impossible, or at least not within the reach of current technology, and that some people may be wasting their money. 

The recent graduate was part of a research team investigating whether red-green color vision defects can be corrected using commercially sold glasses that filter different wavelengths.  The brief article goes on to say that this latest research has not yet been published but stated that a controlled study led to the conclusion that “not only do the glasses not help, but they can makes some aspects of color vision worse.”  (Since the findings have not yet been published, there is no way to tell the sample size or how carefully the study was designed.)  They only summarize their findings that some people are “desperate for a ‘cure’ and [this study] can potentially save people from wasting their money.”

Wasting money on myths is one of my favorite signs of problems with critical thinking, not doing the research before investing in a “miracle cure,” so I went on to investigate.

I found a Forbes article from April 2015:  A reporter decided to try the special glasses, and said yes, there was a difference.  But he added:  “As vibrant as [green] leaves and [red] bricks now appear, when presented with a color blindness test, both my brother [who is also colorblind] and I still fail it. And there’s another major issue that needs to be addressed: These things ain’t cheap. Non-prescription versions of [the seller’s] color blindness glasses range from roughly $340 to $440.”  He concludes by referring to them as a luxury item that allows some men to get the effect of seeing better color.

The ads for these glasses consist of customers raving about their personal experiences, and similar testimonials.  According to another source their “viral marketing success” has been fueled in part by a product testing program, “where would-be wearers can apply to earn a free pair through participating in certain company initiatives (like talking to the media).”

The author of that second article, who is also colorblind, gave them a try.  He was disappointed at first when he didn’t experience the overwhelming emotion he had seen in the promotional videos, but after some time he became very satisfied.  Though he still cannot pass the standard Ishihara colorblindness test, and the company clearly states the glasses will not allow this; he feels they are very helpful in, for instance, allowing him to better identify the color of green and red traffic signals.  Based on his own experience in elementary school, he thinks the glasses may help children do better at color-related tasks and not be automatically labeled by teachers as slow.  (Not all schools regularly test children for colorblindness.)

It appears the jury is still out on the colorblindness correcting glasses.  True, they don’t make it possible to pass the standard numbers-on-flashcards type of test and are quite expensive, but some who have tried them (and not been financially influenced by the company) say they have noticed a difference.  It will be interesting to see the latest scientific findings when they are finally published.

More Government Protection

Today is a day for celebration!  It’s the thirteenth anniversary of the Do Not Call list.  When you put your personal phone number on the list, it becomes illegal for businesses to call you with unsolicited offers or requests, except for political organizations, not-for-profit organizations, bill collectors and organizations conducting surveys.

How effective has it been?  Here is some information from Wikipedia:  “According to the 2009 Economic Report of the President, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, the program has proved quite popular: as of 2007, according to one survey, 72 percent of Americans had registered on the list, and 77 percent of those say that it made a large difference in the number of telemarketing calls that they receive (another 14 percent report a small reduction in calls).”  But is popular the same as effective?  And is fewer calls the same as Do-Not-Call?  “Another survey, conducted less than a year after the Do Not Call list was implemented, found that people who registered for the list saw a reduction in telemarketing calls from an average of 30 calls per month to an average of 6 per month.”

Obviously some companies opted to ignore the list.  I remember early on telling telemarketers that we were on the Do Not Call list and reporting the call on the website.  The information went into cyberspace with no feedback.  Since then technology has improved to give us computers assisting humans to speed up the calling process and robocalls, using a computerized auto dialer to deliver a pre-recorded message.

The main problem with the Do Not Call list is that the process has no teeth.  The enforcement was very weak.  NBC tells us that in the first four months of this year, “the Federal Trade Commission received more than 1.6 million complaints about unwanted calls. Sixty-four percent, or 1.1 million complaints, were for robocalls.”  Imagine the numbers when the people who didn’t bother to complain are accounted for!

Congress recognizes this and now has proposed new legislation requiring landline and mobile carriers to offer free robocall-blocking technology to their customers.  The press release stated, “Robocalls are one of the things that annoy Americans the most and the ROBOCOP Act will finally help put a rest to these dreaded calls that are interrupting family dinners—or worse—scamming people out of their hard-earned money.”  Of course companies who use the technology want the rules loosened rather than tightened.

First, anyone who thinks robocalls are one of our biggest annoyances must lead an otherwise very calm, tranquil and sheltered life.  It’s not such a big deal that we need Congress spending time debating it instead of a thousand bigger issues.

Whether robocalls are among the top annoyances or just a minor pain in the neck, we could always take responsibility and buy an inexpensive phone with caller ID (which most people have already).  If you don’t recognize the caller, don’t answer.  If they really want to talk to you, they will leave a message and you can decide whether to return the call.  (I have been using caller ID to screen calls for several years and haven’t gotten a single solicitation from any organization.  They can’t scam me or annoy me if I don’t answer.)  So once again, why do we need the government stepping in to solve a problem that is so easily taken care of?  They also want to do it in a way that adds costs to the providers, costs that will somehow be passed along to the consumer as they always are.  Nothing is free.

Whenever we don’t take responsibility, acting helpless, acting like victims, some advocate or politician is always happy to step in and solve the problem for us.  Often it doesn’t really get completely resolved; and all we have accomplished is to encourage the attitude of these "helpers" that in this high-tech world of robocalls, scammers or whatever we can’t really take care of ourselves.

More Discipline Evidence

I was not surprised, more discouraged, to see this headline on CBS:  “Nearly a third of Americans have no emergency savings.”  Five months ago a similar survey from Bankrate.com reported that about 63 percent would be unable to deal with a $500 car repair or a $1,000 emergency room bill.  Surely this doesn’t mean one-third of Americans don’t have emergencies.  Rather it’s more evidence that Americans have a problem with discipline in their spending habits.

The CBS piece points out that the number who have enough stashed away for at least six months has risen from 22% to 28% in the last year, but it’s still not good news for the non-savers or for the rest of us who may be affected if they begin defaulting on bills. 

Of course a natural reaction when someone is accused of weak discipline is to find an excuse.  (Weak discipline often goes hand in hand with weak responsibility.)  Here CBS comes to the rescue with “11 Tricks Retailers Use to Get More of Your Money.” 

These tricks can be condensed into a few categories.  Some have to do with offering prepared foods:  precut or prewashed or heat-and-serve.  It would be cheaper to do the washing and cutting and preparation at home, but buying prepared foods should be the result of a conscious decision to trade your money for free time rather than an automatic decision.  Another category covers bargain displays, soothing music and confusing store layouts to delay shoppers, getting them to spend more time (and money) in the store.  Finally, constant sales and promotions try to make almost everything look like a bargain, even when a product rarely sells for the full price.  Most of these tricks can be defeated by the age-old advice of shopping with a list and sticking to it.  (I’m surprised the writer left out the common trick of pushing an extended warrantee to get you to buy breakdown insurance on a brand new item.)

I wrote last time about how going after false advertising and other fraudulent activities keeps the FTC very busy.  They can hardly be expected to protect us from these little “tricks” too.  Americans need to take some responsibility.

Finally, some people attempt to control their spending by eliminating credit cards.  This strategy has some significant hidden implications and costs.  Not using a credit card (responsibly) affects your credit score, which in turn can make it more difficult to buy a house, a car or other big-ticket item.  Lower credit scores increase the cost of insurance and travel and may reflect poorly on you when applying for a job.  In addition, credit card companies become your ally when you face cases of fraud or have a dispute with a seller.  You also benefit from any cash-back program, have a complete record of spending and don’t have to carry a large amount of cash, especially for emergencies.  When used properly, credit cards have many benefits.

Even though the trend is in the right direction, a large proportion of Americans still have inadequate savings.  It’s futile to blame it on retailers’ tricks or to try to fool yourself by cutting up credit cards.  The right answer, the real solution, is to know it’s up to you, and only discipline will do.  It is hard to imagine that a large percentage of those without savings and living from paycheck to paycheck can’t find at least one small sacrifice or habitual extra outlay to cut as a source for a small savings plan.  It may seem to hurt at first, but it’s a lot healthier than living with the constant stress of dreading the arrival of the next unexpected bill or emergency.

Keeping the FTC Busy

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the government organization tasked with keeping advertisers honest.  “Its principal mission is the promotion of consumer protection and the elimination and prevention of anticompetitive business practices.”  With all the fears and worries, real and manufactured, about physical and mental health that the pushers of pills and miracle cures take advantage of, the FTC keeps very busy.

I got a tip from a reader to check out the B12 stores that are springing up along the roadside in his state.  They offer Vitamin B12 injections and promise many health benefits.  One Internet site lists 22 areas where B12 helps the mind or body, prevents problems or boosts some function.  But as the reader points out 30 seconds of research on line shows that these injections are a waste of time.

This is quite right.  As this site explains, Vitamin B12 supplements are appropriate only when the patient has a deficiency.  It’s not the cure-all that it claims to be.  Since it is water-soluble, “[w]hen taken in excess, your body eliminates what it doesn’t need…So if you’re not deficient, you’re wasting your money.”  (In one end and out the other.)

The reader goes on to say he reported these false claims to the FTC. They called and thanked him but said they are so backlogged with other investigations that action would take months, maybe years.  What else is keeping them so busy? 

The next week, the answer came, in part, from the Consumer Health Digest, an non-governmental newsletter about deceptive medical claims.  “During the past two years, three marketers of questionable ‘brain training’ programs have settled FTC charges by agreeing to discontinue various claims.”

“The developers and marketers of LearningRx  ‘brain training’ agreed to stop claiming that their programs were clinically proven to permanently improve serious health conditions like ADHD, autism, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, strokes, and concussions and that the training substantially improved school grades, college admission test scores, career earnings, and job and athletic performance.”  

Then there was the case of the Lumosity games claiming to help users perform better at work and in school, and reduce or delay cognitive impairment associated with age and other serious health conditions.  They settled charges that they deceived consumers with these unfounded claims and agreed to pay $2 million.

Finally about 18 months earlier, Focus Education “agreed to stop making unsubstantiated claims that their computer game, Jungle Rangers, permanently improves children's focus, memory, attention, behavior, and school performance, including for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).”

In addition to the games and puzzles falsely claiming to make us smarter, more attentive and less forgetful, about 6 months ago “the FTC also settled charges against the marketers of Procera AVH, a dietary supplement claiming to have been clinically proven to improve memory, mood, and other cognitive functions.

These last four examples over the span of less than two years in only one category gives an idea of the size of the workload of the FTC as they try to police the deceptive claims of charlatans and hucksters, the snake oil salesmen preying on Americans looking for that magic cure, a cure for problems real or imagined, an easy way out.  Even some good companies may get carried away, trying to sell their products by promising cures when there is no evidence.   Perhaps they believe that what they are saying is true or that they have worded their ads cleverly enough to avoid legal problems.

In any case, these advertisers know a couple of things for sure.  Today there are so many reports of legitimate new drugs and advances in medicine that we are led to expect and be less skeptical of such claims.  They also know that any mention of Alzheimer’s, ADHD or autism will trigger an automatic, hopeful reaction.  So it’s up to us to be wary.  The FTC cannot protect us from every too-good-to-be-true ad that comes our way.  Discipline to do the work and not be sucked in by the promise of a miracle cure, along with a healthy skepticism that comes from critical thinking will push us to do a little research before accepting these claims at face value.  Such an approach can save significant time and money.