Don't Be a Sucker!

The Better Business Bureau, specifically the BBB Institute for Marketplace Trust, conducted a survey of the victims of scams.  Contrary to what might be expected, they found “Millennials are actually more vulnerable to scams than Baby Boomers.”

The stereotypical retiree falling for Internet phishing, suspicious phone call or mail document promising vast riches (if only they pay a small deposit in advance), is apparently in error.  Of more than 30,000 reports to their Scam Tracker reporting tool, “89% of seniors (age 65 and up) recognized the scam in time, while only 11% reported actually losing money. For those age 18-24, however, more than three times as many failed to recognize the scam – 34% reported losing money.”

The reason given for this unexpected result is Optimism Bias, the feeling that others are more vulnerable to con artists than you are.  This is less likely among seniors who have been warned repeatedly about people trying to get their money.  It is more typical to hear stories about the “little old lady” for two reasons:  she’s usually a more sympathetic victim; and seniors are more likely to report being cheated.

I think there is yet another reason.  Millennials have been raised in an environment where critical thinking is optional at best.  They have been exposed to so many questionable sources of information that when a scammer crosses over from borderline ethical behavior to an illegal promise, it’s not as noticeable to them.

Take TV doctors, for example, promising miracle cures, magical advice to improve wellbeing and guaranteed weight-loss programs.  If a doctor were to give only sound advice free of gimmicks and wishful thinking, it would boil down to just a few things we have heard (and ignored) over and over:  eat right, exercise, get enough sleep, reduce stress, use sunscreen and a few others.  Critical thinking reminds us it’s not rocket science.  Yet the shows go on year after year with a loyal audience.

Look at the proliferation of dietary supplements and special food labels designed to give the impression of a healthier option.  There was a time when everyone took substantially the same vitamin as everyone else and was satisfied.  Now there are different vitamins for men and women and men over 50 and pregnant women and the list goes on.  We spend over $20 billion a year on vitamins and herbal supplements, most of which have never been tested and with “no credible evidence they offer any benefits for the average person.”  The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), an independent group of doctors, opted in 2013 not to recommend regular use of any multivitamins. It doesn’t recommend the use of any herbal supplements, and it advises consumers not to take beta-carotene or vitamin E.”  Yet we continue to wolf them down.

I needn’t talk about all the other food-related myths circulating with no scientific background.  I’ve covered it elsewhere (September 2016, January 2016, July 2015, June 2015, April 2014, and many other examples).  Again so many Americans buy into these concepts and needlessly waste money on natural and organic products or are drawn to groceries whose advertising appeals to the latest fad, craze, fear or hope; the market for them continues to grow.

Finally, there is social media.  Millions of pieces of advice, both medical and personal, stories, both cute and serious, and other information flies through cyberspace every second.  It gets read and reposted and few seem interested in verifying its validity.  My wife once pointed out the error in one entry on Facebook and was basically told, “I don’t care about the facts: it was a good story.”

With such a casual approach to life in so many other areas, with this disinclination to question or investigate, and with such general distain for critical thinking, it should be no surprise that the younger generation is more gullible, more susceptible to the scam.  They are merely reacting to the illegal and fraudulent enticements in the same way they do to these many borderline ethical pitches they confront daily.

Natural or Artificial?

My dictionary defines foodie as “a person keenly interested in food.”  I tend to redefine it as a person fussy about food primarily in the interest of impressing others.  If they were interested in food, they would do more research instead of trying to be cool or trendy about what they eat.  For example, see this Daily Beast article on how Nutella, which has been a common spread in Europe for years, “conquered America” with its niche, cult, unique and elite appeal.

This thought came to me as I was listening to the car radio, hearing an ad for some product with no artificial ingredients.  I wondered whether there was a standard definition of what no artificial ingredients means.  I already know the FDA has no formal definition for natural or all natural.  When you see these words on a package, it means pretty much whatever the manufacturer wants it to mean (unless the claim is so outrageous that they get in trouble for false advertising).

The best I could come up with was an FDA definition for natural flavor, that is, derived from a "spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof.”  So a flavoring from any other source must be considered artificial.  But does artificial automatically mean bad, as some (fussy) folks believe?

This interesting article points out: “On a scientific level, an artificially-made flavor compound is absolutely indistinguishable from the same compound derived from a natural source.”  This is similar to the understanding that natural fertilizer, think cow-manure, must break down into the same chemical compounds that are present in processed fertilizer before plants can absorb them.  To the plants it’s all nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium, along with a short list of micronutrients.  The source of these nutrients doesn’t matter.  (Plants are not fussy.)

The same article goes on to give a fairly disgusting example of “castoreum, a secretion that comes from the two castor sacs located under a beaver's tail, right next to a pair of anal glands.”  It comes from an animal, so it is considered a natural flavor and it “tastes and smells like vanilla.”  If added to your ice cream, it would be considered natural, not artificial.

Speaking of ice cream, and changing the subject as quickly as possible from beaver butts, many people also believe that frozen yogurt is the better choice.  On the contrary, as this CNN story clearly explains:  “Frozen yogurt only sounds healthier than ice cream.”  It has more sugar than ice cream to cover the tartness, and ice cream has more fat.  The benefit of fat is that it slows the absorption of sugar, which may delay the craving for more.  The biggest disadvantage of frozen yogurt is that people eating any food that they believe is healthier for them tend to eat more of it. 

So to be a good foodie, as the dictionary defines it, one must do the research rather than follow the trends or try to be a trendsetter introducing your closest friends to the latest up-and-coming fad food.  It takes a bit of research and understanding of science, some critical thinking to get the facts; and it takes some perspective to shun the hype.  (Is that why I saw "All Natural" beef jerky in the checkout aisle recently?)

On the other hand, you could go about as normal, shopping at the upscale groceries and spending more for foods with only marginal, if any, added benefits.  Then after the meal, why not relax with the ultimate of after dinner pleasures.  It’s all-natural, made only from plants, gluten-free, with no additives or preservatives and no saturated fats, sugars, sodium or cholesterol.  Yes, light up a cigar!  (I wonder if they make organic cigars.)

Best Tasting Tomato

Every year around the beginning of August, the local Master Gardeners held an open house for the public.  People were invited to tour the gardens, get their questions answered about growing flowers and vegetables, indulge in some free food or snacks, and enjoy activities for the kids.  The attendance over three hours was 200 to 300 and the otherwise very adequate parking lot of the County Extension Office was overflowing.

One popular attraction was the tomato tasting.  The garden usually featured over a dozen different varieties of hybrid and heirloom tomatoes.  Master Gardeners would pick a few of each and slice them up into individual bowls and invite the public to sample as many as they wanted and cast their votes for the best tasting tomato.  At the end of the day, votes were tallied and the winner announced.

Whenever I would describe this activity to others on a garden tour at different times of the year or to people in general, the same question would always arise:  Which variety of tomato won?  This is the typical (and wrong) reaction.

Why is it wrong?  This was just a fun activity.  The objective was to let everyone decide for himself which tomato tasted best.  It didn’t matter if, from this unscientific sample, one particular tomato got more votes than another.  That wasn’t the point of the exercise.  The point was to allow people to sample many different kinds of tomatoes, an opportunity they probably could not find elsewhere, and decide for themselves which they liked the best.  Except for fun, it was not intended to crown one tomato the best.  Yet even those who weren’t there at the time wanted to know.

I’m sure in some cases they asked just out of simple curiosity.  Perhaps some of the other gardeners might want to order seeds for the following year and were looking for some different ideas.  In general, though, I think the reaction was the same as many Americans have to a wide range of issues and purchase decisions.  They let other people make decisions for them.  They react to the hype.  They follow the advice of celebrities and other influential voices about what to eat, what not to eat, what to be upset about, what movies and television shows to watch, how to dress, how to vote, what diet plans to follow, what books to read and what brand to buy, including: cars, sporting equipment, furniture and beverages.

Why would I think that is true?  Last month, after his scandal at the Olympics, swimmer Ryan Lochte lost several endorsement deals.  One relationship was with Speedo.  I can understand a swimmer representing swimming apparel, although I shouldn’t let it influence me.  On the other hand, USA Today reported, “Airweave, a mattress company, said it had ‘ended its partnership’ with Lochte.”  Unless some significant number might let a famous swimmer advise them about what mattress to buy, Airweave was throwing away their money.  Yet this happens.  Celebrities represent products or causes with no relationship to their areas of expertise.  We let others influence us as we respond to ads that a particular brand is the most popular.  We see political candidates seeking the endorsement of singers and actors.

The hype machine is working overtime every day.  Advertisers tend to drop campaigns that are ineffective.  When we see so many using similar appeals, the only logical conclusion is that this stuff works; enough consumers fall for it that the expense is justified.

So remember the lesson from the tomato tasting.  If you get a chance to sample many and decide for yourself which one you like the best, that one is best for you.  What others think makes no difference.  Opinions are not facts.  In matters of taste or opinion, yours is as good as anyone else’s, and a better choice for you.  In matters of fact, like which car is the safest or most reliable, which candidate (if any) is best qualified or which foods are safe, find the facts for yourself instead of following the crowd or putting all your faith in a famous spokesperson (who often has little knowledge of the subject).

Thinking About Soap

Apparently bar soap has developed a bad reputation.  Sales have fallen 5% over the last 5 years.  This CNN story from late last month tells us:  “Forty eight percent of consumers think bar soaps can be a haven for bacteria…Young consumers [18-24] believe this the most, with 60%” of them worried about germs on the soap.  To justify this silliness, many simply believe "Bar soap is for old people."

Silliness, indeed!  Think about it for a minute.  You come in from the garden, for instance, and wash your hands.  You have dirt and germs on your hands.  When you finish washing, are there germs left on the soap?  Yes.  Are there germs left on your hands and on the towel?  Yes, a few.  But having a few germs left behind, unless they are the really dangerous kind, is not dangerous and helps your immune system maintain vigilance against all the germs you are exposed to every day.

What about all those germs on the soap?  You come in again and wash your hands, which already have germs on them.  Both the germs from the garden and from the soap are washed down the drain again with very few left on your hands.

Some people say you should rinse the germs off the soap first.  Others say you should have a separate bar for each member of the family.  Well, the CDC, the people who watch out for our health, actually has instructions on hand washing.  The first steps are to wet your hands with clean, running water, turn off the tap, and apply soap, then lather your hands by rubbing them together with the soap.  No mention of the need to rinse germs off the soap or have a separate bar for each person.  Also, don’t you think you are exposed to family germs in many more ways than what’s left on the soap (and mostly washed down the drain)?

The science on the subject is clear.  In 1988 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published the results of research showing “little hazard exists in routine handwashing with previously used soap bars” and strongly endorsing “the frequent use of soap and water for handwashing to prevent the spread of disease.”

In 2007 The New York Times reiterated the advice in an article:  “Does sharing soap within the family spread germs?”  Their conclusion – “washing even with contaminated bar soap is unlikely to transfer bacteria.”

A 2015 NPR headline read:  “Your Soap Has Bacteria In It, But It Still Gets You Clean.”  And Huffington Posts explains: “Germs can and most likely do live on all bars of soap, but it’s very unlikely they will make you sick or cause a skin infection…If you are healthy, your body will have no problem fending off the germs.”

People, who want to ignore this advice, argue that we should use antibacterial soap to be really safe, but the FDA recently banned 19 ingredients from antibacterial soaps.  Here is a rather long excerpt from a CBS News story quoting an FDA press statement:  “Consumers may think antibacterial washes are more effective at preventing the spread of germs, but we have no scientific evidence that they are any better than plain soap and water.  In fact, some data suggests that antibacterial ingredients may do more harm than good over the long-term.”  Knowledge about the effects of certain chemicals that may be absorbed by the body from antibacterial products is lacking.

There are two additional concerns.  One is that the widespread use of antibacterial products can lead to further development of “super bugs,” similar to overuse of prescribed antibiotics.  Another concern is the effects of excessive cleanliness on the body's ability to build normal immunity to bacteria, especially for children.

So where does this baseless reaction to bar soap come from?  Germs are invisible and can be deadly.  That’s a scary combination.  Plus, who wants to be acting like old people when there is so much pressure to be cool and hip?   Add to that the constant and rapid spread of misinformation on social media, enhanced by the habit of not verifying, suspecting or even clearly thinking it through.  Throw in that many Americans don’t appreciate how lucky they are to have any kind of soap and running water, and you have a recipe for unreasonable behavior.  Today it’s soap, tomorrow something else.

Get a grip!  No one has the time or energy to worry about everything.  If the fear of germs on soap is a big enough worry to take action on, something is seriously out of proportion.

Perspective of Constant Updates

Why do we hear about political polls almost daily for 6 months or more before the election?  Here is just one sample from a few weeks ago on CBS News: “Where Clinton and Trump stand with 90 days left.”  I just saw the headline and didn’t read the article, because it makes absolutely no difference where they stand 90 days before or even one day before the election.  It only makes a difference where they stand the day after the election.  This is not news.  It’s more like laziness, something they can sit in the office and collect off a feed from somewhere else.

This has been the trend in news for the last few decades.  They breathlessly report results of a poll, sometimes a poll they themselves have taken, about who is slipping or who is gaining.  That information may be useful to the candidates' campaigns, but not to voters who still have, in this case, 90 days to make up their minds.  It is generally a waste of our time; but if they can make it seem like news, they can draw in the viewers and advertisers to help pay their anchors millions of dollars (to read poll results and later in the broadcast complain about overpaid CEOs).

These same organizations will try to keep us up on election night watching them kill time by checking off states, showing partial returns and reviewing voter turnout, until they can make a final determination.  It’s unbelievable how many people fall for this, people who know deep down inside that the results will be the same in the morning and nothing is gained by staying up to hear those results six hours earlier.  The world is not going to changing in those 6 hours.  The new president will not take office for another two months, two months in which the media will be filled with stories about what might happen or who might be appointed to the cabinet, and gobs more speculation by insiders,  experts and even their fellow news reporters.

But we never learn.  The media has us trained to sit on the edge of our seats, soaking in these meaningless polling data and speculations.  We can’t wait to see what happens and need some expert to provide guesses to relieve the suspense.  Likewise, they compete for our attention with breaking news, of some disaster or incident from across the ocean or the other side of the country that can’t wait until a scheduled program – because it will affect our lives how? 

See how we are conditioned.  Ring the news bell and we salivate for the latest!

On a related note, why do I need a mobile app to check my bank balance on my phone from anywhere?  If I go out shopping, I will use my credit card that needs to be paid only once a month.  I will have plenty of time to come home and check my bank balance on my computer if I really need to.  Shopping with a list also reduces the chance of coming up embarrassingly short.  Yet the bank thinks they are doing me a big favor giving me the ability to check my balance on the fly.  Perhaps they think I will be going to lunch from the office unable to decide between joining my rich friends at the Ritz or my cheap friends at McDonalds.  I have to check my balance first.  Perhaps they are just trying to encourage me to live closer to the edge financially, knowing I can get away with it because I have my bank balance at my finger tips.

I don’t know.  I suspect they are just trying to compete for my business with all the other banks that will let me check my bank balance on my phone at any time from anywhere for some unfathomable reason.  Meanwhile they are paying a bunch of programmers to come up with nifty apps instead of using that money to pay me a just little more interest on the money I do have in the bank.  That would be an excellent way to compete.

This is about having perspective.  Slow down and get a grip on reality.  Don’t be lured in by the hype and simulated excitement.

Admit it.  Ninety-nine percent of breaking news is not that urgent or important.  A tornado warning in your county is breaking news; a plane crash in Egypt is not.  The only other time it might be important enough to interrupt my day is if my bank suddenly went out of business.  Then I could pull out my phone and find out immediately if I had any money left at all!