Trying to Stay Non-political

As I’ve said before, I try to keep away from any political subjects, first because there are many other writers who love to make political comments, but more important because Washington is unable to fix problems we have brought on through our own behavior.  The only difficulty with this stance is that almost everything that happens lately is reframed as a political dispute making it very difficult to find behavioral examples of a non-political nature.  (A clear demonstration of a national perspective failing is that Senate hearings take center stage while what used to be considered real news is treated as an afterthought.)

Perspective is about values, what is important and what is trivial, setting appropriate priorities, separating wants from needs and gratitude for our blessings.  Two stories this week, when taken from a nonpolitical angle, reinforced this need for perspective:  the President’s son’s shirt and the Boston Globe’s comments on air conditioning.

As Barron Trump exited the helicopter with his parents upon arrival on the White House lawn, he was wearing a t-shirt with the words “The Expert” on the front.  Within a matter of hours people going to J. Crew’s website found a message saying that the shirt was sold out and offering other suggestions.  Some observers point out that the shirt was already sold out before everyone saw young Trump wearing one, but others attribute some of its popularity to his appearance on camera.

It could have been the news spot or the President’s son could have just jumped on the same bandwagon as many others.  In either case a $30 t-shirt most people didn’t even know existed suddenly became a must-have item.

In the second instance the Boston Globe published an editorial suggesting that readers should reduce or eliminate the use of air conditioning for the summer.  They pointed out that since “the first window unit was brought to market in 1939, air conditioners have become ubiquitous in the United States. Today, almost 90 percent of American households have one – as do the vast majority of restaurants, stores, museums, and office buildings.”  They go on to warn about the high amount of energy usage with a global-warming impact equivalent to each family driving 10,000 extra miles per year. 

Conservative sites were quick to point to it as another example of climate-change hysteria and to question whether the Globe would be turning off the air conditioning in their own building.

Setting aside the politics, the Globe has a point that air conditioning is one more thing we take for granted.  It wasn’t that long ago, certainly within my memory, that families would look for an excuse to go to the movies in the summer just to enjoy a couple of hours of air conditioned comfort before returning home to the sweltering heat.  People in cities would sleep on the fire escapes and those in the suburbs might spend the night in the basement.  Today we look at an outside temperature of 92 and decide we will stay in the house in comfort.  Jokingly referring to a 4-60 air conditioning system in the car (4 windows open at 60 mph) would be lost on today’s car buyers.

We can live without it, but would prefer not to, and are probably more productive at work and at home with it.  From a perspective point of view, A/C has crept from nice to necessary in only a couple of generations.  Many can’t imagine living without it, but many others in the world have no choice.

Yet Another Chocolate Study

Isn’t it great to find out that something you love is also good for you!  That’s probably why so many scientists study the health effects of chocolate.  It guarantees publicity.  Look at a few of the many studies that made the news.

I found this information on WebMD.  It cites a study from University of Cologne, Germany published in The Journal of the American Medical Association in August 2003.  They found that dark chocolate lowers high blood pressure.

In the same month Italy's National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research in Rome in another study praised dark chocolate as being “a potent antioxidant” with potential benefits against heart disease and other ailments associated with free radicals in the body.  Both recommended eating chocolate only in moderation.

In 2012 the headline on the Women’s Health Magazine website read:  “Chocolate isn't junk food anymore! Here, the health perks of your new favorite superfood.”  They went to describe healthy chocolate, that is dark with 70% cacao, as a “disease-killing bullet...packed with healthy chemicals like flavonoids and theobromine.” 

Here are the benefits they listed and the source:

• Heart healthy – a 9-year Swedish study
• Weight loss – the University of Copenhagen
• Happier Babies (if enjoyed during pregnancy) – a Finnish study
• Diabetes Prevention – University of L'Aquila in Italy
• Reduced Stress – from Swiss scientists
• Sun Protection – from London researchers
• Higher Intelligence – from the University of Nottingham
• Cough Relief – National Heart and Lung Institute
• Diarrhea Relief – the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute

A couple of years ago the Washington Post told us “a surprising number of studies have found that dark chocolate can reduce the risk of death from a heart attack, decrease blood pressure and help those with chronic fatigue syndrome.”  Unlike the previous studies, this one found no difference between dark chocolate and milk chocolate and their idea of moderation was more precisely defined.  From 15 to 100 grams were effective with the more the better.  Note that 100 grams is about 500 calories, a significant portion of the recommended total daily calorie consumption.

Then there was the fraudulent study purporting to link eating chocolate to weight loss.  The science journalist confessed later that he purposely offered this study for publications to show how lax some of the standards were and that it got far more attention than he ever expected.  (Oops, that’s the second benefit listed by the Women’s Health Magazine.)

The latest one is from Denmark last month  (Interesting how all these chocolate studies seem to happen in Europe.)  This one found that people who “regularly eat chocolate reduce their risk of heart rhythm disorders.”  Knowing that previous studies showed the benefits of dark chocolate, they followed more than 55,000 people between the ages of 50 and 64 for 13.5 years looking for beneficial effects on atrial fibrillation.

“The researchers cautioned that the results are not definitive. The chocolate eaters in the study were naturally healthier and were highly educated, which are factors associated with good health. The study also failed to take account of other risk factors for atrial fibrillation, like kidney disease or sleep apnea.”  Not much there, but since it had to do with chocolate, it made the news.

I saw the last story on one of those health-news fillers on local TV and was unfamiliar with the website where I found it, so I looked at some of the links to other stories to see how much I should trust it.  That was an eye-opener.  They included:  How to dissolve 50 years of artery plaque; the natural remedy of the century; one trick to burn two pounds as you sleep; and the blood pressure secret revealed in the Bible.  It’s obviously not a place for critical thinkers to hang out.

In summary, the health benefits of chocolate seems to be a good subject for those who are more interested in believing things than in real science.  Personally, I intend to continue to enjoy chocolate – in moderation – and fortunately, I’m a big fan of dark chocolate.  But I’m not doing it for the magical health benefits –  that what the red wine is for!

One More Time: Dietary Supplements (3)

In previous entries, most recently last October, I warned about the use of dietary supplements.  Manufacturers and retailers continue to get bolder in their advertising trying to maintain and grow the size of their market.  This is big business in America with these companies cashing in on misleading claims about the benefits of their products.  Products classified as dietary supplements include vitamins, minerals, herbs, probiotics and fish oil.

Near the end of last year, the New York Times put it bluntly:  “Americans spend more than $30 billion a year on dietary supplements – vitamins, minerals and herbal products, among others – many of which are unnecessary or of doubtful benefit to those taking them. That comes to about $100 a year for every man, woman and child for substances that are often of questionable value.”  These are often the same people who see themselves as being so careful in other cases about what they put into their bodies.

A boom in sales came after the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, pushed through by lawmakers with close ties to the supplement lobby.  The number of products grew from 4,000 to 55,000+ over the next 20 years.  The law allowed the industry to sell their products without submitting any evidence to the Food and Drug Administration as to their safety or effectiveness.  Marketers are legally allowed to promote products as supporting the health of various parts of the body but are banned from any claims that they prevent, treat or cure any condition.  Clever advertising often skirts this provision and sometimes violates it completely.

But the problem is not just that they may be ineffective, that is, a waste of money.  Last fall the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a summary of studies done on supplements.  “During the past 2 decades, a steady stream of high-quality studies evaluating dietary supplements has yielded predominantly disappointing results about potential health benefits, whereas evidence of harm has continued to accumulate.”  They cite various examples of the increased problems including more than 10,000 calls per year to national poison centers since 2002 “related to ephedra poisonings.”

Surprisingly, as more research shows that particular substances are no more effective than the sugar pill, the sales do not generally decrease.  Consumers seem to think that if they don’t work for the target ailment, they at least promote general good health.  A list of supplements that have failed to live up to the advertisers' promises includes vitamin C, vitamin E and glucosamine/chondroitin.

What about consumer protection?  The government is very involved in this – considering the fact that they cannot act until actual harmful effects are reported or the vendors cross the line by promising more than supporting good health.  According to this release from the Truth in Advertising website, the supplement store GNC, “which has more than 9,000 store locations worldwide, has been the subject of numerous federal and state actions and has been named in more than 100 consumer lawsuits.”

Since 1984 the Department of Justice has cited problems in advertising 3 times.  Two resulted in fines or settlements and the latest in an agreement to take aggressive steps to prevent illegal products and ingredients from being sold in its stores.  The Federal Trade commission has taken seven actions against GNC or its suppliers, including “Sensa for its deceptive ‘sprinkle, eat and lose weight’ claims.”  On top of that there have been three USPS probes, six investigations by individual states and ten problems with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  (Details are provided in the Truth in Advertising link.)

There are valid reasons to use supplements such as for known deficiencies.  In the UK for example, some researchers are recommending that vitamin D be added to some food, like it is to milk in the US, to address the problem of a populations with lower exposure to sunlight.  In general, though, it is always better to get nutrients from food rather than popping a pill.  If supplements are needed, patients should use caution and critical thinking and consult with a health care professional to confirm that a problem exists and that the particular supplement will be effective in solving it.  Research continues to show that taking a pill just because it “makes you feel better” is about the same as throwing away your money.

Advertising, Politics and the Behavioral Model

I have written many times before that politicians and advertisers will try almost any argument to persuade us to buy their product or support their point of view.  They are counting on us not to use our critical thinking or rely on the many valid sources of information at our fingertips.  Instead Americans are inclined to just reflexively accept or reject the premise and move on.   This is especially true of scary or sensational news.

Here is a prime example.  Last Friday, while expressing his shock and concern that President Trump plans to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, former Secretary of State John Kerry warned, “kids will have worse asthma in the summer” because of this decision.  With all the strong reasons he could have offered, why did he pick this one?  Citing the health of our children is an attempt to pull at our heartstrings, rather than to present a logical, persuasive argument.  It keeps us in an emotion-charged, reactive mode – the opposite of critical thinking.

But what do the authorities say?  According to WebMD, “the cause of asthma is unknown. Health experts believe that inherited, environmental, and immune system factors combine” to produce the symptoms.  They go on:  “Studies show that exposure to allergens such as dust mites, cockroaches, and animal dander may influence asthma's development. Some experts believe there are more cases of asthma because of pollution and less exposure to certain types of harmful bacteria and other germs.”  Pollution may irritate the airways and the modern, ultra-clean environment we strive for to protect our children may lower their natural defenses.  At this point, however, these are only possibilities.

Don’t trust WebMD?  Mayo Clinic says, “the underlying causes of childhood asthma aren't fully understood.” Triggers for Asthma attacks “vary from child to child.”  Their list of possible triggers includes:  viral infections; exposure to air pollutants such as tobacco smoke; allergies to dust mites, pet dander, pollen or mold; physical activity; weather changes or cold air.  “Sometimes, asthma symptoms occur with no apparent triggers.”

Until recently carbon dioxide (CO₂) wasn’t even considered a pollutant.  Furthermore, every time a child exhales his or her airways are exposed to CO₂.  Since CO₂ is the focus of the climate agreement, it’s hard to tell what bearing any increase or decrease would have on the situation.  Perhaps an increase would cause an increase in flowers in the summertime increasing the pollen.  But pollen is only one of the many possible triggers of asthma; and not all types of plants release pollen in the summer.  The real cause is still unknown.

This is not a criticism or personal attack against John Kerry, just a warning to us all.  Politicians, advertisers and other “influencers” will use any tactic at their disposal to sell a product, idea or a point of view.  They sell political ideas, food, drugs, insurance, dietary supplements, charitable causes, physical and psychological fitness programs, cars, bicycles, performance bracelets – and the list goes on and on.  Each time we turn on the TV or look at our phone or tablet, we are exposed to hundreds of these messages.  John Kerry may be sincere in his belief that the decision to not sign an agreement will lead to an asthma epidemic, but it is still an attempt to gain political backing for his position with a very dubious claim intended to spark worrying rather than questioning.

It takes no more than 3 minutes to research statements like this one, to find a reputable source and think about what is being said instead of reacting emotionally.  How many people actually do it?  How many parents this summer will blame the president (instead of, perhaps, their own insistence on perfect sanitation) for their child’s asthma just because John Kerry planted a seed of suspicion?  And how many other similar beliefs lead us to commit to questionable products, services or ideas, because we fail to think critically and investigate?

With all the reference material we have at our disposal it’s a shame that so many people are so easily manipulated.  We have it in our ability to force all those influencers to be more honest, more careful and more accountable.  Until we do, they will continue this type of behavior.

Pink Slime, Take 2

It started more than five years ago.  The term “pink slime” was apparently coined by “a federal microbiologist” (whatever that means) but brought to light by the ranting of a celebrity chef (whatever that means).  They were concerned – or just trying to make headlines by getting a bunch of others concerned – about the food companies adding it to ground beef without a specific label. It made more headlines when McDonald's and other major chains, in reaction to this manufactured concern, discontinued their use of “ammonia-treated beef,” which doesn’t sound any more appetizing.

The actual description is "lean, finely textured beef."  It is made from left-over meat trimmings from other cuts of beef.  After being heated and spun to remove most of the fat, it is exposed to "a puff of ammonium hydroxide gas" to kill bacteria, such as E. coli and salmonella.  Blocks were shipped from a company in South Dakota to be added to ground beef to reduce the overall fat content.

According to CBS News at the time (2012):  “Though the term ‘pink slime’ has been used pejoratively for at least several years, it wasn't until last week that social media suddenly exploded with worry and an online petition seeking its ouster from school lunches that quickly garnered hundreds of thousands of supporters.”  Soon grocery stores were pledging to stop using it in their ground beef.

As I wrote in April 2012 when this news first broke, why must people resort to such name-calling?  Either they have a valid argument or they don’t.  Instead they try to catch everyone up in an emotional reaction to promote their particular cause or  “purity crusade.”   No one thinks about the real danger or about the jobs lost when this type of misinformation goes viral through social media or on-line petitions.  Why do people speak out against waste in other areas and remain silent on this issue of basically recycling usable meat scraps instead of throwing them in the garbage?  How can Kroger and the others ban this product outright, totally depriving customers of a choice, when they offer twenty different kinds of dishwashing soap?  (The educated customers would likely not be swayed by these scare tactics and choose to buy the same kind of ground beef, less expensive and less fatty, that they have been buying for the last 20 years.)

This is just another version of the Alar scare back in the 1980s.  Here is a summary from the Chicago Tribune from shortly afterward.  “60 Minutes aired a segment publicizing claims that 6,000 preschoolers may eventually get cancer from residues of the pesticide in apples and apple juice.”  Meryl Streep, whose food-safety expertise was apparently unquestioned, testified before Congress and spread the news on TV talk shows.  “The stampede was on. Schools yanked apples off their menus; parents threw out their apple juice. The EPA began the process of banning alar.”  Apple farmers lost millions and the maker stopped selling it.  “Will Americans be safer? Probably not.”

This is another aspect of the danger I warned about last time, that technology is out-pacing our ability to cope.  We are so much more interconnected than in the 1980s that these have become regular occurrences.  Someone comes out with a food safety scare – often from foodie blogs and websites – and the kneejerk reactions begin, first by a few on the Internet, then by a host of followers who gasp and sign petitions, then by the manufacturers and retailers who fear losing sales based on the hysteria.  People lose jobs, and our options become more and more limited. We are slowly squeezed into a box defined by the publicity hounds, fanatics and frightened mothers.  We end up no safer and the economy suffers when resources are dedicated to non-value-added activities.

Fortunately, there may be hope. “Dakota Dunes-based Beef Products Inc. sued the television network in 2012, saying ABC's coverage misled consumers into believing the product is unsafe and led to the closures of three plants and layoffs of roughly 700 workers. The reports emphasized that the product at the time was present in 70 percent of the ground beef sold in supermarkets, but wasn't labeled.”  The trial begins in July.