Paying Attention

It’s hard to use critical thinking unless you are paying close attention. Opinions and feelings try to slide by as facts; some things are brought to our attention and some glossed over or omitted. Questions go unanswered.

Here are a few changes and trends I noticed by paying attention and applying some perspective to note differences. Not all are necessarily bad or problematic, but as we let unimportant things slip by, we also allow the big issues to ride along.

Gradually the vocabulary for describing schools is changing. High schools now have campuses. In news reports the term is commonly used, even in cases where it’s a single building with an athletic field in back – these were formerly referred to simply as high schools. After spending four years being taught by educators, students may earn a high school degree. 

One news item recently reported that Chik-fil-A had moved into third place among quick-service restaurants, as another told us, “Chick-fil-A will become the first quick service restaurant to offer full meal kits.” Eating fast food is a bad habit; does calling it quick service instead of fast food make a difference in the nutritional value or is it just more marketing?

I’ve written before about how realtors have hijacked the word homes. They don’t sell houses anymore; they sell homes. It has gotten to the point where an architectural design formerly known as a townhouse, usually having a small footprint with multiple floors, is today referred to as a townhome. Google the term townhouse and you will see many ads for restaurants and bars. Google townhome and you will see real estate ads – more marketing.

 Health food stores got it right from the beginning.  They don’t really sell food, and much of it isn’t particularly healthful. In fact, it is unregulated and untested so some products can be dangerous without customers knowing. But they got the marketing angle down to the point where so many people put their critical thinking in neutral and believe otherwise.

Finally, the word alleged has somehow changed its nature or definition, or has just become a term thrown around to protect against any misrepresentation. So many times I have heard local news reporters saying something along these lines: “The man was allegedly charged with robbing a Village Pantry.” (Robbing Village Pantries in the wee hours is kind of a hobby for folks around here.) But he wasn’t allegedly charged; he was actually charged for allegedly doing the robbing.

Paying attention and using critical thinking is important. Words can be misused unintentionally, which is usually harmless. But they can also be used by advertisers, politicians and others to manipulate opinions. For example, referring to people who sneak into the country as immigrants is like referring to shoplifters as customers.

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!)

Behavior Does Have Consequences

Wise choices usually lead to favorable results. Poor choices or foolhardy behavior often leads to trouble. This is not rocket science, yet many people struggle to see the connection, despite the fact that we are surrounded by examples.

The standard example is that of the child touching a hot stove. The child receives immediate feedback, quickly jumps back and learns to avoid the situation in the future. It is an easy, and ordinarily harmless lesson. The first time may be a mistake or ignorance, but after that the child learns to be careful.

The harder lessons come from the actions that have delayed or unpredictable consequences. Teens (and adults) hear many warnings about the dangers of smoking, that it can shorten their lives by several years. Some heed the warnings. Others feel confident about ignoring the warnings because the consequences are so far in the future. They may also have heard of the rare cases of the centenarians who smoked or had other bad habits all their lives and are still going strong at 100 years of age. The lessons are delayed and uncertain, but the odds are strongly against a happy ending.

This came to mind when I heard about the incident before a Backstreet Boys concert at an outdoor pavilion at WinStar World Casino and Resort in Thackerville, Oklahoma. The weather forecasters warned of an incoming storm bringing high winds and rain. The news reported that as the storm hit, a tent collapsed, emergency crews arrived on the scene along with 10 ambulances, and paramedics carried people out on stretchers. They cancelled the show, apologized to their fans and promised to come back at a later date.

But the rest of the story goes like this: "All patrons in the area were asked to move and to seek shelter from the storm. However, about 150 patrons who were standing in line for the Backstreet Boys concert did not heed staff's warning... the storm hit and knocked over the concert entrance trusses with 70-80 mile an hour winds and heavy rain. 14 people were treated at the scene and then transported to local hospitals." (Emphasis added.)

As usual in these types of situations numerous unnamed heroes sprang into action to help the people in trouble. Of course the casino, performers and news media would never say anything so blunt as “behavior has consequences,” but it fits, at least for some. They did not heed the warning and ended up in the hospital.

The typical reaction is to ignore the behavior/consequences connection and to treat the injured as victims, even when they are victims of their own misjudgments.  For example, look at how juries have rewarded smokers (and their surviving relatives) in the past. 

That’s why the child learns the lesson and adults keep making foolish decisions.

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!

What We Think We Know For Sure

A few weeks ago my niece was in the mall talking on her phone to her mom, my sister. In the middle of the conversation, a man working there walked up and interrupted to tell her that it was a proven scientific fact that holding a cellular phone next to her head would cause brain cancer. She politely thanked him and continued her conversation.

In point of fact, there is no such proven science, and this has been known for many years. This government website states: “The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating…Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy.” They go on to cite findings from several organizations including the American Cancer Society, the FDA and the CDC. Those groups’ conclusions vary slightly between evidence not strong enough, no conclusive evidence and no relationship.

But people get these ideas stuck in their heads and swear by them. Even if you can quote the findings, backing them up with links and references, they will likely not change their minds. A couple of similar examples come from omega-3 fatty acids and dairy fat from milk and butter. Many believe the former is good for your heart, so gulp down the fish oil pills, and the latter causes heart problems. New research puts both these ideas in doubt.

From a recent Medical News Today article: “Studies have shown that those who consume fish regularly as part of a healthful, balanced diet are at a lower risk of heart problems. But the National Institutes of Health (NIH) explain that research is unclear as to whether these benefits come from fish or omega-3 in particular.” So no one knows if omega-3 itself has a positive effect, yet 20 million Americans buy supplements believing that they are doing the heart-healthy thing.

The HIH study reviewed 79 randomized trials with a total of over 112,000 subjects, which looked at the cardiovascular effects of taking omega-3 supplements. The supplements had "little or no effect" on death risk from any causes or on the risk of cardiovascular events, stroke, or irregular heartbeat. Eating walnuts or fortified products such as margarine "probably makes little or no difference.” Their overall conclusion – “Diet may help, but supplements do not.”

Of course advertisers take advantage of any misconception. They keep posting contains omega-3 on packages. If enough people believed in it and were influenced to buy, companies would add any substance endorsed by the current craze. (At least the superstitious American health enthusiasts don’t endanger elephants and rhinos like their Asian counterparts do.)

On the opposite side of the fence is the dairy industry. We have been misinformed for the last 60 years about the harmful effects of fat, told to avoid whole milk and butter. The theory was that fat eaten was absorbed into the blood and distributed around the body – wrong. The problem is sugar, but the fat-banners won the battle for the hearts and minds of the public and the politicians. 

Hence, average per capita annual milk consumption in America has dropped from 30 gallons in 1970s to 18 gallons today. This report tells of a new study of 2,907 adults that found “people with higher and lower levels of dairy fats in their blood had the same rate of death during a 22-year period.” They describe it as part of an “ongoing vindication process for saturated fats” like those found in milk, cheese, and butter. (Even 15 years ago the evidence was coming to light.) “The researchers concluded that dairy-fat consumption later in life does not significantly influence total mortality.’”

What do advertisers and food companies do in light of the facts that have been emerging over the last ten years? They play to the misinformed and to the conventional wisdom by developing (more expensive) milk from almonds, soybeans, cashews, hemp, rice, etc. to save the health-conscious from the dreaded “moo-juice.” They prominently display omega-3 (and other hyped-up additives) on their labels to give the impression of putting our health ahead of profits. It's left to the consumer to sort it out. Be skeptical, not gullible.

A Closer Look at Spending

Back in June I posted some graphs that I created based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.  The point was that the government seems to have the same problems with discipline as many citizens. Their appetite exceeds their resources. They spend for today often without distinguishing between wants and needs while pushing the consequences to the future - sometimes referred to as kicking the can down the road. 

A close look at the numbers shows that moderate austerity should have been fairly easy and that following a more conservative pace would have left the country in a much better position. 

Last time I posted this message on a Friday, and it ran over a weekend.  I thought the information was important enough to show again.

   

My source was the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis website: quarterly government expenditures and receipts, seasonally adjusted from 1^st Quarter 1990 to 1^st Quarter 2018.

The first graph shows government expenditures.  There is an apparent acceleration in spending shortly after 2001. The slope changes noticeably. 

The next graph shows that the increased spending was real and sustained.  By taking the average quarterly increase for the 1990 to 2000 and applying it to the rest of the data, I showed (in red) what would happen if the spending had increased at only the same percentage rate.  It's still an increase but not nearly as steep. (The blue shows actual spending from the above graph, so the apparent increase was real!)

That's the spending story.  Now see what happens when we add government receipts (overlaid in green). There was a budget surplus in the late 1990s and even with the tax cuts of 2001, there would have been another from 2006 to mid-2008, had the spending not gotten out of hand.  And again around the 2013 - 2015 time frame any deficit would have been minimal.

Just like that new car or vacation we can't really afford, the new government programs seem to be too tempting to pass up. It seems painless because borrowed money today doesn't have to be paid back until later. But as we know from our personal experience the consequences are just around the corner. Unfortunately the decision makers may be long gone when any government consequences arrive. It will be our children and grandchildren left to pay the bill.  This shows a lack of discipline, perspective and responsibility 

Food For Thought

Here are just a few items I have been wondering about.

A common excuse for bad behavior in politics and business is that someone else did it first or the other party started it. Doesn’t that ever strike you as the kind of response you would expect from a couple of third graders arguing on the playground? ("Did not!" – "Did too!" "He started it!") Don’t we deserve better from our leaders? Unfortunately in many cases, before the leaders can say it, their advocates on social media have already started looking for comparisons. Does the liking it and sharing it make us all more like third graders?

Has anyone ever seen something go viral that actually teaches people something or makes them think about an idea? I suppose the “stupid people tricks” might hint at teaching people not to try it at home (or anywhere else), but most of us don’t have to see someone else figuratively “crash and burn” to know what is dangerous. Those videos are obviously for entertainment value rather than instruction. Thinking is not something people do for fun, so we stick with the cute pets, fluffy wildlife, heartwarming stories and YouTubers selling us items we don’t need.

And speaking of entertainment value and oddities going viral – isn’t it interesting that the fad of encountering aliens from outer space, common in the 1950s, vivid descriptions of little green men with large eyes and foreheads, has disappeared? There are so many cell phones with cameras and so many people taking pictures of almost everything they see that if those space aliens were really among us, we would have been exposed to a boatload of selfies by now. I guess the search for intelligent life in the universe goes on – whoops, did I leave out the word “elsewhere”?

I have never thrown a plastic straw into the ocean and never intend to do so, so why can’t I use one? I have accidently dropped a plastic bottle and been thankful it was not made of glass. Once again, it’s not the plastic; it’s the behavior.

Finally, the fuss about the price of gas around the holidays seems to be mostly manufactured by the news media. It happened for Independence Day; expect to see it again for Labor Day. “The price of gas is 60 cents higher than a year ago, what are people going to do? Will anyone be able to afford to get away?”

The average mileage for a car/light truck in the US this year is about 25 mpg. A 60-cent-per-gallon increase adds $2.40 to a 100-mile trip. A 400-mile round trip for the weekend comes to less than ten extra dollars – less than two beers at any major league ballpark in the country or slightly more than a single movie ticket. Remember, that’s based on average mileage, so half the driving public is even less affected. But when they ignore the details and just target people’s emotional gut reaction, it sure makes a good story.