Medical Science

Everything is moving so fast. The media reports on new research, studies and discoveries daily. People are living longer, healthier lives due in part to medical advancements.

 

I expect that this endless parade of seemingly miracle cures drives people to look beyond medical science and put their faith in so many unproven remedies. Scientific-sounding sales pitches, ancient wisdom or endorsements by friends, relatives and celebrities lure them in. Then all it takes is a little placebo effect to convince them that they have made a great discovery, and they too spread the word. 

 

Americans throw away countless millions of dollars in pursuit of relief from their latest aches and pains. Here are a couple more examples from reliable sources.

 

The first is about acupuncture. Many people believe acupuncture is an effective and safe alternative to mainstream medicine. Safety is not really the issue here. In the category of complimentary and alternative medicine, most of the pills and procedures are safe because they don’t do anything. The question in this case is whether it works.

 

If acupuncture works, it seems reasonable to assume that acupuncture points really exist and that experts or experienced practitioners can find them. Otherwise it would be random needling, a technique that would fly in the face of a theory based on the existence of qi and its meridians accessible at particular acupuncture points.

 

Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies after looking at 14 separate studies found “’considerable variation’ in localization of acupoints among qualified medical acupuncturists.” They admit that accurate point location is a significant factor in effective treatment, but the various methods of finding them yield highly inconsistent results. 

Furthermore, my original source points out that the depth of the needles to access the point is not specified; and if the points were real, “wouldn’t they vary in location [from person to person] just as other anatomical structures” like blood vessels do? So many unanswered questions throw considerable doubt on the practice.

 

The second example concerns chiropractors charging thousand of dollars, not covered by insurance, for spinal decompression on a special device to alleviate back pain. One such device is “a mechanical table attached to Space Age-looking controls that its manufacturer claims can stretch the disks of the vertebrae.” (Medieval torture chambers had a similar table but without the space age-looking controls.) 

 

A group called Fair Warning, “based on review of lawsuits, scientific studies, government documents, chiropractic websites and interviews with experts, found that the claims of success for spinal decompression stretch the truth,” and that the treatment “has never been proven [to be effective] in scientifically rigorous studies.”

 

While Internet advertising and participating chiropractors rave about success, insurance companies describe the machines as experimental and investigative. While the promoters boast of success rates of 86% to 90%, investigators found their studies “lacked scientific rigor” and that “no definite conclusions could be drawn.”

 

A professor from Oregon Health and Science University and an expert on the subject of lower back pain says, “Eight in 10 people with back pain get better on their own.” The marginal difference with this machine, even if true, hardly seems like a good investment, especially since it has also resulted in serious injury.

 

Both cases are scientifically very dubious. Unfortunately, science means nothing to Americans unless it supports their preconceived notions. Climate change is real, based on science; but nuclear power is dangerous, based on emotion.

Note: To receive in your email a very informative free weekly newsletter on the latest health scams, sign up at this link.

One Last Time: Alternative Medicine

There are certain subjects that have come up time and again over the last 9 years. The main benefit of a behavioral approach is that so many seemingly diverse behaviors can be grouped into categories or dimensions to make sense of the consequences that arise from the resulting choices. 

About five weeks ago, in August, I wrapped up the subject of unfounded fears over GMOs with a One Last Time entry. Today the subject is the very broad area of alternative medicine, which I have described as magic pills and miracle cures. Just typing “magic pill” in the search box at the top left corner of the screen will reveal about 20 entries on this subject from vitamins to caffeinated underwear. In these and several other cases I pointed out the fallacies in their advertising and directed attention to the legally required disclaimer: “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease."

Recently, I found this informative site with an excellent summary.

First they list the various aliases used instead of alternative including: esoteric, complementary, holistic, integrative or natural medicine. It includes such a variety of treatments that “generally accepted definitions do not exist.” 

An incomplete list includes: acupuncture, anthroposophical medicine, applied kinesiology, aromatherapy, autologous blood therapy, Ayurvedic medicine, Bach flower remedies, bioresonance, chelation therapy, chiropractic, colonic irrigation, detox therapies, dietary supplements, energy healing, herbal medicine, homeopathy, iridology, Kampo medicine, macrobiotic, magnet therapy, mind-body therapies, music therapy, neural therapy, ozone therapy, reflexology, Reiki, shiatsu and Traditional Chinese Medicine. I have discussed many of these elsewhere, here and here, for example, but some I’ve never heard of. 

Since they have no scientific backing, how do they lure in customers? “The realm of EM (Esoteric Medicine) is riddled with fallacies which confuse patients and consumers and are used regularly to undermine critical thinking.” In other words, they trick people. The most prevalent and important of these fallacies from the site are summarized below.

The “appeal to popularity” or “appeal to authority” tries to substitute popularity or the opinion of respected people for scientific evidence. But “medicine is no popularity contest” and “even people of high standing make mistakes.”

The post hoc fallacy wrongly assumes “an event ‘X’ that is preceded by another event ‘Y’ must be caused by ‘Y’. If the rooster didn’t crow, the sun would not come up. If the child skipped vaccinations, he would not have autism. (No and no.) It is not true for individuals or for groups.

Many of these interventions rely on the placebo effect. Scientists are just beginning to understand the power of the mind to heal the body. This effect is present whether the medicine is real or not. Likewise, sometimes people just get better on their own. These alternative treatments take advantage of these facts to gather supporters and celebrity endorsements without bothering with scientific evidence.

Using an appeal to tradition, citing a long history is another fallacy, assuming that if it has passed the test of time, it must be effective and safe. This may be good reason to conduct research, and if the argument is valid, the results will be favorable. But long history is no substitute for evidence. Many treatments were applied in the past that would be unconscionable today. Contrary to some popular opinion, ancient Chinese is not a code for safe and effective.

The article gives a long explanation of why EM is unethical by medical standards. “Informed consent is rarely possible in the realm of EM.” Often there is not a professional diagnosis.

“Another fallacy holds that EM defies science or extends beyond the boundaries of science as it is currently understood. Therefore, proponents claim, it cannot be tested in the same way as one would test conventional treatments.” 

Finally, because it is natural, it is assumed to be harmless. “Nature is pictured as benign and natural remedies are therefore not just intrinsically superior but also safer.” This shows a limited viewpoint and a basic misunderstanding of nature. Hurricanes, tornados and blizzards are natural. No one would argue that tobacco is safe because it is natural. To be enamored with words like “natural” and “non-chemical” or the phrase “available without a prescription” is to succumb to deceptive advertising.

These tools are used to “mislead the public such that even the most extravagant absurdities of EM might appear more plausible. Collectively they help foster and perpetuate a culture of unreason that is essential for EM to thrive.”

Ads for a vast number of bogus alternative medical products and services have cropped up since the advent of the COVID-19, faster than the authorities can alert the public or warn the purveyors about their illegal activity. The best defense is: Don’t be a sucker!

The truth is there is no such thing as alternative medicine (no matter what name it goes by); there is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn’t work. All these tricks, alluring words and excuses do not change that fact. Lack of critical thinking in this area can lead to a waste of money, but worse, real harm to you or your family.

Another Health Scam

With the coronavirus leading every news broadcast, the networks have begun also to highlight the prevalence of false claims, fake cures and scams. To make the point that this is not new, CBS Sunday Morning (4/26) addressed the history of fake medicines and cure-alls, but was disappointingly vague on some of the current scams, ones people fall for every day, probably from fear of offending both promoters and viewers. They did, however, include a few comments from Dr. Stephen Barrett who pulls no punches in his criticism of modern scams.

In one of his latest investigations into junk medical science, Dr. Barrett addressed a process known as bioresonance hair testing. Practitioners use a device "based on the pseudoscience of radionics to analyze hair samples mailed in by customers" to "detect nutritional deficiencies; overexposure to heavy metals; and food and environmental intolerances” to serve as a “roadmap to better health.” He calls the practice preposterous, in that “hair analysis is not reliable for evaluating the nutritional status of individuals” as well as giving several other reasons why it doesn’t work.

An earlier article on the same subject he warned its use by “chiropractors, nutrition consultants, physicians who do chelation therapy, and other misguided practitioners who claim that hair analyses can help them diagnose a wide variety of health problems and can be used as the basis for prescribing supplements.” 

Since bioresonance is based on radionics, it gets even more “preposterous.” These theories supposedly rely on quantum entanglement, a central principle of quantum physics where information can be transmitted instantaneously at a distance apparently violating the speed of light. Quantum physics is arcane and incomprehensible to non-scientists, yet many questionable products use it to explain action at a distance to add a scientific-sounding aura to their sales pitch. But it's all bogus.

Then it gets more unrealistic. According to this site, “Radionics can be used for humans, animals and agriculture by means of radionic instruments which amplify and 'balance' the subtle energy field of the subject” by using “a photograph, hair snippet or other biological sample.” It works best with a good quality digital photograph because “the image stores the information of the subject and a digital file cannot be contaminated like a biological sample can,” and the light “creates a crystallization of the energy matrix of the subject.” 

Another site says, it’s “a method of healing and diagnosing at a distance using the unique extra-sensory faculties of the operator supported and amplified by a physical instrument, device, geometric pattern, energy or substance.” Since “every person's energy patterns, frequencies, signatures, vibrations or rhythms are as unique to them as their fingerprints,” they can easily detect and help correct any type of “illness, injury, infection, stress, pollution, malnutrition, or poor hygiene.”

In summary, “patients” send a full digital picture or some strands of hair. "Doctors,” using their powers of ESP, run it through their energy detection machine, make a diagnosis based on an individual energy matrix, vibrations and rhythms and recommend supplements to cure what ails them, all using the magic of quantum physics. Remember, the same technique applies to their pets or their houseplants – with a separate charge for each.

But that’s not all! In some cases, their house may be causing the problem due to the presence of “geopathic stress,” which messes with the occupants’ health. That, too, can be cured at a distance by sending a photograph and using the above technique.

This seems so outlandish that I can’t help wondering who would be taken in by it. Then I see the statement that radionics can be a “supplement to other complementary and Subtle Energy therapies especially Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Reiki,” and it all becomes clear.

CBS might mock citizens of the nineteenth century for buying Stanley’s snake oil concoctions or for making a millionaire of Albert Abrams (1864-1924), developer of devices that were the precursors of today’s radionics, but they needn’t look far to find twenty-first-century parallels.

Arthur C. Clark wrote, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic,” but come on, people! These scams are packaged as advanced technology and sold to people who want to believe in magic.

Opposing Views on Alternative Medicine

The Association to Protect the Sick of Pseudoscientific Therapies (APETP in Spanish) was formed by victims of those therapies along with scientists, doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, computer scientists, lawyers, and many other credentialed health professionals to fight against the rise of unproven alternative medical practices in Europe. They recently published a manifesto to “raise awareness in the media about the problem of pseudo-therapies and the position of the scientific community against them.”

They feel strongly about the dangers and deception of these practices. “More than 150 pseudo-therapies have been identified as being in use throughout Europe. Thousands of citizens’ lives depend on this being prevented. In fact, according to a recent research, 25.9 % of Europeans have used pseudo-therapies last year. In other words, 192 million patients have been deceived.”

They do not list all 150 in the manifesto, but summarize a few. “Homeopathy is the best known pseudo-therapy, but it is not the only one nor the most dangerous one. Others, such as acupuncture, reiki, German New Medicine, iridology, biomagnetism, orthomolecular therapy and many more are gaining ground.” They claim that these are not only unproven, but they distract patients from seeking professional help when desperately needed. They are calling for legislation in countries around the world to combat their spread. 

In the US, practitioners of these therapies are not allowed to advertise or otherwise imply that their products can “diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease or any other medical condition,” but the government has not considered consumer protection legislation. In fact, the FDA and other agencies are easier on these products and practices than they are on prescription medicine in terms of testing requirements for safety and efficacy.

Meanwhile, from halfway around the world comes another example of what that group is fighting against. 

In response to the Coronavirus outbreak and WHO’s warnings, a branch of the Indian government, the Ministry of AYUSH, issued an advisory based on traditional medicine.

The first part of the release gives the typical good advice on how to behave in this environment: maintain personal hygiene; wash hands frequently; drink enough water; avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth; avoid close contact with sick people; stay home when sick; cover your face if you cough or sneeze; and use a mask in public places.

But next they recommend “ways and means of prevention of Coronavirus infection through Homoeopathy” and use of a variety of Unani medicines for “symptomatic management of Coronavirus infection.” (This would be illegal in the US but it is government-sponsored in India.)

Unani medicine, not common in the West, is “a form of alternative medicine, which is based on the belief that the human body contains four humors, and that imbalance of these four humors is the cause of disease,…created by the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, which later spread to the Islamic empires...during the Middle Ages. While this belief has no scientific basis, contemporary adherents still try to propagate these beliefs as science.” [Source: Wikipedia]

 An editorial in the Times of India decried the government advisory: “When all the authorities including World Health Organization claim there is neither any vaccine nor any treatment for coronavirus, the government is promoting unproven therapies to lull people into a false sense of security that they can be safe if they consume such concoctions.” Dr. Misba Hul Bashier added on Twitter that “loads of patients developed acute liver and kidney failure due to alternative medicines.”

Of course, recommendation of useless or even dangerous steps driven by fear of the virus is not limited to the Indian government. A Canadian news story cites “quack remedies and vaccine conspiracies – a global deluge of misinformation” including a recommendation on Facebook to drink a household disinfectant and another source claiming that a saline solution, salty water, can cure it.

What can we do when misinformation abounds – petition the government for new regulations like the Europeans? Critical thinking would be a lot easier and less intrusive by trusting real evidence rather than endorsements and recommendations.

Ancient Chinese Folly

There is something fascinating about ideas that are ancient and Chinese. They are in the same category as all-natural, sustainable and organic. People take them on faith, feeling that research is unnecessary, while risking the loss of time and money; and sometimes putting themselves at risk.

Take acupuncture for example. I am always skeptical of treatments that boast a cure or relief from multiple conditions. Just one example is listed here. “Health benefits of acupuncture include relief from chronic pain, arthritis, anxiety, insomnia, depression, migraine, nausea, postoperative pain, and obesity.” 

This other website adds to the list: nausea, sciatica, sinus congestion, stress, tinnitus and tobacco addiction. But then they go on to describe several recent research results in not very glowing terms. In 2017 authors reported limited evidence that acupuncture is modestly effective for acute low back pain. A 2016 review of 22 previously published trials concluded that adding acupuncture to standard treatments for migraines “may reduce the frequency of episodes, however the size of the effect is small when compared to a sham acupuncture treatment.” A 2016 review of 12 trials found that it may help people with frequent tension headaches. And another analysis “it appeared to provide only short-term(up to 13 weeks) relief” for people with chronic knee pain.”

One puzzling comment was that after the treatment “some people feel relaxed (or even sleepy), while others feel energetic.” One treatment with opposite outcomes may indicate a strong placebo effect.

Not many sources list the side effects of acupuncture. Since it’s ancient and Chinese many will automatically assume that it is only beneficial. But the treatment “can cause serious adverse effects, such as infections, nerve and blood vessel injury, complications from needle breakage or remnant needle pieces, punctured organs, central nervous system or spinal cord injury, hemorrhage, and other organ and tissue injuries resulting in death. Punctured pleural membranes around the lungs can lead to collapsed lungs.”

A study from China in 2015 claiming acupuncture is effective for treating the symptoms of angina was published only a few weeks ago. It received a harsh critique based on the time delay, lack of studies replicating the result, failure to use a double-blind design, the subjective nature of the results and that all authors were affiliated with schools of acupuncture or Traditional Chinese Medicine.

A report from 2013 states that “after decades of research and more than 3000 trials, acupuncture researchers have failed to reject the null hypothesis, and any remaining possible specific effect from acupuncture is so tiny as to be clinically insignificant.” Since then as we see above, evidence of effectiveness continues to be weak.

I always wonder why so many people, who mock those that don’t agree with them on climate change as being as unscientific as flat-Earthers, unquestioningly put their faith in these treatments and cures, some even crazier and more dangerous than acupuncture.

The BBC reports on a case from the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada of a 62-year-old woman who, on the advise of her traditional Chinese doctor, sustained severe burns when she tried vaginal steaming in an attempt to avoid surgery for a prolapsed vagina. “Vaginal steaming, which involves sitting over a hot water and herb mix, has seen a growth in popularity” and is “now available at some salons and spas.”

The practice began to gain popularity in 2010 and has been endorsed by Gwyneth Paltrow as a detox and cleansing treatment – those two words alone should scare off clear thinking Americans. Last year Chrissy Teigen, who tweeted under a picture of herself trying it, “no I don’t think this works but it can’t hurt right?” No, wrong! Ask a doctor rather than a model or movie star and you will get the opposite answer on all claims.

Once again, lapses in critical thinking are so obvious. There is no such thing as alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn’t. In the war between science and fairy tales, the fairy tales are winning.

One More Time – The Placebo Effect

Way back in early 2012, I first brought up the placebo effect – the tendency of the body to heal itself when belief in the cure is strong. How it works is still a mystery but that it does work is indisputable.

The example I used over 6 years ago was a $30 performance wristband, one endorsed by famous athletes and touted to improve athletic performance. In a test people were given the advertised wristband and exposed to some physical performance and balance tests. The before and after results showed some improvement. Then they were given a similar-looking one-dollar replacement band and told it was also special, performance on physical and balance tests improved comparably. Conclusion: it wasn’t the band at all; it was the perception that they were getting some extra, outside help – mind over matter.

Since then I have mentioned the placebo effect in essays warning about vitamins, acupuncture, forest bathing, chiropractic, healing crystals, gluten-free diets, cryotherapy, homeopathy, ear candling, essential oils and a few other subjects. (Wow, that’s a lot of toes to step on in only six and a half years!)

The point is not to make people angry and defensive, but to make them aware of the difference between science and marketing, and how the placebo effect can lead to an erroneous conclusion that a treatment really works.

When a cure is proposed, competent scientists will split a relatively large group in two, randomly assigning one to test the treatment while giving the other a placebo. Both groups usually show some improvement due to the placebo effect. To validate the treatment however, the improvement of the treated group must be significantly better than that of the control group. Otherwise they declare the treatment “no better than a placebo,” that is, no better than no medicine at all.

The placebo effect explains many of the endorsements we hear from celebrities, friends and neighbors. They sincerely (and enthusiastically) believe whatever they are recommending has beneficial effects, but with no scientific evidence it may be “no better than a placebo.” When you buy one of these products, the money spent is money wasted. That’s why the small print in ads, where they explain how the FDA has not approved their magic formula, they often add something like “results will vary.”

That takes us to a health story from England where the BBC reported a pure placebo experiment. With help from University of Oxford, they tried to see if they could “cure real back pain with fake pills.”

One hundred people with severe back pain were asked to participate in a study of a powerful new painkiller. What they didn’t know is that everyone would be given realistic looking pills that were really placebos, “capsules containing nothing but ground rice.”

The blue-and-white-striped pills “came in bottles, carefully labeled, warning of potential side effects and sternly reminding patients to keep out of the hands of children” to further the impression that this was powerful stuff.

Three weeks later researchers found “nearly half of our volunteers reported a medically significant improvement in their back pain” and that those who spent a little more time with a doctor merely discussing the pills were more likely to improve. In one case, a man went off his morphine but continues to take the ground-rice pills.

Placebo effect is not a trick that works only on the gullible. Taking a placebo can cause the body to release endorphins, natural painkillers. And sometimes subjects improve even when they know they are taking a placebo.

But that doesn’t mean the gullible aren’t tricked. In the earlier case of wristbands, even after the people learned that there was no difference and the improvement in both cases was psychological, they still wanted to buy the $30-wristband over the equally effective $1 bands. It’s like when people think the same wine tastes better when the bottle has a higher price tag. 

It does no good to understand science when critical thinking fails to kick in.

Making Your Feet Happy

I recently ran across an ad for a product that will make your feet happy, make your legs happy, make your back happy, and let you throw away your pain meds and lead a stress-free life. All this from a simple shoe insert! It sounded too good to be true! Being a skeptic at heart, it also sounded to me like the work of a company that follows a philosophy often attributed to P.T. Barnum: “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Time to investigate.

My first stop was the company website which confined their promises to a short video and gave some FAQ-type information below about sizing, care, cleaning and the warrantee. It does mention feeling better with every step and healing from the inside out, whatever that means. And it has a free shipping countdown clock which reset at 2:30:00 every time I opened the site – not exactly a deadline.

The video tells how these insoles, using 400 massage points and special magnets, work a number of wonders including: relieving overall body pain, cooling and soothing the feet and boosting endurance. The second is the most plausible.

The video continues by telling how one feature is directed “toward the chakra of personal power,” another “toward the chakra of body function” and still another “toward the chakra of body energy.” None of this chakra stuff has any scientific basis.

Finally, they will balance your mind and body, reduce stress and naturally flush toxins, all by hitting the right pressure points and using magnets.

Another related site looks like a more scientific explanation of the same product, except none of it sounds like science. It explains that the insole wearers were inclined “to visit the bathroom more often and were thirstier. This is your body’s way of naturally cleansing toxins and eliminating them from your body!” True, visiting the potty is a natural way to eliminate toxins, but do you need shoe inserts to make it happen? Then they tell us, “Based on the theory of reflexology, magnets are believed to balance your body’s natural electromagnetic levels.”

Well, the theory of reflexology may think so, but the FDA differs. “To date, the FDA has not cleared for marketing any magnets promoted for medical uses.” And the National Center for Complimentary and Integrative Health, a group typically sympathetic to these kinds of claims, says, “Magnets have not been proven to work for any health-related purpose.”

After searching through various sites for about 15 minutes, I finally found what I was looking for, the expected standard disclaimer. Here is an abridged form:

“ALL CONTENT AND INFORMATION…ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE STRICTLY NOT INTENDED TO DIAGNOSE, TREAT, CURE OR PREVENT ANY DISEASE, FOOT PROBLEM OR ANY OTHER MEDICAL CONDITION. YOU SHOULD ALWAYS CONSULT WITH YOUR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER BEFORE USING OUR PRODUCT….

“Testimonials and comments found within our website are unverified results…which are…not intended to guarantee that everyone will achieve the exact same results.

“Our website content…is solely for informational purpose only…. We do not represent in any manner whatsoever that the content of our website contains the opinions of a healthcare professional.”

In summary, the shoe inserts will yield a large number of miraculous results from your head to your feet. You will have higher energy, less stress and all parts of your body will be happier – including your chakras! But if it doesn’t work for you, don’t blame the company.

But what about all those endorsements from satisfied customers? Can you say placebo effect?

A Few Ideas to Challenge Your Thinking

Last time I talked about how people today tend to live in their own “silos” or “echo chambers” with their own friends who stay friends by sharing the same thoughts and opinions.  When their beliefs are challenged, they turn inward looking for reasons to reject or ignore the new information or turn to their friends and like-minded news sources to relieve the tension.  The technical word for this psychological protection is confirmation bias.

Here are a few subjects to challenge widely held beliefs.  Test your reaction.

According to prevailing opinion, acupuncture is ancient and alternative, and therefore good.  News from Great Britain reminds us that acupuncture, like any treatment, should be able to prove its worth in well-designed clinical trials and everyday experience.  Medicine should never be judged on reputation alone or by individual testimonials.   The Guardian news tells us:  Acupuncture is no longer recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as a treatment for low back pain.  “The u-turn comes after a review of scientific evidence found that the practice was no better than a placebo in treating those living with low back pain and sciatica.”  After reviewing a large number of scientific trials for effectiveness, “there was still not compelling and consistent evidence of a treatment-specific effect for acupuncture.”  The National Health Service, the single payer healthcare in Britain, doesn’t want to pay for something that doesn’t work.

The Drug Abuse Resistance Education program (DARE) is used in nearly 80% of the school districts in the United States and in many other countries to discourage the use of alcohol and other drugs.  It’s important to know how effective it is.  The program is very popular and appealing.  It’s common to see it advertised on bumper stickers and promoted by schools and the media, but does it really work or is it a waste of time and money?  The news from alcoholfacts.org contradicts the conventional wisdom.  “Scientific evaluation studies have consistently shown that DARE is ineffective in reducing the use of alcohol and drugs and is sometimes even counterproductive -- worse than doing nothing. That's the conclusion of the U.S. General Accounting Office, 1 the U.S. Surgeon General, 2 the National Academy of Sciences, 3 and the U.S. Department of Education, 4 among many others. 5”  [Note:  I left their links in the quote for anyone who wants to delve deeper into specific sources.]

Locally grown is the new by-word for produce, despite problems Chipotle had last summer in a number of their locations.  We now have fresh vegetables in the grocery store year round, but that doesn’t seem to be good enough.  Some people are pushing for more locally grown produce claiming it’s fresher and better for you.  Fresher food generally tastes better and delivers more nutrients – that’s why I have a vegetable garden in the backyard every summer – but there is one fly in the ointment.  The assumption that the local food system is as efficient and better controlled than modern farming is wrong, as freakonmics.com reports.  “Today’s high crop yields and low costs reflect gains from specialization and trade, as well as scale and scope economies that would be forsaken under the food system that locavores endorse.”  Local food is harvested with less efficient methods and delivered in smaller volume leading to higher price – good for the middle class foodie who endorses the practice but another hurdle for the poor.  Those who believe commercial farming is wasteful and polluting, have never seen farm equipment guided by computer and GPS to deliver a shot of fertilizer in the precise quantity to the exact spot at the time required.  It’s fine to support the farmer’s market, but those who endorse moving as much of the system as possible to a local paradigm are trying to turn a personal preference into a requirement that would be a burden on others who are either not so interested or not so well off.

As mentioned last time, sometimes doing the right thing flies in the face of doing what feels like the right thing.  It takes courage to change your own mind and additional courage to challenge the fanatics who refuse to consider new arguments or facts.