Flashback – Plastic Straws

I originally called this one "How Much We Take On Faith." At the time it was clear that many information sources are not reliable, a notion reconfirmed by many experiences since then. Politicians, advocates and pundits confidently make assertions to support their agendas. We can never tell what is true, what is pure fantasy, or how much is just so much hot air. 

 

Plastic straw mandates are examples of many symbolic acts. Using bad data or no data, authorities try to fool us, and probably themselves, into believing that they are really making a difference. They want to appear caring about all the right things, then garner enough support to pass laws and regulations forcing everyone to comply.

 

Here is the piece from 2018.

[The other day I got into a discussion with a colleague about plastic, which led to a comment about the amount of plastic in the ocean and what a problem it is. My response that only about 1% of the ocean plastic comes from the United States was met with stares of disbelief. Instead of arguing the point with someone who firmly believed the opposite, I offered to send references. The next day I emailed an explanation of the situation from a number of reputable sources.

From National Geographic in a story about the large accumulation of waste in the Pacific: "Microplastics make up 94 percent of an estimated 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic in the patch. But that only amounts to eight percent of the total tonnage. As it turns out, of the 79,000 metric tons of plastic in the patch, most of it is abandoned fishing gear—not plastic bottles or packaging drawing headlines today."

My next stop was a Bloomberg article with a sub headline of: “Skipping straws may be hip. But there are much better ways to fight pollution.” They first point out that the original estimate, the one activists and news media cite with confidence, that Americans use 500 million straws per day is based on highly dubious data that came from a small survey by a nine-year-old for a grade school science project. Then it was spread without any attempt to verify it by those who wanted to emphasize the problem. "Similarly, two Australian scientists estimate that there are up to 8.3 billion plastic straws scattered on global coastlines. Yet even if all those straws were suddenly washed into the sea, they'd account for about .03 percent of the 8 million metric tons of plastics estimated to enter the oceans in a given year.” So what we have been told about straws being the problem is a gross exaggeration.

A Science report on marine pollution verifies exactly what I was saying with a table on their site,  Table 1 titled: “Waste estimates for 2010 for the top 20 countries ranked by mass of mismanaged plastic waste (in units of millions of metric tons per year).” The US is listed at the bottom of the table with a contribution of .09% – less than one percent. That same information is repeated in pie charts on other sites.

So all this fuss about banning straws is bogus. It is a feel-good exercise that grows because so few people take the time to do the research. Ocean pollution is a problem, but the advocates and politicians are misinformed and are passing along that poor information to the rest of us – and we are buying it.

This and many other trends and movements have become their own religions. They depend on blind faith. The preachers stand up and confidently make ignorant and absurd allegations about chemicals, food safety, pollution, economics and a host of other subjects. The general population takes it on faith, chanting “amen” in all the right places. This leads to poor policies and results in those responsible for poor policies being reelected on the basis of making their followers feel good about themselves, about how pure they are, about how caring they are. It’s much more about ego and self esteem than science or actually saving the planet.

In reality these policies deliver little or no benefit and may have unknown side effects or unforeseen consequences. They are at best a waste of time. Critical thinking is the answer, but no one wants to deal with facts or reality.] Feeling good is more important.

What’s All the Fuss about CBD?

As I was walking through the local mall, I had to steer around a large sign in front of the GNC store. It read: “CBD Products Available.” It did nothing to raise my opinion of GNC, which I consider to be the epitome of junk science, but I thought I should do some research to make sure my eye rolling was justified.

Cannabidiol (CBD) oil is an extract from industrial-grade hemp or the marijuana plant. It does not have the effect of getting the user “high” as the THC in marijuana does. It recently surged onto the market with a wide variety of health claims. What are the facts?

There is so much information, but it has to be sorted careful, as much of it is pure advertising, telling the stories of miracle cures. Many promises are unreliable to the point that in September the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ordered three companies to stop making claims that they: relieve pain better than opioid painkillers and that they treat cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis (MS), fibromyalgia, cigarette addiction, colitis, autism, anorexia, bipolar disorder, PTSD, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, Lou Gehrig’s Disease (ALS), stroke, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, traumatic brain injuries, diabetes, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and AIDS – while using the words miracle and magic to describe the effects. The following month both the FTC and FDA warned a Florida company marketing CBD products about making similar unsubstantiated claims. (These were only the ones that were caught.)

Stepping aside from the hype, Science News published a story earlier this year that is a little more down to earth. “A gaping chasm separates the surging CBD market and the scientific evidence backing it. While there are reasons to be excited about CBD, the science just isn’t there yet.” Trials are underway, but “much of the existing research was done with cells in the lab or in lab animals, with results that don’t necessarily translate to people.”

The next stop was a WebMD article, “CBD Oil: All the Rage, But Is It Safe & Effective?” They remind readers, “experts say the evidence is scant for most of these touted benefits” and it is being sold as a supplement, “produced without any regulation, resulting in products that vary widely in quality.” So far “only one purported use for cannabidiol, to treat epilepsy, has significant scientific evidence supporting it.”

CBS recognized the quality problem in this piece from about three months ago with the warning that “without wide federal oversight, there is no way of really knowing what's inside CBD [products].” They commissioned lab tests of samples from all over the country and found no harmful chemicals but significant differences between the amount of CBD on the label and actual contents making proper dosage a big problem. In addition, “cannabinoids do interact with prescription drugs. But because we lack reliable controlled trials, we don't have enough detail to understand all the interactions.”

The same viewpoint comes from Harvard Medical School. “Without sufficient high-quality evidence in human studies we can’t pinpoint effective doses, and because CBD is currently mostly available as an unregulated supplement, it’s difficult to know exactly what you are getting.” The JAMA network notes that in studies to date "evidence of effectiveness was scarce," and that a California testing company found 85% of samples inaccurately labelled.

This Slate article makes the point clearly. As more and more products, from foods and beverages to creams and lotions, have CBD added “CBD is in everything, but it hasn’t been proven to do much of anything." Despite this, it is forecast to become a $22 billion industry by 2024.

In summary, with no scientific evidence of health benefits outside of the treatment of epilepsy, CBD oil has become all the rage with companies adding it to all sorts of products and selling it as a miracle cure. Some companies have crossed the legal line with their claims, but those that are more careful can easily imply that it’s curative powers are enormous without coming right out and saying it. Instead they rely on endorsements from beneficiaries of the placebo effect, as do many of the other supplements on the market. (In other words, my eye rolling was justified.)

Flashback - Ignoring The Facts

[This one comes from January 2012 and is still one of my favorites. People, who are involved in a test that proves that a $30 item is not effective, continue to insist on buying one. Note, they didn't just hear on TV or read on the internet that the item is bogus - they were actually involved in testing it and shown the results. It didn't work as advertised, but they still wanted one regardless of what their eyes were telling them because of all the hype they had heard elsewhere! Being swayed by marketing promotions and celebrity endorsements is not wise behavior.]

While looking for a different article on the Placebo Effect, I found this interesting video. As you know, the Placebo Effect causes people to recover or show improvement even when they are given only a fake remedy, the familiar sugar pill. The power of the mind is amazing.

I recall an article a number of years ago stating that the improvement within the control groups in certain drug studies increased as the power of the real medicines increased. They were getting the sugar pill but believed they were getting the latest, stronger medicine, so they experienced even better results. It was all psychological. It is easy to understand how this reaction could play into the hands of "snake oil" salesmen. They sell you a useless cure and let your mind do the rest. Then they get a few believers who help them sell more. That's why I always say, "Endorsements are not evidence."

Here is the  CBS News video testing the claims of a particular performance wristband, one endorsed by famous athletes, and touted to improve athletic performance. When test subjects were given the advertised wristband, their performance on physical and balance tests did improve. But when they were given a one-dollar replacement band and told it also was special, performance on physical and balance tests improved comparably. The video also explains how the bracelet company sets up tests to ensure the perception of improved performance.

The scariest part is the ending where, despite the fact that the $30-wristband claims had been debunked, shown to be no more effective than the $1 bands or even not wearing a wristband at all, the participants still wanted one!

This is not critical thinking! This is the kind of decision-making that leads people to spend money on worthless items instead of using it wisely. Then they wonder why they get into debt and can't afford to retire. It's the kind of thinking that leads us to vote for candidates based on endorsements or personal appearance or charisma instead of the leadership and ideas we need. It's the kind of thinking that contributes to the decline of America!

It Doesn’t Take Much

A number of weeks ago, one of my loyal readers sent me an email with this excerpt of an article on homeopathy saying I might find it interesting. 

“Something like 5 million adults and 1 million children use homeopathy, remedies that, in fact, contain no discernible amounts of the active ingredients…. Analysts project that the global market for homeopathic treatments will rise 12.5 percent by 2023, and already it’s a $1.2 billion industry. People are beginning to feel cheated: a nonprofit suing Walmart and CVS for hawking such snake oil conducted a survey that found 41 percent of people feel negatively about homeopathy when they learn about the pseudoscience behind it.”

I did find it interesting. I was familiar with the lawsuit mentioned and had referred to it earlier. But this time what struck me was the data from the survey. If 41% are willing to change their minds (and feel cheated) when presented with the fact that there is no science behind homeopathy, that means 59% were unmoved even in the face of good evidence. They were that strongly committed to their opinions. From a critical thinking standpoint, this is very disturbing. Why look for evidence just to ignore it?

My reader thought that those 59% were in trouble, but I responded that we are all in trouble. When more than a majority hold any particular opinion, it is so easy for that to become policy. Cowardly politicians, primarily interested in job security, will go along with any crazy idea.

This phenomenon is not limited to homeopathy or alternative medicine. When I looked through articles on the Post Truth Culture and ignored those that spin the erroneous notion that it began with the Trump presidency, I found this interesting opinion piece arguing that the source lies in the ideas of individual freedom and the trend toward personalizing every experience: especially things like clothing, entertainment and tattoos.

“If you take this culture of hyper-individualism to its extreme, one might come to believe that we have the right to believe whatever we want, to – even if those beliefs are immediately provably untrue… Freedom to believe in one's own, individual universe; freedom to pick and choose facts, and discard those that are disagreeable.”

So we continue to see headlines like this one from last month: “Kindergarten Vax Exemption Rates Up – Again.” The science doesn't matter when people can personalize reality.

Likewise in politics, some recent research shows that “party identification bests ideological identification. And most people will stick with their party long after they’ve abandoned their ideology.”

Critical thinkers would work out their ideological beliefs first and then support the party or candidate that best fits them. They would begin by deciding where they stand on issues before committing.

“The truth, it seems, is closer to the reverse: We choose our party for a variety of reasons – chief among them being the preferences of our family members, core groups, and community – and then we sign on to their platforms.” 

What’s even scarier than this total disregard for information and facts by vast numbers of people is that it takes only a few people, not close to a majority, or a few incidents to incite calls for new laws or even mob action.

In one example, in response to the death of an Indiana woman from strangulation by her pet boa constrictor, the Humane Society of the United States called for legislative action. The news item tells, “at least eighteen people have died from large constrictor snake related incidents in the United States since 1978 – 13 of those since 1990. If less than one death every two years calls for a new law, what of the 350 children who drown in swimming pools each year? 

Another is the legal battle between Oberlin College and a local bakery featured on CBS Sunday Morning. A shoplifting incident by an African American student led to protests and accusations of discrimination and white supremacy, resulting in a substantial loss of business for a local family-owned store. All it took was a few activists using social media to spread a slanted story.

There are so many other examples where a minor action, incident or comment gets people up in arms, demanding changes, revenge or satisfaction, often based not on the facts or intention, but on the firm beliefs of the group. No amount or logic, reason or science will persuade them to change their minds.

Green Schools - A Questionable Investment

This rather long USA Today article is worth reading.  It tells of a review of green schools, those that were built to meet standards set by the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), an organization that promotes and certifies green construction for not only schools but other commercial and government buildings.  Green construction is promoted by school boards and by governments at  all levels.  “[T]housands of commercial developers have won state and local tax breaks, grants, expedited permitting and waivers from development laws for LEED-certified buildings. More than 200 states, federal agencies and municipalities require LEED certification for public buildings.”

School districts that paid higher construction costs for LEED-certified buildings in return for promised energy savings and better student performance found that they fell short in both categories.  They were told going in that the improved environment would lead to both future utility savings and better learning and teacher success, but “a USA TODAY review of school-test records, LEED-certification documents and research reports shows little correlation between 'green schools' and student performance or energy use.”  Often they made the investment but did not get near the expected return.

This is another strong case for critical thinking, asking for evidence over promises, that is lacking in America today.  We have developed a kind of fairytale mentality that everything will be grand because our intentions are noble and our hearts are in the right place.  People are lured by feel-good words that entice them into making instant value judgments without evidence, words like green, sustainable, all-natural, justice and fairness, holistic, anti-oxidants, probiotics, diversity, and others.  They hear the word and automatically expect better outcomes.  It causes them to show an irrational preference for such things as natural/organic foods, dietary supplements, bottled water, complimentary medicine, and now construction techniques, that promise much, but often fail to deliver and usually are more expensive.  Even when faced with strong evidence of this failure, the hype wins out over reality.

Many years ago a scheme to sell more of a product (or service) was to label it in bold letters as “New and Improved.”  Eventually consumers realized that changes were often minor as was any improvement in performance.  Now the approach is the same but the words have changed.  A critical thinking America must begin to demand more than just promises.  Otherwise we will continue to be duped, wasting time, energy and money for little or nothing in return.