MSG and Elections

Throughout the years under a number of different topics, I have made the point that people tend to strongly hold onto ideas, whether they are true or false. They may have heard them repeatedly, heard them from an authoritative source or just liked the idea because it reinforced their favorite biases. In any case, ideas tend to stick.

 

Just a few weeks ago I reran a flashback about the misconception that electric power lines are health hazards. This idea was passed around by the news media back in the 1980s based on flimsy evidence. The idea stuck despite it being firmly disproved within ten years. People still believe it today.

 

In "More Secrets to a Longer Life" on September 28, I discussed the myth that vitamin C reduces the duration and intensity of a head cold. Companies take advantage of this decades-long misconception, making money by offering vitamin C in several forms. I also made reference to other persistent misconceptions: the power of cranberry juice to treat urinary problems; that cutting back on fat is the key to a healthier lifestyle; and the exaggerated benefits of antioxidants.

In light of that, I read some interesting information about monosodium glutamate (MSG) in Bill Bryson’s book, The Body. Here is part of the first paragraph on page 106:

MSG has had a hard time of it in the West since1968 when The New England Journal of Medicine published a letter – not an article or a study, but simply a letter – from a doctor noting that he sometimes felt vaguely unwell after eating in Chinese restaurants and wondered if it was the MSG added to the food that was responsible. The headline on the letter was “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome,” and from this small beginning it became fixed in people’s minds that MSG was a kind of toxin. In fact, it isn’t.

Further investigation bears this out. From the MSG Fact Sheet: “The scientific research supporting the safety and benefits of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is extensive.”

Another source, the Healthline website states, “While some people assert that the glutamate from MSG can act as an excitotoxin, leading to the destruction of nerve cells, no human studies support this.”

After discussing common complaints, the Mayo Clinic summarizes, “However, researchers have found no definitive evidence of a link between MSG and these [reported] symptoms.”

 

There is no scientific or medical evidence, yet people still report symptoms because they heard it and believe it.

 

What does this have to do with elections? 

 

If you can expose voters to enough misrepresentations, quotations taken out of context, made up stories and unfounded accusations against an opponent and get them to buy it, why not say them over and over and arrange for others to repeat them? Most people don’t do the research/critical thinking; they hear it and it sticks, especially if their mind is already made up. (Right now people on each side are thinking I am talking only about lies spread by the other side!)

 

Politicians and biased news organizations (aren't they all?) do it because it works. And the tactic continues to get more intense. The underlying cause is that voters let them get away with it. They get so stirred up by the "news" that doing cool, critical thinking becomes more difficult than usual, and every new lie stirs them up more. 

 

It reminds me of a casual definition to explain differences in drama: comedy is when the protagonists get what they want; tragedy is when they get what they deserve. By passively following along, buying all of the drama served up by politicians, the media and partisans on social media instead of critically challenging the talking points; Americans will continue to get the leaders and the government they deserve. And it will be a tragedy.

Who Will Tell Us the Truth?

When a large number of people are convinced that certain incorrect facts are true, it is not in the interest of politicians or advertisers to try to talk them out of it. If many people thought the sky was green, Congress would likely pass a resolution praising the greenness of the sky in an effort to garner support. 

When the food industry learns that many people believe that gluten has negative effects, they begin printing labels touting the lack of gluten in their products or take the gluten out while raising the price. They will reinforce errors for votes or sales with no interest in education, while the myths are spread and supported by the news media and social media contacts.

I have written many times before about misunderstandings around the health benefits of dietary supplements, the dangers of GMOs and an irrational fear of everything from power lines to nuclear power plants. All these misconceptions have a cult-like following. 

Likewise, as crime statistics continue to improve, the news media’s search for more and more isolated incidents to report with breathless anxiety leads people to the opposite conclusion. Fear sells. (This is very apparent from the coverage of the coronavirus where they search out and report as typical, anecdotal examples of flaws in the system then ask the President what he is doing to quell the anxiety and comfort the fearful.)

Now here are a few more examples where commonly held beliefs are inconsistent with the facts. 

The first is a campaign trail mantra: the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer. This is clearly not the case. Income is tracked in quintiles, five groupings from lowest to highest. Between 1979 and 2015, real income for all quintiles has increased. 

The Congressional Budget Office reported that, adjusted for inflation, taxes, welfare payments and Social Security, the income of the bottom 1/5 rose by 79%, while the top 1/5 rose by 103% and the middle 3/5 by 46%. There may be more inequality, but the poor are not getting poorer. Furthermore, research shows that the population in each of those segments is less stable than most believe. Individuals freely move up and down, so some of the formerly poor are much better off.

The second case has led to draconian laws in every state ruining the lives of individuals and their families, sometimes with threats of violence and death from incensed vigilantes. Laws require every sex offender to be named on the same registry regardless of the seriousness of their offense. 

The idea is to protect the public, especially children, from these monsters who are likely to strike again without notice. But reliable research shows that people who commit sex crimes are very unlikely to repeat. And a study in New York showed that 95% of those arrested were first offenders – who would not have been on a registry in the first place. 

Finally, is vaping is as bad as smoking? Johns Hopkins says that it’s less harmful than smoking but not completely safe. Most cases of lung injury (EVALI) “appear to predominantly affect people who modify their vaping devices or use black market modified e-liquids.”

The CDC opinion is that “E-cigarettes have the potential to benefit adult smokers who are not pregnant if used as a complete substitute for regular cigarettes....”

The majority of cases of EVALI are strongly associated with Vitamin E acetate added to THC. Vitamin E acetate has not been found in the lung fluid of people that do not have EVALI. 

 Although it’s not legal to sell e-cigarettes to minors since August 2016, and the federal government has just banned flavored e-cigarettes to try to discourage kids from getting hooked, kids have always been able to get cigarettes. Despite new laws, the country is stressing over a teen vaping epidemic. The result of these bans will likely increase EVALI cases as adults and kids that still want the flavors will be shopping on the black market where the real danger comes from. Meanwhile, everyone feels virtuous about leading the fight against another vice and protecting our kids.

It is so easy for people to get extremely upset about invisible threats, e.g., diseases and radiation or threats to our children like abductions or school shootings or rape culture on campus or differences that play to our sense of social justice. When this kind of artificial hysteria takes hold, no one stops to ask: what is the real danger; where did they get the numbers; who conducted the study; was there a study at all or did someone make it up to support their own agenda, job security or beliefs? 

The government reacts with stupid, purely symbolic actions like banning plastic straws. Advertisers print labels or adjust products to meet a demand generated by information with no scientific backing. Myths and misinformation distract from solving real problems. All for lack of critical thinking.

Diet Soda Still Under Attack

People using social media too often read headlines and don’t look at the rest of the story or, perish the thought, do a little research to find out the truth. We see articles posted where an event happened in another country but the comments read as if it happened right next door. (I highlighted an example of some of the dangers of this kind of behavior, blindly reposting stuff, earlier this month.)

That is why I wasn’t surprised to run across another condemnation of diet soda being spread on Facebook a few weeks ago when the original news story came out last February 14. (Does the American Heart Association (AHA) always release a story on Valentine’s Day or was that just a coincidence?) This story presented a good example of how a headline can be very misleading, and how 15 minutes of research leads to a different conclusion.

Multiple news outlets reported it, but the Fortune headline was typical: “Drinking Two or More Diet Sodas a Day Increases Likelihood of Strokes, Heart-Attacks, American Heart Association Says.” Although they have been seen as a healthier alternative to sugary drinks, the study shows that “immoderate drinking of the low-calorie drinks is associated with a greater risk of strokes or heart attacks.” 

They go on to say that over 82,000 women participated, which is a very large sample, but it means the findings can apply only to women. Furthermore, and not mentioned in the Fortune article, they were post-menopausal women between the ages of 50 and 79.

Part of the findings correctly reported was that the women “who drank two or more artificially sweetened drinks had a 23% higher risk of strokes in general.”

A more thorough report came from Science Daily. They also report the 23% figure, but add near the beginning of the piece an important reminder for non-statisticians. “While this study identifies an association between diet drinks and stroke, it does not prove cause and effect because it was an observational study based on self-reported information about diet drink consumption.” Also researchers can determine no mechanism by which the ingredients in diet drinks could cause the associated ailments.

A further question arises: How bad is a 23% increase in risk? That depends not on the size of the sample, but on the size of the risk. If, for example, the overall risk of something bad happening is 60%, a 23% increase brings the risk up to almost 75% - a big difference. On the other hand, if the risk is small, say 2% such an increase brings the risk to less than 2.5%. Without specifying the original size of the risk, the unanswered question is: how much behavior should I change to try to avoid it?

The percentage increase says nothing about the real size of the increased risk. To find out how serious it was I went to the AHA Journal article cited in those news stories. I found the data in Table 2 of the study.

The data showed that the risk of a stroke over the twelve years of follow up was about 3% for the group that drank almost no diet drinks and 3.7% for those who regularly drank two or more. Remember, this very small risk applies only to post-menopausal women. And also mentioned in the conclusion of the AHA study, those women in the higher-risk group “were more likely to be obese, had lower levels of exercise, had … lower diet quality… [and] were more likely to be a current smoker.”

A different study with a smaller sample asking the same question was published two years earlier by Harvard Health. It concluded that the risk from diet soft drinks is small. They also referred to a larger study that “detected a slightly higher risk of stroke in people who drank more than one soda per day, regardless of whether it contained sugar or an artificial sweetener.” (That flies in the face of the aspartame urban myth that won't seem to go away.) And agreeing with the conclusion in the AHA study, for people drinking diet sodas, “heightened stroke risk may result from their health problems rather than their beverage choice.”

An honest headline should have read: "Postmenopausal women who drink two or more diet drinks a day seem to have a slightly higher risk of strokes but what they drink might have nothing at all to do with it" - not exactly click-bait.

It takes just a little critical thinking and research to uncover the misrepresentations in so many headlines. If you don’t care enough about the issue to do the research, ignore the headlines. If you do, don’t repost them on social media until you've looked into the matter.

GMO Green Beans?

On a weekly shopping trip we picked up some whole green beans, a favorite at our house. As she opened them later, my wife commented that they were labeled as Non-GMO. The GMO labeling is a subject of mockery in the family – as is gluten-free, natural, organic and a number of other scientifically meaningless qualifications when it comes to healthy eating for most people.

The first thing I wondered was whether anyone was selling genetically modified green beans. This was not an idle thought. I have previously written about orange juice and tomatoes labeled as non-GMO when, in fact, it is impossible to buy the modified version of either.

I looked up “GMO green beans” and discovered this website which answers the question directly saying, “To date, no GMO green beans have been commercialized.” They go on to say that researchers in Brazil are trying to get approval to work on it. Until then, “breeders of green beans in many world areas are also applying traditional plant breeding methodologies to develop new varieties with better combinations of characteristics…to improve yield, eating quality, and resistance to fungal, bacterial and viral diseases…to enhance the green beans grown and eaten by people, as a component of nutritious and healthful diets.” They are using the slow, old-fashioned method of modification that no one is afraid of.

Because that site seemed to be in favor of GMO technology, I continue to look for more evidence from a source on the other side. The Seattle Organic Restaurants site lists the “Top 20 Foods and Products that have been Genetically Modified.” Green beans are not on the list.

A site called superfoodly asks: "Are Canned Beans Healthy? Here’s The Biggest Safety Danger.” GMOs are not mentioned. The biggest danger according to them is BPA in the packaging. But as they report on it, they admit, “what the science suggests about it doesn’t appear to match the risk perceived by the public.” What is believed to be the number one danger turns out to be a case of ignorance. “Even when rats were fed up to 70,000 times the concentration of BPA that the typical American eats, they didn’t experience a change in hormone levels, weight, or reproductive orders.”

How does Delmonte respond to the challenge? Their website states, “The FDA, USDA, World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association have concluded that products containing genetically engineered ingredients are safe. Even though there are no health risks (allergens or negative nutrients) associated with GMOs, we decided to provide information about GMOs in our products to consumers so that they can make informed choices.” Apparently the informed choice is whether or not to avoid something that has been deemed safe. That makes no sense except by understanding that the job of Delmonte is to sell beans and other food, not to educate the public; and they can certainly sell more by appealing to unwarranted fears of GMOs stirred up by rumors and other misinformation, some of which is purposely disseminated by parties with a financial interest.

That explains why they take a similar stance on BPA. “Cans are lined with epoxy resins, of which BPA is a component…to make the plastic flexible so it completely covers the inside of the can. Based on extensive research, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and many other regulatory agencies around the world have concluded that BPA is safe to use in packaging.” But Delmonte goes on to proudly announce that they don’t use it anyway.

It doesn’t end there. The other side of the label at the top says, “With Natural Sea Salt,” just another phrase with implied (but not real) health benefits targeting superstitious food shoppers. 

The real motive for all these enticing myths displayed on the packaging may be to distract shoppers from the writing on the bottom of the label – 14.5 oz. on a can that used to be 16 oz. That’s the real deception – shrinking packaging with or without BPA raises the price.

This is not intended to pick on Delmonte, everyone does it. It’s easy selling fake benefits to the ignorant public, and it will persist as long as Americans continue to get their health and science information from celebrities, charlatans and social media.

Is Social Security Doomed?

This CNN article tells how Social Security is in big trouble – “Social Security won't be able to pay full benefits by 2035,” but there is more to learn here than the woes of the government-run retirement program.

It goes on to say that according to the latest annual report from trustees of the program, Social Security's trust funds will be empty by 2035. “The new projection doesn't mean retirees will no longer get checks in 16 years. But [unless Congress acts] the program will at that point only have enough revenue coming in to pay three-quarters of promised benefits through the end of 2093.” 

CNN rightly points out that “lawmakers have long punted on addressing Social Security problems, which would likely entail raising payroll taxes, curtailing benefits or some combination of both.” That is very true. There were articles and op-eds dating back to the mid-80s making this point only to be ignored by Congress. When anyone hints at changing Social Security, instead of working together to fix it, the opposite party tries, usually successfully, to use misinformation to terrorize voters with images of themselves or their parents starving on the streets.

This political "third rail" that is Social Security is not mentioned in the article, and here is where the story begins to go astray. The next two paragraphs read: 

“During the 2016 campaign, President Donald Trump said he wouldn't touch Social Security. He didn't believe he'd need to since his plan to boost economic growth to at least 4% would take care of Social Security's long-term solvency.

"The strong economy has not mitigated the entitlement's fiscal issues. And the federal government's deficit has grown, in part because of the 2017 Republican tax cuts.”

With no reference to the political sensitivity, they seem to blame the President for not taking a stronger stance. That he has a lot of company was omitted.

Earlier in the story they admit that the 2035 date is “one year later than last year's report projected.” So the strong economy may have had some impact on the situation. In fact, I wrote in 2016 that the trust fund projection was 15 years at that time. Now, 3 years later, it’s projected at 16 years. That’s a 4-year difference.

The strong economy has not solved the problem, but "mitigate" means to reduce or diminish. There is some strong evidence of such mitigation.

Why, in the same paragraph, jump from a discussion of Social Security problems to a critique of tax cuts? Those two are not related. Social Security is funded by a portion of the FICA tax that was not changed. 

They then return to the subject with, “Social Security's total cost is expected to exceed its total income in 2020…. This is two years later than projected in last year's report.” Again, in their own words, this sounds like some degree of mitigation.

The story then digresses to Medicare, which has even a worse funding problem. That change probably explains why a big picture of Senator Sanders is placed right below the headline about Social Security. There can be no other explanation. Senator Sanders has been mute on Social Security.

On the other hand, this MarketWatch story gives a much more objective treatment of the Social Security trustee report. It also says that “there would be sufficient income coming in to pay 80% of scheduled benefits” rather than three-quarters and does not try to associate the President or tax cuts with the problem.

The obvious lesson is that Social Security continues to be in trouble with little hope of a short-term fix but is a little better off than it was a few years ago. The second is that the various media outlets manage to blend in their political biases by tone, by choice of what to report and what to leave out, by adding unrelated side comments and by shading the facts. This is just a single example of a single media outlet, but it is no wonder so many people, including those collecting Social Security, have such a poor understanding of the program (and of so many other issues). Skepticism and critical thinking are our only defense.

To get the full story, enter Social Security in the search box in the upper right to read all previous posts with Social Security in the title.

Here Comes the Easter Bunny

In a couple of days the Easter Bunny will visit homes of young children across America delivering baskets of treats. According to this source, the origin of the Easter Bunny may be traced to “early pagan celebrations” of “springtime renewal of life and fertility as well as the goddess of dawn and spring, Eastre." Some of these celebrations and myths were adopted and modified by early missionaries to make it easier to win over converts.

Like Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny is soon relegated to the dustbin of childhood stories as kids grow up, mature and develop the ability to easily separate fantasy from reality, no matter how appealing and comforting those fantasies might be. Unfortunately, many of their parents persist in beliefs that are equally outlandish long after they have grown up. Somehow the will to believe is so strong that it defies reality.

I am reminded of this when I saw the recent Pew Research report on the number of Americans drawn to “New Age” beliefs, particularly that 41% of adults believe in psychics. Now, I’ve written about psychics before, giving examples of how their annual predictions are consistently wrong, how those who claim to have the psychic power have been discredited again and again, and how they have been convicted for defrauding people. But no matter how often someone explains the techniques of hot and cold readings, no matter how often psychics are embarrassed or proven wrong, the fantasy survives and believers continue to be swindled.

The latest attempt to dissuade believers (February 25) comes from this rather long (21-minute), but quite amusing video from John Oliver. The subtitle on YouTube is “Psychics may seem harmless and fun on TV, but they can make a lot of money by exploiting vulnerable people.” In fact, it’s a $2.2 billion industry. 

This video has had almost 7 million views, and you would think the word would get out. However, when you turn on daytime TV or use a search engine to find out more about psychic powers, people selling the idea that these powers are real overwhelmingly dominate the information posted. As is the case in most social media situations, misinformation overpowers the truth serving up enough credulous customers to keep about 100,000 self-employed psychics in business.

When magicians appear on the stage or on television, they describe what they do as illusions. They are admittedly lying to the audience, trying to fool everyone with misdirection and slight of hand. When the show is over, people go home understanding that it was all a trick but wondering how they did it – what mechanisms, mirrors, technology or fancy moves were involved? What didn’t I see?

When psychics appear, they expect everyone to believe that they can predict the future or can communicate with the dead. When the show is over, people go home, sometimes in shock or with renewed grief, thinking it was real. This is dishonest on the part of the performer and the height of gullibility on the part of the audience. They don’t try to figure out what tricks were involved. They believe!

That’s why magicians are so good at debunking psychics, but how many times will it take? And how will America survive when 4 out of 10 voters are so easily duped into believing in a notion no more real than the Easter Bunny. (Note: Politicians and the news media don’t call it illusion or misdirection either, although it sometimes is.)

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.

Fake News

Last week some real news came out about fake news.  A recent study at MIT using Twitter data from 2006 to 2017 found some surprising and somewhat shocking results – and should be of interest to anyone that believes critical thinking is not a necessary part of everyday life.  “False news reached more people than the truth; the top 1% of false news cascades diffused to between 1000 and 100,000 people, whereas the truth rarely diffused to more than 1000 people. Falsehood also diffused faster than the truth.”

The Washington Post reports:  “In a statistical model that kept variables like Twitter followers and account age equal, falsehoods were 70 percent more likely to be retweeted than the truth. The study authors hypothesized that falsehoods contain more novelty than truth.”  The theory is that new and different items are more interesting or amusing than the dull, boring truth so they spread faster and farther.

Some blame the proliferation of fake news on automated computer programs, “bots” that are built with the intention of spreading rumors or pushing certain stories to go viral.  But the MIT researchers also considered this and discounted the impact of such tactics.  “Using techniques to identify bots, they determined that software-run accounts spread falsehoods and truths equally. Put another way, only human activity could explain the preferential spread of false news.”

But this report is in a sense also misleading.  The headline read: “Fake news spreads ‘farther, faster, deeper’ than truth, study finds.”  But the original study carefully avoids calling it fake news because “the term has lost all connection to the actual veracity of the information presented, rendering it meaningless for use in academic classification. [The authors] have therefore explicitly avoided the term…and instead use the more objectively verifiable terms ‘true’ or ‘false’ news.”  They distinguished between true and false by looking for a consensus of fact-checking agencies.

Both MIT and the Washington Post see no easy solution to the spread of this false information.  Twitter, Facebook and the rest can’t and shouldn’t be expected to police the Internet.  Not only would this be an infringement on free speech but also an inordinate amount of power held by a few to define truth.

Furthermore, the study does not consider the overall failure to distinguish between news and opinion as well as the frequent attempts to disguise advertising as news.

So, as I have argued many times in the past, it’s left up to the individual ability and inclination to separate fact from fiction.  Though the study focused on fears of false news affecting elections, stock market swings and reactions to terror attacks, the dangers are closer to home and more within our personal control.

We continue to be challenged by outright false or unverified claims about health and wellbeing.  Despite advances in medical science, the presence and the reach of the “snake oil salesmen” is greater than ever.  Not only outright fraudulent products but also many so-called alternative and complementary products have no scientific basis and may be dangerous, yet many Americans are devoted to them.  A majority of Americans believe GMO foods are not safe, while most scientists strongly disagree.  The battles about chlorinated drinking water and vaccinations rage on in small segments of the population.  All these erroneous beliefs are reinforced by false stories reflecting firm opinions.  The physical and financial health of individuals and societies rise and fall on the ability to show strong behavior in the dimension of critical thinking.

As I wrote just a few weeks ago (and many other times), in this modern age as we are overwhelmed by half-truths, misrepresentations, misinterpretations and sloppy reporting; critical thinking, being skeptical and doing good research from reliable sources, is more urgently needed to protect your health and your wallet.

Deceptive Truth

Forget about fake news and alternative facts.  The truth can be used to deceive just as easily.  As Emily Dickenson wrote:

Tell the Truth but tell it slant –

Success in Circuit lies

This came to mind when I received the following graphic from a loyal reader forwarded from the local newspaper.

This is probably a true estimate of how many Americans (56%) believe their drinking water is unsafe.  It’s also true that they are mistaken in that belief.

According to the government Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):  “The United States has one of the safest water supplies in the world.  The EPA requires every municipality to test for the presence and levels of over 90 different contaminants in public drinking water and to provide an annual report to all customers.

Wikipedia adds that in 2016, “over 90 percent of the nation's community water systems were in compliance” with those EPA standards.

A Harvard site warns about polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), saying they “exceed federally recommended safety levels in public drinking-water supplies for 6 million people in the United States, according to a new study…”  But as a fraction of over 320 million people in the US, that’s less than 2%.

Instead of reassuring, the media emphasizes disasters and calamities about safe drinking water like this example from National Geographic.  But at the end of that article, after presenting the scary stuff,  they admit, "in spite of all the good reasons to be concerned about drinking water safety, resorting to bottles is not a sensible reflex."  Quoting their expert, an environmental scientist at Duke University, "People think bottled water is safer, but there is zero evidence that is true. The quality of water in city tap water is regulated far more closely than bottled water."

So municipalities spend billions of dollars annually so we can wash our clothes and dishes and take showers in water that’s safe to drink while the majority of Americans believe it’s toxic and spend billions more on bottled water.  This newspaper could have easily looked this up, but it’s not their job to educate.  It’s their job to sell newspapers, and scary “facts” sell better.

The next day I set a ketchup bottle on the table and saw (proudly displayed) on the label:  No High Fructose Corn Syrup, No GMO Ingredients.  Although these two statements are technically true, they are mainly intended to lure uninformed shoppers.

First, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) for some reason has gotten a bad reputation among food purists; but fructose, glucose and sucrose are all sugars.  This FDA website explains the tiny chemical difference between HFCS and sugar.  They conclude:  “We are not aware of any evidence…that there is a difference in safety between foods containing HFCS 42 or HFCS 55 and foods containing similar amounts of other nutritive sweeteners with approximately equal glucose and fructose content, such as sucrose, honey, or other traditional sweeteners.”

These facts of no chemical or health differences are backed up by other sources.  And even those that give reasons to avoid HFCS say it is no worse for us than sugar.

So it’s true, but slightly deceptive – the ketchup contains no HFCS; it contains sugar instead!

Second, the main ingredient in ketchup is tomato concentrate from tomatoes.  As I’ve written before, there are no GMO tomatoes!  Likewise, the label on the Non-GMO orange juice doesn’t mention that there are also no GMO oranges.  Non-GMO statements in both these cases are totally true – but meaningless – except to those incurious people who don’t care about real truth.

That brings us to a recent CBS story about a Facebook executive concerned that “the social media platform may be hurting American democracy” and that they were “too slow to recognize Russian interference in the 2016 election” intended to further divide society as the Russians weaponized information to sow discord.

How can anyone “weaponize” information?  It starts with Americans jumping to conclusions on the basis of popular opinion, weak evidence, information that reinforces their own biases and truths that “tell it slant.”  The distress here should not be over the negative aspects of Facebook or any other media but over a severe weakness in critical thinking, a skill in great demand as we cope with the every-increasing speed and breadth of dissemination coupled with a serious decrease in quality of information.  The problem is not with the Russian posters or the platform; it's with readers who don't question and research.