More on Resolutions

Last time I recommended overcoming fear of the stock market and investing all the money that's basically thrown away on lottery tickets, because they are statistically a terrible deal, and on most nutritional supplements, because those that are not outright dangerous are usually ineffective.  The money saved and invested could easily reduce anxiety over future education and retirement costs (or even car repairs).  By thinking in terms of wants vs. needs individuals can easily come up with other sources of cash to set aside.  This is perspective, critical thinking and discipline rolled into one set of beneficial behaviors.

Now it’s time for the other side of the coin, a subject for a silly resolution motivated by hype and celebrity endorsements.  I refer to skinny wine.  As thedrinksbusiness.com puts it, “With around 20% of Americans on a diet, low-calorie wine brands are booming in the US, and particularly where celebrities are involved.”  The article was from 2013, but the subject seems to come up around this time every year.

Top brands include skinnygirl, introduced by chef, author and TV star Bethenny Frankel and then sold to Fortune Brands/Beam for $8.1 million, and The Skinny Vine promoted by Christine Avanti, celebrity nutritionist and author.  Since most dry wine has little sugar, these brands cut calories by reducing the alcohol content.  They contain 100 and 95 calories compared to 112 for a regular glass of wine for a savings per glass of 12 to 17 calories.

If true, that’s not much of a reduction.  One fruit and nut granola bar, which many people consider healthy eating, contains 140 calories.  Break it in half, in half again and in half again.  That little piece, one eighth of a granola bar still has more calories than you are saving by buying skinny wine.  Another site pins their high sales on customers being “duped into thinking the calorie count is significantly [less] merely because it is prominently posted on the label.  Actually it is “no less caloric than other wines” with the same percent alcohol by volume.  [Emphasis is in the original.]  They go on to recommend drinking regular wine in moderation.  That's not rocket science.

Huffington Post makes a few more good points beyond the issue of calories, asking why the ads for these brands are directed at women.  “Would anyone make a Skinnyboy wine?  I don’t think so.  Why do we need a special wine brand, especially when the calorie savings are [modest]?  According to most recommendations, women should not drink more than one glass of wine a day.”  The rant goes on, accusing these wines of working against equality by implying women need wines of their own as they are not capable of wisely choosing from a wine list without some not very subtle guidance.

Calories in a bottle of wine vary based primarily on alcohol content (about eight and a half calories for each 1% alcohol) and the sugar content (for sweeter wines).  Some French and German wines naturally have fewer calories.  But if a New Year’s resolution is to lose a few pounds, the answer will not be found in the wine section.  That fact does not keep the marketing machines of the various companies from trying to dupe their customers into another supposedly easy answer to the challenging problem of weight loss. 

For wine and so many other products the pattern is the same, some combination of hype, celebrity endorsement, Internet buzz, misleading information, junk science, and trigger words.  And we fall for it every time.

What is a Natural Baby Wipe?

Over the last six years I have written many times about how the terms natural and all-natural should not be taken seriously.  I labeled them and other such terms as trigger words, used by advertisers to get you buying without thinking.  Now the public is striking back.  Unfortunately, it is not doing so by stopping to think but by calling in the lawyers.

CBS Money Watch tells how Kimberly Clark has gotten into big trouble for labeling its baby wipes as natural when they contain a synthetic chemical called phenoxyethanol.  The company faces a lawsuit “seeking damages for unlawful business practices and acts and deceptive advertising.”  The mother on whose behalf the suit was filed says that had she known the “truth” about the baby wipes, she would have purchased a different product – presumably one with no artificial ingredients.

So what is the truth about phenoxyethanol?  Honest Company uses it as a preservative and to fight bacteria in five of its cleaning products.  Their website says, “Phenoxyethanol can be found naturally in green tea, but the commercial ingredient is synthetically produced in a laboratory creating what’s termed a ‘nature identical’ chemical.”  They go on to say that they have been getting questions from customers due to a concern raised by an on-going on-line controversy about the chemical’s safety.  But surprise!  Just like every other chemical in the world, including good old H₂O, too much can be bad.  They reassure their customers:  “Most of the studies that have found significant negative health impacts are based on full-strength or high-dose exposures. In real life usage, exposures are quite small. That’s why it’s approved at levels up to 1%.”

Likewise, according to the Honest Company and CBS, Whole Foods, an icon for natural products, uses it in its Premium Body Care products.  It is also listed in something called The Handbook of Green Chemicals. It may be found in a range of products including many cosmetics, soap, shaving cream, deodorant, ultrasound gel and toothpaste.

In this skin care dictionary of ingredients it’s listed as GOOD as a preservative.  “Phenoxyethanol is approved worldwide (including in Japan and in the EU) for use in all types of water-based cosmetics, up to a 1% concentration.”  Despite some negative comments elsewhere, this site declares it safe and effective, providing external references.

And another point from the FDA website: “FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives.”  This confirms that to date natural is primarily an advertising term, not a defined category.

What’s really at issue here is summed up later in the CBS article by Kimberly Clark’s response.  “This complaint does not allege a single safety event or evidence of any injury to a consumer.”  In other words, there are no damages to the baby.  The only problem may be a distressed mother, distressed because she thought that natural had a real legal meaning.  And that she, like so many other poorly informed shoppers, is “willing to pay and have paid, a premium for products advertised, marketed, and labeled as ‘natural’ over products containing nonnatural, synthetic ingredients.”  

Thinking about baby wipes in isolation - how natural is the idea pulling a moist towelette out of a plastic container you bought at Target?  All this doesn't seem to matter.

I have been known to make predictions before.  In this case, despite the wide use of the chemical, the lack of definition of natural and the industry standard that it is safe to use in appropriate amounts, here's what is likely.  KC will settle out of court, calculating it to be cheaper than fighting it out in court, faced with a sympathetic jury with no economic understanding, overwhelmed by the dispute between expert witnesses and in the presence of the poor distressed mother.  That’s just a hunch about the direction of today’s America where being a victim of social-media-induced panic or any other irrational behavior is so often rewarded.

One More Time: Dietary Supplements (2)

This is another in my “one more time” series.  See also: One More Time Gluten-free, GMOs, Social Security, and Dietary Supplements – this is the second one-more-time for supplements.  But I can‘t drop some of these subjects because erroneous information I have pointed out before and supporting information for what I have already posted keeps coming up in the news and on ads, even some political ads.

These all fall into the same category – hype and bold promises.  The purpose of these news flashes and promotions is not to make you smarter, but to get you to buy, vote or keep tuning in.  They generally have no scruples about fooling you, as long as they can do it legally.  They rely on trigger words that often can get you acting without thinking or investigating the validity of their claims – in some cases, keeping you coasting along on planted beliefs instead of facts for a very long time. The government usually steps in with consumer protection programs for the blatant lies, but against the subtler forms of misinformation there is no protection except your own critical thinking.

My previous posts on supplements warned about several aspects of using them:  the fact that they are not tested in the same way as prescription drugs either for effectiveness or side effects;  that there is no guarantee of purity – because many come from big companies that have a reputation to preserve, they are probably better than drugs bought on the street corner, but some independent lab tests have found instances of foreign matter, ingredients not listed on the label and an absence of ingredients that are listed on the label; and the makers are not legally allowed to say they cure or improve any condition without solid experimental evidence.  Some claim to have such evidence, but it is not replicated by independent tests.  Most rely on endorsements from “satisfied customers,” celebrities or TV doctors.

A couple of recent news items brought up the issue again.  This headline, “Herbal and dietary supplements tied to liver damage”, got my attention.  Today, twenty percent of chemical-induced liver damage cases come from herbal and dietary supplements, double the number from 10 years ago.  If supplements are “overused, or used in combination with other supplements, or used for very prolonged periods or in combination with conventional medications, they may become harmful."  These problems arise because packages usually give no guidance and people don’t often tell their doctors what they are taking.  Although steroids are a bulk of the problem, other supplements can cause liver damage as well.

The study concludes with a couple of warnings. 

• First, of course there is also a risk with prescription drugs; but when they are detected, the pills are pulled from the market.  As long as you are getting what you think you are getting and are careful about possible interactions, supplements are generally safe.  But “many supplements have no proven benefit, only a potential risk.”  

• Second, they remind us, “There is no miracle in a bottle that will build muscle, detoxify your system, cure cancer, or cause rapid, long lasting weight loss. At best it is a waste of money. At worst you could die." 

On a related note, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning that homeopathic teething tablets and gels may pose a risk to infants and children.  They have been associated with “seizures, difficulty breathing, lethargy, excessive sleepiness, muscle weakness, skin flushing, constipation, difficulty urinating, or agitation” in babies.  Parents should stop using them and dispose of the products immediately.

The similarity between these stories is that homeopathic products are available without a prescription, are only tested after someone reports a problem, and in the case of the teething gel, the FDA “is not aware of any proven health benefit.”

All this is important information, available with very little research.  Unfortunately, Americans tend to skip the research, instead taking the word of relatives and friends or reacting to those trigger words based on fads and myths.  Lack of critical thinking in this and many other areas often leads to the outcome described above:  At best a waste of money, at worst you could get sick or die.

Goat Milk for Baby

I saw the news on TV that a popular infant formula was being recalled.  Several websites followed up:  “Sammy's Milk baby food has been recalled due to the possibility that bacteria may be present in the formula. Graceleigh, Inc. recalled the baby food over the bacteria Cronobacter. The bacteria can cause severe and sometimes fatal blood infections or meningitis in infants.”

Normally I would not take notice, but they showed a picture of the container and I was struck by all the “magic” words on the label. My impression was that they were trying to lure well-intentioned mothers into buying this brand as a noble and loving act, demanding only the best for their baby, while probably overspending for minimal benefits.  Some research was in order.

The first trigger word on the label was non-GMO:  What does that mean?  A retired farmer and third-year graduate student in molecular and cellular biology at Dartmouth College has a lot to say about it in this Forbes article.  “Today, U.S. dairy farms need only 8.5 million cows to produce more than twice as much milk as dairy farms did in 1940 with 26 million cows. Crops developed through genetic engineering have played a role in that progress. Contrary to the claims of those whose ideology opposes scientific progress, the consumption of plants developed by genetic engineering have no negative effect on milk quality or safety.”  He later concludes, “the claim that ‘GMOs are in your milk’ is false – there are no plant genes of any kind in any milk, just some fragments of DNA.”

Next is the guarantee of it being gluten-free.  Is there usually gluten in milk?  “Other than the gluten-containing grains, all other unprocessed, whole foods are gluten-free. According to MayoClinic.com, milk is one of these gluten-free, whole foods. Non-fat, low-fat, whole milk and cream are gluten-free, as long as they're unflavored, plain, white milk.”

So far they don’t really have to do anything special to make the first two claims.

Next on the top banner is a comment about Omega Ratio, but a healthy omega ratio is still a matter of debate.  I doubt one in a hundred new mothers even knows what it is, but it sure sounds healthy and reassuring!

Below the brand it says “pediatrician recommended,” but it doesn’t say how many and endorsements are not evidence.  I do remember this fact from my entry here back in July:  “According to this article in The Pediatric Journal, “there are no data supporting the presumed health benefits” of a gluten-free diet.  “Gluten-free packaged foods frequently contain a greater density of fat and sugar than their gluten-containing counterparts, which can lead to problems for children such as obesity and new-onset insulin resistance.”

“Furthermore, a gluten-free diet for children can delay a real diagnosis of celiac disease, which has been linked to anemia, osteoporosis, diabetes, autoimmune thyroid disease and intestinal cancers.”  But since milk doesn’t ordinarily contain gluten, it’s a moot point – except that, again, mothers should be wary of, rather than drawn to such a label.

Below that it says “DHA & prebiotic blend for brain, eye and immune system development."  It’s hard to find information on this that is not advertising, but one reference describes a study showing DHA supporting immune systems in healthy children, not necessarily development.  WebMD tells us that DHA, an Omega-3 fatty acid is “thought to be important to the development of infants, particularly as regards their eyes and brain. DHA may improve vision and some cognitive functions in infants and toddlers” [emphasis added].  None of this is as definitive as the label makes it sound.

Finally, comes the cost of all these goodies.  The details on Sammy’s website promise 20 servings per container for $29.95.  Let’s call it $1.50 per serving.  Similar formula in my local grocery store, which is also gluten-free and non-GMO and contains DHA, sells in packages 80% larger for about half the price.  That’s about 40 cents per serving for substantially the same thing.

So you can pay about four times as much for the luxury brand that touts itself as supposedly the very healthiest option and feel good about doing the loving, caring thing, but at a cost of more than a dollar a feeding.

I have absolutely no experience with baby formula, but when I see the obvious come-on words, trigger words, for that or any other product, I immediately get suspicious.  It would be smart for more people to do so.  Marketers of all goods are not interested in educating us, just selling us their product.  And the easier it is to play on emotions of pride, guilt or anxiety, the more they can get away with.  In the battle to protect ourselves against such manipulation, critical thinking is key.

By the way, the FDA also mentions that the recalled baby food “may also not provide a sufficient level of iron.”

Silicon Valley Diversity II

In previous posts I have mentioned what I call “trigger words.”  These are words that fire off an automatic judgment in our brains as either good or bad.  We have been conditioned to react to these words.  Words like natural, green, organic and sustainable automatically draw a favorable review.  Words and expressions like chemicals, carbon, big business and radiation automatically make us scared or less trusting.  Although everyone learned in school that the entire universe is made of atoms and compounds, also called chemicals, and it’s common sense that nicotine and snake venom are all natural; many people still have the predictable gut reaction to these words.  Advertisers and advocates use these automatic responses to draw us on board, hoping that a trigger word will get us to act before we spend too much time thinking.

Another trigger word is diversity.  When it is thrown into conversations and arguments, it carries an automatically favorable connotation.  Another assumption about it is that you can tell by looking at a group of people whether or not it is a diverse group.  Diversity, we are told, leads to more creativity and better solutions in all cases, sometimes even when the pursuit of diversity supersedes the pursuit of competence.  If these are facts rather than beliefs, I would like to see the data on those studies.

Mohamed El-Erian in his book The Only Game In Town devotes several chapters to the advantages of diversity for companies and governments to meet financial challenges in the near future citing several experts on the subject.  Even after his high praise for the power of diversity he warns:  “This is not to say diversity should be pursued at the expense of competence…it is about getting the right mix.”  But there may be another issue.

A couple of summers ago the big crisis of the month was the lack of diversity in Silicon Valley.  There were too many white men and not enough men and women of color, or women in general.  My conclusion was that to reject anyone because of some prejudice against his or her physical appearance, whether conscious or unconscious, is wrong.  Likewise to favor anyone for the same reason is to risk producing a substandard product.  I would rather that the applications on my computer not crash than to feel an inner glow knowing the programmer was hired based on his or her ability to represent some victim class and thereby help even up the score.

With all the fuss at the time, there was no mention that all Americans might soon become underrepresented.  Look at the tables below.  The first shows the proportion of graduate students in several graduate STEM majors in US universities. The second shows the number of US colleges with a majority of international students and their overall proportions in graduate electrical engineering and computer science programs.  These numbers do not reflect well on America’s continued leadership in this area, nor do they proudly represent how well our school system is doing.

Perhaps if the country spent more time educating students and preparing them for difficult courses, and less time worrying about things like diversity, problems would sort themselves out.  We’d have qualified and interested men and women, blacks and whites, and everyone else.