How to Predict the Future

In June of last year I wrote about a proposed beverage tax in Philadelphia.  These were my comments at the time.

“The new mayor of Philadelphia wants to impose a special tax on non-diet soda and other sugary drinks.  The new tax is expected to “generate more than $400 million over the next five years” to help fund a plan for universal pre-K and community schools among other benefits.  Using a good cause will bring goodwill toward paying the tax, right?  I doubt it.  This action is much more intrusive than just requiring warning labels.  The new beverage tax will not only double the cost of soft drinks and juices, it will have some interesting, unintended side effects.  Those who are better off financially can afford to drive outside the city limits to buy their cola.  The ones who will be hurt most are first, the city grocery stores which lose business as the special tax drives grocery shopping out of the city for some and second, the poor whose options are limited, ironically the same people who the universal pre-K programs are intended to help.  When you consider human behavior, the $400 million looks like a pipe dream.”

The overall theme of this June 3, 2016 entry was that if we don’t exercise responsibility and take proper care of ourselves, someone will feel obligated to step in and force the proper behavior on us – on everyone, not just those who need it.  Irresponsible behavior by many leads to across-the-board loss of freedom.

The tax became effective with the new year, 1.5 cents per ounce – that’s per ounce, not per can or bottle.  The people in Philadelphia are upset!  Did they sleep though the discussion and announcement last spring?  It was not a secret and the outcome was easily predictable.  Now the cost of a soda is up more than 50%, about a one dollar increase on a two-liter bottle.

In this Fox News video the host asks the opinions of two sources that they brought in to comment on the tax and the reaction to it.

The first commentator points out that these programs, like cigarette taxes, are designed to change behavior as they are passed along to the consumer.  In doing so the tax is supposed to go away with the change.  The idea of trying to make it more palatable by tying it to a new education program is crazy.  If it’s successful and consumption is reduced, and with it the taxes, the great new programs will quickly become underfunded.  Then what are they going to do?  Also when a tax is limited to a particular locale, those who are able will naturally make short trips to avoid it (as I said above).  It also may encourage smuggling as a black market develops.

The comments of the second individual are interesting in a different way.  She defends not the tax, but the intent and the need to do something.  She insists that obesity due to too much sugar is such “a very serious issue” that it’s the duty of government to fix it.  (That is exactly my point about loss of freedom.)  She goes on saying that we are not healthy in America and that it’s “a fair thing for the city to address,” that the city has to take more responsibility for this.  She believes the goal is a reasonable one, because in our society we give the states and localities police power to keep us healthy and safe.  “They deal with our moral wellbeing as well as our physical wellbeing.”  This tax is not the answer but it’s such a big problem it must be addressed (somehow by government). 

Back to the tax itself, to quote a conclusion they both agree on:  “It doesn’t work.  It’s a bad plan.”  So if it is so obvious now, why couldn’t the mayor and city officials see this coming?  The answer is a deficiency in the dimension of economic understanding.  As long as we have citizens weak in economic understanding, we will elect government officials with the same shortcomings and continue to face the same kinds of problems, while wrongly calling predictable outcomes unintended consequences. (More on this next time.)

Superstition and Health

Last time I gave an example of how one food company tried to use modern day superstitious ideas about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to try to hype their tomato products.  They touted the fact that none of their tomatoes were genetically modified, in the sense of being tinkered with in some lab, implying that others were and the only way to be sure is to use their products.  They were caught in the act, so to speak, because there are no genetically modified tomatoes; and even if there were, scientists have concluded that GMO products are safe.  The fear of GMOs is a good example of food-related superstition.  If their errors had not been so obvious, they may have slipped by the critics leaving misinformed people to the mercy of more misinformation.

Closely related to food superstitions are those about health and longevity.  Everyone is interested in living longer and healthier, but different people go to different extremes, some wasting money on worthless and potentially dangerous products.

One example that came to my attention recently is essential oils.  Used in aromatherapy, they are believed to produce numerous health and wellness benefits from pain relief and antidepressant effects to digestion aid and hormone enhancement.  One website shows a grid of over 40 aromas with a check in the box showing which of 27 benefits each provides.  That they may be an effective deodorant is not a stretch, but at least one is listed as having both calming and stimulant effects.

Of course the National Institute of Health (NIH) sees it differently, concluding after extensive study:  “Lack of sufficiently convincing evidence regarding the effectiveness of aromatherapy combined with its potential to cause adverse effects questions the usefulness of this modality in any condition.”  Another website discusses further disappointing study results.

Another area of health that is all the rage is detoxing.  This CBS news item highlights a couple of people who were hospitalized as a result of following the herbal, all natural detox plans.  Experts told them, “while ‘detoxing’ can be a necessary process for people addicted to drugs and alcohol, the average person does not need to take extreme steps to cleanse so-called 'toxins' out of their system. In fact, the body detoxes naturally” nor is there any way to artificially enhance this process.  They also remind readers in the course of the explanation, “Despite marketing suggesting otherwise, all-natural products are not without side effects.”

A second site is even more blunt on the subject.  “Products that promise ‘detox’ are a sham. Yes, all of them.”  It’s not magic; it’s a rip-off and potentially dangerous.

Finally, here is an example from Consumer Health Digest (#17-01).  It describes the website of a doctor (MD) who offered alternative health solutions and was recently charged with unprofessional conduct and refusing to release records to investigators.  “In 2013, the DeOrio Wellness Medical Center Web site offered a ‘comprehensive holistic evaluation and treatment program’ that included ‘specialized laboratory testing,’ Oriental pulse and tongue diagnosis; homeopathic interview and treatment; acupuncture; nutrition and diet consultation; ‘structural and biomechanical integration’; ‘emotion and spiritual counseling’; and ‘infra-red sauna baths combined with IV vitamin therapy for the newest, safest and most effective detoxification program available.’ "

When you see a laundry list of magical health remedies like this, run! 

A century ago it was called “snake oil.”  A slick salesman drove his wagon into town touting the wonders of who-knows-what in a bottle, often arranging for a shill to be in the crowd to praise the product.  Then he would drive away with the cash and disappear before anyone could complain.  Now, even with better education, it’s the same; except the slick salesmen use the Internet with endorsements coming from Facebook to lure the desperate or others susceptible to the quick-fix enticement. 

The ones above and many other wonderful cures based on ancient wisdom and clinically proven treatments are looking to use the placebo effect to separate you from your money.  Due to the web, 24-hour news and social media, critical thinking was never so important in keeping us safe from the health-related superstitions of the day.

You Say Tomato...

I went to dictionary.com to find a definition for “superstition.”  It told me that it is a “belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing” or “any blindly accepted belief or notion.”

So when I saw a Forbes article scolding Hunts for a marketing campaign stating: “No matter how far afield you look, you won’t find a single genetically modified tomato among our vines,” it is pretty clear that the company is trying to use superstition to sell its products.

First, an exact definition of genetically modified organism (GMO) is hard to pin down.  Recently when people see the term they tend to think of genetic engineering in a laboratory, sometimes introducing the genes of another species to enhance the characteristics of an organism.  This, however, is not the only definition.  Technically speaking, any tinkering with the genes of a plant, whether artificial or natural, can be considered genetic engineering (GE).  And tomatoes are well known for the crossbreeding done to improve them.  These are usually referred to as hybrid tomatoes, like the ones usually sold as small starter plants at your local nursery every spring – the Better Boys and Early Girls.

Consider this description of a hybrid from a national seed catalog.  The tomato is advertised as having a broad disease resistance package with “high resistance to alternaria stem canker, fusarium wilt races 1, 2, gray leaf spot, nematodes, tobacco mosaic virus, and verticillium wilt.  This just didn’t happen.  Plant scientist worked tirelessly to bring together all these beneficial characteristics while maintaining the size, shape, color, taste and juiciness of the original tomato.

Second, technically speaking, all tomatoes are hybrids. This article explains. “Even the most cherished, oldest, and knobbiest heirloom tomato is a hybrid of the original South American fruit. Tomatoes are one of those plants that people love so much; we’ve been tinkering with its genetics basically since the plant was first cultivated in Peru and Central America before the fifteenth century.  That’s right.  Anyone can look up pictures on the Internet of the original fruits and vegetables taken from the wild by our ancient ancestors.  Not only are they uglier, but also far less tasty and nutritious.  Over the eons, better and better plants were developed either by preserving accidental mutations or by intentional crossbreeding.

Furthermore, attempts to apply the latest laboratory GE techniques have not produced anything better, and there are no GMO tomatoes being grown commercially anywhere in North America or Europe.  So what Hunt is saying is also true of every one of their competitors.

Finally, as I pointed out last time, “GM crops are just as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts.”  This is supported by other authoritative sources (referred to here).

In the Hunt article, they called it a marketing blunder, just because it was so easily refuted, but that’s the way advertising is.  Hunt got caught trying to use fear mongering based on modern superstition about the dangers of GMO.  If they could have gotten away with it, there’s no telling how much profit they would have made by duping a gullible public.  (Look at all the products that never contained gluten in the first place but are newly labeled gluten-free to take advantage of another fad. 

Even major garden seed catalogs proudly advertise that none of their seeds are GMO, just to play to the uninformed audience.  And many of their customers are serious gardeners who should know better but just go along with the popular myth, never taking a little time to educate themselves.

Unfortunately, that’s where we seem to be heading; advertisers playing to and promoting the latest superstitions to make a buck.  Will we stand for it?  Only critical thinking keeps us from being manipulated by these unscrupulous methods.

More Easy Resolutions for 2017

Last time I got through the first three of seven science and health myths that need to go.  The source story argued that researchers have shown them to be false so often that it’s time to pull the plug and stop believing them.  This provides a great opportunity to make a few constructive and very doable New Year’s resolutions.  Since most of the effort would be to stop believing and acting like you believe in these debunked ideas, success should come easily.

Last time I covered the myths about how you can’t depend only on exercise for weight loss, misunderstanding about global warming and antibiotic abuse.  The remaining four concern: will power, dangers of GMOs, homeopathy and something called power posing. 

Beginning with will power, “psychologists are increasingly finding that willpower alone is an ineffective strategy.” They say it’s not something you develop or practice; it’s something you either have to some degree or not.  That seems like a formula to let most of us off the hook for a lack of self-control in the face of temptation. It could explain why most resolutions fail.

The authors really draw no conclusion in the article except to imply that we have been expecting too much by asking people to control their diets (among other things).  But one solution is to work on the environment.  Eat more meals at home and don’t have the junk food and salty snacks available, then the will power is needed only at the grocery store – or have someone else shop for you.  That might work.  Although to completely give up on will power seems a little fatalistic.

The next myth declares GMOs are harmful to humans.  Not so.  “Earlier this year National Academy of Sciences released a sweeping report on GM crops that should’ve put these fears to rest. It was an independent look at all the evidence to date, and it found, much as past reports have, that GM crops are just as safe to eat as their conventional counterparts.”

There is a lot of fear mongering going on in the press and by certain advertisers playing on this misunderstanding.  The evidence is clear, but people continue to spend more money than necessary for groceries, while less fortunate people in other countries are starve because their governments endorse this myth and ban GMO crops.

The next myth is that “Homeopathy is a real medical treatment.”  This is an easy one.  Stop throwing away money on false cures.  For a more in-depth treatment of this subject including the history and fallacies behind the theory, see this youtube video.

 “‘Power posing’ will make you act powerful” comes as the final myth.  The notion arose from a 2010 study conducted at Columbia University reporting that making yourself look big by stretching out made you feel more powerful and take greater risks.  They actually measured higher levels of the hormone testosterone in some of the participants.

Unfortunately, follow-up studies with larger sample sizes failed to replicate these findings.  Last year one of the researchers from the original project team withdrew her support, conceding that the effects they detected were not real.

In summary, maybe I will resolve in 2017 to not use power posing as a shortcut to feeling more powerful.  I will not spend a penny on homeopathic medicine and will eat GMO products with reckless abandon.  I can do all these without depending on will power.  In fact it will take about as much will power as my usual sacrifice of giving up spinach for lent!  Happy New Year.