Food

Rant

When did we stop relying on science?

Posted 21 months ago|13 comments|1,083 views
Here is the happy meal in question
VIDEOS
ADDITIONAL IMAGES
1
Written by
Mark Vaughan
Canada
I am so endlessly frustrated by the fact that we seem to abandon science in favor of anecdotal evidence or authoritative statements, especially when it comes to food and diets.

Recently an article was written about a 1 year old happy meal. The meal was stored in an office and hadn't shown any signs of rot in a year. It was a well written article to be sure, and it made its way around the internet at lightning speed, as you would expect with such a sensational story. It turns out though, the problem with all of this was the conclusions that not only the author took from this 'experiment', but even more so, the acceptance of these conclusions by the media. The people who should be reviewing blog entries, and pop culture stories and helping us to understand what to take away from them, didn't bother to review the conclusions. They all just jumped on board.

McDonald's food is so bad for you that even microbes won't eat it. McDonald's happy meals aren't food they are chemicals. Fast food is so lacking in nutrients it can't rot. These were the conclusions that were reached and went unchallenged. These are extremely questionable conclusions to jump to without evidence to back them up. Yes, we have a burger that didn't rot, but what were the conditions it was kept in? Was it dry? Did the burger dry out? Was it stored with an identical home made hamburger? What were the condiments, what was the temperature... The questions go on an on, but the real question is where is the science?

At the very least there needs to be a control. There needs to be another burger stored in the identical conditions to see if it is the conditions or the specific burger that is at issue. That is what science does for us, it creates a controlled environment so you can limit the number of variables you are testing and be more sure that the items you vary are responsible for the differences in observation. It is entirely possible that the McDonald's hamburger is whipped up in a factory and has no food product in it whatsoever. It is entirely possible that McDonald's burgers wouldn't rot if you threw them into a bacteria laden cesspool. All of this is possible, but an extreme stretch of all logic given the facts laid out.

It is this same choice to ignore the science that we see nearly daily now with weight loss plans, schemes and scams. The worst of these diet plans without any evidence, scientific or otherwise, is Kirsty Alley's Organic Liaison diet plan. This diet plan offers us no evidence that it helps with weightloss at all. She launched it with all of the testimonials being her employees!! None of them had appeared to lose weight either. One of them was her 'Chubby Buddy' from TV whom she has hired a personal trainer to train.... Almost any diet will work with a personal trainer. Nothing is being isolated here. There is no science behind this diet, and without science, you really have no reason to believe a product works. Why would you believe? Because a celebrity you like says so? Ya, because they never back a ridiculous product for money? They never stretch the truth for a paycheck...

We believe fit people and celebrities all of the time and they keep selling us junk that doesn't work. We replace our rational ability to analyze the quality of a product with the assurances of a person who acts for a living... Even when all evidence is to the contrary that the diet works, for example, the spokes person weighs more than they ever have in their life, we believe. How about when the spokesperson is fit, like Jennifer Nicole Lee, who uses the Ab Circle Pro. We should believe her, she is fit and she used the Ab Circle Pro to get fit, right? Nope, she will even admit when pressed that she was winning bikini contests long before anyone had even invented the Ab Circle Pro...

So, who do we trust? We need to trust ourselves. Do the legwork, look for the science. There has to be studies to support the claims. Ideally double blind, with a control group. You need to be able to read and understand the studies. Without a study, the product may very well be useless, and they are hoping you invest in their product. Make these manufacturers work harder for your money.

What do you think? Do we need more science in our weight loss products? Should we believe experts and celebrities and what is the difference?

By the way, if you want to see an experiment involving rotting hamburgers, you can find one here... It may not be laboratory science, but it is a start: http://youarenotafitperson.com/2010/05/0...
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
21 months ago: When science began lying....need a date? Can't grab it but it really started big time about 20 years ago when they began relying on grants from the government to grow their departments and the big bosses kept saying we need more money for the school. You might as well ask...

When did sports turn Pro? Same answer except more money from sponsors, ads, TV time, NIKE and such...where exactly did ''Gatorade'' come from and do they still get a piece?
21 months ago: Kirsty Alley is not an authentic representative of Scientology. She is just giving it a bad image.
21 months ago: Jack. Don't you mean...Kirsty is a tub of lard that we will tolerate while her dollars keep rolling in? Come on man, be bold, be brutal and most of all be honest.
21 months ago: Her dollars are as good as anyone's TCG.
21 months ago: Good point Cypress Gang, and I certainly don't want to give the impression that I think for a second that the practice of science is infallible, uncorruptable or pure... I don't, but I still think having a study to back up claims is infinitely better than not.
Science isn't a fact, or an outcome, simply a method. Given that it is a method and more importantly it is a method used by people, it is subject to errors, both intentional and otherwise, as well as all out lies and deceptions, but that isn't an argument not to use a scientific method, instead much more importantly an argument to use one.
The cornerstone to science is that the methods used are replicable. That is whatever study you choose to do, you have to write down your methods so that someone can do the same study. If you are lying, this will eventually be shown.
Science is like democracy. It may be a crappy system, but it is the best one we currently have... It reminds me of the quote from Winston Churchill:
"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
21 months ago: I'm more out of touch than I thought! Never heard the story of the petrified Happy Meal. Probably a good thing cause I wouldn't have believed it. The only way it could have been preserved is if it was frozen in an airtight container, otherwise it would have been found and eaten by microbes or ants or any number of bugs, not to mention that at room temp, it would have dried out in a matter of days.

As for the lack of science in the reporting of the story, no surprise, way to many people are willing to believe anything without a shred of proof.
21 months ago: I'm with you SIX. I need real hard proof. Real hard data. Real hard triple tested data. Where is the Carbon Dating by several bodies which don't have a hand in the pie? I'm guessing all of those lost souls at EAU and Penn State are pushing a new attack on the world. Where is MacGore? Counting his CCX money?
21 months ago: What we really need to rely on is Scient.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
21 months ago: Good post Mark.

I think the major problem began when the fairness doctrine was ended under Reagan. Then it was possible for the news and talk show hosts to present opinion in the same manner as actual scientific research and opinion was equated to facts. So now you have guys like Rush and Glen Beck spouting all sorts of nonsense and the right trusts this blathering more than real news or research.

The religious right is also to blame because they allow their belief in the literal translations of the bible to over ride scientific research. Now ecological science is dismissed and tied to evolutionary science and distrusted just as much. both of these sciences do not exist in a vacuum, they rely on supporting information from all of the other sciences so the political decision to distrust science in one area leads to distrust of all scientific endeavors.

The Republicans and the Tea Partiers will eventually merge to be a new Know Nothing Party. They take pride in their ignorance.
CapsLock
CapsLock
Broken Bow, OK
21 months ago: Hmm... I wonder where Ronbot Hunter is...

I don't think many people care about the science anymore. They'll just sit back and lazily agree to whatever crap is stuffed into their hollow heads just to fill the wasted space.
leedavidson
leedavidson
Beverly Hills, CA
20 months ago: Mark, you have a valid point but you are missing something quite important.

Would you trust the published and, "official" study of a scientist who is under the employment of said item in question as is the case with many consumable products these days?

Or would you trust the FDA who has allowed into being foods such as McDonald's and even given authorization to the re-categorizing and renaming of such chemicals as Aspartame and MSG let alone the original inception of such biologically destructive substances into the American food industries?

You are absolutely right with this specific incident in the fact that, should it be taken for the truth then people should at least accept it with a grain of salt knowing that certain required parameter recordings were missing.

But this was not a Scientific paper Mark, this was a comment made and in all honesty, there is nothing wrong with posting a situation observed to the people so that if needed, action can be taken and Scientific research done.

In fact the ramifications of discrediting anyone who speaks out about a possible danger in food on the basis of, "no scientific research" would result in a silencing of the consumer and in all honesty, the most scientifically creditable and sound research that can be done is done on the receiving end of any given product and on mass statistical values.

leedavidson
leedavidson
Beverly Hills, CA
20 months ago: In truth, this article on the Happy Meal should not be shunted. Why? We know and we know "Scientifically" as you say that McDonalds nutritional values versus its capabilities to insidiously harm the human body are quite disproportionate using a benchmark of non-altered, ethically grown foods. There is truth in this without "scientific" research in this alone: 27 million Americans are served McDonald's every day, (and this is one of the many fast food chains, granted the largest) and according to the National Institutes of Health, 32.2% of adults suffer from obesity (that's almost 90 million) – which is a dangerous step up from just being plain overweight, (another 30% of Americans are simply overweight).


As a fitness instructor I am sure you see this in your day to day life more than many people, but do you have, "scientific" evidence of what is making the man or woman obese? Or do you simply ask them what dietary routine or pattern they adhere to and from this deduce what needs to go and reorganize the lifestyle in order to allow the body to be rid of excess weight.

Again on Kirstie Alley's dietary program; you knock her for having no, "scientific" research but what of her motives? To give the American populace a seemingly organic weight loss program that looks to me to follow entirely the general guidelines on what is believed to be healthy living and incorporate a fun and friendly way of disciplining one so healthy eating and exercise is achieved and to stay away from the foods that we know create obesity? Think about what you are saying for just a moment please.

So what is the, "root" of the problem so to speak. Take an honest and hard look at how food is given the FDA's stamp of approval in the united states and what the American population is told is, "safe" food and you will find the answer. I leave you to deduce your own conclusions.

"CapsLock" of Broken Bow, OK wrote a true, (if not slightly antagonistic) clause about the wrongs on the receiving end and the people accepting "whatever crap is stuffed into their hollow heads" is its own beat entirely.

In regards to the honest nutrition of America with the end result of a well fed and healthy population by majority, what we need to look at, (and by we I refer to the people of America who would influence others) is WHO is giving the authority of allowing such unthinkably damaging chemicals into our foods.

That my friend will give us our target to rant at.

Highest Regards.

Lee Davidson
leedavidson
leedavidson
Beverly Hills, CA
20 months ago: In truth, this article on the Happy Meal should not be shunted. Why? We know and we know "Scientifically" as you say that McDonalds nutritional values versus its capabilities to insidiously harm the human body are quite disproportionate using a benchmark of non-altered, ethically grown foods. There is truth in this without "scientific" research in this alone: 27 million Americans are served McDonald's every day, (and this is one of the many fast food chains, granted the largest) and according to the National Institutes of Health, 32.2% of adults suffer from obesity (that's almost 90 million) – which is a dangerous step up from just being plain overweight, (another 30% of Americans are simply overweight).


As a fitness instructor I am sure you see this in your day to day life more than many people, but do you have, "scientific" evidence of what is making the man or woman obese? Or do you simply ask them what dietary routine or pattern they adhere to and from this deduce what needs to go and reorganize the lifestyle in order to allow the body to be rid of excess weight.

Again on Kirstie Alley's dietary program; you knock her for having no, "scientific" research but what of her motives? To give the American populace a seemingly organic weight loss program that looks to me to follow entirely the general guidelines on what is believed to be healthy living and incorporate a fun and friendly way of disciplining one so healthy eating and exercise is achieved and to stay away from the foods that we know create obesity? Think about what you are saying for just a moment please.

So what is the, "root" of the problem so to speak. Take an honest and hard look at how food is given the FDA's stamp of approval in the united states and what the American population is told is, "safe" food and you will find the answer. I leave you to deduce your own conclusions.

"CapsLock" of Broken Bow, OK wrote a true, (if not slightly antagonistic) clause about the wrongs on the receiving end and the people accepting "whatever crap is stuffed into their hollow heads" is its own beat entirely.

In regards to the honest nutrition of America with the end result of a well fed and healthy population by majority, what we need to look at, (and by we I refer to the people of America who would influence others) is WHO is giving the authority of allowing such unthinkably damaging chemicals into our foods.

That my friend will give us our target to rant at.

Highest Regards.

Lee Davidson

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.