Belief, science, and central cues in public messaging

Post Reply New Topic

As i drove home from work today i heard the first few minutes of a radio interview on the subject of school lunches and nutrition. I don't have kids but it still sounds like a compelling subject.

And then the guest spoke.

She started by explaining that she grew up during the vietnam war, raised by parents who were not foodies, and always seemed to have one random minor malady or other, and then as she grew older she started to realize that she had a number of food sensitivities, and that many of these food sensitivities seemed to be linked not to the food itself but to the quality of the food.

So, in my rational, skeptical mind, I have now identified that she is a person with an unusual and lengthy laundry-list of sensitivities and allergies. These people exist, it's not always hypochondria. Sucks to be them.

And then she goes on to use this as a basis for why she favors organically grown foods, etc, and how kids will be smarter and not hyperactive if we feed them better.

There is some evidence that ADHD symptoms in some children can be associated with diet but strong links are not really there and for example we know, from clinical study, that sugar does not cause hyperactivity. There is some evidence to suggest that red dye derived from crushed insect goo may be an irritant. etc.

But instead of making references to known, reputable science she just beat the hippie foodie organic unprocessed drum.

The problem with this tactic is that it only speaks to people who already agree with you.

What the hell is wrong with true believers? Why do they always choose the weaker, emotional cues?

The closer the food is to the source the healthier it is. Known fact.

Evidence, please? Besides, your opinion does not answer the OPs questions, which were:

They've likely fallen into the "I believe it to be true, so it must be true" trap, where their faith alone is sufficient reason (to them) to validate their claims. This is similar to the Christian "God said it, I believe it, That settles it" line of reason.

Likely because they also believe that everybody is as ignorant as they are, and will fall for the same arguments that they fell for.

Are you a bot?

I'll give you one single piece of contradictory evidence: Red kidney beans must be completely cooked to avoid them being poisonous, owing to the fact that pure, natural, fresh red kidney beans contain phytohaemagglutinin, which is toxic.

You don't just have to cook them, you have to boil them. It's actually much, much worse if they are undercooked than if they are raw.

The people who operate by what their particular manual happens to say rather than working toward independent thought are most anbnoying even when one agrees with their position - which can happen - and outnumber everyone else

They will always quote the manual rather than supplying data - it is called "educating" and one does not want the possibility of people getting the WRONG ideas.

There are also the people with power agendas whose aim is to promote and sell. Also annoying and less likely to be in synch with data.

Those who want clear presentation of facts facilitating audience drawn conclusions are an unhappy and rather despised minority.

What vexes me, though, is people who believe strongly in an arguably worthy minority position who cannot make a convincing argument because it is not in their vocabulary to use logic.

I do think that school lunches should be better balanced, and fresher. But there's no evidence that it matters whether it is organic, whether the ingredients are "all natural", etc.

I think Morgan Spurlock did a disservice to the cause by utterly failing in "Supersize Me" to describe why the USDA school lunches are so unappetizing.

It's not because it's processed, it's not because it's frozen, it's because they've made little or no attempt to address issues of flavor and mouth-feel in their more healthy side dishes.

Put some goddamn oil and a little ginger or garlic or something on those goddamn fuzzy-tasting diced frozen carrots. For pete's sake. For starters.

What would you? You wanna treat the little monsters like humans? Do you not realize that the heaviest Socializers are naturally ascetic [except for a slight inclination toward lust]?

I have an associate - a fine person, really - who is part of this class.

When visited, he tends to serve a tasteless vegetable stew - heavy on the cabbage.

Recently he read some poetry by his grandchild. He himself produces poetry [stuff I get zilcho messages from.] Comment on the grandchild's poetic essays - too bad he is not matrure enough to produce poetry grandpapa iunderstands.

Another of the type was renowned as an ungracious host.

Anyway, the idea is, they don't need flavor and texture, and everybody wants to be like them - or ought to - so they should be fine with [this was a neighbour] one slice of meatloaf.

Nothing wrong with stewed cabbage as long as there is enough beer in the broth, and you make sure you stop cooking while there is still some crunch in it.

Are you a ret*d?

Of course you have to prepare foods properly. Try eating raw chicken.

The point that's completely missed even by this so called interviewee is farming practices at least in America need some serious reconsideration. For example, do you know what a farmed fish is fed? Answer: chicken. What?!? Mad cow disease in England was spread by feeding cows rendered cow proteins back to them. Awesome farming practices. You wonder why people are addicted to pain killers, because they hurt. Their bodies are screaming for nutrition and it's sorely lacking in American diets.

Organic farming practices tend to feed animals grains, you know, the things they are supposed to eat. Wild fish is generally healthier also because toxins don't tend to collect in open waters as much as they do in fish farms.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EUAMe2ixCI[/youtube]

My goodness man, do I have to take you by the hand and SHOW you why farmers tend to be healthier than city dwellers?

I don't see anything wrong with feeding chicken to carnivorous or omnivorous fish.

Feeding bone and nerve matter to herbivores is admittedly a dumb idea but cows are not supposed to eat grains - they are supposed to eat grasses. There is too much starch and sugar in grains and it's too rich of a diet for them, and the root cause of almost all tainted beef. Their digestive tracts can't handle the sugar and this is where the e.coli breeds.

Saying that people are addicted to pain killers because they are malnourished is more than a little specious. How do you figure they are malnourished? What is your evidence that the pain is due to malnutrition? maybe people have more chronic pain because they sit in chairs all day long, or because they are addicted to opioids. I have a coworker going through lortab withdrawl right now and if i didn't hate him i would feel bad for all the crap he's going through. Turns out that the unexplained leg pain he's had for years is due to heavy opioid use.

I've been hearing on the radio all week about how children and pregnant women should not eat fish from numerous rivers and lakes and reservoirs in the state because they have too much mercury in them.

actually fish from fish farms have nowhere near the content of heavy metals found in wild fish, wild fish are so bad in many areas of the world that eating it daily is a health risk.

much food of today is lightyears ahead of food from the middle ages in every aspect, the real health problem lies in quantity and variety not type.

of course if you eat hamburgers every day you will get malnourished, just as you would only eating greens or only eating anything else.

there are soe problems with the industrialized farming today but that is because of the impact on the water table, something that can be regulated.

QAS
Quoted for Aggressive stupidity.
"Natural is better" is a heuristic not a law.
It is a rough and ready rule not gospel.
Us people on the S.A.D. have longer life expediencies then their ancestors.
albeit with more cancers.
like most things it is a trade-off a mixed bag.
But that sort of nuanced thinking does not allow for the sort of militancy that seems to be your goal.
any way thanks for giving us a good example of the hippy dippy thinking Blue is talking about.

p.s. make sure you call me arrogant because that is a really good argument.

Natural Man - the Noble Savage - three bloogles BC [Before Civilisation]:

Take a walk over the river and through the woods, pick some fruit, dig a root, kill a squirrel - eat and trust you won't hurl.

Modern Man - The Pinnacle of Creation - six millennia AD [After Densification]:

Drive to the shop, push a cart till you drop, trust it's not bad and the cow wasn't mad.

Life is a gamble and soon or late you lose your shirt.

It does make you wonder about those on the other thread figufring we can support an even more groaning population with genetically modified algae.

Are bacon look alike soy strips kosher?

I think there's just a lack of valid study on the subject. I mean, who's going to fund the study? It would have to come from either the private food industry or the government. Many studies on food safety/nutrition are done by the large manufacturers, but I think the bias is quite clear there. Is Keebler or Nestle going to publish findings against their own products? The government's not much better because the FDA heads are from the industrial food complex, in many cases current board of directors. There's too much bias there too, assuming we'd even fund the study to begin with.

In lieu of solid scientific data, people go with their intuitions. Pre-kids, I didn't care too much either. Food is food, who cares? Then you get pregnant go to the doc and get a list of things you can't eat due to contamination/fetal sensitivities. You start to think. Then you've got to feed the kid. You take them to McDonald's and look at the fried piece of mystery crap they're about to put into their small, developing bodies and you think again. Then you get to observe behavioral patterns that emerge with even small changes in their diet. You think again. Then you take them for a lead check-up (routine) and find out yes, your kid has lead in their system and your told to buy a water filter and have them eat more fruits and veggies. You think again. Then, you go to market to buy more fruits and veggies and you see cleared out shelves from a recall due to e.coli contamination. You think again.

There really is cause for concern with our food supply. I wish there was some solid study on the subject, but there's not. As a parent, you often have to go with your instincts. They're not always right but for me it's a no-brainer. If I can afford to feed my kids better, I do. I avoid school lunches like the plague. I've seen what they serve. It's about 70% corn, sugar, salt, and fat. Just take a look at the schools with the highest % of free-lunch kids as compared to schools with the lowest %. Look at the trends concerning health, weight, and behavior. No, it's not a proven causation. There are countless other possible causes and correlations here. But again, without any solid studies, what do you do? Personally, I weight the risks with the benefits. Whats the downside of a healthy diet vs. the downside of a crappy diet? It comes down to money vs. potentially poor health. My kids are worth it. When I can afford better I buy it. I can't always afford it. But to me, it's a priority.

That means raw potatoes just dug up from horse-sh*t must be healthier than cooked potatoes imported from Iowa.

ruveyn

You mean for example like those school lunch rankings being the exact same rankings as poorest must urban students vs. wealthiest most suburban students?