Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday March 13 2014, @12:53AM   Printer-friendly
from the better-living-through-solopsism dept.

Papas Fritas writes:

Michael Schulson writes that if you want to write about spiritually-motivated pseudoscience in America, you can drive hundreds of miles to the Creation Museum in Kentucky but that America's greatest shrine to pseudoscience, the Whole Foods Market, is only a 15-minute trip away from most American urbanites. For example the homeopathy section at Whole Foods has plenty of Latin words and mathematical terms, but many of its remedies are so diluted that, statistically speaking, they may not contain a single molecule of the substance they purport to deliver.

"You can buy chocolate with "a meld of rich goji berries and ashwagandha root to strengthen your immune system," and bottles of ChlorOxygen chlorophyll concentrate, which "builds better blood." There's cereal with the kind of ingredients that are "made in a kitchen-not in a lab," and tea designed to heal the human heart," writes Schulson. "Nearby are eight full shelves of probiotics-live bacteria intended to improve general health. I invited a biologist friend who studies human gut bacteria to come take a look with me. She read the healing claims printed on a handful of bottles and frowned. "This is bullshit," she said, and went off to buy some vegetables."

According to Schulson the total lack of outrage over Whole Foods' existence, and by the total saturation of outrage over the Creation Museum, makes it clear that strict scientific accuracy in the public sphere isn't quite as important to many of us as we might believe. "The moral is not that we should all boycott Whole Foods. It's that whenever we talk about science and society, it helps to keep two rather humbling premises in mind: very few of us are anywhere near rational. And pretty much all of us are hypocrites."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by el_oscuro on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:08AM

    by el_oscuro (1711) on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:08AM (#15662)

    If you want a peek into the bizarro world that is our food industry, where a standard slice of bacon is 35 calories, but you can order a healthy sounding salad with 1700. Or a fake guacamole dip where the "avocado powder" is really a chemical used to treat herpes. How about a "Healthy Choice" frozen dinner which tastes like cardboard but has more added sugar than a Snickers bar? The list goes on and on and every one of them is available right at your local grocery store.

    If there is one nearby, try shopping at Trader Joe's. They have plenty of calorie bombs too, but if you read the ingredients on the back, you will find more actual food and less chemicals, and most things have less calories. And they seem to be cheaper too.

    --
    SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Interesting=3, Informative=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Reziac on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:12AM

    by Reziac (2489) on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:12AM (#15667) Homepage

    Don't get me wrong, I love TJ's for the unique items they carry (those tend to have good prices), but I also read labels, and many a time a rather high-priced item (like a $2 box of mac-and-cheese, WTF) proves to be just a major supermarket brand in a TJ wrapper. So... know your products applies there as much as anywhere.

    --
    And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:47AM

    by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:47AM (#15677)

    I'm amazed that in civilized countries 'homoeopathic' remedies are legal. Shouldn't you need to have real science or at least a double-blind study or two before you can make *any* claims? Normally I'm not against extracting money from the gullible, but once public health money comes into the equation I get more interested.

    • (Score: 1) by ragequit on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:07AM

      by ragequit (44) on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:07AM (#15679) Journal

      Nah, they just put a fine print disclaimer like "These claims have not been evaluated by the FDA" on the back somewhere.

      See here: http://www.drvita.com/product/navitas-naturals-sun -dried-goji-berries-16-oz/12840 [drvita.com]
      scroll down a bit

      --
      The above views are fabricated for your reading pleasure.
    • (Score: 1) by RoyWard on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:15AM

      by RoyWard (3670) on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:15AM (#15682)

      Is public health money involved in homeopathy? I'd like to see a citation for that.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by lx on Thursday March 13 2014, @09:53AM

        by lx (1915) on Thursday March 13 2014, @09:53AM (#15779)

        It depends on where you live. In Britain homeopatic therapy is still covered by the NHS. The climate is changing though. [theguardian.com]

    • (Score: 1) by naff89 on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:31AM

      by naff89 (198) on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:31AM (#15688)

      Shouldn't you need to have real science or at least a double-blind study or two before you can make *any* claims?

      You do, and all claims are evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. If they're not, they require a big label that says "Not Evaluated by the FDA" and "Not intended to treat or diagnose [anything]".

      If you still think it works despite those warnings, well, there's only so much we can do to help you.

      • (Score: 1) by Aighearach on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:48AM

        by Aighearach (2621) on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:48AM (#15702)

        You might even just like eating it. I've heard lots of people say they take homeopathic remedies because they might work, are almost certainly safe.

        And I agree. The placebo effect is much stronger than the medicinal effect of most "proven" medicines.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by girlwhowaspluggedout on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:39AM

          by girlwhowaspluggedout (1223) on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:39AM (#15741)
          To quote that bastion of medical fact and accuracy [wikipedia.org]:

          Government regulatory agencies approve new drugs only after tests establish not only that patients respond to them, but also that their effect is greater than that of a placebo (by way of affecting more patients, by affecting responders more strongly, or both).

          IANAD, but AFAIK, that is indeed how drug testing works.

          --
          Soylent is the best disinfectant.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @11:22AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13 2014, @11:22AM (#15800)

        Shouldn't you need to have real science or at least a double-blind study or two before you can make *any* claims?

        You do, and all claims are evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.

        That's not entirely true. From the FDA:

        The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) recognizes as official the drugs and standards in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States and its supplements (Sections 201 (g)(1) and 501 (b), respectively).

        Furthermore

        Section 211.165 (Testing and release for distribution): In the Federal Register of April 1, 1983 (48 FR 14003), the Agency proposed to amend 21 CFR 211.165 to exempt homeopathic drug products from the requirement for laboratory determination of identity and strength of each active ingredient prior to release for distribution.

        So, "real" drugs have to tested for safety and efficacy; neutraceuticals have to be labeled in such a way as to make clear that they are not drugs, but only "nutritional supplements" or other such language; but "homeopathic" remedies, as long as they're recognized in the pharmacopea and contain no active allopathic agent, are allowed to be called drugs.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by deego on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:27AM

      by deego (628) on Thursday March 13 2014, @06:27AM (#15740)

      >> I'm amazed that in civilized countries 'homoeopathic' remedies are legal. Shouldn't you need to have real science or at least a double-blind study or two before you can make *any* claims? Normally I'm not against extracting money from the gullible, but once public health money comes into the equation I get more interested.

      I am amazed that in civilized countries, do-gooders still try to dictate what others can and cannot do with their own bodies.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Thursday March 13 2014, @10:32AM

        by pe1rxq (844) on Thursday March 13 2014, @10:32AM (#15791) Homepage

        I don't want to prevent anyone from gulping down homeopathic shit...

        I do want to protect them from doing it because they were being lied to.

        In a civilized country lying about its effects should be illegal.
        You want to sell water? Fine, just don't claim it is magical because you diluted and shaked something.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 13 2014, @01:57PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday March 13 2014, @01:57PM (#15859)

          If you go that route, then you have to ban religions too, because there's no way to prove that it's real. That's not going to go over very well, since every "civilized country" not only has a large contingent of religious citizens, they all purport to support freedom of religion (for the most part; some have banned obvious scams like Scientology).

          • (Score: 2) by metamonkey on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:11PM

            by metamonkey (3174) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:11PM (#15871)

            No, religions would just need appropriate warning labels. "Warning: Adherence to this faith may or may not result in eternal salvation." Well, we'd need those labels for every religion except mine, of course.

            --
            Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
          • (Score: 1) by SleazyRidr on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:44PM

            by SleazyRidr (882) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:44PM (#15891)

            I'll bear that in mind next time I pick up a bottle of Islam from Whole Foods.

        • (Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:37PM

          by bucc5062 (699) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:37PM (#15885)

          Oh please, your comment is insightful?

          In the civilized country of the US of A companies lie *all the time* and seem to do it legally so please don't try to compare our wondrous first world morality to some third world and say it is better.

          Homeopathy is not shit, it is respected by the medical community, it is regulated by the FDA, and it has shown to be a viable alternative to manufactured chemicals that at times can do more harm to the body the some natural ingredient. Have you heard of Willow Bark. A natural pain reliever that is as effective, though slower in action then aspirin and less harmful to the stomach.

          As to your water example, A couple of years ago some company told the US market that they infused their water with extra oxygen to help make you feel better. A bold face lie that people bought in the millions; in a civilized country non the less. Now that is shit from a male cow.

          --
          The more things change, the more they look the same
          • (Score: 1) by pe1rxq on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:47PM

            by pe1rxq (844) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:47PM (#15896) Homepage

            Homeopathy is NOT respected by the medical community. Just stop spreading nonsense.

            It is NOT a viable alternative to anything.

            And yes, I have heard of willow bark, I do know a little bit about the history of aspirin and it has NOTHING to do with homeopathy.

            And the guys selling 'oxygen' water are just as guilty as the homeopaths and both should be made accountable. All quackery should be threated equal.

            • (Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:33PM

              by bucc5062 (699) on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:33PM (#15914)

              So I will walk a line here. I had been confused between what I understood to be homeopathy and what it is defined as by most articles (and their own text). I was defending the use of natural elements in caring for medical issues, not homeopathy its self. So in that regard I was incorrect in my thoughts.

              I still find your statement about "civilized countries" to be disingenuous and it did not enhance your viewpoint. Of course all quackery should have the light of day put upon it, but you made a position like civilized countries don't have quacks (that is how it read). I'm not moderating, but I did not see you point as insightful mainly because of that one statement. Since they all lie, there is no real "civilized" country on this planet. Only those that try to lie less in the interest of their population. Currently my country is looking less and less civilized then some others so homeopathy seems to fit in right along with "we're not spying on you" or "trust your money with us".

              --
              The more things change, the more they look the same
              • (Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:43PM

                by pe1rxq (844) on Thursday March 13 2014, @04:43PM (#15967) Homepage

                Ah, that makes sense. Although it doesn't suprise me much, it is very easy to get confused what exactly the quackers are peddling, and that is the way they like it.

                I have no problems with using 'natural elements', as long as it is evidence based.
                There is a lot of evidence for e.g. willow bark. So much evidence that it led to the development of aspirin.
                For both there is a lot of evidence and with this evidence you can choose which one works best in your current situation.
                If your stomach is sensitive use one, do you need something really potent and pure, use the other.

                And my personal definition of a civilized country indeed is a bit of an utopia...

      • (Score: 1) by SleazyRidr on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:46PM

        by SleazyRidr (882) on Thursday March 13 2014, @02:46PM (#15895)

        I don't want to dictate what people can put into their own bodies. I do want to dictate what you can sell someone as "medicine" and more importantly what the health system spends its money on. I like the fact that some of my money is going to help people that need it. I don't like the fact that some of it is enriching these scammers.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Jiro on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:30AM

      by Jiro (3176) on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:30AM (#15753)

      Actually, it's an intentional loophole. The law that gave the FDA much of its power was sponsored by a homeopath [wikipedia.org] thus letting homeopathic substances be exempt from normal FDA rules.

    • (Score: 1) by akinliat on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:04PM

      by akinliat (1898) <{akinliat} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday March 13 2014, @03:04PM (#15902)

      As long as the claims are sufficiently vague, and there is no demonstrable harm being caused, it's highly unlikely that we'd see any sort of legal or regulatory action.

      As someone pointed out below, homeopathic remedies have been approved as safe since the thirties in the US (around the same time that marijuana was criminalized because of "reefer madness"). Considering that they're almost entirely water, with maybe one or two molecules of the original substance, it's unlikely they can do any harm, other than raising false hopes.

      That's not something that I imagine will be criminalized anytime soon.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Jiro on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:19AM

    by Jiro (3176) on Thursday March 13 2014, @07:19AM (#15750)

    Your own post shows some of the classic signs of fearmongering. For instance, claiming that some additive is a chemical used to treat herpes is an attempt to make it sound scary. Clearly we are supposed to make some sort of (il)logical leap from "herpes is bad" to guilt by association for that chemical, without you actually stating anything meaningful about the chemical itself. (Some Google searching shows you are referring to an ordinary preservative, not even to the flavoring.)

    And only 30% of the calories of a Snickers bar comes from sugar, so that comparison is not as bad as you imply.