North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

["Stephen Sadler" <Docshiva@Docshiva.org>]

A little post-diatribe thought, thinking of misleading advertising claims:
Take something along the lines of "Clinically tested, doctor approved."
Sounds awfully good, but maybe it means the whatever failed its clinical
testing, but is still approved by some paid doctor of divinity somewhere....

~ Stephen  

-----Original Message-----
From: nafex-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:nafex-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Sadler
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 7:45 PM
To: 'North American Fruit Explorers'
Subject: Re: [NAFEX] Fw: mychorizal fungal rip off?

We're pretty much in agreement.  Research that is done to show that a
particular food is good for you or bad for you is almost certainly funded by
producers of that food.  That's how we know fructose is good/bad for you, as
well as corn syrup, dietary fats, sugar, coffee, etc.  Another thing that
occurs is that supplement manufacturers will latch on to any study, no
matter how preliminary, whether in vitro or vivo, whether in humans or mice
or bacteria, and if they find a positive effect and low production cost -
voila! A new scientifically proven superfood!!

If you want to properly weight such things, one should look at who funds the
research.  The American Cancer Society has a different agenda than a
Cattlemen's Association, for instance.  It's also helpful if one has the
time background to read and critique the studies.  One study I read - the
only study at all that supported a supernutrient craze - was done on 10 mice
and was inconclusive.  Even when there are conflicting claims, someone
versed in the relevant studies should, I would hope, be able to reach a
clear conclusion of which, if any, side has made a plausible argument.

Or one can read glowing testimonials/reviews/ads with a skeptical point of
view.  Some use terms like "scientists say" "doctors agree" or toss in some
odd biobabble in a ludicrous yet often effective attempt at implying
legitimacy; yet there are zero studies cited.  More often than not, many
studies exist, but all are contrary to the marketing claims. 

I can't reach the conclusion that all, or even a majority of research is
commercially biased.  When I research any subject, I find many studies that
seem supported only by curiosity.  I'm not arguing whether altruism exists,
but some - many - studies occur just because the individual wants an answer.
The researcher may hope for a prize, tenure, continued employment, or just
the deep satisfaction from being the first to solve a particular puzzle.  

I've done that a few times in math.  Not to brag, but I get to if I want to
- I have pride.  The work has been obscure; one had a very practical
application, one contributed to a theory, and a couple have been
impractical.  They have all been deeply personally satisfying.  Had I the
patience and resources, I might well apply myself to something in my field,
working on harder problems and reaping greater rewards of personal
accomplishment.

Still, the stronger message is caveat emptor.  

What annoys me is that a lot of the research funded by whichever industry is
misused in their promotional efforts, and there's not much expert scientific
reporting to inform the public what the research actually means.  "Superfood
A leads to a long life!" may be the claim, but the research may say "if you
give a small sampling of mice this compound for half of their calories, they
get much less cancer than the small control sampling."  

Subtle difference....

~ Stephen