Well, after a long election cycle, you're probably either celebrating or sulking today. For many Americans, either emotion pushes one toward sugary treats and comfort foods. It is commonly reported that there is an obesity and diabetes problem in America, but identifying the causes and possible solutions to this problem is a more hotly contested topic. As with many issues, we rely on science to help us understand why these health challenges have grown so substantially over the past decades. Unfortunately, as this article documents, groups with vested interests in the composition of the American diet, such as the sugar lobby, have systematically worked to avoid, confuse, and suppress attempts at objective science. It's an appalling story that reflects a troubling willingness to sacrifice the interests of the public for corporate bottom lines.
For more on this topic, make sure to read a past longread -- Longread #32 -- Is Sugar Toxic?
"Big Sugar's Sweet Little Lies" by Gary Taubes and Cristin Kearns Couzens
Published in Mother Jones, November/December 2012
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign?src=longreads
Eric
This article leads me to think a lot more about the different forms of obscuring the truth. Especially when not declaring something is more beneficial to your side:
ReplyDeleteThe sugar industry is not allowing the FDA or USDA to come out with a clear number on the minimum amount of sugar that's allowable in your diet (even though the World Health Organization came out with a number).
I understand that everyone's body processes and responds to sugars a bit differently, but this is not a reason to try to figure out a recommended amount.
By keeping this unclear, Americans can continue to consume large amounts of sugar/corn syrup without direction.
Here's my question...in all these cases where an industry produces ridiculous counter research (tobacco, sugar, etc.) who the hell are these "scientists" that support them? How do they have credibility????
ReplyDeleteIt's a very tricky situation when an industry funds scientific research about its product. There needs to be a way for these scientists to be funded with a general grant where the scientists can have the freedom to go in their own direction with the research.
ReplyDeleteWhich in most cases doesn't happen...which is why i wonder who the hell are these guys and how do they have ANY credibility.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Seeing the kind of shit they can pull with something like sugar -- it makes you wonder abut things that aren't so directly related to health problems/environmental problems.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good question, and I think there are a few ways these folks maintain credibility. Most of it is just an elaborate process of smoke and mirrors.
ReplyDelete1. Design experiments carefully. This can involve changing the methodology, the focus/hypothesis, or any number of other variables to have a study that is scientifically "sound" but that also serves a troubling political purpose.
2. Overstate the importance of reasonable caveats in opposing studies. Good researchers acknowledge the potential limitations of their work. These folks jump all over those things to obfuscate the real take-away messages of those studies.
3. Rely heavily on marketing -- if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. Some of these folks have limited credibility with scientists, but that's irrelevant to the sugar lobby. The important thing is to have credibility with regulators (and in some cases the public), and they are able to market their information in a way that obscures its bias.
4. Doctors with a pedigree. Industry makes sure to find people with otherwise stellar credentials who can hold up to some criticism.
We see this on a lot of fronts -- climate science, for example. This article is a good case study of how these scientists systematically approach these issues to make their bias both persuasive and hidden.
Eric
right and my question is how big of an asshole do you have to be to lie about climate change just to get paid. I'd say real big. It goes to show (I believe this was in a long read a while back) that as long as you slap an official sounding title on something people will think it is credible.
ReplyDelete