There is no magic pill that will make the fat melt off of your body. This is a fact. Kissing does not burn enough calories for you to skip the gym. Aspirin does not cure cancer. These are facts. To ignore these facts is foolish and irresponsible. To take the pretty falsehoods and profit off of the optimistic picture they paint is worse than foolish. It is evil. These are all examples of how companies and mass media misrepresents nutrition information.
Many large companies abuse the very word “science” A staggering amount of nutrition and health information on products is misleading, overselling, or objectively false. From leading people into unsafe trend diets to selling supplements that often don’t contain the ingredients advertised, the misrepresentation of health and nutrition information is a global issue.
Everyone knows about the Freaky Friday star, Jamie Lee Curtis, and her promotion of Activia Yogurt, created by the Dannon company. The advertisement claims that, when eaten every day for two weeks, Activia is clinically proven to help regulate your digestive system. This false claim caused a 45-million-dollar class action settlement against the parent company. Dannon’s own studies showed that eating Activia every day did nothing to the digestion of the general population, and the company was forced to limit its health claims for future advertisements. Now, Activia commercials promote the idea that eating the yogurt everyday may help your digestion, without the unscientific promise that it will.(McMullen)
An example of this overselling of a product’s health benefits can be found by in the notorious Jamie Lee Curtis Activia Yogurt commercial, created by the Dannon company. The advertisement claims that, when eaten every day for two weeks, Activia is clinically proven to help regulate your digestive system. This false claim caused a45-million-dollar class action settlement against the parent company. Dannon’s own studies showed that eating Activia every day did nothing to the digestion of the general population, and the company was forced to limit its health claims for future advertisements. Now, Activia commercials promote the idea that eating the yogurt everyday may help your digestion, without the unscientific promise that it will.(McMullen)
This is just one example of the coded language and misuse of scientific studies that is so often found within advertising, and a minor one at that. While the study Activia used did have positive findings for a small sample size within an elderly population, the findings were not enough to support the company’s broad claim. Other companies will use studies with a short time frame, a small sample size, or go through a process called p-hacking to get easily marketable but ultimately meaningless results.
While the general population understands that companies reporting scientific information aren’t going to share the whole truth, the terms “studies show” or “scientists have found” still add a sense of legitimacy to a product, even if they’re ultimately hollow statements. This coded language makes a person more likely to listen to and trust the information that they are given. The reporting done also typically provides insufficient information, context, or proper sourcing to get a clear picture of what a study is actually saying.
This kind of manipulation of information and science can cause major issues in two ways. The first is that it can negatively impact the health of the general population.For example, let’s look at the Dr. Oz dietary supplement scandal. Dr. Oz is easily America’s most famous and trusted doctor. Between 2011 and 2012 the Dr. Oz Show averaged 3.8 million viewers. During that time Oz reported on legitimate health information, as well as pushing diet plans and magic weight-loss supplements. He described several pills as magic, miracles, or lightening in a bottle. (Christensen)
The problem with this kind of advertising is that it is blatantly untrue. In the “magic bean” Dr. Oz referenced on his show, it was found that the main ingredient used didn’t help with weight loss in obese mice, but rather caused symptoms of early diabetes. Later, in his congressional hearing about false advertising, Dr. Oz pointed out that there is no such thing as a magical weight loss supplement. (Christensen)
Now, you might be thinking that this level of false advertising should be illegal.Technically the Federal Trade Commission is supposed to mandate these health based claims. They tend to defer this regulation to the FDA- who are only able to investigate the contents of a dietary supplement after people report getting sick.
Even then, regulation of dietary supplements in nearly impossible because of the advertising power the supplement companies have, and the political power they have through lobbying. For an example of this, you can look at the case with Ephedra, the supplement linked to the death of Steven Scott Bechler- a major league baseball pitcher-as well as the death of Minnesota Vikings offensive lineman Korey Stinger, and over 15,0000 other ephedra-related adverse health events (Murphy). When the FDA attempted to pass legislation on ephedra, supplement companies told their consumers to write to their congressmen about stopping the legislation. More people wrote about the supplement bill then about the Vietnam war. To this day, supplement companies do not need approval from the FDA before a product is marketed, can make health claims without approval from the government, don’t need to prove the safety or effectiveness of a product before putting it up for sale. Even though many can cause severe bleeding,strokes, liver damage, and, death.
The second major issue that arise from the misuse of scientific information by large food companies is the it delegitimizes scientific communication. In the past month there have been several articles published claiming that coffee can help reverse liver damage, reduce the effects of colon cancer, decrease the risk of developing endometrial cancer, and increase the likelihood of having a miscarriage. This is an example of how the media and company’s misrepresentation of scientific studies can cause mass confusion. Misunderstandings like this corrode trust in scientific community as a whole.
When people hear fifteen different reports on what foods cause cancer, all of which contradict each other and none of which provide enough information to judge the size,scale, or worth of the study, then the people are more likely to think that scientists don’t know the right answer and can’t be trusted (Crew). This leads to companies, like the tobacco industry, the fossil fuel industry, and even at one point the sugar industry,being able to mislead the public by stating that the science criticizing their products or practices isn’t truthful or worth trusting. It creates a break in the lines of communication and the presenter-audience relationship—making it harder to talk about the bigger issues, like vaccines, nuclear power, or global climate change.
You can look more specifically at how the sugar industry uses this misinformation to its advantage. During the 1970’s, the Sugar Associate launched a massive ad campaign that claimed that sugar was a useful diet aid. This was after they partially funded several studies researching the link between sugar, obesity, and diabetes. All of these studies were promptly defunded when the scientific findings began showing a legitimate connection between sugar and health issues. The Sugar Association instead focused on the findings of scientists who were highly skeptical of the sugar/diabetes connection, stating “All those present agreed that a large amount of research is still necessary before a firm conclusion can be arrived at,”. Some notable companies that supported these claims, as well as funded studies specifically geared towards helping the sugar industries argument, include Coca-Cola, Hershey’s, Kellogg,and Nabisco. (Oatman)
At its core, this issue might seem like a small one. It can be looked at as only centered around the ethics of false advertising and the evils of capitalism. But on a larger scale the problem of misleading the general public with the misrepresentation,omission, or spreading of falsehoods about scientific studies to perpetrate false nutrition information is a global issue. The general public should not have to fact check every local news report or commercial they hear, but rather should be able to trust the media to report the full facts of every study, or wait until there is enough information to legitimately back up a claim.
So, when you’re surfing the web or watching television, and you come across an ad for the hottest weight loss cleanse or newest protein shake- don’t be duped. Make sure the facts line up with what’s being said, and always remember to cleanse your mental glands of the toxins of fake science.
Christensen, Jen, and Jacque Wilson. “Congressional Hearing Investigates Dr. Oz ‘miracle’ Weight Loss Claims.” CNN. Cable News Network, 19 June 2014. Sun. 5 Mar. 2017.
Crest, Crag. “Science Isn’t Broken.” FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, 22 Feb. 2017. Sat. 4 Mar. 2017.
Crew, Bec. “Everything We Eat Both Causes and Prevents Cancer.” ScienceAlert. VOX, 1 Apr. 2015. Sat. 4 Mar. 2017.
Lipton, Eric. “Support Is Mutual for Senator and Utah Industry.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 20 June 2011. Sat. 4 Mar. 2017.
McMullen, Troy. “Dannon to Pay $45M to Settle Yogurt Lawsuit.” ABC News. ABC News Network, 26 Feb.2010. Mon. 6 Mar. 2017.
Murphy, Jarrett. “Ephedra Tied To Pitcher’s Death.” CBS News. CBS Interactive, 17 Feb. 2003. Sat. 4 Mar. 2017.
Oatman, Maddie, Maya Dusenbery, Cristin Kearns Couzens, Patrick Caldwell, and Eric Holthaus. “Big Sugar’s Sweet Little Lies.” Mother Jones. The Foundation for National Progress, n.d. Tues. 7 Mar. 2017.