Why is food so scary?

The context

Food is important. Not only because we need it to survive, but for other reasons too. It can be part of person’s or a country’s identity. It can be pleasurable when consuming or for some, cooking. It can bring people together, and it can have a direct impact on our health. In poorer developing countries where famine can be rife, it’s not enough food that can be the killer. Now, in the wealthy countries it’s an over abundance and consumption of food that is now causing a drain on health care.

But there is another problem that seems to have come from this over abundance and privilege that we enjoy as a wealthier society. We can worry about what we eat. We hear stories about about scientific research that will say one thing and then another. Eggs are bad for you. No… they’re good. Red wine is good for the heart. Actually... no it’s not. Product x will double your risk of getting cancer! It can be confusing with so much noise, much of it contradicting. It doesn’t help that the media is notoriously bad at conveying any scientific research when it comes to food. Instead of taking the nuanced approach that the scientists will invariably convey in their articles, the media tends to opt for the more “grabby” headline and a more sensational story. They will omit, either though intentional neglect or incompetency, that doubling your rate of cancer from a very small number is still a very small number. Like politicians, they will give you half truths, statistics and common fallacies in order to better sell their product. They haven’t necessarily lied, but they’ve still convinced their customers of a falsehood, whether it be through implication or otherwise.

With the advent of the internet and now in particular social media, the problem has got worse. Now we have the likes of Vani Hari (the so called FoodBabe), David Avocado Wolfe and websites like Natural News or GwynethPaltrow’s Goop who profit off the telling of blatant lies. They’re not as bound by the standards that mainstream media are held to (as low as it is). Their method is to invoke fear and outrage en masse. With the confusion around the topic of diet, it can be pretty easy to instil such fear and outrage… and it works. These charlatans make a lot of money, and they can get their followers to do much of their fearmongering for them. All they need is a catchy meme with an image that immediately provokes some primal emotion. Or scare them by telling them something like "Subway’s bread contains chemicals used in the making of Yoga mats." Of course if you know anything about chemistry, or are sceptical enough to look, you’ll know that’s a fallacious argument and she’s once again making an appeal to fear.

Then there are of course organisations that have vested interest in producing or pushing “evidence” that fits their agenda. For example, Vegan activist groups such as that awful organisation PETA, describe all the horrific (and fictitious) things in milk. There may be other reasons not to drink milk (e.g. ethical), so why PETA doesn’t focus on them rather than spreading lies and fear is beyond me.

Fallacies, Fallacies, everywhere.

Some common components in our diet that are often targeted in this way are GMO, Soy and Gluten. These are often attributed to symptoms related to intestinal problems such as IBS and IBD. And indeed diagnosis in these areas have been on the rise[1][2] over the years. But what does this rise tell us about the cause? On it’s own, absolutely nothing. There is an amusing website for Spurious Correlations (my favourite one shows how the consumption of cheese leads to death by becoming entangled in your bedsheets) that illustrates nicely the fallacy of Post hoc propter hoc (after this, therefore that), A.K.A. the False Cause. i.e. Correlation does not imply causation. However, what is the correlation here anyway? It’s been on the rise, but are any of the suspected culprits being consumed on a level that matches the trend? I don’t think so. If anyone has details of this, I’d be happy to learn of it, but I would just once again repeat, beware the fallacy of False Cause.

I would certainly recommend swatting up on fallacies and what traps to avoid (or use, if you’re of that mind). Knowing how to spot them will help you, not only in discussions with others, but also to better assess your own beliefs if you catch yourself using them. A good place to start is the easy to digest, illustrated book (free online), The Book of Bad Arguments. Please check it out, and help the cause by buying a book if you like it. Also check out yourlogicalfallacyis.com.

As an introduction to some of the fallacies that can be involved here, let’s imagine some common scenarios (and we’ve already discussed the Appeal to Fear and the False Cause). Say:

1) A large number of people are expressing that GMO is bad. Let’s even say “Europe”. Your fallacy is “Appeal to the Bandwagon.”

2) My doctor told me that eating bread with GMO wheat is bad for you. Your fallacy is “Appeal to Authority.”

This can sometimes be tricky because sometimes we have to seemingly appeal to authority. Obviously we can’t know or research everything for ourselves. This is why we have experts. But appealing to Authority and Expertise are two different things. The Book of Bad Arguments makes the distinction of “Appeal to irrelevant authority,” for which the good doctor here could count himself a member of. He is not a Genetic engineer or a dietitian. Contrary to intuition, a doctor doesn’t know about everything that is bad or good for you. This is why we have specialised expertise. Anyway, the doctor’s opinion here is obviously misinformed as there is no such thing as commercially produced GMO wheat… anywhere.

3) Bread makes me swell up and feel bad, therefore Gluten is bad for me. Your fallacy is “Fallacy of Division.”

4) GMO is not natural, so it must be bad for you. Putting aside the fact there is barely any food out there that hasn’t been altered from it’s ancestral origin by humans, your fallacy is, “The Naturalistic Fallacy.”

5) GMO is bad for you. It’s up to you to prove otherwise. Your fallacy is, “The fallacy of Burden of Proof.” Related to “do your research.”

6) It made me ill / worked for me so this thing is bad / good for you. Your fallacy is “Anecdotal.”

7) All the experts haven’t been able to discover that element x is bad for you. But I’ve done my research and know it is. Your cognitive bias is “The Dunning Kruger Effect” (not strictly a fallacy).

And more. Often these can be underpinned by Confirmation Bias. You’re more likely to accept what the good doctor above tells you, if you already hold a belief close enough to what he is confirming.

If you are reading this, and any of it resonates with your beliefs, you may be feeling a bit defensive now. Please know, it’s not my position to simply attack your beliefs. Our beliefs are part of what make us who we are, and when they are challenged, it can invoke a fight or flight response. We’re familiar with this response in terms of physical threats, but the same physiological response occurs when our beliefs are challenged. It can even further entrench those beliefs. This effect is known as the backfire effect. I believe it’s important to understand these effects if you care about the truth. As Matt Dillahunty has often said, “I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible.” In order to do this one has to be able to identify the above fallacies in themselves and be able to realise if they’re digging in, and instead be able to change their mind.

This is all human. I used to believe in things that I have since been convinced I was wrong about. e.g. Margarine being bad for you, or that veganism was silly. But I understand that beliefs inform actions, so like Mr. Dillahunty, I want to believe as many true thing as possible, and as few false things as possible. And I know if anyone else where to ask if they felt the same, they would probably say yes. Some just need to take that step to practice changing their minds to get there.

Back to food and the gut

I’m lucky enough not to have to suffer with any intestinal related issues. I have a healthy balanced diet. I don’t cut anything out of my diet except for ethical reasons. I will eat all kinds of crap from time to time with no remorse or concern but overall, I am a healthy individual living on a diverse healthy diet.

This doesn’t preclude me from having opinions… actually. I’d like to avoid that word. In today’s context the word “opinion” comes with baggage. It's as if everyone’s opinion has equal validity and all opinions should be respected. Nothing could be further from the truth. I try to have informed beliefs based on evidence. If one is unable to defend their belief with evidence, then the logical default position should be to withhold any belief.

Some arguments I have encountered.

Bread in the USA makes me feel bad but I feel fine or better when in Europe, therefore GMO:

Great. You’ve identified a trigger in your diet. Bread in the USA has a higher chance of sticking it to you. But that doesn’t mean you get reduce your trigger to one component without the evidence to back it up. There could be many other reasons why this is happening. Two examples of some theories (Note, I'm not supporting any of these. It's just to highlight that there are other competing "theories" out there):

1. The practice of wheat dessication using glyphosphate prior to harvest in the US. Some people believe that it’s the infusion of this Glyphosphate into the cells of the wheat, and the bioaccumulation in our bodies that is the cause of the ills.
2. While some are convinced that the cause is in how the bread is prepared and not so much a problem with the wheat itself.

I don’t have Coeliac disease, but Gluten is bad for me (or sometimes even everyone):

While others are convinced that non-coeliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) is the cause, even though there is no real evedince to support this. There have been some small studies that have found that there may be something of interest to pursue, while other studies have shown that there is actually no link. Again, if cutting out a recognised trigger food from your diet works for you, excellent. But to blame a part of a whole, simply by association, is once again committing the fallacy of division.

Soy is bad for a whole plethora of reasons:

It’s probably not. And the GMO thing enters here again, as much of the soybeans being cultivated have been genetically modified. Just consider the health and the diet of people in, say Japan. Most of the soybeans produced today come from the USA, while proportionality, most of the soybeans consumed are in Japan. Yet the Japanese have a healthy life span, with not much in the way of man boobs or fertility issues.

The prevalence of IBD in Japan, and indeed in Asia in general, has been on the rise. But the experts do not attribute this to any one thing. And when it comes to diet, one of their best hypotheses right now is the consumption of a more sugary and low fibre western diet... with a special nod to stress.

Even though it IS on the rise, it is still less prevalent than in the west. Considering the differences in consumption between Japan and the west, this should tell you something.

Prevalence Rate (per 100,000 person):

• Japan:    150
• USA:     319
• Europe:  322

GMO!

I’m running out of steam, so I’ll be succinct. If one thinks that GMO is inherently bad, then one does not understand what GMO is. Pretty much everything we consume has been modified by humans one way or another. That's not to say a new GMO product can't be bad, but it won't be bad simply because it is a GMO. There is also rigorous and lengthy testing involved.

To conclude:

Eat a healthy home-cooked balanced diet without being scared of what you might put in your shopping basket. Treat yourself once in a while. If you do suffer from any intestinal problems and you’ve managed to identify trigger foods, then you should avoid them as best you can. But stay true to the truth and try not to make assumptions based on cognitive biases or fallacious arguments. We all do it. But there’s always scope to get better at not doing it.

I’m not a nutritionist or an expert in any of the fields above, and like any other human being I'm subject to cognitive biases as well. So I fully acknowledge that I may be, and probably am, wrong on one or more topics here. But that’s OK as long as I’m able to change my mind when confronted with evidence to the contrary of what I’ve said. If anyone has something that can convince me to change my mind then I would welcome it. I like and appreciate being shown that I'm wrong about something as it means I can get closer to the truth. However I do ask that I don’t simply get “do your research on x,” or “I’ve done my research” (see fallacies above). I’ve put some effort into this post so I hope that any response would include some amount of reciprocal effort, with sources provided as well.

I enjoy debate and putting ideas out for others to try and tear up. If an idea can withstand scrutiny via logic and evidence, then it should be retained. If not then that idea should be dropped like that piece of fluff you picked up only to realise it was a spider. 

I hope that if you’ve taken the time to read this, it’s given food for thought (pun intended? Maybe.) and if you feel like this is challenging your beliefs, it was not my intention to do it expressly for that purpose. It’s because I care about the truth and enjoy digging it out and improving my understanding of the world around me. I feel that if everyone had the tool-set to do this, the world would be a better and safer place.