Nutrition Whiplash
The media simplifies multi-page scientific studies into short soundbite-worthy headlines. While the intent is to communicate nutrition information quickly and clearly, the result is increased consumer confusion. The media and the food industry capitalize on our confusion and bait clicks by acting as though they know something the experts do not: the perfect way to eat for us all.
It’s not absolutely the fault of the media or the food industry — nutrition results can change on a dime due to scientific methodology, spurious associations, and unintended bias. Statistically, even without bias and faulty methodology, many studies remain incorrect due to statistical law of confidence intervals — a measurement of the likelihood of correctness that is never 100%. In some scientific fields such as psychology, the likelihood of studies being correct may exist as low as 40%.
As consumers, our already overloaded brains don’t want to grapple with probabilities that something is good or bad for us. (And more often than not, neither do reporters). We’re seeking definitive answers. Consequently, articles and publications that promote every new study as ‘absolute science’ inevitably promote non-truths –often citing studies that could be wrong, or studies only intended as part of the answer. In nutrition, we call the consequences of ‘absolute’ thinking — when single foods appear deemed ‘good’ one year, and ‘bad’ the next — Nutrition Whiplash.
Below is a brief and simple overview of some foods, nutrients, and labels illustrating headlines — ( #head-lies? ) — that use science to promote absolutes in nutrition.
Foods
Coffee:
It’s good for you —
It’s bad for you —
Soy
It’s good for you —
“If you choose to include soy products in your routine, you’ll have science on your side.”
It’s bad for you —
Butter
It’s good for you —
It’s bad for you-
Red Meat:
It’s bad for you —
It’s good for you —
Vegetable Oil
It’s good for you -
It’s bad for you -
Nutrients:
Saturated Fat
It’s good for you -
It’s bad for you -
Sodium
It’s good for you -
It’s bad for you -
Carbohydrates
It’s good for you -
It’s bad for you -
Labels:
Organic
It’s good for you -
It’s bad for you -
GMO
They’re good-
They’re bad -
The Point
At Food + Future, we’ve learned to never look at a single food, nutrient, or label as absolutely good or bad. Instead, we entertain the nuance in each situation: ‘who is this good/bad for?’, ‘in what quantity is this good/bad?’, ‘in what combination of other foods is this good/bad’, ‘under what conditions is this good/bad’ etc.. We know that asking these questions will improve the quality of our scientific studies and that the answers will transform the way we navigate the complex journey towards a healthier life.
Core messages:
- Nutrition as a field is incomplete: we have more questions than answers
- Our overloaded brains crave simple answers, silver bullets, definitive guidance
- The media & food industry capitalize on this, delivering pithy headlines
- This is dangerous because it encourages laziness of thought and acting on misinformation
