
The Continued Battle Against Dangerous Nonsense - haZard_OS
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42912720
======
thisisit
IMO this is just an extreme extension of the bs which has been peddled by
multi national for ages (through celebrities no less). Have sugar laden
cereals for breakfast, it helps in keeping your child active or this
particular stuff has "added" or fortifies with minerals and vitamins. Or
celebs endorsed cola brands.

What is happening now is that people, specially celebs, are realizing they
that production assembly lines are now commoditized and advertising has become
less and less problematic, thanks to twitter, Facebook and other social media
outreach. So, they don't need a multi national brand like Nestle, Kellogs etc
to peddle their stuff - there is no need for "Tom Brady" approved Cola or
something. They can reach directly to their core audience.

~~~
tcj_phx
BS is peddled by industries seeking to grow their business. Medical
professionals are also susceptible to industry-sponsored BS-vendors:

[https://www.propublica.org/article/when-evidence-says-no-
but...](https://www.propublica.org/article/when-evidence-says-no-but-doctors-
say-yes)

Oxycontin was supposedly non-habit forming. Decades ago DES was sold to
prevent miscarriages, but actually caused them, and gave those women's
daughters vaginal cancer.

No one can actually be fully trusted, so people trust who they think is trust-
able. I prefer the middle path... Consult with the professionals, but take
their advice with plenty of salt [0].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_of_salt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_of_salt)

------
narrator
I blame Ancel Keyes for starting the whole nonsense diet advice trend.

------
gerdesj
That article is a shining example of why I'm quite happy to pay my TV licence
fee. I'm not exactly sure where the funding for BBC.COM comes from and until
recently I was excluded from .com due to being British (odd thing, now
sorted).

However, ignoring how the article was funded, it is a good example of proper
journalism.

Why on God's good earth is quackery still a thing?

~~~
stevenwoo
The article notably excludes Orrin Hatch - if you are wondering how politics
could possibly play into this, he made the entire supplements industry
possible by using his power to exclude dietary supplements from oversight by
the FDA and creating a cycle where the industry kept on funding Hatch in order
to get favourable legislation. Utah is the home of quack medicine.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/opinion/the-politics-
of-f...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/opinion/the-politics-of-
fraudulent-dietary-supplements.html)

------
coldcode
I spent six years getting chemistry degrees (and became a programmer instead)
and every time people blame chemicals for things I have to laugh.

~~~
SAI_Peregrinus
"Chemical free" is always amusing. Pretty much the only material product I buy
that's truly chemical free is electricity from the power company.

~~~
lulmerchant
"Organic" is almost as bad in my opinion.

~~~
grzm
With all of these terms, do you understand what people mean when they use
them? _Artificial_ and _natural_ likewise can be criticized, but is it
helpful? Are you perhaps dereferencing them to a different definition than
what they intend? Human language is very fluid and understanding depends at
least in part on context. I have my own pet peeves with respect to imprecision
in language, but I work against that from getting in the way of the real goal,
which is understanding.

~~~
lulmerchant
"Organic" and "Chemical" are words that already have a clear meaning. In the
alternative context in which these words are used, they have no meaning. You
won't find a consistent or concise definition that describes the alternative
context in which these words have come to be used. What those words really
mean in that context, is completely arbitrary, varies greatly depending on who
you're talking to, and has noting to do with the use of chemicals, or organic
chemicals. Worse yet, products that are deemed to be either "Organic" or
"Chemical Free" often fail to meaningfully differentiate themselves from the
products which are "not organic" or "chemical".

At best, the use of these words is a deceitful marketing ploy used to
manipulate people who don't understand chemistry. At worst (as is the case
with "organic certification"), it is simply a scam used to con money out of
producers and consumers.

~~~
King-Aaron
You're fighting a losing battle if you try to enforce traditional meaning to
language in a contemporary environment. Context is the key.

The word "organic" takes on a very different meaning if you're describing a
brake rotor compound, instead of a bunch of bananas in a supermarket, for
instance. However it's by no stretch _devoid of meaning_ in either context.

------
olivermarks
actual article title 'The scientists calling Tom Brady and Gwyneth Paltrow's
bluff'

~~~
robjan
The title depends on which region you are in

