Trust in Science is at an all time low. Here's why.

I think we can all agree that science literacy and trust are at an all-time low. There are many reasons for this - ranging from the media to marketers (I’ll cover their role in my next post) - but this article over the weekend, syndicated from the Daily Telegraph and published in the NZ Herald, is a good example of why.

The title is compelling: 10 Ultra-Processed Foods to Never Buy Again. Dun dun dunnnnnn. Immediately, I want to know what not to buy to stay healthier. The article lists 10 foods, each accompanied by input from an 'expert.'

Something to consider when consuming any content with 'expert' commentary is whether the expert is actually an expert in the topic. They may be experts in a field - but not necessarily a relevant one. A common media tactic is to use someone with credentials to discuss a topic outside their expertise, making their opinion seem more credible than it is.

Let’s start with #2, which strongly implies that frozen pizzas cause Alzheimer’s. The problem is, that’s total nonsense.

The expert states:"Omega-6 is inflammatory to the brain," he says. "And it’s not just the brain that suffers. Chronic inflammation is one of the leading drivers of the most serious modern diseases, including heart disease, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, arthritis, Alzheimer’s, and many types of cancer."

There’s a lot wrong with this, but let’s focus on one part: there is no proof that high omega-6 intake causes brain inflammation. In fact, studies around this topic often include statements like, “It is still unclear whether linoleic acid (an omega-6) is good or bad for the brain, and its role in neurobehavioral development requires further investigation.”

I did find one study showing a correlation between high omega-6 intake and inflammation, but it was conducted on nematodes. And while some people may show worm-level intelligence, biologically, we don’t operate like them.

It’s worth checking for conflicts of interest at the bottom of a study, where researchers disclose things that may be conflicts - funding sources for example. One report often used to push the omega-6 scare was authored by a pharmacist and a doctor—neither of whom were experts in the field—and they both sell omega-3 supplements.

I’m not here to tell you whether omega-6s should be avoided because I’m not an expert either. But the pervasive idea that omega-6s will cause brain inflammation and kill you horribly is not backed by strong evidence.

Also, fresh pizza is just as likely to contain oils high in omega-6s. If you want to avoid them, read the ingredients, but the article’s statement is flat-out wrong. Bet you believed it when you first read it though.

Moving on to #3: artificial sweeteners.

I do know a bit about this because of my work with Incrediballs, where we spent a lot of time testing them. This still doesn't make me an expert (and you should always be leary when someone says 'oh, I did my research'. Unless they're an actual researcher, be skeptical.

The article claims: "When we taste something sweet, the body predicts that sugar is on the way: In anticipation of the expected rise in blood glucose levels, the body pre-emptively produces insulin, which aside from being the body’s fat storage hormone is also the hormone that regulates blood sugar levels. This means that the sweet taste of the artificial sweetener will cause insulin levels to rise even though there is no sugar is on the way.”

Studies don’t support this. A few small studies show that sucralose can cause slight insulin spikes in some people who are insulin-resistant, but others, like saccharin and aspartame, do not. A 2021 systematic review in Frontiers in Nutrition found that artificial sweeteners do not significantly affect insulin or blood glucose levels in the general population. So, no.

The article then says: These 'nasties' are commonly found in diet soft drinks, "where the synthetic sweet taste perpetuates cravings for more sweet foods and conditions us to expect food to taste unnaturally sweet."

Also no. A 2022 review in Nutrients found that artificial sweeteners do not appear to reinforce sweet taste, and that the link to cravings or poor eating behaviour isn’t strong enough to draw clear conclusions. In other words, this isn’t supported by science - further work needed.

Just to comment on the word 'nasties' and others like it because you see it throughout marketing the world over - this is an emotive, inflammatory word that makes something sound terribly harmful, without showing any evidence to prove it.

The media often represent science poorly. I shared another example last week about claims that your brain could contain a spoonful of plastic.  Despite weak evidence, media screamed it from the rooftops, with headlines like "Plastic Shards Permeate Human Brains" which just sounds painful. Journalists typically aren’t trained to interpret scientific studies, so it’s not their fault (though the clickbait headlines are definitely intentional).

Whenever you see sensationalist headlines, take them with a grain (or bucket) of salt. Words like "might," "may," or "suggests" mean scientists haven’t reached a definitive conclusion. But "we don’t know if your brain is full of plastic" isn’t such a good headline.

Be skeptical of phrases like "the study showed an association between X and Y," where Y is often death or disease. Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Just because two things are linked doesn’t mean one causes the other. The photo attached illustrates this perfectly.

These sorts of headlines are why people think science flip flops on things all the time. Certainly, recommendations change as we learn more, but the media make it look like scientists reach conclusions they actually haven't.

If you ever meet an actual researcher they're usually quite hard to get any concrete statements out of. It's a little annoying actually - but that is their job. If the evidence isn't there, then they don't draw conclusions. They'd make terrible journalists.

(I haven't commented on things like methodology or sample size because most people aren’t trained to spot shoddy science. )

‍

‍