Business v.s. Truth

After so many years since science became popularized, we see increasing cases where science turns out to be a pseudo-proposition. It has been a common phenomenon that sellers tend to make science claims to better approach their consumers. Meanwhile, consumers prefer to trust them because of the desire for a high-quality lifestyle. However, in the essay 106 Science Claims and a Truckful of Baloney, Weed gives his own daily experience as examples to illustrate that though there are fair ones, most of the so-called science claims in marketing could be not scientific at all, and that is pretty much his main claim in this essay.

106 Science Claims and a Truckful of Baloney was first published on the magazine Popular Science, which means the author’s intended audience are those who have strong interests in science, even enthusiastic about popular science. Weed arranges his essay in a special yet efficient way. He uses chronological order as well as logical order. For example, he writes down what he heard and saw since 6:00PM, then he gives a fine print of the “science claims” he just met up with, such as “Cheerios: Fair enough”, “Cows: Specious” and “Soy Shake: Misleading”. Then he continues his records and explanations. This special parallel structure enables the readers to really look into the truths while being careful of the feints. That is to say, next time when we hear somebody talking about this kind of milk that “derives from a dairy whose cows graze freely on lush natural pastures as nature intended”, we know that it’s a misleading selling strategy instead of a concrete fact.

Also, in all the fine print parts, Weed backed up his arguments with real scientific evidence. For example, when explaining the truth about “Alcohol is good for you”, he provides with “a landmark study that followed the drinking habits of nearly 90,000 male physicians”, which leads to a positive result. But soon after, Weed moves forward to point out that over-drinking is, on contrary, harmful to human health. This kind of critical way of explanation could inform the audience more effectively, which greatly increases the author’s credibility. I have to say Weed is pretty good at persuading, he is smart, calm, prepared, and he is humorous! I found myself totally enjoying his writing, even considering it entertaining.

Actually in my daily life, I am a rather careless consumer, and pay no attention about whether the claims of sellers are authentic or bogus. However, after reading and analyzing Weed’s essay, I started an investigation around my room to find those annoying tricks.

The first one was a claim written on the package of my pet hamster’s food, saying “Nutritionally Complete: fruits & vegetables”. I have to say this is absolutely puffed up, because I didn’t see any fruits or vegetables in there! Can’t believe I bought this for my hampster, that poor little boy. Well, he enjoyed it a lot, though.

Another truth was discovered on the can of AriZona Tea, which says “with all natural flavors”. To me, I think this is fair enough, because when people see “natural flavors”, we think about real juice. Even on the other side of the can there is a nutrition facts form, where I found that all the flavors added into this drink came from concentrate juices. What does that mean? This article tells that concentrate juices are not harmful yet more advance than juices. In this case, I don’t see the seller cheating us.

The last one that I could recall was a drug commercial, I heard it in the radio. It claims that take one pill and you’ll get so much healthy than your peers. Obviously it is just bogus. Like Weed puts, ‘No pill can make someone look 20 years younger”. I laughed at the moment when I heard the rediculous commercial, and even now I still can’t keep questioning, why would anyone sell their products in such a silly way?

Don’t Believe Everything Science Tells You

Weed’s “106 Science Claims and a Truckful of Baloney” is a way to appeal to Americans to look beyond the label of many everyday products and advertisements that companies rely on to to sell a product. He states that “as a nation, we are easy prey to the pseudoscientific and the National Science Board survey blames education and the media for this.” Americans are too trusting of the products that they use and do not question why or how a product does what it is said to do. People assume that because the government says so, “companies have a legal obligation to tell the truth,” which is accurate, but it does not mean that companies will. “They have a marketing imperative to put the best possible spin” on a product to make money and run there businesses. Americans encounter science in advertisements everyday, whether they are aware of it or not, and “science in advertising wears makeup” to make a product the most appealing.

Through this article Weed questions science by questioning everyday advertisements and claims that regular Americans see, hear, read, and believe everyday. He targeted this article at people who take an interest in science, as well as everyday Americans, in order to make people realize how skewed science becomes when it enters the business world. By running an experiment himself, showing how many times he encounters a claim related to science everyday, he makes himself more interesting and by gaining the interest of his readers, they relate easier to him because  they are in the same position, but may not realize it. This method appeals to his ethos because he is writing about his experiences firsthand. Weed’s tactic of explaining the claims he hears and providing evidence about them after gaining the reader’s trust, allow him to prove to the reader that scientific claims are pseudoscience. The hourly structure of Weed’s article emphasize how many false scientific claims the average person encounters on a daily basis, many times without realizing or questioning what the advertisement is actually trying to sell, but blindly trusting it.

This is a persuasive article because it is able to prove through credible sources the ways in which companies deceive by spewing out pseudoscientific claims to make their product more appealing. Also, by placing himself in the situation and recording claims that are popular and advertised often, Americans relate and may be motivated to do their own research to discover more statements that companies make to sell a product, whether they are accurate or not.

Part II

One of the scientific claims I’ve encountered is an advertisement for Kellogg’s Cocoa Krispies stated that they now help support the immune system. This claim is false. While Cocoa Krispies do contain Vitamins  A, B, C, and E, Vitamin C mainly coming from having milk with cereal, they do not support the immune system. Vitamins A, B, and E all take part in achieving a healthy immune system because of the function they have on the body, however the amount of these vitamins compared to the amount of sugar in a bowl of Cocoa Krispies is not enough to help the immune system. In fact, “there is more and more evidence is coming to light that shows excess sugar can suppress the immune system.” http://www.mandatory.com/2012/09/11/10-outrageous-things-ads-have-claimed/

Another scientific claim I’ve encountered is in Wrigley’s Eclipse gum, which claims to be naturally germ killing. Eclipse claims to kill the germs that cause bad breath. This claim is exaggerated. Wrigley’s Eclipse gum has been proven to mask bad breath, although the ingredient MBE that is found within the naturally germ killing gum has been proven to kill some germs that cause bad breath. However, MBE is still being tested and there is not enough research to make that claim. Also, the ingredient is not strong enough or consistent enough to be credited with the ability to kill germs. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wrigleys-eclipse-gum-may-not-kill-germs-as-claimed-in-ads/

An additional claim I’ve encountered is that Airborne, a dietary supplement acts as a cold prevention and treatment remedy. This claim is false. Airborne contains Vitamins A, C, E, zinc, and selenium. These are all vitamins that help improve the immune system, however “there is no credible evidence that Airborne products, taken as directed, will reduce the severity or duration of colds, or provide any tangible benefit for people who are exposed to germs in crowded places” as the supplement claims to do. http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2008/08/makers-airborne-settle-ftc-charges-deceptive-advertising

Yep! This is as real as it gets…

 

Weed directs his objections to the general public of America who go through their day witnessing random scientific claims in regards to food and medicine products that are being publicized throughout the media. He doesn’t bombard the audience with claims and leaves it to them to interpret. Rather, he takes time after every fifth or sixth point that he has summed up from the 106 found to further denote what is actually being hidden from the public eye. He also does so in a sort of informal fashion, where one can make snide comments about the information in a blunt manner, which also adds a bit of humor to the article for the readers to enjoy.

In the eyes of the author, the nation has become an easy prey for the pseudo-scientific world that is plaguing our lives. Though the majority of claims from advertisers are seen as the daily dose of science that everyone needs as they go on with their day, they are actually filled with either lies, or irrelevant statements in regards to the actual benefits of the product. Companies have a “marketing imperative” which encourages them to twist information this way and that to make the product seem most appealing to the customer as they try to improve sales. Using the FDA’s disclaimers made this entirely possible as even a team of college drop- outs could successfully sell a product as long as they had the disclaimer somewhere in their ad. Although declaring all the ways we’ve been tricked by the false advertising, Weed doesn’t leave his readers with a problem that they couldn’t possibly fix. He instead makes a point of how we could benefit from having an attitude similar to one that was used as an example in his article. “Oddly, the Imus joke about the Chinese astronaut embodied the sort of attitude Americans could profit from in a world of promiscuous science claims. His “How do we know?” is a demand for fundamental evidence.” This particular section allows Weed to depict how the public should respond to the supposedly scientifically -proven claims that are seen by the hundreds every day by pedestrians and web –browsers. The wording in the first sentence seems to direct the attitude of the reader as they have already pre-ascribed notions of what “promiscuous” can mean in the eyes of the media.  When found in a thesaurus, its’ synonyms can alternate from “loose” to “immoral” -something one would usually like to avoid in fear of embarrassment as well as defending ones morality. Thus, to relate the facts that companies are declaring to this would instantly shift the tone of the essay to show just how false these claims could be, and also how much we should avoid listening to them for our own health as well as our paycheck.  Though seen as unusual, Weed encourages the questioning emphasized in this reference. It’s a display of how simple it could be to avoid being the victim of such atrocities as the “3-inches longer” pitch, or the coconut oil(which is filled with saturated fat) being healthy for you.

As for my belief in Weed’s position on the subject matter, I completely agree with his opinion. Not only because he uses logos, or information that had been background checked by respectable scientists and doctors of the like who described most of the statements found as “patently false”- counteracting claims from “facts” about bread brands to breast implants. I myself have been subject to the lies of companies who could not fulfill the promises on the label, or the implied idea that customers were buying, that was shipping nationwide. A few of these companies happened to be leading sellers in the food world, such as “Ocean Spray, Naked Juice, and Wendy’s.” From these companies, one would hear all sorts of claims such as having fresh and healthy salads, to using actual fruits in their products, when in all truth, Weed’s conceived doubt is proven reasonable once again. For example, Ocean Spray has been yielding thousands of dollars from its new craze S.D.C.’s, or sweetened dried cranberries, which have been titled “Choice” most recently. With this tasty bite-sized treat being used to mix in cereal, salads, and other meals, many have been demanding the product since its premiere, which caused a shortage in supply over time. As a result, the product began to lack something…actual fruit! Though claiming that they use real cranberries to further promote the health benefits of the product, studies from Krueger Food Laboratories have shown that the product might as well be “cranberry skin infused with syrup.”

As for the Pepsi-owned “Naked” products, they had a few claims which have been more than counteracted by its customers. The first being that their products were all natural when it was proven that it contains G.M.O., or genetically modified organisms such as the soy milk used to create the popular smoothies. How serious was this misleading claim? Pretty serious if you ask any of the customers who were paid up to $75 in reimbursement if proven that they had ingested the product between September 27, 2007 -August 19, 2013. Such resulted from a class action lawsuit which (I’m sure) brought smiles to the faces of customers who had been cheated out of getting what they thought was high quality nutrition. Another claim that wasn’t exactly true about the juice smoothies was also in relation to how healthy it is. When compared to Ocean Spray’s product, the juice smoothies win in regards to how much actual fruit is being used, but the cranberries are somewhat of a healthier choice as a result of the fiber added into the product-which helps digestion and absorption of the sugar intake. Although our body deals well with natural glucose, too much of anything at one sitting causes trouble, especially when there’s 60 grams of it per serving!

 

( http://www.nclnet.org/food/85-food-labeling/155-think-youre-eating-fruit-think-again )

( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/naked-juice-class-action-lawsuit_n_3830437.html )