I found this article by accident in the Star Tribune as it wasn't in the science or health section of paper, but discusses a French diet company setting up shop in Minneapolis to lower health care costs by providing what appears to be little more than European Jenny Craig or Weight Watchers services. The companies scientific claims go without critique in the article, and are pretty laughable. The article appears in the business section while that most important claims in the article are scientific. The problem as I see it is credulity towards scientific claims that should be recognized as dubious. That interested parties should not be able to justify their positions as scientific without at least some attempt at an outside critique. It is important because credulous articles like this allow scams to propagate and ultimately do harm to those swindled. The goal of this letter is to raise (at least in this instance) the standards of the paper for addressing scientific claims even in articles that are not 'science' articles.
It needs to be shorter, but let me know what works and what doesn't.
My Draft:
The Feb 11 article by Jackie Crosby, “Paris-based nutrition firm is making Twin Cities its U.S. home,” reads like little more than a press release from the company HQ. For all the evocative clichés about cosmopolitan European diets rescuing obese America from itself, the article typifies another unfortunate cliché of modern America: a lack of critical inquiry that allows us to be swindled en masse by hucksters. Among the claims about the KOT diet program: it’s scientific, it’s comprehensive, it lowers cost, gives better health, raises metabolism, you can eat delicious meals, and the weight stays off! Only $19.99 per month! (plus ~$500 for food apparently). The only thing unclaimed seems to be a better sex life. Dare I say, we’ve heard this all before.
Why will this plan work where so many others have failed? “It’s backed by science,” states Dr. Reginald Allouche, the face of the enterprise, in the article. A 50 person study, which is uninterpretable as such minimal information is given, seems to exhaust the supply of evidence. Given the Twins Cities and Rochester boast some of the best Endocrinology programs in the Country, wouldn’t some disinterested party be available to offer a critique of the company’s claims. Perhaps place them into context. The outside parties spoken to in this article seem not even to discuss this particular company or its claims. I know this appeared in the business section but shouldn’t investors, interested companies, or interested citizens be given information about whether there’s any credibility to this approach. The Star Tribune owes it’s readers a thorough critique, not credulity, when ‘Science’ is claimed to provide any easy answer to such an important problem.
I LOVE this! Saw the same article, and remembered reading a while back that ALL diet plan rhetoric has the same structure: (1) you tried X, Y, and Z and it failed (2) all that was snake oil and nonsense (3) But THIS is the real thing--new science, some indigenous lore, a mystery berry, a rediscovered old trick, blah, blah, blah.
ReplyDeleteNow we have the sexy French.....
I always find NEW DIET IS EFFECTIVE articles highly entertaining and this one is no exception. Credibility is never as important as marketability. Such a shame. This time around, it seems that ‘backed by science’ and ‘50 hospital patients in France’ are the only approximations to credibility. I liked your letter to the editor and my only suggestion would be to make it a little more concise.
ReplyDelete