QuoteWhole Foods: America's Temple of Pseudoscience
Americans get riled up about creationists and climate change deniers, but lap up the quasi-religious snake oil at Whole Foods. It's all pseudoscience—so why are some kinds of pseudoscience more equal than others?
If you want to write about spiritually-motivated pseudoscience in America, you head to the Creation Museum in Kentucky. It's like a Law of Journalism. The museum has inspired hundreds of book chapters and articles (some of them, admittedly, mine) since it opened up in 2007. The place is like media magnet. And our nation's liberal, coastal journalists are so many piles of iron fillings.
But you don't have to schlep all the way to Kentucky in order to visit America's greatest shrine to pseudoscience. In fact, that shrine is a 15-minute trip away from most American urbanites.
I'm talking, of course, about Whole Foods Market. From the probiotics aisle to the vaguely ridiculous Organic Integrity outreach effort (more on that later), Whole Foods has all the ingredients necessary to give Richard Dawkins nightmares. And if you want a sense of how weird, and how fraught, the relationship between science, politics, and commerce is in our modern world, then there's really no better place to go. Because anti-science isn't just a religious, conservative phenomenon—and the way in which it crosses cultural lines can tell us a lot about why places like the Creation Museum inspire so much rage, while places like Whole Foods don't.
My own local Whole Foods is just a block away from the campus of Duke University. Like almost everything else near downtown Durham, N.C., it's visited by a predominantly liberal clientele that skews academic, with more science PhDs per capita than a Mensa convention.
Still, there's a lot in your average Whole Foods that's resolutely pseudoscientific. The homeopathy section has plenty of Latin words and mathematical terms, but many of its remedies are so diluted that, statistically speaking, they may not contain a single molecule of the substance they purport to deliver. The book section—yep, Whole Foods sells books—boasts many M.D.'s among its authors, along with titles like The Coconut Oil Miracle and Herbal Medicine, Healing, and Cancer, which was written by a theologian and based on what the author calls the Eclectic Triphasic Medical System.
You can buy chocolate with "a meld of rich goji berries and ashwagandha root to strengthen your immune system," and bottles of ChlorOxygen chlorophyll concentrate, which "builds better blood." There's cereal with the kind of ingredients that are "made in a kitchen—not in a lab," and tea designed to heal the human heart.
Whenever we talk about science and society, it helps to keep in mind that very few of us are anywhere near rational.
Nearby are eight full shelves of probiotics—live bacteria intended to improve general health. I invited a biologist friend who studies human gut bacteria to come take a look with me. She read the healing claims printed on a handful of bottles and frowned. "This is bullshit," she said, and went off to buy some vegetables. Later, while purchasing a bag of chickpeas, I browsed among the magazine racks. There was Paleo Living, and, not far away, the latest issue of What Doctors Don't Tell You. Pseudoscience bubbles over into anti-science. A sample headline: "Stay sharp till the end: the secret cause of Alzheimer's." A sample opening sentence: "We like to think that medicine works."
At times, the Whole Foods selection slips from the pseudoscientific into the quasi-religious. It's not just the Ezekiel 4:9 bread (its recipe drawn from the eponymous Bible verse), or Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, or Vitamineral Earth's "Sacred Healing Food." It's also, at least for Jewish shoppers, the taboos that have grown up around the company's Organic Integrity effort, all of which sound eerily like kosher law. There's a sign in the Durham store suggesting that shoppers bag their organic and conventional fruit separately—lest one rub off on the other—and grind their organic coffees at home—because the Whole Foods grinders process conventional coffee, too, and so might transfer some non-organic dust. "This slicer used for cutting both CONVENTIONAL and ORGANIC breads" warns a sign above the Durham location's bread slicer. Synagogue kitchens are the only other places in which I've seen signs implying that level of food-separation purity.
Look, if homeopathic remedies make you feel better, take them. If the Paleo diet helps you eat fewer TV dinners, that's great—even if the Paleo diet is probably premised more on The Flintstones than it is on any actual evidence about human evolutionary history. If non-organic crumbs bother you, avoid them. And there's much to praise in Whole Foods' commitment to sustainability and healthful foods.
Still: a significant portion of what Whole Foods sells is based on simple pseudoscience. And sometimes that can spill over into outright anti-science (think What Doctors Don't Tell You, or Whole Foods' overblown GMO campaign, which could merit its own article). If scientific accuracy in the public sphere is your jam, is there really that much of a difference between Creation Museum founder Ken Ham, who seems to have made a career marketing pseudoscience about the origins of the world, and John Mackey, a founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market, who seems to have made a career, in part, out of marketing pseudoscience about health?
Well, no—there isn't really much difference, if the promulgation of pseudoscience in the public sphere is, strictly speaking, the only issue at play. By the total lack of outrage over Whole Foods' existence, and by the total saturation of outrage over the Creation Museum, it's clear that strict scientific accuracy in the public sphere isn't quite as important to many of us as we might believe. Just ask all those scientists in the aisles of my local Whole Foods.
So, why do many of us perceive Whole Foods and the Creation Museum so differently? The most common liberal answer to that question isn't quite correct: namely, that creationists harm society in a way that homeopaths don't. I'm not saying that homeopathy is especially harmful; I'm saying that creationism may be relatively harmless. In isolation, unless you're a biologist, your thoughts on creation don't matter terribly much to your fellow citizens; and unless you're a physician, your reliance on Sacred Healing Food to cure all ills is your own business.
The danger is when these ideas get tied up with other, more politically muscular ideologies. Creationism often does, of course—that's when we should worry. But as vaccine skeptics start to prompt public health crises, and GMO opponents block projects that could save lives in the developing world, it's fair to ask how much we can disentangle Whole Foods' pseudoscientific wares from very real, very worrying antiscientific outbursts.
Still, we let it off the hook. Why? Two reasons come to mind. The first is that Whole Foods is a for-profit business, while the Creation Museum is the manifestation of an explicitly religious and political movement. For some reason, there's a special stream of American rage directed at ideological attacks on science that seems to evaporate when the offender is a for-profit corporation. It wasn't especially surprising that Bill Nye would go and debate Ken Ham; it would have been unusual had he, say, challenged executives at the biotech company Syngenta—which has seemingly been running a smear campaign against a Berkeley biologist—to a conversation about scientific integrity, or challenged Paleo Magazine's editors to a debate about archaeology. For those of us outside the fundamentalist world, I imagine that the Creation Museum gift shop is the one part of the museum that makes some kind of sense. Well, okay, they're trying to make money with this stuff. Meanwhile, Whole Foods responds to its customers, as any good business should.
And, second, we often have it stuck in our heads that science communicators have only failed to speak to the religious right. But while issues of science-and-society are always tied up, in some ways, with politics, they're not bound to any particular part of the spectrum. Just ask Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., liberal political scion and vaccine skeptic extraordinaire, or Prince Charles, who pushed British health ministers to embrace homeopathic medicine.
Bringing sound data into political conversations and consumer decisions is a huge, ongoing challenge. It's not limited to one side of the public debate. The moral is not that we should all boycott Whole Foods. It's that whenever we talk about science and society, it helps to keep two rather humbling premises in mind: very few of us are anywhere near rational. And pretty much all of us are hypocrites.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/whole-foods-america-s-temple-of-pseudoscience.html
I quite like the UK Whole Foods (formerly Fresh and Wild) but there's none of the Organic Integrity nonsense and lots of free samples. It's also pretty good for decent produce of varying types. But they have started selling this 'What The Doctor Doesn't Tell You' crap which I'm far less keen on. I've got a worry that anti-vaccine nonsense may be another fashion America's leading the way in :bleeding:
On a positive note, not of that shit those wackos put in their bodies is on the endangered list. :)
Organic farming requires a fuckton more land usage than good old wholesome GMO crops. It's going to result inevitably in the death of species.
Quoteyou head to the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
Awesome place to just take a walk in. And silently giggle at the stuff in it.
None of this seems to phase me when I shop at Whole Foods. Of course, I'm largely there because their product looks a bit more edible than what you see in a standard nyc grocery store.
I couldn't care less about the pseudoscience at WF. I just know I love their guacamole and loathe their sushi rolls.
Yeah somehow I get confused and then try their sushi again. You would think I would learn. -_-
Quote from: garbon on February 24, 2014, 08:30:14 PM
None of this seems to phase me when I shop at Whole Foods. Of course, I'm largely there because their product looks a bit more edible than what you see in a standard nyc grocery store.
I agree. And I don't mind the probiotic/Organic Integrity/homeopathic nonsense either. If people want to pay for that, then they should.
But I think, especially given the growing anti-vaccine crowd, that the books and magazines sold are more actively pernicious.
I propose an experiment.
We find two small islands somewhere of equal demographics, economy, climate, etc...
On one we open a supermarket selling lots of organic food, homeopathic medicine and the like.
In the other we sell scientifically modified food, medicine and the like.
Every year we hold a series of sporting events between the two.
I wonder how long before the health difference is clear....
QuoteI've got a worry that anti-vaccine nonsense may be another fashion America's leading the way in :bleeding:
Didn't the UK go through a big fuss with that a few years ago?
Quote
Awesome place to just take a walk in. And silently giggle at the stuff in it.
Why silently? Sounds like it could be a fun day out for anyone with a basic crasp of science.
I don't go often due to their prices, but they have a huge selection of cheese, which is cool. A few other things that would be difficult to get elsewhere.
Quote from: Tyr on February 25, 2014, 07:48:09 AM
Why silently? Sounds like it could be a fun day out for anyone with a basic crasp of science.
They toss assholes. Quickly.
I used to buy at Whole Foods when I lived in NYC, and I don't remember such an amount of BS being present. Particularly this "Organic Integrity" thing, must be a relatively recent development. Reminds me a lot of when I had veggie friends for dinner and they would ask me if the kitchenware I was using had contained meat in the previous days (I wash them, you know).
I've seen the signs about their knives being used to cut organic and conventional. I've assumed that was in response to assholish customers.
Quote from: Tyr on February 25, 2014, 07:48:09 AMI propose an experiment.
We find two small islands somewhere of equal demographics, economy, climate, etc...
On one we open a supermarket selling lots of organic food, homeopathic medicine and the like.
In the other we sell scientifically modified food, medicine and the like.
Every year we hold a series of sporting events between the two.
I wonder how long before the health difference is clear....
never. there's no material difference, nutritionally, between the two. GMO foods are a savior to humanity, rejected by the liberal version of creationists. i expect legbiter and CC to start posting soon :D
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 25, 2014, 08:13:40 AM
I don't go often due to their prices,
They sometimes have a beer I want, so I go in & get a six-pack or a bomber or whatever. At checkout I giggle at the 25-year old chick in front of me paying over $200 for half a bag of food.
I don't shop at Whole Foods but I do buy at least some organic foods at the market I go to. I also try to use as little processed food as possible anyway, to avoid the crap and additives as much as possible. I don't get into the other stuff like the biotics. Some may work ok but you really have to know what you're doing, be well informed, else waste time and money for little or no results, IMO. So I mainly watch what I buy overall, the ingredients in the foods I use.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2014, 07:42:25 PM
QuoteAmericans get riled up about creationists and climate change deniers, but lap up the quasi-religious snake oil at Whole Foods. It’s all pseudoscience—so why are some kinds of pseudoscience more equal than others?
Depends on who you talk to. Leftwing pseudo-scientific nonsense is pretty dangerous as well. On one hand I have nutters wanting me to fund teaching creationism in public schools and on the other I have nutters wanting us to support pseudo-scientific and dangerous alternative medicine nonsense with insurance. If people want to believe stupid things that is fine with me I just wish they wouldn't force the rest of us to support them.
People in Austin, of course, love Whole Foods even if I ever got hit on the head and wanted to spend all my money there it is always crowded as heck.
Only place I can find clotted cream.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 25, 2014, 09:14:36 AM
never. there's no material difference, nutritionally, between the two. GMO foods are a savior to humanity, rejected by the liberal version of creationists. i expect legbiter and CC to start posting soon :D
There might be a placedo effect.
Good article, it's something I've wondered as well. I suspect that a lot of people who get riled up over global warming skeptic and creationists are simply interested in looking and feeling smarter then their fellows rather then genuine concerns over science.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2014, 09:42:53 AM
There might be a placedo effect.
I really don't think nutrition matters though.
I don't buy organic, when I do, because it's better for me but because I think it tastes better - or because it's a few pence more. It's particularly true with meat. Though also some veg, which is generally poor in London.
Whole Foods is run by a Republican, which gives me the giggles.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 25, 2014, 08:13:40 AM
I don't go often due to their prices, but they have a huge selection of cheese, which is cool. A few other things that would be difficult to get elsewhere.
:yes: I would never 'shop' there, like for regular stuff, but they do have some nice specialty items.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 25, 2014, 09:52:10 AM
Good article, it's something I've wondered as well. I suspect that a lot of people who get riled up over global warming skeptic and creationists are simply interested in looking and feeling smarter then their fellows rather then genuine concerns over science.
I believe you are correct. I think conspiracy theorists have a similar motivation, but just tend to have different political views.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2014, 07:27:16 AM
But I think, especially given the growing anti-vaccine crowd, that the books and magazines sold are more actively pernicious.
I wonder to what extent this is self-selecting. After all, I'm not anti-western medicine, so I wouldn't be interested in seeking out such publications. I'm not sure if there are many people on the fence who are harmed because they stumbled upon a book in Whole Foods. :P
Actually, I'm not even sure where whole foods even has its books/magazines (other than the mainstream magazines along the checkout aisles) - so I'd think Couric giving air time to anti-vacciners is more pernicious.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2014, 10:00:18 AMI really don't think nutrition matters though.
I don't buy organic, when I do, because it's better for me but because I think it tastes better - or because it's a few pence more. It's particularly true with meat. Though also some veg, which is generally poor in London.
:huh: :weep:
but food is nothing more than calories and nutrition. taste is overrated
Taste is overrated? :huh:
I think he might be a robot.
Quote from: garbon on February 25, 2014, 10:26:41 AM
Taste is overrated? :huh:
for the most part, yeah. i realize i'm a minority here :(
Quote from: LaCroix on February 25, 2014, 10:34:07 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 25, 2014, 10:26:41 AM
Taste is overrated? :huh:
for the most part, yeah. i realize i'm a minority here :(
Yeah, I feel sad for you.
Some people don't have sense of taste. :(
Quote from: garbon on February 25, 2014, 10:35:18 AMYeah, I feel sad for you.
why?
Quote from: RazgovorySome people don't have sense of taste. :(
it's true. sense of smell and taste for me is greatly diminished from what other people seem to experience. but it's hardly a bad thing
You don't know what you're missing, then.
Like Taco Bell.
Quote from: derspiess on February 25, 2014, 11:06:02 AM
You don't know what you're missing, then.
like terrible smells! plus i can eat mediocre food without caring, which becomes handier more than one might think (especially cost-wise). it's not like i can't taste or smell at all. i know what chocolate tastes like, etc. i get the basic idea. it's not a disadvantage by any means. it's just different
Poor guy :(
Quote from: LaCroix on February 25, 2014, 11:25:59 AM
it's not a disadvantage by any means. it's just different
It sure sounds like one. :(
I don't know. Most of the time I would rather have a meal that tastes ok and is filling than one that tastes awesome and will leave me hungry in an hour.
Quote from: Maximus on February 25, 2014, 11:36:03 AM
I don't know. Most of the time I would rather have a meal that tastes ok and is filling than one that tastes awesome and will leave me hungry in an hour.
Are those your primary options? :unsure:
If I'm eating at home there's also prep time. I'd rather not spend more time preparing than eating.
Quote from: Maximus on February 25, 2014, 11:40:05 AM
If I'm eating at home there's also prep time. I'd rather not spend more time preparing than eating.
Well I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that every meal should be a culinary masterpiece. I also thing there's room between that and slugging through mediocre food on the regular.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 25, 2014, 10:26:14 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2014, 10:00:18 AMI really don't think nutrition matters though.
I don't buy organic, when I do, because it's better for me but because I think it tastes better - or because it's a few pence more. It's particularly true with meat. Though also some veg, which is generally poor in London.
:huh: :weep:
but food is nothing more than calories and nutrition. taste is overrated
Eat a balanced diet in moderation, and the calories and nutrition takes care of itself. So within those parameters, taste is the only thing left to guide your choices of what to eat. Well, and cost.
Quote from: garbon on February 25, 2014, 11:43:35 AMWell I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that every meal should be a culinary masterpiece. I also thing there's room between that and slugging through mediocre food on the regular.
"slugging through"
there's room for better tasting meals every now and then, but for the most part why bother? I don't hate the meals I eat, if I did I wouldn't eat them. I enjoy everything I eat. so while on an objective standard a dish might be "mediocre," to me it tastes quite good
do you see what I mean by "it's not a disadvantage, just different"
Quote from: LaCroix on February 25, 2014, 12:26:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 25, 2014, 11:43:35 AMWell I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that every meal should be a culinary masterpiece. I also thing there's room between that and slugging through mediocre food on the regular.
"slugging through"
there's room for better tasting meals every now and then, but for the most part why bother? I don't hate the meals I eat, if I did I wouldn't eat them. I enjoy everything I eat. so while on an objective standard a dish might be "mediocre," to me it tastes quite good
do you see what I mean by "it's not a disadvantage, just different"
You're special :hug:
Quote from: Maximus on February 25, 2014, 11:40:05 AM
If I'm eating at home there's also prep time. I'd rather not spend more time preparing than eating.
Cooking's a bit of a hobby for me. It's up there with books in terms of things I enjoy spending money and time on. So my perspective's probably a bit different.
But I often spend an afternoon on the weekend cooking an enormous stew or curry that will then feed me for the next week (or more if I'm freezing it) so I just have to cook potatoes or rice or make a salad when I get home. Also I've more or less memorised a few recipes that I know take at most 10-15 minutes like a carbonara or a few other pasta sauces.
Obviously there's nights when I just want pizza, a take away or to eat out but I think there's ways around not wanting to cook too much on a weeknight while still having filling good food.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 25, 2014, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 25, 2014, 09:42:53 AM
There might be a placedo effect.
I really don't think nutrition matters though.
I don't buy organic, when I do, because it's better for me but because I think it tastes better - or because it's a few pence more. It's particularly true with meat. Though also some veg, which is generally poor in London.
Yep, its all about the taste. Meat and eggs in particular. The nutrition part flows from the taste. If I cook real food that tastes great the boys, and us, are much more likely to eat better than would otherwise be the case.