As a nutrition communicator I spend much of my time trawling the pages of PubMed, tapping away on the computer, laptop, iPhone or iPad, using social media and other electronic networks to share balanced, evidence-based food and nutrition information.  It was actually quite a relief to rest my thumbs for a few days and use my own voice and ears instead.  So much so that I now sound like a pack-a-day smoker!

Together with Sarah (a colleague from the NZ Nutrition Foundation) we presented a social media workshop for dietitians at the conference, and while we were very successful in convincing New Zealand dietitians to jump onto the blogosphere, I was surprised at how much the experience reminded me that social media is only useful in-between times of face-to-face contact.  In fact when I think about it, the dietitians I interact most with via social media networks are the ones I’ve actually met in person.

Is it a generational thing? Being someone who grew up without the internet, who can even remember what working-life was like prior to email, perhaps I’m biased?  Are you more likely to respond to questions and take part in social media discussions about professional issues when you’ve actually met the person seeking input?  I guess I’ll get my answer from your comments below…

It got me thinking that scepticism vs denialism is another way of describing a theme often addressed in this blog.  I consider myself a sceptic – meaning that I take an objective approach to the evaluation of claims – but I also find that a bit of commonsense goes a long way.  Deniers, on the other hand, have a position (or end goal) staked out in advance, and sort through the data employing “confirmation bias”.  This is defined by New Scientist as “the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest”.  Whether sceptics agree or disagree, we can debate the issues like grown ups.  Dealing with denialism feels more like trying to rationalise with a toddler having a tantrum.

It’s easy to think of denialism as an old fashioned notion, driven by zealots such as anti-evolutionary theorists or those who believed the Earth was flat.  But no – denialism is alive and well in our modern world.  We’ve all heard of climate change and vaccination deniers.  New Scientist provides useful perspectives on these examples, as well as deniers of the ill health effects of tobacco, the existence of AIDs and those who believe pandemics such as swine ‘flu are developed and released by pharmaceutical companies.  I can add more examples to this list based on personal experience in the food and health area.  Those who are convinced that:

• obesity is caused by single foods or beverages (and that this is a conspiracy of global food companies).
• anti-tobacco tactics directed to certain foods are the best option to combat obesity.
• specific approved food additives or ingredients cause illnesses ranging from autism to cancer (and that this is a conspiracy of both food companies and food safety organisations).
• there are no adverse health effects of high salt diets at a population level.
• it’s acceptable to deliberately design research studies to prove a point or handpick research results to suits their means, rather than taking a more objective view.

Your typical denier often has the public’s sympathy because they’re the “underdogs, fighting the corrupt elite”.  They often occupy the moral high ground for this reason.   And the media love the extreme viewpoint they offer so they have a natural public stage.  Regulators, businesses and governmental organisations do not have the luxury of being able to handpick evidence to suit.  They have to be objective, so they often come off looking non-committal, or at worst, defensive, when facing denialists in public.

In my digging around for material on this subject I also found this delightful quote by Richard Asher, published in The Lancet in 1959.

“It is important to realise that ideas are much easier to believe if they are comforting and that many clinical notions are accepted because they are comforting rather than because there is any evidence to support them. Just as we swallow food because we like it, not because of its nutritional content, so do we swallow ideas because we like them and not because of their rational content.”

I believe this rings especially true today and I’d love to hear some more examples of denialism that you’ve come across.

All children are shaped and formed by good and bad experiences.  I was just reading an article about what issues most affect children.  Apparently it’s dissension between parents and money worries.

Children apparently also have very highly attuned BS detectors, so you won’t get away with trying to cover it up!

Our attitude and actions around food shapes our children’s understanding of food.  We often place a higher value on our children getting good nutrition, than on feeding ourselves well.  So children may quite rightly perceive this as a double standard. 

Have you ever found yourself trying to talk a child into eating a vegetable that you yourself detested as a child?  A few years ago Nestlé research showed that many parents hide a secret stash of chocolate to tuck into when the kids are out of sight.  And how many of us (after ensuring the kids eat well) revert to a pizza delivery for our own dinner more often than we’d like to admit? 

Recent research in the US indicates that adult shoppers most often refer to the Nutrition Facts Panel on food products when the food in question has been requested by a child – but not when it’s requested by another adult.

Not only do children pick up on things – they remember them.  Nine months ago our family had a serious car accident.  Our two year old (who was in the car at the time) hasn’t ever said much about the accident.  So I was surprised when she said to a near stranger just this week: “our car had a smash and Mummy and Daddy were covered in blood”.

This won’t come as any surprise to child psychologists, or to most parents when they sit down and really think about it.  But when parents are going through stressful times themselves they often find themselves doing or saying things that they’re not particularly proud of.  I’m not talking smacking, or verbal abuse, but perhaps simply raising our voices, over-reacting or doing quite the opposite of what we expect our children to do.

Nobody’s perfect, but being a great role model as a parent is about facing up to the tough things in life and achieving a positive balance which supports kids with real and meaningful actions – not just words.

Being a good role model is certainly not easy, but it undoubtedly pays countless dividends well into the future, probably in more ways than we know.  For me, it’s still a work in progress!

Improving access to fruits and vegetables is a good thing.  Gardening is a great form of stress relief and is generally pretty healthy if you remember to use adequate protection from the sun.  However I wonder how many practical details people think of when they carte blanche recommend the masses to grow their own.  Are we setting the bar too high?

Despite my own love of gardening and my best intentions, if my family relied on me to provide veggies they would go very hungry indeed.  Not only do I work full time and spend my weekends trying to organise my life while caring for small children, but we live on a relatively small section which would necessitate the purchase of a lot of pots, soil and slug bait in order to set up a proper kitchen garden.  An expensive business, since we don’t all have the Whitehouse lawn at our disposal.  This is not to say we ignore the prospect of growing our own food entirely.  We are lucky enough to have our own delicious table grapes, herbs and tamarillos.  This summer we involved the kids in growing their own tomatoes, which they loved – although despite repeated attempts – they still refuse to eat tomatoes.

This weekend we visited a garden centre and it struck me how costly the process of having a working vegetable garden could be, particularly if you’re starting from scratch.  People who grow most of their fruit and vegetables themselves tell me it is not really any cheaper than buying them, if you buy in season.  They do it for the love of gardening, and the sense of accomplishment it brings.  And I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t also buy some stock produce items that simply aren’t realistic to grow for a decent home supply (eg, frozen peas, kumara, eggplant).

I do not want to bah humbug people’s best intentions, I’m simply pointing out that recommending people grow their own food is not always the most effective strategy for saving money.

In the past decade more than ever we have been telling people what to do to get healthier.  Often it seems that the worried-well are the ones making these suggestions to the masses.  Once again we are setting an ideal standard that many people will find unattainable; and worse, setting the bar too high may put people off ever trying to reach it. After all, there are very few Michelle Obamas in this world.

It is great to offer advice like “grow your own veggies”, but we need to make sure it is simple and achievable.  Perhaps “make the most of any fruit trees you have growing on your property” (particularly when I see so much going to waste) and “grow your own salad greens” is a good start?  At the very least we need to be clear that these are just some ideas that may not work for everyone.