Mac & Cheese scare: The New York Times really stepped into it

[C C]

http://www.acsh.org/news/2017/07/14/ny-t...ence-11554

EXCERPT: An article on the "dangers" of macaroni and cheese was so insanely wrong that it's hard to believe it was in the paper at all. But the author was Roni Caryn Rabin, who, although not a scientist, has written about health issues for more than 20 years. And she has done a lot of fine work. But this article was so deeply flawed and filled with scare tactics that it comes across as little more than an anti-chemical screed against a group of ubiquitous chemicals called phthalates.

I understand that screeds sell papers, especially when they are about a group of chemicals with hard to pronounce names like "phthalates." But the easy road, rewriting a press release about a scary-sounding chemical name, is not how "The Newspaper of Record" should be trying to inform the public about health issues. Phthalates are ubiquitous because they have been in use for 85 years. Because analytical instrumentation is so incredibly powerful now they (and most other chemicals) are detectable in extremely low concentrations. Phthalates didn't suddenly just appear; they are simply now detectable. We are constantly bathed in thousands of chemicals that, both natural and synthetic, which are carcinogenic and toxic, and have been around in tiny amounts all along. Only now we now know they're there.

Ms. Rabin's article cannot have simply been a result of a journalist simply misunderstanding science. From the misleading and manipulative title - "The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese" - to the content itself, this was designed to promote fear of chemicals. Let's look at some of the flaws and misleading statements...

NORE: http://www.acsh.org/news/2017/07/14/ny-t...ence-11554

[Magical Realist]

Shame on them for attacking America's number one comfort food. Children across the land may now lift their mac laden spoons in joyful unison! "GULP!!"

[Syne]

Just another in a long list of increasingly transparent bias infecting mainstream media to the point of outright dishonesty.

[RainbowUnicorn]

http://www.acsh.org/news/2017/07/14/ny-t...ence-11554

EXCERPT: An article on the "dangers" of macaroni and cheese was so insanely wrong that it's hard to believe it was in the paper at all.  But the author was Roni Caryn Rabin, who, although not a scientist, has written about health issues for more than 20 years. And she has done a lot of fine work. But this article was so deeply flawed and filled with scare tactics that it comes across as little more than an anti-chemical screed against a group of ubiquitous chemicals called phthalates.

I understand that screeds sell papers, especially when they are about a group of chemicals with hard to pronounce names like "phthalates." But the easy road, rewriting a press release about a scary-sounding chemical name, is not how "The Newspaper of Record" should be trying to inform the public about health issues. Phthalates are ubiquitous because they have been in use for 85 years. Because analytical instrumentation is so incredibly powerful now they (and most other chemicals) are detectable in extremely low concentrations. Phthalates didn't suddenly just appear; they are simply now detectable. We are constantly bathed in thousands of chemicals that, both natural and synthetic, which are carcinogenic and toxic, and have been around in tiny amounts all along. Only now we now know they're there.

Ms. Rabin's article cannot have simply been a result of a journalist simply misunderstanding science. From the misleading and manipulative title - "The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese" - to the content itself, this was designed to promote fear of chemicals. Let's look at some of the flaws and misleading statements...

NORE: http://www.acsh.org/news/2017/07/14/ny-t...ence-11554

who funds the acsh ?

[Syne]

who funds the acsh ?

So...questioning the source instead of the actual content?

Is that just the lazy person's shortcut to determining truth? If you don't like who said it, it must be false?

[C C]

who funds the acsh ?

I'm a fan of some supplements (as a token from the "rival side"). But it's an unregulated industry that is deceptive, corrupt, manipulative, money-hungry, and paranoid in its own way -- making spurious claims, and the products of many companies not even containing the ingredients indicated (as well having traces of things they shouldn't).

There's an insane game of musical chairs going on where a supposed shill of Big Pharma and food companies like ACSH will attack the Dr. Oz types and vice versa. But then another skeptic group like Science Based Medicine that deems itself a step up on both will criticize both. And then lo and behold yet another skeptic ego will pounce on SBM or similar, the former also doubling as a bridge back to alt-med, nutraceutical and "health food" land. Going full circle, round and round.

The bottom line is that the whole biomedical to nutritional fields spectrum is suspect for multiple reasons (sloppy setup of experiments and missing details in documentation afterwards, replication problems, deficient acceptance requirements in the past, potential bias via special interest funding sources, predatory publishing journals, etc). Along with the media and free-ranging guest scientists and skeptics role-playing as examiners of the literature.

So it's a matter of either trying to balance representation of multiple parties or letting other counter voices be heard in response, in hopes of those conflicts sifting something substantive out in the end.

But with a science forum, it's also usually giving an extra nod or favor to the "mainstream scientists" (whoever they are supposed to be in this identity confused era). Just because, even when they could be compromised. Who, like it or not, seem to whack many of the pop-up gopher heads that the scientists at ACSH do: The alternative medicine slash supplement / "natural" industry, the anti-vaxxers, the anti-GMO crowd, chemophobia conspiracies, ancient practices, etc. Or their trope-heavy, public spokespeople:

Neil deGrasse Tyson - "Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance." (From 'Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries')

Handy to remember statements like that the next time he starts navel-poking philosophy (in general) as inutile.

- - -