Log
on to Twitter and you might read: “A vegetarian diet is associated with poorer
health, a higher need for health care, and poorer quality of life.” Here we
have junk science going viral! And its fanning the flames between meat-eating
and vegetarian advocates. But it shouldn’t.
You
can’t really blame the person pushing out this tweet too much, however, because
her source is a study published in a PLOS One
research paper. It highlights some of the pitfalls associated with paying too
much attention to isolated studies that rely on questionable methodology and
overblown claims.
This
study is another example of how junk science adversely impacts public policy
debates, which is why I recently developed A Consumer’s Guide to Chemical Risk: Deciphering
the “Science” Behind Chemical Scares.” As this study on
vegetarian diets shows, it’s not just chemical policy
that’s negatively impacted by bad science. Personal choice, should rule the day
when it comes to dietary choices, but because government is so involved —
setting guidelines and telling us what we should and shouldn’t eat — food
politics are unavoidable. Accordingly, meat-eaters might use this dumb study to
push their agenda, but the facts do not really support them......To Read More.....
My Take - If this was written by someone other than
Angela Logomasini I would have pretty much dismissed it, but Logomasini has
been stalwart in standing up to junk scientists or every ilk. Her arguments are
solid because she points out it's really hard to categorize those who profess
to be vegetarians. However, I still am convinced from all I have read over the
year veganism - which is a very strict form of vegetarianism - is clearly
unhealthy. But this is worth reading!
Hi Rich,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting my piece. I wrote this post because regardless of a study's findings, we need to be even handed. The conclusion of a study is useless—whatever it is—if the underlying science is junk.
I am a meat eater, but my post takes no position on whether being a vegetarian is better or worse than being a meat eater. It simply points out that drawing such strong conclusions based on misleading and weak findings isn’t helpful to anyone.
-Angela Logomasini
Angela,
ReplyDeleteYou’re quite welcome. I am in full accord with you in that we must remain consistent or lose all credibility. Great job! I think your article is a very real demonstration of the quality of your character.
Rich K.