We’ve seen a couple of interesting posts this week about Holford, nutritionism and the mainstream media. HolfordMyths argue that in the mainstream media
Professor Patrick Holford is a popular media pundit who is celebrated for his scientific approach to nutrition. Pundit brand equity may partially explain why the mainstream media do not seem to care that Holford’s work is riddled with errors that substantially undercut some of the scientific claims that he makes: that is irritating but understandable, given the economics of advertising. Mainstream media may also find it difficult to admit that they were duped or indifferent to the accuracy of what they were offering.
JDC takes a more specific example, focusing on media coverage of serotonin pills:
Media nutritionists like Patrick Holford proclaim the virtues of 5-HTP and tryptophan – while at the same time demonising anti-depressants. He wrote a book called Food is Better Medicine than Drugs and sends out emails to his mailing list attacking anti-depressants (but only the ones manufactured by Big Pharma – if Big Altie makes an anti-depressant then it’s fine).
We have certainly found this to be an interesting tension in Holford’s work. HolfordMyth’s analysis offers some possibilities as to why – with a few honourable exceptions – the mainstream media have failed to pick up or comment on such tensions, contradictions and inaccuracies.
