It’s great to see the government making an effort to get people talking about science with the Science: So What? campaign. However, we were disappointed to see them overstating the evidence on childhood health and obesity. Along with lots of other interesting, accurate information about nutrition, the campaign site says that:
long-running research involving hundreds of children has now decisively proven, for the first time, the direct link between infant diet and later obesity. It’s a fact: babies who eat plenty of fresh fruit and vegetable have a significantly reduced risk of obesity in later life.
Unfortunately, the site does not include references to the research it is discussing, so we can’t be sure which article/s they mean. However, we can be confident that research has not shown such a ‘direct link’.
Proper scientific research is bound by strict ethical standards. To show a direct link between childhood diet and subsequent obesity, you would at least need a randomised controlled trial: some children would need to be randomised to a ‘control’ group which is put on a less healthy diet. This would – quite rightly – never be viewed as ethical.
What I think the campaign site may be talking about is observation studies which have shown a correlation between childhood diet and subsequent obesity – which is very interesting, but does not show a direct causal link. The fact that there is a correlation here does not mean that childhood diet is what is causing the obesity: the cause might lie in factors like socioeconomic class, genetics, area lived in, etc.
While it’s great that things are moving forward with this campaign, it is important to get such important information right. We will be e-mailing to ask for a correction, and hope that this content will be amended. We can’t see an e-mail address on the site, so will try to figure out a way to get hold of the campaign.
UPDATE: the page in question has now been modified. They also now have an e-mail address on the site, if anyone would like to contact them.
It’s very disappointing that such a well-resourced campaign has overlooked obvious, basic details such as a contact address so that people might send in corrections.
Pingback: Science Seeker
Yes – it is disappointing that there’s no obvious way to get in touch…
yes very interesting john, get yourself some real life freinds
Admin edit: And, yet, we hold some strange fascination for you. Sarah, your remarks are in contravention of the comments policy. If Manigen hadn’t replied before I’d seen this, we would have invited you to apologise and removed it.
By all means comment when you have something substantive to contribute but although I don’t know you, I doubt your remark is worthy of the way that you like to consider yourself in relation to others in your usual dealings.
Sarah,
That’s an interesting position. Are you arguing that “real life friends” and caring about keeping parents properly informed over the health of their children are mutually exclusive? Only callous bastards have “real life friends”? Do you have any? Friends, I mean. I only ask because you seem to be spending your time online insulting people, apparently at random, and under your definition this doesn’t seem like something that anyone with “real life friends” would do.
Don’t keep Sarah’s comments up on my account. I’m quite happy for my comment to be deleted, along with this one, if you would prefer.
Pingback: Tim Minchin Is Generous: See His Own Non-Pirate Storm « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science
I assume that those you express the view that as there is no evidence that a particular dietary style leads to obesity without a double-blind trial do not believe that smoking is bad for you.
There is a risk that those without an understanding of the influence of nutrition take pharmacy as the only model that gives relevant data. There are no randomized trial relating the overal diet to obesity because, as with smoking, there can never be such trials. You cannot randomly and blindly direct somebody for years if not decades to a particular life style.
Rather than looking to pharmacy you need to look to epidmiology as the relevant approach. Because you cannot gain the relatively easy interpretations that arise from randomized trials the weight of evidence needed is greater when taking the epidemiological approach. There are well described criteria, such as those proposed by Bradford-Hill, that have to be satisfied before a causal relationship becomes accepted wisdom. Whether we have enough evidence to say that a particular diet in children avoids obesity I do not know but the absence of randomized trials is not revelant.
You know the old saw about assume…
I read nuanced words like overplay and the distinction between direct link and plausible associations in the context of a new campaign to promote the wonders of science.
Nobody but you said anything about “a double-blind trial”. As for this:
It seem that you are in raging agreement with the author.
Yet, dietgirl, you seem to believe that you have read something entirely different. Yet another case of commenting before reading the blog where you are commenting?
Diet Girl, of course you are right, in this sensitive issue of childhood obesity where ethics prevent randomised, double-blind trials, it is naturally prudent to rely on other evidence such as the ‘observation studies which have shown a correlation between childhood diet and subsequent obesity’ that the author mentioned. Of course in the case of childrens’ health any ethical society would find it better to be safe than sorry, even if the data WAS inconclusive. Unless of course there is risk in children eating fruit and vegetables. Or unless obesity is a desirable condition.
Perhaps the author is concerned that the true cause of childhood obesity lies undiscovered, obscured by this distracting red herring of food? lol
Admin edit: actually, an improvement on your other comments. But, as ever, read the blog, we advocate the consumption of fruit and vegetable and frequently cite Pollan’s pithy summary. Again, both you and dietgirl have missed the nuance around ‘direct link’.
Thanks for tracking and evaluating my comments, I really am flattered, but honestly, why be pedantic over an important issue like this? You say you advocate fruit and vegetables and even site Pollan, so why knock the government on this? Either way the kid’s get their veg right? I don’t get it.
Admin edit: the problem is that you don’t understand the difference between pedantry and necessary nuance which is rather sad for someone who affects to study the way that you do.
n wht w s th nnc ‘ncssr’ n ths nstnc gvn wht s t stk t chldrns’ hlth?
Admin edit: we are not doing your homework/class assignment for you.
Go and do some proper study.
Whts ncssr bt ths nnc whn chldrns hlth s nvlvd? (Y sm t hv hd sm tchncl dffclt bv, m cmmnt hs gt scrmbld. hv rpstd t fr y. Dnt y jst ht ths tch grmlns!)
Admin edit: no difficulty. See comment policy. Once more, we refuse to do your homework for you.
Is the accusation of you’re playing semantics finally done as a tactic after Jeni Barnett tried to use it as a cloak for her ignorance?
This is what Stephen Fry was talking about. People want their facts pre-chewed and part digested. When you point out mistakes to them they try and imply that it was your fault or that you are the one splitting hairs.
Pingback: Science: So What? campaign modifies claims about childhood nutrition « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science
Pingback: Science: So What - Showcasing Just How Much They Don’t Understand Social Media As Well as Science? « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science
Pingback: Science So What? So Everything. Freedom of Information request and blog comment « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science
Pingback: Science: So What Is Recruiting a Dialogue Manager « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science
Pingback: Science So What roundtable – join in the discussion « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science