Debating CSPI
Radley Balko | April 21, 2008, 1:24pm
This morning, I debated a rep from CSPI for the Retirement Living channel on the topic of public health.
I was hoping she'd bring up trans-fats. And she did, blaming your partially hydrogenated oils for some 50,000 deaths per year. I have no idea where they got that number, but I did point out that if it's true, CSPI's activism is partially to blame. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the organization put public pressure on the fast food industry to adopt "healthier" trans-fats in place of animal fats. In response to one early study citing the dangers of trans-fats, one CSPI rep wrote in a newsletter, "trans-schmans!"
The restaurant industry caved, and now CSPI is demanding they switch back, at least when it comes to foods where other alternatives won't work.
Should have video in about a week.
Neu Mejican | April 21, 2008, 6:18pm | #
Radley,
Where did I say trans-fats are good for you, or aren't unhealthy?
You didn't...and I never claimed you did.
You do, however, state:
CSPI makes the ridiculous claim that trans-fats kill 50,000 people per year (in an op-ed just two years ago, CSPI's founder Michael Jacobson put the high end of his estimate at just 30,000 -- that a lot of added death in just two years time).
You call their numbers "ridiculous" without any attempt to refute them, find their source, debunk the numbers, etc...Essentially saying that they are making them up...without bothering to find out if your gut reaction has any basis in fact. Bias is bias whether it is CSPI's or yours.
How can you claim the numbers are ridiculous if you don't even take the time to find out where they come from? The validity of the message is not dependent upon the messenger.
That is what I am criticizing you for...lazy journalism is lazy journalism, even in an opinion piece.
Also, that 50,000 number climbed from the 30,000 CSPI was touting just a few years ago.
New research perhaps?
Is it too much work for you to find out?
I already noted that they do a poor job of citing their sources...and you shouldn't let them get away with that sloppiness. But when you display even less willingness to back up your own position it makes a pretty piss-poor case against them. It took me about 5 minutes to find their citation of Harvard School of Public Health...another 5 would probably reveal the exact study. And a raft of additional materials would emerge in the effort.
I'm not disputing their claim that trans-fats are unhealthy.
That's disingenuous. Calling the specifics of their claim ridiculous is equivalent to disputing their claim. No?
I realize that you work for an ideologically driven political organization that is directly opposed to the positions of the CSPI, but this post (and the CATO article) are poorly crafted propaganda...regardless of whether or not the Transfat ban is bad policy. If it is good for CATO, how can you criticize CSPI?
CSPI may advocate for wrong headed policies...but they will continue to kick your ass on these issues unless you get your act together. CATO's tactics and CSPI's seem exactly equivalent. And your work here provides a nice example.
Paul/RC Dean,
"might" is indeed the word that was used...common in science which deals with attempts to more closely approximate truth.
You need to be even more highly skeptical of scientific studies that don't recognize the limitations inherent in the process and instead make claims using the language of certainty.
Fluffy,
Sure thing, I have already stated that I don't support the CSPI legislative agenda here...
It is possible, of course, that their past position was based on the best available science at the time. Incorrect, sure, bullshit? Harder to tell.
I have no problem with Radley's attempt to point out that aspect of the issue, btw. But the wrongness of their previous position and the wrongness of their current position are not based upon their ability to critically assess the science. Something they are at least as good at as CATO.
