Whole Foods: the Temple of Pseudoscience.

jonnythan
jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Whole Foods: America’s Temple of Pseudoscience
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/whole-foods-america-s-temple-of-pseudoscience.html

This is a really great article that nails down what makes me so uncomfortable with the place.

"Still: a significant portion of what Whole Foods sells is based on simple pseudoscience. And sometimes that can spill over into outright anti-science (think What Doctors Don’t Tell You, or Whole Foods’ overblown GMO campaign, which could merit its own article)."
«1345678

Replies

  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,219 Member
    Bump to read later (and IN for the drama)
  • LishieFruit89
    LishieFruit89 Posts: 1,956 Member
    IN to learn about Whole Paycheck - I mean Whole Foods!!
  • cwsreddy
    cwsreddy Posts: 998 Member
    Meh, we don't like Whole Foods anyway now that they've sold out to the USDA and have agreed to sell Monsanto crops.

    http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/06/usda-forces-whole-foods-to-accept-monsanto.html
  • trojan_bb
    trojan_bb Posts: 699 Member
    Of course, their target customers mostly belong to certain groups also filled with pseudo-scientists. Groups that routinely mock other groups for being anti-science, despite being fervently anti-scientific in their own beliefs. Just like the author stated.

    Thankfully, there's a few stores here which sell far higher quality foods for around the same price or just barely more than Whole Foods.
  • cwsreddy
    cwsreddy Posts: 998 Member
    Whole Foods: America’s Temple of Pseudoscience
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/whole-foods-america-s-temple-of-pseudoscience.html

    This is a really great article that nails down what makes me so uncomfortable with the place.

    "Still: a significant portion of what Whole Foods sells is based on simple pseudoscience. And sometimes that can spill over into outright anti-science (think What Doctors Don’t Tell You, or Whole Foods’ overblown GMO campaign, which could merit its own article)."

    also that is a terribly written article. It repeatedly uses the phrase "pseudoscience" and then uses anecdotal evidence to prove his claim.

    um.

    ironic article is ironic.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Whole Foods: America’s Temple of Pseudoscience
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/whole-foods-america-s-temple-of-pseudoscience.html

    This is a really great article that nails down what makes me so uncomfortable with the place.

    "Still: a significant portion of what Whole Foods sells is based on simple pseudoscience. And sometimes that can spill over into outright anti-science (think What Doctors Don’t Tell You, or Whole Foods’ overblown GMO campaign, which could merit its own article)."

    also that is a terribly written article. It repeatedly uses the phrase "pseudoscience" and then uses anecdotal evidence to prove his claim.

    um.

    ironic article is ironic.

    Example?
  • cwsreddy
    cwsreddy Posts: 998 Member
    Whole Foods: America’s Temple of Pseudoscience
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/whole-foods-america-s-temple-of-pseudoscience.html

    This is a really great article that nails down what makes me so uncomfortable with the place.

    "Still: a significant portion of what Whole Foods sells is based on simple pseudoscience. And sometimes that can spill over into outright anti-science (think What Doctors Don’t Tell You, or Whole Foods’ overblown GMO campaign, which could merit its own article)."

    also that is a terribly written article. It repeatedly uses the phrase "pseudoscience" and then uses anecdotal evidence to prove his claim.

    um.

    ironic article is ironic.

    Example?

    Here ya go:

    "I invited a biologist friend who studies human gut bacteria to come take a look with me. She read the healing claims printed on a handful of bottles and frowned. “This is bull****,” she said, and went off to buy some vegetables."
  • msf74
    msf74 Posts: 3,498 Member
    Ahhh, the good old "Health Halo" - improving profits, increasing consumption and exploiting consumers since market economics became a thing...
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Whole Foods: America’s Temple of Pseudoscience
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/whole-foods-america-s-temple-of-pseudoscience.html

    This is a really great article that nails down what makes me so uncomfortable with the place.

    "Still: a significant portion of what Whole Foods sells is based on simple pseudoscience. And sometimes that can spill over into outright anti-science (think What Doctors Don’t Tell You, or Whole Foods’ overblown GMO campaign, which could merit its own article)."

    also that is a terribly written article. It repeatedly uses the phrase "pseudoscience" and then uses anecdotal evidence to prove his claim.

    um.

    ironic article is ironic.

    Example?

    Here ya go:

    "I invited a biologist friend who studies human gut bacteria to come take a look with me. She read the healing claims printed on a handful of bottles and frowned. “This is bull****,” she said, and went off to buy some vegetables."

    And you feel that quote is being offered as scientific proof? Interesting.
  • Blue801
    Blue801 Posts: 442
    Bump to read later

    ETA : so please try not to get nuked before I get back to read the article. Thanks
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Ooooh, there's a shop chain called Whole Foods.
    I thought it was talking about the concept of whole foods first.
  • cwsreddy
    cwsreddy Posts: 998 Member
    Whole Foods: America’s Temple of Pseudoscience
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/whole-foods-america-s-temple-of-pseudoscience.html

    This is a really great article that nails down what makes me so uncomfortable with the place.

    "Still: a significant portion of what Whole Foods sells is based on simple pseudoscience. And sometimes that can spill over into outright anti-science (think What Doctors Don’t Tell You, or Whole Foods’ overblown GMO campaign, which could merit its own article)."

    also that is a terribly written article. It repeatedly uses the phrase "pseudoscience" and then uses anecdotal evidence to prove his claim.

    um.

    ironic article is ironic.

    Example?

    Here ya go:

    "I invited a biologist friend who studies human gut bacteria to come take a look with me. She read the healing claims printed on a handful of bottles and frowned. “This is bull****,” she said, and went off to buy some vegetables."

    And you feel that quote is being offered as scientific proof? Interesting.

    So why should we believe anything in this article if it's not backed by scientific proof? The door swings both ways.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    in…to see where this goes…
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Whole Foods: America’s Temple of Pseudoscience
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/whole-foods-america-s-temple-of-pseudoscience.html

    This is a really great article that nails down what makes me so uncomfortable with the place.

    "Still: a significant portion of what Whole Foods sells is based on simple pseudoscience. And sometimes that can spill over into outright anti-science (think What Doctors Don’t Tell You, or Whole Foods’ overblown GMO campaign, which could merit its own article)."

    also that is a terribly written article. It repeatedly uses the phrase "pseudoscience" and then uses anecdotal evidence to prove his claim.

    um.

    ironic article is ironic.

    Example?

    Here ya go:

    "I invited a biologist friend who studies human gut bacteria to come take a look with me. She read the healing claims printed on a handful of bottles and frowned. “This is bull****,” she said, and went off to buy some vegetables."

    And you feel that quote is being offered as scientific proof? Interesting.

    So why should we believe anything in this article if it's not backed by scientific proof? The door swings both ways.

    The article doesn't attempt to offer scientific evidence of anything. Did I give the wrong link or something?
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Errr, no. Burden of proof lies with the people claiming their stuff is great for you. Especially if they have financial interest in selling you the stuff.
  • cwsreddy
    cwsreddy Posts: 998 Member
    Whole Foods: America’s Temple of Pseudoscience
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/whole-foods-america-s-temple-of-pseudoscience.html

    This is a really great article that nails down what makes me so uncomfortable with the place.

    "Still: a significant portion of what Whole Foods sells is based on simple pseudoscience. And sometimes that can spill over into outright anti-science (think What Doctors Don’t Tell You, or Whole Foods’ overblown GMO campaign, which could merit its own article)."

    also that is a terribly written article. It repeatedly uses the phrase "pseudoscience" and then uses anecdotal evidence to prove his claim.

    um.

    ironic article is ironic.

    Example?

    Here ya go:

    "I invited a biologist friend who studies human gut bacteria to come take a look with me. She read the healing claims printed on a handful of bottles and frowned. “This is bull****,” she said, and went off to buy some vegetables."

    And you feel that quote is being offered as scientific proof? Interesting.

    So why should we believe anything in this article if it's not backed by scientific proof? The door swings both ways.

    The article doesn't attempt to offer scientific evidence of anything. Did I give the wrong link or something?

    Show me where in his article he proves that Whole Foods is based on pseudoscience.

    If he doesn't achieve that, then what is the point of the article? And subsequently, what is YOUR point in posting it?
  • ChancyW
    ChancyW Posts: 437 Member
    Almost everything you hear now from articles to news stories is pseudoscience.

    I have just gotten a little better about reading between the lines as well as knowing the difference between causation and correlation.
  • cwsreddy
    cwsreddy Posts: 998 Member
    Errr, no. Burden of proof lies with the people claiming their stuff is great for you. Especially if they have financial interest in selling you the stuff.

    The burden of proof lies with the person writing the article making a claim. Lol
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    If you don't feel the examples he offered are examples of pseudoscience or anti science then I'm not sure what to say.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    in because I've been away for a week and I need a laugh...esp considering the convo I had on vaca about "whole foods" being better for you and making you lose weight quicker...
  • cwsreddy
    cwsreddy Posts: 998 Member
    If you don't feel the examples he offered are examples of pseudoscience or anti science then I'm not sure what to say.

    such as?
  • cwsreddy
    cwsreddy Posts: 998 Member
    If you don't feel the examples he offered are examples of pseudoscience or anti science then I'm not sure what to say.

    God I forgot how good you are at deflecting and redirecting to avoid looking foolish. It's pretty impressive.

    Point is, the author uses anecdotal evidence to substantiate the point he's trying to make with his article and doesn't use one lick of science or scientific evidence.

    Essentially he's simply writing it for the benefit of people who already agree with him and don't need to be persuaded.
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    I liked the article. Good read, thanks for posting. :drinker:
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Giving examples of something a store sells to establish it sells those things is not "anecdotal evidence" or "pseudoscience" lol.
  • ElusivePete
    ElusivePete Posts: 50 Member
    I prefer the science of Half Foods.

    Cut your food in half before you eat, and it is scientifically proven that (if cut correctly) it will only have half the calories.

    That means you can eat twice as much! :)
  • HappyStack
    HappyStack Posts: 802 Member
    I don't know if we have Whole Foods in the UK any more, but there was a branch or store opening here a few years ago based basically on catering to the "organic food" crowd.
  • cwsreddy
    cwsreddy Posts: 998 Member
    Giving examples of something a store sells to establish it sells those things is not "anecdotal evidence" or "pseudoscience" lol.

    Have you literally already forgotten his biologist friend and her "expert opinion" on probiotics? good lord man you can be wrong every now and again. Really it's ok. You won't spontaneously combust I promise.
  • Phaedra2014
    Phaedra2014 Posts: 1,254 Member
    It's a business not your mama. They sell what is palatable to the masses. Lots of people don't concern themselves with the science behind nutrition, etc. They just want to buy stuff and WF has a lot of stuff.

    I don't shop there because 1) It's too expensive for me and 2) I don't agree with the founder's politics.
  • cwsreddy
    cwsreddy Posts: 998 Member
    It's a business not your mama. They sell what is palatable to the masses. Lots of people don't concern themselves with the science behind nutrition, etc. They just want to buy stuff and WF has a lot of stuff.

    I don't shop there because 1) It's too expensive for me and 2) I don't agree with the founder's politics.

    This. And Monsanto.
  • VBnotbitter
    VBnotbitter Posts: 820 Member
    If you don't feel the examples he offered are examples of pseudoscience or anti science then I'm not sure what to say.

    God I forgot how good you are at deflecting and redirecting to avoid looking foolish. It's pretty impressive.

    Point is, the author uses anecdotal evidence to substantiate the point he's trying to make with his article and doesn't use one lick of science or scientific evidence.

    Essentially he's simply writing it for the benefit of people who already agree with him and don't need to be persuaded.

    So it's an opinion piece, not a research publication. I don't think OP was making any claims otherwise when he shared it.

    But go ahead arguing for the sake of arguing

Categories