One argument is that it's a question of being numerate and understanding the scientific method. If people who believe in homeopathy truly understood that there isn't even one molecule of active ingredient of their "medicines," they might be swayed. And if only Joe Morgan learned a bit about how the Runs Created formula actually works, he'd understand why we've reached the conclusions we have and come over to our side. It's just a matter of education.
Well, I'm not so sure that's true. Case in point: the reaction to KFC's "Double Down" sandwich.
The "sandwich" consists of two breaded, boneless chicken breasts, with bacon and cheese and sauce in between. There's no bun. (If you've never seen one before, here's a picture.)
The Double Down has been available in the US for a few months now, but it just came to Canada about a month ago, and all the usual nutrition and obesity spokespeople are flipping out. Google "double down Canada," and see for yourself:
-- "KFC's Double Down hits Canada; nutritionists worried - CTV News"
-- "Double Down, Canada: We gobble artery-clogging fat fare from KFC in record numbers"
-- "KFC’s Double Down raises eyebrows among Canadian nutrition experts."
There's lots more than that. For instance, my local paper, the Ottawa Citizen, had TWO editorial cartoons about the Double Down in the last couple of weeks. (Here's one of them.)
So what's the big problem? I don't see it. The Double Down isn't really any worse than other fast food items. It has 540 calories (including 30g of fat) and 1,740 mg of sodium. The Big Mac, which nutritionists don't seem to be pooping themselves over, has the same 540 calories (28g fat) and 1,020 mg of sodium. And the double Wendy's Baconator has 980 calories (63g fat) and 1,830 mg of sodium. (Let's not even talk about the triple.)
So the Double Down doesn't seem like that big a deal. Yes, it's got a little more sodium per calorie than the other two items, but, really, not that much more. And it's not like KFC is any worse than chicken anywhere else.
A KFC breaded boneless chicken breast has 560 mg of sodium. I went down to my kitchen and pulled out a box of President's Choice frozen breaded chicken breasts. Each one has ... exactly the same, 560 mg of sodium. I checked the "blue menu" variation of those chicken breasts, the ones with less fat and fewer calories: 450 mg. And, finally, I checked non-breaded honey-lemon chicken breasts: each breast had 460 mg of sodium. Those are the healthiest, least-fatty ones, at only 150 calories each.
So, again, what's the big deal? It looks to me like seasoned chicken breasts routinely have salt added to make them taste good.
So why blame KFC? Is it because of innumeracy? Do the nutritionists and the journalists simply not understand what the numbers mean? No, it's not. It's the opposite, in fact. Every article I've seen points out that other fast food products aren't much better, and they all print the numbers for calories and sodium. But, somehow, it goes in one sentence and out the other.
Why is the Double Down singled out for so much opprobrium? Because it has no bun. I think it's a status thing. Having no bun -- or rather, having a bun made out of meat -- is weird, and weird in a lower-class non-gourmet way. It looks like gluttony -- chicken and more chicken, stacked so high it's hard to bite into. It's something that truckers might eat, but cultured nutritionists, and educated people who care about obesity of the lower classes -- well, when they want to eat chicken, they use a knife and fork ... or, at least, put it in a bun like civilized people.
Furthermore, the existence of the Double Down feels like a personal attack on nutritionists. Because it has no bun, it's kind of fun, with overtones of gluttony. People who take nutrition seriously *hate* that. Food isn't supposed to be fun. It's supposed to be serious. Nutritionists have spent years and years getting degrees and becoming experts on what's good to eat and what's not ... and now what happens? KFC tries something completely different, appealing to people's appetites in a whole new way, *without even consulting the nutritionists*!
Without the absence of the bun, none of this happens, because there's really intrinsically nothing special about the product. Think about it:
1. The Double Down is made of two breaded boneless chicken breasts. But KFC has had those same boneless chicken breasts around for some time now. They actually offered them in a meal, but flat on a plate, with a knife and fork, and two side dishes. Nobody complained, and nobody took notice.
If I were to order that, and take the tray to my table, and eat it, nobody would look twice. But if I took those two patties, stacked them up on top of each other, and spread the the honey mustard sauce between them, and then I picked up my newly-constructed double-decker greasy chicken thingy in my two hands, and ate them that way ... well, people would stare, and some of them would be grossed out. Even though it's the same meal, they'd think I was a disgusting pig, and wonder why I'm not ill and obese.
Same product, different presentation, completely different reactions. It's the shape of the Double Down, not the content. To some, stacked chicken patties with sauce in the middle is disgusting. But "that's disgusting" won't get them taken seriously, so they have to complain about the nutritional content.
2. McDonald's has a breaded chicken sandwich. They'll let you make it a double for an additional charge, and they'll be happy to add cheese and bacon. Nobody complains. Why? Because it's got a bun. Take away the bun, and what have you got? The McDonald's version of a Double Down.
3. There's a well-regarded product that are almost exactly the equivalent of the Double Down, and nobody complains. It's Chicken McNuggets. Well, it's not exactly the same, because there's no cheese or bacon. But a 10-piece McNuggets, with two sauces, otherwise has almost exactly the same profile as the Double Down: 610 calories (35g fat), and 1560 mg sodium.
But McNuggets are bite sized. You eat them individually and daintily. You don't stack them all up and ooze the sauce in between them.
4. Okay, here's an established main course that really IS almost exactly a Double Down: Chicken Cordon Bleu. It's a breaded chicken breast, and when you cut it open, there's cheese and butter and ham inside. (Yes, it's ham instead of bacon, but close enough.) If you look up nutrition information for Chicken Cordon Bleu, it's pretty close. It has to be -- the ingredients are almost the same.
Chicken cordon bleu is classy, classy enough to serve at weddings. Foodies don't mind it, and nobody campaigns against it. But if KFC sold it, and made you eat it with your hands? Yuck! It's gross, and the multinational corporate megagiant doesn't care about the health of its customers!
-----
We humans have a "blink" mentality -- we see a situation and come to a conclusion in an instant. Often, those conclusions are wrong, fed by our prejudices. Overcoming those prejudices does indeed take numeracy and intelligence.
But the most important thing it takes is a willingness to think about the issue with an open mind.
No matter how smart you are, and no matter how many math courses you've taken, you still have to be able to put aside your instinctive first impression and take a fair look at the issue and the evidence. Of all the people who'd be able to evaluate a foodstuff with a clear eye, you'd think nutritionists and health experts would be at the top of the list. But despite all their expertise -- or perhaps because of it -- they're among the worst offenders.
(In fairness, it could be selective sampling; the nutritionists who don't have a problem with it wouldn't be out for media attention. But you'd think if they were that common, some reporter would have found a few to present a countering view.)
In Ontario, the minister in charge of health promotion even started talking about *banning* the Double Down. She was quickly shot down by the Premier. But still -- the public official in charge of public health, the one who you'd think would have the most responsibility to see both sides and evaluate the situation, had the most extreme, prejudiced reaction. It's as if the head of the American Bar Association suddenly called for an impromptu lynching, with a thousand lawyers lining up behind her.
The solution is not just to teach more math. The solution is to make it socially unacceptable to accept silly, unjustified arguments. There are some places where we've been partially successful. We're able to do that, at least a little bit, in academia, where peer review at least calls out the cranks. We're able to do that in the justice system -- I'd bet that few judges would give credence to the argument that the Double Down is significantly worse than the Baconator just because you consume it more lustily.
We just have to promote that way of thinking in everyday life -- which is difficult, and perhaps impossible. But in my utopia, when nutritionist Joe Morgans say that Chicken Cordon Bleu is worse for you when you use your hands instead of a plate, we stop quoting them in approving newspaper articles, and laugh at them instead.
