the quackometer: February 2007

Go on, you deserve it. Slap yourself with a Healing Broom

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Following on from my last post about whether the people that run quack web sites are deeply deluded or just plain old frauds, I had to share this gem with you. For all aficionados of quackery, this is truly a collectors item to be savoured. Thanks to whoever entered the healingbroom.com web site into the quackometer. It is a treat and scores a perfect 10 canards.

The healing broom looks like a metallic cat o' nine tails with which to whip yourself. Apparently, you should not use it if you bleed easily. However, the claim is that this 21st century self-flagellation device will stimulate qi, your meridians and cause your cells to vibrate. It breaks up toxic accumulations and will stimulate your bone marrow, depending on how hard you flail yourself, no doubt. If you survive this self-imposed scourging, the healing whip also comes with a separate sharp metal stick thing that you poke yourself with. The stick is magnetic, thankfully, and so the magno-acupressure produced will dull the pain from your whipping, I guess.

What can healing broom treatment do for you? Well, it can 'return your cells to their normal position'. So, if you notice huge groups of cells in places they should not be, say, several feet to the left, then whip them back into position with the broom. Oh, and slapping is good exercise too.

Naturally, no evidence is given for any of these claims - bar the usual testimonials. The site looks like they have swallowed the woo dictionary. It appears to cover the whole gamut of quack words - hence the high Canard score.

Fortunately, safety is obviously at the top of the company's concerns. Apparently, you must not use the flail on your body between 11am and 1pm, or on a full stomach, although a reason is not given for this advice. More sensibly, you should not share your implements with someone else. I guess there is large chance of transmission of bodily fluids which could be a source of blood-borne disease. Light coloured clothing should be avoided. I guess blood stains easily.

There is a small bit of me that delights in the fact that people who fall for this scam will administer their own punishment, albeit a sort of punishment that was last seen during the height of British naval power and the Napoleonic wars. As for the sellers? Flogging is too good for them.

Hey, healingbroom.com! Do you believe any of this horse shit?

Labels: energy healing, magnets

6 Comments View blog reactions

Step Aside, I'm a Homeopath!

It is difficult to know when looking at the claims of many alternative medicine web sites, whether the people involved are a) deluded or b) fraudulent. For my part, and being a good natured soul, I tend to believe most people are just into weird things and are rather locked into their strange world view. They genuinely feel they are helping people by selling their products and services. To challenge their own beliefs and let in new arguments would mean risking abandoning so much about how they define themselves - and how they earn a living.

A journey through quackland is a salutary reminder of how we need to guard ourselves against false beliefs. The existence of quackery ably demonstrates that the easiest person to fool is yourself and that if you want to fool someone else, it is best to fool yourself first.

But undoubtedly there are the deeply cynical and fraudulent out there. And every now and again you come across a product or site that really tests my belief that most quackery is the result of simple delusions. The QLink pendant is a good example of this. The QLink is a device that claims to ease the stresses caused by exposure to 'electrosmog'.

There is a growing belief by the public that the radio waves given off by everyday appliances and electronic devices can somehow be harmful. People report having violent headaches and other symptoms in the presence of TVs, mobile phones and WiFi routers. The problem is that the evidence to date does not support any of this. Firstly, there is a plausibility problem in understanding how exposure to low doses of non-ionising radiation can affect you in any way at all. And secondly, when these 'electrosensitive' people are tested in controlled ways (such as exposing them to a mobile phone, without them knowing if it is on or off) then the symptoms are unrelated to the exposure. Whilst few deny that the symptoms of sufferers of 'electosensitivity' are real, there is huge doubt that they are caused by 'electrosmog'. There is something else going on and it may be psychological.

So, even if electrosensitivity were real, could the QLink do anything about it? Uh, no. Radiowaves are going to get to you whether or not you are wearing it. You can protect yourself against exposure, but you need to be completely enclosed within a box with a conductive surface, e.g. an iron clad room. The claims of some QLink sellers that the device works on a 'quantum level' are just plain hogwash. So, the device appears to be a cure that can never work against an illness that is probably purely psychological in nature. At best, the device will function as a placebo in pendant form.

But maybe a placebo for those affected by electrosensitivity is exactly what they need? A complex question. But that does not mean that companies selling QLink should be pushing at the worried well, sports-people and animals? That looks like a plain rip-off . What amazes me about this, is that the sellers of QLink are not just a 'lone-genius' with a strange theory to sell to the world, but a fairly large company with many people involved in the sale. You must have the original product designers, a manufacturing plant, marketing people, distribution channel managers and finally, the direct and indirect sales force. The product is widely distributed through QLinks own sites or through re-sellers such as Patrick Holford. Do all these people in this complex chain really believe what they are doing is for real? Is everyone just deluded?

It many ways, it does not really matter if there is deliberate deception or just mass delusion. The end result is the same. People spend lots of money on stuff of marginal benefit to them. They also acquire delusional beliefs that may not help them in the future when they really could do with some medical intervention. Are the deluded people in this chain culpable? We might easily forgive and say these delusions are harmless, but delusions can lead to reckless beliefs where real harm might be done.

Another QLink seller rather outstanded me this week with their range of products. The UK company Electronic Healing sells all sorts of gadgets and devices, many of which look as doubtful as the QLink.

One product that really took my breath away was a homeopathic first aid kit. The blurb says...

An essential first-aid remedy kit for the home, car and workplace specifically formulated to be used in even the most severe emergency and accident situations.

Cripes! Most Severe! Now I was under the impression that that homeopathy is a 'gentle healing' method that requires an 'individualised approach' and, usually, a lengthy consultation to provide a 'holistic remedy'. This does not look likely in an emergency situation. Indeed, I would strongly suggest that application of homeopathy in a life-critical situation could severely detract from the absolute need to establish and maintain an airway, ensure breathing and prevent shock. To have one of these kits and believe that it can help is a delusion of the reckless variety.

I've emailed the Society of Homeopaths about this. Would they endorse such a product? Let's wait and see.

Labels: electromagnetic quackery, homeopathy, qlink

4 Comments View blog reactions

We the undersigned...

Thursday, February 15, 2007

In the past I have been critical of the exaggerated claims made by the promoters of salvestrols as the new super-food-supplement. There is no evidence to suggest that these plant-derived chemicals have any positive effect on reducing cancer risk when taken in supplement form or for forming any part of a medical regime for cancer sufferers. Trials are apparently underway, but the best evidence to-date has been in-vitro studies of cells in petri dishes. And yet, the supporters of this new 'wonder vitamin' have set up companies and are heavily promoting it around the world.

Now, Tony Blair's 10 Downing Street office have recently had an initiative to listen to the people and set up a web site that allows us, the good subjects of Her Majesty, to petition the government electronically. This has made the papers this week as a million people have logged in to sign a petition against road pricing. The great thing about this site is you can set up a petition about anything. There are examples of petitions to bring back fox hunting, legalise cannabis, abolish faith-based schools and the teaching of creationism (gets my vote), and ask the Prime Minister to stand on his head and juggle ice-cream.

And now a new use of this system. Advertising Quackery. The Salvestrol supporters have created their own petition:

The Cancer Act 1939 was drawn up to prevent quacks and charlatans feeding on the fear of cancer at a time when there was very little information or wide knowledge of the causation and malignancy of unwanted mitosis that is rapid cell division of useless cells which so often spreads, metastasis, leading to premature death.

At present no organisation can make any statement recommending preventative measures such as taking a 400mg of SALVESTROL a day to strengthen the immune system thus enabling the destruct cycle. We produce over 1000 cancer cells each day and the body normally copes but over 50 years of age then the immune system cannot cope and cancer sets in well and truly and so often undiagnosed until too late.

We petition that HMG repeals or amend the Cancer Act 1939 accordingly enabling information to be available to everyone so that people can choose their preventative steps against cancer cell growth.
Thank you

Now, the Cancer Act was introduced to stop quackery at a time when just about any suggested cure was dubious or dangerous. It says,

No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement—
(a) containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof.

It is pretty broad sweeping and times have moved on. Many cancers have high remission rates due to a much greater understanding of the disease and medical science. In that respect, the petitioners are right. Maybe the law does need refreshing, but not without adequate protection from the hoard of quacks that are still out there. And suggesting that salvestrols can cure cancer is quackery.

Are the petitioners guilty of an offence merely by starting and signing this petition? It looks like an advert to me. Could three months of Ginger Ale* await you for signing this petition? Tony - you have their names and addresses...

However, nothing would surprise me about Mr Blair. He has recently told scientists to back of homeopaths. Imagine if homeopaths could advertise that they could cure cancer? That would be a terrible step. Would they? Maybe the sane ones wouldn't. But there are plenty out there that would offer sugar pills to prevent malaria.

Now, the petition was started by a Michael Cleary. The quackometer reliably informs me that there is a homeopath in Australia by that name. But Aussie citizens are not allowed to start a petition, they are not colonials anymore - so that can't be him, can it? However, at least one genuine homeopath has added her name to the list, an Anne Macalpine RSHom, nicely leaving her professional qualifications on the register.

Why would she be so interested in repealing this law?

I wonder who started this petition? Anyone know?

(Thanks to an anonymous commenter for pointing this story out. )

*****************************************************************

Oh, and while we are on the subject of the e-petitions web site, a favourite quack of this site, the distinguished Provost of the Royal College of Alternative Medicine, Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi is also using the service for his own ends. He is of course, petitioning the Prime Minister to abolish the General Medical Council - the body that stopped him practising as a Doctor.

If there is nothing on telly, you might be interested in going though the list to see who has signed. The first signatory is a Sushant Varma who looks like he too has had a run-in with the GMC. Oooh, there is also a Prof Reggie von Zugbach who appears on both these petitions. Who is he? I'm not sure how the Prof von Zugbach spends his time, but a little research shows that he may have signed over 160 of these e-petitions!

I'm sure there are hours to waste here...

* For my non-cockney and American readers, Ginger Ale - Jimmy Nail - Gaol - er. Jail.

Labels: homeopathy, salvestrols

11 Comments View blog reactions

The Depths of Ms McKeith's Anti-Science

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

It's been a bad week for Gillian. The anti-quackery blogging brigade have been partaking in bouts of the great British pastime of uncontrolled Schadenfreude (why did we leave it to the Germans to coin that term?) after the Advertising Standards Authority stopped Gillian McKeith as advertising herself as 'Dr Gillian'. The Guardian printed a huge article by Ben Goldacre about how she is a 'Menace to Science' and how her particular brand of nutrionism is deeply anti-science and harmful.

Is there anything else left to say on the subject? One thing that Ben and Gillian's defenders have in common is their belief that, in many ways, it is immaterial by what title she calls herself. Obviously, her use of the title offends the many hardworking PhDs who have sweated and slaved to use their title in order to try to secure upgrades at airport check-ins. But if her advice leads to people eating more sensible diets then surely 'all's well that end's well'? That would be fine. But Gillian just speaks nonsense at people. Her thoughts on chlorophyll and food colour have been well addressed as non-scientific silliness. If people take her seriously, then how do they know what is good advice and what is rubbish? Therein lies the problem.

My contribution to the debate is going to be to show just how deep her embrace of anti-science is. I don't think even Ben has described just how far she is prepared to go. She does not just embrace the language of science in a pseudoscientific way, but is also quite prepared to get into bed with a deep anti-science agri-woo in order to sell her products. Let's just look at one of her products for sale on her web site: Veggie Vitality, available in 200ml quantities for £1.79. Her description reads...

My Veggie Vitality is produced to BioDynamic and Organic principles. BioDynamic is the highest standard for food excellence in the World today. These dedicated farmers grow their vegetables holistically according to the rhythms of the earth, sun, moon and stars. Using mineral-rich composted soil, natural homeopathics, soft music, happy conversation and meditation for the enjoyment of the crops, BioDynamicfarmers garner the perfect vibrational energy to help me create the most delicious vegetable juice ever made.

In itself, this description is pretty scary - holistic, organic, homeopathic, happy conversations - but the really kooky stuff is a little under the covers. Apparently, this drink is made to BioDynamic standards, which is supposed to be some sort of pinnacle of food excellence. Let's look at what this actually means.

Biodynamics is a farming method that was the precursor of the now popular organic food movement. Supporters of Biodynamics still stick to the founding fathers' original ideals of how farming should be done. If you are easily frightened, do not read on. This stuff is off with the fairies.

First the easy bit. Biodymanics believes that you should re-use stuff from the farm as fertilizer and not import chemicals and so on. Treating pests should also be done with readily available and local materials. There ends the fairly sane stuff.

Using any old horse shit as fertilizer is not good enough though. You have to 'activate' it using a number of formulated preparations. Let me describe a few to you...

Filling a cow horn with crushed quartz and burying it in the field you wish to help.
Yarrow flowers are stuffed into the bladder of a Red Deer and then buried over-winter before digging up in Spring
Oak bark is stuffed into the skull of a dead cat, or other domestic animal, and then also buried in peat
Chamomile flowers are stuffed into cattle intestines and buried in Autumn.

Once retrieved, the resultant gunge is used in teaspoon sized quantities on the whole dung heap to add special 'life-forces'. Other flower preparations, similar to Dame Mossop's Phytobiophysics, in near homeopathic concentrations, can also be used for the same effect.

It gets better. If you have an infestation of field mice, then catch a few, ceremoniously burn the little buggers, and then sprinkle the ashes around, but do this only when Venus is in Scorpio. (I am serious.)

What is quite clear is that Gillian's 'highest standard for food excellence' is little more than a mystical collection of nostalgic wishful thinking, voodoo, astrology and quackery. Her carrot and cucumber juice has to be that expensive as the farm workers are spending significant amounts of their time killing cats, stuffing stinging nettles into cow's squelchy bits, digging holes in peat bogs to bury this stuff, consulting astrological charts, succussing homeopathic preparations, and not forgetting to run around catching mice and the burning them at the stake. And she wants to be called Doctor.

Unless you wear purple a lot, I doubt I have to convince you that Biodynamics is at the nuttier end of the organic food movement (but not that far off in my opinion). Nonetheless, the issues that the organic farmers are trying to address, such as land use and animal care, are serious and need good answers. However, they do not get these answers by clinging to magical thinking. How do we make best use of our land, without cutting down more forest, and still produce the yields to feed everyone? How do we ensure our crops reliably grow every year so that disease, climate change and flooding do not produce regular shortages? How do we ensure that our soils can grow the yield of crops we need, year on year? How do we make sure that crop growing is energy effiecient and that the food on our table is not producing ridiculous amounts of greenhouse gasses in the field-to-table process?

Whilst mincing around with astrological charts, skulls and quartz crystals is going to be fun at Glastonbury Festival this year (my prediction - the Police will headline), it is not going to produce a reliable and sufficient amount of food, year on year, in the challenging times ahead. Only science can tell us the right and wrong paths to take. Superstition, nonsense and wishful thinking will only cloud our judgements and add to the confusion. Only serious enquiry and hard choices will steer us around the problems. Does GM have a role? How do we protect seed stocks? What energy sources should we use? These are serious questions that will affect the health of millions, if not billions, of people over the coming decades. This is for real and is a long way removed from the middle-class shit-poking, superfood obsessing, bullying and nonsense-promotion of the TV and Sunday Supplement nutriquacks.

Ms McKeith's anti-science is not helping us on this most critical journey.

Labels: Ben Goldacre, diets, homeopathy, mckeith, nutritionist, organic quackery

8 Comments View blog reactions

Luv a Duck - it's Magnetic Holisitic Slippers!

Monday, February 12, 2007

It's that time of year again when a young male duck's thoughts turn to the browner sex. Yes, its St Valentine's Day, and gift buying is mandatory if you wish to maintain the affections of your fair-feathered ducky-love.

So what to buy? A few suggestions out there from the world of Quackland. Sarah Stacey, and her cosy tie-in with Victoria Health, had plenty of suggestions in last week's You magazine - the colour supplement of the Mail on Sunday. Let's start with the first and best...

Holistic Silk magnetic slippers, £65: these adorable brocade slippers are simply addictive; they’re not only gorgeously sexy but the magnets implanted in the inner soles had me skipping around the house at bedtime, doing all sorts of unlikely things such as the washing up and putting the rubbish out.

Now, personally, if Ms Canard Noir bought me a pair of holistic magnetic healing slippers, I too would be skipping as I put the rubbish out, but the slippers would be inside the black bin liner. There would then follow a traditional Valentine's day row about wasting money and 'you don't understand me' and tears and tantrums. Ho Hum.

I find it incredible that a grown adult could actually fall for this. Getting confused about the benefits of eating goji berries is understandable. Even herbal remedies have a chance that there might be something in them, but sticking fridge magnets in tacky slippers and then pretending you are getting a foot massage to improve circulation? And even the capability to improve the desire to wash up? I hope there is a tongue firmly lodged in cheek. Somehow, as there is a commercial interest here with the sellers, then I doubt it.

What is even more wonderful about these slippers is that Vicky Health sternly warn us not to wear these slippers if we are pregnant or have a pace-maker. Do pregnant women need to steer clear of magnets? Should we be removing that fridge magnet sexy-poem words set that is still spelling out 'clean me you slow lazy fat fruit head' on the door? Does my magnetic GB sticker on the back of my car risk harming my unborn ducklings? What about the Earth's magnetic field, which would have more effect on my inner organs that some cheap magnets stuck to the bottom of my feet? We live in a dangerous world.

Moving on. we have much more quackery to offer our loved one...

Arms of Love flower essence (also available from Vicky Health) has the power to soothe, relax and turn around failing businesses. (No not, VH, I think they are doing rather well. read the article)
An Aroma Pen that can 'lift the spirits and create feelings of love'
Love Rose tea that can 'seduce the inner him (or her)'
'Pure Alchemy Passion Body Therapy' - with libido lifting 'essential' oils. (I have always wondered just how essential these oils are.)
'Female Balancing' Nourish Chocolate, £1.99 for 50g bar: Um, woudn't a sneaky Mars bar be cheaper?
If you are feeling flush, why not treat your loved one to a trip to the 'Ayush Wellness Spa, the first Ayurvedic destination spa newly opened at the Hotel de France on the shores of St Helier in Jersey'. Here you can get a 'four-handed abbyanga massage'. Fortunately, we are told this involves two 'therapists', and is not some freaky mutant massage nightmare.

We are told that Dr Kerur, who runs the Jersey Spa, is also involved in a "study evaluating how India’s 5000 year old ‘science of life’ might be incorporated into the NHS." Great, that should improve the NHS. Would that be the 5000 year old 'science of life' that left most babies to die before before their fifth birthday and the survivors to die by their late thirties? 5000 years ago, magnets had not been invented, let alone slippers to contain them. How did they cope? Were women always 'unbalanced' without their 'Nourish Chocolate'. And as for Aroma Pens, were they lying idle just waiting for someone to invent a script to write "Roses are red..."? My guess is that any study will be much more about researching marketing techniques than science. Please prove me wrong.

There are a number of things in all this that I find rather alarming. First, supporters of alt-med are quick to chastise allopathic (i.e. real) medical practitioners for being too closely tied in with 'Big Pharma' and other forms of money grabbing, and yet this article is just a blatant plug for one or two retailers that the author has a clear relationship with. (Go visit the VH site, I won't link as it will increase its Google rating!)

Secondly, I find it distasteful that so much of quack journalism is directed at women. I don't for one moment think that women are more prone to delusional thinking than men. Maybe, its just that there is more scope for money making from toiletries and other pampering products. Men might be more prone to buying very expensive quantum-induced single-crystal copper with gold plated connectors, uni-directional hifi speaker cable - but I would not like to stereotype further.

For my part, I will be looking at treating Mrs Noir with silk slippers, bath oils, chocolates and maybe even a spa weekend, but I will not be insulting her intelligence with promises of mumbo-jumbo.

Then again, I might just get a set of speakers for her iPod. Always the best present - one you can use yourself. Am I doomed to have a row?

Labels: daily mail, journalists

0 Comments View blog reactions

Quack Word #39: 'Superfood'

Friday, February 02, 2007

Regular listeners to BBC Radio 4's Womans' Hour will have recently heard nutritionist Suzi Grant extolling the virtues of so-called superfoods. Quackery, I say.

But what on earth can be wrong with a superfood? Surely eating foods rich in nutrients has nothing to do with quackery, but is just common sense? I don't think it is quite that simple, and I would contend that anyone using the word 'superfood' is a quack and deserves to score Canards on the Quackometer. Using the term 'superfood' is at best meaningless and at worst harmful. Let me explain.

Suzi has been appearing on the show regulalry talking about her ideas on superfoods. This Friday's edition of Womans' Hour (listen here) was not such a clear run for her though. This time, Suzi was joined by a dietitian by the name of Catherine Collins. Now, as you know, dietitians are for real. They train for years, have to be registered in order to call themselves a dietitian. They are accountable for what they say and can be struck off if they behave in inappropriate ways. They work in hospitals. Nutritionists tend to be or do none of these things. Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist or nutritional therapist. You are a nutritionist. Tell your Mum - she will be proud. They are accountable to no-one but their own conscience and need no training. What training they do have may be severely lacking in credibility. If you are ill with a condition that needs sounds eating advice, like cystic fibrosis, you would best talk to a dietitian. Taking advice from a nutritionist could well seriously damage your health.

So, Catherine (dietitian) vs. Suzi (nutritional therapist). The show was all very Radio 4, cosy and good natured and rather lacked the impact that it ought to have had. After all, Catherine was there to debunk the superfood nonsense, but the interviewer, Carolyn, rather engineered the conversation to an apparent consensus - which there most definitely was not. So, let us here have a look at the issues.

Let's start with a definition of superfood... and at the first hurdle we get stuck. There is no accepted definition, and definitely no scientific way of classifying foods into superfoods. Suzi contended that, when faced with the choice of blueberries and lasagne, she 'knows' which is a superfood and which is not. (The berries, obviously!) Catherine thought this rather ironic as dietitians do not look at individual foods particularly, but instead try to get people to eat 'super diets'. And a Southern Mediterranean diet, with its balance of food groups, including lasagne, is very close to what might be considered a 'super diet'. Of course, Suzi contended that eating loads of lasagne will make you feel woozy and so on. If you stuff yourself silly, answered Catherine. But of course, Italians do not do that. They eat small portions, of many courses, in a varied meal. Moderation, variation and balance. Simple stuff for a super diet. So, the difference so far can be summed up as the dietitian concentrating on the whole diet (holistic, dare I say) and the nutritional therapist fetishising particular trendy foods.

So, is the thing about superfoods just misdirected good intentions? I think it is worse than that, as nutritionists tend to surround their superfood advocacy with wrappings of pseudoscience, mumbo-jumbo and misinformation. This is not good as it confuses people, misinforms then and gets in the way of understanding what makes a good diet. This side of the superfood phenomenon was also on display in the BBC interview.

The first idea that is just plain wrong is that just because certain foods are bursting with a particular vitamin or nutrient then they will be especially healthy for you. The idea is that because Vitamin C stops you getting nasty illnesses, then lots of Vit C must be very, very healthy. The truth is that your body has a requirement for sufficient nutrients in order to work. Sufficient is the key word here. If it has an excess amount of these nutrients, and cannot store them, then they will essentially go to waste. So much food quackery is based around the canard that 'more good stuff is better'.

Next, there are certain woo-like beliefs that seeds and sprouts are 'bursting' with all the 'energy' that a plant will need for its life. Utter rot. Plants obtain their energy from photosynthesis and nutrients and water from soil. A seed's job is to produce a leaf or two and a small root so that it can start extracting the stuff from the environment that it will need to grow. In that sense, a seed is no more special than any other plant matter. Lucky seeds do not contain all that energy the nutriquacks talk about. Imagine the energy in an acorn required to make an oak tree. One wrong tap and it would go off like a nuclear bomb. Dangerous walking in Autumn.

One last canard on display was that the colour of foods is very important. Superfoods are often brightly coloured. Somehow a food's nutritional value can be judged by its colour. Now, to be fair, getting people to eat a variety of different coloured foods may help in promoting variety and the use of fresh products - but that is it. Colour is not a flag for nutritional value, but might just liven up a damp salad.

I can almost hear Suzi typing an angry email to me saying that all her pronouncements are backed up by scientific studies. To that, I would say that Ben Goldacre has done a fantastic demolition job on the quality of superfood research. In this Saturday's Guardian he wrote about finally getting hold of 'Dr' Gillian McKeith's PhD 'thesis', probably better described as a PhD pamphlet and recipe book. It has long been expected that its academic quality may be questionable as her PhD was awarded by a non-accredited US correspondence college cum vitamin supplement shop. Best read Ben's analysis of the thesis for all the gory details.

I said earlier that concentrating on superfoods could well have the capability to actually harm people. I think this comes about as heeding advice about taking superfoods misses the big picture. And the big picture is to simply eat a balanced, varied and modest diet. Superfoods give the impression that ordinary, affordable and everyday foods are somehow deficient. Rather than spend five pounds on wooberries and mumbo-jumbo bean sprouts in Waitrose, a family would be better off buying regular and larger quantities of fresh fruit and veg from their local market. On a restricted budget, it is even more important to ignore dubious, expensive products in the belief you can take shortcuts to a good diet. Rather than buying imported African blue-green energy-algae, with all the CO2 emissions associated with travel, eating a cheap British apple would be better for the environment too.

So what's left for superfoods? Little really. Like most alternative medicine quackometer words, it is a word without substance and is just a marketing word, like 'holisitic', 'organic', or Gillian McKeith's use of the term, 'Doctor'. The word sells expensive berries in Waitrose, bottles of weird algae extract on nutriquacks' web sites, and unimaginative and lazy recipe books. Oh, and it fills slots on the radio with nonsense.

Labels: Ben Goldacre, diets, mckeith, nutritionist, Quack Words, qualifications, vitamins