The article discusses how a new study from the University of Arizona sampled grocery shopping carts and found fecal matter or other bacteria, including E. coli. What the article fails to emphasize though is the poor sampling methods the study used to conduct its study. According to the study, the only swabbed 85 carts in 4 different states. That may sound like a high number, but consider for a moment how many shopping carts can exist in a single store. If this study wanted to conduct a true survey of bacteria found on shopping carts, wouldn't they want to have a much greater sample size? Also, if one looks at the study, it was sponsored by Clorox. It makes me wonder if companies such as Clorox knowingly back studies that they know will result in "shocking" results in order to motivate people to buy and use their products. What do you think? Is that even ethical?
Luckily, the same website that posted the story, later posted a response to it by a microbiologist from California's Polytechnic State University. He sheds some sobering light on the story, pointing out the simple fact that bacteria are all around us, and many of those same bacteria are also found in fecal matter. This of course, does not mean that the samples were from actual fecal matter, but rather had bacteria that almost every public surface has. One interesting point that he pointed out was that if the study really wanted to measure the dangers of such bacteria on grocery carts, they would survey and measure the prevalence of sickness in those who have recently used shopping carts. He also says something great: "As long as people don't freak out, but instead do the simple little things on a regular basis—washing your hands as well as those of your children after grocery shopping, microwaving wet sponges for a minute after each day, not putting anything on a cutting board that has been exposed to raw meat—they'll most likely be fine."
I think that studies like these pose a danger to public health because in the wrong hands, they can create fear and panic in the public. Also, it distracts people from the important ways to stay healthy, such as good hygienic practices. It is important that public health officials are aware of the agendas of companies such as Clorox, and work to educate the public to avoid panic and the spread of incorrect information.
I feel like this is concepts of public health directly warring with one another... this is so interesting! Because on the one hand, public health first and foremost needs to be reliable in the data that we present to the public, but there is also the next step of the fact that it is so difficult to get others to read the true data that we present! It seems like somebody sidestepping the first concept altogether, but succeeded in getting people to read it. It achieves the goal of getting people to be more paranoid and to wash their hands more often and be more aware of the bacteria that is present, but in an untruthful way. So, this brings the ethical question: does the end justify the means?
ReplyDeleteI certainly don't think so, and I know most of us would agree. I just wonder how often this happens and no one picks up on it!
This makes me think of all of the "scare" articles and news reports that came out after the terrorist attacks and the biological attacks on the US. People saw anthrax everywhere and profiled every seemingly menacing-looking backpack carrier on commercial flights. From these threats we eventually saw the rise of scare tactics in the food industry: Morgan Freeman's Super Size Me, mad-cow disease, the rise of organic pesticide free food, grass-fed beef, etc. America relies on scare tactics to get their point across. I think in some ways, scare tactics do in fact have a place in reporting. They get people to sit up and pay attention. But for them to really work, the research and data has to be solid enough to back them up. And in this case that clearly was not there.
ReplyDelete