How do they get away with it? The detox debunk

'Detox' has for a good number of years been one of those words that is bandied around by companies to sell products because it sounds good, without actually meaning anything much. Infamously the Prince of Wales' Duchy Originals sells a detox tincture (now available through Waitrose, hurrah!) that is supposed to be 'a food supplement to help eliminate toxins and aid digestion'. Despite the ASA upholding a complaint about their advertising, the stuff is still on sale.

Even worse, I saw in a women's magazine the other day (don't ask) blurb for a 'detox diet' that told us 'a detox diet can be just as good as botox!' According to the magazine:

This diet will rid you of stored toxins so your complexion clears and skin tone and colour becomes even
Excess water is flushed out, taking with it debris and toxins, reducing puffiness and dark circles around the eyes
Antioxidant foods combat the aging damage done by free radicals in your body when you're emotionally stressed, sunbathe or exercise a lot.
Includes foods that will take years off your skin: such as spinach, which is full of beta-carotene to improve skin firmness, omega-3 rich oily fish to reduce redness and watermelon to give you a dewy complexion

I don't know where to start with what's wrong with this. It is full of misleading information.

There are no such things as ‘stored toxins’
There’s no such thing as detox
When you use botox you are adding a toxin, not removing it – botox is a toxin
Excess water is a meaningless concept in the way it’s used here
Antioxidant foods don’t combat free radicals. The antioxidants naturally produced by your body do, but trials of consuming antioxidants have had, if anything, a negative impact on health. It’s a myth.

What I don't understand is how they (by which I mean all these people who make money out of ripping customers off by selling them snake oil) get away with such blatant stuff. Don't get be wrong, of course you look better on a good diet than when you are eating rubbish. But 'detox'? Give me strength. (Prince Charles probably has a tincture for that.)

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog