Skip to main content

Snake oil tea, vicar?

I have recently had brought to my attention the rather impressive way that in a single web page, a product by the name of Bloom teas manages to use three of the great woo-marketing terms.

Now, in the interests of fairness, I ought to point out that I don't drink ordinary tea, but I do enjoy the occasional cup of green tea, of which more in a moment.

So what's so woo-ified? There are three keywords here that raise the dubiousness alarm.

The first is rehydration. While the benefits of this are clear - it's good to keep hydrated - it really doesn't matter what you drink as long as it's mostly water and preferably doesn't contain alcohol. (And you certainly don't need 8 glasses a day - as with all this stuff, see my Science for Life.)So not an out-and-out negative, but something to be a little wary of. Then there the first biggy. Antioxidants. How many times does everyone have to say this? The antioxidants produced by your body are essential. But consuming extra antioxidants has no health benefit and serious supplementation seems to increase the risk of death.

And then, towards the end, there's that favourite of meaningless woo words: detox. There is no such thing as a detox product. Your body has lots of useful organs and processes that remove toxins, but nothing you eat or drink will have an active 'detox' action. It's marketing hogwash, pure and simple.

*ADDED* Thanks to Glenn Patrick for pointing out there's actually a fourth woo claim: that the tea kick-starts your metabolism, as if your metabolism was stopped and needed a starter motor. I could probably add some doubt to 'stomach-clensing ingredients too', while I'm at it. It's so full of... wonder.

You might think this is a matter of hunting butterflies with a bazooka - and to an extent it is. What's more, the reason I drink green tea is that I like the astringent effect that leaves you feeling refreshed and revitalised. But the key word there is 'feeling'. Where a manufacturer strays into snake oil territory is by making what  are effectively medical claims by using terms like antioxidant (or just fantasy by talking detox) - after all, they even make it sound medical by calling it a 'treatment plan'. So, I have nothing wrong with 'makes you feel good' type claims, but I can rightly bring out the bazooka when it someone says it 'makes you healthier.'

Comments

  1. Just thought - I ought to make it clear, given everything online seems to be a spoof today, that this is genuine.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It also "kick-starts your metabolism". Does it ever stop?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 recent 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 ex

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

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope