Something You Should Know - How Flavor Has Guided Human History & The Threat of Pseudoscience - SYSK Choice

Episode Date: February 15, 2025

Modern kitchen freezers are actually cruel to ice cream and other frozen foods. This episode begins by explaining why this is and why there is often ice crystals on top of your ice cream and how to prevent them. Source: Professor Richard Hartel author of the book Ice Cream (https://amzn.to/3jNcVrY). Unlike other animals, we humans have gotten really good at figuring out how to take food and make it taste even better. Why do we do that? And what is it that makes some food taste better than other foods? Is it just our personal preferences or are we all programmed to like the taste of certain foods? What is flavor exactly? All these are questions I discuss with Rob Dunn, an evolutionary biologist and professor at North Carolina State University. He is also the author of the book, Delicious: The Evolution of Flavor and How It Made Us Human (https://amzn.to/3RPAIUM). Medical quackery is when someone touts the benefits of medical cures or treatments with no actual evidence to support it. While you might think you can spot a quack a mile away, it is actually harder than you think. And while some quack theories may be harmless, others can be dangerous. Dr. Joe Schwarcz has spent his career exposing medical quackery and pseudoscience and he joins me to reveal some common forms of it. If you believe Vitamin C can cure your cold or that herbs can effectively treat cancer, you need to hear this conversation. Joe is Director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society, and author of the book, Quack Quack: The Threat of Pseudoscience (https://amzn.to/40JILGO). Yes, it is called a DISHwasher but it can do so much more than wash dishes. Listen as I reveal several other things you can wash in there that you may never have thought of. https://www.womansday.com/home/organizing-cleaning/tips/a5539/10-things-you-can-clean-in-the-dishwasher-115717/ PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS!!! FACTOR: Eat smart with Factor! Get 50% off at https://FactorMeals.com/factorpodcast DELL: Anniversary savings await you for a limited time only at https://Dell.com/deals SHOPIFY:  Nobody does selling better than Shopify! Sign up for a $1 per-month trial period at https://Shopify.com/sysk and upgrade your selling today! HERS: Hers is changing women's healthcare by providing access to GLP-1 weekly injections with the same active ingredient as Ozempic and Wegovy, as well as oral medication kits. Start your free online visit today at https://forhers.com/sysk INDEED: Get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at https://Indeed.com/SOMETHING right now! CURIOSITY WEEKLY: We love Curiosity Weekly, so listen wherever you get your podcasts! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today on Something You Should Know, what your freezer does to ice cream, and you're not going to like it. Then, why do we like certain flavors and dislike others? One of the most amazing features of this to me, recent research has shown that when a baby is born, it has already learned to love some smells. And those are the smells of the foods that that baby's mother ate when the baby was in utero. Then there are so many things you can clean in your dishwasher that are not dishes. And most people think they can tell the difference between real science and pseudoscience. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There are more people today than ever who believe in nonsense and various aspects of

pseudoscience and I've kind of tried to forge a career battling those views. All this today on Something You Should Know. This is an ad from BetterHelp Online Therapy. We always hear about the red flags to avoid in relationships, but it's just as important to focus on the green flags. If you're not quite sure what they look like, therapy can help you identify those qualities so you can embody the green flag energy and find it in others.

BetterHelp offers therapy 100% online and sign up only takes a few minutes. Visit BetterHelp.com today to get 10% off your first month. That's betterhelp.com. Something you should know. Fascinating intel. The world's top experts. And practical advice you can use in your life. Today, something you should know with Mike Carruthers. Hi, welcome to Something You Should Know. Depending on how old you are, you might have to confirm this

with your grandmother or something, but it used to be that if you had a freezer, every once in a while, you would have to chip away the old ice and frost that would build up over time on the walls of the freezer. And then along came the frost-free freezer, which pretty much everyone has now. But there's a problem.

You see, your freezer regularly goes through a frost-free cycle, which means the temperature actually warms up in there, as high as 45 degrees. During that time, the frost melts and evaporates, and that prevents the frost and the ice from building up. The problem is that your food starts to melt too, and then it refreezes, and that causes problems.

This is a big cause of freezer burn, and it's why you get ice crystals on your ice cream. In fact, one food science professor calls frost-free freezers ice cream destruction machines. What happens is as the temperature goes up and food starts to thaw, the water from the food escapes into the air. As the temperature drops again, the water wants to re-enter the food, but it can't because the food is still mostly frozen. So the water sits on top of the food and freezes into ice crystals and this happens over and over and over again and can ruin some of the food in your freezer. One way to prevent or minimize the damage is to keep as little air space as possible between the food and the package it's in. This will help

prevent the water from escaping out of the food because it will have no place to go. And that is something you should know. Music One of the things that makes modern humans different from other animals, it seems, is we don't just seek out food to nourish and satisfy us. We seek out really tasty, delicious food to nourish and satisfy us. From the way we prepare food and cook it and spice it, we want food to taste good.

And even when it does taste good, we sometimes try to make it taste even better. So why is it that some food tastes good and other food doesn't? Why do you find some food delicious that I may find horribly distasteful? Here to talk about all this and why we find food so enjoyable, as well as how the pursuit of flavor has guided the course of history, is Rob Dunn. Rob is an evolutionary biologist and professor at North Carolina State University and he's author of a book called Delicious, The Evolution of Flavor and How It Made Us Human.

Hey Rob, so even though other animals don't, you know, they don't cook or spice up their food a whole lot, I imagine that other species have taste preferences. That some of what a tiger eats tastes better than other things that that tiger might eat. Every animal, at least in one way or another, seeks out delicious food. You know, the senses evolved to reward species for finding things that were on average good for them. And so the frog in some way or another, when it's eating a fly is appreciating the fly, but you're right that we as humans do something a little bit different in our quest, which is that we really we try to bring different flavors together. We cook things, we ferment things, and the version

of that that we undertake is special, but it has antecedents in other species. And so if you look at chimpanzees, chimps don't mix food. Not really in this sense that we do, but they do make tools to find delicious thingspanzees, chimps don't mix food. Not, I'm not really in this sense that we do, but they do make tools to find delicious things. And so chimps in some populations in West Africa will break off sticks. They'll make them just the right length. And then they'll use them to pound into the ground

to get at these bee nests that are, you know, up to nine feet underground, just so they can get that honey, not because it's nutritious or what they need, but really because it brings them pleasure. And so if you look across species, we see examples like that, where species have figured out ways of finding things

that are extra tasty. Why do we have this kind of oddity in that a lot of foods that are quote good for us as humans are not foods that we really like and a lot of the foods we really like are not good for us? How is that when you would think it would be the other way around? Well it's partially because good for us is dependent on our context. And so from almost all of our evolutionary history, for example, we needed more calories than we could usually get. And so in that context, you know, finding sweet things was definitely good for us. It was a ready source of

calories. And so our ancestors evolved sweet taste receptors to reward us for finding sugar so that we didn't die. And so in that context sugar was good for us. But what changed is we developed the ability to produce near infinite quantities of sugar. And then in that context sugar is no longer good for us. And the same could be said for most of the things we really enjoy. That in the context in which we evolved they tended to be things that were relatively rare and that we needed more of. But in our current context that shifted. And in some ways that's because what we've made of the world is kind of the mirror image of our tongues.

And so if you look at the foods that we produce industrially at huge scale, if you look at what you can find in the processed food aisles of the grocery store, it's basically all rewards for your sweet taste receptor, for your umami taste receptor, for your salt taste receptors. And so we created this whole world of food stuff that

supplies that pleasure. And we just made too much of it so that what we used to need is no longer what we need. Is there anything that is universally tasty that everybody likes or as you just said a lot of this is learned or is there a food that everybody that eats it loves it? All humans have the innate tendency to like sweet things. We all have sweet taste receptors. They're tuned a little bit different in different people. And so for some people, really sweet things are less appealing than they are for other people.

But everybody is born liking sweet things. Everybody is born liking savory things. So umami, it's a hard to describe taste, but it's in tomato soup, it's in Parmesan cheese, it's in miso soup, it's what gives some of their great taste to meat. And everybody is born instinctively liking umami. Salty tastes, everybody likes.

And again, that taste receptor is a little bit tuned. There are actually two salt taste receptors. One that says, ooh, that's enough salt. And the other that says, ooh, that's too much salt. And so the tuning of those is different from person to person, but everybody likes too much salt. And so the tuning of those is different from person to person, but everybody likes a little salt. And then you can learn through time to modulate those a little bit. And so as you get older, your preferences change, but you're born liking all of those things.

And we've studied sour taste a fair bit in my lab, and all humans seem to have the propensity to learn to like sour taste but how much you like it seems to vary person to person and we don't understand yet how genetic that is versus how learned that is but then whether you like the food that has those things in it really depends on what the aromas are associated with the food and that's learned. So let's define some terms here. What is the difference between taste and flavor and then how much of those things is actually smell? So it's different in different languages,

but in English flavor is this encompassing word. And so if you talk to people who work in the senses associated with food, for them, flavor is taste, it's mouth feel, which is the sense of touch inside the mouth, it's smell, which has two components that I can come back around to, it's the astringency, does the food make you pucker, and it's even, for some some people it's even the sort of visual presentation of the food that that also goes into this sort of overall experience of flavor. And so flavor is this encompassing thing. Taste is just the sensation triggered by your taste receptors. And so that's

primarily on your tongue. It gets a little bit trickier than that, but that's more or less the main story. And that's those key senses we took. That's sweet, salty, umami. But it's not fully understood yet. And so scientists are discovering new senses of taste as we speak that are not fully understood. And so, for example, it's thought that humans might be able to taste calcium, but we don't know what that feels like. There's a new taste that's been proposed called kukumi, but we don't know how that's sensed. And so taste is for sure the tongue, but what the full dimensions of that experience remain

to be studied. But taste is that narrow piece. It would seem that in order to survive, humans have had to basically adapt to be able to eat and to some extent enjoy whatever they could get their hands on because that's the only way you can survive. And as you pointed out, everybody likes salty and everybody likes sweet, but some people like more, some people like less. It seems that the human palette is very adaptable, depending on what's available.

One of the most amazing features of this to me is that recent research has shown that when a baby is born, it has already learned to love some smells. And those are the smells of the foods that that baby's mother ate when the baby was in utero. And so there are these great French studies showing that if a mother eats anise, like anise-flavored candies when she's pregnant, and you hold up a little Q-tip with an anise smell on it, that the mother who ate the anise, that that baby will make like a nursing face

in response to the anise smell. If the mother didn't eat the anise, the newborn baby will make a sad face in response to the anise smell. And this is true for garlic, it's true of the smell of fermented fish, it's true of the smell of some cheeses it's true the smell of some cheeses. And so, you know, on the one hand, this seems like just a quirky feature of our biology.

But if you think about our ancestors moving over some hill into a new climate and a new region where there are new plants, new animals, what this offered them is that in one generation, newborn babies could already be learning to love the new foods. And so you could babies could be primed for what the important cultural foods were already at birth. And what we can learn to love in different cultures is really varied. And so I work with a Greenlandic colleague and she works a lot on fermented Greenlandic foods. And a lot of those are fermented meats that are really quite stinky,

and I think off-putting to some people. But for Greenlandic people who grow up with them, they're some of the most delicious foods that anyone could ever imagine because of that amazing olfactory learning process. So I imagine that in the history of flavor and taste and food and eating the day somebody said you know if we cook this it's gonna be a lot better had to be a pretty important day. If we think about our evolutionary history there's a point

about 1.9 million years ago when our brains at that point were already larger than those of other apes, but they they went through this this bigger transition when the brains became even bigger and teeth became smaller so to sort of accommodate that big brain, jaws became weaker, and paleoanthropologists love to fight over just what happened during this period. What was it that allowed this evolutionary transition, which would then set the stage eventually for language, for building houses, for making clothing? And they disagree about almost every feature of what happened in that period, but they agree on two things. One is that somehow our ancestors

were able to obtain more calories because they needed more calories for those bigger brains. And they also seem to agree that they were getting more calories by finding ways to make food easier to eat and more delicious. And that might've been through fermenting food, it might have been from

being able to access more muscles and so imagine sort of a oyster early human, it might have been from finding new ways of getting honey, but one of the main arguments is that it was through beginning to cook food because once you could cook food more of the calories in the food became available more of the flavors became available it was easier to chew and it was this radical moment when we were remaking the world so as to make it more pleasing and and so I whatever happened in that moment I think it's a pretty amazing time we're talking about taste, flavor, and deliciousness.

And my guest is Rob Dunn. He is an evolutionary biologist and the name of his book is Delicious, the evolution of flavor and how it made us human. Bagel? Bagel. Bagel? Bagel? Bagel.

Bagel? Bagel. Gel? Bagel? Bagel. Bagel? Bagel. Gel? Bagel? Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. No, wait.

Bagel. Bagel. B-A-G-E-L. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel.

Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bagel. Bag them. Bagels and Bagels. Available now at your local Cobb's Bread.

Get groceries delivered across the GTA from real Canadian Superstore with PC Express. Shop online for super prices and super savings. Try it today and get up to $75 in PC Optimum Points. Visit superstore.ca to get started. So, Rob, as you look throughout history at humans and what they ate, because people have said well you know we're carnivores, oh no

we're omnivores, but primarily has the human diet been very meaty? Has it been meat was just kind of a special Sunday dinner kind of thing? What generally do have people eaten over the years? Meat, vegetables, seeds, nuts, fruits, what generally do have people eaten over the years? Meat, vegetables, seeds, nuts, fruits, what? Well, the short answer is they've eaten everything. And so if you look across cultures and time periods, it's really variable. And I mean, that's one of the beautiful things

about sort of humans and food is we've found ways to live successfully in many different diets. But if you kind of walk backwards through time, you know, if we think about sort of four million years ago, we probably had a diet that was kind of like a chimp diet. So it would have lots of leaves and fruit, would have had a little meat, you know, the occasional colobus monkey leg, it would have had honey. And then as we began to be able to hunt more, we brought more meat into our diets. It's ferociously debated how much meat, but probably there were periods where humans in particular regions switched to much meatier diets.

And then one of the things that happens is that in different places humans almost certainly hunted out some of the biggest things and so they would have switched to less meaty diets for a while. One of the things we don't understand very well is that at some point our guts change relative to those of other species and that changes which diets we do well with. And so one of the things is that our intestines get shorter, which makes it a little bit harder for us to eat diets that are just raw leaves because we can't ferment them

as well as a chimp can. Our teeth get smaller, which makes it harder for us to chew some of those things. And then the other thing that happens is that our stomachs get really, really acidic. If you look at a chimp stomach, a chimp stomach is almost neutral as far as we understand and the human stomach is more acidic than sauerkraut. And I actually think that that reflects it to a moment which might have been a hundred

thousand years in our story when our ancestors switched to eating more fermented meat. And so rather being these noble hunters, they were the ones that ran in after the lion kill, grabbed that piece of leg and hung it up and ate it for a couple of weeks as it continued to rot. And they may have used their acidic stomachs to help them keep from getting really, really sick. But it's varied is the short answer. Do we know when? There probably isn't a when, but this idea of, you know, not just getting the food and bringing it home and cooking it, but to really start to

develop recipes to make it even better and even better and even better. Like, how did that happen? Or do we know when that happened or it maybe just happened? That's a great question and it's not been studied very well. My personal impression is that once people started cooking food, then they would have become aware that cooking it one way versus another way changed the flavors. And if you could cook a food two ways and one of them tasted better than the other, so long as you have a modern human brain, which has been true for at least 300,000 years,

you're probably gonna do what somebody would do today. You'd cook it the more flavorful way. And so I think that's pretty early. What we don't know is when people start spicing things, when people start mixing ingredients, but I think we'll start to see that in the coming years because we now have all sorts of amazing ways to study ancient food that we didn't used to have. And so I have a friend, Hannah Schroeder, who he finds

ancient pieces of chewing gum, many, many thousands of years old, and he can find the DNA in that chewing gum and figure out what food people were chewing that's getting stuck in that chewing gum and to give a sense for which ingredients were mixed together in that moment. And so I think we're going to start to see some more pieces of that story. At the same time, we certainly know there are modern cultures where people emphasize the flavor of food much less. And so I think it's also interesting to think about, well, why do some people decide to eat plain mashed potatoes and not do anything else with them?

Why does that occur? That's harder for me to make sense of. So what's the big takeaway here? Because it certainly seems that taste and flavor, it's a pretty compelling driving force for all animals. So to me, it's the recognition that every species of animal out there is making decisions based on flavor. And so if you watch the crow, you watch the house finch, you watch a mouse, they have taste

receptors, they smell their food, and they choose. And to know that, you know, yeah, each species sees a different world, but each species also tastes a different world. And that in there in some way, you know, sometimes conscious, sometimes not conscious, there's a reward system for finding what's good. And so that fascinates me and that we're starting to understand the genetics of that and so you know we're starting we can now compare the taste receptors of different species and so we know that cats, so felids in general, so house cats, tigers, leopards, they don't have sweet taste

receptors because they get all of the nutrition they need and the energy from just killing other animal species. And so their sweet taste receptor was unnecessary and it broke. And so, you know, on the one hand, that's an interesting quirk of evolutionary history, but it also means that, you know, every time you present your cat with something you think it's going to love because it's sweet, it actually can in no way taste that sweetness. And the same is true of dogs.

They have different taste receptors than we do, and so the subtleties of those differences change how they experience the food we give them. And so there's this constant evolutionary part of the story that I find fascinating too. But the biggest thing for me is there really isn't a field that studies flavor and deliciousness and evolution in a holistic way. And so, you know, for somebody who's young and just thinking, well, maybe I'll be a biologist or an anthropologist or, you know, a molecular scientist. Most of what we could discover about deliciousness

has not yet been discovered. And that, to me, is pretty wonderful and fun. Today, it seems like we have a lot of, you know, fake foods, artificial foods, you know, cheese puffs and Doritos and things. How do those kinds of foods that are not in nature, how do those fit into this discussion? Yeah, I mean, well, the companies that produce those things

look at them with great care. And so what they've figured out is how to sort of give a super reward for our taste receptors. And so if you think about a Dorito, a Dorito has been engineered to kind of perfectly suit the taste receptors and to make them happy. And then it has a very simple smell that we learn to associate with Dorito and we learn to love.

And that's not an accident. That's very intentionally produced to take advantage of how our sensory systems work. Interestingly, that also happens in nature and so there are a lot of species that want to be eaten and so fruits want to be eaten so that they're passed through the digestive system and then their seeds are dispersed somewhere else. But some fruits have figured out ways of triggering our taste receptors but without giving us food. And so there's a fruit across tropical Africa that produces a molecule that hits the bottom of the sweet taste receptor but is not sugar. And so the plant makes that

molecule, it doesn't provide any sugar, and primates go and eat the fruit and eat the fruit and get almost no reward for it, but the fruit itself gets dispersed by the primates. And so in some ways, the Dorito is totally unnatural. In other ways, it's doing the same kind of thing that nature also does. Well, there is so much to this topic of flavor and taste that I think most of us don't know,

and yet we're tasting and flavoring things every day. So it's really good to understand this. I've been talking to Rob Dunn. He's an evolutionary biologist and professor at North Carolina State University and the name of his book is Delicious! The Evolution of Flavor and How It Made Us Human and there's a link to that book in the show notes. Thank you, Rob. It's been a great pleasure. I'm gonna go eat some lunch now because now I'm hungry. Ladies and gentlemen. What are you doing? What do you mean? I'm making it simple. I'm making the promo. Just keep it simple

just say hey we're the brav bros two guys to talk about Bravo. Ladies and gentlemen boys and girls we're the brav bros. No! Dude stop with the voice just keep it simple. I've seen promos on TV, dude. This is how you get the fans engaged. This is how you get listeners. We're trying to get listeners here. If we just say, oh, we're two dudes that talk about Bravo, people are gonna get tired of it already. We need some oomph. All right, then fine. Let's try to do it with your voice. Bravo, bros. Good job.

You come to the New Yorker Radio Hour for conversations that go deeper. Good job. some of my extraordinarily well-informed colleagues at The New Yorker. So join us every week on The New Yorker Radio Hour, wherever you listen to podcasts. You know what quackery is, right? And it's such a great word, quackery. Quackery is when people spout theories and medical cures for things that are, at best, unproven and possibly useless, and at worst, potentially dangerous. Terms like snake oil salesman and huckster all come to mind. There's a lot of quackery in science and medicine and nutrition, and a lot of it isn't easy to spot.

Today, on the internet, anyone can say anything and come off as credible. So it's important to understand how to tell truth from quackery or pseudoscience. Someone who's been at the forefront of this for a long time is Dr. Joe Schwartz. He's director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society and and he's author of a book called well he's author of several books but his latest book is called Quack Quack, The Threat of Pseudoscience. Hey Joe, welcome to Something You Should Know, or welcome back. Hi Michael. It seems that quackery has been around for a long time and I think people think that

they know how to spot it, that they're somewhat immune to it because it's been around a long time and we know quackery when we see it. Just because it has been around a long time doesn't mean that we have developed an immunity to it. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There are more people today than ever who believe in nonsense and various aspects of pseudoscience. And I've kind of tried to forge a career battling those views. Sometimes it is frustrating,

I must admit, but it also has been a lot of fun dealing with the various aspects of quackery. So just to get specific and put a face on this, what are some of the quackery things that you have seen and you have dealt with in your career that you think are important for people to understand? Well, of course, there are some funny ones and there are some more serious ones. The more serious one that I've had to deal with a great deal is homeopathy, which I believe is perhaps the most absurd of all the so-called alternative remedies. Well, and I think people have all heard that word homeopathy, but I bet most people don't really know what it means. So what is,

specifically, what is homeopathy? The vast majority of people have no real idea what homeopathy is, and if they have any kind of idea, they equate it to just sort of an umbrella of all kinds of quote, natural therapies. This is not the case. homeopathy is a very specific pseudoscientific practice that dates back about 200 years to a physician in Germany by the name of Samuel Hahnemann. Now Hahn Hahnemann actually was, I think, a pretty good guy who was disenchanted with what he had been taught in medical school back in those days because, you know, what did doctors learn back then?

They learned how to purge patients, they learned how to bleed patients, and he didn't see his patients really getting better with this. So he searched for better methods of treatment. And one treatment that was popular at the time, because it actually had a good chance of working, was to treat patients who suffered from malaria with an extract of the bark of the cinchonotree, which grew in Peru. Today, of course, we know that that bark contains quinine, but they had no idea of it back then. And he knew that he wasn't always successful with the

treatment because he didn't know exactly how much of this ground up bark to give to his patients. So he experimented on himself and he started to take the bark of the central nut tree to see how much he could stand. And it turned out that he developed a fever, the same kind of fever that he saw in his patients who suffered from malaria. And at that moment, homeopathy was born. The term actually means like cures like. So Hahnemann came to the totally unscientific conclusion based on his experiment that a substance that in a healthy person causes a symptom will cure those symptoms in a sick person in a diluted version.

Now this of course goes against everything we know in biology, chemistry and physics. And yet, if you were to ask people, you know, just ask them on the street, what is homeopathy? That's not what they're going to say. I think most people believe homeopathy is kind of this umbrella term for natural or alternative medical treatments. Which is unfortunate because it is this one specific area for which there is no reputable scientific evidence. Unfortunately it is still

extremely popular essentially because it is marketed as having no side effects which of course is true because when you're taking something that contains no active ingredient whatsoever you are not going to get any side effects. But when you are taking a homeopathic remedy, you are getting something. You're getting a good dose of placebo. And as you know, if you believe in something strongly enough, it can help benefit your symptoms. Of course, it doesn't cure the underlying disease.

It just changes your perception of the disease. And this is where the danger of homeopathy comes in. Because people always say, well, what's the harm in homeopathy? You're just taking water and nothing more than that. Well, there is no danger physically in the actual therapy. The danger is in believing that it may do something that it cannot do and to use it to the exclusion

of other remedies which may actually work. I'd like to talk about herbal remedies. You walk into a health food store and there's all kinds of herbal supplements that supposedly treat disease or prevent problems and do things. And you would think, well, if they didn't work, you would think by now people would have caught on and not buy them, but people do buy them.

And also, if they didn't work, how is it that they can keep selling them if they don't do what people say they do. In the U.S., this is quite easy to do because of a piece of legislation that was passed way back in 1993 called the Health Supplement and Dietary Education Act. This was legislation that made it legal to basically sell anything as long as it was a natural product. If you could find it in nature, you could sell it. It did not have to go through any kind of FDA approval. And of course, most herbal remedies fall into that category because they do occur in nature. And of course, it is very easy to kind of, you know,

promote herbal remedies in a blanket fashion because many of the proper medicines that we use today do originate from plants. The classic example, of course, is morphine, which is isolated from the poppy. We have digitalis that comes from plant-to-foxglove. We have the Madagascar periwinkle, which gives us a cancer treatment. So there are numerous examples of drugs that are based on herbs.

However, when someone suffers from congestive heart failure, they're not told to go out and graze in a field of foxglove. The active ingredient is isolated, purified, so that physicians can prescribe the proper dose. But none of that kind of thing is mentioned with the promotion of herbal remedies. And some of these are just made by taking various plants and grinding them up, putting into a capsule, and swelling them without any significant trials. And because there's no need to carry out these trials,

they can just market this through health food stores and of course these days online. So what often happens when someone like you with MD after their name, part of the medical establishment, when you start to say bad things about natural remedies and natural treatments to prevent disease, that you're just part of the big medical establishment along with big pharmaceutical companies that really

just want to sell drugs to people and you're part of the problem that and that these remedies do work, it's just that you're trying to keep the lid on it. So that's a common response to which you say what? Let's start out by saying that pharmaceutical companies are not philanthropic enterprises. They are there to make money and there certainly are skeletons in that closet.

There's no question about that. I know we've seen drugs being marketed and overhyped. And essentially the truth is that virtually no drug works quite as well as the detailed salesman say that it works. Nevertheless, Big Pharma does a great deal of very, very sound research. They have great scientists.

And the best way to make money is to sell drugs that actually work and that have minimal side effects. So they really do carry out excellent studies. Unfortunately, there is sometimes, you know, a difference between what the scientists in big pharma say and what the salespeople say. And it is not true that they try to sweep the competition under the carpet. I mean, that just is not the case. Pharmaceutical companies do a

great deal of research on natural products because there may be some truth in there and they will try to fish those out and convert them into proper products. But what I think we in the scientific community have to emphasize is evidence. Always look for the evidence. When you hear that something is supposed to work for some condition, take a look to see where that information comes from.

Does it come from the peer-reviewed scientific literature or does it come from some website that tries to sell some sort of product. That's our theme, really. Look for the evidence. If we can, I'd like to quickly run through some of the things that you talk about as quackery that other people think is useful and get your comments on them.

Detoxing, that's become quite the thing to detox, to get all the toxins out of your body. What's the evidence according to science? The science says that there's no evidence for the kind of detoxes that you're mentioning. The body of course has all kinds of mechanisms to remove potential toxins. The kidneys and the liver do a very good job of that and the liver do a very good job of that, and the skin does a very good job of preventing those toxins from getting into the bloodstream in the first place. But that doesn't really sell. What sells are products that you take orally, or that you insert into the nether regions of the body that are supposed to draw out toxins.

But those toxins rarely get mentioned in terms of what they actually are, just this generalized expression that toxins are being removed from the body. And there's just no evidence that any of these products do anything. Mostly they are laxatives and of course there will be some effect. You will see some body output when you're taking laxatives, but that has nothing to do with reducing potential toxins in the body. This is just a marketing term that has no scientific basis. For example, alkaline detoxing, this is something that is very popular. The notion that you drink alkaline water or eat alkaline foods is the miraculous way to

remove toxins from the body. And this has no scientific substance whatsoever, but they claim that the body's pH can be altered by eating these foods and that cancer can only grow in an acid environment and that by drinking alkaline water you can reduce your risk of cancer. You can make this sound very, very good with, you know, some appropriate pseudoscientific lingo, but the fact is that the pH of our blood is maintained at about 7.35 very effectively by the body. Our blood is really what we call a buffered solution, and nothing that you eat or drink can significantly alter that.

Something that you say is quackery is vitamin C, and I find that so interesting because taking vitamin C to prevent a cold or to fight a cold has become so popular and so believed by so many people that you wonder how that happened. And again, if it's so useless, why do people continue to believe it if there's no evidence to support it? Yeah, therein lies an interesting story. It all started with Linus Pauling, the only person to ever win two unshared Nobel prizes. He won the Nobel Prize in chemistry and he also won the Nobel Prize for peace. And my career, of course, has been in chemistry. So from very early on, I basically worshipped Linus Pauling. And then he went off on this tangent

and that was vitamin C. Believing purely based on anecdotal evidence, his own and his wife's, that taking large doses of vitamin C was a treatment for the common cold. Now, because this was coming from someone as eminent as line is calling it got a lot of publicity. Here are a little book vitamin c and the common cold and because of course line is calling could introduce this idea vitamin c other researchers said well you know this is something we really need to look at. said, well, you know, this is something we really need to look at.

And they did look into it. So experiments were done and it turned out that it just didn't do it. Taking the vitamin C regularly did not prevent the cold. Of course, Pauling had an out for this. He said it was because the doses were so low and he recommended taking much higher doses. He said he himself would take 15 grams a day. Now vitamin C is a rather innocuous substance but taking very high doses will give you diarrhea which is you know not necessarily pleasant. But anyway many many studies were done on vitamin C

showing that it really wasn't effective in preventing the common cold. However, there were some studies that suggested that if you took a gram of vitamin C an hour for four hours at the first sign of a scratchiness in your throat, you had a chance of averting the cold. And I think that there is something to that. Now again, I cannot quote really strong scientific evidence for that. I have my own personal evidence. I think that that actually does something.

But as you know, anecdotes and science really don't amount to much. I would really like to see someone do that particular study in a rigorous fashion. But then Linus Pauling, unfortunately, went even deeper into this with his notion that vitamin C was also a preventative and potentially a cure for cancer. We wish that were the case. Unfortunately, it doesn't, and a number of cancer studies have been done on that. Since you're really at the forefront of all of this, what is it you're hearing now in this fight against quackery?

What are you hearing now being touted that you think needs to be explained? Well, I think exposure to electromagnetic radiation is something that comes up repeatedly now. People worried about cell phones, people worried about 5G networks having some effect on their health, and there is just no evidence for that whatsoever. With radiation, as with chemicals, dosage is always important. Now, one of the tenets that we constantly refer to is that only the dose makes the poison

and you always have to put things into context. You know, if you ask a question, for example, is aspirin toxic? Well, there's no real answer to that. If you take an aspirin tablet and you lick it, there will be no effect. If you have a headache and you take two aspirin tablet and you lick it, there will be no effect. If you have a headache and you take two aspirin tablets, your headache will probably resolve. If you take a whole bottle of aspirin tablets, you will go away, not the headache. So dosage is important in every context. We have to take a look at how we are exposed. For example, oral exposure is not the same thing as inhalation,

it's not the same thing as dermal exposure. And then of course, we also have to deal with numbers, we have to deal with amounts, how much are we exposed to? Science revolves around numbers. Whenever a scientist ask a question about toxicity, always comes down to how much is there? What have we been exposed to? And this is something that you don't see in the quack world. It's always a yes or no. They don't bring numbers into the game. This will cure you. Never mind what the efficacy is. Well, what you said earlier about the evidence, I think, is so important.

It's all about the evidence. If you're going to say something is true or something will work to cure some disease, you've got to be able to prove it. And if you can't prove it, then people should be skeptical. Joe Schwartz has been my guest. He is an MD and director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society. And the name of his book is

Quack, Quack, The Threat of Pseudoscience. And there's a link to that book at Amazon in the show notes. And the show notes are the descriptions just below this podcast, most likely, wherever you're listening. Thanks, Joe. Thanks for coming on. I appreciate that very much. Thank you.

You probably have a dishwasher in your kitchen. And if you do, you should know there are things you can wash in there besides the dishes. For example, those glass globes from light fixtures. If you do, you should know there are things you can wash in there besides the dishes. For example, those glass globes from light fixtures. Your lights will be much brighter after a cycle through the dishwasher. Just make sure to skip the heated dry cycle. Shower heads and faucet handles. Put them on the top rack and run the pots and pans cycle and it will brighten the handles

and unclog the shower head holes. Plastic hair brushes, combs and accessories. Residue from hair products build up on these items over time. So get rid of all the hair first then put them in a mesh bag or a dishwasher basket on the top rack and run them through the regular cycle. Baseball caps, put them on the top rack and use borax instead of dishwasher detergent. And every once in a while, it's a good idea to run your pet's bowls and toys through the dishwasher,

as it will help prevent the growth of bacteria. And that is something you should know. Here's a challenge for you. Write a review of this podcast in 10 words or less and then post it on the platform that you're listening to this on. Apple Podcasts, Spotify, TuneIn, Castbox, wherever. And there it will be, your words and your name for everyone to see. I'm Mike Carruthers. Thanks for listening today to Something You Should Know.

listening today to something you should know. You come to the New Yorker Radio Hour for conversations that go deeper with people you really want to hear from, whether it's Bruce Springsteen or Questlove or Olivia Rodrigo, Liz Cheney or the godfather of artificial intelligence, Jeffrey Hinton, or some of my extraordinarily well-informed colleagues at The New Yorker. So join us every week on The New Yorker Radio Hour, wherever you listen to podcasts. A while back we had Ramit Sethi on as a guest, and he's one of the smartest people you'll ever know when it comes to everyday money matters. And he was here talking about money and couples. As it turns out, he has his own podcast called Money for Couples, which if you're part of a couple, then I highly

recommend you listen to this podcast. Because when you do, instead of fighting about money, you and your partner will discover how to start building a rich life together. Money for Couples is a podcast full of real life actionable advice like how to pay off your debt and still enjoy your life, how to build a shared financial vision, how to spend extravagantly on what you love and cut back on what you don't.

And you'll learn from real world stories of couples facing the same money challenges as you. All of the episodes are helpful, but if I had to pick one or two, from real world stories of couples facing the same money challenges as you. All of the episodes are helpful, but if I had to pick one or two, there's one called �We make $300,000 a year but spend like we make a million.� That's a situation I think a lot of people can relate to. And another is called �We've saved for retirement but have no money to spend now.� Money for Couples is the name of the podcast hosted by Ramit Sethi and all you have to

do is search for Money for Couples wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts.