Milton M.R. Freeman

Consumption of traditional versus imported foods in Tonga: implications for programs designed to reduce diet-related non-communicable diseases in developing countries

In Tonga as elsewhere, consumption of inexpensive, high calorie, fatty foods are associated with increases in diet-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Programs have been designed to educate people about dangers associated with these foods, but if consumption has increased for economic reasons (e.g., price or availability), such programs may have minimal impact, and other policy options are warranted. A quantitative questionnaire study was conducted in Tonga using a broad sample from different areas (n = 430). The survey elicited information on: preferences for, frequency of consumption of, perception of nutritional value of, and (for a subset) the availability of, 36 traditional and imported foods. People prefer traditional foods and accurately perceive these as more nutritious. However, consumption patterns do not coincide with preference or nutritional value. Policy designed to improve NCDs should, therefore, address the general linkage between economic development and detrimental consumption patterns, and promote the availably and cost competitiveness of healthier, traditional foods.

Scientists versus Whaling: Science, Advocacy, and Errors of Judgment

It appears to be a challenge for some scientists to exercise the same skepticism and rigor they employ in their own area of expertise to questions of science that fall outside their specialty. Although this may not be a serious problem in academic or professional arenas, where scientists stand ready, willing, and able to correct one another, it may be a serious one when scientists debate scientific controversies in public forums, where the audience is less qualified to evaluate the validity of scientists’ statements. Scientists who argue outside their expertise in the public arena can make errors of judgment that raise important concerns about their responsibilities to the public. In this vein, a recent commentary warned scientists of the dangers to science of political advocacy, cautioning that “today’s scientists need to understand the consequences for science of relying on political advocacy as the primary mechanism of connecting science with policy” (Pielke 2002, p. 368). Examples of scientists making errors of judgment, or even committing outright fraud, are not new (Weinberg 1976, Broad and Wade 1982, Kilbourne and Kilbourne 1983), but are arguably more common today in those areas the media considers to be especially newsworthy. It is irresponsible for respected specialists to allow their passion for some cause to overcome their professional responsibility to determine what constitutes the current science on the issue in question. Such carelessness is especially regrettable in contested environmental or resource use issues in which politics, emotion, urban myths, and poor science confound the search for answers. Scientists, among others, would most likely agree that there is no better basis for sound political and administrative decisionmaking than the best available scientific information, and most would agree that this is especially true in the fields of resource management and environmental protection (Brundtland 1997).

The Long Hunt, by Fred Bruemmer

In recent years there has been a resurgence of sympathy for him among younger explorers and students of the Arctic. For instance, in Arctic, December 1964, John Euller offered arguments in his support and declared: ‘“The case for Cook is strong and should be reviewed by fair-minded men.” And in 1965, on the 100th anniversary of Cook‘s birth, Dr. Walter A. Wood, then president of the American Geographical Society, was quoted “Cook‘s claims regarding his polar journey should be re-examined.” Whether Dr. Cook ever saw the North Pole or not, his sledge journey among the Queen Elizabeth Islands stands by itself as one of the most remarkable of its kind in the annals of exploration. Dealing compassionately with Cook, The Big Nail sets out relentlessly to topple Peary from his pedestal. It portrays him as a jealous, ruthless, arrogant, vainglorious egocentric; as an explorer who found new lands that either didn’t exist or that he inaccurately located or delineated; as an inefficient navigator who did not always know quite where he was or in which direction he was going; as a sledge traveller whose speeds became superhuman when he had no witnesses who were likely to contest them; and, on his climactic polar dash, as an aging “iron” man, his feet crippled by frostbite, dependent on the loyal, skilful and vigorous Matthew Henson, his poorly-rewarded assistant (whom he referred to as his “colored body-servant”), and four Eskimos with their dogs, to carry him on a sled most of the way to and from his farthest north -which he was too proud to admit. As Wright acknowledges, carefully crediting his sources, various critics at one time or another have brought out all of these points and elaborated on them. He has simply marshalled and presented them anew in entertaining fashion, here and there adding his own interpretations and theories, some few of which may be open to question. He has done an admirable job of research, leaving hardly a stone unturned to accomplish his purpose. Summing up, he says: “Whatever may be the verdict of historians with respect to Cook, the conclusion as to Peary’s claim is inescapable. . . . The perpetuation of the myth that Peary discovered the North Pole has no possible justification in fact or tradition.” Richard Finnie