“106 Science Claims and a Truckful of Baloney”

If I have to be forced to read an article I'd say this would be a good choice. So props to Ms. Mallette on this one. It was pretty interesting to read, and that's coming from someone that hates reading. The two more interesting points that i read was about the spam emails and the "gluten free" yeast. I thought the spam emails were funny. Every time i read emails that are similar to what he was talking about, i get the same thoughts. I always wonder who reads them and actually follows through with the ad. Basically the more self conscious, gullible type to be obvious. The other was the ad about "gluten free" yeast, and his point that yeast is always "gluten free". It made me realize that most advertisements probably use this technique more than we think. It's like a jar of peanut butter that says "made with peanuts." Well duh. However; maybe placing that ad on the jar makes people think that some peanut butter brands may be artificially flavored and this one is actually made with peanuts. Go figure. The two questions that the article brought to mind was about ad agencies not being able to lie but they can slur the truth. Really, whats the difference? No wonder people are still getting fat. It says "no trans fats" but that doesn't mean its healthy. Another question is, what would happen to the world if agencies were forced to be absolutely truthful in advertisements? This may not be a literal question, but more rhetoric. Either way, its a question to make you think about. Makes you wonder if it would work, and everyone will make smart food choices for once or eat something they know for a fact is bad for you, but not care. Or if every company would die. Makes you think about how much advertisements rule society. They really are a "Truckful of Baloney".