retail news in context, analysis with attitude

Yesterday, commenting on a new study suggesting that red meat consumption may not be as bad for people as previous studies have said, I wrote:

In the end, consumers will make the best decisions they can based on the available and understandable data, or they'll make the decisions they want to make, not because of data but because they are the decisions they want to make. (Or they'll choose only to pay attention to the data that supports their own biases.)

MNB reader Mark Boyer wrote:

Well-stated perspective on what types of decision consumers will make.

Not long ago my wife quoted a study that supported a health goal she was pursuing and I told her for every study that pointed to a conclusion, one would likely find another study that supported the counter viewpoint. We picked a handful of topics and tested the theory. The results; you don’t have to look very far to find whichever viewpoint serves your goals. There are even studies that detail the positive aspects of smoking tobacco. Go figure.


Go figure, indeed.

MNB reader Gene Beaudoin wrote:

Red meat has a very large environmental footprint. Methane is known issue. What is often missed that it takes 660 gallons of water to get to a 1/3 pound hamburger. And, where does all that water go?

Where does all the water go?

Ask Noah Cross.
KC's View: