Boobquake: bad science and bad feminism

I'm straying away from my usual topic of bad science in advertising because I'm so intensely irritated by the event that is "Boobquake" taking place today.

Quick background. Boobquake is a reponse to comments made by an Iranian cleric (see here) who said:

"Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes"

This inspired student Jen McCreight to suggest an event similar to the excellent 10:23 homeopathy overdose, whereby getting a big enough group of women to dress immodestly and show boobs/cleavage at the same time could disprove this statement (because obviously it wouldn't cause earthquakes). She created a Facebook page and Twitter hashtag (#boobquake) and following an acceleration of the idea into a social media phenomenon now claims it was a silly joke.

For the record, I have some sympathy for her although I totally disagree that there is any science or feminism behind Boobquake. Both science and feminism are dear to my heart and that's why I'm a bit miffed.

The homeopathy overdose, in my view, was intended as a public message, demonstrating via a mass coordinated "overdose" that homeopathic pills contain no medicine and are just sugar pills. This is important because so many people DO believe that homeopathy is real medicine. It's available on the NHS and in pharmacies. Boobquake on the other hand is not about educating the public. Call me optimistic but I don't believe that many people in Western countries believe that women dressing immodestly causes earthquakes. It seems that people just want to prove this Iranian cleric wrong, but do they really believe someone like that will be convinced? Being a pedant, the original statement doesn't even claim immodest dressing causes earthquakes, but adultery, so the "experiment" isn't even testing the right variable. And if an earthquake does occur today it will be at best correlation not causation. So er, what are you trying to prove exactly?

I have problems with the feminism angle too. I personally don't believe that liberation is about getting your boobs out, apart from where it's making a point about the right to breast-feed in public. Is it better to objectify yourself than have someone else do it? (Further reading: Feminist Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy)  I know some feminists do not agree with me on this but vive la difference. Interestingly in this case, it is science, not liberation, is being used as the justification for getting women to show cleavage, these comments from Twitter demonstrate:

"Help fight supernatural thinking and the oppression of women just by showing your cleavage!"
"C'mon ladies, do your bit for science and reason!"
"Boobquake is a serious scientific experiment to prove that an Iranian cleric is NUTS. Boobs for SCIENCE!"

Utterly ridiculous.* Since when did objectification fight misogyny and bad science? What happened to good old fashioned scientific reasoning? Or should we girls leave the reasoning to the boys and just get topless?

There's also an interesting cultural dynamic to the whole thing, as illustrated by these comments for example:

"Boobquake won't cause an earthquake but it will reinforce the belief that Western Society is immodest and obsessed with sex"
"I'm not wearing a hat and my arms are out. I am positively pornographic by muslim standards"

The first comment I agree with, which is why Boobquake won't change the mind of anyone who actually blames women or adultery for natual disasters. It is pointless. The second comment is of course annoying because it lumps the extreme views of one man with all "muslim standards". FYI, there is not such thing as "muslim standards", muslim beliefs are very diverse, and many muslims do not believe that arms are pornographic.

To sum up, comparing Boobquake to the homeopathy overdose is insulting to proper skeptics and those who try to bust bad science myths. Boobquake is the most stupid intersection of bad science and bad feminism I've seen for a while, encouraging women to show some skin rather than actually engage with science in a meaningful way and provide wank fodder for people (men) who frankly don't give a s*** about science or the oppression of women.

*I know that some people are engaging with this in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way, but equally many are not.

Activia yoghurt: because women have dodgy guts

On Sunday my boyfriend asked me why yoghurt ads were always for women and whether women were "all constipated or something" (as so many adverts imply). He was slightly put out because he likes yoghurt a lot. More than I do in fact. I'd rather go full fat and eat ice cream.

I hadn't really noticed it much before but I think the boy's onto something. It was Activia yoghurt that inspired his comments. The TV advert, with the ever-chirpy Martine McCutcheon, was first shown in the post-Christmas overeating haze that befell Britain and told us that "we're done with those Christmas indulgences and "2010 is the year of Tummy Loving Care". It also contained the gem "when you feel happier on the inside, you're happier on the outside". A bit grating, but that's not too bad.

We get to the science bit about 17 seconds in:

Anatomically incorrect? Check. Inexplicable coloured blobs? Check. Words that sound suspiciously made-up? Check. Vague mention of "studies"? Check. It ticks all the boxes of bad science in adverts.

What is "bifidus actiregularis"? The bifidus part relates to the bifidus bacteria, technically known as bifidobacterium animalis. It's actually a bacteria already present in the human large intestine, which begs the question of whether anyone needs to eat it. "Actiregularis" is however, a completely made up word, probably to imply activity and regularity. There's an ongoing dispute over whether such probiotic yoghurts are any good, as discussed in this Guardian article for example.

The Activia website is supposed to shed some light on the science (kudos for showing a woman scientist at least). Activia says:

"Don't just take our word for it: 82% of women with digestive discomfort said they felt better after eating one or two pots of Activia® a day"

This is based on a study where 292 consumers ate one or two pots of Activia for 14 days. We have no idea why the women felt better and whether it was because of the Activia. Wouldn't they have begun feeling better anyway in a 14-day period? What does "feel better" mean in quantifiable terms anyway? How did the men in the group feel (if there were any)? Control groups?

Going back to the point of the article; why are these yoghurts adverts targetting only women? Don't men get digestive discomfort? To be honest I have no idea. But in my researching tonight I came across the wonderful Sarah Haskins, who regularly spoofs how the media targets women. I watched her hilarious video on yoghurts (US based but still relevent) and feel a bit better about unnecessarily gendered advertising. And I'm glad I don't eat much yoghurt because I don't want to become the poor Imodium woman who suffers from diarrhoea instead:

Women. You just can't trust your guts to behave.

Why does it matter?

Today, when I told somebody I had started this blog, I was asked "why does it matter?" Good question.

Adverts aren't hugely important in the grand scheme of things. Most people turn them off, tune them out or use the ad break to have a wee. We flick past adverts in newspapers and magazines and we barely even notice them on public transport. Nevertheless there is strong evidence that people are hugely influenced by advertising, even sub-conciously. Sometimes the advert itself can be awful yet you get the brand name in your head and that's the point, job done. Just seeing a brand advertised gives us faith that the company has some credibility - after all they must be doing well to be able to afford adverts. Popularity breeds popularity and you're more likely to then pick that brand in a shop. Aside from their pervasiveness and influence on our consumer behaviour, adverts also provide a reflection of our society and arguably influence it too. Adverts are everywhere and they matter.

The people that dream up adverts tap into various aspects of our psyches; fears and insecurities, aspirations, competitiveness, nosalgia and so on. In the case of beauty adverts, a specific group is predominantly being targetted: women. And the advertisers are usually tapping into our insecurities, aspirations and competitveness with other women. I wouldn't mind if beauty products were viewed as a bit of fun, but I do hate that women seem to NEED beauty products, having an underlying worry that without them they just aren't good enough. Adverts feed and encourage this view; it sells products after all.

By the way, if this strikes a chord with you, I strongly suggest you read The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf. It's basically aboout how the beauty industry feeds off womens' insecurities to make money and how womens' fixation with appearance holds them back.
I dare you to read it and not feel as if it's changed your life and outlook on beauty products.

Anyway, back to the science bit! We live in a society that's still quite scientifically illiterate. We have climate change deniers, people who believe in the idiocy that is Brain Gym, who fiercely oppose GM foods but are happy with medicines produced by GM organisms, who fear the MMR vaccine, who think creationism should be taught in classrooms and that "chemicals" are bad and "natural ingredients" are good (FYI all natural ingredients are chemicals!) And every time an advert justifies a product with a meaningless CGI sequence, uses made up words like "nutrileum" or "pro-V", cites consumer surveys where only 15 women were actually surveyed, bases claims on research that isn't publicly available or makes a great fuss over being "natural" and "chemical-free", it contributes to that scientific illiteracy just a little bit. It encourages people to trust in the science without actually using proper science. It's patronising to women, insults science and frankly it really fucks me off!

So I know it's not the worst thing ever. It doesn't kill people and I'm not saying anyone should stop buying products. In fact the mean side of me thinks it's just a stupid tax for people dumb enough to spend £50 on a pot of cream. But bad science in adverts is an abuse of power. It's asking you to spend your hard-earned money on a product in the faith that there is some evidence that it works better than an alternative, when maybe it doesn't. In short, it's a lie. And beauty products can't be avoided completely. Everyone needs shampoo.

And that is why bad science in adverts matters.

The wonder of the internet, and of blogging and social networking sites in paerticular, is that anyone can have a forum for expressing their views. This is where I express mine. But I'm really keen to get other peoples' views so please share comments, either below or via Twitter. Thanks!

Dove's new campaign focusing on science

Getting very excited, today I read that Dove is moving on from its "Campaign for Real Beauty" to a new campaign that will focus on the science used to create its products. The campaign will centre around Dove's new body lotion and hand cream, "Dove Visible Effects". Apparently the brand "will be promoted using the image of a flower and raindrops, intended to represent the product's three moisturising ingredients".

According to Unilever UK, the company that owns the Dove brand:

"Dove Visible Effects uses a unique patented formula with a Multi-layer Complex that combines three powerful moisturising ingredients to nourish all three layers of skin rather than just the surface layer.

This breakthrough technology means that Dove is able to provide essential care to the skin surface, the core and deep down, where beautiful skin begins" [source]

Well, my bullshit sensor is detecting something a bit whiffy already. But first a comment on Dove's real beauty campaign. Yes it seemed like a mini-revolution - getting curvy ladies to advertise beauty products, surely not! The feminist in me was mildly appeased. However it later emerged that the Dove ads were retouched, according to this interview with Pascal Dangin, professional retoucher of fashion photographs. So I guess real beauty was still too ugly for Dove.

Anyway, I was curious about the three layers of skin. I looked it up, as most people of my generation do, on Wikipedia. The three layers of skin are the epidermis (outermost), dermis and hypodermis. I'm sceptical over whether a body lotion could really nourish all these three layers, particulaly the hypodermis which is mainly a storage space for fat. If a cream could get that close to my bloodstream I'd be worried.

What are these three magic moisturising ingredients represented by a flower and raindrops? And what the heck is a multi-layer complex? Nowhere could I find an explanation, although I took a look at the ingredients. Obviously aqua is water and therefore probably what the raindrops represent (quick, gimme a science degree!). The product also contains glycerin and dihydroxypropyltrimonium chloride, which goes by the friendlier name of glycerol quat and is a moisturising agent last seen in Vaseline.

Perhaps they're saving the big news for their £2 million marketing campaign, which is due to start in May 2010. I'm looking forward to it. I'm all for cosmetic companies talking in plain language about the science behind their products without using made-up words and science diagrams for idiots. I remain optimistic for now despite reservations.

Garnier Nutritionist Caffeine Eye Roll-on

It's fitting to begin with the advert that eventually tipped me over the edge, forcing me to confront my mild technophobia. It's the latest from Garnier, a roll-on product for eyes containing caffeine to reduce dark circles.

There are many versions of the advert but here's the one from the Garnier website:




And here's a close-up of the product packaging explaining how the product works:





The premise is that caffeine combined with a "massaging action" will "encourage drainage around the eye contour area" and "smooth the skin and reduce the appearance of bags and dark circles". This is backed up by a sciencey-looking diagram that includes a coffee bean (source of caffeine no doubt), a stylised representation of Pro-vitamin B5 and a leaf (to make that all-important link to nature?). The packaging also hints at results from "tests conducted under dermatological control".


Here comes the science bit...


First, I have to point out that although Pro-vitamin B5 is routinely used in hair and skin products as a moisturiser, it is not a pretty-looking honeycomb structure. It's chemical name is panthenol and it looks a little something like this.


A good way, possibly the best way, to figure out if a product will solve a problem is to look at what causes the problem in the first place. In the case of dark circles under eyes, possible causes include eye rubbing, allergies, lack of sleep, dehydration and eczema. Because there are so many possible causes it would be surprising if caffeine could always reduce dark circles. At most, we could say that caffeine could help some people in some cases.


What about the tests carried out under dermatological control? Back to the Garnier website, which states that "4/5 of Boots customers say 'It's THE anti-dark circles MUST HAVE' (108 women tested)". I assume this isn't the result of the tests because that ain't a scientific conclusion from a proper scientific test, it's the result of a consumer survey. I have searched in vain for the original study on the internet and may request it from Garnier if the adverts on the tube continue to irk me.


In the meantime I think it's safe to say, using a bit of common sense and internet browsing, that if this product works for you, you would probably benefit equally from a bit of eye cream, a gentle massage (use your fingers, they're free) and maybe the old trick of teabags on the eyes. It would cost a heck of a lot less than £10 for a 15ml roll-on.


I'm a beginner at this so let me know your thoughts!

The first post

The protocol for introducing a new blog is a bit unclear (hello world, here I am?) particularly when there are about two people reading; me and my mum.

This blog is the result of my ongoing frustration at the spurious use of science in adverts, particularly those for cosmetic and beauty products. Inspired by the many greats in science blogging out there, I am venturing into the blogosphere to vent my frustrations and perhaps start discussions. Frankly my boyfriend has had enough of my rants. I have modest expectations, I would like to find like-minded frustrated individuals and perhaps even inspire everyday folks to think a bit more about the bad science in advertising we see on TV, in newspapers and in magazines daily.

I'm no expert in the science of beauty products, but isn't that the point? You don't have to be an expert to cut through the crap.