Cause and effect eg. processed food and children's development

[jugglingjo]

I've just heard on the morning news that a new study suggests that young children with a bad diet including lots of processed food have been found to later develop to have lower IQ's than their peers.

Interesting. However I'm wondering if this could be a classic example of something I've suspected in research about development for some time.

That is, how sure can they or we be that this is really a causal relationship. Have the factors accompanying this poor diet really been taken sufficiently into account.

Things like socioeconomic class, poverty, struggling parents, and the things that may go with this package such as less stimulating experiences, less engaged parents, less communication between parents and children etc. etc.

Scientific research needs to be rigorous, and yet you hardly ever hear mention of the degree of causality that is being suggested. Or how accompanying factors have been considered.

A causal relationship is always just presumed.

At least by the media.

I think there are many things which affect our development more than diet. Though a good diet is very important for our health and well-being.

What do others think ? Especially about the science aspect ?

excuse my terrible grammar

I just think in this country though, our bodies and brains tend to mainly get the nutrition they need.

It's the other things a child needs for their development - as you say engaged parents - that is both harder to provide and more often in short supply.

There is dispute about the existence of IQ...

Assuming that IQ is a sensible measure to IQ test the parents would be interesting as it is likely to at least to some extent be genetic. Do more intelligent parents feed their children more healthily? (Intelligence not being the same as socio-economic group)

In terms of causality - I was reading the bfing study and the control seemed to be that the socio-economic factors had been proved not relevant by also studying children in Belarus. Why would more intelligent women in Belarus not be more likely to bf? There is a worrying assumption as others have said that a 'link' is the same thing as a 'cause'.

That said common sense tells me that the better the standard of nutrition the better the development of the child is going to be.

Hi Brettgirl,

Yes, exactly. About the "link" / "cause" thing.

Last sentence ( common sense says better the nutrition better the development will be )

• Yes, evidently it would be a positive rather than negative factor.

But it could be very small compared to other more important factors - such as environmental stimulation and emotional and social engagement with others, including high quality communicative experiences.

"link and cause thing" is called "Correlation does not mean causation" and there is not a single scientist on earth who is not aware it. By all means, though, continue to talk as if this principle has just been discovered on this thread

Also, the is no "dispute about the existence of IQ". That would be as pointless as disputing the existence of Fahrenheit. Both are measuring systems, nothing more.

And testing parents would be irrelevant because the aim is to study if nutrition has anything to do with the intelligence of a person.

I've just been trying to explain my thoughts in simple language CoteDAzur.

Though I know that scientists are aware that a link doesn't equate with a cause, I feel they could sometimes show more rigour in applying this important scientific philosophy. And more integrity in communicating the context of their findings to the media.

The media in turn could credit their readers and listeners with a slightly higher level of scientific sophistication

'I feel they could sometimes show more rigour in applying this important scientific philosophy.'

Erm - they do, they control for these confounders statistically as much as possible. The only other way to look at it would be to do a randomised controlled trial. Even if it got ethical approval would you sign your child up to a trial where they were chosen (out of your control) to eat a high junk diet versus healthy diet .

The research is ALSPAC - one of the best longitduinal studies and experienced team in UK (and international) research. I am sure they consider this possibility in the discussion.

One of the other points of correlational research is to point out there is a link so if possible further research can be done. The problem is that such studies are more and more jumped upon by the media and reported out of context (and read by people who do not understand science).

'And more integrity in communicating the context of their findings to the media.'

Scientists rarely do. They write for scientific communities. Sometimes their work gets pulled out of these journals and publicised without them having a say. Sometimes they get rung up for comment whilst they are trying to eat their cornflakes and persuade the children to get dressed for school

Well, perhaps those involved in research should give more thought and put more of their resources into the area of communicating their findings to the public.

Especially where they are in crucial fields such as factors affecting children's development.

Or global warming and it's likely effects, and ways to reduce climate change caused by mankind's activities.

• to name just two areas that come to mind.

Perhaps the media is not to be relied on to accurately report the findings of science - as it's primary mission is to sell papers or airtime by whatever means is most effective.

Ha ha ha at 'resources' - so underfunded. Research needs to be better funded for this to happen...which isn't going to get better any time soon unfortunately.

All the same a reply to my email from one of the researchers involved, or a post on this thread (which I pointed out to them) wouldn't go amiss

How much funding would that take ?

My point is that often there is no funding - or a researcher doesnt expect anyone to be that interested in it. It would be nice though if when the media picked things up they got chance to come out with a proper statement (but reckon the media might not go with that as too boring).

It would be nice...but if their work has been all over the papers and news the poor woman is probably hiding from everyone / still working through the 28 million mails (and probably hate mail) she got!

To get the message out there - they would have to have someone willing to listen to the actual researcher (and that doesnt make good journalism)