Finding truth in the era of memes

<p>Many health-related accounts hold themselves up as credible “influencers” or consumer watchdogs, without a basic working knowledge of how to read a lab test result or make conversions in the metric system. It’s my view that these accounts are terrorizing people and meaningfully causing harm to society (and, at times, good businesses). Within the digital context of “the most terrifying meme wins,” strong runway is given to the parasitic activity of this type of media.</p><p>Have you heard of the Ames Test? How about headlines like “a cup of coffee contains 0.45 mg of carcinogens”? Odds are, you’ve only heard the latter. Here’s how this connects: The Ames Test, developed by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Ames" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Dr. Bruce Ames</a>2, was a simple, effective way to identify carcinogens. His research indicates that consuming these substances triggers a <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37939657/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">hormetic stress</a>3 response that forces cells and organisms to adapt, making them stronger in the long run (resilience!). Further, his “<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1693790/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Triage Theory</a>”4 found that adequate nutrient intake is <em>protective</em> against a host of degenerative diseases, including cancer. All this remarkably changed our understanding of carcinogens.</p><p>Yet within months of releasing the test, the data was being taken out of context by the media to scare people and garner engagement — leading to those “coffee is carcinogenic" headlines. Dr. Ames spent much of the late part of his career devoted to helping people contextualize and understand that they need not worry about the carcinogens found in their food.&nbsp;</p><p>The Ames Test was developed in 1973. You don’t need me to tell you how much faster misinformation spreads (and warps) in today’s meme-driven, media landscape.</p><h2>A brief history of other previously inflammatory media cycles.&nbsp;</h2><p>With each new wave of technological advancement of media, society has gone through similar cycles. When the printing press was made so efficient that one person could operate it, pamphlet distribution soared – along with misinformation and gossip. This gave way to what became journalistic principles of verification. As radio broadcast its airways, similar alarmist and inaccurate media spread, leading to the Communications Act of 1934 signed by Franklin D Roosevelt and ultimately the FCC. It established electronic broadcasting as a public good and even limited the ability for foreign entities to own more than 20% of a broadcast network. Various supreme court cases reinforced the difference between the right to free speech vs the right to distribution of speech — such as Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), which limits the distribution of obscene content.&nbsp;</p><p>Today, we are in another such time of media chaos, digitally. The recent censorship by government and tech on social media clearly isn’t the answer — however, we DO need forms of accountability on the social media airwaves.&nbsp;</p><h2>Accountability is key for health.&nbsp;</h2><p>Let’s connect this now to consumer goods. You need to know who makes your products and what’s in them — and hold individuals and businesses accountable. This premise was the foundation of trademark law, which largely came into form during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s with the rise of the then called “patent medicines.” These were drinks marketed for all sorts of health cures - the most well-known come from this era is Coca-Cola. Early patent medicines and their knock-offs would have dubious production practices and include all sorts of wild non-disclosed ingredients. The accountability around brand marks fortified much of the trademark system we still use today. Coca Cola even published their own 700+ page case law book and would send it to law firms to educate them.&nbsp;</p><p>Accountability is key for a healthy society — and applies both for brands and for digital voices - especially those holding themselves out as an authority. The keyboard warrior that parrots misinformation often does more harm to collective health by spreading anxiety than the imagined “good” of raising the alarm.&nbsp;</p><p>So how do we navigate a digital environment that holds little accountability and prioritizes sensationalized, memed content? How can we collectively work to provide calm and confidence in our trusted health sources and brands?&nbsp;</p><p>This is one of the challenges of our times. I don’t claim to have an answer, but I’ll share what we’re orienting around at LMNT.</p><h2>1) Prioritize long-form content.&nbsp;</h2><p>The foundation of our brand’s content is science-backed long-form; our focus started here, and it remains here. Long-form meets the type of customer that will read a blog or listen to a credible podcast — rather than jump from TikTok health news bite to news bite. It’s for the folks who commit their time to wrapping their arms around a topic.</p><p>It’s no coincidence that our objective statement is to “amplify a committed community of health seekers on a no B.S. rebellion to restore health through hydration.”</p>