Introduction
“You have to live spherically, in many directions. Never lose your childish enthusiasm and things will come your way”
-Federico Fellini
Nutrition science is a relatively ‘young’ science in comparison to other fields, indeed it has been said that compared to its venerable ‘hard-science’ progenitors like Chemistry, it is still firmly in its ‘alchemy days’ (Berardi 2018). Historically, it is a child, a small twig on a great tree of knowledge, but unlike sister disciplines it has a unique commonality –matters pertaining to food, and why/what we eat are of immediate and personal relevance to everyone. Our reading frames differ widely though. For the privileged (and often first-world) some, it is an almost Kantian semi- religious pursuit of “perfect health” (Roth 2018), for others it is a dietary ideology of tribalism and belonging identified by a series of diet 'isms' like Veganism, Vegetarianism) (Traverso-Yepez & Hunter 2016; Beverland, Wahl & de Groot 2018), for many – a far more fundamental question of not starving (Guthman 2011). Food –the simple stuff we are required to ingest for continued existence is not merely a package of macro and micronutrients but embedded in a rich socio-cultural tapestry encompassing art, emotion, flavour, geography, history/tradition, institution, politics and economics (Fardet & Rock 2015).
Despite widening academic scholarship within these strands of nutritional understanding, Nutrition communication –the discourse we use to inform and advise the ‘public’ remains firmly didactic, institutionally directed, and locked into the ideologies of Western science’s reductionist empiricism (Scrinis 2013; Montgomery 1996). Knowledge and expertise is firmly institutionalized and definitive boundaries drawn between the ‘knows’ and the ‘know-nots’ –even within the discipline itself (Gieryn 1993, Marcason 2015). Flavour/enjoyment and ‘health’ have been artificially separated into separate disciplines: One, the ‘science’ of Nutrition, and the other the ‘art’ of Gastronomy (Coveney & Santich 1997). In our pursuit of specialization and demarcation of expertise (Gieryn 1993), we have forgotten, or chosen to ignore that both branches emerge from the same trunk –food. Ignoring broader disciplinary contexts has resulted in an anxious public (Pidgeon 2014), a distrust of nutrition science (Nichols 2017), and an exodus to more appealing and coherent narratives (Rowe & Alexander 2012; Burke 2017). In this paper, I suggest that thinking ‘spherically’ and incorporating the trunk, roots, mycelium and even broader ecosystem of Nutrition Science is essential for the future of Nutrition science communication and implementation in public health.
1. The current communications model isn’t working
This may seem a bold, even outrageous statement, but a quick look at both global and national statistics tells us in no uncertain terms that the incidence of Obesity, Diabetes and other diet related non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is rising steadily (WHO 2017; Walls et al. 2018; Adams 2015; Pollan 2007). We laud and recommend stringent ‘evidence-based’ guidelines and strategies for public implementation (NHMRC 2013; Mozaffarian & Ludwig 2010) and yet our logos comminques have less effect on public food consumption patterns than the ethos rhetoric of popular diet books or hedonic or environmental food marketing narratives (Cunningham & Williams 1993; West 2017). Nutrition science, filtered through Government health organisations like the NHMRC and subsequently through her sanctioned , stamped and trained ‘high priests’ of the Dietitian’s Association provide ‘clear’, ‘practical’ and ‘credible’ information to the public (DAA 2019). It is subsequently ignored. Our nutrition dissemination structures make a very clear distinction between the ‘learned’ and the ‘rest’ (Bensaude-Vincent 2001), and unlike the German and Scandanavian conceptual ideology that includes the humanities –‘Wissenschaft’ (Meyer 2016), Gastronomy, flavour, hedonic enjoyment and the tapestry of human emotional reactions to food is set aside for a more superior narrative (Navarro et al. 2012; Gruia et al. 2018). The result? People have stopped both trusting nutrition science and listening to the messages of its ‘experts’ (Garza et al. 2019; Penders 2018). Both understanding and engagement are cut-off (Palmer & Schibeci 2012), and a more relatable narrative sought (Scotto di Carlo 2016; Dahlstrom 2014), usually one in which personal agency and innate understanding is emphasized (Burke 2017; Milburn 2004). In nutrition science, if not international economics –Brexit’s Michael Gove may be uncomfortable close to the truth of public reaction: “People have had enough of experts, those who purport to have all the answers, but get it consistently wrong” (Dow 2017).
2. Food is not a quark: individual agency and narratives of understanding
People, not just nutrition scientists, know and care about food. Unlike quarks, photons and the more abstract concepts in the physical sciences, food is embedded in everyday life. In fact food and sex are the only two human activities that engage all five senses, and unsurprisingly reactions to both are indelibly linked neurologically and biochemically (Kain 2018). Both forms of ‘consumption’ and ‘appetite’ are both uniquely personal/individual and embedded in complex socio-cultural contexts (Shepherd & Liu 2011; Booth & Legg 1994). The ‘spherical’ tapestry of personal narratives of understanding in food consumption has been widely studied (Nordström et al. 2013; Van der Laan et al. 2012; Manni, Sporre & Ottander 2015), but is largely absent from public communication of nutrition science, especially in policy documents like The Australian Dietary Guidelines. Perhaps, like the proponents of science in 1923 China, these multitudinous threads of the sphere unnecessarily ‘complicate’ and ‘mystify’ what is essentially ‘mechanical’? (Xiao 2006). Or perhaps this branch of academic literature is simply filtered out by policy-makers due to its complex and sometimes contradictory nature? (Villikins & Grant 2017).
The pertinent issue inherent in this filtering is that the complex humanity and individual agency of the food relationship is truncated. Food and nutrition is no longer something you understand on a personal level, but a commodity owned and explained by others. Expert others. Official public nutrition advice has definitive limits, what goes ‘on around and just beyond the limits’ (Secord 2004) –the ‘sphere’ of understanding if you will –is the complex and varied tapestry of people’s personal food narratives. The Australian Dietary Guidelines for example state that their advice is pertinent to “the average, healthy Australian” (NHMRC 2013), a mean. In order for a member of the public to access a personalized narrative, they must consult an institutionally approved representative – a Dietitian. The hallmarks of institutionalized science bear striking similarities to the structures of religion, and fulfill similar functions of maintaining power, legitimizing practitioners and ensuring continued reliance (Rolston 2006). A greater awareness of the historiography of political and ideological power structures in nutrition scientists might, for instance, reveal that a frequent reaction to perceived powerlessness is overthrow and revolution (Le Bon 2013). In the real world, that looks a lot like "Screw you, I'm getting the bucket of mega-wings with extra-large chips".
3. The language of power and the language of passion
The Language-as-context hypothesis suggests that language itself affects perception and emotional response (Barret, Lindquist & Gendron 2007; MacDonald 2013), and recent studies have gone further to show that language forms pertaining to food consumption affect even the biochemistry of satiety, with indulgent or hedonic descriptors affecting pre- and post-prandial leptin and ghrelin levels (Turnvald et al. 2017; Crum et al. 2011). It is interesting then to note that even the earliest attempts to extract an ideal and unique language for science quite deliberately avoided any trace of passion or hedonism (Montgomery 1997, p.87). Scientific language informs and determines the relative status of ‘the knowledgeable’ and the ‘other’ through the creation of ‘high lexicon’ forms and narrative traditions (Bérubé et al. 2018). It is interesting to note that both Gastronomy and contenders for ‘truth’ in Nutrition science –the best-selling diet books, the ‘miracle cures’, and the ‘what science is hiding’ proponents (a $168 billion industry (Reuters 2018)) use precisely the language that science avoids: personal anecdote, passionate evangelism and advocacy, belonging, and above all, a personal voice that feeds directly into collectively common human confirmation biases (Townson 2016). Gastronomy and neurogastronomy focus on pleasure, visual delight, food stories, and the stimulation of neurological reward centres (Charney 2014). If behavioural science is right, and humans are indeed wired for pleasure and reward (Berridge & Kringelbach 2008), it is not a great leap to imagine which set of narratives will be more likely to attract and retain an audience.
This ubiquitous, but nonetheless artificial separation of ‘Nutrition’ and ‘Gastronomy’ may have effectively shaped human perception that ‘healthy’ and ‘hedonic’ are mutually exclusive terms (Taquet et al. 2016). The first belongs to the realm of nutrition science, the second to the arts, gastronomes and web-based nutritional charletans. The possibility of communicating evidence-based health messages through an appeal to pleasure and emotional reward thus remains largely unexplored by nutrition science communicators, despite these narratives enjoying widespread and popular appeal.
The dominance of English as science’s lingua franca also has major implications for nutrition communication including potentially duplicated research, dominance of Western diet models and food understanding frameworks, and lost or obscured non-western knowledge in the field (Panko 2017). If we accept the premise that “character may almost be called the most effective form of persuasion” (Condit 2018), how many rich forms of character, knowledge and viewpoint are simply invisible to nutrition science due to language barriers? Further, if science itself is a form of communication (Secord 2004), how many threads are simply being omitted from the tapestry, and as result –how skewed are the perspectives becoming? Dominant anglocentricity both creates and quashes the ‘periphery’ which can be a creative crucible driven by reduced conformity to institutional mores (Raina 2009). With food and nutrition increasingly linked to ecological narratives in public awareness (Paddock 2017.; WWF 2008), especially those of rapidly plummeting biodiversity in food crops, it is sobering to note that 35.6% of the biodiversity studies published in 2014 were not in English, but published by researchers that are in the countries exhibiting greatest impact on exotic and endangered species (Amano, González-Varo & Sutherland 2016).
4. Networks and recalibration
Margǒcsy (2017) asserts that ‘Network breakdowns play an important and unacknowledged role in the shaping and emerging of scientific knowledge’ (p1). Scientific networks rise and fall in parallel flux with the society that socio-cultural constructs and ideologies that frame them.
Knowledge flow in established networks can tend towards an inertia, and it is suggested that specific, disruptive pressure is needed to combat inertia and restore knowledge ‘flow’, or indeed –change its direction (Christensen et al. 2018), especially at points of ‘paradigm shift’. The relative success of network disruption depends largely on whether the incumbent network sees innovation/disruption as threat or opportunity (Gilbert 2005) and is more challenging for institutions with rigid status hierarchies. Again, an appreciation of how science has responded to innovation/disruption historically may enable us to devise more acutely focused strategies for innovation. How did the scientific institution respond the innovation and network challenge of Galileo’s assertions for example? Was his work a ‘threat’ or an ‘opportunity’? Perhaps both viewed retrospectively (Briggs 1981). An equally pertinent question that must be addressed is: Are we in fact in need of a paradigm shift in Nutrition science and its communication strategies? Due to increased specialisation and interdisciplinary diversification, it becomes even more arduous a task to identify specific locations for effective innovation/disruption. In 2017 Dr Jenna Gallegos stated that ‘Nutrition science isn’t broken, it’s just wicked hard’ (Gallegos 2017). Its inherent multi-disciplinary, multi-tiered nature is both its greatest strength and its greatest challenge. However, if we look to the originally stated statistics, we can deduce that something isn’t working. There is a blockage. The healthy eating message based on the work of hundreds of thousands of researchers is not translating into public behaviour change.
5. The tree of knowledge
The use of metaphor for effective argument in science communication is becoming more common (Frezza 2016), although its effectiveness will depend on the reader’s inclination for, or resistance to its use as a legitimate scientific tool. From the Greek metaphora –meta (“over) and phorein (“to carry”), it carries over a word or image from normal use to new, or novel use (Taylor & Dewsbury 2018). With the strong emergence of ecological narrative in food consumption choice (Burke 2017), and the familiarity of the tree as symbol within the biological sciences (Hellström 2012), I will attempt to clarify some of this complex tapestry into a framework that provides if not clarity, at least a fresh perspective on the importance of comprehensive appreciation and knowledge of the whole picture for the nutrition professional. The importance of thinking ‘spherically’ if you will.
I want you, for a moment to think of everything relating to food as a tree. Not just nutrition science, food. The separation as we have noted is an artificial one. It is a very large, very twisted tree. Like its forest fellows, its complex and interwoven branch canopy reflects an equally complex root system hidden from your view. This root system in turn interacts with another vast network of mycelium through which it draws both essential nutrients and communicates within its own forest network (Gorzelak et al. 2015). It may be tempting to simplify here and see the roots as metaphor for ‘past’ and branches as ‘present’, but as in science itself, past and present are not static but dynamic and present in the rings of growth just beneath the bark’s surface.
The tree itself is not static –it didn’t always look like this. It too has grown from seed to sapling to what we now view. Its form, strengths and weaknesses dependent on periods of hardship, periods of plenty, adaptive mechanisms and a dynamic competition/co-operation/reproduction. The branches are legion. Some springing up in tandem from a fertile node, others springing from those. Some branches are weak, some far too heavy. Some touch, tangle and twine, and some have absolutely no contact with others except for roots, trunk and xylem. If you were to label these branches, you would eventually come to linkages from almost every branch of science, arts, industry, technology, culture, history, geography and institution. Over here, someone’s memory of childhood flavour; over there a heavy branch of industrial food production, industry and politics; nowhere near either, a researcher studying obesity and diseases of excess, which branch springs directly from another researcher studying diseases of deficiency. Very soon, your head will spin and you will (hopefully) realise that the point isn’t reductionist empirical labelling, but the recognition of the whole as a living system.
Now, an arborist/researcher examining the current tree tree would look for specific indicators of adjustment; a non-fruiting branch or an area of obvious disease/weakness. Rarely would answers to such ‘disruptions’ to the health of the network be destruction of the plant entire unless the damage was widely spread within the essential infrastructure. The arborist too is handicapped to the effects of intervention without a far more intimate knowledge of the tree before him than what is immediately apparent to present view. A pruning or treatment may do more harm than good, for that small branch may have been the one to produce the most spectacular bloom. This bloom may have been the one to attract more bees. I’m sure you realise by now that the metaphor extends far beyond our inquiry.
In this paper we have looked only at a few selected rings, a small window of influence and those alone have raised a multitude of questions, challenges and shifting perspectives within Nutrition science and its communication. It is essential to strive to know the broad and interconnected nature of a thing to effectively understand, and interact meaningfully and well with the snapshot you see in the present.
REFERENCES
Adams, S. (2015, February 2). Science’s Biggest Fail [blog post]. Retrieved from: https://blog.dilbert.com/2015/02/02/sciences-biggest-fail
Amano, T., González-Varo, J. P., Sutherland, W. (2016). Languages are still a major barrier to global science. PLOS Biology, Dec 29 2016. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000933
Barrett, L. F., Lindquist, K. A., Gendron, M. (2007). Language as context for the perception of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11(8), 327-332. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2007.06.003
Berardi, J. (2018). Why nutrition science is so confusing (Blog post). Retrieved from: https://www.precisionnutrition.com/nutrition-science-is-so-confusing
Berridge, K. C. & Kringelbach, M. L. (2008). Affective neuroscience of pleasure: reward in humans and animals. Psychopharmacology, 199(3), 457-480
Bérubé, N., Sainte-Marie, M., Mongeon, P., Lariviére, V. (2018). Words by the tail: Assessing lexical diversity in scholarly titles using frequency-rank distribution tail fits. PLoSONE, July 9 2018. DOI: 10.1371.pone.0197775
Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2001). A genealogy of the increasing gap between science and the public. Public Understanding of Science, 10. 99-113
Beverland, M. B., Wahl, K. M., de Groot, J. (2015). Sustaining a Sustainable Diet: Vegans and their Social Eating Practises. In ‘Proceedings of the 40th Annual Macromarketing Conference’. ISSM 2168-1481
Booth, D. & Legg, C. R. (eds) (1994). Appetite: Neural and Behavioural Bases. Oxford University Press, UK. ISBN: 9780198547877
Briggs, K. A. (1981). Scholars are still embattled over the case of Galileo. NY Times, April 28, 1981. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/28/science/scholars-are-still-embattled-over-the-case-of-galileo-madisonwisc.html
Burke, L. M. (2017). Communicating Sports Science in the Age of the Twittersphere. International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 26(1-5). DOI: 10.1123/ijshem.2017-0057
Charney, N. (2014). What language does the food speak? [blog post]. Oct 29, 2014. https://www.finedininglovers.com/stories/the-language-of-food
Christensen, C. M., McDonald, R., Altman, E. J., Palmer, J. E. (2018). Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1043-1078. DOI: 10.1111/joms.12349
Condit, C. M. (2018). The character of scientists in the Nobel Prize speeches. Public Understanding of Science, 27(4), 417-432. DOI: 10.1177/0963662518756559
Coveney, J. & Santich, B. (1997). A Question of Balance: Nutrition, Health and Gastronomy. Appetite, 28(3), 267-277. DOI: 10.1006/appe.1996.0083
Crum, A. J., Corbin, W. R., Brownell, K. D., Salovey, P. (2011). Mind over Milkshakes: Mindsets, not just nutrients, determine ghrelin response. Health Psychology, 30(4), 424-429. DOI: 10.1037/a0023467
Cunningham, A. & Williams, P. (1993). De-Centring the ‘Big Picture’: “The Origins of Modern Science” and the Modern Origins of Science. The British Journal for the History of Science, 26(4), 407-432
Dietitian’s Association of Australia (DAA) (2019). Why Choose an Accredited Practising Dietitian? https://daa.asn.au/what-dietitians-do/choosing-your-nutrition-expert/
Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. PNAS, 111(Supp 4), 13614-13620. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1320645111
Dow, S. (2017). ‘People have had enough of experts’. Institute for New Economic Thinking. https://www.inteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/people-have-had-enough-of-experts
Fardet, A. & Rock, E. (2015). From a Reductionist to a Holistic Approach in Preventive Nutrition to Define New and More Ethical Paradigms. Healthcare (Basel), 3(4), 1054-1063. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare3041054
Frezza, G. (2016). Metaphor: the good argument in science communication. RIFL, 10(2). DOI: 10.4396/20161206
Gallegos, J. (2017, July 22). Nutrition Science Isn’t Broken, It’s Just Wicked Hard [blog post]/ Retrieved from: https://www.sciencealert.com/nutrition-science-isn-t-broekn-it-s-just-wicked-hard
Garza, C., Stover, P. J., Ohlhorst, S. D., Field, M. S., Steinbrook, R. … Campbell, E. (2019). Best practices in nutrition science to earn and keep the public’s trust. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 109(1), 225-243. DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/ngy337
Gilbert, C. G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal. 48, 741-763
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781-795. DOI: 10.2307/2095325
Gorzelak, M. A., Aasay, A. K., Pickles, B. J., Simard, S. W. (2015). Inter-plant communication through mycorrhizal networks mediates complex adaptive behaviour in plant communities. AoB Plants, 7. DOI: 10.1093/aobpla/plv050
Gruia, R., Elisaveta, T., Munteanu, I. (2018). Study on interface environment –food with change of paradigm towards health generating gastronomy. Environmental Engineering & Management Journal, 17(11), 2703-2709
Guthman, J. (2011). Weighing in: Obesity, food justice, and the limits of capitalism.Berkeley: University of California Press
Hellström, N. P. (2012). Darwin and the Tree of Life: the roots of the evolutionary tree. Archives of Natural History, 39(2), 234-252. DOI: 10.3366/anh.2012.0092
Kain, J. (2018). Why Your Brain Thinks Food and Sex Are the Same [blog]. University of Iowa. https://spoonuniversity.com/lifestyle/food-and-sex-are-the-same-to-your-brain
Le Bon, G. (2013). The Psychology of Revolution. Courier Corporation, Dover Publication, New York.
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). Hoe language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. 226. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226
Manni, A., Sporre, K., Ottander, C. (2015). Emotions and values – a case study of meaning-making in ESE. Environmental Education Research, 23(4), 451-464. DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2016.1175549
Marcason, W. (2015). Dietitian, Dietician, or Nutritionist? Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 115(3), 484. DOI: 10.10016/j.jand.2014.12.024
Margǒcsy, D. (2017). A long history of breakdown: A historiographical review. Social Studies of Science, 47(3). DOI: 10.1177/0306312717706559
Meyer, G. (2016). In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? Public Understanding of Science, 25(4). DOI: 10.1177/0963662516629747
Milburn, M. P. (2004). Indigenous Nutrition: Using Traditional Food Knowledge to Solve Contemporary Health Problems. American Indian Quarterly, 28(3-4), 41-434
Montgomery, S. L. (1996). The Scientific Voice (Ch 2). In “In Equal Number of Words”; Notes for a History of Scientific Discourse. P 70-128. The Guilford Press, London.
Mozaffarian, D. & Ludwig, O. S. (2010). Dietary Guidelines in the 21st Century –a Time for Food. JAMA, 304(6), 681-682. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1116
Navarro, V., Serrano, G., Lasa, D., Aduriz, A. L., Ayo, J. (2012). Cooking and nutritional science: Gastronomy goes further. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 1(1), 37-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgfs.2011.11.004
NHMRC (2013). Eat for Health: Australian Dietary Guidelines. https://nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-dietary-guidelines
Nichols, T. (2017). The Death of Expertise. Oxford University Press: London.
Nordström, K., Coff, C., Jönsson, H., Nordenfelt. L., Görman, V. (2013). Food and health: individual, cultural, or scientific matters? Genes & Nutrition, 8(4), 351-363. DOI: 10.1007/s12263-013-0336-8
Paddock, J. R. (2017). Changing consumption, changing tastes? Exploring consumer narratives for food secure, sustainable and healthy diets. Journal of Rural Studies, 53.102-110. DOI: 10.1016/j.rurstud.2017.04.001
Panko, B. (2017). English is the Language of Science. That isn’t always a Good Thing. The Smithsonian, Jan 2, 2017. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/english-language-science-can-cause-problems-180961623/
Penders, B. (2018). Why public dismissal of nutrition science makes sense: Post-truth, public accountability and dietary credibility. British Food Journal, 120(9). DOI: 10.1108/BFJ-10-2017-0558
Pidgeon, N. (2014). Risk, Uncertainty and Social Controversy: From Risk Perception and Communication to Public Engagement. In Bammer, G. & Smithson, M. (eds) Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Taylor & Francis Group: London and New York.
Pollan, M. (2007, Jan 28). Unhappy Meals [blog post]. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionsim.y.html
Raina, D. (2009). From west to non-west? Basalla’s three-stage model revisited. Science as culture, 8(4), 497-516, DOI: 10.1080/09505439909526560
Reuters (2018). Global Weight Loss and Weight Management Market 2018 Analysis, Size, Share, Facts and Figures with Products Overview, Services and Forecast 2023. Reuters, Jan 16, 2018. https://www.reuters.com/brandfeatures/venture-capital/article?id=25242
Rolston, H. (2006). Science & Religion: A Critical Survey. Templeton Foundation press, Philadelphia. ISBN: 1-59947-099-3
Roth, K. (2018). Kant on the endless struggle against evil in the pursuit of moral perfection and the promotion of the happiness of others –Challenges for Education, Educational Philosophy and Theory. DOIL 10.1080/001/31857.2018.1516136
Rowe, S. & Alexander, N. (2012). Nutrition communication essentials: (hint: we can’t talk to each other if we can’t trust each other). Nutrition Today, 47(2), 55-57
Scrinis, G. (2013). Nutritionism: The Science and Politics of Dietary Advice. Columbia University Press: Ney York, USA
Scotto di Carlo, G. (2016). Storytelling in Science Popularisation: The Role of Personal Narratives in TED Talks. Contemporary Studies in Literature and Language, 1(2).
Secord, J. A. (2004). Knowledge in Transit. Isis, 95(4), 654-672. DOI: 10.1086/430657
Shepherd, K. N. & Liu, R. C. (2011). Experience restores innate female preference for male ultrasonic vocalisations. Genes, Brain & Behaviour, 10(1). 28-34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-182X.2010.00580.x
Taylor, C. & Dewsbury, B. M. (2018). On the Problem and Promise of Metaphor use in Science and Science Communication. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1). DOI: 10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1538
Taquet, M., Quoidbach, J., deMontjoye, Y., Desseiles, M., Gross, J. J. (2016). Hedonism and the choice of everyday activities. PNAS, 113(35), 9769-9773. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1519998113
Townson, S. (2016). Why people fall for pseudoscience (and how academia can fight back). The Guardian, Jan 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2016/jan/26/why-people-fall-for-pseudoscience-and-how-academics-can-fight-back
Traverso-Yepez, M. & Hunter, K. (2016). From “Healthy Eating” to a Holistic Approach to Current Food Environments. SAGE Open. DOI: 10.1177/2158244016665891
Turnvald, B. P., Boles, D. Z., Crum, A. J. (2017). Association Between Indulgent Description and vegetable Consumption: Twisted Carrots and Dynamite Beets. JAMA Internal Medicine, 177(8), 1011-1023.
Van der Laan, L. N., De Ridder, D. T., Viergever, M. A., Smeets, P. A. (2012). Appearance Matters: Neural Correlates of Food Choice and Packaging Aethetics. PLoSONE, July 25, 2012. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041738
Villikins, S. & Grant, W. J. (2017). Types of Evidence cited in Australian Government Publications. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1681-1695
Walls, H., Johnston, D., Mazalate, J., Chiraw, E. W. (2018). Why are still failing to measure the nutrition transition? BMJ Global Health, 3(1), e000657. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000657
West, H. (2017). What Was Old Is the New Fad: Examining the Rhetoric of the Paleo Diet. Stylus Knights Write Showcase Special Issue, Spring 2018, 49-60. https://www.writingandrhetoric.cah.ucf.edu/stylus/files/kw56/KW518_West.pdf
World Health Organisation (WHO) (2017). Noncommunicable diseases. https://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs355/en accessed 28th feb 2019
Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) (2008). Biodiversity Plummets as Consumption Soars. https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/biodiversity-plummets-consumption-soars
Xiao, X. (2006). The 1923 scientific campaign and Dao-discourse: a cross-cultural study of the rhetoric of science. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 90(4), 464-492. DOI: 10.1080/0033563042000302199