Stardate 20010925.0934 (On Screen): I dislike sloppy science. Researchers (sic) in the UK started with the obvious fact that when we consume salt we become thirsty. Since salt is a major component of many snack foods, they considered what economic effect there would be if the amount of salt in those foods was decreased. They calculated that on average people in the UK would consume 350 milliliters less fluid per day.
Up to this point, their science is sound, albeit a bit unexciting. But then they make a great leap into the void: this would devastate the soft drink industry. Since about a quarter of the fluid consumed in the UK is soft drinks, this would cause a proportional decline in consumption, an amount they quantize as 13 million can-equivalents per year. Would it, though? Would people instead drink the same amount of soft drink (or even more) but consume less water? Or would soft drink consumption decline but not by as much? Their calculation is based on the assumption that the decline in fluid consumption would manifest proportionally on all kinds of consumable fluid, but how do they justify that assumption? (discussion in progress)
