The article looks at conceptions of science and expertise among lay proponents of the low-carbohydrate high-fat diet in Finland. The research data consist of comments on a webpage related to a debate on the health dangers of animal fats screened in Finnish national television in autumn 2010. The article shows that contrary to the prevailing image advocated by the national nutritional establishment, which is based on the deficit model of public understanding of science, the low-carbohydrate high-fat proponents are neither ignorant about scientific facts nor anti-science. Rather, they express nuanced viewpoints about the nature of science, the place of individual experience in nutritional recommendations and the reliability of experts. Inspired by discussions on the social construction of ignorance, the article argues that the low-carbohydrate high-fat proponents are engaged in what it callsthe social construction of competencewhen they present their position as grounded in science and stylize themselves as lay experts.

No abstract

No abstract

Based on recent accounts of the sociology of expertise, we analyse the public contestation and expansion of expertise in the context of COVID-19. During the epidemic, the expertise of the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), became increasingly contested. By exploring Twitter discussions concerning the actions of THL during the first months of the epidemic from January to mid-June 2020, we analyse the main motivations and arguments in this public contestation as well as the alternative forms of expertise proposed by the critics. We focus particularly on two forms of criticism arguing for what we call networked expertise: liberal crowdsourcing supporters and data-solutionists presenting alternative epidemiological models.

The study analysed public debates on the association of milk fats, vegetable oils and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) between 1978 and 2013 in Finland, a country with a decades-long history of public health initiatives targeting fat consumption. The main agendas, conflicts and participants were analysed. The data were collected from the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat and consisted of 52 threads and 250 texts. We identified four themes around which there were repeated, often overlapping conflicts: the health risks of saturated fats, expertise of the risks of fat consumption, the adequate evidence of the risks of fat consumption, and framing the fat question. During the research period, the main arguments of the effects of consumption of fats have remained the same. References to epidemiological and intervention studies and framing of the fat question as a public health issue, have been ongoing, as has the definition of what constitutes genuine expertise. Yet, we also found discontinuities. In the early 2000s new emphases began to emerge: personal experiences were increasingly presented as evidence of the effects of dietary choices on human health, and the question of fat consumption was framed either as one of enjoyment or of a consumers' right to choose rather than only being a public health question. Moreover, new professional groups such as chefs and creative professionals now joined the discussion.