Yes, and this seems mainly an interesting persuasion technique. By finding a local 'natural experiment', and then expanding it via constant re-emphasis of its lessons, people could see the difference-in-results themselves.
What the Sternins discovered, after all, isn't so surprising: To avoid malnourishment, eat more things more often, even when you're sick. Oh, and wash your hands before eating.
The trick was convincing people, over the influence of whatever forklore/habits had them doing other things, to change.
I could imagine in some cultures, and sufficiently desperate conditions, the technique could generate a backlash, at least for the 'deviants'. For example, what if the anomalously-nourished children's families were transgressing norms in some more serious way, like sneaking food from a common store, or breaching religious dietary taboos?
It might depend on the transgression. I mean, that Uruguayan soccer team breached religious dietary taboos in a pretty major way when their plane crashed, and they were forgiven by the Catholic hierarchy; and there are exceptions for duress in most religious dietary laws.
Stealing food, on the other hand, is a prisoner's-dilemma defect move. You wouldn't improve the situation by persuading everyone to adopt it, which is specifically why it would generate a backlash.
What the Sternins discovered, after all, isn't so surprising: To avoid malnourishment, eat more things more often, even when you're sick. Oh, and wash your hands before eating.
The trick was convincing people, over the influence of whatever forklore/habits had them doing other things, to change.
I could imagine in some cultures, and sufficiently desperate conditions, the technique could generate a backlash, at least for the 'deviants'. For example, what if the anomalously-nourished children's families were transgressing norms in some more serious way, like sneaking food from a common store, or breaching religious dietary taboos?