If this surprises people, they're going to flip when they find that most research is privately funded by people with a vested interest. This is why public science funding is so important, it provides research with an alternate motive. Somewhere in the middle of all the ulterior research motives, public and private, you can find something closer to the truth.
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
395 points (98.5% liked)
World News
32308 readers
855 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Whole grain is super healthy for you because it has lots of grain in it. The scientists told me so.
I'm genuinely confused. Whole grain means higher fiber, which has a lot of benefits, compared to like white bread or something. Am I wrong?
You can get fiber from a lot of places, it’s mainly that the claim of whole grains being part of a healthy diet is exaggerated. Technically your body doesn’t require grains at all, if you eat true vegetables you have fulfilled the purpose of grains in your diet. Notably, whole grains generally do not have a of micronutrients or even macronutrients. Compared to bleached white bread, which is whole grains with the exterior parts of the grain removed and then bleached and processed, you do get some additional nutritional benefits.
Whole grains are much easier for farms to produce because they already make up a large portion of the feed diet for livestock.
Lol yeah because whole grains are where the huge profit margins are.
They were wearing white lab coats and had test tubes and pipettes and everything!
First amendment protects me from using my tax dollars to fund people proving god doesn’t exist. Checkmate atheists /s
Everything is corrupt.
The rich has almost captured everything. And the things not worth taking are left defunded and incompetent.
Its called capitalism for a reason. Here's a good joke if you replace "the people" in every explanation of communism with "the 1%" you get capitalism.
Time for a new razor. To find why an action was taken, look for who would benefit the most first.
Nihil novi sub sole
but who benefits is not nearly as snappy as throwing down Whoever’s Razor at someone during an debate.
"Follow the money" is pretty catchy.
Every square is a rectangle, not every rectangle is a square. Follow the money narrows the search path, the exchange of power is more than greasing wheels.
Keep in mind that USRTK is also pretty sketchy. https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-right-to-know-fave-mainstream-media-source-is-funded-by-anti-vaxxers
So basically, those few Doctors who have a medical degree in dietary stuff, who got silenced, were right. Also, this explains the Nutri Score, where those Nestle Bunny Droplings score A.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The guidelines are considered the “gold standard” for dietary advice in the US and around the world, and influence which foods are served in institutional settings such as schools, hospitals and military facilities.
US Right to Know has co-authored 15 peer-reviewed studies revealing how the food and pharmaceutical industries attempt to shape public opinion, scientific research and government policy.
Earlier this year, it detailed how industry-linked groups appear to have influenced the World Health Organization’s decision to downplay cancer risks posed by aspartame.
The revelation comes amid US public health crises related to diabetes, obesity and other problems that are in part caused by the kind of ultra-processed products and unhealthy foods produced by some of the companies that have relationships with panel members.
The report notes how the USDA and HHS earlier this year for the first time issued “disclosures” of conflicts of interest among its panel members for the 2025 dietary guidelines.
The disclosures were a response to pressure from public health advocates and the Republican senator Chuck Grassley, who Ruskin said sent a letter to the agencies urging them to be transparent about panel members’ potential conflicts of interest.
The original article contains 787 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!