I don't think dismissing something based solely on who funds it is a good choice. Look at the science and the facts.

It's quite easy in nutrition to argue for a lot of different positions by cherry picking studies.

It also easy to find them lying in favor of the commercial interest of mosanto:

The FDA uses the Total Diet Study to determine pesticide residues in foods. The study limits pesticide residues to five to ten times lower than is found to be safe. In short, these residues are regulated to levels that are considered safe based on the average da

... (read more)

Your latter reasons about the author and organization hiding information are great. I'm not trying to imply you don't have any basis upon which to be cautious. I was trying to say, though, that who funded a study or an organization does not make that organization's or study's findings wrong: often times, organizations like IFIC are not in a good position to turn any money down, as long as the money doesn't dictate their message. If you have good reason to think that the money is indeed dictating the message, then by all means, be skeptical.

I would note th... (read more)

Open thread, 18-24 August 2014

by David_Gerard 1 min read18th Aug 201481 comments


Previous open thread

If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.

Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one.

3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.

4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.