385
submitted 1 year ago by NightOwl@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
all 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] fiat_lux@kbin.social 93 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] astraeus@programming.dev 13 points 1 year ago

Whole grain is super healthy for you because it has lots of grain in it. The scientists told me so.

[-] figaro@lemdro.id 11 points 1 year ago

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?

[-] astraeus@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] upperleft@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Lol yeah because whole grains are where the huge profit margins are.

[-] fiat_lux@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

They were wearing white lab coats and had test tubes and pipettes and everything!

[-] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 7 points 1 year ago

First amendment protects me from using my tax dollars to fund people proving god doesn’t exist. Checkmate atheists /s

[-] the_q@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago
[-] PilferJynx@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

The rich has almost captured everything. And the things not worth taking are left defunded and incompetent.

[-] DeathsEmbrace@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Audrey0nne@leminal.space 18 points 1 year ago

Time for a new razor. To find why an action was taken, look for who would benefit the most first.

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago
[-] Audrey0nne@leminal.space 3 points 1 year ago

Nihil novi sub sole

but who benefits is not nearly as snappy as throwing down Whoever’s Razor at someone during an debate.

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

"Follow the money" is pretty catchy.

[-] Audrey0nne@leminal.space 4 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 7 points 1 year ago

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!

this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
385 points (100.0% liked)

World News

32282 readers
275 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS