Sugar industry bought off scientists, skewed dietary guidelines for decades

This is from the 60's right?

Just a few years ago the Liberals gave the OPP an 8.5% wage increase. I recall the advertisements on radio and TV from the OPP union suggesting not to vote for the Conservatives. Conflict of interest is abound everywhere, some of it far more overt than the activities of the sugar industry. Worse, fully funded by docile taxpayers.

There is a major difference however. The sugar industry has unlimited resources as they are a major business industry, the government; especially in Ontario and residing jurisdictions, does not. Eventually borrowing won't be an easy game.

what bias in science? NO it can't be, do you think that maybe, the IPCC is also bias?

NAH, impossible this is all BS.

Go back and finish Grade Nine FFS!
It's about the sugar industry pushing its own agenda.
SFA to do with Liberals, cops or "bias".

How will we trust our allies again?

Yeah, it's up there with forced collectivization of agriculture as far as crime against humanity go. Increased number of sugar-addicts = starving a few million Ukrainian and about 40 million Chinese peasants to death.

Not much different than the dairy industry teaching us that drinking milk from a foreign species from infancy to death is totally natural and actually recommended, or the oil industry telling us emissions are not hurting the environment whatsoever, or the tobacco industry explaining cigarettes are not addictive. Or the "eggs are bad because cholesterol" or "eggs are good because omega fatty acids" research over the years. Perception is reality.

The "butter vs margarine" research over the years is another example. The position has shifted so many times you would think that vegetable oil and animal fats were actually evolving over time.

Butter vs margarine: which is really healthier?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-dri ... healthier/

Researchers exist to deceive on behalf of big industry. It's extremely easy for them to turn around years later and explain why their research was flawed, and extremely difficult to prove that they were being intentionally deceptive since they are the "authorities" on the subject they are writing the rules for.

Big pharma is the worst offender.

Food studies are often the hardest to do, because to get actual reproducible evidence, you have to feed people a food for years and decades knowing that it may cause harm. Many people don't want to do that. So they rely on anecdotal evidence of what people recall they ate for the last weeks. Usually inaccurate.

That's why the China Study is so important. It used the food people naturally ate by region to determine the consequence of diet on health, without having to force participants to eat something they wouldn't normally.

And now that 50 years of diet data is becoming more relevant now that China is adopting a more western and unhealthy diet. They are already starting to see the effects of burgers, fries and chocolate shakes in increased obesity, heart disease and adult diabetes.

That's a mostly-incorrect blanket statement. Most researchers do no such thing. Some do.

And for anyone who still believes that there's some valuable lakefront property next to the lead mines in Chelyabinsk that Putin will sell you for a song.

That's a mostly-incorrect blanket statement. Most researchers do no such thing. Some do.
My experience, from a great number of years ago, was that it depends on who is paying the bills. With the demise of government funded research, being replaced by corperate funded research, the situation deteriorated.

This is not shocking consider it was not that long ago, both leaded gas and cigarettes were considered "safe".