SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the no-sugar-tonight-in-our-coffee dept.
Conspiracies aren't real, are they?
The Sugar Research Foundation paid Harvard researchers $6,500 (2016 equivalent: $48,900) to write a literature review, published in 1967, that downplayed sugar's links to heart disease. One of the researchers went on to become the head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture:
Back in the 1960s, a sugar industry executive wrote fat checks to a group of Harvard researchers so that they'd downplay the links between sugar and heart disease in a prominent medical journal—and the researchers did it, according to historical documents reported Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine [open, DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394].
One of those Harvard researchers went on to become the head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture, where he set the stage for the federal government's current dietary guidelines. All in all, the corrupted researchers and skewed scientific literature successfully helped draw attention away from the health risks of sweets and shift the blame solely to fats—for nearly five decades. The low-fat, high-sugar diets that health experts subsequently encouraged are now seen as a main driver of the current obesity epidemic.
The bitter revelations come from archived documents from the Sugar Research Foundation (now the Sugar Association), dug up by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. Their dive into the old, sour affair highlights both the perils of trusting industry-sponsored research to inform policy and the importance of requiring scientists to disclose conflicts of interest—something that didn't become the norm until years later. Perhaps most strikingly, it spotlights the concerning power of the sugar industry.
See the accompanying editorial: Food Industry Funding of Nutrition Research: The Relevance of History for Current Debates (open, DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5400) (DX)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 14 2016, @06:16PM
You've stupidly conflated corruption with the right to speak.
You're the only one who has said anything like that. No one else has done that conflating.
You do have the right to speak. You don't have the right to speak harmful lies that simply hide deceitful avarice.
The First Amendment doesn't make that distinction, let us note. So now, you're selectively interpreting laws to your advantage.
I bet you fucking support Citizens United too huh?
Of course. I'm a very strong proponent of free speech. I doubt you understand the consequences of suppressing speech of groups or of selectively enforcing laws on people you don't like. The biggest problem is that can easily be turned on you.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday September 14 2016, @07:13PM
The First Amendment doesn't make that distinction, let us note. So now, you're selectively interpreting laws to your advantage.
Yes it DOES you stupid, stupid, stupid, odious, deceitful piece of shit!!
Can you yell fire in a theater? WHY?
There are plenty of laws against slander, libel, etc. that govern speech and create consequences for it. Technically, the right may be there, but then again so are the consequences for saying it. You have the right to go to jail for yelling fire in a theater, and we have the right to put your deceitful ass in jail when you lie to cause harm.
No, you stupid fuck. What you support are millionaires and billionaires having extra votes. That's what Citizen's United DOES.
It makes corporations PEOPLE, and they're NOT FUCKING PEOPLE. Corporations are groups of people, and they ALREADY have the fucking right to speak and donate money.
So fuck you. Don't you fucking dare say it's about suppressing speech you odious fucker. I'm not suppressing any right right to speech, but absolutely fucking refusing to give Apple the right to speak. Apple is not a person, but a group of executives that already have it all, including the right to vote and donate money to campaigns. They CAN speak, but they MUST SPEAK AS INDIVIDUALS. We need to instantly pierce the corporate veil every single time and illuminate the individuals speaking. Period.
Fuck you. Get hit in front of a bus today. That would be a gift to the world.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 14 2016, @07:57PM
Can you yell fire in a theater? WHY?
Excellent! Show us where the First Amendment says that one can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Once you've done that, then we can continue with the discussion by considering how petitioning for redress of grievances, that is, "lobbying", is so much like your example above.
Don't you fucking dare say it's about suppressing speech you odious fucker.
And yet, you still don't get that it is about suppressing speech you don't like.
They CAN speak, but they MUST SPEAK AS INDIVIDUALS.
Classic Orwellian doublespeak for suppression of speech.
We need to instantly pierce the corporate veil every single time and illuminate the individuals speaking.
That is drivel. Your "need" would not have pierced the alleged lying of these scientists. The same government that allegedly has harmed US citizen health for 50 years is also the same entity you'll rely on to enforce your laws on lobbying. I'm sure that will turn out well.