Poll: Giant Gap Between What Public, Scientists Think

I think there's a direct correlation between the obesity epidemic & processed / GMO foods. 40-50 years ago we didn't have this problem .
 
It's a real problem when the voting general public doesn't believe the experts in their fields...
 
Darko said:
I think there's a direct correlation between the obesity epidemic & processed / GMO foods. 40-50 years ago we didn't have this problem .
Click to expand...

No silly.

It is a direct link between our over consumption (especially of sugars, simple carbohydrates and fried foods) that cause this.

The corn subsidy has resulted in cheap corn, and thus dirt cheap high fructose corn syrup, and as such everything (absolutely everything) is sweetened.

There is noting wrong - in and of itself - with high fructose corn syrup. It is bad, but no worse than refined cane sugar. Sugar is sugar, and sugar is bad for you. Most people have more sugar than they should have in an entire day in a single cup of coffee, not to mention all the sugar that's secretively added to all foods.

GMO's have nothing to do with this.

The combination of salt sugar and fat, acts like a drug on the body, (sugar lights up the same areas of the brain as cocaine) and most of us are addicted to it.

I highly recommend this book.



Change in body weight = calories in - calories out.

That's all there is to it.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
40-50 years ago people were starving more. Opportunity to eat more and more nutrient rich foods.
 
Semantics said:
40-50 years ago people were starving more. Opportunity to eat more and more nutrient rich foods.
Click to expand...

" nutrient rich foods "...LOL . Tell that to all the Morbidly Obese people who can barely walk . People weren't starving 40- 50 years ago , they just ate better quality less processed foods . Organic is way better if you can afford it .
 
Ducman69 said:
Science doesn't ask why, it asks who...

Who is going to fund me to do a study, and what do they want the result to be? Its not exactly a mystery that various industries simply shop for "scientists" to concoct studies to support their agenda.

Even the US government has admitted to doing it frequently in the past... heck that's how marijuana was banned!

And the other issue of course is that perception of scientific consensus is often very political, and those in power get to paint the narrative. Is aspartame safe, or does it cause cancer? Well, scientists that are funded by industries that profit tremendously from the multi-billion dollar diet soda and other such food markets will say its perfectly safe. Others might point to some studies that show there may be long term consequences.

Regarding questions of "food safety" though like in their example, its actually better to err on the side of non-scientists. Scientists after all proclaimed in the past that various things were perfectly safe, only to change that opinion as evidence was collected to the contrary.

That means that scientists won't say something is unsafe until they can PROVE its unsafe, whereas the average consumer generally looks at it from a totally different perspective assuming something is unsafe to eat until its PROVEN that it is safe (usually by vetting it over a long period of time).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtmKU9xYF_Q
Click to expand...


Someone gets it. Well said.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041397954 said:
It's a real problem when the voting general public doesn't believe the experts in their fields...
Click to expand...

Because.
People lie.
Scientists are people.
Therefore, scientists lie.


I'm being cheeky of course but there are way too many examples of paid results, faked results and just outright boneheaded mistakes from "scientists", then throw in the obfuscating effect of the pseudo-science quacks and I'm afraid I don't get the head scratching in this thread over why the general public would be distrustful of science or why the general public would consider the possibility that the "expert in his field" might not just be outright lying to them.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041397954 said:
It's a real problem when the voting general public doesn't believe the experts in their fields...
Click to expand...
You know how many products the FDA said were just fine only to pull them from the market years later? Some distrust and skepticism of industry experts is warranted since big bucks often take a back seat to caution.
 
Darko said:
" nutrient rich foods "...LOL . Tell that to all the Morbidly Obese people who can barely walk . People weren't starving 40- 50 years ago , they just ate better quality less processed foods . Organic is way better if you can afford it .
Click to expand...
How do you think people get obese they take in many more nutrients than they can use up. You do realize food cost the most it ever had in the US during the 70's... 40-50 years ago.
 
Junk science is the daily media report of what causes cancer, what doesn't cause cancer and what prevents cancer. Junk science is studies bought by industry to prove what they want to prove.

Don't confuse this with real scientific work. The sort of physics science work that, for example, allows you to be having this conversation on this forum. Do you think the monitor you're looking at did not require good scientific theory to make? The sort of medical science work that developed vaccines that have worked so well that the general public has forgotten what horrors they are being protected from.
 
The US is pretty spoiled when it comes to diseases we eradicated so many just for the US plus the heavy use of DDT left a lot of the US without a lot of pests, but slowly and surly that's changing.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041397954 said:
It's a real problem when the voting general public doesn't believe the experts in their fields...
Click to expand...
When an expert is defined as someone who gets the most money from the government to support as particular agenda, then more power to them.
 
Darko said:
" nutrient rich foods "...LOL . Tell that to all the Morbidly Obese people who can barely walk . People weren't starving 40- 50 years ago , they just ate better quality less processed foods . Organic is way better if you can afford it .
Click to expand...

Those Morbidly Obese people are putting down 20,000+ calories a day. Hard to do unless you are eating a lot of high calorie processed junk food.

As for "Organic is way better", tell that to all the people who got sick or even died eating organic spinach a few years ago.
 
the problem is not the info but the question. One most of the food even the quote unquote organics have some kind of pesticide on them, the question is really which ones are safe and which ones cause all kinda of health issues... DDT was taken off the market because people found that when used in massive continue doses it caused health issues but when used to target things like bb it worked great you just needed to limit the exposure, instead they simply banned because the common public would buy it and spray it over everything since it does not effect plants...

I don't know the others off the top of my head but even still many times when you ask anyone a question like that you are going to get opinions not facts because there is no fact check on a random survey. Hell I used to spike the harris poll because I thought it was funny.
 
Organic doesn't mean pesticide free it just means only certain kinds of pesticides are allowed. Also USDA organic doesn't have much ability to check for foul play the NOP only checks upon first accreditation then only when complaints are leveled do they audit further. Else you just have to falsify doctuments you regularly submit.
 
Darko said:
" nutrient rich foods "...LOL . Tell that to all the Morbidly Obese people who can barely walk . People weren't starving 40- 50 years ago , they just ate better quality less processed foods . Organic is way better if you can afford it .
Click to expand...

That is an incredibly misleading statement to be honest and in very few instances true. Let's break down organic categories and focus on what is real vs what isn't.

Organic processed food ( anything in a box )

Just as much crap as non organic food. This stuff does nothing more then rob idiots of their money. It is just as bad for you as anything else in a box you buy. It falls into the same category as "fat free cookies".

Organic Vegetables

This one varies wildly as some things benefit from it to a degree and others do not. First things first though, Wash your damn vegetables properly and pesticides aren't the problem those with an interest in selling jacked up prices make them out to be. While I would certainly agree that anything very porous or without a skin is desirable to have as little non organic on it as possible. Anything with a skin you peel off and discard you are getting ripped off, anything out of the ground you are getting ripped off. Anything basically non porous (apples for example) you are getting ripped off.

Organic meat

Lots of arguments about this one, but taste likewise plays a large role here. In most cases meat fed a natural diet just flatly tastes better. I would also agree that we can't really say how good or bad growth hormone is, so any chance to avoid it probably isn't a waste. Nutrition wise, organic is just as good for you as non. You aren't going to get fat over eating non organic meat as a product. Obesity in a result of eating too damn much and especially eating junk. So I will say that Organic natural diet fed meat is certainly a preference, but as to is it better for you? Jury remains out on that until there is conclusive evidence of it. I would lean to it being better for you but only talking about hormones and antibiotics.

Short of it is, Organic in many cases is a flagrant ripoff taking advantage of people who don't bother researching. It isn't bad, but it certainly has nothing to do with obesity. Processed foods organic or not are pure crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top