manufactured uncertainty

“Meat is healthy” says meat industry.

TLDR: Meat industry tells governments to change scientific research paper findings from meat is unfit for human consumption to eat meat regularly – because the industry would die otherwise.

Good morning! How have you been? I have been splendid! Well, in truth I’ve been wondering where on earth the juicing part of my juicer went, wondering how the waitress cross cook got vegan mixed up with please put beef mince and cheese on my pizza, indefinitely borrowing a spare juicer part from some friends (oh how I love my friends right now *drinks fresh orange juice for the first time in over a month*),  and wondering why God is so cruel as to give watermelon an off season.

These thoughts were put aside as a full scale hunt (google search) was made for intelligent nutrition youtube channels. It took a minute to find a list that wasn’t purely about celebrities and how to lose weight – mostly lose weight. Then I found nutrition.org.

Hosted by Dr. Michael Gregor, the channel takes on scientific research and journal entries relating or relevant to health, nutrition and the food industry. The video that got my attention was titled The Funding Effect. The video makes use of several published research papers that discuss the correlation of scientific paper results and the desired result of the person or corporation funding said paper.

What the video found was that a research paper into the meat industry found animal to be unsuitable for human consumption. This did not go down well with the animal consumption (meat, dairy, eggs) industry. If people were advised by their government not to eat any meat, eggs or dairy, then they would do so. The industry pressured the government to change the wording. The government met them half way: eat less meat, eggs and dairy. This was still not good enough. If people are advised to eat less, they will want to know why. The meat/animal consumption industry believes so strongly that if you knew what meat and egg and dairy is really doing to your health you would not eat that. Their industry would go out of business you would be that adverse to it. Therefor the wording must advise the population to eat meat, eggs and dairy on a regular basis for a healthy diet. Otherwise the economy, the animal industry argues, will suffer.

Of course in reality the agriculture and other industries would absorb the economic effect and employees of the animal industry would have found jobs quickly in agriculture and other positively affected industries.

Some would still say that human health should not be placed before corporate profit and the industry should still survive because the economy, and to them I say ok, then go brush your teeth with radium in an asbestos house with lead pipes. No?

Suggestion@Google: If you’re really not going to stop posting ridiculous lose weight adverts everywhere at least have the decency to link us some sexy flowery muumuus as well.

Suggestion@science: If you’re going to allow corporations to fund scientific research then insist all contributing corporations be identified on the paper in an easily accessible, easy to read fashion.
Ultimately, research papers such as this will always have money involved, because even if an industry doesn’t pay for the research, they can pay or lobby the government to keep research from the public. Never-the-less, I’d still like to know if my research was brought to me by a person or company with a vested interest in the research findings.

Stay profitable compadres,

Summer Tay.

*If you’re interested in learning more on the funding effect then here is a link to a free paper of Sheldon Krimskys work similar to that mentioned in the video linked above. The one mentioned would cost $30 and as much as I like you, I don’t spend $30 and break a (albeit terrible) law for you like you.

*fun fact: according to scientific studies, soft drink coca cola is good for you and has 0 negative health affects, yay! …

Advertisements