"Pete C." > wrote:
> Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote:
>>
>>> And you have citations to peer reviewed science that attributes any of
>>> the obesity epidemic to hormones, steroids or antibiotics used in food
>>> animals?
>>
>> Why is it that people who demand "peer reviewed science" never seem to
>> proffer it first?
>>
>> Anyway anybody even remotely involved with academics knows that the peer
>> review system is more about building your career than it is about
>> scientific validity. When it comes to "peer reviewed science" about food
>> safety the stench of corruption is overwhelming, and one wonders if you can
>> possibly be even remotely serious. There's too much money at stake for us
>> to have real food safety.
>
> It seems that pretty much all sources of information and studies have
> vested interests in what that information is claimed to show, whether it
> be "research" funded by an industry producing a product, or "research"
> funded by an industry producing an ideology. Ultimately it's up to the
> reader to assess the credentials and biases of the sources and try to
> find the truth.

Of course, so why even bother to bring the "peer reviewed science" religion
into it at all? It is best to err on the side of caution when it comes to
food safety, which is what encourages me to avoid anything that is
unnecessary like additive-laden meat, poison filled veggies,
antibiotic-filled dairy, and adulterated processed food. It is just easier
and surely much healthier than cramming any old thing into the food hole.