Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, John McDougall, carolve, Heather McDougall
http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured-ebook/dp/B005QBH2SQ wrote:Seven compelling chapters detail seven issues (acid rain, the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke, the ozone hole, global warming, the Strategic Defense Initiative, and the banning of DDT) in which this group aimed to sow seeds of public doubt on matters of settled science. They did so by casting aspersions on the science and the scientists who produce it. Oreskes, a professor of history and science studies at UC–San Diego, and science writer Conway also emphasize how journalists and Internet bloggers uncritically repeat these charges. This book deserves serious attention for the lessons it provides about the misuse of science for political and commercial ends.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/food-industry-funded-research-bias/ wrote:So what’s their strategy? As a former FDA commissioner described, the tobacco industry’s strategy was embodied in a script written by the lawyers. Every tobacco company executive in the public eye was told to learn the script backwards and forwards, no deviation was allowed. The basic premise was simple— smoking had not been proved to cause cancer. Not proven, not proven, not proven—this would be stated insistently and repeatedly. Inject a thin wedge of doubt, create controversy, never deviate from the prepared line. It was a simple plan and it worked.
Internal industry memos make this explicit. Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the mind of the general public. See the general public is convinced that cigarettes are in some way harmful to health. They believed their own propaganda. Objective #1: To set aside in the minds of millions the false conviction that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer and other diseases; a conviction based on fanatical assumptions, fallacious rumors, unsupported claims and the unscientific statements and conjectures of publicity-seeking opportunists. We need to lift the cigarette from the cancer identification as quickly as possible, and to establish -- once and for all -- that no scientific evidence has ever been produced, presented or submitted to prove conclusively that cigarette smoking causes cancer, similar to what’s now coming out from the food industry, from that same folks that bought us smoke and candy.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/big-food-using-the-tobacco-industry-playbook/ wrote:A U.S. district judge overseeing a tobacco industry case put it well: “All too often in the choice between the physical health of consumers and the financial well-being of business, concealment is chosen over disclosure, sales over safety, and money over morality. Who are these persons who knowingly and secretly decide to put the buying public at risk solely for the purpose of making profits, and who believe that illness and death of consumers is an apparent cost of their own prosperity?” Above all, the experience of tobacco shows how powerful profits can be as a motivator, even at the cost of millions of lives and unspeakable suffering.
dailycarbs wrote:1. Go the the chart and find poultry
2. Everything below it (huge list!) is more sustainable than meat, poultry, and seafood
Problem solved
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests