Agnostic.com

6 0

Fact, Fiction or Both

How factual is this article? Not just the first couple lines, but the whole article?
[healthyway.com]

  • 5 votes
  • 2 votes
  • 2 votes
DelilahJones33 6 Mar 4
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

6 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

"Think you can trust the FDA with your health? Think again!"

I treat anything with grandiose headlines like this as fiction. Albiet I don't know enough about any of the details so there may be part fact here but for me the safe option is to treat it as fiction.

I agree about not trusting fear-mongering headlines. Of course, I also don’t trust the FDA. Hmmm... Come to think of it, I might have trust issues. πŸ˜›

0

No observation will be perfect. It seems rational and uses little inflammatory language. Some I know is true from having a small family farm in the midst of giant agro-industry. (Southern Louisiana sugar cane, corn, and soybean land) my brother freaked when I told him the airplanes were spraying glyphosphate on the corn and beans. He'd wondered how the whole field "ripened" all together and no, it doesn't completely wash off. Glyphosphate (Roundup) is actually not that harmful. But it burst his little "conservatives won't harm us, who would do that?" bubble. Heh.

to be fair, the spraying is VERY precise. Getting the edges of the fields with a machine called a spray buggy and the bulk with a plane. At the very edge or what is now sugarcane is a whole beaver colony in the drainage canal. So cane isn't so bad except the leaves are burnt to enrich the soil and it's choke-a-thon and octogenarian Mom chokes like her eyeballs are going to come out. and the soybeans is of course round-up and strain determined with pretty accurate defoliation naturally but the buzzbombs come and the spray buggy and 12 feet. away, the grass in the canal with the beavers is emerald green. So. 1st hand. I can supply pics.

1

We do allow harful substances in our food more than most countries do to corporate greed. Even China and Russia ban foods additives that we use. It's kind of sad really but welcome to our capitist Utopia (not).

Roman Level 5 Mar 4, 2018
1

I think much of it is true. Too much corporate control over regulation in America is leaving us unsafe - IMO that was the point of the story and I agree. I recall other stories related to the issues this story brought up as an omnibus and this story seems to be in fair agreement, but it isn't a science article.

jeffy Level 7 Mar 4, 2018
1

I have read lots of articles like this and a few years ago decided to eat as close to how food comes from nature as possible. I eat less meats, I eat more veggies. I eat organic when I can. I grow some of what I eat. I think you need to be an educated consumer. Humans don't need to drink cows milk.

5

The article makes broad alarming claims without letting us evaluate the evidence for those claims ourselves (no citations). It's one thing to say "linked to cancer", but without explaining how that was tested or the numerical results, we cannot deduce the significance.

Also, BST does not keep cows in lactation. Keeping cows bred does. BST increases milk production, once in lactation. One blatant falsehood like this makes me doubt the article even more.

It IS true that in other regulatory environments (EU, Japan, etc), food additives tend to get banned that are allowed by the FDA. The writers just undermined their own credibility to an extent that somewhat casts that in doubt, which is too bad.

Zster Level 8 Mar 4, 2018
Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:32440
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.