Is it good, or bad for you?
This article is like much nutritional “science” (including the lipidophobia), but it’s much more entertaining.
Is it good, or bad for you?
This article is like much nutritional “science” (including the lipidophobia), but it’s much more entertaining.
Comments are closed.
The trouble with science used to be the people who would pick up on the latest finding and try to revise the entire philosophical foundation of modern life based on a fixed speed of light, or the fact light behaves as both a wave and a particle, or Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Then along came Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change, and suddenly science itself seemed to be jumping on the bandwagon.
I applaud nutritional science for keeping after the answers. I just don’t want my doctor or the insurance company acting as an unofficial agent of the federal regulatory state to impose some half-baked interpretation of the latest findings on me under threat of my health insurance rates going up or my policy being canceled.
Politicians are not qualified to understand science and they shouldn’t try. There is no rational basis for encoding scientific findings into law — that’s why trial courts rely on expert witnesses on a case-by-case basis.