Do you, Brainonska511 or, DrPizza observe hundreds of people eating every day over the last 35 years? Do you observe food trends, ordering habits, interactions with food suppliers over the same length of time? Yet, you all seem qualified to dismiss my observations when I have done so.
None of you has even admitted there is a problem even when an acknowledged scientific authority (the CDC) has told you the facts. You've written it off as people being more aware, trendy or, psychosomatic. Tell me, do you feel the same way about global warming, second hand smoke or, DDT? You seem more invested in the process than in finding solutions.
You all focus on GMO's to the exclusion of anything else even though I've stated repeatedly they are not my focus. Very well, it is your choice to ignore my advice and my questions but, do not try to legitimize your preconceptions as lack of "scientific process." Science isn't born of mathematical description, rigorous case studies or, double blind experiments, it is born of observations and learning the right questions to ask NOT, waiting for the high priests of academia to deliver their considered opinion.
You're the one that brought the focus to GMOs:
In ONE generation, the combined food allergies and intolerance has risen from 7% of the population to the current level of 17% according to the CDC. Now, do you think it might have SOMETHING to do with all the over processed 'convenience' foods or, dare I say it, growth in GMO foods? To borrow your question, how many people have to die before we start caring about what we eat again?
I'm simply stating the science. It does not agree with your hypothesis that GMOs are to blame for the health issue of the day. As for your other hypothesis, I don't have knowledge in that area, so I don't feel like commenting in depth. But I would guess that regularly eating shit food (frozen dinners, high-sodium snack foods, junk foods, etc...) in excess could lead to health problems. As could more sedentary lifestyles relative to a generation or two ago and a genetic component (for example, some recent research with the FTO gene in humans). Everyone wants that silver bullet for the problems of life, but it's likely to be multifaceted and not easy to nail down.
As for how science works, I would say that I do have some expertise in this area. Observation is part of the picture, but so is learning what questions to ask, understanding what your observations can actually tell you, and what kind of analysis should be carried out are just as important. A hypothesis to explain data should generally fit within the framework of existing knowledge. Sometimes, this isn't the case and the existing model needs to be refined to account for new observations, but we generally draw on the body of existing scientific knowledge to both explain our data and come up with new experiments to try and prove our hypothesis wrong or right.
Rigorous experimental design and studies are the hallmark of science. Double-blind studies are the benchmark standard for determining whether a drug is better than a placebo. To throw these out there as if they're nothing is naive.
Face it, the science is pretty sound: GMOs are not causing allergies or obesity, or whatever. It's a new, more precise twist on what we've done for the last 10,000 years. And since you asked, yes, I trust the body of science on the other issues. I can't be an expert on every nook of science, at some point, I have to trust other experts.
Facebook
Twitter