[coldtea]

Of course a lot of the "experts" are on the payroll of big food corporations.

It's difficult to have independent science in this day and age on matters where billions are at stake.

There is of course bias on the other side as well (e.g ideological), but nothing trumps actual, solid, business interests as a bias.

[pg890432]

And the experts are also on non profit and large research universities, including the university that published the study (University of Newcastle). What's your point?

[coldtea]

I made my point already.

A lot of the experts are on the payroll of the food industry. They work directly on it, or their research is funded by it. The same way there was tons of tobacco industry sponsored studies in the seventies, that said it was all OK. The same way studies on sugar were downplayed.

A university (research funds aside) doesn't have the kind of multi-billion interests a whole industry have. Their researchers have other shit that can interfere with their research (e.g the need to churn out papers to stay afloat, or the desire to write a controversial paper to make their names known), but nothing that trumps hard multibillion monetary interests.