Skepticism about Climate Change

[Alan Klein]

I don't know about CO2, but when it comes to the examples I quoted, then definitely yes!
Let me qualify my observations. In the example of proper nutrition, it's not the 97% of the scientists who are wrong, but 97% or 99% of the practitioners who have failed to keep up with the latest science.

Here is a simple test any interested readers can conduct in the comfort of their home (in a spare bedroom or in the basement).
Get 100 rats, divide them into two groups and feed one group primarily with barbecued meat and the other with tomatoes and broccoli. After a year, kill humanly your test objects and perform autopsies. Report to us your findings.

If you don't have the spare room and time, here are the results of such a study:
The heterocyclic amine, 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-B]pyridine (PhIP), found in meats cooked at high temperatures, has been implicated in epidemiological and rodent studies for causing breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers. A previous animal study using a xenograft model has shown that whole tomato and broccoli, when eaten in combination, exhibit a marked effect on tumor reduction compared to when eaten alone. Our aim was to determine if PhIP-induced carcinogenesis can be prevented by dietary consumption of whole tomato + broccoli powders. Male Fischer 344 rats (n = 45) were randomized into the following treatment groups: control (AIN93G diet), PhIP (200 ppm in AIN93G diet for the first 20 weeks of the study), or tomato + broccoli + PhIP (mixed in AIN93G diet at 10% each and fed with PhIP for 20 weeks, and then without PhIP for 32 weeks). Study animals were monitored for 52 weeks and were euthanized as necessary based on a set of criteria for health status and tumor burden. Although there appeared to be some hepatic and intestinal toxicity due to the combination of PhIP and tomato + broccoli, these rodents had improved survival and reduced incidence and/or severity of PhIP-induced neoplastic lesions compared to the PhIP-alone treated group. Rats eating tomato + broccoli exhibited a marked decrease in the number and size of cribiform prostatic intraepitheilial neoplasia/carcinoma in situ (cribiform PIN/CIS) lesions and in the incidence of invasive intestinal adenocarcinomas and skin carcinomas. Although the apparent toxic effects of combined PhIP and tomato + broccoli need additional study, the results of this study support the hypothesis that a diet rich in tomato and broccoli can reduce or prevent dietary carcinogen-induced cancers.

But I'm not a rat!  And we don't have a basement.

[Farmer]

I have to agree with Ray on this matter. In any established industry or discipline most practitioners got their information a long time ago, and that data may have been superceeded by new discoveries and studies.
For example, 99% (or more) medical professionals still believe that dairy products are good for your bones, olive and coconut oil for your heart, and that cheese, eggs and poultry are a healthy food. Despite numerous health and nutritional studies (subtract those commisioned by meat, pharma or dairy industries) that have proven consistently that the opposite is actually true.

I haven't misunderstood anything.  Science doesn't change because some lay person keeps searching for the one person who presents an alternative solution that is not backed up by empirical data and observation.  Science changes because someone in the field observes or is advised or becomes aware of something that doesn't fit the current theory.  They then obtain further data and analyse it and consider a hypothesis.  They then test that hypothesis and if their testing confirms that it can accurately and effectively predict an outcome that matches the original observations they submit it for peer review.  Their peers then validate the methodology, the data, and the outcomes.  At that point it becomes an acceptable theory.  It may not be widely accepted at that point and there may be discussion regarding how much better it is than previous or alternative theories, but it is valid because of the process.

What Ray proposed in the doctor example is what happens when people do "research" on the internet.  Without any experience, without any supporting data or study, they find something they like the sound of or they come up with their own idea.  They then decide to validate it and consider that accomplished if they find anyone at all who agrees with them, regardless of the integrity or veracity of the "supporting authority".

In the example of 100, it is an analogy.  It represents 100%, not just 100 out of millions of doctors.  The concept being presented is important, not the specific number.

When a pilot tells you that you have to brace because they have to make an emergency landing, do you get on Google and decide that you know better because fly_boy_47 posted something that vaguely resembles the situation in which you find yourself and he claimed there was no need to make an emergency landing it would be safe to continue?  An extreme example, but I keep questioning why it is we feel it's OK to think that we know vastly more than specialists in the area of medicine and science but we would almost certainly not tell a tiler how to lay tiles or a plumber how to clear a drain.

Les - in the case of doctors, I don't know what it's like specifically outside of Australia, but to practice here you must keep up to date, and most do so anyway because that's their job.  If someone comes up with a new medicine or procedure or test, once it's verified and validated properly, it will be adopted.  By all means take a second or even third opinion, but the point of the analogy is that once you have 99 opinions, it's just wanton belief when you get number 100 saying what you want instead.

[LesPalenik]

Les - in the case of doctors, I don't know what it's like specifically outside of Australia, but to practice here you must keep up to date, and most do so anyway because that's their job.  If someone comes up with a new medicine or procedure or test, once it's verified and validated properly, it will be adopted.  By all means take a second or even third opinion, but the point of the analogy is that once you have 99 opinions, it's just wanton belief when you get number 100 saying what you want instead.

Phil,

I know this sounds strange, but most doctors never learned the basics of a healthy nutrition. That subject is not in their curriculum. Maybe by this time, some universities have added nutrition as one of the subjects.

Concretely, let's take example of calcium and milk (dairy products).
The dairy industry has been running ads about the benefits of calcium in dairy products for ages, and we (the consumers, doctors, and unfortunately also many nutritionists) have believed it. Personally, in my younger days I was also of those consumers. 

A large observational cohort study in Sweden found that women consuming more than 3 glasses of milk a day had almost twice the mortality over 20 years compared to those women consuming less than one glass a day. In addition, the high milk-drinkers did not have improved bone health. In fact, they had more fractures, particularly hip fractures.

When it comes to the health effects of dairy, the context is not so pretty. In observational studies both across countries and within single populations, higher dairy intake has been linked to increased risk of prostate cancer.

Observational cohort studies have shown higher dairy intake is linked to higher ovarian cancer risk.
Cow’s milk protein may play a role in triggering type 1 diabetes through a process called molecular mimicry.
Across countries, populations that consume more dairy have higher rates of multiple sclerosis.
In interventional animal experiments and human studies, dairy protein has been shown to increase IGF-1 (Insulin-like Growth Factor-1) levels. Increased levels of IGF-1 has now been implicated in several cancers.
In interventional animal experiments and human experiments, dairy protein has been shown to promote increased cholesterol levels (in the human studies and animal studies) and atherosclerosis (in the animal studies).
The primary milk protein (casein) promotes cancer initiated by a carcinogen in experimental animal studies.
D-galactose has been found to be pro-inflammatory and actually is given to create animal models of aging.
Higher milk intake is linked to acne.
Milk intake has been implicated in constipation and ear infections.
Milk is perhaps the most common self-reported food allergen in the world.
Much of the world’s population cannot adequately digest milk due to lactose intolerance.

References:
Michaelsson K, Wolk A, Langenskiold S, et al. Milk intake and risk of mortality and fractures in women and men: cohort studies. Bmj 2014;349:g6015.
Lanou AJ. Should dairy be recommended as part of a healthy vegetarian diet? Counterpoint. The American journal of clinical nutrition 2009;89:1638S-42S.
Dahl-Jorgensen K, Joner G, Hanssen KF. Relationship between cows’ milk consumption and incidence of IDDM in childhood. Diabetes Care 1991;14:1081-3.
Malosse D, Perron H, Sasco A, Seigneurin JM. Correlation between milk and dairy product consumption and multiple sclerosis prevalence: a worldwide study. Neuroepidemiology 1992;11:304-12.
Key TJ. Diet, insulin-like growth factor-1 and cancer risk. Proc Nutr Soc 2011:1-4.
Kritchevsky D. Dietary protein, cholesterol and atherosclerosis: a review of the early history. The Journal of nutrition 1995;125:589S-93S.
Gardner CD, Messina M, Kiazand A, Morris JL, Franke AA. Effect of two types of soy milk and dairy milk on plasma lipids in hypercholesterolemic adults: a randomized trial. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 2007;26:669-77.
Youngman LD, Campbell TC. Inhibition of aflatoxin B1-induced gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase positive (GGT+) hepatic preneoplastic foci and tumors by low protein diets: evidence that altered GGT+ foci indicate neoplastic potential. Carcinogenesis 1992;13:1607-13.
Spencer EH, Ferdowsian HR, Barnard ND. Diet and acne: a review of the evidence. Int J Dermatol 2009;48:339-47.
Caffarelli C, Baldi F, Bendandi B, Calzone L, Marani M, Pasquinelli P. Cow’s milk protein allergy in children: a practical guide. Italian journal of pediatrics 2010;36:5.
Rona RJ, Keil T, Summers C, et al. The prevalence of food allergy: a meta-analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;120:638-46.

Full article: http://nutritionstudies.org/12-frightening-facts-milk/

This is just one reference about one nutritional myth. If you google "risks of milk consumption", you'll find thousands of links. Precisely, that google inquiry inquiry produced for me 741,000 links. I used the first reference link.
I am not at all against the science, I'm all for real and responsible science. Unfortunately, there is a great disconnect between the latest findings in the scientical field and the available knowledge of the practitioners in the medical and food industry.

Let's stick to this example. About 3 months ago, I attended a 3-day Osteoarthritis workshop approved and endorsed by the local hospital and one of the recommendations in the class was to drink a minimum of two cups milk a day. When I pointed out that the latest research indicates the exact opposite, the nutritionists and nurses who were in that group admitted they never heard it. It's like that old saying "you'll never get fired for recommending IBM equipment".  They have their course materials, heard it twenty years ago from their teachers, "so let's just promote milk, it's a common knowledge that it is good for bones."

"risk in olive oil consumption" will bring up 660,000 links and "risks of chicken meat consumption" over 20,000,000 links. All the wrong food and recommended by millions of doctors worldwide.

I haven't read all those thousands of links, but over the last ten years I read hundreds of books on these subjects. Some topics are covered in conflicting ways, so if someone reads just one book, they may not get the complete picture. However, the good thing is that nowadays there is a plenty of solid and well researched data on these subjects and a lot of information by reputable doctors is available also as free videos.

Here are some of the good links:
https://nutritionfacts.org  by Dr. Michael Greger
https://www.drmcdougall.com  Dr. John MacDougal
http://www.richroll.com/podcast/neal-barnard/ Dr. Neil Barnard

there are other doctors, endorsing plant-based nutrition. Unfortunately, most doctors in the field are still recommending the wrong type of food and medications.

[LesPalenik]

But I'm not a rat!  And we don't have a basement.

Alan, in case of a couple living under the reported conditions, such an experiment could be conducted just on sample size of two. The husband could eat barbequed steaks and the wife veggies. Or the other way around. But that would be very cruel.

The other option is to drive to the library and borrow some books about healthy nutrition. Ask for books on plant-based food!

[Farmer]

Les - firstly, I'm aware of the research on milk that you mentioned.  I'd bet a lot of doctors are aware or it.

That sort of study (initial, observational) is the sort from which a hypothesis can (and probably should) be formed.  Then some more studies can be done that try to understand the hypothesis (or, more likely, many of them) and to try to establish a theory (or even a few).  At that point, medical and nutritional paradigms will change.

If you stopped drinking milk, for example, based on a lay reading of this observational study, then you're pre-empting proper scientific rigour and process and that's exactly the point.  Just because there's one observational study doesn't mean a change in paradigm is yet warranted.  Cause and effect still need to be established and tested.

BTW, good doctors refer patients to nutritionists if they feel significant dietary changes are appropriate.  It's a speciality, basically.

[LesPalenik]

Phil,

I'm in a full agreement with you that one observational study is not enough. In a fact, just one study may even lead to wrong conclusions.
You are very lucky to have worked with enlightened doctors. Unfortunately, my experience has been opposite, and that was with many doctors in various disciplines.

Yeah, good doctors, that's what I'm looking for. It looks like the Australian doctors know more, or I'm just meeting the wrong ones here. We have here many great surgeons and some very competent specialists, also prolific pill prescribers, but many of them have absolutely no knowledge of proper nutrition. And maybe they just received free samples of a new blood thinner medication along with a brochure about that company's next conference in Bahamas, so why would they recommend to anyone eating kale and brussel sprouts?

And as I mentioned in my workshop example, even many relatively young nutritionists find it easier and safer to dispense outdated advice rather than rock the boat or heaven forbid, keep up with the latest knowledge and developments.
 
For now, it is up to the consumers to get the best and most up-to-date information when it comes to our bodies and wellbeing.

[Farmer]

It's true that here doctors are prevented from receiving the level of gifts and rewards and enticements that they can get in the US.  That might have something to do with it, but I suspect (you're in the US, right?) that it is a reflection of your broken health system overall

Ours isn't perfect, BTW, and I'm sure there are lazy or bad doctors around, but I rarely come across people talking about them or meet them myself.

[LesPalenik]

I reside in Ontario, Canada
Some aspects of the medical care (including those fully paid medical conferences in exotic places) are similar here as in USA, but the basic care is free.
The waiting times to see a specialist may be very long (1-2 years are not unheard of), but once you get in, the care is excellent. And once the doctors fix you up, the only thing which may kill you is the hospital food or the side effects of the medications. 

[Ray]

I haven't misunderstood anything.   

Okay! So demonstrate it. You gave me the impression that you had misunderstood my views for the reasons which I stated, and in your reply you continue to give that impression for the following reason..

Science doesn't change because some lay person keeps searching for the one person who presents an alternative solution that is not backed up by empirical data and observation.

I agree completely, and I'm not aware of any comments or claims I've made casting doubt on the significance of the potential harm of increased CO2 levels that are presented by only one person and that are not backed up by empirical data and observations.
If you can find such a statement or reference from me, I'd be grateful because I make a special effort to find scientific research papers authored by qualified specialists who present new observations, or different interpretations of the same observations, or give air to sound evidence which has been side-lined by the alarmists because they have no convincing counter argument, and are probably a bit embarrassed.

However, there are at least two glaring types of unscientific claims in the climate change debacle. One type is a claim of impending disaster based on negative and biased reports which ignore alternative more positive interpretations which are also based on peer reviewed research and empirical data.

The other type is the assertion of certainty about impending CO2-caused disaster which is not based upon any sound empirical data, but based upon flawed computer models.

I could list the major points I recall making which I believe are supported by evidence, or claims by others which are not supported due to an accepted lack of evidence, but it would take too long to review all my comments, so I'll mention and repeat just one major point for the moment. Correct me if I'm wrong.

(1) The latest IPCC report, the AR5, admitted and stated unambiguously that there is 'low confidence' that extreme weather events such as cyclones, hurricanes, floods and droughts, have increased in frequency and intensity, globally, during the past century or so since CO2 levels have been rising.

These statements are found in the Technical Summary of the Working Group 1 of the IPCC report. These are scientific assessments from peer reviewed research papers in the field of climate science, rather than political distortions. Do you agree?

I find such statement significant because the alarm about increasing extreme weather events has been an often repeated mantra from so-called experts in Australia such as Tim Flannery who was the Chief Commissioner of the Climate Commission until September 2013, when he was effectively sacked.

I believe his opinions would have caused politicians in Queensland to make bad decisions during the previous drought which ended in massive flood damage in 2010/11. During that drought, a number of new dam proposals were cancelled and the alternative solution of building a desalination plant on the Gold Coast was accepted as the better option, at least partially because of the AGW alarmists advice that Australia would become a drier place because of climate change, and droughts would become longer and more frequent.

Soon after the plant was commissioned, rainfall and water storage increased in south east Queensland because the drought ended, and the desalination plant has subsequently been moth-balled for most of the time since.

Between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2015 the plant supplied less than 9 GL of water, which is less than 5% of its theoretical maximum output over a four year period.
This is a case of bad decision-making based upon unscientific climate-change alarmism. An additional dam or two would have prevented the subsequent flood damage and the cost of the dams could easily have been been met by the saved expenses of the subsequent the flood damage plus the cost of the desalination plant.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I am not at all against the science, I'm all for real and responsible science. Unfortunately, there is a great disconnect between the latest findings in the scientical field and the available knowledge of the practitioners in the medical and food industry.

A number of years ago I was an invited speaker at a symposium on the safety of biopharmaceutical products hosted by a US pharmaceutical company (it's one of the areas I worked in while gainfully employed in the pharmaceutical industry).  At lunch following the final presentations, I was sitting next to a well known academic toxicologist.  He was eating everything served and had coffee with his cake.  I asked, "as a toxiccologist, aren't you afraid that some of what you just ate is bad for you."  He laughed and responded, "I follow what my grandmother told me when I was growing up; eat lots of different foods in moderation."  I laughed back and said, "that's pretty much what my grandmother told me as well!"

You can go crazy with diet fads and unless you have very specific risk issues, eat a well balanced diet with lots of different foods!!!

[LesPalenik]

That's what my friend says!
However, Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn (Bill Clinton's health advisor) is sure that Moderation Kills. Slower than No Moderation At All, but nevertheless:

Here is a 3 minute related video by Dr. Esselstyn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnJTwUkl75I

When I was a small boy, my grandmother cooked for me also some hearty meals from beef and pork, usually followed by a slice of white bread with a generous helping of pork lard. She meant also well.

And since we are talking about moderation and Bill Clinton. His first heart bypass surgery was in 2004. Then he tried to balance his diet, but that wasn't enough to stop the second heart attack in 2010. After the second surgery, he became vegan, lost 30 lbs and is doing very well.
http://www.aarp.org/health/healthy-living/info-08-2013/bill-clinton-vegan.html

[Alan Klein]

Alan, in case of a couple living under the reported conditions, such an experiment could be conducted just on sample size of two. The husband could eat barbequed steaks and the wife veggies. Or the other way around. But that would be very cruel.

The other option is to drive to the library and borrow some books about healthy nutrition. Ask for books on plant-based food!

Well, you're describing me and my wife.  I love BBQ steaks and she's a veggie.  We don't have to experiment.  She told me she knows I'm going to die first. 

[Alan Klein]

I reside in Ontario, Canada
Some aspects of the medical care (including those fully paid medical conferences in exotic places) are similar here as in USA, but the basic care is free.
The waiting times to see a specialist may be very long (1-2 years are not unheard of), but once you get in, the care is excellent. And once the doctors fix you up, the only thing which may kill you is the hospital food or the side effects of the medications. 

Of course, you may die while waiting "to get in".    What I've noticed here in America, is that tests like MRI's etc are easy and fast to get.  Same day or next.  Doctor waits are getting longer especially with the better physicians.  And many of them are opting out of Medicare and insurance programs because they can get ask for and get what they ask for from the patient.  Plus, because of the demand, you have to wait months to see them.  It's getting worse probably because of Obamacare.  I also see many doctors who are from other countries.  I think what's happening is that we're beginning to see really smart American students decide on other careers because the problems in medicine and their earning potentials as a future doctor are just going down.  That means poorer care in the future unless you're rich. 

[LesPalenik]

Of course, you may die while waiting "to get in".   What I've noticed here in America, is that tests like MRI's etc are easy and fast to get.  Same day or next.  Doctor waits are getting longer especially with the better physicians.  And many of them are opting out of Medicare and insurance programs because they can get ask for and get what they ask for from the patient.  Plus, because of the demand, you have to wait months to see them.  It's getting worse probably because of Obamacare.  I also see many doctors who are from other countries.  I think what's happening is that we're beginning to see really smart American students decide on other careers because the problems in medicine and their earning potentials as a future doctor are just going down.  That means poorer care in the future unless you're rich.

Absolutely true, I often wondered what's the percentage of patients who die while waiting.
I know by having some friends in USA or even Canadians who had heart problems while on vacation in USA, if you are covered, you can just walk in for an MRI or some other tests, and waiting for an elective surgery is also much shorter than in Canada. The other thing is that the high US hospital costs and very expensive medical insurance for a Canadian senior make now the travelling to USA in many cases prohibitive.
 
When it comes to the earning potential of a doctor, it is still well above the average, and of course, it depends also on their specialty.

[Alan Klein]

 
When it comes to the earning potential of a doctor, it is still well above the average, and of course, it depends also on their specialty.

Well, surgeons are very good at extracting your wallet. 

[Farmer]

I've never waited more than 6 weeks to see a specialist, and never more than a week for a GP.  And emergencies are done faster, of course.  That's not to say no one ever waits longer than that there, but it would be rare to be over 3 months, and never that long if it was urgent.

[Farmer]

Oh, hospital wait times for non-urgent matters through the public system can take a long time - I've seen up to two years there, but most are under 6 months.

[Ray]

A number of years ago I was an invited speaker at a symposium on the safety of biopharmaceutical products hosted by a US pharmaceutical company (it's one of the areas I worked in while gainfully employed in the pharmaceutical industry).  At lunch following the final presentations, I was sitting next to a well known academic toxicologist.  He was eating everything served and had coffee with his cake.  I asked, "as a toxiccologist, aren't you afraid that some of what you just ate is bad for you."  He laughed and responded, "I follow what my grandmother told me when I was growing up; eat lots of different foods in moderation."  I laughed back and said, "that's pretty much what my grandmother told me as well!"

You can go crazy with diet fads and unless you have very specific risk issues, eat a well balanced diet with lots of different foods!!!

There is of course an element of truth in grandmother's advice, but those were the days when the food industry was less developed, and the food that was available was generally less processed and more natural.

The goals of the modern food industry are similar to the goals of any industry, to get as many customers as possible, buying and consuming as much of their products as possible.

The food industry achieves this goal by producing food which has an attractive appearance, a delicious taste and a good price. I believe certain food industries employ scientists in laboratories to experiment with certain mixtures of ingredients, including artificial ingredients as well as fats, sugars, salts and spices, that produce the most alluring taste.

Fructose from corn syrup is often added instead of cane sugar, because it's sweeter and cheaper. However, it is claimed by some nutritionists that too much fructose has the effect of interfering with the hormones and neural signals that inform the body that it is satiated. Despite being full in reality, one is able to continue enjoying the pleasure of eating without any discomfort from feelings of satiation.
This explains, at least partially, why at least 2/3rds of all Americans and Australians (and members of many other countries) are overweight, and about 1/3rd actually obese.

The fundamental principles of what constitutes a healthy diet have not changed much during my lifetime. Substantial servings of fresh vegetables and fruit, plus very moderate amounts of cheese, full-cream milk, eggs and meat, have always been considered healthy. The benefits of the additional protein, fibre, vitamins and minerals in brown rice and wholemeal flour, as opposed to white rice and white flour, have been recognized for many decades, yet so many people around the world still eat white rice, and white flour in the form of all sorts of cakes, even if they prefer wholemeal bread to white bread.

Restaurants never offer the option of brown rice because it's claimed it interferes with the taste of the food, and taste and appearance are the most important factors in the food business.

The other side of the coin is the diet industry and the medical industry. There seems to be a synergy between the three. The processed food industry, with it's alluring advertisements and artificially-enhanced tasty food products, encourages people to overeat and become overweight. This in turn creates a demand for special diets that claim to reduce weight, but which are often unsatisfying and very expensive.

The general health consequences of artificial and unwholesome diets also feeds the medical and pharmaceutical industries which offer compensatory drugs which allow people to continue living despite their unhealthy lifestyle and predilection for unhealthy but delicious food.

It's probably rare that someone who is diagnosed by their doctor as having high blood pressure, for example, will examine their own lifestyle and diet and choose to fix their problem by changing their diet, becoming a vegan for example, and exercising more.

[LesPalenik]

There is of course an element of truth in grandmother's advice, but those were the days when the food industry was less developed, and the food that was available was generally less processed and more natural.

The goals of the modern food industry are similar to the goals of any industry, to get as many customers as possible, buying and consuming as much of their products as possible.

The food industry achieves this goal by producing food which has an attractive appearance, a delicious taste and a good price. I believe certain food industries employ scientists in laboratories to experiment with certain mixtures of ingredients, including artificial ingredients as well as fats, sugars, salts and spices, that produce the most alluring taste.

Fructose from corn syrup is often added instead of cane sugar, because it's sweeter and cheaper. However, it is claimed by some nutritionists that too much fructose has the effect of interfering with the hormones and neural signals that inform the body that it is satiated. Despite being full in reality, one is able to continue enjoying the pleasure of eating without any discomfort from feelings of satiation.
This explains, at least partially, why at least 2/3rds of all Americans and Australians (and members of many other countries) are overweight, and about 1/3rd actually obese.

The fundamental principles of what constitutes a healthy diet have not changed much during my lifetime. Substantial servings of fresh vegetables and fruit, plus very moderate amounts of cheese, full-cream milk, eggs and meat, have always been considered healthy. The benefits of the additional protein, fibre, vitamins and minerals in brown rice and wholemeal flour, as opposed to white rice and white flour, have been recognized for many decades, yet so many people around the world still eat white rice, and white flour in the form of all sorts of cakes, even if they prefer wholemeal bread to white bread.

Restaurants never offer the option of brown rice because it's claimed it interferes with the taste of the food, and taste and appearance are the most important factors in the food business.

The other side of the coin is the diet industry and the medical industry. There seems to be a synergy between the three. The processed food industry, with it's alluring advertisements and artificially-enhanced tasty food products, encourages people to overeat and become overweight. This in turn creates a demand for special diets that claim to reduce weight, but which are often unsatisfying and very expensive.

The general health consequences of artificial and unwholesome diets also feeds the medical and pharmaceutical industries which offer compensatory drugs which allow people to continue living despite their unhealthy lifestyle and predilection for unhealthy but delicious food.

It's probably rare that someone who is diagnosed by their doctor as having high blood pressure, for example, will examine their own lifestyle and diet and choose to fix their problem by changing their diet, becoming a vegan for example, and exercising more.

Very nicely summed up, Ray.
Nowadays, most people in the developed world consume primarily processed food instead of healthier meals prepared mainly from the fresh produce, nuts and seeds. The food industry has mastered the art of creating delicuiously tasting modified food, and the pharma industry offers instant reliefs from indigestion, constipation, flatulation, diabetes, and high cholesterol. And so, there is no wonder that many people keep eating the unhealthy food, and supresss the signs and symptoms of their bodies which protest against the onslaught of the artificial ingredients by damaging it further as they take various drugs and ailments.

[pegelli]

........................... and the pharma industry offers instant reliefs from indigestion, constipation, flatulation, diabetes, and high cholesterol ..................

Maybe we can get this thread off the track of healthcare, nutrition, diet, medical care, pharma industry etc. and back on Climate Change by asking the question how skeptical we are about the effect of flatulation on global warming and climate change. At least we know Methane is a significantly more potent greenhouse gas as compared to CO2.