NATO Ratio: Flubbed NYT Iran War Headline Creates Groundswell of Acronym Acrimony Online
Google Is Free: X BODIES Obama-Era Diplomat For Asking and (Wrongly) Answering His...
Biden Walks Through an Airport: Case Closed, He Was Never Senile, You Conspiracy...
Fenway Erupts in Boos: Healey & Wu Get a Brutal, Well-Deserved Reception on...
Don't Back a Florida Man (or Woman) Into a Corner—And Don't Commit Crime...
TIME Mag Review of Springsteen's HISTORIC 'Resistance' Concert Couldn't Possibly Be More O...
HuffPost's Attempt to Create a Good Friday Outrage Cycle About Pete Hegseth Is...
Ozempic (Allegedly) Gov. Celebrates National Walking Day While Chicago Mourns Teen Shot De...
Deportation? We Don't Do That: Illegals Squat for Decades, Their 'American' Kids Try...
DNC Stomps on Multiple Rakes in Rush to Slam Trump Over 'Affordable' Health...
Let's Check on How Many Network Evening Newscasts Mentioned the Fraud Arrests in...
Endorsed! Corrupt Clintonista Marc Elias Accidentally Makes the Best Case Ever for Harmeet...
Here's How CBS News Reported $4 Gas Under Biden vs. Trump
Vindman Outrage is the Ultimate Endorsement: Hegseth Rightly Boots Army Chief Gen. George
Newsom Press Office Follows Up 'President With a Brain' Post With Even More...

Government's dietary advisors using research 'so off base as to be scientifically useless'

Seriously? What’s this about a federal committee sending out text messages to “scold” obese citizens? Baylen J. Linnekin, executive director of the Keep Food Legal Foundation, noted in a column last year that the federal government’s Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, a rotating group of academics who meet every five years, was considering not only privacy invading text messages but also new food taxes and municipal food bans.

Advertisement

Linnekin has a new column today in which he interviews University of Alabama-Birmingham researcher Edward Archer, whose new article published in “Mayo Clinic Proceedings” argues that the DGAC’s research “is so off base as to be scientifically useless.”

Archer explains why the DGAC continues to rely on so-called “memory-based dietary assessment methods,” which rely on anecdotal data, or “whatever the participant thinks (or would like the researcher to think) he or she ate over the past day, week, and in some cases the past decade.”

The federal government has massively increased spending on nutrition and obesity research over the past few decades, and now spends over $2 billion of taxpayer’s money per year. Unfortunately, the people that control that funding are the same researchers that use these anecdotal methods, train the next generation of researchers, and control the publication of scientific papers. As such, new methods and innovative research is stifled. The same researchers are getting funded to do the same research year after year after year.

Advertisement

In other words, the federal government’s dietary research methods are even less sound than anecdotal climate change data.

https://twitter.com/MoonbatCatnip/status/609857303907577857

https://twitter.com/MoonbatCatnip/status/609858312859951104

Advertisement

https://twitter.com/UberMinch/status/609849506205569024

Thanks goodness the first lady and her mother and daughters leave for Europe this week to lead a delegation through the United States’ pavilion at the Milan Expo 2015, entitled “American Food 2.0: United to Feed the Planet.” We’re anxious ourselves to learn just what “American Food 2.0” is and how the federal government intends to force it on the public.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos