Nutrition Science is a Fraud

You're right.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/08/olive-oil-fake-larry-olmsted-food-fraud-usda/

That is from the article just posted.

I suspect people here are likely to believe anything that supports their own political prejudice whether it meets with the facts or not.

Snopes
MIXTURE
WHAT'S TRUE
Testing carried out in 2008 and 2010 reported that some popular olive oil brands did not meet the criteria to be labeled as "extra virgin."

WHAT'S FALSE
Tests did not show that 69% of the olive oil sold in the U.S. is made wholly or primarily from something other than olives.

Here is a pdf of an analysis and evaluation of various olive oil samples from various sources:

http://olivecenter.ucdavis.edu/research/files/report041211finalreduced.pdf

CONCLUSIONS

Our laboratory tests found that the top-selling imported brands of “extra virgin” olive oil sold in the United States and purchased at retail locations throughout California often failed the IOC’s sensory standards for extra virgin olive oil. Sensory analysis showed that these failed samples had objectionable descriptors such as rancid and fusty. Sensory analysis is a sensitive tool to analyze olive oil quality and is an essential component of the IOC olive oil standards, but sensory analysis should be supported by gas chromatographic analyses and other analytical methods. It is essential to support sensory evaluations by chemical tests for volatile compounds that are known to be produced by lipid oxidation.

Our chemical tests indicate that the samples usually pass the IOC’s chemical tests even when those samples failed two IOC-accredited sensory panels. Chemical confirmation of the negative sensory results were strongest with the German/ Australian DAGs and PPP tests, followed by IOC tests for UV absorption. The IOC and USDA standards would be more effective in assessing and enforcing olive oil quality by including the German/Australian DAGs and PPP standards.

Our testing indicated that the samples failed extra virgin olive oil standards for reasons that include one or more of the following: (a) oxidation by exposure to elevated temperatures, light, and/or aging; (b) adulteration with cheaper refined olive oil; and (c) poor quality oil made from damaged and overripe olives, processing flaws, and/or improper oil storage.

This is an anti-science thread.

What does this olive oil thing have to do with the attack on science?

Oh, I'm just keeping up with traffic. But if some olive oil isn't what it's cracked up to be, I guess that's fraud.

What was your question?

Not your thread.

Edgar makes a good point . . .

People need to take care not to cook at a high temp with olive oil.

Avocado oil is best for that.

You need to be careful. You could bring the wrath of maxdancona down on you for being off topic, and all the olive oil in the world won't make you slippery enough to escape his grasp.

I got olive oil, duck fat and astro glide.

I'm feeling pretty good about my chances.

More precisely, this is an anti-fraudulent science thread.

Than You.

I doubt Coca Cola has had anything to do with it's successfulness or its BS-ness.

nevertheless, astronomy is sucha fraud...

Indubitably.

Also chemistry. The alchemists made such a fraud of it.

InfraBlue,

The target of your attack in the opening thread was "Nutrition Science". In the title of the thread you are attacking an entire field of science as "fraudulent". That is an attack on science.

Here is the problem.... sometimes legitimate science contradicts your point of view. When this happens, the rational thing to do is to change your opinions to match the new scientific evidence. Instead what happens is that people label the science as "fraudulent".

That is an attack on science.

Real science is peer reviewed, independent and reproducible. There is quite a bit of real science if you look for it. Some of it contradicts your political ideology. There is bad science too... it is a skill to distinguish it. But if you label any science that contradicts your ideology as "fraudulent", then you are destroying the value of science to discover objective fact.

Olivier has a good point. Yes, real science needs to be independent of the influence of big money. But the facts are the facts in real science, whether or not big money is on their side or not. The implication in this thread is that if Monsanto wants a scientific result... that automatically settles the question that the result is fraudulent. Of course this is ridiculous.

M'kay.

As for genetics, the Nazis ruined it for me.

It's a good thing you said "astronomy is a fraud," because I never believed in it.