10
   

Nutrition Science is a Fraud

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2017 02:45 pm
@edgarblythe,
You're right.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/08/olive-oil-fake-larry-olmsted-food-fraud-usda/
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2017 07:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Mother Jones wrote:
Update: After the publication of this story, the North American Olive Oil Association contacted us to say that it has used International Olive Council labs to test hundreds of olive oil samples collected from supermarkets annually, and its results consistently show that more than 98 percent of olive oil in US retail outlets is authentic.



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.

0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2017 08:45 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2017 08:53 pm
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.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2017 08:56 pm
@Glennn,
This is an anti-science thread.

What does this olive oil thing have to do with the attack on science?
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2017 08:59 pm
@maxdancona,
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?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2017 09:00 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

This is an anti-science thread.

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


Not your thread.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2017 09:04 pm
@maxdancona,
Edgar makes a good point . . .
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2017 09:09 pm
@Glennn,
People need to take care not to cook at a high temp with olive oil.

Avocado oil is best for that.
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2017 09:13 pm
@chai2,
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. Smile
chai2
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2017 11:17 pm
@Glennn,
I got olive oil, duck fat and astro glide.

I'm feeling pretty good about my chances.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2017 11:37 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

This is an anti-science thread.

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


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

Than You.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2017 11:43 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

So if Coca Cola was trying to subvert astronomy, astronomy would be a fraud?

If they were successful, yes.

Well, astrology has been reasonably successful, and it'sall BS astronomy.

I doubt Coca Cola has had anything to do with it's successfulness or its BS-ness.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 12:02 am
@InfraBlue,
nevertheless, astronomy is sucha fraud...
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 12:06 am
@Olivier5,
Indubitably.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 02:49 am
@InfraBlue,
Also chemistry. The alchemists made such a fraud of it.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 06:46 am
@InfraBlue,
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.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 12:34 pm
@Olivier5,
M'kay.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 01:00 pm
@InfraBlue,
As for genetics, the Nazis ruined it for me.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2017 01:07 pm
@Olivier5,
It's a good thing you said "astronomy is a fraud," because I never believed in it. Wink
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/23/2024 at 03:06:35