Posted March 05, 2019 12:25:20When I first started doing my PhD research, the only thing I really knew about food and nutrition was the hype that was being put out about it.
It was a lot like how we knew the internet was going to save the world, but it never actually happened.
I was doing food science research for the National Food Labelling Agency (NFLA) in Victoria when my mentor and I started hearing all sorts of amazing stories about how the food industry was really using science to sell products.
Food and nutrition science was just starting to become mainstream, and my work in the food lab was just getting more attention.
But as I started getting more involved in the science of food, the hype started to get a little out of hand.
I got involved with some very public, sensationalist food industry stories.
The most sensational ones I think were the ones that were based on a number of fake scientific studies that had never been replicated in a real environment.
And the science wasn’t even done by scientists.
It’s mostly been done by industry consultants.
These consultants would write the studies and then the research would be paid for by the companies that made the products.
And as I got more involved with the research, I started finding things that were completely and utterly wrong.
One of the most egregious was a paper that I co-authored that claimed that eating a single piece of food was equivalent to eating 1,000 calories of sugar.
The study itself was based on an unsubstantiated study from 2010 in which a group of researchers took two pieces of sugar and a piece of fruit and then watched it metabolise into the sugar fructose.
And there was absolutely no scientific evidence that said that that was even true.
The researchers used some randomised controlled trials, but none of those actually measured any of the outcomes that they claimed to have observed.
The results were essentially the same, and the paper was retracted.
I got so angry about it that I filed a formal complaint to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who launched an investigation.
In my complaint, I explained that I’d done my research and that the results weren’t even remotely comparable to what they claimed they’d seen.
In the months that followed, I received dozens of emails from journalists and others telling me how much they hated this report, how much it was biased, and how it was just plain wrong.
And in the end, they just kept coming back to me with more complaints.
So what happened?
The AFP and the FDA did a lot of work on this issue and I think it’s really important to note that they came to the same conclusion as I did.
And that conclusion is that this report is just not scientific.
The fact that they chose to publish this report and that it’s based on the opinion of a small group of consultants who didn’t actually do any real science, is a huge red flag.
What we now know about food, and what’s in our food, is not the same thing as what’s out there.
For example, the most popular type of processed food is high fructose corn syrup.
And high fructose sucrose is a byproduct of corn sugar processing.
And that’s all processed by humans.
And humans don’t process sugar as it is in our bodies.
So the same chemicals that are used in our body that are also used to make the most refined foods, those are all processed as if they were sugar by humans, and they’re all processed in the same way.
So it’s not really that simple.
There are many other chemicals that can also be found in our diet, and are also processed as they are by humans as well, and that includes chemicals that we don’t even get to know about in our diets because they’re in foods that we’ve eaten for thousands of years.
So we don, in fact, have a very large number of compounds that are not naturally occurring, and therefore are processed in very different ways.
This is not to say that food is inherently bad.
I think that’s a very difficult and contentious issue to talk about in the public eye.
But the fact is that we are getting very good at producing foods that are healthy and that are good for us.
I think that what we have seen over the last 20 or 30 years is that people are more and more open to accepting things like plant-based foods, and I’m not saying that this is necessarily good or bad.
It certainly is beneficial to have a variety of foods.
But there are so many things that people can eat that are nutritious and have a wide range of benefits that we need to be able to accept.
And this is something that I’m very much aware of.
When I was working for the NFLA, there were people who had serious health problems that we knew were caused by the chemicals that they were consuming.
And they were very open