Quote:
Originally Posted by CFrance
(snipped)
Okay, I'll bite. The current study (called 90+) is continuing, funded by grants from NIA and is being conducted by UC Irvine. The initial study back in the '80s was also funded by NIH, the Errol Carrol Trust Fund and Wyeth, but Wyeth was trying to find out about strokes.
Will you please cite your reference to the commercial entity that's promoting it, and exactly how they are promoting it--$? (I don't consider NIH/NIA or UCI commercial entities).
And please explain what you mean by TV being an extension of the food industry.
|
The commercial entity I was referring to is the television station itself because they are in the advertising business. I haven't watched TV for a long time but I seem to remember that they advertise food. And it's usually not fresh fruit and vegetables.
If it wasn't for the 60 minutes TV presentation that played up the aspect of diet not being important, I don't think that study would be memorable in the science of nutrition. Although, it may be memorable to the average TV watching person who is overweight and eats a poor diet. It lets those people off the hook so they no longer have to worry about improving their diet or losing weight. I think the study therefore does a disservice to public health.