Here's how you can navigate conflicts arising from differing scientific opinions in Food Science research.

When it comes to opinions, at all costs avoid the personal and stick resolutely to discussion and analysis of objective facts at all times.

Profit Influence Power These seem to be strong biases that we don’t know how to correct for. Our current situation is that we face a little damage here from added sugar, a little damage there from some extra pesticide, and a little damage from the toxicity in the tap water. It all adds up and we don’t have the science to prove that it’s a major concern. Do we wait 20 years for the conclusion? Or do we use common sense and intuition to guide our humanity? Maybe it’s naive to think that we could all have access to whole food that isn’t modified or covered in the residue of poison. But maybe not …

The best way to avoid bias is by blinding the study as much as possible. Although unintentional, but we cannot negate the human aspect and thus, if a study is blinded, there is no way be it intentional or unintentional to lead to bias.

And if evidence is not sufficient, perform the experiments to see what the new data will tell you. Sometimes, the evidence thus far will get you so far.

Perhaps it’s time to broaden the horizon in this industry to include more than things like taste, cost, and shelf stability. Food science is directly related to health science. Our longevity Our wellness Our future Those all depend on the choices we make within the food science industry yet it doesn’t seem like they are factored into the process at this point. Are there ideas from experienced professionals for how to evolve the industry and help make the future bright?

Evidence comes from repeated observations from different groups. What is a "reputable journal"? One that agrees with "experts"? Evidence is evidence. Who are the "peers"? So many poor conclusions have been made by experts speaking to their peers in echo chambers. Show me your data, explain to me how you interpreted it. Get others to repeat the experiments. Then you're following the evidence. It may lead you to conclusions you do not like. You can change your mind based on the evidence. And you need to keep open mind for new evidence. This is science. Science is not a person. Science is a continuum of evidence gathering. Don't tell me you represent science. Show me the data. All the data. This is the evidence. We will debate the evidence.

Evite ouvir falsos profissionais. Tenha sempre em mente: oOque aparece na grande mídia é mais desinformação do que informações de fato. Bem como, desacreditem em alimentos milagrosos e aposte no equilíbrio.

I’ve watched the quality of food decline in my lifetime. Nowadays our children are sicker than ever and our healthcare system is overwhelmed by our numerous conditions. The same food product that’s on the shelf in the US is made up of different ingredients than the one on the shelf in Europe. The difference looks like cheaper and more synthetic ingredients for the US. Who’s ethical responsibility is it to not put chemicals in food that are found to be carcinogenic, damaging to neurodevelopment, or even genotoxic? Is it the shareholders of the corporation? The employees? The government? The news and media entities? Doctors, attorneys, parents? Or is it our common collective; our general humanity that needs to elevate and make wiser choices?