Thread: Do you trust the FDA?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

In the absence of definitive evidence either way

I personally don't have a milk allergy but there are a lot of people that do. Contrast with the amount of people that have a carrot allergy.

Not many people have a milk allergy. It's mostly lactose intolerance. Which isn't an allergy.
And contradictory to your heuristic. Your third question applies the most out of any of your questions, and you ruled it unneeded.

It has been found that people who had ancestors who consumed milk are much less likely to have lactose intolerance or milk allergies. Whereas people who didn't have ancestors who consumed milk are a lot more likely to have them. For example almost everyone in China is lactose intolerant.

EDIT: Oh and don't worry Nina, we're on your side. Send the closed minded prick to this thread lol

Originally Posted by tommo

Not many people have a milk allergy. It's mostly lactose intolerance. Which isn't an allergy.
And contradictory to your heuristic. Your third question applies the most out of any of your questions, and you ruled it unneeded.

How is it contradictory to my heuristic? We don't need the third question in this case because we already have data on milk allergies. Also, why is the fact that lactose intolerance is common but milk allergies aren't contradictory to my heuristic? I didn't mention allergies in it's statement at all. I was just taking milk allergies as an example.

It has been found that people who had ancestors who consumed milk are much less likely to have lactose intolerance or milk allergies. Whereas people who didn't have ancestors who consumed milk are a lot more likely to have them. For example almost everyone in China is lactose intolerant.

This is only supporting what I'm saying. However it won't always be the case which is why I rule specific and concrete data more important than a consideration of our evolutionary past.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

How is it contradictory to my heuristic?

Because you didn't go to the third question. Which tells you that it is harmful to some people. Because their ancestors did not drink milk.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Also, why is the fact that lactose intolerance is common but milk allergies aren't contradictory to my heuristic?

It's not. That was a separate statement.

Originally Posted by Majestic

I haven't seen the movie Food Inc. But I'm betting it reiterates everything I just said.

The food you eat in this society is eating you. It's not a conspiracy. It's scientific fact. Any food that is refined/processed is not good for you. Only natural foods are best for the human body. Raw fresh foods actually cure and prevent diseases

Good luck getting any natural foods.
The foods we grow using modern agriculture have been specifically chosen to provide the best taste and nutrients and the most fruit/seeds/vegetables etc.

Processed foods are generally shit, yes. But that's only because they have all the nutrients taken out and flavouring chucked in with no nutritional value whatsoever.
Why the fuck would raw food cure or prevent disease?
There is no mechanism for it to do so.

Go eat raw meat for a few days and see how good you feel. Or unprocessed soy beans (you will die) .

Originally Posted by tommo

Because you didn't go to the third question. Which tells you that it is harmful to some people. Because their ancestors did not drink milk.

But the reason that the third question is "guarded" by the other two is that the fact that something wasn't part of the ancestral environment is not enough a priori to conclude that it's bad for us. So it's perfectly possible that milk wouldn't be bad for us. We know that it is for some people, so we don't ever need to get to the third question. The third question is just a rough guess that should do an adequate job of approximating the truth in the absence of concrete data but will not necessarily do so in all cases.

We have concrete data about lactose intolerance and so we can look for symptoms, specific heuristics (e.g. Chinese ancestry) and apply tests to determine the health effects for specific individuals.

Yeah I get why you did it like that. But I'm just saying maybe it should be first. You could take that in to consideration, and then look at the other questions.
Or maybe not put it first, but go to the third question anyway even if the first two indicate that you should have at it.