When Government Rubber-Stamps Health Benefits...
Permalink Posted on 05-20-2007 at 03:21:29 pm by Aaron Email , 219 words, 1564 views  

... hilarity---and tragedy---often ensue. Case in point; in today's news:

A new study finds that against popular belief, eating tomatoes does not reduce man's risk of developing prostate cancer.

...


Previous studies found that eating foods high in tomato ingredients actually reduced a man's risk of developing the disease. The FDA even allowed the makers of tomato-based products to advertize on their products of the benefits of eating them.

Lycopenes are a form of antioxidents in tomatoes which apparently offer protection against prostate cancer, but now a new study has proven this to be simply not true.


Oopsie! But this was all harmless, right? Maybe not...

It is worth noting that during the study, the researchers also found an increased link with an aggressive form of prostate cancer and another antioxident found in tomatoes known as beta carotene.


Yikes... so the FDA's premature stance on tomatoes could have boosted tomato sales (I bet you can guess which side tomato farmers were on) at the expense of other foods, and could have increased the cancer risk of naive dupes who took the FDA's advice.

Feeling safer?

Let this be a lesson to us: think for yourself; be highly skeptical of the government. Use multiple sources of evidence. And don't leap to conclusions before the scientific process has run its course.

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: c-los [Visitor] Email
what if the new study is wrong? then who do i believe?
PermalinkPermalink 05-22-2007 @ 17:26
Comment from: Aaron [Member] Email
c-los: I realize I wasn't very clear about this in the post, but my opinion is that when the truth seems uncertain, one should simply be wary of all self-proclaimed "authorities" on the matter. When relevant action is planned, uncertainty should be considered. When the government "rules" on something, supposedly uncertainty is nil.

Also, the government allowing health-benefits labelling so prematurely seems like a bad mistake in the context of rules that normally forbid health-benefits claims on a huge list of foods and vitamins that one doesn't need a prescription to buy. Go figure.
PermalinkPermalink 05-22-2007 @ 20:35

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))

Sic Semper Tyrannis
Misc
Search
Blog Stats
  • This blog has 157 posts and 648 comments spanning a range from 08-22-2006 to 05-14-2008
Who's Online?
  • Guest Users: 19

powered by
b2evolution

Support these bloggers: