Read more »
The cornerstone of the American justice system: Innocent until proven guilty. According to Wikipedia: sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies). I like the first part of that Latin expression and suggest that what is truly needed in nutritional circles is to put the burden of proof on those making claims. My point here is not a political one, it is not to argue the merits of my country's justice system or its implementation, or anything of the sort. It is to put forth a suggestion -- that ALL who demonize foods be tasked with proving their charges. I suggest this because it is darned near impossible to do the opposite especially in the face of baseless charges.
It is a bit of a stretch, but keep in mind that many of the compounds, such as water, can be toxic at some level of ingestion. Furthermore, some of the chemical and/or physical properties of many innocuous compounds found in foods can seem quite daunting when taken out of context. This is an obvious spoof, but hopefully it makes a point.
Now, the vegans and vegetarians and raw and fruitarian crowds are all just as guilty of this, but since I've never been even remotely a part of any of those communities, I'll leave it to someone else to call out their hyperbole, scaremongering and outright disinformation. I'm also not talking about new non-foods such as artificial sweeteners, chemically modified foods (e.g. hydrogenated fats), non-food chemicals such as preservatives and I'll even throw in GM in with substances that should be considered unsafe until proven otherwise.