>Every time the jury is out on a topic where one side has a vested interest and a billion dollar budget to protect it, > you can be reasonably sure what the outcome will be.
> See: pesticides and bees, fossil fuels and climate change, food packaging plastics and cancer, pain treatment meds and addiction.
I'm not sure you notice the grave strangeness of your comment.
There's no jury out there on climate change. The basics are pretty clear. I also think the relation of some pesticides and bees dying is hardly controversial (though it gets muddy when you get into the details and ask which pesticides). For plastic packaging and cancer I'm not sure what the evidence says, but I guess it's complicated. I don't think any scientist seriously doubts that pain medication can be addictive (again, details may be more complicated and uncertain).
So you have 3 examples where the science is contrary to the interest of a billion dollar vested interest. What do you make of that?
(Of course having settled science doesn't mean political action follows, which is most evident when it comes to climate change. But that's a different question.)
I'm not sure you notice the grave strangeness of your comment. There's no jury out there on climate change. The basics are pretty clear. I also think the relation of some pesticides and bees dying is hardly controversial (though it gets muddy when you get into the details and ask which pesticides). For plastic packaging and cancer I'm not sure what the evidence says, but I guess it's complicated. I don't think any scientist seriously doubts that pain medication can be addictive (again, details may be more complicated and uncertain).
So you have 3 examples where the science is contrary to the interest of a billion dollar vested interest. What do you make of that?
(Of course having settled science doesn't mean political action follows, which is most evident when it comes to climate change. But that's a different question.)