Slashdot Mirror

You can find current articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, etc stating medical items as facts that are 10, 20, 30 years or more behind the current state of research at the time.

You still see newspapers running articles saying that post-menopausal hormone supplements reduce the risk of heart-attack in women (they increase it), that plastic cutting boards have lower risk of harboring dangerous bacteria than wood (it's higher), that low-fat diets help with weight loss (they make it harder to lose weight than higher fat diets), that all fat is unhealthy (it's not), that foods like rice cakes and baked potatoes and simple pastas are great diet foods (they're terrible, they have high glycemic response, you'd be better off eating a candy bar as far as weight loss is concerned), I could go on and on. The article you reference is simply written by someone who doesn't keep up on the current state of the research.

"Current state" meaning around 2008.

I don't have time to recount all the science, but here's one link to a 2009 meta-study.

I'm not exaggerating at all. I'm not claiming my views are so well established that they're in the 8th-grade health textbook, that will probably take 100 years, but the science behind this in peer-reviewed research journals is well established. Expect at least 10 years for the media to pick up on it, if we're lucky.

I hope you'll reconsider your choice of Nestle products...

My University boycotted Nestlé when I was there 15 years ago, and AFAIK it still does.

http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/boycott.html

Yes, but do those other Chocolatiers kill babies?

... And mod the parent up! More information

My point is, Nestle has long been your chocolate overlord - the Microsoft or Google of chocolate, especially European chocolate.

Well Microsoft are much better than Nestle. At least Bill Gates gives money to aid malaria research rather than killing and impeding the development children for profit through increased sales of powdered milk.