
The toxic truth about modern food - simonebrunozzi
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/mar/16/snack-attacks-the-toxic-truth-about-the-way-we-eat
======
isoskeles
How do I know this is true when The Guardian also fabricates stories like the
one about Paul Manafort meeting Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy?

~~~
eesmith
What an odd question. Of course you can't know it's true. Can you know that
any news source always publishes the truth and only the truth?

But in this case, the source is the book "The Way We Eat Now". The writer of
this article is Bee Wilson, who is the author of that book. The article (and
presumably the book) cite references, which can be consulted for support.

For examples, Barry Popkin's papers on nutrition transitions are findable with
[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_sdt=0%2C5&q=barry+popk...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_sdt=0%2C5&q=barry+popkin+nutrition+transition&oq=Barry+Popkin)
and Fumiaki Imamura's 2015 Lancet paper is at
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214109X1...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214109X1470381X)

By comparison, the Manafort/Assange article contains only anonymous sources.

~~~
isoskeles
I can know that The Guardian is blatantly awful.

~~~
eesmith
Then why not simply say that, instead of a snide sideways comment?

I mean, there's enough of the trope about the "Daily Fail" where the
corresponding sarcasm would be "since they wrote about it, I no longer believe
food exists." So, just be clear and say what you mean about The Guardian.

But instead of expressing your blanket dismissal, you imply that one (or a
small number) of failures causes you to be deeply distrustful of _everything_
they publish - even for an article which gives enough citations that you can
double-check them yourself.

Thus, your comment came across not as honest criticism, but as someone with a
poor ability to judge veracity.

