What NuSi is doing sounds great.<p>I was vegetarian for 7 years, an omnivore for 1 when I started weight-lifting, and after that I stopped weight-lifting and became a runner. It has been a year and am training for my first half marathon.<p>Compared to 10 years ago, I feel there has been an increase on food data-collecting and more rigorous scientific experiments that help build a database of bad foods and good foods. And I feel what NuSi is doing can be a good thing because it'll bring about talks and communication between big food corporations and nutritionists, "food scientists", etc.<p>However, the dilemma for me comes when trying to change the rules of what ingredients are allowed in foods (I'm thinking about the so-called 'soda pop ban'). I feel certain things ought to be banned, such as trans fats/hydrogenated oils. I think they are poisonous, but corporations, being as they are, are reluctant to change this because using them are so cost-effective and good for their pockets. To ban something that would decrease a company's profit and force them to effectively increase their production cost goes against their ideology.<p>I am optimistic that gradually we will see an improvement, but we are years away from it, simply because changing large companies's mission for a higher food standard brings about unwanted consequences for them, especially when change is abrupt.<p>So, of course, we're getting the wrong advice. It is a chain of connections. Some health advisers work for large companies and have their own agenda to push. Other scientists and nutritionists do not have the means to fund big experiments and collect more data.<p>My question is: who are these 'best scientists and universities' that are working on these 'risky questions'? Transparency would be nice, for sure.<p>You have my attention.<p>(My $0.02)