The ‘Settled’ Science of Eggs

eggsThe science-is-settled crowd got a little more uncomfortable as the settled science of cholesterol being bad for us is being dismantled by the U.S. government’s top nutrition advisory panel.

That’s right. After more than fifty years of government and public health harpies hectoring against eating eggs, with many Americans resorting to eating the dreaded egg substitute in a cardboard container as a result, the feds are issuing a gigantic never mind.

The Washington Post quotes Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, as saying, “There’s been a shift of thinking.”

Egg producers have seen a 30 percent drop in consumption since the shoot-first-find-out-the-truth-later public science industry had their way in getting cholesterol declared a public enemy to good heart health.  I’m certain some eager trial lawyer will figure out someone to sue to help these small farmers get fair reparations from those who lobbied the federal government to include cholesterol on the bad-for-you nutrition list, and subsequently profiteered off of the farmer’s hardships.

Gee, I wonder if there are any other examples of  settled science turning out to be wrong after many years and untold economic damage?

How about the case of the northern spotted owl?

The northern spotted owl was declared an endangered species back in the early 1990s and the remedy was that large swaths of forest in the Northwest were placed off-limits for timber harvesting.  Now, two decades later, mill towns are ghost towns, and environmentalists are pressing to take even more land out of production.

Yet, the original goal of the northern spotted owl recovery plan was to get 3,000 nesting pairs well distributed throughout the region that included northern California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho.  Today, there are 3,000 nesting pairs on privately-owned land in California alone.  Privately-owned land where timber harvesting continues and peacefully co-exists with a thriving species.

It is on the publicly-held land where the professional environmental activists hold sway that the bird is doing less well, struggling under pressure from the irony that it does better hunting in more open spaces (the exact kind of habitat created by timbering.)

Naturally, the environmental group scientists and their allies in the Obama Administration refuse to declare victory for a re-established species because to do so will open up millions of acres of additional timberland for harvest.  And that is the dirty little secret in the Northwest, it never was about the bird, and always was about shutting down timbering — the destruction of small, rural communities was just acceptable collateral damage to the public interest scientists.

As President Obama and his media allies continue lock-step declaring the science settled on the climate change issue, it would be wise for policy makers to remember the previously-fought wars on eggs and timber and the mistaken science that led to destructive decisions before proceeding with actions that will have catastrophic impacts on the American economy.

Because sometimes the science is settled until it isn’t. Oh, by the way, is Pluto a planet again, or have scientists changed their minds once more?

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Rick Manningis the Vice President of Public Policy and Communications for Americans for Limited Government and the former Public Affairs Chief of Staff for the U.S. Department of Labor. Americans for Limited Governmentis dedicated to putting the principles of limited government into action. They work with local groups across the nation to promote freedom, limited government, and the principles of the U.S. Constitution. Their goal is to harness the power of American citizens and grassroots groups in order to put the people back in charge in states across the country.
Rick Manning
View all articles by Rick Manning
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly
  • DCM7

    For many, “science” is only valued as a powerful word by which an agenda can be sold to the public.

    • Bob Ellis


    • Thisoldspouse

      No truer words. And it has been thus for over 40 years.

  • Yastreblyansky

    What are your sources on the Northern Spotted Owl population? The only estimate I can find for California is 1200 nesting pairs (several 2014 sources such as here ), and all sources agree the population continues to be in decline. A petition went out in December to relist it as threatened or endangered. FWS seems to think NSO are not harmed by logging burned areas, and others disagree, but no source says the thrive more on private land, what does that even mean?

    • blowingoffgodot

      He doesn’t have a source. He’s just lying to serve his agenda. Ironic, I know.

      • Yastreblyansky

        Why am I not more surprised 😉

    • DCM7

      Even if the specific example of the Northern Spotted Owl were inaccurate here, the article’s general point holds true.

      • Yastreblyansky

        it’s not “inaccurate”, it’s completely fraudulent.

        The other thing about the eggs is also totally distorted: decline in egg consumption hasn’t affected small farmers as much as the development of huge factory farms has been putting them out of business. The decline has also completely reversed since around 1998 and egg consumption in US is at the highest point in years. The health food movement effect on the egg market has been great for small farmers producing organic and free-range eggs.

        The “general point” of the article seems to be that climate science must be wrong because eating eggs isn’t harmful? (A) Scientists never said you should stop eating eggs, only that you should eat them in moderation (especially if it involves bacon and or butter with their high levels of saturated fat) and that’s still true. The people who panicked and stopped eating eggs forever were idiots. (B) What kind of logic is that? You’re condemning all science on the basis of almost nothing. If science is totally unsettled how come your computer and your car and your cholesterol medication all work?

        • Bob Ellis

          Talk about fraudulent, that is precisely what the whole anthropogenic global warming hysteria movement is. Even before we knew about the “fudged” computer models and all the deliberate and direct attempts to deceive people, the holes in this nutty hypothesis make swiss cheese look rock solid.

          The point the author is making is that, like all the hype and hysteria surrounding eggs a number of years ago proved to be so much BS, so the same is true of anthropogenic global warming hysteria.

          “Scientists” make a mockery of science when they go off the rails based on a sliver of subjective data, and especially so when they do so in pursuit of the Marxist agenda behind the AGP hoax.

          • Yastreblyansky

            Links to your other blog? If every “fact” in this post is false and you can’t answer my questions about where you got the data, why should I bother to look at what you put there?

            • Bob Ellis

              Of course you shouldn’t look at any information that contradicts your fantasies. You won’t look anything up for yourself (unless it harmonizes with your fantasy), and even when it’s spoon-fed to you, you won’t accept it either.

              I learned a long, long time ago in dealing with Leftists that all a reasonable person can do is put the information out there. Reasonable people will consider it, dig deeper and inform themselves. Unreasonable people will reject any amount of facts, logic and reason. You can lead a horse to water, but it’s up to the horse whether he’s going to drink or not.

              • Yastreblyansky

                And yet you still haven’t answered the simple question I started off with, where did you get your information on California spotted owls? Or any other specific issue I’ve raised.

                I look at things that contradict my beliefs all the time, that’s how I got here. I check out information for myself constantly, as you can see from my comments here, or from a post on my own blog analyzing the “unsettled science” nonsense as presented by Charles Krauthammer, from a year ago. You haven’t given me any facts, logic, or reason yet.

              • Bob Ellis

                I am not the author of the article. But I’d bet you could look it up…if you wanted to. But you don’t want to. You don’t want to learn anything. You want to cling to your Marxist agenda, and that is much easier if you remain deliberately ignorant.

                Sadly, you’re a typical liberal, unwilling to recognize any amount of facts, logic or reason, thus unworthy of wasting any more time on. A horse, dying of thirst on the shore of a vast fresh-water lake.

        • DCM7

          Your post is such a labored exercise in point-missing, complete with easily categorized fallacies, that it’s downright amusing.
          The article’s examples are just that, examples. Whether or not they’re even true examples of supposed “scientific consensus” being wrong, the fact remains that supposed “scientific consensus” often IS wrong. AGW is a prime example, and your blatant strawmen (“condemning ALL science” — classic!) don’t even come close to challenging those to who recognize that fact.

          • Yastreblyansky

            Oh please. Manning says the egg and owl examples are examples of why the global warming hypothesis may be wrong:

            it would be wise for policy makers to remember the previously-fought wars on eggs and timber and the mistaken science that led to destructive decisions before proceeding with actions that will have catastrophic impacts on the American economy

            Since they have no relation to the specific science of climate change, he must be using them as a warning about science in general, that’s why I mentioned “all science”. Then again if the egg and owl cases are wrong themselves, there isn’t any argument at all. It’s just you asserting without evidence that “supposed scientific consensus often is wrong” so maybe this one case is an example. Maybe it is but neither Manning nor you give me any reason to think so.

  • Taters

    Hey man. Don’t f*ck with owls.;

  • blowingoffgodot

    Just because scientific consensus changes in light of new evidence does not mean that scientists are always wrong. The evidence in support of climate change is pretty convincing, it’s silly to continue to kill the planet on the faint hope that it’s wrong.

    • DCM7

      Nobody has said “scientist are always wrong.” What we have said is that there are a lot of false things being sold in the name of “science.” And such things are usually opposed by many scientists, regardless of what picture may be painted for the general public.
      “The evidence in support of climate change is pretty convincing”
      There are a lot of intelligent and informed people who would disagree with that. They have much more than some “faint hope that it’s wrong.”

  • Grace656

    Science can be just another stick for govt. to beat the people with in order to control them.

  • Bob Ellis

    Unlike the Left, Mr. Manning has a great record of accuracy. When you find proof that his statements are false, let me know.

    Meanwhile, I’m curious if you believe there will be some great cataclysm if the spotted owls were to die out. After all, scientists state that vast numbers of species have gone extinct in the past…and here we are, thriving.

  • Bob Ellis

    If you’re that concerned about it, I suggest you contact Mr. Manning about his source. His track record is very good, and the sum total of information available out there is not even close to all being included in Google.

    And as I alluded to earlier, if as scientists claim some 99% of species have already gone extinct, and we’re still doing just fine, somehow I don’t think the spotted owl (potentially) going extinct is going to cause the planet to explode or something.

    Leftists have a demonstrable track record of “making it up,” with anthropogenic global warming hysteria being one of the most blatant examples. We’ve been through a couple of deadlines now where coastal cities were supposed to be under water or some such blather by now…yet the reality isn’t even close. In fact, global warming (whatever it’s cause) has leveled off for the past 15 years or so, blowing a huge hole in the credibility of the hoaxers.

    And that’s without even getting into the fact that science shows this planet has experienced much greater cooling and warming cycles going back for thousands of years (long before SUVs, power plants and other evil capitalists ever came along) than seen in recent years.

    Leftists really need to get a grip (though I know embracing sanity would be anathema to the pursuit of the Leftist Marxist agenda-you NEED hysteria to scare people into embracing your nutty ideas). If you knew the creator of the universe, you might have a little more faith that everything is going to be alright and that stepping on a bug isn’t going to bring on an apocalypse.

    As the point of the article goes, what humanity THINKS it knows about “science” is pretty unsettled, because we see yesterday’s confident theories go flying out the door on a weekly if not daily basis.

    No need to sacrifice people’s freedom and prosperity on the altar of hysterical ideas that (even if they truly were well-intended) are at least as likely to be proven false tomorrow.

    • Yastreblyansky

      You’re not reading carefully, the report is from 2014 referring back to the 2006 finding and adding on a 10-15% decline in the eight years since.

      • Bob Ellis

        Sounds like a lot of (typical) guesswork to me. “approximately” followed by a one-quarter variation of “potential” territories with “general” declines (that it isn’t clear how well are actually documented) and “likely” estimates.

        And let’s not forget that every so often, we find living organisms that supposedly went extinct at some point in the past.

        Sorry, color me “not impressed” with the “science” here.

        This report strikes me as the all-too-typical assumption and guesswork that gets passed off as “science” these days.

        I’d be curious to know Mr. Manning’s source myself, but this report you cited doesn’t fill me with great confidence about the accuracy of its assertions (even seeing it in black and white).

        • Yastreblyansky

          Of course it’s guesswork. What part of “estimate” did you not understand?

          This report strikes me as the all-too-typical assumption and guesswork that gets passed off as “science” these days.

          Guesswork-hypothesis and test-is how all science proceeds and has done since Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth in the third century B.C.E. Did you think he walked around it with a pedometer?

          • Bob Ellis

            Perhaps that is your problem then, in believing in fantasies like anthropogenic global warming. You put too much faith in estimates and guesswork…and when those estimates and guesswork are driven by Marxist ideology, their distance from reality grows exponentially.

            A rational people don’t trample freedom and prosperity based on estimates and guesswork. If you’re going to confiscate someone’es freedom and prosperity, it had better be on the basis of 100% certainty in serious harm.