If this surprises people, they're going to flip when they find that most research is privately funded by people with a vested interest. This is why public science funding is so important, it provides research with an alternate motive. Somewhere in the middle of all the ulterior research motives, public and private, you can find something closer to the truth.

Everything is corrupt.

Time for a new razor. To find why an action was taken, look for who would benefit the most first.

Keep in mind that USRTK is also pretty sketchy. https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-right-to-know-fave-mainstream-media-source-is-funded-by-anti-vaxxers

So basically, those few Doctors who have a medical degree in dietary stuff, who got silenced, were right. Also, this explains the Nutri Score, where those Nestle Bunny Droplings score A.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The guidelines are considered the “gold standard” for dietary advice in the US and around the world, and influence which foods are served in institutional settings such as schools, hospitals and military facilities.

US Right to Know has co-authored 15 peer-reviewed studies revealing how the food and pharmaceutical industries attempt to shape public opinion, scientific research and government policy.

Earlier this year, it detailed how industry-linked groups appear to have influenced the World Health Organization’s decision to downplay cancer risks posed by aspartame.

The revelation comes amid US public health crises related to diabetes, obesity and other problems that are in part caused by the kind of ultra-processed products and unhealthy foods produced by some of the companies that have relationships with panel members.

The report notes how the USDA and HHS earlier this year for the first time issued “disclosures” of conflicts of interest among its panel members for the 2025 dietary guidelines.

The disclosures were a response to pressure from public health advocates and the Republican senator Chuck Grassley, who Ruskin said sent a letter to the agencies urging them to be transparent about panel members’ potential conflicts of interest.

The original article contains 787 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!