>>Why do we assume that the Coffee Association is promoting bad science for their interests, rather than finding scientists who are working on things that relate to their business, and supporting those works?
This is the exact equivalent of the coal industry finding the minority of scientists who think climate change is not man-made and funding their studies. The problem with this is obvious, and it is not good science.
>>This is how the free market works; as long as the science is sound, who cares who is behind it?
Often times, those who are funding the science have an impact on whether that science is sound. It's called a conflict of interest because the source of the funding can corrupt the motivation of the scientist to practice good science.
> This is the exact equivalent of the coal industry finding the minority of scientists who think climate change is not man-made and funding their studies.
No it isn't. This isn't about coal or climate change. It's about whether or not it's ok for people to drink coffee.
If you think they've published bad science you should prove it. That's the awesome thing about science, it's refutable.
Not as easy as that: the coffee industry can easily spend $6 million to promote its interests, but there isn't an "anti-coffee" industry that can spend $6 million to refute those studies. This principle of "organizability" is one of the big drivers of political power -- those who can organize into an interest group win.
This is the exact equivalent of the coal industry finding the minority of scientists who think climate change is not man-made and funding their studies. The problem with this is obvious, and it is not good science.
>>This is how the free market works; as long as the science is sound, who cares who is behind it?
Often times, those who are funding the science have an impact on whether that science is sound. It's called a conflict of interest because the source of the funding can corrupt the motivation of the scientist to practice good science.