Well you can't really trust anything but as a mechanism anything that is able to grab people's attention has at least some nugget of truth behind it. What is less certain and variable is to be able to tease out that nugget of truth and what the propaganda spin is behind it, the latter is where the lies tend to be. Perhaps the best question to ask then is the legal Cui Bono which is normally how the courts start prosecuting white collar crime, who benefits usually explains what is going on. It's not the be all and end all of answers but but looking for conflicts of interest in any headline, story or say "piece of science" is a start. And with the alcohol thing I really don't see any conflicts of interest except against big liquor and government tax revenues! Perhaps the insurance industry might benefit as a whole but that is reaped from a benefit of the general public so it's most certainly not a conflict of interest.

This is absolutely true because the supplement industry has no mandatory quality control like the FDA which doesn't exactly guarantee safety either but you get a minimum of what the product was supposed to do, the risk/benefits and at a minimum a guarantee that what you're buying has the exact chemical compounds advertised and the milligram dosage posted. On the other hand food supplements by their very nature can be anything so it's impossible to know or guarantee what you're getting, even from a "reputable" maker because the truth is most of the supplements are made in a handful of places and just labeled by the individual supplement company without any regulation to back the claim or legal protection for the consumer. Scam is right.

Don’t get me started on insurance companies (eg Group Health), hospital conglomerates, drug companies and hospital CEO salaries ($538,000,000 Oak Street CEO)

Supplements and nutrition science are not the same thing. I would agree that the supplements industry is highly dubious.

As for humans “thriving” for many thousands of years without “science” most of them were dead and buried before they reached 50!

Perspective. If your chances of dying are 1 in 10 and doing something makes it 2 in 10, you've doubled your chances. If your chances are 1 in 100,000 and doing something makes it 2 in 100,000, your chances have again doubled but there is a BIG difference. Use of percentage increases that hide such differences/perspectives is fear mongering. In reality, a 20% increase in risk (scary stuff!) of something may in fact be pretty immaterial. Doesn't mean the risk hasn't increased but maybe the stress of worrying about it presents a greater risk that the risk one is worrying about? Those of us who live in CA have come to learn from our government and politicians that EVERYTHING is hazardous to our health. I'm sure if I moved to some other state I might live forever.

Yeah, lumping them together in a blanket condemnation is either disingenuous or ignorant.

It wasn't the actual food that killed them early.... It was hard dangerous life, injuries, sickness, war and inconsistent food supply which resulted in malnutrition and starvation is what killed them early. After thousands of years of experimenting with various food stuffs humans have had nutrition figured out.

Advances in nutrition during the past century are generally credited with adding roughly 10 years to overall life expectancy. So, no, humans did not already have "nutrition figured out."

Advances in medical science during the past century is what has added many extra years to overall life expectancy.... Nutrition science has just created confusion.

Both have contributed to increased life expectancy.

I think maybe you don't understand what nutrition science is.

Pre-agriculture, there is good evidence that people both lived into their 90s and that they had excellent bone health at that age. Yes, many did not live to see adulthood but that might have been deliberate to maintain tribe size to within available resources. (A completely pagan concept - limit human numbers instead of reproducing and nurturing those lives to the oblivion of the planet as we know it.)

Dude. The Scientific Method IS to question and validate. I like to say my job is to come up with an idea or an explanation for something and then try as hard as I can to prove myself wrong, and if I fail, I succeed.

Also, always be your own harshest critic, because if you don't, others will be happy to do that job for you.

SOME people. In some places. Others? Well, subsistence cultures often fall below the level of subsisting.

The only difference between supplement industry and nutrition industry is that nutrition is controlled by FDA, while supplement industry is not....As far a science goes. The science behind supplements is completely bogus, it's nothing but marketing to sell more supplements....The problem with nutrition science is that, it's very inconsistent and every few years they change their position and tell us something different.

Alternatively, the popular press finds an article that says in this small study where this is one factor, the data suggest that (for example) caffeine may contribute to hypertension, but it would really need a larger study to validate that.

Popular press then shouts, "COFFEE CAUSES HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE!!!!"

Later study finds that caffeine CAN cause SOME increase in BP in SOME people, but that for most others, especially regular coffee drinkers, there's little or no effect.

Popular press then shouts, "STUDY PROVES CAFFEINE DOESN'T INCREASE BP".

Laymen then say, "I don't believe Science, because it keeps changing its mind!", except that there's nothing contradictory between the first and second studies.

Clever people can take degrees in food & nutrition. It is a legit science. The supplement industry is a different animal. We actually seem to agree on that point.

Got any links to the evidence for this? Genuine interest.

Confusion as in it doesn't happen to fit your personal nutritional preferences?

Me personally I am not confused about how to eat. I have been eating a certain way my whole life and I don't care what nutrition science has to say about it. I have certain foods which i eat daily and don't care to change anything because it works for me....The confusion that I am talking about has to do with how inaccurate and inconsistent nutrition science is in deciding what is healthy and what is not...Every few years science will publish some study and say that certain food is bad, then 3 years later they backtrack on what they said and tell us that it's good, then 2 years later they backtrack again and tell something different...I follow what I call intuitive eating because I know what my body needs to function at optimal level but a lot of people out there just blindly follow what they read on some news media or internet article about what they should eat.

Dude? Seriously? You speak to people in person this way?

You appear to be confused between science and popular media/click bait

Yes. Yes, I do.

That works for me, dude.