nutrition

Just about every health guru on the planet, as well as many respected science organizations, has their advice regarding purported inflammatory and anti-inflammatory foods and their purported role in the prevention or development of a myriad of dis

We all know the basics of healthy living, eat right, get enough sleep, move around. But it can be hard to get enough sleep if your homeless, tough to eat right if you live in a “food desert,” and well, at least you can move around.

I must be psychic. (And before you ask, no, we aren't getting paid by the dairy industry.)

One day, coffee causes cancer; the next, it cures cancer. One day, wine is good for you; the next it kills you. Given its self-contradictory wishy-washiness, can nutrition science be trusted?

As a glass half full and “why limit your world view to a glass anyway” kind of person, I am always partial to common sense tips that allow us to enjoy holidays by keeping us safe while not preoccupying us with endless worry.

I recently testified to the USDA about food labels for products made using animal cell culture techniques. The testimony is below.

Some studies are so incredibly stupid, that one wonders how they managed to get published in any scientific journal, let alone a prestigious one. And yet, it has happened, once again1.

JAMA has a report today on the relationship between organic food consumption and subsequent cancers.

John Ioannidis is like the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse. When he comes riding in, scientists tremble in fear.

As every educated foodie knows, one of the world's best superfoods is quinoa. The only problem is that there's no such thing as a superfood, and there's nothing particularly unique about quinoa.