There's an order of magnitude difference between the marketing and lobbying budgets of the animal agriculture industry and the others you mentioned. There is no "big broccoli" funding dodgy nutrition studies.

There is however plenty of "Anti-meat/Meat Causes Cancer" dodgy nutrition studies pushed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Vegetarian/Vegan agenda by The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

indeed, an order of magnitude difference.

Can you post some of your sources please?

Carcinogenicity of Consumption of Red and Processed Meat report by WHO

Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets.

What makes them dodgy?

Cherry picking, Conflict of interest, makes them dodgy!

Find the facts that Big Lentil doesn't want you to know!

You jest, but in Canada at least, that's a thing. http://www.lentils.org/

I didn't realize until I saw this DW documentary that Canada supplies a lot of the world's lentils:

https://www.dw.com/en/lentils-food-for-the-future/av-4370243...

Luckily lentils are one of the healthiest things you can eat.

Says who?

I bet if we do a proper study we will find out the truth: that every kind of food eventually leads to death.

Of course, that's what the Fasting industry wants you to think...

Fasting doesn't make anyone money and is against desires of most people. So unlikely there's going to be any significant industry push even though it's one of the few non surgical options proven to reverse type two diabetes.

Poe's Law?

Unrelated:

I can't even tell what is real anymore. Lots of stupid people out there so using sarcasm marks is more important than ever now.

To be fair though, if one fasts long enough it is guaranteed to eliminate all known diseases...

Side effects are slightly unpleasant though.

Living eventually leads to death as well.

That was the joke...

Lot's of people suffer from legume/lentils allergy, it's anything but healthy for them.

What’s up with this internet argument style where people think that pointing out an obvious exception is a valid retort?

Are you seriously suggesting that they needed to provide a disclaimer about allergies to their general statement about lentils being healthy?

Can you tell me how you would modify the statement “exercise is healthy” to capture all exceptions as well?

> What’s up with this internet argument style where people think that pointing out an obvious exception is a valid retort?

Because it's not so obvious exception as you think it is, in fact it's the exact opposite, it's a very common type of allergy (Mediterranean, middle east, asia) and usually overlooked by many, that's why.

> Are you seriously suggesting that they needed to provide a disclaimer about allergies to their general statement about lentils being healthy?

Anti-nutrients (beside the allergies) in lentils/legumes is a real issue, so the "lentils being healthy" statement is highly debatable.

It goes without saying that eating something you’re allergic to doesn’t make sense. For most of us lentils are a cheap and very nutritious food.

Well, there is Monsanto working for selling roundup and GMO monocultures with questionable cherry picking of evidence.

Monsanto is now Bayer

Which (not who) will likely retire the name in a branding whitewash.

Sometimes my impression is that, after the fact that studies were compromised got somewhat widely known, the next strategy is now "muddy the waters":

Suddenly all studies are compromised so we can't possibly know anything anyway and might just go on to eat our burgers...

Alternatively, when I hear about food information that might affect me, I try to investigate the mentioned studies (at least read the abstract and the results), and also other studies about the issue, to see if there's any reasonable consensus about the results.