Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

The idea that no evidence and a lack of research are the same is not a good argment in favor of further research. As a researcher, I agree that simply because we don't have the imagination or knowledge to link substance A to effect B does not mean it isn't worth looking at. There is simply too much we do no know to say, "I am smart enought to have throught of any danger that substance A might cause." Similarly, somethings that have not been researched don't have to be. I am sure no scientist has explore the idea of the spaghetti monster being involved in bacterial evolution. Likewise, it is not likely that chocolate causes chickenpox. Just because some activist tries to link two things (ie autism and immunizations) does not make it real. Further, just because there are no studies done yet does not mean that the "medical establishment" refuses to explore the issue.

It would take hundreds of thousands of people to accurately determine if a given food additive causes an allergy. It gets even more difficult (read expensive) to do so in a complicated picture with multiple additives in a mixed genetic background. These are not simple questions. The best thing is to try to eat things that look like food and not like boxes of food. If it needs a label it probably isn't the healthiest.

bacon with bacon... duh

ribeye... preferably broiled and always medium rare