I regularly get messages about television programmes from followers with texts along the lines of: "Ralph, in this television programme it was about nutrition and there was really all nonsense. Why don't they ask you?"
Kicking against sacred cows
It is true that I studied at Wageningen University and have a scientific background. I could have become a mainstream authority just fine if I had worked within a university, scientific institute like TNO or an information body like the Nutrition Centre. Possibly, I could then have been promoted to Doctor Engineer or Professor.
However, I did not. I am books start writing and kicking against sacred cows in the field of nutrition and lifestyle. This does not mean that I started doing unscientific things, but that I dared to criticise a leading scientific paradigm prevailing within institutions and industry.
Falsification instead of verification
Actually, Karl Popper's principle should be paramount at universities and institutions, namely that instead of looking for evidence that confirms your theory (verification), you should instead look for evidence that refutes your theory (falsification). Unfortunately, because of all kinds of interests and interference, this is far from always the case. For example, you see Wageningen University becoming increasingly intertwined with the food industry And don't forget the interests of the pharmaceutical industry in the scientific community.
I have always noticed that within the world of science there is an awful lot of fear of attacking the leading paradigm. Of course, this does happen for form's sake, but then it is really about micro-adjustments. This is often window-dressing rather than really daring to challenge science. Indeed, advancing insight is terrifying for many scientists.
- First of all, there is ego, because imagine that what you have always claimed is false. That is not easy for everyone. And what does this mean for your academic career when you might be kicking against shins of colleagues or your boss?
- Besides, in principle, it could also affect companies and sponsors in some cases withdrawing their 'funding'. Imagine the claim of 'eating saturated fat 'is causally linked to cardiovascular disease' is off the table. This has an impact on so many layers, namely both personally and for institutions and multiple industries.
So it is much 'safer' to employ people who are not chasing through the scientific china shop like an elephant. Actually, scientists are sometimes in the same split as an influencer recommending a supplement. It just comes off very badly when someone is kicking your claims, ego, interests and business model to the curb.
Outsider (outcast)
This is why someone like me will always remain an outsider or better still 'outcast', because I am difficult to control, just like many book-writing colleagues. In fact, the highest achievement for many of us in mainstream media is to be allowed to say a few sentences as a nutrition guru somewhere, which are then undercut by a 'real authority' edited in after it instead of an honest live discussion.
Recently, I had a nice conversation with a colleague who was going to do a university nutrition refresher course in order to be taken more seriously. I explained to him that that's really not going to help. "No matter how scientific you substantiate things, it doesn't help. You will never become one of them, because you are a danger to their presuppositions and paradigm which therefore needs to be curbed above all else. Just focus on your own community that is happy with you and don't expect too much from the mainstream."
Hopefully I have clarified it a bit with this. It is also not at all my ambition to change this. It is really nice to be able to keep communicating to my own follower group that suits me and contribute a little to their health and happiness. Besides, being mainstream is nothing to me.
English 
Dutch 