There is an ongoing wave of backlash towards the Danish-Swedish dairy cooperative Arla who has said they are starting a trial of a feed additive, Bovaer®, at some of their suppliers' farms in the UK. NFU article linked.
Many people claim the additive is untested and that this is a 'human trial' of the product, also suggesting that it is an irritant to eyes and skin and bares warnings of this on the label.
Scientific opinion on Bovaer® from the EFSA
This question will resolve true if; more than one study, paper or meta-analysis in a peer reviewed journal finds that any of the following negative health effects on humans are correlated with the consumption of dairy products from cows that have consumed Bovaer®, and directly suggest that Bovaer® (or a collection of similar chemicals that expressly include Bovaer®) is the most likely cause:
Issues with fertility
Contribution to organ failure
Link to cancer or developmental defects over time
Liver or kidney damage, hormonal imbalances, or impaired metabolic function
Effects impairing immune or blood cell production, or hormonal imbalances
Muscle weakness, fatigue, or heart rhythm abnormalities
Mortality and Seizures
Respiratory distress
Elevated risk of any type of cancer or tumor
Effect on foetal development
1,000"More than 1 study" seems a rather low bar. By the same standard, vaccines, hand-washing, and possibly even water treatment would resolve YES. Is that what you intend?
@puffymist Can you provide any examples for these so I can see if they would fit the criteria? If they do I may change the criteria. Any bar for resolution has the potential to be controversial though
@puffymist FYI, I’ve sold my holding on this market and won’t be trading on it from this point on, I can see that there’s a reasonable concern over my judgement on it
@LukeShadwell I would suggest that a meta-analysis finding a significant effect on the proposed outcomes would be a higher bar than a single study, and that's maybe what you want.