You have a lot to learn about research design if you think a study that looks at mice for 7 days can be externally generalised to the eating habits of the human population over a period of years.
Amen to that.
OP (and others), if you want to cite a study as your 'proof', please read the study itself and not simply the reporting on the study.
I'm in the middle of a literature review. One piece of evidence I'm critiquing claims in the title that it investigates X and Y. The discussion and conclusion both talk about X and Y. The abstract talks about X and Y and is a bit vague on the study methods. I've found a media report on this study that reiterates its claims about X and Y.
After reading the full study, it's very obvious that only X was investigated. The data didn't look at Y. Y was part of the discussion, part of the conclusion, part of the abstract and part of the title but the claims were pure speculation based on the data for X, which incidentally already had a large body of evidence.
I could have read everything but the methods and results and come away thinking I was entirely justified making claims about Y. I'd have been spouting rubbish if I did.