The scientist in this article didn't just "release his results", nor did the anti-fat scientists of the 90s just "release their results".

First, in both cases the science was actually bad science. Here there were tons of other scientists that said their estimates were overrated (and the original authors later admitted as much), and in the nutritionists case there were never any scientific studies that would lead to recommendations against consuming unsaturated fats (there was just an assumption that since fat is denser in calories, cutting back on fat would result in weight loss, which has now been thoroughly debunked).

My point is that if you make a "scientific" recommendation, of course companies will latch on to whatever part is in their economic benefit. That shouldn't be a surprise. So to come back later and say "I didn't think company X would do Y based on my research!" means you're either lying or an idiot.

If instead of going around shouting in tons of interviews about how planting trees can offset carbon emissions, which is what this guy did, he had gone around advocating for preservation of existing habitats and reduction of fossil fuel use (which is what he's doing now), this whole thing could have been avoided. This guy doesn't get a "oh, it's not my fault" pass just because he ignored the obvious consequences of his advocacy.

Some science gets done to gather metrics. Those metrics get oversimplified into broad public advice. Following this advice to the letter circumvents both the public messaging intent and the related science. "Do what we meant not what we said." I would put most of the blame on the science communicators / policy advisers. But it also doesn't help that there is a large mismatch between how definitive nutritional science is vs how hungry for science-based nutritional advice the public seems to be.

Scientists should stop trying to make policy off the back of their studies, which are too narrow to provide a full picture of something like food and environmental issues.