|
ShawnFettySecondPaper 10 - 07 Jul 2010 - Main.ShawnFetty
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | See comments in history. | >
> | See comments in history. Update 7/7: Tweaked ever so slightly | | | | | | For half a year my father lay on his back in a hospital bed following a heart attack and its complications. He had been big, strong man--able to lift cars, even--and for as long as I could remember, he had dwarfed me in every meaningful respect. Within six months, however, the muscle he had built up through so many years of hard labor had atrophied, and his body had turned to jelly. The weight of his chest compressed his lungs, so a machine breathed for him. My father lives yet, but I have written his eulogy. Oh how he loves to eat. | |
<
< | The harmful impacts of obesity upon both individual and public health are well understood. As part of an effort to improve nutritional habits and combat obesity, governments have implemented national dietary guidelines. These guidelines are mostly consistent across the globe. In the United States, the national guidelines serve as a starting point for both nutrition policy (for example, in the design of National School Lunch Program meals) and for diet advice from medical professionals, whether in clinical consultations or the preparation of hospital meals. Additionally, the guidelines are meant to steer individual consumers towards healthier food choices via food labeling. Thus, within American obesity discourse, the guidelines hold a highly privileged place. This is regrettable because the guidelines are seriously flawed. | >
> | The impact of obesity on both individual and public health is well understood. As part of an effort to improve nutritional habits and combat obesity, governments have implemented national dietary guidelines. In the United States, the national guidelines serve as a starting point for both nutrition policy (for example, in the design of National School Lunch Program meals) and for diet advice from medical professionals, whether in clinical consultations or the preparation of hospital meals. Additionally, the guidelines are meant to steer individual consumers towards healthier food choices via food labeling. Thus, within American obesity discourse, the guidelines hold a highly privileged place. This is regrettable because the guidelines are seriously flawed. | | |
-- Many of the guidelines rest on shaky theoretical grounds and should not be accepted uncritically | | | These are not revolutionary new findings. Studies almost sixty years ago reached similar conclusions. Even if this theory of cardiovascular disease, on which the guidelines remain significantly based, was at all persuasive when the guidelines were originally promulgated (in spite of evidence to the contrary), it is not persuasive today. | |
<
< | Because they are produced by an organ of the state, the guidelines are uncritically accepted as firm science when they are naught. My father, his doctors, and millions similarly situated rely on the national guidelines to make decisions about their health and the health of others. They are acting to their detriment. | >
> | Because they are produced by an organ of the state, the guidelines are uncritically accepted as firm science when they are not. My father, his doctors, and millions similarly situated rely on the national guidelines to make decisions about their health and the health of others. They are acting to their detriment. | | |
--Yet, focusing our efforts on revising the guidelines is a mistake. | | | The nature of our political system prevents the guidelines from ever fully reflecting the best nutrition science.
--Instead, our approach should be based on what we know works. | |
<
< | As is evident from the body of conflicting health studies, we are still fumbling in the dark when it comes to our own biology. We don’t adequately understand the relationship between what we eat and how it leads to disease. For this reason, we should be skeptical when government institutions carelessly pathologize food groups such as fats. | >
> | As is evident from the body of conflicting health studies, we are still fumbling in the dark when it comes to our own biology. We don’t adequately understand the relationship between what we eat and how it leads to disease. For this reason, we should be skeptical when government institutions carelessly pathologize food groups such as fats. While it is likely necessary for the government to have some institutionalized guidelines around which to organize national food policies, individuals would do well to recognize that the process by which sound science is distilled into national guidelines is highly imperfect. | | | | |
<
< | While it is likely necessary for the government to have some institutionalized guidelines around which to organize national food policies, individuals would do well to recognize that the process by which sound science is distilled into national guidelines is highly imperfect.
Moreover, given that food is central to human life and health, individual decisions about food are personal. While the government attempts to turn complex science into workable policy, it may be wise for individuals to stick to to those diets that have empirically proven themselves practical, sustainable, and effective over many generations--and for which there is renewed scientific support. This would help to mitigate the harms that will arise from the inevitable mistakes the government makes as it moves the nation toward a more workable food culture. | >
> | The government is trying to move the nation towards a healthier food culture, but the mistakes it makes along the way are not without costs. In the mean time, while the government attempts to turn complex science into workable policy, it may be wise for individuals to stick to those diets that have empirically proven themselves practical, sustainable, and effective over many generations--and for which there is renewed scientific support. | | |
|
|
|
ShawnFettySecondPaper 9 - 28 Apr 2010 - Main.ShawnFetty
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Comments: | >
> | See comments in history. | | | | |
<
< | Shawn, hopefully I've understood your argument as you intended it, as follows: (1) The national dietary guidelines are, at present, more harmful than helpful. (2) It would be infeasible to fix the guidelines due to the inevitable pressure from the food industry (3) Even if it were feasible to make the guidelines say what we wanted them to say, nutrition science is still at a stage in which institutionalizing the current theories will do more harm than good. Therefore, we should ditch the national dietary guidelines.
I think a critical reader would focus on two points:
(1) The current guidelines are from 2005, yet the cited Stanford study was from 2007. The 2010 guidelines are due this fall. A reasonable alternative position could be that we should wait until the 2010 guidelines come out in order to see what they recommend. Suppose that following the Stanford study, they improve the saturated fat guidelines. Would we still want to get rid of the dietary guidelines altogether? Or, suppose the saturated fat guidelines stay the same, but the rest of the guidelines improve dramatically? I think the paper could make a clearer distinction between problems with the current national dietary guidelines and problems with the process of creating national dietary guidelines.
If your argument is that the process by which the guidelines are created is so flawed that the guidelines should themselves be rejected, then I think a reader would like to see more evidence that the thirteen-member Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is so ignorant or so heavily influenced by the food industry that the guidelines are not reliable. Whether the guidelines are not fixable due to ignorance or lobbying, I don’t think the reader has enough information about the process by which the guidelines specifically are created to strongly conclude that they should be jettisoned outright.
(2) It is unclear whether you mean that we as individuals should be skeptical of the 2005 national dietary guidelines, or if you mean that the government should postpone institutionalizing dietary guidelines while nutrition science is still in its infancy. If it is the former, I’m entirely on board. If it’s the latter, I’m not sure it would be practical for the government to not have national guidelines based on the best current theories available.
I agree that the enormous complexity of the relationship between food and health means that the current official theories will always have a “flavor of the week” quality and will often look unjustified in retrospect given the latest empirical studies. I understand that many people will be hurt when they act upon theories turn out to be misleading or flat-out wrong. However, given that many institutions and individuals need some guidance in crafting their food policies, and many of these actors must coordinate their efforts with each other, perhaps the current system in which nutrition and policy experts attempt to distill a broad range of factors into general guidelines works better than individuals attempting to figure out all of the science on their own.
That is, assuming that the national dietary guidelines really are premised on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the relationship between dietary fat and disease, as a matter of policy, having the guidelines may still be better than not having them. You seemed to address this briefly in the conclusion, but I thought it was a serious enough objection to deserve more weight.
I tried to clarify the conclusion and tie it back to the introduction by indicating that the dietary guidelines are both necessary and necessarily flawed, but individuals could take steps to mitigate the harms caused by the guidelines. However, it is entirely possible that I just made the conclusion unclear.
Overall, I like this paper, and I find it persuasive, interesting, and well-organized. I think the anecdote about your dad shows that you’ve thought about and care about this issue. The Stanford study on the relative effectiveness of the Atkins diet is intriguing, and it supports your idea that the current institutionalized guidelines lead many people to a misguided view of nutrition, with widespread harmful effects. I think you did a great job with the 1000 words you are given, especially given the complexity of the issue you’re tackling.
I suppose I shouldn't have titled it "Jettisoning." I really don't believe it's worth the fight trying to get rid of them one way or another. Rather, I think there is very good reason to be skeptical of them--and I don't think they should hold such a privileged place in discourse. People are NOT skeptical of them and they form the food policy for meals children eat ages 5-18 180 days of the year.
Regarding the Advisory Committee, "According to federal regulations, the panel that writes the dietary guidelines must include nutrition experts who are leaders in pediatrics, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and public health. Selecting the panelists is no easy task, and is subject to intense lobbying from organizations such as the National Dairy Council, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Soft Drink Association, American Meat Institute, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and Wheat Foods Council. (Abboud L. Expect a food fight as U.S. sets to revise diet guidelines. Wall Street Journal: August 8, 2003, B1.)" In a way, it parallels discussions about the FDA: it's a panel of scientists and experts, yes, but it's still heavily influenced by politics/money. Here's an article showing a disconnect between current science the guidelines BEFORE 2005. Consider also the policy for trans fats in America. This is a molecule that has no redemptive features whatsoever, yet we allow less than .5gs in a serving to be classified as "trans fat free." I can't point to resources that show you that these expert panels are corrupt, but their policies necessarily reflect some compromising with people whose interests should not be at issue here.
Ultimately, here's how I see it (which may not be accurate at all): we start at a traditional diet relatively high in fat, the government tells us "woah fat is bad" because some research inconclusively shows as much, we do what the government says and replace the fat in our diet with carbs, and our health deteriorates. I'm not saying we should go unguided. Just the opposite, in fact. We had guidance for thousands of years regarding what we should eat. It's called culture. I think that form of guidance was doing a very good job and that we have done worse attempting to change it. Anecdotally, consider that the societies where people have changed the least from their traditional diet have the best health, regardless of the specific macro-nutrient profile of that diet: the Japanese eat relatively high carb, low protein, the French eat relatively high fat, etc. Of course, other factors at work such as lifestyle and so on play a role, so I don't rest my argument on that point (though the studies tracking people living modern lifestyles while dieting traditional do support that proposition).
So again, I would say that I don't think having some guidance is bad--I just don't think that guidance should be dressed up and treated as the gospel, especially when the process by which it is created is subject to incentives that lie outside the public health. There are other sources to look to besides the government when it comes to what to eat. Indeed, if you look at the dietary guidelines for other countries, only our's attempts to be SO comprehensive. The guidelines as they are are used to justify serving students pizza for both breakfast and lunch. The worst mother would tell you this is terrible for your health. Is that quality of guidance really better than nothing?
I just wanted to try and get some of my feelings out to see if they helped you get a read on what I think. I'm not sure at all this response was coherent, but I hope it helps you in the rewrite. Feel free to drop a line whenever."
| | |
| | | These are not revolutionary new findings. Studies almost sixty years ago reached similar conclusions. Even if this theory of cardiovascular disease, on which the guidelines remain significantly based, was at all persuasive when the guidelines were originally promulgated (in spite of evidence to the contrary), it is not persuasive today. | |
<
< | Because they are produced by an organ of the state, the guidelines are uncritically accepted as firm science when they are taught. My father, his doctors, and millions similarly situated rely on the national guidelines to make decisions about their health and the health of others. They are acting to their detriment. | >
> | Because they are produced by an organ of the state, the guidelines are uncritically accepted as firm science when they are naught. My father, his doctors, and millions similarly situated rely on the national guidelines to make decisions about their health and the health of others. They are acting to their detriment. | | |
--Yet, focusing our efforts on revising the guidelines is a mistake. |
|
|
ShawnFettySecondPaper 7 - 28 Apr 2010 - Main.ShawnFetty
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Comments: | | | Overall, I like this paper, and I find it persuasive, interesting, and well-organized. I think the anecdote about your dad shows that you’ve thought about and care about this issue. The Stanford study on the relative effectiveness of the Atkins diet is intriguing, and it supports your idea that the current institutionalized guidelines lead many people to a misguided view of nutrition, with widespread harmful effects. I think you did a great job with the 1000 words you are given, especially given the complexity of the issue you’re tackling. | |
>
> | I suppose I shouldn't have titled it "Jettisoning." I really don't believe it's worth the fight trying to get rid of them one way or another. Rather, I think there is very good reason to be skeptical of them--and I don't think they should hold such a privileged place in discourse. People are NOT skeptical of them and they form the food policy for meals children eat ages 5-18 180 days of the year.
Regarding the Advisory Committee, "According to federal regulations, the panel that writes the dietary guidelines must include nutrition experts who are leaders in pediatrics, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and public health. Selecting the panelists is no easy task, and is subject to intense lobbying from organizations such as the National Dairy Council, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Soft Drink Association, American Meat Institute, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and Wheat Foods Council. (Abboud L. Expect a food fight as U.S. sets to revise diet guidelines. Wall Street Journal: August 8, 2003, B1.)" In a way, it parallels discussions about the FDA: it's a panel of scientists and experts, yes, but it's still heavily influenced by politics/money. Here's an article showing a disconnect between current science the guidelines BEFORE 2005. Consider also the policy for trans fats in America. This is a molecule that has no redemptive features whatsoever, yet we allow less than .5gs in a serving to be classified as "trans fat free." I can't point to resources that show you that these expert panels are corrupt, but their policies necessarily reflect some compromising with people whose interests should not be at issue here.
Ultimately, here's how I see it (which may not be accurate at all): we start at a traditional diet relatively high in fat, the government tells us "woah fat is bad" because some research inconclusively shows as much, we do what the government says and replace the fat in our diet with carbs, and our health deteriorates. I'm not saying we should go unguided. Just the opposite, in fact. We had guidance for thousands of years regarding what we should eat. It's called culture. I think that form of guidance was doing a very good job and that we have done worse attempting to change it. Anecdotally, consider that the societies where people have changed the least from their traditional diet have the best health, regardless of the specific macro-nutrient profile of that diet: the Japanese eat relatively high carb, low protein, the French eat relatively high fat, etc. Of course, other factors at work such as lifestyle and so on play a role, so I don't rest my argument on that point (though the studies tracking people living modern lifestyles while dieting traditional do support that proposition).
So again, I would say that I don't think having some guidance is bad--I just don't think that guidance should be dressed up and treated as the gospel, especially when the process by which it is created is subject to incentives that lie outside the public health. There are other sources to look to besides the government when it comes to what to eat. Indeed, if you look at the dietary guidelines for other countries, only our's attempts to be SO comprehensive. The guidelines as they are are used to justify serving students pizza for both breakfast and lunch. The worst mother would tell you this is terrible for your health. Is that quality of guidance really better than nothing?
I just wanted to try and get some of my feelings out to see if they helped you get a read on what I think. I'm not sure at all this response was coherent, but I hope it helps you in the rewrite. Feel free to drop a line whenever."
| | |
Edited paper: |
|
|
ShawnFettySecondPaper 6 - 27 Apr 2010 - Main.AjKhandaker
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Comments: | |
<
< | Shawn, hopefully I’ve understood your argument as you intended, as follows: (1) The national dietary guidelines are, at present, more harmful than helpful. (2) It would be infeasible to fix the guidelines due to the inevitable pressure from the food industry (3) Even if it were feasible to make the guidelines say what we wanted them to say, nutrition science is still at a stage in which institutionalizing the current theories will do more harm than good. Therefore, we should ditch the national dietary guidelines. | >
> | Shawn, hopefully I've understood your argument as you intended it, as follows: (1) The national dietary guidelines are, at present, more harmful than helpful. (2) It would be infeasible to fix the guidelines due to the inevitable pressure from the food industry (3) Even if it were feasible to make the guidelines say what we wanted them to say, nutrition science is still at a stage in which institutionalizing the current theories will do more harm than good. Therefore, we should ditch the national dietary guidelines. | | | I think a critical reader would focus on two points: | | | I tried to clarify the conclusion and tie it back to the introduction by indicating that the dietary guidelines are both necessary and necessarily flawed, but individuals could take steps to mitigate the harms caused by the guidelines. However, it is entirely possible that I just made the conclusion unclear. | |
<
< | Overall, I like this paper, and I find it persuasive, interesting, and well-organized. I think the anecdote about your dad shows that you’ve thought about and care about this issue. The Stanford study on the relative effectiveness of the Atkins diet supports the notion that the institutionalized guidelines lead many people to a misguided view of nutrition, with widespread harmful effects. I think you did a great job with the 1000 words you are given, especially given the complexity of the issue you’re tackling. | >
> | Overall, I like this paper, and I find it persuasive, interesting, and well-organized. I think the anecdote about your dad shows that you’ve thought about and care about this issue. The Stanford study on the relative effectiveness of the Atkins diet is intriguing, and it supports your idea that the current institutionalized guidelines lead many people to a misguided view of nutrition, with widespread harmful effects. I think you did a great job with the 1000 words you are given, especially given the complexity of the issue you’re tackling. | | |
|
|
|
ShawnFettySecondPaper 5 - 27 Apr 2010 - Main.AjKhandaker
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
>
> | Comments:
Shawn, hopefully I’ve understood your argument as you intended, as follows: (1) The national dietary guidelines are, at present, more harmful than helpful. (2) It would be infeasible to fix the guidelines due to the inevitable pressure from the food industry (3) Even if it were feasible to make the guidelines say what we wanted them to say, nutrition science is still at a stage in which institutionalizing the current theories will do more harm than good. Therefore, we should ditch the national dietary guidelines.
I think a critical reader would focus on two points:
(1) The current guidelines are from 2005, yet the cited Stanford study was from 2007. The 2010 guidelines are due this fall. A reasonable alternative position could be that we should wait until the 2010 guidelines come out in order to see what they recommend. Suppose that following the Stanford study, they improve the saturated fat guidelines. Would we still want to get rid of the dietary guidelines altogether? Or, suppose the saturated fat guidelines stay the same, but the rest of the guidelines improve dramatically? I think the paper could make a clearer distinction between problems with the current national dietary guidelines and problems with the process of creating national dietary guidelines.
If your argument is that the process by which the guidelines are created is so flawed that the guidelines should themselves be rejected, then I think a reader would like to see more evidence that the thirteen-member Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is so ignorant or so heavily influenced by the food industry that the guidelines are not reliable. Whether the guidelines are not fixable due to ignorance or lobbying, I don’t think the reader has enough information about the process by which the guidelines specifically are created to strongly conclude that they should be jettisoned outright.
(2) It is unclear whether you mean that we as individuals should be skeptical of the 2005 national dietary guidelines, or if you mean that the government should postpone institutionalizing dietary guidelines while nutrition science is still in its infancy. If it is the former, I’m entirely on board. If it’s the latter, I’m not sure it would be practical for the government to not have national guidelines based on the best current theories available.
I agree that the enormous complexity of the relationship between food and health means that the current official theories will always have a “flavor of the week” quality and will often look unjustified in retrospect given the latest empirical studies. I understand that many people will be hurt when they act upon theories turn out to be misleading or flat-out wrong. However, given that many institutions and individuals need some guidance in crafting their food policies, and many of these actors must coordinate their efforts with each other, perhaps the current system in which nutrition and policy experts attempt to distill a broad range of factors into general guidelines works better than individuals attempting to figure out all of the science on their own.
That is, assuming that the national dietary guidelines really are premised on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the relationship between dietary fat and disease, as a matter of policy, having the guidelines may still be better than not having them. You seemed to address this briefly in the conclusion, but I thought it was a serious enough objection to deserve more weight.
I tried to clarify the conclusion and tie it back to the introduction by indicating that the dietary guidelines are both necessary and necessarily flawed, but individuals could take steps to mitigate the harms caused by the guidelines. However, it is entirely possible that I just made the conclusion unclear.
Overall, I like this paper, and I find it persuasive, interesting, and well-organized. I think the anecdote about your dad shows that you’ve thought about and care about this issue. The Stanford study on the relative effectiveness of the Atkins diet supports the notion that the institutionalized guidelines lead many people to a misguided view of nutrition, with widespread harmful effects. I think you did a great job with the 1000 words you are given, especially given the complexity of the issue you’re tackling.
Edited paper: | | | | | | --Introduction | |
<
< | Half a year my father lay on his back in a hospital bed following a heart attack and its complications. He had been big, strong man--able to lift cars, even--and for as long as I can remember, he had dwarfed me in every meaningful respect. By the end, the muscle built up after so many years of hard labor atrophied, and his body turned to jelly. The weight of his chest compressed his lungs, so a machine breathed for him. My father lives yet, but I have written his eulogy. Oh how he loves to eat. | >
> | For half a year my father lay on his back in a hospital bed following a heart attack and its complications. He had been big, strong man--able to lift cars, even--and for as long as I could remember, he had dwarfed me in every meaningful respect. Within six months, however, the muscle he had built up through so many years of hard labor had atrophied, and his body had turned to jelly. The weight of his chest compressed his lungs, so a machine breathed for him. My father lives yet, but I have written his eulogy. Oh how he loves to eat. | | | | |
<
< | The impact of obesity on both individual and public health is well understood. Governments have reacted by adopting dietary guidelines, and these guidelines are mostly consistent across the globe. In the United States, the national guidelines serve as a starting point for both nutrition policy (for example, in the design of National School Lunch Program meals) and for diet advice from medical professionals, whether in clinical consultations or the preparation of hospital meals. Additionally, the guidelines are meant to steer individual consumers towards healthier food choices via food labeling. Thus, within American obesity discourse, the guidelines hold a highly privileged place. This is regrettable because the guidelines are seriously flawed. | >
> | The harmful impacts of obesity upon both individual and public health are well understood. As part of an effort to improve nutritional habits and combat obesity, governments have implemented national dietary guidelines. These guidelines are mostly consistent across the globe. In the United States, the national guidelines serve as a starting point for both nutrition policy (for example, in the design of National School Lunch Program meals) and for diet advice from medical professionals, whether in clinical consultations or the preparation of hospital meals. Additionally, the guidelines are meant to steer individual consumers towards healthier food choices via food labeling. Thus, within American obesity discourse, the guidelines hold a highly privileged place. This is regrettable because the guidelines are seriously flawed. | | | | |
<
< | --The guidelines rest on shaky theoretical grounds and should not be considered a credible source of health advice. | >
> | -- Many of the guidelines rest on shaky theoretical grounds and should not be accepted uncritically | | | | |
<
< | The guidelines are premised on several theories of health, many of which are taken axiomatically. For example, consider the theory of cardiovascular disease we all grew up with: saturated fat and cholesterol from our diet clogs our arteries, eventually cutting off the heart’s own blood supply or else resulting in stroke. Consequently, the guidelines today recommend that saturated fat amount to less than 10% of overall calories, that carbohydrates account for 50-60% of overall calories, and that cholesterol be restricted to less than 300mg/day. | >
> | The guidelines are premised on several theories of health, many of which are taken axiomatically. For example, consider the theory of cardiovascular disease with which we all grew up: saturated fat and cholesterol from our diet clogs our arteries, eventually cutting off the heart’s own blood supply or else resulting in stroke. Consequently, the guidelines today recommend that saturated fat amount to less than 10% of overall calories, that carbohydrates account for 50-60% of overall calories, and that cholesterol be restricted to less than 300mg/day. | | | | |
<
< | Recent studies suggest that this advice is either meritless or harmful. For example, the daily consumption of eggs is unlikely to increase risk of coronary heart disease in spite of high cholesterol). Additionally, there is no evidence that saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease while replacing dietary fat with carbohydrates IS associated with an increased risk of both cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Further, the high-carb, low-fat diet advocated by the guidelines performs worse both in terms of weight loss AND risk indicators of cardiovascular disease compared to the much maligned high-fat/protein, low-carb Atkins Diet; video explanation here. | >
> | However, recent studies suggest that this advice is either meritless or harmful. For example, the daily consumption of eggs is unlikely to increase risk of coronary heart disease in spite of high cholesterol). Additionally, there is no evidence that saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease while replacing dietary fat with carbohydrates IS associated with an increased risk of both cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Further, the high-carb, low-fat diet advocated by the guidelines performs worse both in terms of weight loss AND risk indicators of cardiovascular disease compared to the much maligned high-fat/protein, low-carb Atkins Diet; video explanation here. | | | These are not revolutionary new findings. Studies almost sixty years ago reached similar conclusions. Even if this theory of cardiovascular disease, on which the guidelines remain significantly based, was at all persuasive when the guidelines were originally promulgated (in spite of evidence to the contrary), it is not persuasive today. | |
<
< | Because they are produced by an organ of the state, the guidelines are uncritically accepted as firm science when they are naught. My father, his doctors, and millions similarly situated rely on the national guidelines to make decisions about their health and the health of others. They are acting to their detriment. | >
> | Because they are produced by an organ of the state, the guidelines are uncritically accepted as firm science when they are taught. My father, his doctors, and millions similarly situated rely on the national guidelines to make decisions about their health and the health of others. They are acting to their detriment. | | |
--Yet, focusing our efforts on revising the guidelines is a mistake. | |
<
< | The nature of our political system prevents the guidelines from ever developing into a locus of positive change. | | | So long as nutrition science remains in its infancy, vigorous debate will surround any attempt to replace the current guidelines with a new standard. Because of the large financial interests at stake, the food industry will undoubtedly participate in that debate. See, here (charting the food industry’s efforts during last update to the national guidelines in 2005), here (discussing the food industry’s response to a WHO report recommending decreased sugar consumption), and here (discussing the food industry’s success in defeating proposed regulations). The food industry has unquestionably been successful in asserting its interests in the past, and given the record so far, chances are good that the food lobby will triumph again.
There’s no way to eliminate industry lobbying as a barrier. First, the idea has no political currency. Second, the current Supreme Court would likely uphold lobbying as constitutionally protected free speech. Anyway, it’s not worth the fight until we know what the guidelines should say. Consider the difficulty we have instituting environmental regulations. At least in that case, there is broad scientific support and consensus behind the regulations in question. There is no such consensus regarding what we should and should not eat. | |
>
> | The nature of our political system prevents the guidelines from ever fully reflecting the best nutrition science. | | | --Instead, our approach should be based on what we know works. | |
<
< | As is evident from the body of conflicting health studies, we are still fumbling in the dark when it comes to our own biology. We don’t adequately understand the relationship between what we eat and how it leads to disease. Institutionalizing a singular theory of optimal human nutrition on the basis of that inadequate understanding is poor public policy. In doing so, we’ve allowed moneyed interests to usurp nutrition discourse, made no significant inroads towards curbing obesity, and convinced two generations that fat, a macronutrient essential to good health, is the devil. The net result has been a negative impact on the eating habits and health of Americans. | >
> | As is evident from the body of conflicting health studies, we are still fumbling in the dark when it comes to our own biology. We don’t adequately understand the relationship between what we eat and how it leads to disease. For this reason, we should be skeptical when government institutions carelessly pathologize food groups such as fats. | | | | |
<
< | The need to eat grounds us in mortality, gives us pleasure, and is among the most common reasons people have for gathering. Food is thus at the center of our interactions with each other and the world. For that reason, we should avoid pathologizing it carelessly. I do not mean that we should abandon all attempts to regulate nutrition, but perhaps we should stop officially promoting newly fashioned diets until we know more. In the mean time, the best solution might be to go back to those diets that have empirically proven themselves practical, sustainable, and effective over many generations--and for which there is renewed scientific support. This would go a long way towards re-establishing a workable food culture. | >
> | While it is likely necessary for the government to have some institutionalized guidelines around which to organize national food policies, individuals would do well to recognize that the process by which sound science is distilled into national guidelines is highly imperfect. | | | | |
>
> | Moreover, given that food is central to human life and health, individual decisions about food are personal. While the government attempts to turn complex science into workable policy, it may be wise for individuals to stick to to those diets that have empirically proven themselves practical, sustainable, and effective over many generations--and for which there is renewed scientific support. This would help to mitigate the harms that will arise from the inevitable mistakes the government makes as it moves the nation toward a more workable food culture. | | |
| |
<
< | You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line: | | | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, ShawnFetty
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
|
ShawnFettySecondPaper 4 - 20 Apr 2010 - Main.ShawnFetty
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | --Introduction | |
<
< | The impact of obesity on both individual and public health is well understood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_associated_morbidity, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States#Medical_costs , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTIY66IPjdY . Governments have reacted by adopting dietary guidelines, and these guidelines are mostly consistent across the globe. http://www.tropicanafruitnutrition.com/eng/FruitWellness/DietaryGuidelines.aspx . In the United States, the national guidelines serve as a starting point for both nutrition policy (for example, in the design of National School Lunch Program meals) and for diet advice from medical professionals, whether in clinical consultations or the preparation of hospital meals. Additionally, the guidelines are meant to steer individual consumers towards healthier food choices via food labeling. Thus, within American obesity discourse, the guidelines hold a highly privileged place. This is regrettable because the guidelines are seriously flawed. | >
> | Half a year my father lay on his back in a hospital bed following a heart attack and its complications. He had been big, strong man--able to lift cars, even--and for as long as I can remember, he had dwarfed me in every meaningful respect. By the end, the muscle built up after so many years of hard labor atrophied, and his body turned to jelly. The weight of his chest compressed his lungs, so a machine breathed for him. My father lives yet, but I have written his eulogy. Oh how he loves to eat.
The impact of obesity on both individual and public health is well understood. Governments have reacted by adopting dietary guidelines, and these guidelines are mostly consistent across the globe. In the United States, the national guidelines serve as a starting point for both nutrition policy (for example, in the design of National School Lunch Program meals) and for diet advice from medical professionals, whether in clinical consultations or the preparation of hospital meals. Additionally, the guidelines are meant to steer individual consumers towards healthier food choices via food labeling. Thus, within American obesity discourse, the guidelines hold a highly privileged place. This is regrettable because the guidelines are seriously flawed. | | |
--The guidelines rest on shaky theoretical grounds and should not be considered a credible source of health advice. | |
<
< | The guidelines are premised on several theories of health, many of which are taken axiomatically. For example, consider the theory of cardiovascular disease we all grew up with: saturated fat and cholesterol from our diet clogs our arteries, eventually cutting off the heart’s own blood supply or else resulting in stroke. Consequently, the guidelines today recommend that saturated fat amount to less than 10% of overall calories, that carbohydrates account for 50-60% of overall calories, and that cholesterol be restricted to less than 300mg/day. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2005/2005DGPolicyDocument.pdf . | >
> | The guidelines are premised on several theories of health, many of which are taken axiomatically. For example, consider the theory of cardiovascular disease we all grew up with: saturated fat and cholesterol from our diet clogs our arteries, eventually cutting off the heart’s own blood supply or else resulting in stroke. Consequently, the guidelines today recommend that saturated fat amount to less than 10% of overall calories, that carbohydrates account for 50-60% of overall calories, and that cholesterol be restricted to less than 300mg/day. | | | | |
<
< | Recent studies suggest that this advice is either meritless or harmful. See, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/15/1387 (daily consumption of eggs is unlikely to increase risk of coronary heart disease in spite of high cholesterol), http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/3/535 (no evidence that saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease), and http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/3/502 (replacing dietary fat with carbohydrates IS associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes). See also, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711 (the high-carb, low-fat diet advocated by the guidelines performs worse both in terms of weight loss AND risk indicators of cardiovascular disease compared to the much maligned high-fat/protein, low-carb Atkins Diet; video explanation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo). | >
> | Recent studies suggest that this advice is either meritless or harmful. For example, the daily consumption of eggs is unlikely to increase risk of coronary heart disease in spite of high cholesterol). Additionally, there is no evidence that saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease while replacing dietary fat with carbohydrates IS associated with an increased risk of both cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Further, the high-carb, low-fat diet advocated by the guidelines performs worse both in terms of weight loss AND risk indicators of cardiovascular disease compared to the much maligned high-fat/protein, low-carb Atkins Diet; video explanation here. | | | | |
<
< | These are not revolutionary new findings. Studies almost sixty years ago reached similar conclusions. See, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/17/5/281.pdf and http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/1/39 . Even if this theory of cardiovascular disease, on which the guidelines remain significantly based, was at all persuasive when the guidelines were originally promulgated (in spite of evidence to the contrary), it is not persuasive today. | >
> | These are not revolutionary new findings. Studies almost sixty years ago reached similar conclusions. Even if this theory of cardiovascular disease, on which the guidelines remain significantly based, was at all persuasive when the guidelines were originally promulgated (in spite of evidence to the contrary), it is not persuasive today. | | | Because they are produced by an organ of the state, the guidelines are uncritically accepted as firm science when they are naught. My father, his doctors, and millions similarly situated rely on the national guidelines to make decisions about their health and the health of others. They are acting to their detriment.
--Yet, focusing our efforts on revising the guidelines is a mistake.
The nature of our political system prevents the guidelines from ever developing into a locus of positive change. | |
<
< | So long as nutrition science remains in its infancy, vigorous debate will surround any attempt to replace the current guidelines with a new standard. Because of the large financial interests at stake, the food industry will undoubtedly participate in that debate. See, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109104875075676781.html?mod=health_hs_policy_legislation (charting the food industry’s efforts during last update to the national guidelines in 2005), http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0421-06.htm (discussing the food industry’s response to a WHO report recommending decreased sugar consumption) , and http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2005/1095.html (discussing the food industry’s success in defeating proposed regulations). The food industry has unquestionably been successful in asserting its interests in the past, and given the record so far, chances are good that the food lobby will triumph again. | >
> | So long as nutrition science remains in its infancy, vigorous debate will surround any attempt to replace the current guidelines with a new standard. Because of the large financial interests at stake, the food industry will undoubtedly participate in that debate. See, here (charting the food industry’s efforts during last update to the national guidelines in 2005), here (discussing the food industry’s response to a WHO report recommending decreased sugar consumption), and here (discussing the food industry’s success in defeating proposed regulations). The food industry has unquestionably been successful in asserting its interests in the past, and given the record so far, chances are good that the food lobby will triumph again. | | | | |
<
< | There’s no way to eliminate industry lobbying as a barrier. First, the idea has no political currency. Second, the current Supreme Court would likely uphold lobbying as constitutionally protected free speech. http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/rg_20100121_2456.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission . Anyway, it’s not worth the fight until we know what the guidelines should say. Consider the difficulty we have instituting environmental regulations. At least in that case, there is broad scientific support and consensus behind the regulations in question. There is no such consensus regarding what we should and should not eat. | >
> | There’s no way to eliminate industry lobbying as a barrier. First, the idea has no political currency. Second, the current Supreme Court would likely uphold lobbying as constitutionally protected free speech. Anyway, it’s not worth the fight until we know what the guidelines should say. Consider the difficulty we have instituting environmental regulations. At least in that case, there is broad scientific support and consensus behind the regulations in question. There is no such consensus regarding what we should and should not eat. | | | | |
<
< | Instead, our approach should be based on what we know works. | >
> | --Instead, our approach should be based on what we know works. | | | As is evident from the body of conflicting health studies, we are still fumbling in the dark when it comes to our own biology. We don’t adequately understand the relationship between what we eat and how it leads to disease. Institutionalizing a singular theory of optimal human nutrition on the basis of that inadequate understanding is poor public policy. In doing so, we’ve allowed moneyed interests to usurp nutrition discourse, made no significant inroads towards curbing obesity, and convinced two generations that fat, a macronutrient essential to good health, is the devil. The net result has been a negative impact on the eating habits and health of Americans. | |
<
< | The need to eat grounds us in mortality, gives us pleasure, and is among the most common reasons people have for gathering. Food is thus at the center of our interactions with each other and the world. For that reason, we should avoid pathologizing it carelessly. I do not mean that we should abandon all attempts to regulate nutrition, but perhaps we should stop officially promoting newly fashioned diets until we know more. In the mean time, the best solution might be to go back to those diets that have empirically proven themselves practical, sustainable, and effective over many generations--and for which there is renewed scientific support. See, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/1647S , http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/12/3355 , http://www.globaleat.org/~imada/shiryou_okiba/EastAsia_papers/The%20unique%20aspects%20of%20the%20nutrition%20transition%20in%20South%20Korea.pdf . This would go a long way towards re-establishing a workable food culture. | >
> | The need to eat grounds us in mortality, gives us pleasure, and is among the most common reasons people have for gathering. Food is thus at the center of our interactions with each other and the world. For that reason, we should avoid pathologizing it carelessly. I do not mean that we should abandon all attempts to regulate nutrition, but perhaps we should stop officially promoting newly fashioned diets until we know more. In the mean time, the best solution might be to go back to those diets that have empirically proven themselves practical, sustainable, and effective over many generations--and for which there is renewed scientific support. This would go a long way towards re-establishing a workable food culture. | | |
|
|
|
ShawnFettySecondPaper 3 - 19 Apr 2010 - Main.ShawnFetty
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | -- By ShawnFetty - 12 Apr 2010 | |
<
< | Introduction | >
> | --Introduction | | | The impact of obesity on both individual and public health is well understood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_associated_morbidity, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States#Medical_costs , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTIY66IPjdY . Governments have reacted by adopting dietary guidelines, and these guidelines are mostly consistent across the globe. http://www.tropicanafruitnutrition.com/eng/FruitWellness/DietaryGuidelines.aspx . In the United States, the national guidelines serve as a starting point for both nutrition policy (for example, in the design of National School Lunch Program meals) and for diet advice from medical professionals, whether in clinical consultations or the preparation of hospital meals. Additionally, the guidelines are meant to steer individual consumers towards healthier food choices via food labeling. Thus, within American obesity discourse, the guidelines hold a highly privileged place. This is regrettable because the guidelines are seriously flawed. | |
<
< | The guidelines rest on shaky theoretical grounds and should not be considered a credible source of health advice. | >
> | --The guidelines rest on shaky theoretical grounds and should not be considered a credible source of health advice. | | | The guidelines are premised on several theories of health, many of which are taken axiomatically. For example, consider the theory of cardiovascular disease we all grew up with: saturated fat and cholesterol from our diet clogs our arteries, eventually cutting off the heart’s own blood supply or else resulting in stroke. Consequently, the guidelines today recommend that saturated fat amount to less than 10% of overall calories, that carbohydrates account for 50-60% of overall calories, and that cholesterol be restricted to less than 300mg/day. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2005/2005DGPolicyDocument.pdf . | | | Because they are produced by an organ of the state, the guidelines are uncritically accepted as firm science when they are naught. My father, his doctors, and millions similarly situated rely on the national guidelines to make decisions about their health and the health of others. They are acting to their detriment. | |
<
< | Yet, focusing our efforts on revising the guidelines is a mistake. | >
> | --Yet, focusing our efforts on revising the guidelines is a mistake. | | | The nature of our political system prevents the guidelines from ever developing into a locus of positive change.
So long as nutrition science remains in its infancy, vigorous debate will surround any attempt to replace the current guidelines with a new standard. Because of the large financial interests at stake, the food industry will undoubtedly participate in that debate. See, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109104875075676781.html?mod=health_hs_policy_legislation (charting the food industry’s efforts during last update to the national guidelines in 2005), http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0421-06.htm (discussing the food industry’s response to a WHO report recommending decreased sugar consumption) , and http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2005/1095.html (discussing the food industry’s success in defeating proposed regulations). The food industry has unquestionably been successful in asserting its interests in the past, and given the record so far, chances are good that the food lobby will triumph again.
There’s no way to eliminate industry lobbying as a barrier. First, the idea has no political currency. Second, the current Supreme Court would likely uphold lobbying as constitutionally protected free speech. http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/rg_20100121_2456.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission . Anyway, it’s not worth the fight until we know what the guidelines should say. Consider the difficulty we have instituting environmental regulations. At least in that case, there is broad scientific support and consensus behind the regulations in question. There is no such consensus regarding what we should and should not eat. | |
<
< | Instead, our approach should be broader. | >
> | Instead, our approach should be based on what we know works. | | | As is evident from the body of conflicting health studies, we are still fumbling in the dark when it comes to our own biology. We don’t adequately understand the relationship between what we eat and how it leads to disease. Institutionalizing a singular theory of optimal human nutrition on the basis of that inadequate understanding is poor public policy. In doing so, we’ve allowed moneyed interests to usurp nutrition discourse, made no significant inroads towards curbing obesity, and convinced two generations that fat, a macronutrient essential to good health, is the devil. The net result has been a negative impact on the eating habits and health of Americans. | |
<
< | The need to eat grounds us in mortality, gives us pleasure, and is among the most common reasons people have for gathering. Food is thus at the center of our interactions with each other and the world. For that reason, we should avoid pathologizing it carelessly. I do not mean that we should abandon all attempts to regulate nutrition, but perhaps we should stop officially promoting newly fashioned diets until we know more. In the mean time, the best solution might be to go back to those diets that have empirically proven themselves over many generations. See, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/1647S , http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/12/3355 , http://www.globaleat.org/~imada/shiryou_okiba/EastAsia_papers/The%20unique%20aspects%20of%20the%20nutrition%20transition%20in%20South%20Korea.pdf . This would go a long way towards re-establishing a sustainable and workable food culture. | >
> | The need to eat grounds us in mortality, gives us pleasure, and is among the most common reasons people have for gathering. Food is thus at the center of our interactions with each other and the world. For that reason, we should avoid pathologizing it carelessly. I do not mean that we should abandon all attempts to regulate nutrition, but perhaps we should stop officially promoting newly fashioned diets until we know more. In the mean time, the best solution might be to go back to those diets that have empirically proven themselves practical, sustainable, and effective over many generations--and for which there is renewed scientific support. See, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/1647S , http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/12/3355 , http://www.globaleat.org/~imada/shiryou_okiba/EastAsia_papers/The%20unique%20aspects%20of%20the%20nutrition%20transition%20in%20South%20Korea.pdf . This would go a long way towards re-establishing a workable food culture. | | |
|
|
|
ShawnFettySecondPaper 2 - 19 Apr 2010 - Main.ShawnFetty
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | | |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | | |
<
< | Paper Title | | | | |
<
< | -- By ShawnFetty - 12 Apr 2010 | >
> | Jettisoning the National Dietary Guidelines | | | | |
>
> | -- By ShawnFetty - 12 Apr 2010 | | | | |
<
< | Section I | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | Introduction | | | | |
>
> | The impact of obesity on both individual and public health is well understood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_associated_morbidity, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States#Medical_costs , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTIY66IPjdY . Governments have reacted by adopting dietary guidelines, and these guidelines are mostly consistent across the globe. http://www.tropicanafruitnutrition.com/eng/FruitWellness/DietaryGuidelines.aspx . In the United States, the national guidelines serve as a starting point for both nutrition policy (for example, in the design of National School Lunch Program meals) and for diet advice from medical professionals, whether in clinical consultations or the preparation of hospital meals. Additionally, the guidelines are meant to steer individual consumers towards healthier food choices via food labeling. Thus, within American obesity discourse, the guidelines hold a highly privileged place. This is regrettable because the guidelines are seriously flawed. | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> | The guidelines rest on shaky theoretical grounds and should not be considered a credible source of health advice. | | | | |
>
> | The guidelines are premised on several theories of health, many of which are taken axiomatically. For example, consider the theory of cardiovascular disease we all grew up with: saturated fat and cholesterol from our diet clogs our arteries, eventually cutting off the heart’s own blood supply or else resulting in stroke. Consequently, the guidelines today recommend that saturated fat amount to less than 10% of overall calories, that carbohydrates account for 50-60% of overall calories, and that cholesterol be restricted to less than 300mg/day. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2005/2005DGPolicyDocument.pdf . | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | Recent studies suggest that this advice is either meritless or harmful. See, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/281/15/1387 (daily consumption of eggs is unlikely to increase risk of coronary heart disease in spite of high cholesterol), http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/3/535 (no evidence that saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease), and http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/3/502 (replacing dietary fat with carbohydrates IS associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes). See also, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711 (the high-carb, low-fat diet advocated by the guidelines performs worse both in terms of weight loss AND risk indicators of cardiovascular disease compared to the much maligned high-fat/protein, low-carb Atkins Diet; video explanation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo). | | | | |
>
> | These are not revolutionary new findings. Studies almost sixty years ago reached similar conclusions. See, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/17/5/281.pdf and http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/1/39 . Even if this theory of cardiovascular disease, on which the guidelines remain significantly based, was at all persuasive when the guidelines were originally promulgated (in spite of evidence to the contrary), it is not persuasive today. | | | | |
<
< | Subsub 2 | >
> | Because they are produced by an organ of the state, the guidelines are uncritically accepted as firm science when they are naught. My father, his doctors, and millions similarly situated rely on the national guidelines to make decisions about their health and the health of others. They are acting to their detriment. | | | | |
>
> | Yet, focusing our efforts on revising the guidelines is a mistake.
The nature of our political system prevents the guidelines from ever developing into a locus of positive change.
So long as nutrition science remains in its infancy, vigorous debate will surround any attempt to replace the current guidelines with a new standard. Because of the large financial interests at stake, the food industry will undoubtedly participate in that debate. See, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109104875075676781.html?mod=health_hs_policy_legislation (charting the food industry’s efforts during last update to the national guidelines in 2005), http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0421-06.htm (discussing the food industry’s response to a WHO report recommending decreased sugar consumption) , and http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2005/1095.html (discussing the food industry’s success in defeating proposed regulations). The food industry has unquestionably been successful in asserting its interests in the past, and given the record so far, chances are good that the food lobby will triumph again. | | | | |
<
< | Section II | >
> | There’s no way to eliminate industry lobbying as a barrier. First, the idea has no political currency. Second, the current Supreme Court would likely uphold lobbying as constitutionally protected free speech. http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/rg_20100121_2456.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission . Anyway, it’s not worth the fight until we know what the guidelines should say. Consider the difficulty we have instituting environmental regulations. At least in that case, there is broad scientific support and consensus behind the regulations in question. There is no such consensus regarding what we should and should not eat. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection A | >
> | Instead, our approach should be broader.
As is evident from the body of conflicting health studies, we are still fumbling in the dark when it comes to our own biology. We don’t adequately understand the relationship between what we eat and how it leads to disease. Institutionalizing a singular theory of optimal human nutrition on the basis of that inadequate understanding is poor public policy. In doing so, we’ve allowed moneyed interests to usurp nutrition discourse, made no significant inroads towards curbing obesity, and convinced two generations that fat, a macronutrient essential to good health, is the devil. The net result has been a negative impact on the eating habits and health of Americans. | | | | |
<
< | Subsection B | >
> | The need to eat grounds us in mortality, gives us pleasure, and is among the most common reasons people have for gathering. Food is thus at the center of our interactions with each other and the world. For that reason, we should avoid pathologizing it carelessly. I do not mean that we should abandon all attempts to regulate nutrition, but perhaps we should stop officially promoting newly fashioned diets until we know more. In the mean time, the best solution might be to go back to those diets that have empirically proven themselves over many generations. See, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/1647S , http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/12/3355 , http://www.globaleat.org/~imada/shiryou_okiba/EastAsia_papers/The%20unique%20aspects%20of%20the%20nutrition%20transition%20in%20South%20Korea.pdf . This would go a long way towards re-establishing a sustainable and workable food culture. | | |
|
|
|
ShawnFettySecondPaper 1 - 12 Apr 2010 - Main.ShawnFetty
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By ShawnFetty - 12 Apr 2010
Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, ShawnFetty
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|