| |
| 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. |
| |
|