| |
| 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. |
|