The “Pyramid Scheme” article, by Erik Telford from the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, appeared in the September, 2014 publication of Green Watch. Telford expresses his concerns about the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) and the power it has in establishing America’s National Dietary Guidelines for 2015.
The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is an organization that is funded by large industries and promotes policies that are favorable to its donors.
I was not surprised by this, but I wanted to solidify my assumption that the author had an industry-friendly background.
The article’s main theme involves Telford’s assertion that the DGAC’s view of the world of nutrition has more to do with the ‘green” movement than food science. If this is true, it is very troubling to me.
Before I make any specific comments about the article, I think it’s important that I restate the reason I follow a whole food plant based diet (WFPB).
I follow a WFPB diet (100% plant based) for my health. There are mountains of nutritional evidence that support my decision. Any benefit to animals and/or the environment is a bonus. However, if new discoveries in nutritional science convince me that adding a little bit of meat to my diet would enhance my health, I would add meat to my diet. I’d encourage others to include some meat in their diet as well.
I define nutrition as the synergistic interaction of countless nutrients and their effect on human health. So,as a dietitian/nutritionist, my main concern is promoting human health. I will recommend any health promoting practice irrespective of its impact on the environment or animal welfare.
Susan Levin MS RD, Director of Nutrition Education for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), promotes whole food vegan diets. Ms. Levin states that she constantly hears complaints from the meat and dairy industries that her recommendations are bad for their industries’ bottom lines. She essentially tells them that she doesn’t give a rat’s ass. Actually, she’s much more professional than that, she just says “I don’t care”. This is the appropriate response. She rightly states that if she were to filter her nutrition information through an industry’s financial situation, then she wouldn’t be a reputable dietitian.
Although I have concerns about environmental issues, they do not have any effect on how I interpret nutritional scientific evidence. If I were to filter my nutrition information through any potential impact on the environment or animal welfare, I wouldn’t be much of a dietitian. I let the various environmental scientists determine the most environmentally-friendly farming and food processing methods. Their recommendations should be heard by the DGAC, but they should not be the primary concern of the committee.
Dietitians who have strong opinions about environmental sustainability are certainly free to voice their opinions. But they should not be surprised if some people question their professional credibility and/or integrity – similar to the questioning that dietitians working in specific food industries/companies experience. The questioning may not be justified, but it’s all about public perception.
Below I’ll share other pertinent parts of the article followed by my thoughts.
- Telford writes that Dr. Frank Hu’s recommendation to follow a plant based diet places him in the minority of food scientists and nutritionists who generally favor a balanced higher-protein diet that includes a variety of meats and plant-based foods.
My thoughts:
This is just dopey. First of all, most food scientists work in the food industry. Therefore, I don’t care about their views on what constitutes a healthy diet. Many of the nutritionists to whom Telford refers also work for food companies and trade groups so they tow the company line – just like they have for decades. It looks like their industry-biased views may have fewer friendlier ears than in the past because this committee, unlike in the past, does not seem to have many members with industry ties. Telford is not happy about that.
Secondly, the notion that nutritionists favor diets with a variety of meats is absurd. I’d like to know what variety of meats is acceptable? Is chicken and fish not enough? If not, that would mean that nutritionists are suggesting that people need to add beef, pork or lamb to their diets. I’ve never encountered any dietitian who claimed that red meat is essential to the human diet. I hope I never do.
- Telford makes serious accusations about the DGAC’s intentions. He states that the committee seeks to force “green” lifestyles on unsuspecting Americans and seeks to coerce people into thinking, eating and living a certain way.
My thoughts:
If these accusations are true, it is deeply troubling. My concern for the fundamental freedoms of Americans trumps my concern for the health of Americans. Benjamin Franklin once wrote: “They who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
I believe that replacing “safety” with “health” also represents a basic truism. Gaining health, as important as it is, is not worth sacrificing essential liberty
I hope Telford’s accusations are mere scare tactics. Force is neither appropriate or required to guide Americans to healthier eating. It’s likely that if the DGAC clearly directs Americans towards a diet dominated by fruits, vegetables, whole grains and legumes and devoid (or close to it) of animal products and highly processed foods like refined flour, added sugars and oils, no coercion will be necessary to achieve improvements in public health. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support these recommendations. It’s not junk science as Telford claims.
- A substantial portion of the article includes a distorted interpretation of the history of the processes involved in determining previous dietary guidelines and the resulting effects the guidelines had on public health.
My thoughts:
If you want to learn about the political influence on past committees, I suggest you read “Whole: Rethinking The Science of Nutrition”, by T Colin Campbell.
You may also find the following articles helpful:
Telford is correct in criticizing the 1992 DGAC’s failure to distinguish between whole grains and refined grains. He concludes the DGAC failed to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy foods within its simple categories. However, he commits a similar error when he goes on to say that high carbohydrate diets are only suitable for marathon runners, and no one else. He doesn’t discriminate between healthy and unhealthy carbohydrate-rich foods. According to him, diets high in fruits, whole grains, potatoes, sweet potatoes, corn, peas and beans aren’t suitable for non-marathon runners.
Telford also makes statements that reveal that he is unaware that quality protein is found in plants. It makes it easy to discard much of what he has to say about nutrition.
I hope the 2015 DGAC truly makes the great leap towards advocating Whole Food Plant Based Diets. Unfortunately, T. Colin Campbell stated during a recent webinar, that he is not confident that any meaningful changes to the current recommendations will appear in the 2015 guidelines. He has repeatedly seen the success that powerful food lobbies (and the politicians they support) have had on watering down past guidelines to the point of uselessness. He doesn’t see any reason why things are going to change this time around.
Campbell has tried to create meaningful changes to the dietary guidelines from the top down, but he’s concluded that it most likely will never happen. If truly effective guidelines are ever going to be developed, it’s going to have to be sparked by a groundswell of Americans who discover and reap the amazing benefits of a WFPB diet. If we want clear, practical and useful dietary guidelines, they will have to come from the bottom up.
E Excerpt from Laurie Endicott Thomas’s amazing book Thin Diabetes – Fat Diabetes by clicking here!
Speak Your Mind