You've come a long way, baby

3. June 2011 William Davis (16)
In 1945, the room-sized ENIAC vacuum tube computer was first turned on, women began to smoke openly in public, and a US postal stamp cost three cents. And this was the US government's advice on healthy eating:



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Green and yellow vegetables; oranges, tomatoes, grapefruit; potatoes and other vegetables and fruits; followed by milk and milk products; meat, poultry, fish, or eggs; bread, flour, and cereals, butter and fortified margarine.

In 2011, the computing power of the ENIAC can be performed by a microchip a few millimeters in width, smoking is now banned in public places, and a first class postage stamp has increased in price by 1466%. And this is the new USDA Food Plate for Americans:



 

 

 

 

 

Have we made any progress over the past 65 years? We certainly have in computing power and awareness of the adverse effects of smoking. But have US government agencies like the USDA kept up with nutritional advice? Compare the 2011 Food Plate with the dietary advice of 1945.

It looks to me like the USDA has not only failed to keep up with the evolution of nutritional thought, but has regressed to something close to advising Americans to go out and buy stocks on the eve of the 1929 depression. Most of us discuss issues like the genetic distortions introduced into wheat, corn, and soy; the dangers of fructose; exogenous glycoxidation and lipoxidation products yielded via high-temperature cooking; organic, free-range meats and the dangers of factory farming, etc. None of this, of course, fits the agenda of the USDA.

My advice: The USDA should stay out of the business of offering nutritional advice. They are very bad at it. They also have too many hidden motives to be a reliable source of unbiased information.

 

 
Tags :

Comments (16) -

  • Tyson

    6/3/2011 1:52:03 AM |

    I dunno, just take the orange wedge out completely and shift the diary rec's to full fat instead of low fat and it would be a pretty good plan!  I notice that they recommend both eggs and beef in the protein section!!!

  • Glenn

    6/3/2011 2:02:51 PM |

    Hard to justify all those subsidies if you don't recommend eating the product you subsidize.

    Pharmacology depends on an unhealthy diet as well.

    Now excuse me while I polish my tin foil hat some more.

  • Bill

    6/3/2011 3:30:45 PM |

    The idea that we should get nutritional advice from the Department of Agriculture should tell everyone the purpose behind the advice is nothing but promoting the increased sell of agricultural products. Now there was a time when that might have been acceptable - say around the 1700's or so - but with the devolution of farming in the US and the bastardization of foods and farmin and farm animals alike - it is akin to buying in big on the eve of the Market Collapse of 1929.

    The clue to perpetuating sickness is to oversimplify, never provide details, supply conflicting information incessantly and encourage people to trust the "experts" - most of which haven't a nickels worth of common sense left in their brain account or haven't done a nickels worth of research on a topic.

  • Amy

    6/3/2011 4:41:34 PM |

    "The USDA should stay out of the business of offering nutritional advice. They are very bad at it. "

    I love it!  I wrote about this today too.  I do think the plate is an improvement over the pyramid.  But I did some tweaking and made my own plate that I like a lot better: http://knitfitter.blogspot.com/2011/06/new-usda-nutrition-plate-and-my.html

  • Joe Lindley

    6/4/2011 2:43:05 PM |

    "It looks to me like the USDA has not only failed to keep up with the evolution of nutritional thought, but has regressed to something close to advising Americans to go out and buy stocks on the eve of the 1929 depression. "

    I agree, this is like the fox guarding the hen house.  There's no way the government should be allowed to advise us on what to eat since the agricultural business segment has such a powerful lobby.   I actually liked this plate, only because it was far better than the food pyramid, which mistakenly emphasized more carbs and less fat.  At least now they have shifted the direction to fewer carbs and more fat.  I think of it as the lesser of evils - so the MyPlate isn't right but it's better than the food pyramid.  I wrote a post on it at http://cravingsugar.net/the-new-food-pyramid-myplate-usda-says-eat-less-carbs-more-fat.php.

  • Helen

    6/4/2011 4:06:01 PM |

    I agree that the USDA is bad at it, and that there are powerful interests influencing the message.  For instance, when the last food "pyramid" was unveiled,  advice to avoid sugar that was originally included had been taken out, thanks to the sugar lobby.

    On the other hand, there are some well-meaning people involved, trying to get a message out.  They may be misguided in some ways, but not everyone promoting this is corrupt.  With the current obesity epidemic, there's a lot of genuine public health interest in getting a good "message" out about nutrition.  Having worked somewhat in that field, I know the impulse in an earnest one.  

    Here's what Pee Wee Herman would call the "Big But": your readers, who can converse intelligently about AGEs and sdLDL are a world apart from *most Americans,* who first must get their hand out of the potato chip bag and their lips off the 64oz value-sized Dr. Pepper.  The USDA, whatever its faults, is trying convey a message that can be understood, and a goal that can be achieved.  

    I think messages like "eat a rainbow," "eat your colors," or "fill half your plate with vegetables" are better slogans - partly because I don't think grains and dairy are necessary*, and that improperly prepared grains and all gluten grains are problematic (I take a more nuanced position than Dr. Davis).  But I do think part of the reason the USDA's "plate" is so dumbed-down is that complex messages just don't work in public health.  

    (*Though I do feel dairy's necessary for me!)

  • Helen

    6/4/2011 6:16:58 PM |

    P.S.  I love how butter and fortified margarine used to be their own food group!

  • Paul Lee

    6/5/2011 9:53:19 AM |

    Was wondering if anyone had looked at the effect on farming if everyone switched from wheat and grains? Obviously the effect on the processors, Nabisco, Kellogg's would be disastrous which is why it probably won't happen, but would there be enough, beef, pork, chicken, egg, diary, production to go round?  Could wheat fields be switched over to cattle or rearing or should they produce bio-fuel instead? Arguably we all eat too much so we could just dump the grains portion and maintain existing meat/fish/dairy. But our diet has been somewhat determined by being able to produce enough food for a booming population on a small planet. "Food for thought" anyway.

  • Might-o'chondri-AL

    6/6/2011 1:57:39 AM |

    Hi Paul Lee,
    Maybe  global protein needs could be met 100% by converting the grain fields over to growing substrate feed stocks for poultry or iguana meat.  A diet of always only  protein  would  not be  great,  so you need to figure out what  you intend to complete human  nutritional needs with.  Cereal grains are just so convenient  for energy calories that most nations rely on them; they don't need refrigeration,  transport easily and have long storage.

  • Dr. William Davis

    6/6/2011 2:05:22 AM |

    Agribusiness has undoubtedly increased yield and thereby enhanced accessibility and reduced price. But I fear they have also created a house of cards that, in many ways, many be unsustainable or will yield unintended effects.

    The painfully familiar food recalls from E. coli or Salmonella contamination that result from factory farming and other mass production practices will inevitably catalyze a return to organic, old-fashioned farming methods with higher prices, a concentration on necessary foods and not "luxury" junk foods.

    That sounds like a good thing to me.

    Paul raises a crucial point: How do we make the switch to a world without modern high-yield wheat without a cataclysmic shift in economics? I don't know. But it will be much like the gradual shift from mass produced eggs to free-range, organic eggs, just on a much larger scale. It will be a process that won't occur next Tuesday, but hopefully over the next 50+ years. In the meantime, tens of millions of people will unknowingly suffer from consumption of this thing being sold to use called "wheat."

  • Paul Lee

    6/6/2011 11:23:29 PM |

    Interesting stuff, and Might-o'chondri-AL, I try and get at least 50% of total calories from fat. Without wanting to drift OT,  I don't know whether you have seen this news in the States there has been major problems with German grown (organic) vegatables (cucumbers, tomato's etc) with E.coli (Spanish veg was blamed at first). Literally thousands of tons of veg are being dumped. Salad is certainly off the menu in Europe this week!

  • Abhi

    6/7/2011 10:16:35 PM |

    "The painfully familiar food recalls from E. coli or Salmonella contamination that result from factory farming and other mass production practices will inevitably catalyze a return to organic, old-fashioned farming methods with higher prices, a concentration on necessary foods and not “luxury” junk foods."

    I am loving this! I hope this becomes the reality-- sooner the better.

  • Jennifer Bell

    6/8/2011 12:00:39 AM |

    It's bad that the government is wrong, but the media multiplies it many times over by parroting these guidelines to public. For example, the US News Diet Rankings:

    http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets

    Some of my comments on my blog:

    http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets

  • Curmujeon

    6/8/2011 12:54:32 PM |

    My advice: The USDA should stay out of the business of offering nutritional advice. They are very bad at it. They also have too many hidden motives to be a reliable source of unbiased information.

    I don't think they will stop offering advice since so many people seek guidance.
    Your advice should be:  Ignore the nutritional advace offered by the USDA.  It is very bad advice because they have too many hidden motives to be a reliable source of unbiased information.  Seek nutritional advice from more reliable sources.

    Unfortunately, how do we know which sources are reliable?  Vegetarianism makes sense.  What do they have to say?

  • Annie

    6/10/2011 7:17:50 PM |

    I think the grain section should be dumped entirely and fruit section should a sliver at best or there should be some mention that those with blood sugar issues may want to greatly reduce ALL fruit.  I find that the tolerance to fruit is highly individual.  Since I lowcarb and my fasting sugars are usually mid 80s unless I've had an unusually large late night meal in which case it can be mid 90s -- I was shocked to see what the allegedly lower sugar fruits such as raspberries and blackberries (both high fiber too) are really doing to my sugar since I started self testing.  I am beginning to think that with my genetics and age, even the so-called healthy berries can be the devil.

    I am 5'2.5" and weighed 107.5 this morning.  I'm in my late 40s and only medication is armour/cytomel for hypothyroid.  Both parents and only sibling are type 2s -- dad was a slender type 2.  Ex: This morning fasting sugar was 86.  I had a black coffee and skipped breakfast and went on a long brisk walk (1.25 hour) in the heat.  At brunch at 1:00PM consisting of 3 soft boiled pastured eggs; a few ounces (2 or so) of leftover grassfed ribeye; 6 olives (I sweated a lot outside and needed more salt despite salting eggs and steak-- I eat no processed food except canned sardines and find I need extra salt sweating in hot sun or I get extremely weak, very low blood pressure etc); and now for the grand mistake -- 1 cup of mixed blackberries/raspberries.  I took my sugar 15 minutes later and it was 128; 15 minutes later; 138; 15 minutes later 123; 15 minutes later 118 etc

    I have eaten similar to the above meal minus fruit but adding large amounts of raw freshly shelled hazelnuts and my blood sugar will not spike anywhere near 138 despite adding several hundred more calories.  I've even checked numerous hours later to see if there is a late spike and while the highest point does take longer with large meal containing big amounts of nuts (slow digestion) and no spike -- a slow steady rise generally never going over 115 and coming back down over the next few hours.  

    So fruit sugars can be the devil for some of us and given the diabetes epidemic -- I think the fruit wedge should be much much smaller or come with a caveat.  Or better yet, given the disasterous history of government dietary recommendations, perhaps the government should stay out of our kitchens entirely.

Add comment

Loading