Page 63 - Winter2014

risk of cancer, use of natural resources, and food support or for government funds for additional The case
costs. This message gave official sanction to the research.
16
21
romantic notion that a plant-based diet could not That the creators of the 1977 Goals had against
only prevent chronic disease, but feed the hungry used a thin veneer of science to support their saturated
and save the planet. preconceived notions of what diet was best for fat and
These recommendations were met with ve- Americans was evident in the contradictory na-
hement objections from scientists, doctors, and ture of the report’s own data. For example, the cholesterol
public health professionals, who argued that the 1977 Goals suggested consumers should increase has been
recommendations were scientifically unsound vegetable oil consumption. However, dissenting particularly
and potentially harmful. Those who supported scientists pointed out that increased consumption
17
the Dietary Goals felt the proposed radical of vegetable oils and decreased consumption of difficult to
change in the American diet presented no risk to saturated fats were, according to data supplied by maintain in
the health of the American people. In contrast, the 1977 Goals themselves, associated with in- the face of
16
the American Medical Association said, “The creased levels of heart disease. As a result of this
17
evidence for assuming that benefits to be derived shaky scientific foundation, significant scientific evidence to
from the adoption of such universal dietary goals controversy continues about some of the original the contrary
. . . is not conclusive and there is potential for and current assertions upon which the DGA that has
harmful effects from a radical long-term dietary recommendations are built. These can be seen
change as would occur through adoption of the generally as an on going inability to firmly es- accumulated
proposed national goals.” Yet this warning tablish the connections between dietary patterns in the past
18
went unheeded, and the controversy over the and chronic disease with available methodology. three decades.
Dietary Goals had little effect on future USDA/ More specifically, controversy continues to sur-
DHHS recommendations. With few changes, the round the theories that 1) dietary fat, saturated
1977 Goals became the first Dietary Guidelines fat, and cholesterol cause heart disease, obesity,
for Americans in 1980. The DGA have since diabetes and cancer and should be replaced in
become a powerful policy document, although the diet with polyunsaturated vegetable oils;
the limitations that have afflicted them since the 2) a diet high in carbohydrates will reduce the
beginning have resulted in several unintended risk of chronic disease; and 3) excessive sodium
negative consequences. intake is the primary variable in the etiology of
hypertension, a risk factor for heart disease.
INADEQUATE SCIENCE The case against saturated fat and choles-
The controversy surrounding the original terol has been particularly difficult to maintain
1977 Dietary Goals took shape along several in the face of evidence to the contrary that has
lines. Critics raised doubts regarding the appro- accumulated in the past three decades. When
priateness of a single, population-wide dietary the first DGA were created, there was no agree-
prescription, applied to all individuals regardless ment regarding the relationship of diet to blood
of level of risk, to prevent diseases that were not lipids and atherosclerosis. The reasons given then
established as nutritional in nature. In addition, for the difficulty in clarifying the relationship
19
they made strenuous objections to the fact that were “the complicated nature of this disease,
these recommendations had not been tested for as well as the multitude of contributing factors
safety or efficacy and would be the equivalent and their relationships.” Large observational
22
of conducting a population-wide dietary experi- and intervention studies conducted early in the
ment. history of the DGA, such as the Framingham
20
Critics of the report pointed to the report's study, Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial,
“new age, neo-naturalist” stance, noting that the and the National Diet-Heart Study, are frequently
nutrition scientists at the Department of Health, cited as proving that a lowfat, low-cholesterol
Education, and Welfare (now the DHHS), who diet reduces risk of heart disease, yet the results
urged caution in the face of the limited science from these studies are weak or inconclusive with
on nutrition and chronic disease, could not com- regard to the relationship between diet and the
pete with this popular ideology either for public development of heart disease. 23-26 The science
Wise Traditions WINTER 2014 Wise Traditions 59

145881_text.indd 59 12/23/14 12:16 AM