Page 64 - Winter2014

Since the since that time remains inconsistent, limited, would be very difficult for farmers who produced
33
advent of the and open to question. eggs and meat. To compound the advantage, for
In 1997, Ancel Keys, the scientist whose “food producers and processors whose product

first DGA, theories about dietary cholesterol and heart categories are favored by the goals, greater pro-
the amount disease first warned Americans away from meat motional emphasis on the nutrition value of these
of money and eggs, acknowledged, “There’s no connec- products may be expected. In effect products can
tion whatsoever between cholesterol in food and be promoted using the national dietary goals as
farmers cholesterol in the blood. None. And we’ve known a 'stamp of approval' to gain greater acceptance
receive that all along.” Studies cited by the 2010 DGAC in an increasingly nutrition-conscious market-
27
33
for food Report demonstrate varied metabolic responses place.” The group most likely to be hurt by the
to lowered dietary saturated fat, with certain new paradigm was not food processors but farm-
produced subpopulations exhibiting adverse rather than ers: “The farmers feel especially threatened . . .
has fallen improved health outcomes. Two recent com- because their livelihood could be most directly
3
by half. As prehensive meta-analyses indicate that saturated affected by the recommended changes. As the
In fact, in primary element in the food chain, farmers tend
fat is not linked to heart disease.
28,29
consumers a definitive review of forty-eight clinical trials, to be the most specialized and do not enjoy the
adopted with over sixty-five thousand participants, the flexibility and insulation of a multi-product line
33
eating reduction or modification of dietary fat had no food processor.”
Indeed, since the advent of the first DGA,
effect on mortality, cardiovascular mortality,
patterns heart attacks, stroke, cancer, or diabetes. Yet, the amount of money farmers receive for food
30
recommended avoiding saturated fat remains a cornerstone of produced has fallen by half. As consumers
34
in the DGA, national dietary guidance. Surveys show that the adopted eating patterns recommended in the
vast majority of Americans have come to believe DGA, a much larger share of their food dollar
a much that consuming animal fats increases one's risk of went to increased processing and marketing and
larger share heart disease, and many try to limit their intake the labor costs associated with these activities.
of their food of foods that contain these fats. 31 Since the DGA encourages Americans to con-
sume fewer of the products that generate a higher
dollar went to UNDERMINING INDEPENDENT FARMERS farm value―in other words, what the farmer is

increased The 1977 Dietary Goals did more than paid for the product that leaves the farm―and
processing and change the health beliefs of Americans. They more of the products that generate a lower farm
affected all aspects of the food environment. That value, farmers overall receive less of each dollar
marketing and the 1977 Goals would have a powerful effect on spent on food in America. For example, the farm
the labor costs the food industry was apparent even before they value of eggs, a food the DGA tells Americans

associated with were finalized, but it is unlikely that the result to limit, is worth 54 percent of the consumer’s
was the intended one. While the initial hear-
dollar. Instead, the DGA recognizes cereal as a
these activities. ings were being held, members of McGovern's preferred “healthy” breakfast; its farm value is
committee were warned that the food industry worth only 8 percent of the consumer’s dollar.
would respond with an explosion of products Conventional arguments that promote plant-
designed to meet whatever new dietary standards based diets as the most beneficial for health,
were established. With the creation of the 1977 the environment, and feeding the world neglect
32
Goals, the federal government had unmistakably to address the way in which those diets are
designated who the “winners” and “losers” in compatible with the agricultural policies that
the food sector would be. The “winners” would benefit large agricultural corporations and un-
be manufacturers of breads, cereals, margarine, dermine the interests of farmers. Creating a more
cooking oils, and soy products; “losers” would “democratic, socially and economically just,
be producers of meats, butter, eggs and cheese. and environmentally sustainable” food system
Experts recognized at the time that many that supports farmers may need to begin with a
processed food manufacturers could “reformu- reassessment of what foods may be considered
late existing products to remove their allegedly nourishing. 35
deleterious nutritional effects,” something that
60 Wise Traditions WINTER 2014 Wise Traditions

145881_text.indd 60 12/23/14 12:16 AM