The vital importance of sound nutrition for health is well established, even if under reported. The number of news items of varying types and standards published globally on the topic every single day is impressively large. One question that remains is: what can be believed?
Let’s take something as simple and basic as the food pyramid. In the US it was recently updated. That is an interesting observation in itself. Mark it well so you don’t forget my next point.
The content of the food pyramid becomes like the gospel on nutrition. It seems sacrosanct. It is taught throughout the country in schools and is provided in multiple languages as booklet and brochure handouts from community health centers. Do you see the problem with this?
The problem is that it is taught as stable fact. As though it reflected the finest outcome of excellence in scientific knowledge. As though it documented our arrival at the summit of nutrition knowledge. The reality is quite different. The facts are that it leaves much to be desired, is potentially quite harmful in the long term, is far from universally agreed and will in time be modified yet again.
The simple observation that it was previously held in very high regard and believed as gospel by many who were simply taught to view it that way, but was nevertheless recently changed, should make it clear enough that it should never be taken too seriously. The problem is that by many people, it will be.
According to Harvard University one of the reasons, perhaps the main reason, why the renewed Food Guide contains unsound nutritional advice is that it is ultimately more a sociopolitical document than a quality treatise on sound nutrition. They are my words of interpretation, but Harvard does bravely and boldly state that the shortcomings reflect influence on the USDA by agricultural lobby groups.
Surely then, you might say, one could examine the literature reporting current research into nutrition. That is certainly a pleasant thought but it is somewhat naiive. The nutrition literature is vast, frequently of very questionable standard and subject to many sources of bias.
Here is a minor case in point. Today as I scanned the news wires on health and nutrition I noticed a press release in New Zealand that addressed various shortcomings in the food pyramid in that country. It stated that Bill Shrapnel, a nutritionist, who considered the existing food pyramid’s emphasis on eating a low fat diet provided inadequate dietary fats, completed a study that was reported as follows.
“The low level of omega 3 and 6 in these diets was a particular concern as these nutrients have been scientifically shown to promote heart and circulatory health. Vitamin D is necessary for bone health and vitamin E is an important antioxidant in the body,†he said.
In Mr Shrapnel’s study, butter, various margarines and olive oil were added to the low fat diets to test their effects on levels of these nutrients.
“Sunflower oil-based margarine proved to have the best combination of omega 3 and 6, vitamin D and vitamin E. Just 25 grams of sunflower spread a day will ensure that most of these nutrient needs are met for women, men need a little more. Canola oil-based margarine performed fairly well, but was still low in essential omega 6,†Mr Shrapnel said.
“Olive oil and butter performed relatively poorly. To meet your dietary recommendations for omega 3 and 6 and vitamins D and E from olive oil or butter you have to eat quite a lot of them, which means eating a lot of fat. When it comes to fats we need quality, not quantity,†he said.
As it happens I agree with some of Shrapnel’s findings. I agree that the New Zealand food pyramid is inadequate. I agree that dietary omega 3 and 6, and vitamins D and E need to be increased for most people. However, I do not agree that the best way to obtain these is from sunflower oil-based margarine.
Now pay attention here, because this is my real point. Follow the link above and look at the press release. I want you to look near the very top where the small print indicates who made the press release. See it? That’s right, it was released by Unilever, which happens to be a major multinational that produces, among many other things, sunflower oil-based margarine.
What we have here is a minor illustration of fairly typical bias or undue influence. There is simply no way any thinking and informed person would conclude that no bias existed. Of course it did, any and all protests to the contrary notwithstanding. Not everyone has such critical skills though, so where does that leave most people? I hope that gets you thinking.
Nutrition is really a part of health. The fact is that health is very political and is associated with absolutely massive amounts of money, through public funding and private industry. When you have big-end-of-town politics and vast sums of money and associated power at stake, corruption is inevitable. It is expressed in many different ways but the result is that you must choose carefully the sources of information to trust and you must be prepared to do some learning yourself.