Have you ever wondered how our modern nutrition policies came about? What stories or issues have led to such bizarre or wise decisions? Well, if you are among the people curious about nutrition, these questions would surely cross your mind. You would want to make sure that you are following the right guidelines for your body. The policies are there to help guide us for the right diet. But this raises another question. Are we sure that these guidelines are right? Or in a simpler manner, have such guidelines undergone the rigid scientific process to be universally proven?
To answer that, you may need to have some reflection of Tom Naughton’s movie, the Fat Head. A clip from this movie shows a comprehensive presentation on the difference between good and bad science, which are the cornerstone behind all our nutrition policies. The one-hour long video is split into 6 parts and discusses the science or the lack thereof that stained the world’s view regarding fat and its implication on cardiovascular disease.
Take a look at how a particular study skewed everyone’s perception regarding fat consumption and its relationship with the prevalence of cardiovascular disease. And the most discouraging part, this study even influenced how some leaders make decisions for their country―decisions that will impact nutrition policies for years and so.
A Glimpse of The Seven Countries Study
Dating back to the year 1958, a controversial study gained significant traction on our health dietary guidelines. Popularly known as the “The Seven Countries Study”, the research was conducted by an American scientist named Ancel Keys, who theorized that one’s diet can influence our health. Particularly, his study aimed to determine the relationship between fat consumption and cardiovascular disease in different countries.
Results of the said study showed that there is indeed a correlation between fat consumption and heart disease since based on his gathered data, individuals in those countries consuming more fat had a much higher incidence of heart disease. In contrast, individuals in countries consuming less fat have a fewer incidence of heart disease.
However, there seems to a problem with how Keys gathered his data. Instead of randomly sampling the study population, he basically cherry-picked countries that will support his theory. He purposively chose to opt-out countries that would obviously contradict his theory. For instance, he did not include Holland and Norway in the study even though the constituents of these two countries consume much fat but yet have a lower occurrence of heart disease. Aside from that, Chile was also not included in the study amidst having a high occurrence of heart disease but its constituents eat less fat.
Amidst its flawed methodological approach, The Seven Countries Study greatly swayed the world’s dietary guidelines for quite some years.
A Reference to The McGovern Committee
With the heightening prevalence of heart disease in the US during the year 1977, the American committee of the US senate sought to resolve this emerging epidemic. Spearheaded by George McGovern, they published the first Dietary Goals for the United States. In this dietary goal, a proper diet consists of eating more complex carbohydrates but less fat and cholesterol, as well as less refined and processed sugars. These carbohydrates can be acquired by eating more fruits, vegetables, and grains.
Such guideline was adopted by the USDA providing a low-fat but high-carb diet for everyone. Again this purported standard was subject to critics, especially from well-respected scientists and organizations. Among these critics are John Yudkin, who condemn sugar, and the American Medical Association. Apart from that, the most troublesome issue of this Dietary Goal guideline is the blatant lack of scientific evidence supporting these diet recommendations. The guideline was formulated out of pure observational studies with not enough data and proof to back up its claims.
After the imposition of the guidelines set by the McGovern Committee, subsequent studies conducted widely disputed the committee’s presumptions. More randomized controlled trials have shown that the said dietary approach provides no benefits to the individuals that it was supposed to aid. Another intriguing observation during the announcement of the said policy was the subsequent rise in cases of obesity and then followed by the growing cases of type 2 diabetes. The Dietary Guideline may have some serious implications on obesity and the type 2 diabetes epidemic.
Nutrition guidelines anchored on bad science
Much of the western world has rooted its modern nutrition policy based on research, which is essentially not a representation of the whole population and is further not scientifically evidenced by sound and unbiased data. It is apparent that the unreliable study conducted by Keys had shaped some of the modern nutrition policies like that of the Dietary Goals of the United States.
Its negative implication on fat consumption became the guiding light in creating nutrition guidelines. Because of such one influential yet flawed study, there has been a great shift from a diet rich in fat from animal foods toward a diet low in fat but high in carb from grainy foods.
In recent years, modern studies have shown that saturated fat is harmless to the consumption of human beings. However, the notion created by the Seven Countries Study has not been totally debunked yet and some policies are still leaning towards this bad science. There are still nutrition organizations out there promoting the low-fat and high-carb diet paradigm even though this has already been proven ineffective by modern studies and by many people.
Conclusion
Having read this implicit disclosure, you can judge that some modern nutrition policy was based on bad science. It’s bad science in the sense that the researches were done according to the benefit of the author’s hypothesis. These studies are not entirely true and applicable to the whole public. And technically, these may not be fully beneficial especially in promoting quality nutrition and better health condition. Even without a factual and reproducible basis, some areas in the world still make use of such bad research in fabricating their nutrition guidelines.
