Dietary Guidelines: Science vs. Corporate Interests

Dietary Guidelines: Science vs. Corporate Interests
5 (100%) 9 votes

The USDA Dietary Guidelines Committee stands accused of ignoring the science to justify its recommendation to eat meat.

Discuss
Republish

Commentators on the USDA Dietary Guidelines Committee recommendations note that there is “no discussion at all of the scientific research on the health consequences of eating meat. If the Committee actually discussed this research, it would be unable to justify its recommendation to eat meat, as the research would show that meat increases the risks of chronic diseases, contrary to the purposes of the Guidelines. Thus, by simply ignoring that research, the Committee is able to reach a conclusion that would otherwise look improper.”

We know that “[a] plant-based diet of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, and no meat reversed heart disease, completely prevented deaths from heart disease, and slowed the progression of cancer, and an almost identical diet is promoted by the [World Cancer Research Fund] to prevent cancer, as based on the largest review of scientific studies to date.”

The best summary of the dietary guidelines that I’ve found comes not from Greece, which I talked about before, not from Harvard, but from a cartoonist, Jimmy Johnson: “The new dietary guidelines have been released. They tell us to eat healthier. But, not so healthy as to noticeably affect any corporate profits. I’m paraphrasing, of course.”

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Peter Mellor.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Cartoon: ARLO AND JANIS © 2011 Jimmy Johnson. Reprinted by permission of Universal Uclick for UFS.  All rights reserved.  Image thanks to familymwr.

Commentators on the USDA Dietary Guidelines Committee recommendations note that there is “no discussion at all of the scientific research on the health consequences of eating meat. If the Committee actually discussed this research, it would be unable to justify its recommendation to eat meat, as the research would show that meat increases the risks of chronic diseases, contrary to the purposes of the Guidelines. Thus, by simply ignoring that research, the Committee is able to reach a conclusion that would otherwise look improper.”

We know that “[a] plant-based diet of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, and no meat reversed heart disease, completely prevented deaths from heart disease, and slowed the progression of cancer, and an almost identical diet is promoted by the [World Cancer Research Fund] to prevent cancer, as based on the largest review of scientific studies to date.”

The best summary of the dietary guidelines that I’ve found comes not from Greece, which I talked about before, not from Harvard, but from a cartoonist, Jimmy Johnson: “The new dietary guidelines have been released. They tell us to eat healthier. But, not so healthy as to noticeably affect any corporate profits. I’m paraphrasing, of course.”

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Peter Mellor.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Cartoon: ARLO AND JANIS © 2011 Jimmy Johnson. Reprinted by permission of Universal Uclick for UFS.  All rights reserved.  Image thanks to familymwr.

Doctor's Note

Be sure to check out all my other videos on dietary guidelines and heart disease

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

20 responses to “Dietary Guidelines: Science vs. Corporate Interests

Commenting Etiquette

The intention of the comment section under each video and blog post is to allow all members to share their stories, questions, and feedback with others in a welcoming, engaging, and respectful environment. Off-topic comments are permitted, in hopes more experienced users may be able to point them to more relevant videos that may answer their questions. Vigorous debate of science is welcome so long as participants can disagree respectfully. Advertising products or services is not permitted.

To make NutritionFacts.org a place where people feel comfortable posting without feeling attacked, we have no tolerance for ad hominem attacks or comments that are racist, misogynist, homophobic, vulgar, or otherwise inappropriate. Please help us to foster a community of mutual respect. Enforcement of these rules is done to the best of our ability on a case-by-case basis.

    1. A great place to start would be to show him the undeniable evidence between meat and mortality.
      http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/meat-mortality/
      http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/largest-study-ever/

      and then show him the undeniable evidence supporting a plant based diet

      http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/antioxidant-power-of-plant-foods-versus-animal-foods/
      http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/plant-based-prevention/
      http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/repairing-dna-damage/
      http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/mitochondrial-theory-of-aging/
      http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/research-into-reversing-aging/

      and then finish off with the tomato effect
      http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/the-tomato-effect/

      Search this site for more studies and information starting from volume 1 to 6
      http://nutritionfacts.org/season/1/

      For further guidance, search the McDougall website for a whole other knowledge base on other topics as well, such as protein needs and requirements and fat needs and etc. that come with a plant based diet
      http://www.drmcdougall.com/search.html




      0
    2.  So sorry about the broken link! I fixed it so now you can click on the link above in the Sources Cited section and download it–please let me know if you dad has any follow-up questions.




      0
  1. Hi Dr. Greger, your link for the Herman paper doesn’t work. Could you please provide a new link or at least print what the references 50 and 51 in that paper referred to? Thanks!




    0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This