The Food Industry Wants the Public Confused About Nutrition

The Food Industry Wants the Public Confused About Nutrition
4.77 (95.35%) 99 votes

The “Fairness Doctrine” example shows to what extent the purveyors of unhealthy products will go to keep the truth from the American public.

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

About five years ago, Denmark introduced “the world’s first tax on saturated fat. After only 15 months, however, the fat tax was abolished,” due to “massive” pressure from farming and food company interests. “Public health advocates are weak [when it comes to] tackling the issues of corporate power.” One “well-used approach for alcohol, tobacco, and [now more] food-related corporate interests is to shift the focus away from health. This involves reframing a fat or soft drinks tax as an issue of consumer rights and a debate over the role of the [‘nanny’] state in… restricting people’s choices.”

“The ‘Nanny State’ is…typically used [as] a pejorative [term] to discourage governments from introducing legislation or regulation that might undermine the power or actions of industry or individuals,” and has been regularly used to undermine public health efforts. But those complaining about the governmental manipulation of people’s choices tend to hypocritically be fine with corporations doing the same thing. One could argue that “public health is being undermined by ‘[the] Nanny Industry’ [that] uses fear of government regulation to maintain its own dominance” [and] profits and at…significant…cost to…public health.”

The tobacco industry offers the classic example, touting “personal responsibility,” which has a certain philosophical appeal. Look, as long as people understand the risks, they should be free to do whatever they want with their bodies. Now, some argue risk-taking affects others. But, if you have the right to put your own life at risk, shouldn’t you have the right to aggrieve your parents, widow your spouse, orphan your children? Then, there’s the social cost argument; people’s bad decisions can cost the society as a whole, whose tax dollars may have to care for them. “The independent, individualist [motorcyclist], helmetless and free on the open road, becomes the most dependent of individuals in the spinal injury ward.”

But, for the sake of argument, let’s forget these spillover effects, the so-called externalities. If someone understands the hazards, shouldn’t they be able to do whatever they want? First of all, this “assumes that [people] can access accurate and balanced information relevant to their decisions.” But, “[d]eliberate industry interference has often created situations where consumers have access only to incomplete and inaccurate information.” “For decades, tobacco companies successfully suppressed or undermined scientific evidence of smoking’s dangers and down played the public health concerns…” Don’t worry your little head, said the nanny companies. Decades of deception and manipulation, deliberate targeting of children, marketing and selling their lethal products with zeal, and without regard for the unfolding human tragedy.

So, “[t]he tobacco industry’s deliberate strategy of challenging scientific evidence undermines smokers’ ability to understand the harms smoking poses,” and so, undermines the whole concept that “smoking is [a fully-]informed choice.” “Tobacco companies have denied smokers truthful information,” yet, at the same time, hold smokers accountable “for incurring diseases that will cause half of them to die prematurely.” So, “in contexts such as these, government intervention [may be] vital to protect consumers from predatory industries.”

And, is the food industry any different? “The public is bombarded with information and it is hard to tell which is true, which is false, and which is merely exaggerated. Foods are sold without clarity about the nutritional content or harmful effects.” Remember how the food industry spent a billion dollars making sure the easy-to-understand “traffic light labelling” system on food never saw the light of day, and was replaced by indecipherable this? That’s ten times more than the drug industry spends on lobbying in the U.S. It’s in the food industry’s interest to have the public confused about nutrition.

How confused are we about nutrition? “Head Start teachers are responsible for providing nutrition education to over [a] million low-income children [every year].” A hundred and eighty-one Head Start teachers were put to the test. And, only about four out of 181 “answered at least four [out] of the five nutrition knowledge questions correctly.” Most, for example, could not correctly answer the question, “Which has the most calories: protein, carbohydrate, or fat?” Not a single one could answer all five nutrition questions correctly. While they valued nutrition education, “54%…agreed that it was hard to know which nutrition information to believe.” And, the food industry wants to keep it that way. A quarter of the teachers didn’t consume any fruit or vegetables the previous day, though half did have french fries and a soda, and a quarter consumed fried meat the day before. Not surprisingly, 55% of the teachers were not just overweight, but obese.

So, when even the teachers are confused, something must be done. No purveyor of unhealthy products wants the public to know the truth. “An [incredible] example comes from the US ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and the tobacco advertising experience of the 1960s. Before tobacco advertising was banned from television…, a court ruling in 1967 required that tobacco companies funded one health ad about smoking for every four tobacco TV advertisements” they put on. “Rather than face this corrective advertising, the tobacco industry took their own advertising off television.” They knew they couldn’t compete with the truth. Just “the threat of corrective advertising even on a one-to-four basis was sufficient to make [the] tobacco companies withdraw their own advertising.” They needed to keep the public in the dark.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Ed Schipul via Flickr. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Julien Herman

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

About five years ago, Denmark introduced “the world’s first tax on saturated fat. After only 15 months, however, the fat tax was abolished,” due to “massive” pressure from farming and food company interests. “Public health advocates are weak [when it comes to] tackling the issues of corporate power.” One “well-used approach for alcohol, tobacco, and [now more] food-related corporate interests is to shift the focus away from health. This involves reframing a fat or soft drinks tax as an issue of consumer rights and a debate over the role of the [‘nanny’] state in… restricting people’s choices.”

“The ‘Nanny State’ is…typically used [as] a pejorative [term] to discourage governments from introducing legislation or regulation that might undermine the power or actions of industry or individuals,” and has been regularly used to undermine public health efforts. But those complaining about the governmental manipulation of people’s choices tend to hypocritically be fine with corporations doing the same thing. One could argue that “public health is being undermined by ‘[the] Nanny Industry’ [that] uses fear of government regulation to maintain its own dominance” [and] profits and at…significant…cost to…public health.”

The tobacco industry offers the classic example, touting “personal responsibility,” which has a certain philosophical appeal. Look, as long as people understand the risks, they should be free to do whatever they want with their bodies. Now, some argue risk-taking affects others. But, if you have the right to put your own life at risk, shouldn’t you have the right to aggrieve your parents, widow your spouse, orphan your children? Then, there’s the social cost argument; people’s bad decisions can cost the society as a whole, whose tax dollars may have to care for them. “The independent, individualist [motorcyclist], helmetless and free on the open road, becomes the most dependent of individuals in the spinal injury ward.”

But, for the sake of argument, let’s forget these spillover effects, the so-called externalities. If someone understands the hazards, shouldn’t they be able to do whatever they want? First of all, this “assumes that [people] can access accurate and balanced information relevant to their decisions.” But, “[d]eliberate industry interference has often created situations where consumers have access only to incomplete and inaccurate information.” “For decades, tobacco companies successfully suppressed or undermined scientific evidence of smoking’s dangers and down played the public health concerns…” Don’t worry your little head, said the nanny companies. Decades of deception and manipulation, deliberate targeting of children, marketing and selling their lethal products with zeal, and without regard for the unfolding human tragedy.

So, “[t]he tobacco industry’s deliberate strategy of challenging scientific evidence undermines smokers’ ability to understand the harms smoking poses,” and so, undermines the whole concept that “smoking is [a fully-]informed choice.” “Tobacco companies have denied smokers truthful information,” yet, at the same time, hold smokers accountable “for incurring diseases that will cause half of them to die prematurely.” So, “in contexts such as these, government intervention [may be] vital to protect consumers from predatory industries.”

And, is the food industry any different? “The public is bombarded with information and it is hard to tell which is true, which is false, and which is merely exaggerated. Foods are sold without clarity about the nutritional content or harmful effects.” Remember how the food industry spent a billion dollars making sure the easy-to-understand “traffic light labelling” system on food never saw the light of day, and was replaced by indecipherable this? That’s ten times more than the drug industry spends on lobbying in the U.S. It’s in the food industry’s interest to have the public confused about nutrition.

How confused are we about nutrition? “Head Start teachers are responsible for providing nutrition education to over [a] million low-income children [every year].” A hundred and eighty-one Head Start teachers were put to the test. And, only about four out of 181 “answered at least four [out] of the five nutrition knowledge questions correctly.” Most, for example, could not correctly answer the question, “Which has the most calories: protein, carbohydrate, or fat?” Not a single one could answer all five nutrition questions correctly. While they valued nutrition education, “54%…agreed that it was hard to know which nutrition information to believe.” And, the food industry wants to keep it that way. A quarter of the teachers didn’t consume any fruit or vegetables the previous day, though half did have french fries and a soda, and a quarter consumed fried meat the day before. Not surprisingly, 55% of the teachers were not just overweight, but obese.

So, when even the teachers are confused, something must be done. No purveyor of unhealthy products wants the public to know the truth. “An [incredible] example comes from the US ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and the tobacco advertising experience of the 1960s. Before tobacco advertising was banned from television…, a court ruling in 1967 required that tobacco companies funded one health ad about smoking for every four tobacco TV advertisements” they put on. “Rather than face this corrective advertising, the tobacco industry took their own advertising off television.” They knew they couldn’t compete with the truth. Just “the threat of corrective advertising even on a one-to-four basis was sufficient to make [the] tobacco companies withdraw their own advertising.” They needed to keep the public in the dark.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Ed Schipul via Flickr. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Julien Herman

Doctor's Note

The trans fat story is an excellent example of this, which I just did two videos about: Controversy Over the Trans Fat Ban and Banning Trans Fat in Processed Foods but Not Animal Fat.

Isn’t that Fairness Doctrine example amazing? Just goes to show how powerful the truth can be. If you want to support my efforts to spread evidence-based nutrition, you can donate to our 501(c)3 nonprofit here, and support Balanced, an ally organization NutritionFacts.org helped launch to put this evidence into practice.

More tobacco industry parallels can be found in Big Food Using the Tobacco Industry Playbook, American Medical Association Complicity with Big Tobacco, and How Smoking in 1956 is Like Eating in 2016.

Want to know more about that saturated fat tax idea? See Would Taxing Unhealthy Foods Improve Public Health?

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

100 responses to “The Food Industry Wants the Public Confused About Nutrition

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. Most people I know..when talking about nutrition…are a combo of learned habits about food (family/cultural) and usually a statement CONFIRMING the jist of this video…mainly the constantly changing “rules” about nutrition they get from the govt (I mean corporations).

        So they give up….or just use the above as an excuse not to change.

        And a good bit of it is just stupidity and/or a lack of willingness/ability to research the truth.

        CHANGE is the issue….for most people it is not pleasant to make changes…you need to admit you were/are wrong….you have to figure out which way to go and which changes to make. It requires discipline to actually make changes.

        If you try to “help” people like this…you need to understand that it is easy and feels good to “help” people (lay the truth on them)…but the real issue is the pain and so forth that is experienced when changes are made…the person being helped has to experience this on their own.

        And they sometimes are likely to find a way to “pull you under” rather than change.

        I’m probably talking about my own experiences trying to help myself as much as anything. Each person only has so much positive energy to work with? Spend your energy wisely?




        13
        1. Fred,
          What a great comment! You hit the nail on the head. Change is tough. And once people transition over and successfully make it, it’s easy to become born-again and perhaps overzealous in trying to inspire others to change –and it’s not always met with welcome arms, especially among those who don’t see any reason to change because they are seemingly healthy at the moment or they don’t believe that whatever health condition they have is truly treatable or reversible.

          And when a person’s doctor is validating their own status quo as Dr Greger describes here: it’s even harder to find a reason to change https://nutritionfacts.org/video/dont-wait-until-your-doctor-kicks-the-habit/

          – Martica Heaner PhD, nutrition professor and volunteer moderator




          4
          1. Greay video . Great comments. I use this simple rule when I shop if it doesn’t look like it came out of the ground then be suspicious I fit comes packaged with fancy words and pretty pictures, be suspicious. When I am tempted to buy a package item I walk myself through it. If I eat this how will it make me feel afterwards. Oreos are vegan but for days after I feel sluggish and my tastebuds are off. Also I look at food shopping as a cotact sport can I get out without being sidelined by the big bad food companies. When I leave a store with no packaged goods I feel truimphant I have won the battle and I live to fight another day




            2
      2. Whether old news or new news, it bears repeating, since the vast majority of our unhealthy population doesn’t get it!




        6
    1. It’s still an issue more than ever – and as long as it is, it’s still news. And for those who do know it, it’s our responsibility to keep trying to do something about it. Many people do not know this stuff.




      12
  1. Marketplace , which is a consumer type TV show in Canada , is reporting that due to new regulations , cheeses may have to have warning labels on them due to the high salt and fat content .Something similiar to warnings found on tobacco products . They also report the dairy industry is very upset about this ,as dairy is normally marketed as something healthy .




    31
      1. @guest and @guest125– Sorry for the difficulty following the video, but most of us do understand the rationale for isolating, magnifying and bolding text, on screen. Quite frankly, some visitors demand to see chapter and verse of research before they will even consider the information. The only way to satisfy their curiosity is to provide them, verbatim, the words of the researchers.

        Despite an age of accelerating scientific discovery, some still insist it is a very bad idea to give consumers scientifically-based information about nutritional choices. This, of course, is the ultimate “industrial” Nanny-State, which wants to tell consumers which products to buy, but wants to exclude all other voices.

        Theirs is the old tactic of attacking the (scientific) messenger simply because the message is inconvenient.




        6
        1. hi alphaa thanks for your comments. I enjoy watching the videos on NF, particularly ones like this one https://nutritionfacts.org/video/whats-your-gut-microbiome-enterotype/ The title of the paper is in view, the background slightly darkened, and the quote isolated and brought forward . Wonderful.

          The page splitting technique makes me a bit nauseous to view which apparently is not uncommon. A videographer instructor made comments to this effect as well as detailed crtiques of the new styles on trial back in march.




          2
    1. Not trying to be preachy here, but when one has such little control over some things, just let it go. Let the stress go… then pat yourself on the back for being flexible.




      17
      1. And just go on shopping in the produce aisle, browsing the interesting vid’s on nutritionfacts.org on what to buy there, and ignore the rest.




        11
        1. Yes James, agree that’s a good plan. However, I disagree with Casper’s comments in that this site is supported by donations from all of us.. therefore, if the format (or other issue ) changes, becomes disagreeable, uncomfortable or unwieldy to use, then you would think the site designers would like to know how we feel about it.




          7
          1. Ok, so if that’s the case… then someone should post 3 videos that are representative of 3 format/styles, and all of us can vote on it.

            Dr. G. can’t just listen to one or two unhappy people, because he’d be going back and forth all month. Next video, someone will complain that he likes today’s format better.




            6
              1. I don’t recall a serious vote presented in that fashion. Again, a few people that complain, are sure to be the minority in a real vote.




                3
              1. No. He shouldn’t. It’s not about fairness. It’s about science and the fact that there’s no need to consume animal products (apart from satisfying one’s taste buds). In other words, when you remove “taste preferences”, a meat-eater cannot name one single nutrient that is inherent of animal products that cannot be found in (safer) plant sources.




                13
                  1. Nice try. Neither are Nutrients.

                    Also, there are 595mg of Glycine in 1 cup of black beans.

                    And they’re not required for superior health. Plus, your body produces collagen, and plants rich in B vitamins, A, C, and E such as nuts and seeds are all one needs to increase collagen production.




                    10
                    1. Re: And they’re not required for superior health. Plus, your body produces collagen

                      This sentence alone tells me how much you know (or don’t know) about nutrition. There is no need to discuss further.




                      0
                    2. Glycine and creatine are non essential amino acids but they are very essential when you grow older. They serve to repair everything from repairing your joint to boosting your immune system to support mental health. Google to find out the long list of benefits.

                      Creatine is found in meat or fish and science says that there are no vegetarian sources. Therefore, vegetarians have to get enough of the amino acids arginine, glycine, and methionine which are used in production of creatine, and it’s not efficient.

                      The body also stops or slows down the production of collagen as you grow old. That’s why old people get wrinkles and pain in their joints and cannot hold their bowel and pee because all the internal valves and joints and muscles get deteriorated and do not get replaced.

                      You can get the above easily if you consume bone broth or eat meat from joint.




                      1
                    3. Bone broth sounds a bit like a Weston Price Foundation recommendation. Hmm.

                      I don’t know what science you’re following, but there’s Glycine in lots of plants.

                      Again, I’m not going to repeat what I’ve already said about collagen production. You’re being silly.

                      Plus, if you’re old (especially) you should worry more about the effects of IGF-1 production and less about collagen production. Let’s see… “wrinkles or cancer”….




                      1
                    4. LoL. Ok Jer, sorry to waste your time.

                      Good luck following the disciples of Weston Price. Peace dude.




                      0
              2. @Charles–
                In the “interest of fairness”, fairness is not an issue. This is not a debate forum, but a discussion of scientific research on nutrition. Dr. Greger’s mission is to move discussion along the path of science, not driven by the winds of passionate belief..




                7
              3. Opposing views to Drs Greger, Fuhrman, Ornish, Esselstyn,McDougall and others supporting the whole plant-based focus are millions of times more common. I find dietitians to be nearly the largest group of uneducated preachers but doctors are not all that far behind, even some associated with Harvard present misinformation not supported by Harvard.
                It certainly will be another one hundred to five hundred years before science has what could be called an excellent handle on nutrition but how poor of an idea can it be to follow successful large populations like the traditional Okinawans and others in the Blue Zones?
                I hope Dr Greger writes a book like “How Not To Die” every five years or so and I am not going to spend time studying opposing views to each book.




                7
          2. Just a suggestion, but the simple solution if you are distracted by the emerging text in the video, just pause your video while you read the text, then continue. You learn more that way and don’t miss any of the audio either.




            0
    2. Omg. We are still complaining about the video format? What in The Lord’s name is so difficult to follow? In fact, I think this format is SO easy to follow it actually seems to be too easy… it moves slowly, and magnified the text to reinforce what Dr. G is saying… what is great about the old format? I’ve been watching these videos for years and have never had any issue following any presentation style. I really don’t get it. In the video world you get to pause, rewind, play again, etc. In a real world classroom setting you get none of that.




      24
      1. @Casper–
        Actually, high-lighting the video narrative text is the very thing which drew me to NutritionFacts.org, and kept me here. Whatever the point under discussion, I could read what the researchers actually said.




        4
    3. Completely agree. There has been a string of these videos lately. The ones with green text that blows up and pushes all of the other text out of the way are terrible. So hard to watch. I hope they get rid of this style. The video content is great. The delivery is awful. There’s another new style where the highlighted text doesn’t move but rather is highlighted and the rest darkened. That’s pretty good. Please hear our pleas, Nutrition Facts moderators….




      4
      1. Just wanted to say, there’s a simple solution if you are distracted by the popping up text. Just pause the video, read the text, then restart the video. Simple.




        0
    4. I think the videos are clear and to the point….the highlighting reinforces the points being made….and there is not so much “scrolling” going on. Works for me.

      When there are charts and graphs…some of these could be more well thought out…




      0
  2. I would like to know what the 5 questions about nutrition asked of the Head Start Teachers were. You mentioned one, something like which of these have the most calories per gram, carb, protein, fat.

    Lets see how well the followers of this page do. I would defiantly like to know how I stack up ;)




    11
    1. I am also interested in the difficulty of these questions, I can’t find the study in the link or online. However, I do see that the supposed answer to Q.5 – How much fat should be in the diet is 30%. I don’t accept that as a fact. Can anyone find the questions in full?




      3
  3. I am someone can help! I want to go plant based especially since I am a kidneybtransplant patient and the doctors tell me that my risk of diabetes and cancer is higher. Can anyone direct me to some resources for plant based diet and Post transplant?!

    Also I have secondary hyperparathyroidism due to years of kidney disease. Can a plan to based diet help reverse it?! Is there anything special I need to avoid?!

    I also have two kiddos and I download the app for the daily dozen. Is that portion also good for kids?!

    Thank You!




    3
    1. Regarding your first question, I just did a quick internet search and these are two examples I found that you may find helpful:

      Plant-Based Diets in Kidney Disease Management:
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dat.20594/full

      This Kidney Life (a blog): “What is the Best Post-Transplant Diet?”
      https://thiskidneylife.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/what-is-the-best-post-transplant-diet/

      The last page of this states, in part: Limit saturated fat, sodium and cholesterol intake, consume a plant‐based, high fiber diet
      https://stanfordhealthcare.org/content/dam/SHC/clinics/heart-transplant-program/docs/3-months-post-transplant.pdf

      And, of course, NutritionFacts & How Not to Die are great resources for the information you, or anyone seeking optimum health, are seeking.

      Best wishes!




      6
    2. If I were you April, depending where you live and you financial health, with your conditions I’d seriously only go to McDougall on the West Coast or Fuhrman on the East Coast. Or try to find a Plant-Based doctor who really understands how to deal with your situation. Plant based in general is always superior to omnivorous. However, it is no longer enough to rely on treating yourself because you need an expert Doctor to customize a plant-based solution for you.

      Just one example: Soy is almost always a healthy source of protein and reduces the risk of breast and prostate cancers. But if you Thyroid is burned out, it’s safest to avoid Soy.

      Dr. G’s DD is a basic guideline for anyone to follow, kids-adults.




      3
    3. April Friend, The website http://www.drmcdougall.com is always good for more in-depth information on many topics. Dr McDougall is also great about answering emails, many times the same day you send them. Here is a link to a newspaper article on kidney disease he did. He isn’t talking about post-transplant, but I’m pretty sure he could point you to more information on the subject if you email him.

      https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/jul/kidney.htm




      4
  4. This reminded me of part of a poem by Jan Garrett based on Rumi’s famouse poem,Don’t Go Back to Sleep:

    The breeze at dawn has secrets to tell you,
    The market only wants to buy and sell you.
    Fight to stay awake
    Choose the path you take…
    (Don’t go back to sleep.)
    ~Jan Garrett




    4
  5. I can see how this nanny law won’t work. Take for instance fats, there are many kind and some are harmless or even necessary up to a certain degree. For instance saturated fat is harmless and even needed to some degree and yet Dr Greger and a number of people call it harmful, incorrectly of course. On the other hand, transfat is harmful, or PUFA fat is also harmful if consumed too much and without a balance of Omega 3 fat. And DHA and EPA fats from Omega 3 are essential for the brain and can be found in abundance in fish oil, and yet Dr Greger and his fans call it polluted.

    So how do we pass a law to ban certain fats such as transfat in processed foods and vegetable oil, or even Omega 6 fat in nut for instance if consumed too much while leaving other healthy fats alone (such as coconut fat)?

    There is a fat difference in opinions between people when it comes to fats.




    4
    1. Jerry Lewis, fortunately for us, Dr Greger doesn’t report his opinions. Everything he reports is based on good science that has not been paid for by an industry that will profit from it or a diet doctor selling a book. He doesn’t take advertising that could influence his reporting, as many other websites do. He doesn’t sell products, other than his book and videos, all of which will tell you the same things you learn on this site.




      19
      1. Unfortunately his theory is often based on bad or obsolete sciences. And doing things for free does not always mean the right things. Plenty of people do the wrong thing based on their own conviction.




        2
        1. Jerry, why don’t you try debunking his “theories” if you’re so intelligent? Show us some specifics and flaws in Dr. G’s work. Give it a try.




          8
  6. Jerry
    Could you post that research article that demonstrates that “saturated fat is harmless.”
    Thanks! That is how this all works in science. Make a statement and then link an article. Not a blog post.




    19
      1. Supported by the National Dairy Council (PWS-T and RMK) and made possible by grant UL1 RR024131-01 from the National Center for Research Resources, a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research (PWS-T and RMK). QS was supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship from Unilever Corporate Research. FBH was supported by NIH grant HL60712.




        16
        1. “Our results suggested publication bias, such that studies with significant associations tended to be received more favorably for publication. If unpublished studies with null associations were included in the current analysis, the pooled RR estimate for CVD could be even closer to null. Furthermore, despite several indi- cations in the published literature that sex and age may modify the association of saturated fat with CHD (5, 6, 8, 10), we did not observe effects of these variables on CHD risk. “




          10
      2. Did you read each of the 21 studies? Did you check who funded these 21 studies? You realize this was put together in 2010 and does not reflect current science?




        1
  7. I think the last lines of the video are the way forward rather than legislating what we can and cannot eat or do.

    With the explosion of Internet access and available information and connectivity, no company wants bad press (just ask United Airlines about this.)

    We have the means to police ourselves in re: what’s good or bad. But just like on this forum where some decry the data put forth, healthy debate often takes place and right thinking individuals decide what is best for them.

    IMHO, more govt. is not what we need. More grass-roots democracy informing us is the way forward in improving our health, both collectively and individually.




    8
    1. Totally agree. Less govt is best!!

      I also wonder why (we) vegans unconditionally try to help our meat-eating become healthier. We always find ourselves in debates at family gatherings, etc. My new attitude is… I’ll try to share knowledge once about something, but if I get resistance from a friend or family member who won’t give up his animal food, I just let it go.

      Same thing happens in politics. Everyone is cemented in their beliefs and it ends up going nowhere. Meat eaters cannot generally appreciate the help we’re trying to offer. It often has to be a revelation on his own time. But even after a triple bypass, I know someone who will not quit smoking or put down the burger. That’s how powerful food is.




      10
  8. Please, Dr. Greger, stick to nutrition and ditch the political advocacy forum.

    By your reasoning, there is no argument against a health dictatorship in which every action that the government judges to be risky or unhealthy is declared illegal on the grounds that “society” will have to take care of you if you get sick or injured due to your own indiscretion. How about holding each individual responsible for the consequences of his own actions?! Then he might actually take responsibility for them.

    Believe it or not, there really are such things as individual rights — the right to make one’s own decisions, so long as they don’t violate the equal rights of others. But the only rights that individuals have in a society in which nutrition police control one’s every action are the rights to do what one is told, courtesy of the latest research on health and longevity.

    I worry that if Dr. Greger has his way, all animal products will be outlawed and I will no longer be permitted to enjoy my favorite can of sardines unless I consume them in an underground speakeasy controlled by the fishery cartel. :-/




    7
    1. Re: I worry that if Dr. Greger has his way, all animal products will be outlawed and I will no longer be permitted to enjoy my favorite can of sardines unless I consume them in an underground speakeasy controlled by the fishery cartel. :-/

      I worry about that day too. Another Kim Jong Un of foods.




      2
      1. Oh please, Jerry!?!

        To compare Dr. G (whose advice is BENEFITING humans) to a maniacal Tyrant piece of garbage who terrorizes people is irresponsible to say the least.

        You’re never going to see that day anyway because 99.5% of Westerners can’t go a day without eating some animal product.




        7
    2. Hi Roger,

      Thanks for your civil and reasonable reply, one that’s entirely devoid of hyperbole. ;-) If my argument is as illogical as you say, perhaps you could enlighten me. I’m always eager to learn from those more knowledgeable than I.

      Cheers!




      3
    1. If any of you haven’t seen What The Health documentary yet, I strongly recommend it. Dr. G is in it …woohoo!

      It includes a part showing how the major associations all take in money from these insidious companies. Sickening.

      Meanwhile, they take our donations and continue to claim they’re searching “cures”… as we KNOW we already have the cures in diet and lifestyle. SMH




      5
      1. pretty good movie ,” What the Health” .However I would not recommend it to anyone critical of whole foods or vegans . The 3 people at end , mostly the lady with the walker , just is not believable . How can someone with two weeks on whole foods cure osteoporosis in two weeks?
        There are three possible answers , 1 she really did cure her osteoporosis in two weeks . 2 she did not have osteoporosis 3 she did a fine job of acting
        In any case it’s observational and testimonial demonstration . It is cringe worthy for all the doctors on that movie to be involved with something so fake .
        what a shame




        1
  9. I think it would be awesome to have unhealthful “food” products submitted to the same ‘Fairness Doctrine’ policy used for cigarettes “…a court ruling in 1967 required that tobacco companies funded one health ad about smoking for every four tobacco TV advertisements” that aired. How telling that… “Rather than face this corrective advertising, the tobacco industry took their own advertising off television. They knew they couldn’t compete with the truth.” Simply let us know the TRUTH in between the sales propaganda! To those with a transparent agenda objecting to this fairness, calling it “political”… get real, do you not understand the difference between fact and opinion? What would be the harm in educating people to reality, doing the above? I agree that blatant bans and prohibitions are wrong, ineffective, and often counterproductive, but that is NOT the issue here! Do you seriously think Dr G or anyone else is going to make policy or create legislation that hurt profit$, especially if the facts are even somewhat debatable? This trend to denigrate intelligent people who question the sick status quo in any way by attaching some derogatory label to them infuriates me! Everyone who questions the volume, schedule, or dubious additives in vaccines is NOT an “anti-vaxxer”; anyone who questions the pat, controvertible “official” version of any public or governmental declaration is NOT a “conspiracy theorist”, and anyone who wants the unambiguous truth to be known and cares enough to propose fair and beneficial options is NOT a “nanny” Dr Greger is NOT proposing to infringe or affect your “individual rights”, except to invite the dreaded introspection and intelligent choice.




    10
    1. Thank you very much. I’m equally frustrated and disgusted by the extreme partisanship on seemingly every single topic these days. I have no idea how we can get enough people to rise above it or if it’s even possible. Sad times.




      0
    2. Vegetate says, “I agree that blatant bans and prohibitions are wrong, ineffective, and often counterproductive, but that is NOT the issue here! Do you seriously think Dr G or anyone else is going to make policy or create legislation that hurt profit$, especially if the facts are even somewhat debatable?”

      Well, in his videos covering trans fat, the good doctor does suggest that government should legislate against unhealthful dietary practices. In “Controversy Over the Trans Fat Ban,” he asks, “Why, if so many people were dying, did it take so long for the U.S. to suggest taking action [against trans fat]?” By taking action, he means banning them. . . .

      He continues, this time lampooning the Supreme Court: “As Chief Justice Roberts said, ‘Congress could start ordering everyone to buy vegetables. . . . But “as one legal scholar put it, ‘Judges and lawyers may live on the slippery slope of analogies, but they’re not supposed to ski it to the bottom.'”

      To which Dr. Greger replies, “If anything, what about the slippery slope of inaction? Government initially defaulted to business interests in the case of tobacco and pursued weak and ineffective attempts at education to try to counter all the tobacco industry lies, and look what happened. The unnecessary deaths could be counted in the millions. The U.S. can ill afford to repeat this mistake with diet.”

      There you have it.




      0
      1. William how does your legislative opinion jive with various foods causing heart disease, cancer etc and the American citizens paying the medical bills? We pay through increase in costs for all medical services. The healthy people subsidize the sick. The insurance industry does not charge me less if I need care or for my premiums.

        When in New York Bloomberg suggested the “Coke size” limitations it seemed crazy. But just crazy enough to get wide coverage. Everyone was discussing it. And the message was Coke is bad. Just as cigarettes are bad. Etc. I say tax the crap out of all that stuff and use the money to care for the sick individuals that those businesses attract with their deceptive advertising.




        3
        1. Hi WFPBRunner.

          You wrote, “William how does your legislative opinion jive with various foods causing heart disease, cancer etc and the American citizens paying the medical bills? We pay through increase in costs for all medical services. The healthy people subsidize the sick. The insurance industry does not charge me less if I need care or for my premiums.”

          Good question, and thanks for asking. I certainly don’t agree that you or anyone else should have to pay for my medical bills. Nor should I have to pay for yours or theirs. The argument that if I get sick or injured, others have to bear the cost of my health care can be used as an argument for banning every unhealthful or risky behavior under the sun. It can be used as an argument for total control over your life and actions on the grounds that others are responsible for taking care of you in the event of an accident or illness.

          You can say that this is an unrealistic “slippery slope” argument, but it is an argument based on the implications of your fundamental premises.

          Anyway, the details of this issue are beyond the scope of our forum. There’s not enough time or space to cover the history of health insurance in this country and the problems associated with it. Suffice it to say that I believe that the ultimate goal should be a return to individual rights and its corollary, individual responsibility, not towards the kind of collectivized system in which society (via the government) controls everyone’s choices and assumes responsibility for their welfare.




          0
        1. I assume you’re referring to my reply to VegeTater, who wrote: “I agree that blatant bans and prohibitions are wrong, ineffective, and often counterproductive, but that is NOT the issue here! Do you seriously think Dr G or anyone else is going to make policy or create legislation that hurt profit$, especially if the facts are even somewhat debatable?”

          My point was that Dr. Greger does indeed support legislation against unhealthful dietary practices by, for example, endorsing a ban on trans fat. He also states: “Government initially defaulted to business interests in the case of tobacco and pursued weak and ineffective attempts at education to try to counter all the tobacco industry lies, and look what happened. The unnecessary deaths could be counted in the millions. The U.S. can ill afford to repeat this mistake with diet.”

          What does this mean if not that the government should have banned the sale of cigarettes, not just warn against their dangers? And what does he mean when he then says that “The U.S. can ill afford to repeat this mistake with diet,” if not that it should also ban unhealthful dietary practices?




          1
  10. I am a Public Health Nurse in need of a quiz to help demonstrate to my fellow nurses that we need to update our nutrition knowledge and recognize the predatory tactics of the saturated fat and junk food industry. Can you refer me to any quizzes or other resources like that?




    3
    1. Ask them, “What’s the importance of maintaining a healthy microbiota, and name 3 foods that can feed Gut bacteria in order to mainain a healthy immune system and help prevent colon diseases”?




      1
  11. Healtheducator:

    Here’s 1 question:

    Ask 10 nurses what they “think” causes T2DM. I guarantee all 10 nurses say “too much sugar and carbs”.

    Guarantee not one of the 10 has ever heard of Intramyocellular Lipotoxicity.




    4
  12. This is an excellent video that illustrates why there is so much confusion about nutrition. Misleading information (lies) that supports people’s bad habits can be very effective.




    2
    1. Thank you for your comment! Yes, it is sad how much the food industry places profit over health, but that is why people like Dr. Greger do what they do. As long as people are interested in learning the truth the big industries won’t win!




      1
  13. I generally like what Dr. Greger is doing here at nutritionfacts.org. He is a medical doctor who reads the science, seeks to put it into practice, disseminates it, and doesn’t let it go dormant as he trudges up the next mountain of learning and discovering. But Dr. Greger’s political advocacy for more regulation and government involvement is where we diverge.

    It is the doctors, as well as their medical schools and hospitals, who are responsible for this huge health misinformation, not the companies and product-pushers like government, dairy, tobacco, corn, sugar, meat, etc. Most doctors are not reading, disseminating, or putting into practice the latest study data. This is a lack of professionalism. The buck has to stop somewhere and if we are to give the sainted title of medical doctor or healthcare professional to “trained” folks who are then suppose give proper health information to their clients (aka patients), then they, the doctors, are responsible for the misinformation (exceptions already noted).

    Companies and product-pushers do not have the title ‘doctor’ or ‘healthcare professional’. Everyone knows companies and product-pushers are heavily influenced to “make the sale” in order to make a buck. Yes, lying by these folks should not be tolerated and they should prosecuted/fined as tort law goes. But are we suppose to go so lightly on doctors and healthcare professionals when they seem to be heavily influenced to “make the sale” to make a buck via recommending pills, surgeries, and filling up waiting rooms and hospital beds?

    The stronger that nutrition is emphasized by their doctor, the more likely it is that clients (aka patients) would begin to realize the serious role plant-based nutrition plays in their health status. A doctor’s prescription could even be a 3-week whole foods plant-based eating plan and they could see the client as often as deemed necessary to monitor the situation (this is an idea I have heard from a few folks). The doctor’s whole food plant-based recommendations would run counter to many of the commercials, ads on the internet, or government/industry promotions. This would give clients pause to consider this dichotomy of information and force them to take responsibility to make a decision on who to believe. If a client/patient opted to ignore the doctor’s recommendations, then that is their right. Currently, there is little difference between nutrition/dietary information received via commercials, ads, or from a doctor’s office.

    The problem with consumer misinformation lies largely with getting poor information from one’s regular doctors, nurses, dietitians, and hospitals. It is the love of money and allowing it to flow to certain areas of healthcare from groups who are interested in making more money, not promoting health, that has led to the distortion of medicine. Doctors, hospitals, and medical school boards and administrators are made up of imperfect people who want to help people but they also desire money, status, and power. This conflict exists in companies, industries, and government as well. There are no human angels in some corner of the globe that exist that are yet to be found who can make unbiased decisions for each individual. Folks can choose their own nutrition. But it is the doctors, hospitals, and medical schools who should be modeling sound, science-based health and nutrition practices and measuring these practices in their clients to hold them accountable. Encouraging personal responsibility of doctors, clients, hospitals, and medical schools, will lessen the distortion of health information, not more government legislation, taxes on clients, and subsidies to specific industries.




    4
  14. Way to exaggerate, Roger & Jerry. LOL. I love Dr. G & his staff & am so grateful for the information they work so hard to put out. However, banning & outlawing what people have called food for centuries, is not the way to go. I’m all for regulations as long as they are put into place & properly enforced for the sole purpose of allowing people to have access to scientific facts that will help them make their own decisions.
    I really don’t care if William wants to eat a sardine every now & then. That’s his business. Although I do dream of a world where he might have to go fish for it himself because fish is no longer part of our mainstream food system.

    The only thing I’m willing to ban at this point are the revolving doors between government agencies and big industries that collude to keep consumers in the dark. We have to find a way to put an end to that.




    2
  15. I think you’ll find reassurance Roberta reading the following two science-based rebuttal’s of Ms Winger’s criticism of Dr.Campbell’s highly esteemed and rigorous study. I think you’ll find Dr. Campbell does a very convincing clarification of the misinformation Ms Winger attempts in her biased and misleading critique. As someone who has carefully read The China Study, I was impressed how very rigorous an approach Dr. Campbell took to his research. Still there will always be detractors since efforts to debunk respected scientists garners attention, whether the claims are fair or even factual.
    http://proteinaholic.com/a-response-to-denise-minger-part-1/
    http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html
    Rest assured, look to science-based evidence and know you are doing the best you can for your cancer treatment following a whole food plant based approach. Best of health to you




    0
  16. Hi,

    I couldn’t really find a place to post this question, bc I haven’t found a video on it.
    Whats the truth as far as “when to eat fruit” not so much the time of day, but more in conjunction with other foods. Ive read fruit should be consumed by itself between meals, or before a heavy meal since it digests quicker and if eaten after a meal, can cause the other food to spoil or rot while waiting to be digested. Then I also read that the stomach produces so much acid, that no mold or bacteria would be able to grow and that eating fruit after a meal doesn’t cause a significant enough time delay for the stomach to empty into the intestine.

    Thx
    Kim




    0
  17. I have alopecia and I was wondering if going on a plant based diet would help me? And if there are any research articles regarding this issue?




    0

Leave a Reply

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

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This