Photobucket


La Vida Locavore
 Subscribe in a reader
Follow La Vida Locavore on Twitter - Read La Vida Locavore on Kindle

Head of Harvard Nutrition Unit Says Schools Should Just Say No to Chocolate Milk

by: euclidarms

Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 16:19:05 PM PST


Bookmark and Share
( - promoted by JayinPortland)

The USDA requires that schools offer milk with breakfast and lunch. Given a choice, kids unsurprisingly and overwhelmingly prefer chocolate milk over plain. Estimates indicate that between 60 and 70 percent of the milk consumed in the school meals program is flavored.

Many children start their day with a government-sponsored breakfast consisting of strawberry-flavored milk containing nearly as much sugar ounce-for-ounce as Mountain Dew, poured over a bowl of Apple Jacks or other sugar-enhanced cereal. Until recently, kids as young as five in the District of Columbia routinely were being served the equivalent of 15 teaspoons of sugar before classes even started, and experts say that's not at all uncommon in school districts around the country. Some are even worse.

The dairy industry thinks that's no problem. But Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, disagrees.

euclidarms :: Head of Harvard Nutrition Unit Says Schools Should Just Say No to Chocolate Milk
"These highly sugared milks make absolutely no sense whatsoever," Willet told me in an interview. "The use of sugar as an important part of the diet makes absolutely no sense nutritionally, especially when obesity is the No. 1 health problem facing our nation."

Willett says the nation's schools should not be serving sugary chocolate milk to children and that too many refined, starchy foods in the federally-subsidized school meals program pose a risk of obesity and other weight-related illness. Willett and Harvard colleagues recently went public with findings exonerating fat and blaming sugar and too many starchy carbohydrates -- such as those found in bread, pasta, and potatoes -- for many of the nation's health problems, including obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease.

"People are getting 50 percent of their calories from carbs, and 80 percent of those calories are from refined starch and sugar," Willett said. "Kids in school are getting the full brunt of that diet."

Willett, who has not spoken out publicly on the school-food issue previously, is joining a growing chorus of prestigious critics questioning the routine use of flavored milks and other sugary products in school meals.

Meanwhile, an Emory University study described as the first of its kind finds that children who eat lots of sugar are at greater risk for heart disease. Released this week, the study found that sugar accounted for more than 21 percent of the calories in the diets of average teenagers, resulting in lowered levels of "good cholesterol" (HDL) and elevated levels of fat in the blood (triglycerides), both key markers of heart disease.

In examining dietary survey results compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control from 2,157 teenagers across the country, the study found that some teens got an astonishing 30 percent of their calories from sugar. Overweight children with the highest level of sugar consumption also showed increased signs of insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes.

Most of that sugar is believed to come from sodas and other sugary beverages. Sugar, while delivering calories, has no nutritional value, and some have called it an "anti-nutrient" because of the health problems it can cause. Yet it has become a regular stand-in for real food in school meals because it delivers lots of calories at little cost.

Greg Miller, a nutritionist and executive vice-president of research, regulatory, and scientific affairs at the National Dairy Council, defended flavored milk in school meals, saying he routinely feeds his own children chocolate milk because of the many nutrients it contains -- calcium, vitamin D, potassium, phosphorous, riboflavin, to name a few -- and because his children won't drink plain milk.

Miller said studies indicate that kids offered chocolate and other milk products with added sugar get equally good nutrition as do drinkers of plain milk and do not show signs of being any heavier. "Certainly we want to be concerned about sugar," Miller said. "But I look at other places to cut sugar -- less nutrient-dense foods, like cookies."

The National Dairy Council vigorously promotes flavored milk in school through the industry's "Raise Your Hand for Chocolate Milk!" campaign. Miller noted that companies such as milk giant Dean Foods are looking for ways to reduce the sugar content of flavored milk. "We want to be a responsible industry," he said.

Likewise, the School Nutrition Association (SNA), which is partially funded by the dairy industry, and where dairy interests have a seat on an "industry advisory committee," also continues to promote flavored milk in schools despite its sugar content.

The SNA represents some 50,000 of the country's school food service workers, giving it broad influence over the kinds of foods served in school cafeterias.

SNA spokeswoman Diane Pratt-Heavner pointed to proposed nutrition guidelines for school meals, published in October 2009 by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), that set no limit for sugar in school meals and make specific allowances for including sugary flavored milk on cafeteria menus.

Saying they were "concerned that eliminating all flavored milk would result in a substantial decrease in milk intake," committee members cited a 2008 study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association that found that children who prefer flavored milk drink just as much milk as kids who prefer plain, and get just as much nutrition without adverse weight gain. That study was funded by dairy interests and written by nutritionists with longstanding ties to the industry.

The IOM committee also said it expected that reducing calorie requirements for school meals, increasing the amount of fat permitted, and requiring bigger portions of vegetables and whole grains would tend to squeeze sugar-laden foods such as desserts off school menus. The recommendations, written at the behest of the USDA, have not yet been formally adopted, but are expected to be released today for public comment.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Great diary, lots of good info (4.00 / 1)

Don't have much to say about it except I think that this sort of 'sugar pushing' in the name of 'nutrition' is deplorable.

 


Techincally chocolate milk is not milk (4.00 / 2)
Chocolate milk is usually made with product that has gone of of code date or for various reasons cannot be sold as fluid milk.

You technically adulterate fluid milk when you add sugar, flavor and re-pasteurize the blended drink.

Not only is chocolate milk bad for kids it's over processed second hand milk.


George, please substantiate. (4.00 / 1)
I've previously asked you to substantiate your comment, and you never have done it. If it's true, it would be good for us to have the evidence.

[ Parent ]
Dean Foods (4.00 / 1)
Miller noted that companies such as milk giant Dean Foods are looking for ways to reduce the sugar content of flavored milk.

How difficult can it be to decrease the amount of added sugar? Maybe we could just, um, er, add less?


Greg Miller's answer (4.00 / 1)
Is Chocolate Milk Losing Ground in School Lunches?

A while back, we asked Greg Miller, PhD, executive vice president of science and research for the National Dairy Council, why no manufacturer will try a slightly less sweet formulation.His response was that kids simply did not like the taste once a certain threshold of sugar was removed.



[ Parent ]
Greg Miller's children (4.00 / 1)
Greg Miller looks like a pudge to me. I wonder what his three kids look like.

[ Parent ]
You can make chocolate milk with stevia (4.00 / 2)

Couple of spoons of cocoa powder in a cup of milk and stevia to taste (depends on it's concentration).  You have to blend it though.

 I bet kids wouldn't know the difference.  I had it once and couldn't tell.  I think I might try it again and see.  

 Even if they took out half the sugar and upped the sweetness with stevia it would be better.  

 I tend to figure that the reason why something like stevia isn't used more (it just seems obvious to me) has something to do with 'big sugar' and 'big corn syrup' influence in this sort of thing.

 


[ Parent ]
original diary (4.00 / 1)
Here's the link for Ed's diary at The Slow Cook, which includes other links:

Head of Harvard Nutrition Unit Says No to Chocolate Milk


blood triglycerides (4.00 / 1)
...findings exonerating fat and blaming sugar and too many starchy carbohydrates...

and

...the study found that sugar accounted for more than 21 percent of the calories in the diets of average teenagers, resulting in lowered levels of "good cholesterol" (HDL) and elevated levels of fat in the blood (triglycerides)...

This might bear repetition, although everyone here probably has the information:

Consuming excess carbohydrate requires our bodies to convert it to fat, because we do not store glucose and we store very little starch. The fat is manufactured in one location (the liver), from which it is transported in the blood stream to fat cells. While being transported, this fat shows up in tests as triglycerides in the blood. One excellent way to reduce fat in the bloodstream (blood triglycerides) is to reduce over-consumption of excess carbohydrates.


carb metabolism (4.00 / 1)
Pursuing links from Ed's original diary eventually gets you to a Los Angeles Times article. The article is good, but I disagree with the following:

All carbohydrates (a category including sugars) convert to sugar in the blood, and the more refined the carbs are, the quicker the conversion goes. When you eat a glazed doughnut or a serving of mashed potatoes, it turns into blood sugar very quickly. To manage the blood sugar, the pancreas produces insulin, which moves sugar into cells, where it's stored as fuel in the form of glycogen.

True, what glucose we store is stored in the form of glycogen, but as I said above, we don't store much glycogen. Most excess carb becomes fat. This is stated correctly later in the article.

This from the article astounds:

Americans, on average, eat 250 to 300 grams of carbs a day, accounting for about 55% of their caloric intake.

I didn't know that. I wonder how this compares to the carb content of Reese's Pieces. 1000 - 1200 carb calories per day every day on average - that isn't just amazing, it's crazy.

On average. I can't get over that.

The most conservative recommendations say they should eat half that amount.

No less astounding is this from the L. A. Times article:

Joanne Slavin, professor of nutrition at the University of Minnesota and a member of the advisory committee for the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, is less inclined to support the movement. The committee, she says, "looked at carbohydrates and health outcomes and did not find a relationship between carbohydrate intake and increased disease risk."

Pshaw. And I wondered why the DGA is so screwy. That reminds me - the 2010 DGA never was published. Maybe sometime in 2011?


[ Parent ]
2010 DGA advisory committee (4.00 / 1)
USDA AND HHS ANNOUNCE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE 2010 DIETARY GUIDELINES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Willett is not on the committee, but one Harvard epidemiologist is.


[ Parent ]
I'll add to the carbohydrate info (4.00 / 2)
There are complex carbohydrates and simple carbohydrates. The simple carbs are converted to sugars and enter the blood stream faster than the complex carbs which enter the blood stream more slowly as they are converted to sugars more slowly. If memory serves. My parents were both diabetic, dad went diabetic 20+ years earlier than mom, and I remember both of them having to manage different types of carb intake carefully, especially as they went on insulin injections.

They both took fast acting insulin and slow acting insulin. The fast acting was important to deal with the simple carbs, and the slow acting dealt with the complex carbs.

Each metabolized the different carbs differently, and had to manage their diets differently. I remember that one could eat grapes, the other could eat apples, but neither could eat the fruit that the other could eat. Both had to check their blood glucose levels 3 times/day. Mom was sedentary, and her food intake and insulin intake could remain pretty steady day to day.

Dad, on the other hand, was very active, and had to regulate his food intake (ammounts and types) and insulin intake (fast acting and slow acting) based on what activities he'd be engaging in during each day.

A huge hastle for both of them, and very expensive, even with insurance. Dangerous as well, as if they didn't guage and balance the food/activity/insulin formula, they'd either wind up with the blood sugar too high (more of a long term problem) or too low (which can render you unconcious all of a sudden). Both had to carry quick release sugar sources in the form of sugar cubes and fruit juice in case the blood sugar dropped all of a sudden. I remember a few times when dad didn't gauge everything quite right and I'd have to run to the truck and grab a can of apple juice (he carried those little cans of Tree Top apple juice with him every where he went) because his blood sugar would drop all of a sudden. Maybe that's why he always ate oatmeal for breakfast in the morning. Perhaps it provides complex carbohydrates.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
interesting conundrum, Joanne (4.00 / 1)
Both grapes and apples are said to be good sources of pectin, which Barry Sears says slows down absorption of glucose from the stomach into the bloodstream, and both fruits have about the same (moderate) glycemic index.

There might be some different sugar composition in the fruit, although I wouldn't think that would matter if both have about the same glycemic index. An article on Apple Wine shows significant sucrose (more sucrose than glucose), whereas wine grapes have almost no sucrose by the time they are harvested. I didn't find anything about table grapes.

Most ordinary people in common American usage seem to think "simple carbohydrate" means sugar and "complex carbohydrate" means starch. Some people go so far as to limit "simple" to monosaccharides such as glucose and fructose, while they say that even a disaccharide such as sucrose is "complex."

Although I have heard and seen truly outlandish claims for the benefits of "complex carbohydrates", the consensus is that there isn't much difference between sugar and refined starch. Athletes pasta load because it provides readily available glucose, after all. There is exactly the point to which you went in your final sentence, however. Whole grains in general are good sources of "soluble fiber", often or usually pectin, which I would say truly is a complex carbohydrate.

In my case, oatmeal does seem to stay with me for a while, I will say that (but I need sugar and spices). For apples and grapes - one apple satisfies me, but if I find really good grapes I can eat a whole bunch. Worse than roasted peanuts.


[ Parent ]
Interesting info (4.00 / 2)
but have you checked your blood glucose levels after eating each of those foods.

I think with my parents, the big difference between the grapes and apples was how their bodies metabolized the sugars and carbohybrates in the different fruits. That was one of the things I really learned from my parents both being diabetic, was that, regardless of complex carbs, simple carbs, glucose, fructose, lactose, dextrose, etc. different bodies metabolize the same foods differently.

It's a very complex subject.

Something else I learned from them and their journey with diabetes, was that everything, fats, carbohydrates, sugars other than glucose, starches, proteins, etc., are converted into sugar. Cells run on oxygen and glucose, and if I remember correctly (although it's been a long time), that's all they run on. Minerals and other nutrients are important of course, but if you don't have glucose and oxygen, I think you're pretty much up a creek as far as cell function.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
blood glucose (4.00 / 1)
Your question might have been rhetorical, but I'll answer it.

I have never knowingly had my blood glucose checked. It might have been determined during at least one physical exam sometime, but I have no idea what it might have been.

Tidbits:

We have enough ready glucose in our bloodstreams to sustain life for a few minutes. We store enough glycogen to sustain life for a day or so. Typically, we store enough fat to maintain metabolism for tens of days without food (after conversion to glucose) if we have a water supply. On average, carbohydrate elemental composition is about 50% oxygen compared to about 12% oxygen for fat, so compared to fat carbon in carbohydrate is highly oxidized. If our bodies had not evolved to store energy reserves as fat, either we wouldn't be able to survive without food for very long or we would be many tens of pounds heavier.

Protein can be fed into the glucose cycle if our bodies run out of fat, but them is desperate times.


[ Parent ]
another tidbit (4.00 / 1)
I just found this:

Traditionally Eskimos ate only meat and fish. Why didn't they get scurvy?

Stefansson noticed the same thing you did, that the traditional Eskimo diet consisted largely of meat and fish, with fruits, vegetables, and other carbohydrates - the usual source of vitamin C - accounting for as little as 2 percent of total calorie intake.

Whoa!

This is interesting too:

It turns out that the people of the north have a highly evolved physiology that makes them well suited to life in the arctic: a compact build that conserves warmth, a faster metabolism, optimally distributed body fat, and special modifications to the circulatory system.

I wonder what the circulatory modifications are. Remember our discussion about thermoregulation in tuna?


[ Parent ]
Interesting point (4.00 / 1)
about thermoregulation. My mom noticed when I was a kid that I could be out in freezing temps, in just a light shirt and be comfortable. My skin would be ice cold, but I felt fine. She attributed that to the possiblility that my body was pulling the blood into the core.

I'm still that way, when the temps drop I get cold tolerant, and when the temps rise I become heat tolerant. Kind of handy when you work outside most of the time.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
You know (4.00 / 1)
 the most amazing thing to me is that blood glucose levels aren't (or at least weren't 10 years ago) a standard part of a regular physical. Considering how serious high blood sugar is (Hyper glycemia) and given the fact that you can have extremely high blood sugar levels for a long time before any sypmtoms would be noticed, and considering how simple the test it (for God's sake, it's a drop of blood on a test strip and takes all of 30 seconds tops), I'm surprised it isn't something that every doctor administers at each annual physical. It'd cost maybe a couple bucks to administer?

Harold had high blood sugar, 350+ when I tested him the first time. How I found out was that my parents gave me a test kit for christmas one year (what a christmas present eh?). Anyway, I tested myself and was in the middle of the normal range. The I got to playing with the thing, and was testing everyone I could get to give me a drop of blood. I'd have tested Loiosh had I known that I could.

Anyway, Harold had been acting very oddly for several months, pretty much irrational. Couldn't figure out what was wrong with him. Then I tested his blood. Oh, blood sugar over 350, yup, that explains it.

Got him in to see an endocrinologist. Took care of that for quite a while.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
test kit for christmas (0.00 / 0)
Very very cool parents.

[ Parent ]
As far as bang for buck (4.00 / 1)
it's undoubtedly the best present I've ever gotten from anyone. Not only did it confirm what I already suspected about my blood sugar, but it probably saved Harold's life.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

[ Parent ]
Willett and nutrition (4.00 / 1)
Perhaps Willett hasn't spoken specifically about school nutrition before, but his views have been in the mix for a long time. The files from which I take this quote were downloaded to my computer in 2003, but the interview might have been from 2001.

Got Fat? Exploding Nutrition Myths

Harvard's World Health News conducted this interview with Walter Willett, M.D., Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition and Chair of the Department of Nutrition

Q: In what area of nutrition has there been the most disagreement?

A: Probably the most disagreement has concerned the optimal amount of fat and carbohydrate in the diet. Of course, fat and carbohydrate are opposite sides of the same coin; if you increase one, you decrease the other. For the last two decades the nutrition establishment has made reduction in percentage of calories from fat as the number one nutritional priority. I think that in the last several years, there has been a major shift in that view. There's not yet consensus on this area, but many people have come to realize that the percentage of calories from fat is not so important and may not actually be important at all within a wide range. But it is an area that's still unsettled, and we have popular diets representing extremes, from the super low-fat diets, like the one Dean Ornish promotes, to the Atkins-type diets which are very high in fat and protein and extremely low in carbohydrate.

The relation of fat intake to health is one of the areas that we have examined in detail over the last 20 years in our two large cohort studies: the Nurses' Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. We have found virtually no relationship between the percentage of calories from fat and any important health outcome. But what does seem important is the type of fat and the form of carbohydrate.

Unfortunately, these important details have been lost in the campaign to reduce all types of fat. Some of this is not new, because in the late 60s and 70s it was appreciated that the type of fat had an important influence on blood cholesterol levels. The fact that substituting unsaturated fats for saturated fats would reduce blood cholesterol levels provided the basis for the main public health message about diet at that time, and this certainly contributed to the decline in heart disease mortality during that period. But somewhere in the 80s this shifted to a message of "Reduce all types of fat and load up on complex carbohydrates." The current dietary pyramid is based on: all "complex" carbohydrates are good, all fats are bad. That view was never supported by any data and, in fact, was inconsistent with what was known early on, that the type of fat is a critical factor. The data from our studies and many other studies have supported a critical role of specific types of fat.

Q: What factors contributed to this shift in advice?

A: There are a number of reasons. I know well-intentioned nutritionists who thought paternalistically, "Oh the public just can't understand the complexities about different types of fat. Let's just say all fats are bad." But then they kept repeating that fat is bad until they forgot that it wasn't really true. It became dogma, which is hard to break. "Low-fat" also was politically convenient because almost every food industry could buy into the low-fat idea. The dairy industry had low-fat products; the beef industry came up with low-fat beef. And there was a lot of money to be made out of low-fat. In general, low-fat products are cheaper to produce because sugar is often substituted for fat, and sugar is cheaper. So, after initially resisting the idea, many food industries laughed all the way to the bank because you can get people to pay the same price--or often even a higher price--for a low-fat product that's actually cheaper to produce.

Q: Have low-fat products helped people lose weight?

A: Unfortunately, it seems not. There was a strong belief--and still is--among some members of the nutrition community that if you just lower the percentage of calories from fat, then people will, in some magical way, become lean. But it just hasn't happened. In fact, the opposite has happened, probably in part because people were told that they could eat all the carbohydrate they wanted to and it wouldn't turn to fat. So, you had people loading up on Snack-Well Cookies and it obviously didn't make them skinny.

Q: What about the relationship between fat intake and the risk of breast cancer?

A: In our most recent 14-year follow-up of the Nurses' Health Study, we did not find that low-fat diets protected against breast cancer. If anything, the trend was slightly in the opposite direction. The theory that low-fat diets could possibly increase one's risk for breast cancer is plausible because we know from carefully-controlled metabolic studies that when a middle-aged person who is of average weight and sedentary goes on a low-fat diet, they will have a bad metabolic response: their blood sugar and insulin levels rise, while their blood triglyceride levels go up and their HDL cholesterol--the "good" cholesterol--goes down. That is the syndrome of insulin resistance, and there is some evidence that high insulin levels might have adverse effects for cancer as well as heart disease risk. This is an area that's not yet settled, but it's a lively research topic at the moment.

Q: In light of this evidence, what should people do?

A: The bottom line is that people should be making choices about fat in their diet as it relates to heart disease risk, because that's very clear and well established. Again, it's not total fat that's important, but the type of fat. Until recently, the emphasis has been on replacing saturated fat with carbohydrate. But now it's clear that such a change will have little, if any, benefit for heart disease risk. To reduce risk, you need to replace saturated fat (found mainly in animal products, such as meat, butter, and whole milk) primarily with unsaturated fats--polyunsaturated and monounsaturated. Safflower, sunflower, corn, and soybean oils are high in polyunsaturated fats; canola and olive oils are good sources of monounsaturated fats. This will substantially reduce the risk of heart disease.

What has also become apparent is that trans fat is a key part of the picture that has been ignored until recently. Gram for gram, trans fatty acids are actually much worse than saturated fat because they have about the same adverse effects on LDL cholesterol, but, unlike any other type of fat, trans fat reduces HDL cholesterol and increases triglycerides and another undesirable blood fat, lipoprotein(a). That all adds up to a potent adverse effect on heart disease risk.

Unfortunately, trans fats are a prominent part of the U.S. diet. If you look at grocery shelves, almost everything in a package contains partially hydrogenated vegetable fat--meaning trans fats. It is inexcusable that we're feeding trans fats to the U.S. population without their informed consent. On the bright side, views have swung heavily over the last year or so and the FDA has recently proposed including trans fats on the food label, which would be an extremely positive step.

The American Institute for Baking has come to realize that it's inevitable that the trans fat content of foods will appear on labels, so they're working on making trans-free baked goods. But European food industries are way ahead of the American food industry in this regard. Virtually all of the margarines in Europe now are trans fatty acid-free. Some of these European brands are available in the U.S., and there are several margarines made in the U.S., like Heart Smart and Promise margarines that are trans fatty acid-free as well. At the moment, it takes a highly sophisticated consumer to pick out the trans fats-free products. But it shouldn't have to be that way, as it is certainly possible to have a food supply without trans fatty acids.

Q: What about different types of carbohydrates?

A: Until recently, it has been believed that carbohydrates should be thought of as sugars and complex carbohydrates: the sugars are bad and the complex carbohydrates are good. But that now seems far too simplistic because many complex carbohydrates, like potatoes and white bread, are converted rapidly to glucose (a sugar) once we eat them. In fact, it's likely that these foods are even worse than sugar, since they actually result in a more rapid rise in glucose than sugar itself does.

Unfortunately, people have been told to load up on complex carbohydrates. The typical American who drives to work, sits in an office all day, and watches television at night will have some degree of insulin resistance, and in this setting a high intake of highly refined carbohydrates can result in serious health problems, such as diabetes and heart disease.

Some complex carbohydrates can be beneficial if they're really whole grains containing high-fiber, intact grains. Once we remove the germ and bran from kernels of grain and smash them into fine powder, like we do to make Wonder Bread, they can be rapidly absorbed and cause a sharp rise in glucose and insulin levels. Keeping the kernels of grain more intact slows down their absorption and delays the release of glucose--it's like having a sustained release capsule of carbohydrate. Our studies have shown that this can have a major role in helping reduce the risk of diabetes and heart disease.

Q: In summary, what can people do to reduce their risk for chronic diseases?

A: On top of the list is to stay lean and active. Our inactivity and weight probably contribute greatly to the differences in cancer rates we see between the U.S. and Japan.

Another priority is to eat healthy fats instead of unhealthy fats. Consuming mostly vegetable oils and minimizing butter, partially hydrogenated fats high in trans fatty acids, and fat from red meat, has major benefits for heart disease risk.

Eating grains in whole grain form, and putting potatoes on an "occasional" list is another priority for health promotion. We don't have to avoid potatoes entirely, but eating them on a daily basis appears to be risky unless we are very active and lean. Most people are probably not even familiar with whole grains, have never had good whole grain pasta, and haven't tried brown rice or barley. Often people haven't had the opportunity to explore these options. One of the things we want to encourage is choice. When going to a restaurant, for example, people should be offered the option of brown rice or whole grain breads and pasta.

Another important factor for helping to prevent cardiovascular disease and some cancers is to eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, including green leafy vegetables. Tomato sauce, rich in lycopene, should be included as well. And again, we should avoid consuming large amounts of red meat, and instead turn to chicken, fish, nuts, and legumes for protein.

©2001 Harvard School of Public Health



What's wrong with the pyramid? (4.00 / 1)
Ah, the more things change the more they remain the same, or something like that. The following is an interview from July 2000 after publication of the 2000 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Meir Stampfer was on the advisory committee for the 2000 DGA and was the newly appointed chair of Harvard's Department of Epidemiology at the time of the interview.

What's Wrong with this Pyramid

Stampfer said the current recommended limitations on unsaturated fat have no scientific basis.

And while the committee overemphasized fat intake, it underemphasized the dangers of refined carbohydrate and sugar consumption, he said.

"Americans eat way too much sugar," he said, but advice to curb the intake was watered down first by the committee and then by the US Department of Agriculture, which may have felt pressured by the soft drink industry, he noted.

Stampfer said some of the committee members were reluctant to change the guidelines too much for fear the alterations would confuse the public.

"It's an old-style way of thinking," said Stampfer, "even though I pointed out that we were supposed to be modifying the guidelines."

The next revised set will come out in 2005, and Stampfer said he would be happy to serve on the committee again but doubts he will be invited.

"I'll be astonished if they invite me back," laughed Stampfer. "I was a squeaky wheel on the losing side of most of the votes."



Stampfer (4.00 / 1)
Stampfer was correct, hehe, he was not invited back.

2005 Advisory Committee Membership


[ Parent ]
Political Activism Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Notable Diaries
- The 2007 Ag Census
- Cuba Diaries
- Mexico Diaries
- Bolivia Diaries
- Philippines Diaries
- My Visit to Growing Power
- My Trip to a Hog Confinement
- Why We Grow So Much Corn and Soy
- How the Chicken Gets to Your Plate

Search




Advanced Search


Blog Roll
Blogs
- Beginning Farmers
- Chews Wise
- City Farmer News
- Civil Eats
- Cooking Up a Story
- Cook For Good
- DailyKos
- Eating Liberally
- Epicurean Ideal
- The Ethicurean
- F is For French Fry
- Farm Aid Blog
- Food Politics
- Food Sleuth Blog
- Foodgirl.ca
- Foodperson.com
- Ghost Town Farm
- Goods from the Woods
- The Green Fork
- Gristmill
- GroundTruth
- Irresistable Fleet of Bicycles
- John Bunting's Dairy Journal
- Liberal Oasis
- Livable Future Blog
- Marler Blog
- My Left Wing
- Not In My Food
- Obama Foodorama
- Organic on the Green
- Rural Enterprise Center
- Take a Bite Out of Climate Change
- Treehugger
- U.S. Food Policy
- Yale Sustainable Food Project

Reference
- Recipe For America
- Eat Well Guide
- Local Harvest
- Sustainable Table
- Farm Bill Primer
- California School Garden Network

Organizations
- The Center for Food Safety
- Center for Science in the Public Interest
- Community Food Security Coalition
- The Cornucopia Institute
- Farm Aid
- Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
- Food and Water Watch
-
National Family Farm Coalition
- Organic Consumers Association
- Rodale Institute
- Slow Food USA
- Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
- Union of Concerned Scientists

Magazines
- Acres USA
- Edible Communities
- Farmers' Markets Today
- Mother Earth News
- Organic Gardening

Book Recommendations
- Animal, Vegetable, Miracle
- Appetite for Profit
- Closing the Food Gap
- Diet for a Dead Planet
- Diet for a Small Planet
- Food Politics
- Grub
- Holistic Management
- Hope's Edge
- In Defense of Food
- Mad Cow USA
- Mad Sheep
- The Omnivore's Dilemma
- Organic, Inc.
- Recipe for America
- Safe Food
- Seeds of Deception
- Teaming With Microbes
- What To Eat

User Blogs
- Beyond Green
- Bifurcated Carrot
- Born-A-Green
- Cats and Cows
- The Food Groove
- H2Ome: Smart Water Savings
- The Locavore
- Loving Spoonful
- Nourish the Spirit
- Open Air Market Network
- Orange County Progressive
- Peak Soil
- Pink Slip Nation
- Progressive Electorate
- Trees and Flowers and Birds
- Urbana's Market at the Square


Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox