Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Gov't To Withdraw Food Warnings About Dietary Cholesterol

Posted by Soulskill on from the do-as-we-say-now-not-what-we-said-yesterday dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Washington Post reports on news from the U.S.'s top nutrition advisory panel, which plans to stop warning consumers about the amount of dietary cholesterol in foods. The government has been issuing these warnings for over 40 years, and they reaffirmed that decision as recently as five years ago. "[T]he finding, which may offer a measure of relief to breakfast diners who prefer eggs, follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that for a healthy adult cholesterol intake may not significantly impact the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease. The greater danger, according to this line of thought, lies in foods heavy with trans fats and saturated fats. ... But the change on dietary cholesterol also shows how the complexity of nutrition science and the lack of definitive research can contribute to confusion for Americans who, while seeking guidance on what to eat, often find themselves afloat in conflicting advice."

24 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Unsettling science by mi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But the change on dietary cholesterol also shows [...] the complexity of nutrition science and the lack of definitive research

    Awesome. And, while we are it, the War on Fat was in error too. Decades after telling us one thing — coercing and outright forcing us to follow its "scientifically proven" and "common sense" guidelines, the government now admit to have been full of shit. Will anybody prosecuted?

    One can't help, but wonder, what other famously "settled" science will come apart?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Unsettling science by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Will anybody prosecuted?

      Yes, you, for crimes against grammar.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:Unsettling science by thesupraman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, if you had done just a little critical thinking, and perhaps a touch of research yourself then you would know that blaming fat for fatness was pure stupidity, mainly pushed by promoters of diets and 'healthy foods' (usually high in carbs instead).

      How fat was metabolized, and what was used to produce body fat, have been well known for a long time.
      So, who do you plan to sue? the media for jumping on a profitable bandwagon? people themselves for believing everything they are told?

      Hell, next you are going to tell me you still believe fruit juice is a 'healthy alternative'
      Or that energy/sports drinks are somehow good for normal people (not only active atheletes)
      Perhaps you also believe that sugar alternatives are a perfectly safe alternative?
      Or that calorie intake doesnt matter if you 'balance' it by exercising it back off?
      Maybe that breakfast is somehow 'the most important meal of the day'?
      OR that small snacks continuously are better than larger means somehow?
      Hell, perhaps you even buy pesticide free foods, while having one of these horrors in your house: http://www.raidautomatic.com.au/index.html
      Or hammer down a handful of supplements every day, when the tiny trace amounts you actually need are present in all your food?
      You could even be crazy enough to think Vitamin C somehow kills viruses!

      Its usually not too hard to see through the bs, rhetoric, and marketing and work out whats obvious BS..
      And if you thought there was much settled 'science' behind government and market food recommendations, then sorry, you are beyond hope.
      Its called MARKETING, and its not science.

      Science has well and truly made available everything you need to know about fat, quite some time ago.

    3. Re:Unsettling science by meglon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't tell if you're trying to be funny, or if you are actually as stupendously ignorant about science as you're post portrays you to be.... it's very hard to tell in writing. I generally try to give people the benefit of doubt, but i get the vibe you're not trying to be funny.

      Science is based on observation and experimentation. What that means is, the more exacting observations we make, and the more fine tuned our experimentation, the more precise our knowledge becomes... that's pretty basic, 4th-6th grade level science. If you want something that once said never, ever changes, regardless of new information, then stick to religion.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    4. Re:Unsettling science by jandersen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One can't help, but wonder, what other famously "settled" science will come apart?

      Don't blame the science - this is about taking science's name in vain and claiming something is proven when science has always been very up front about the limitations in what, for want of a better word, is called current knowledge. This is what always happens; people don't understand how science works or how scientists think and communicate. When the scientist says 'To the best of current knowledge, eating eggs is probably bad for you, although we really haven't researched that enough' it translates into 'Science says egg is bad for you'.

      I would have hoped we, as engineers, or at least as individuals interested in science, would have a clearer understanding of this - it lies at the very heart of science. Unlike religion, science is not about absolute truth - it is all about improving accuracy by means of the scientific method. If you want certainty, go to your church/synagogue/mosque/temple/... - if you want something that is likely to work, go to science.

    5. Re:Unsettling science by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      Even in this case, it should be pointed out that for about one in three adults, levels of dietary cholesterol do have a significant effect on the levels of cholesterol in the blood. But even for them, the effect is half as much as the effect of saturated fat intake on blood cholesterol.

      There's all sorts of potential health info one could write on a package. Every additional bit you add takes attention off every other that's already there. Mandating listing cholesterol when it's not as major of an issue as other information on there, like saturated fat, trans fat, salt, etc is probably not justified.

      As for the GP, anyone who lumps all fats together as if they're one substance is an idiot. Different fats need to be treated differently. If you think eating mainly saturated and trans fats comprises a healthy diet and will lead to a long lifespan, you're flatly in contradiction to the overwhelming body of research. But if you eat a lot of monounsaturated and omega 3 fats**, this could well be true (though there's lots of niggling details - for example, mono is probably great if you're heart-risk prone but not if you're breast cancer prone). And even these sorts of categories are still broad generalizations; each is comprised of many different individual fat molecules, and each one may carry its own benefits and risks.

      Note on omega 3s... this means as a general rule uncooked omega-3 rich foods. Omega-3s are heat-unstable, they break down under cooking (not to mention it ruins the flavor). They should ideally be stored refrigerated as well. There have been some studies that certain herbs, such as rosemary, can help heat-stabilize omega-3s - but its a limited effect. Also, as mentioned above, not all omega-3s are identical. For example, the EPA and DHA from oily fish or krill are believed to be more effective than the APA from plants, which the body has to convert at low efficiency. But the usually bad taste of the former has discouraged use, while most omega-3 rich plant oils (flax, walnut, hemp, etc) are quite flavorful (really, I have no clue why they're not used more often in salad dressings and the like just for that reason alone). Also, you aren't just what you eat, but also what what you eat eats. For example, eggs from hens fed green plants and omega-3 rich feeds generally are several times higher in omega-3s than hens fed a standard grain feed. The same applies to levels in meats.

      --
      "That girl is a witch!" "Yeah, but she's our witch. So cut her the hell down!"
    6. Re: Unsettling science by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Science isn't just about what you know. It's about what you suspect and finding ways to prove OR disprove your suspicions. And a lot of things out there are not so simply linked as CFCs and ozone destruction.

      As a classic example, I usually point out smoking and lung cancer, since everyone's familiar with it. Lots of people smoke and live to be 98. Some smoke and die of lung cancer. I've known both. The main thing is that the people I've known who died of lung cancer were almost exclusively smokers, but the centennarians and near-centennarians are mostly non-smokers. Because smoking is a contributor to, but not sole cause of, nor guaranteed cause of lung cancer.

      The other common case where the science is not clear-cut is climate change. It isn't that the jury is still out. Like smoking, there will never be a "verdict point" where everyone agrees, but the movement of scientific opinion has continued to trend towards man-made acceleration.

      Even in cases where there are distinctly provable connections, it can take time - and false starts - to get them straight. For ages people thought that stomach ulcers were basically caused by nervous stress and that milk would ameliorate them. It took a certain amount of shouting and argument before science determined that they were caused not by nervous stress, but by bacteria. and that milk was anything but effective. AND, mind you, this wasn't something that came about in Lister's day when people were discovering bacterial illnesses right and left, but in very recent times.

      The difference between science and religion is that science can admit to mistakes and change, but most religions consider themselves to be based on eternal and immutable truths. If you think that human-spawned CO2 is wreaking havoc, but observations don't hold up, that's religion. If you think that and the observations do hold up, that's science - at least until some other better model can be found. Then it, too becomes religion.

      Religion says that if you have just a tiny smidgen of faith, you can order a mountain to leap into the sea and it will do so, although if that's true, people have faith that makes mustard seeds look like galactic clusters. Science says that the mountain has more than enough faith to stay right where it is, regardless of what you believe. But that high explosives have more faith than either you OR the mountain.

    7. Re:Unsettling science by ferespo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't tell if you're trying to be funny, or if you are actually as stupendously ignorant about science as you're post portrays you to be.... it's very hard to tell in writing. I generally try to give people the benefit of doubt, but i get the vibe you're not trying to be funny.

          Science is based on observation and experimentation. What that means is, the more exacting observations we make, and the more fine tuned our experimentation, the more precise our knowledge becomes... that's pretty basic, 4th-6th grade level science. If you want something that once said never, ever changes, regardless of new information, then stick to religion.

      This is not science, is public health policy. One is supposed to be based in the other, but it is now always like that.

    8. Re:Unsettling science by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They usually can, but have learned that explaining it to their patients makes their eyes glaze over and they don't get even a tiny fraction of what they have told them. So they resort to the "good cholesterol, bad cholesterol" sock puppet play so people at least understand what they should do.

      It's a bit like we explain computer stuff to non-techy people. We don't always use the technically correct terms, but we've simply learned that if we do, they not only don't understand at all but they also can't even figure out what the heck we want them to do.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Unsettling science by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Funny

      Do not teach your grammar how to suck eggs.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    10. Re:Unsettling science by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most MDs aren't biochemists. The extent of their understanding of things like cholesterol's role in the body depends entirely on whether they were paying attention in class that day. They almost certainly know the good cholesterol-bad cholesterol thing, but they may not know, or may not know well, that HDL and LDL aren't cholesterol at all, or that the latest research shows dietary cholesterol usually has very little effect on either. Several studies have shown that the average MD doesn't learn much past about five years post med school. For many that's while they're still doing their residencies.

      To go with your computer stuff simile, while there's a guy in the back who actually knows the difference between a north bridge and a south bridge, the guy you're talking to in the showroom may or may not have just memorized the specs.

    11. Re:Unsettling science by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not clear that saturated fat is bad for you either. That leaves trans fats as bad, and Omega-6's as questionable.

      The trick is that "the level of cholesterol in the blood" is not a meaningful health indicator. The ratio of LDL to HDL is much more useful. And saturated fat actually makes that ratio slightly better (while raising the values of both). Thus, the best evidence indicates that saturated fat is *good* for you.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    12. Re:Unsettling science by Bonzoli · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Omega 3 is generally picked up when creatures are browsing different seeds. Our current farms feed them, corn and antibiotics. Go with Flax seeds, Walnuts, and oddly Chia.
      Farm raised fish sadly doesn't have it, as it requires Krill to be fed to them. Which farms do not feed the fish.
      Hydrogenated oil and High fructose crap and aspartame, these 3 products combined pretty much are going to shut down every important system in your body over time. GMO'ing your food so it can absorb more roundup pesticides which in the end you eat, is also a winner. Hexane also gets a big thumbs down.

      Try walking 30 minutes a day at lunch. Does it really take an hour to eat? It takes me 5 minutes to eat lunch. Eat more plain nuts unroasted or glazed if your feeling like a snack.
      Another sad fact is, most of those fresh vegetables/fruits are not fresh. They were picked green and completely lacking most of those trace elements a mature fruit/vegetable has when picked. Notice all the studies say, we tested a mature fruit or vegetable. Perhaps try frozen fresh vegetables and fruits, those are packed and frozen after ripening vs before. Salads without those saturated/hydrogenated dressings vs that pizza slice(I love pizza. Which also has hydrogenated oil and high fructose corn syrup. I guess because its whipped up in a lab to trigger all my love for food sensors.).
      Avoid Hydrogenated oil and High fructose crap and aspartame.

      I wish I had listened to those old grey beards that told me to question more, before I became one. I'd be great deal healthier now.

    13. Re:Unsettling science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not clear that saturated fat is bad for you either. That leaves trans fats as bad, and Omega-6's as questionable.

      The trick is that "the level of cholesterol in the blood" is not a meaningful health indicator. The ratio of LDL to HDL is much more useful. And saturated fat actually makes that ratio slightly better (while raising the values of both). Thus, the best evidence indicates that saturated fat is *good* for you.

      Actually, they're finding while LDL to HDL on average is a good indicator, there are outliers who are at risk, even though those two numbers look good. They're now starting to do tests that break those two categories (LDL and HDL) up further into, I believe, 4 categories that can more accurately show problems the traditional blood tests don't.

  2. Cereal Killers by labnet · · Score: 4, Informative

    My wife reads about this stuff all the time, and the evidence is starting to point to the food pyramid being upside down!
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt40...
    http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst...

    --
    46137
    1. Re:Cereal Killers by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

      My wife reads about this stuff all the time, and the evidence is starting to point to the food pyramid being upside down!

      Nope. They changed the food pyramid from horizontal layers to vertical pie slices. Now inverting it won't fix anything. They saw you coming...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Cereal Killers by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just make sure that your diet contains all of the four main food groups: Salt, sugar, fat and caffeine.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Good news by manu0601 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is good news. We have known for a while that if you reduce cholesterol intake, your liver will produce more so that you get back to your equilibrium.

    But some voices told us recently that a high cholesterol could not the root cause for heart diseases, but just an hint that something is wrong, like fever is not the reason why your are sick, but a consequence.

  4. The Greater Danger by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Informative

    The greater danger, according to this line of thought, lies in foods heavy with trans fats and saturated fats

    Oh, for Pete's sake - they have a chance to fix a 40 year old error and are replacing it with a 20 year old error.

    Yes, trans fats are the nasty but saturated fat is fine for you - that's been proven time and again over the past decade.

    The big problem for cardiac disease and cancer is sugar (specifically free fructose). It gets metabolized by the liver into triglycerides which make the blood vessels 'sticky' and promote the growth of atherlosclerotic plaque, and cancer eats it as a premium fuel.

    All of my blood panels are markedly improved after making the switch myself. My combined cardiovascular risk score is down by about 50% in less than a year.

    The "greater danger" is relying on the government to tell you what's good to eat. There are always competing interests and your health isn't more important than the corn lobby.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  5. The Science is Settled Damnit!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nothing but a bunch of deniers funded by big Butter

  6. When will Lactose make it to Nutrition Facts? by ConstantineM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most adults, worldwide, are lactose intolerant. http://skeptics.stackexchange....

    Given the above, it's kind of amazing that Nutrition Facts still have no words about lactose content. Why?

    Wouldn't it be nice to know how much lactose each food has?

  7. Re:It was U.S. government supported FRAUD. by meglon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would suggest that, once again, things mentioned as "government fraud" are actually that great free market taking advantage of a situation. The "government" doesn't market products as gluten-free, low-fat, or reduced fat, nor do they go around throwing extra water and various thickeners into foods.... private companies do. So while the government puts forth guidelines to help people based on the CURRENT best nutritional science, it's PRIVATE COMPANIES who do everything you're blaming the government for.

    Tell you what though, that big nasty corrupt government also has guidelines for the limits of pesticides, arsenic, and all sorts of toxic substances found in your drinking water too. If you want to really impress on me how much you think our government is always wrong, please be my guest to start drinking water with massive amounts of those things in it, and get back to us in a month of two.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  8. Re: food pyramid vs calories by labnet · · Score: 5, Informative

    calorific intake is too simplistic. Gut bacteria greatly effects HOW the food we eat is metabolised. Some of the energy is consumed by bacteria, and some shoots out the backside. There was a recent case of a normal weight woman getting a fecal transplant from an obese donor, and now this woman has become obese but not changed her diet and lifestyle.

    --
    46137
  9. Re:It was U.S. government supported FRAUD. by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would suggest that, once again, things mentioned as "government fraud" are actually that great free market taking advantage of a situation.

    Its not the free market which forced this specific food labeling. Are you following along at all?

    The title of this story isnt "Free Market To Withdraw Warnings About Dietary Cholesterol"

    --
    "His name was James Damore."