ttp://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/history/index.html
"Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint."
-Mark Twain
The familiar, black triangle, found on the majority of boxes of foods at the supermarket, has been an expected sight to our generation. Many Americans live by this food pyramid, which outlines a guide to healthy eating. Did you know that the food pyramid was conceived in the 1960s due to an increase in Americans getting heart disease? The U.S. Department of Agriculture responded with the food guide pyramid and Dietary Guidelines for Americans (a pamphlet which is updated every five years). Let’s trace the history of this food pyramid.
Early Beginnings
Before vitamins and minerals were even discovered, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published its first dietary recommendations to the nation in 1894. Soon after that, in 1916, the first food guide, called Food For Young Children was published. Caroline Hunt, a nutritionist and the author, divided food into 5 groups: milk/meat, cereals, vegetables/fruits, fats/fatty foods, and sugars/sugary foods.
The Basic Seven and the Basic Four
Prompted by President Franklin Roosevelt, a National Nutrition Conference was called to action in 1941. For the first time, the USDA came up with Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA’s) for Americans to follow. RDA’s specified caloric intake as well as essential nutrients. Also, the USDA announced the “Basic Seven” in 1943, which was a special modification of the nutritional guidelines to help people deal with the shortage of food supplies during the war.
Because of the complexity of the Basic Seven, the Basic Four was introduced and was used for the next 20 years. Milk, meats, fruits and vegetables, and grain products were the categories to eat foods from.
The Basic Four - modified
With chronic diseases like stroke and heart disease on the rise, the USDA needed to address the roles of unhealthy foods. So, during the late 1970s, the USDA added a fifth category to the Basic Four: fats, sweets and alcoholic beverages, for people to consume in moderation.
The Food Pyramid
A Pattern for Daily Food Choices, the USDA’s food guide, was being published annually since the 1980’s. However, people were still not aware that it existed. Beginning in 1988, the creation of a graphic to represent the food groups started. It needed to convey the three main ideas: variety, proportionality and moderation. The Food Guide Pyramid was finally released in 1992. Both the graphics and text conveyed variety and proportionality (by pictures of foods and the size of the food group).
On every food in the grocery store is a nutritional label. That was put into effect in 1994 by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. Now, Americans can follow the Food Guide Pyramid easily.
But, Americans remain confused about healthy eating. A 1996 telephone done by the USDA found that over 40 percent of people agreed with the statement “There are so many recommendations about healthy ways to eat, it’s hard to know what to believe.”
Because of the emergence of so many diets and programs, it will be challenging to Americans to know just what to believe. It seems as if the information we hear is changing every day.
Problems:
"A man too busy to take care of his health is like a mechanic too busy to take care of his tools."
-Spanish Proverb
What's wrong with this picture?
The Food Guide Pyramid has come under some harsh criticism in recent years by many scientists, nutritionists and medical researchers. They say it is outdated, gives misinformation, and at worst, can lead to obesity and health problems. How can this be? What is so wrong with this once highly-acclaimed food pyramid?
Faults of the USDA's Pyramid
According to Harvard scientist Dr. Walter Willett, the food pyramid is not up-to-date with current nutritional research. He states six faults of the food pyramid that are misleading American people, and adding to the growing epidemic of obesity.
1.All fats are bad. NOT TRUE! Only certain fats are bad for you (saturated and trans fats), while others (monosaturated and polyunsaturated fats) provide many benefits to your heart. Some of these good fats are found in nuts, fish, olive oil and whole grains.
2. All complex carbohydrates are good. NOT TRUE! The food pyramid recommends six to eleven servings of carbohydrates a day, which is way too much. It also doesn't differentiate between the two kinds of carbohydrates: simple carbohydrates (sugars) and complex carbohydrates (starches). The majority of a person's carbohydrate intake should come from whole grains (complex carbs), which will make you feel fuller longer and give you a lot of fiber as well. Stay away from refined carbohydrates, which are things like cookies, crackers and chips. If you eat those, eat them in moderation.
3. Protein is protein. NOT TRUE! Protein should be a key component of your diet. But some sources of protein are better for you than others. For example red meat (steaks) may have a good amount of protein, but they also are high in cholesterol and saturated fat, which is not good for your heart! Fish, chicken, turkey and pork are lower in saturated fat, and have just as much protein. Even beans and nuts are great sources of protein that people wouldn't necessarily know about.
4. Dairy products are essential. NOT TRUE! Dr. Willett says that despite all the commercials advertising protection against osteoporosis, there really isn't a calcium emergency in America. Our country gets more calcium than any other country. In reality, he says, there are even studies that suggest that drinking/eating a lot of dairy sources can possibly increase a man's chance of getting prostate cancer or a woman getting ovarian cancer. But, you still need some calcium in your diet, and you don't have to get it from milk or yogurt. Spinach, tofu, orange juice and broccoli have calcium and extra nutrients. Or, you can take a calcium supplement, which may be cheaper and lower in calories than dairy products.
5. Eat your potatoes. NOT TRUE! Potatoes are starches, not vegetables! A baked potato increases blood sugar levels and insulin faster and to higher levels than an equal amount of calories from pure table sugar. And french fries are even worse. So, if you are going to eat potatoes, eat them in moderation.
6. No guidance on weight, exercise, alcohol, and vitamins. While the food pyramid suggests how to plan a healthy diet, it doesn't mention four other key parts of maintaining a healthy body: the importance of not gaining weight, the necessity of daily exercise, the potential health benefits of a daily alcoholic drink, and what you can gain by taking a daily multivitamin.
"To lengthen thy life, lessen thy meals"
-Benjamin Franklin
New Diets:
With many scientists and researchers unhappy with the food pyramid, a new wave of diets has emerged, promising weight loss immediately. Diets like Sugar Busters!, Protein Power, The Zone and the Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution have swept Americans off their feet and into the bookstore, where they can buy books guaranteeing them a better body in no time. Here, I’ll share two of the most popularized diets on TV and the internet: The Zone and The Atkins Diet. What principles do these diets use, and what are some risks that dieters face when they start?
The Zone Diet
Barry Sears, founder of the Zone diet, says that the ideal ratio of carbohydrates to proteins to fats is 40-30-30. And each time you eat a meal or snack, that ratio should be incorporated. The four key parts of the Zone diet are: the Zone diet, the use of monosaturated fats (nuts, olive oil), supplementation of diet with Omega-3 fatty acids (found in fish like tuna and salmon or in capsules), and exercise.
Eating in the Zone diet is pretty easy once you learn the eyeball method. For example, it’s dinnertime and you want to have some chicken with pasta or broccoli. The portion of the protein (chicken) should be the size of your palm. The portion of the carbohydrate you want depends on if it is favorable or unfavorable. A portion of unfavorable carbs, like pasta, should only be the size of a tight fist. A portion of favorable carbs, like broccoli, can be the size of two closed fists.
Good fat is also important to include in your diet, and Dr. Sears recommends adding either a few nuts, olives, or olive oil to your meals to get in some good monosaturated fat.
With the Zone Diet, you eat five times a day: three meals and two snacks. And you shouldn’t eat more than five hours apart.
Like the Atkins Diet, the Zone is another high-protein, low-carb diet. You will lose weight from the restricted amount of calories you’ll be eating; not from eating in the “zone,” says Dr. Michael McCoy. You also won’t be able to exercise as much, because you won’t have much energy being on a 1,300 calorie diet (for a woman). You won’t be able to eat out at restaurants if you are adhering to the diet, and there are health risks associated with consuming too much protein.
The Atkins approach, like the Zone Diet, focuses on four principles as well. However, the foundation of this diet is that carbs are bad for you, protein is good for you.
*
The first step is induction, where you limit your carbohydrate intake to only 20 grams per day (these carbs come from salad and non-starchy vegetables).
*
The second phase in Ongoing Weight Loss. You add carbs to your diet increasing to 25 grams daily in the first week, 30 g daily next week, etc, until you stop losing weight. Then, subtract 5 g of carbs from your daily intake so that you continue moderate weight loss.
*
The third phase is Pre-Maintenance, where you make the transition from weight loss to weight maintenance by increasing daily carb intake in 10gram increments each week, as long as gradual weight loss in maintained.
*
The fourth phase is Lifetime maintenance, where you basically keep controlling your carb intake for the rest of your life.
Doctors like Dr. David E. Norwood writes in an article about the dangers of the Atkins diet. Because of the severe restriction of carbohydrates, a person will lack fiber, which can cause gastrointestinal problems like constipation. Also, the high protein diet is high in cholesterol and saturated fat. This can lead to heart disease, kidney damage and possibly some cancers, Dr. Norwood warns. Because you are depleting the body’s primary source of energy, carbohydrates, the person will feel fatigued and incur a loss of energy. The Atkins diet also does not promote learning about portion control or serving sizes, so the person does not develop any healthy eating habits.
Sources:
"A diet is when you watch what you eat and wish you could eat what you watch"
-Hermione Gingold
If you have any questions about the different diets mentioned in this Web site, take a look at some of these sites. The Internet is a great way to begin researching on ways to eat healthier. As always, each site has positive and negative comments about each diet. Make sure you check with a doctor or dietician before you begin any diet.
1. “Dangers of the Atkins Diet”
Dr. David E. Nowood
inch-aweigh.com/dangeratkins.html Retrieved 11/17/02
2. Atkins Diet Resources
About.com
weightloss.about.com/cs/atkinslowcarb/ Retrieved 11/17/02
3. “Dangers of Dieting in the Zone”
Dr. Michael McCoy
www.fitness2live.com.au/ Default.asp?pg=nutritionzone&spg=features (Page 2, article #27)
Retrived 11/17/02
4. The Zone
www.zoneperfect.com Retrived 11/16/02
5. Dietary Recommendations and How They Have Changed Over Time
Carole Davis and Etta Saltos
www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib750/aib750b.pdf Retrieved 11/12/02
6. Harvard Nutritionist says USDA ‘Food Pyramid’ is Wrong
www.rense.com/general12/wrong.htm Retrieved 11/12/02
7. Family Health Administration
www.fha.state.md.us/ocd/cardio/html/eatingfacts.html Retrieved 12/4/02
8. Permission to use Food Pyramid image
www.usda.gov/cnpp/pyramid.htm Retrieved 11/20/02
About the Author:
Lisa Greene, 20 years old, is a junior majoring in Public Relations and minoring in Health Science at the University of Florida. She is a member of the Golden Key Honor Society and Alpha Lambda Delta. She also mentors a fourth-grade girl weekly at M.K. Rawlings Elementary School, as part of C.H.A.M.P.S. (Collegiates Helping as Mentors in Public Schools). Lisa has also been a public relations intern at the Career Resource Center since May 2001.
She enjoys all kinds of fitness activities, including weightlifting and running. In the summer of 2002, she will participate in an internship at a public relations agency in Miami. After that, hopefully she will decide what path she wants to pursue in public relations.
For more information about Lisa, visit her homepage or e-mail her with any questions.
##########################################################################################################
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
From: taltar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Altar)
Subject: Brief history of the Basic 4
Message-ID: <taltar.764190579@sfu.ca>
Sender: news@sfu.ca (seymour news)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 19:09:39 GMT Lines: 253
POLITICAL BACKGROUND OF THE SO-CALLED "BASIC 4"
"THE BASIC TWELVE"
The Bureau Of Home Economics in 1923 was the first government agency -- as part of the Department Of Agriculture -- to be given the responsibility of addressing question of human nutrition in the U.S. They came up with a set of diet plans centered around 12 food groupings known as the BASIC TWELVE.
For instance, beans, green vegetables, yellow vegetables, and fruits constituted their own separate food groups.
Four diet plans in accordance with income were created around this classification of the 12 basic food groups. For instance, low income individuals were to adopt the diet plans in which peas, beans and nuts were be their major source of protein.
Those who could afford it were to use the other diet plans.
Note how an implicit imputation is here being made that the better or more "preferred" diet plans involved animal products as these were the diets of choice for the wealthier strata.
These guidelines were well-intentioned but already a certain social endorsement of particular patterns of consumption are being bootlegged.
In 1930 the United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) promoted the concept of there being 12 food groups, the "BASIC TWELVE". The idea was that we should choose at least something from each of these food groups to buy and eat.
The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council announced its formulation of the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) in 1941, which was the first comprehensive set of standards forwarded by the U.S. government. This gave further credence to the idea of "essential food groups"
1941
"THE BASIC SEVEN"
Since it was thought that the public could not remember the Basic Twelve, the number was reduced to 7 in 1944. Were people really that incapable or is this an example of a somewhat patronizing regard towards the individual consumer and the informed citizen? In any case, the BASIC SEVEN included:
1. leafy green & yellow vegetables
2. citrus fruits
3 potatoes & other vegetables
4. milk & milk products
5. meat, poultry, fish, eggs, dried beans, and peanuts.
6. cereals, bread, and flours
7 butter and margarine.
The idea of the BASIC SEVEN was introduced in the schools via the so-called "THE WHEEL OF GOOD EATING". The intent was to help ensure that children would receive an adequate diet, and was justified by being seen as a long-term investment in the establishment of "better" food consumption patterns. The USDA published a series of pamphlets promoting these guidelines and in a relatively short period of time this particular government agency became the leading source of nutritional information in the country. Notwithstanding what would later become clear conflicts in the dual mandates of this department to promote agribusiness and ensure adequate nutrition of the populace, this one agency somehow obtained the image of being strictly objective in its recommendations.
During the 1940's some rat growth studies helped to give further support to the idea that animal foods, especially eggs, contained the only "ideal" protein. The National Egg Board was actually very vigorous in promoting this misleading notion. Not to be outdone, the Dairy Council and the National Livestock and Meat Board began their own campaigns promoting the "superior" benefits of their foods. Thus was inaugurated what we now recognize as a scandalous "protein myth".
"THE BASIC FOUR"
After WWII, cheap fuel, new heavy machinery, and so-called "favorable-interest" financing gave impetus for immense tracts of forests and fields being plowed. The predictable result was a wasteful surplus of food. Rather than consider returning the land to forests, marshlands and open fields, people only scratched their heads on how to get people to consume what they didn't really need.
Supposedly to again simplify the Basic Seven (which people had no trouble remembering), the U.S.D.A. created the now hallowed "BASIC FOUR" in 1956. It was clearly an blatant attempt to promote an increased consumption of food surpluses by way of the wasteful conversion of plant foods into meat and dairy products. Unfortunate to the general health of the nation, this political reclassification worked very well and meat consumption by the 1960's had doubled to what it was in the 1950's.
Now here was a scheme, the so-called BASIC FOUR, that took little mental effort to follow and was teachable to even grade one children!
Naturally, it was well-received by the industry promoting animal products since now their foods comprise ONE-HALF of the "essential" food groups. While vegetable protein sources were supposedly included in the meat category, there were considered second best and most often not even mentioned at all. Note also that fruits and vegetable decreased from constituting 5 of the 12 food groups to 3 of the seven food groups to now only 1 of the food groups in the BASIC FOUR. It is quite evident what this must suggest about the relative importance of these foods.
HAPPY RELATIONSHIPS AND NDC
At this time even closer relationships developed between nutritional scientists and industry. For example, through a better understanding of the farm animal's nutritional needs, farmers could increase productivity and profit. The food industry therefore showed an increased willingness to support and fund research scientists and in turn nutritional scientists developed research programs and schools to meet this interest and to train scientists for the expanding employment opportunities in the food industries..
An earlier example of this kind of happy working relationship between nutritional science and industry is maybe exemplified by Elmer McCollum, who grew up on a farm. His scientific work on vitamin A in the early 1900's included finding that it supported growth for the laboratory rat and was a factor that prevented xerophthalmia and night blindness in the rat. Found to be presence in cows milk, butter and eggs, McCollum later was prompted to designate these foods as "protective foods", a concept that became common coin before it was understood that vegetables also meet our needs for vitamin A via plant carotenoids. The industry, however, promoted McCollum's term and hyperbolized it one further by calling cow's milk a "wonder food", a term that is still around even today.
McCollum worked to encourage diary farmers to fund nutritional educational programs, as he sincerely wished to improve the public health and also to help farmers. There was no area of conflict between the two in his mind, nor was there any reason at that time to think that there would be. In 1915 dairy farmers agreed to institute McCollum's advice and they set up the NATIONAL DIARY COUNCIL (NDC). On further prompting by McCollum, the NDC expanded its agenda and began funding university research in 1941. The NDC was well received by nutritionists and teachers who appreciated the free or subsidized educational materials. The NCE was also well received by parents who saw the NDC was helping to improve the health of their children. Thus, the relationship between farmers and researchers was strong and the public saw no conflict in this kind of close relationship. In 1949 the US government in turn also established a closer relationship with these farmers by adopting price supports. Dairy farmers by this program were guaranteed a minimum return for all milk products they produced, either by paying farmers directly or by purchasing the leftover products. The USDA chose to buy "surpluses" which it distributed to schools, prisons and the military or however else it saw fit. Everyone was happy!
Well, like all happiness, such states are only temporary. It did last at least up to until the mid-1950's when studies began to show some negative aspects of these "wonder foods".
The first bad news pertained to the relationship between increased blood cholesterol and dairy fat and that blood cholesterol levels were associated with increased risk of CHD.
No longer was nutritional science merely the study of the "good things" in food and no longer could the National Dairy Council be deemed an objective resource in promoting the nutritional value of dairy foods.
Yet, even today the National Dairy Council remains the number one supplier of "nutritional information" in the country. And the USDA is still remaining true to its original mandate to promote agribusiness while still seeing no inherent conflict between this mandate and that of promoting the best nutrition of the nation. Really, these mandates should be embodied in separate government agencies. What do you think?
SUMMARY:
The "basic four" is NOT a scientific grouping of foods. It was thought to be a nutritionally rationalized *rule of thumb* that would be convenient for the larger populace. Note that some social-political concerns were behind the rationale of the "Basic Four", a key concern being to help promote some new consumption patterns in accordance with the new production capacity of the American food industry.
Guess who supplied free of charge all those colorful "Basic Four" food charts that were found in all our schools? Look at the small print at the bottom and you will soon see whose interests are being promoted. It is not the NAS but the meat and diary industries that funded those charts. Why them and not the fruit and grain farmers? In light of the scientific/medical evidence that was available even in the mid-1950's, the "Basic Four" CANNOT be said to have been designed strictly for the fostering of our better health, completely free of any social or political consideration.
This should not be surprising nor do we need to attribute conscious motives to deceive. The curious existence of the hallowed BASIC FOUR is best explained by a confluence of various interests -- scientific, political, commercial – which were at the time not seen as incompatible. Of course, many if not all the people at the time had the best of intentions and good will. That is not being questioned, nor does it preclude that people were acting to promote a certain social practice which in hindsight can now be seen as politically inspired rather than simply scientifically rationalized.
Even pure science will reflect to some degree the larger society that in turn determines the funding and support of the research projects of its scientists. Many good books on the sociology of science and knowledge have well-documented this now obvious fact. Even philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn have made this point. Applied sciences, like "nutritional science", are even more responsive to, or influenced by, the larger society and the many interests that compete in the larger society. Nothing mysterious or conspiratorial about this. What we have here is merely an institutional analysis of how certain vested interests are well served in our polity. Unfortunately, we are encourage to be uninformed or to simply ignore such an institutional analysis of our social policies and practices.
I'll leave it to the good reader to consider how the recent update of the "Basic Four" into the improved "Food Pyramid" may be still serving to some extent these vested interests just as did the "Basic Four". Permit me to humbly suggest that the so called "Food Pyramid" would be greatly improved by simply pruning off the top 2 tiers to produce a more stable and substantial "Vegetarian Food Trapeziform" ;-)
REFERENCES:
Haughton et al. (1987). "A historical study on the underlying assumptions for United States Food Guides from 1917 through the Basic Four Food Group Guide" J. OF NUTR. EDUCATION, 19(4):169
Klaper, Michael (1987). "VEGAN NUTRITION: PURE AND SIMPLE".
Regards,
ted