Since 99% of Medical doctors know diddly-squat about nutrition (a week or less of training in medical school), I reject the idea that the allopathic medical establishment should have any role in making recommendations as to diet.
These are the same clowns who persist in poisoning people with statins based on the long-discredited cholesterol / saturated fat hypothesis, and the incredibly damaging “low fat” diet craze which has mangled millions by substituting excessive carbohydrates for healthy fats along with unstable vegetable oils and similar nasty stuff. The results of all this “expert” advice has been an epidemic of heart disease, obesity, etc.
But in this case, I am totally on board with the reduction in added sugar, which I would change to ZERO added sugar. Minimal alcohol I am also on board with, though I do like my wine.
But it hardly matters since government nutritional guidelines have been harming people for 70+ years or so now; it’s mostly about BigFood and BigAg profits—politicized recommendations. Remember “Oleo”*?
While I’ll take the “scientific” advice on nutrition over the politicized version, the advice in total is still pathetically ignorant, incorporating medical myths and failing to address major nutritional deficiencies. Twaddle from unaccountable “experts”.
If 2020 taught us anything, its that experts are wrong about everything and cannot even agree among themselves, and they resent discussion and loathe dissent.
*My grandparents ate “Oleo” every day as a “healthy” fat. It was/is pure trans fat and my grandfather died of a 3rd heart attack. My other grandfather ate a butter sandwich every day and died of other causes. Trans fats decisively cause heart disease, the only fat for which there is no doubt of it (saturated animal fat from animals eating a natural diet is, based on all research, not associated with adverse consequences, “vegetable” oils are suspect especially if oxidized).
The federal government on Tuesday issued new dietary guidelines that keep current allowances for sugar and alcohol consumption unchanged, rejecting recommendations by its scientific advisory committee to make significant cuts.
The scientific committee, which was composed of 20 academics and doctors, had recommended cutting the limit for added sugars in the diet to 6% of daily calories from 10% in the current guidelines, citing rising rates of obesity and the link between obesity and health problems like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and cancer. The committee also recommended lowering the limit for alcoholic beverages for men to one drink per day from two, matching the guidance for women. It pointed to research linking greater alcohol consumption to a higher risk of death.
...The dietary guidelines, which are updated every five years, have a wide impact: They shape school lunch programs, mold state and local health-promotion efforts, and influence what food companies produce.
...Food industry groups had lobbied intensely against the scientific committee’s proposed new limits. When asked if pressure from business groups had played a role in the government’s decision, Mr. Lipps said “to the extent that stakeholders provided input about whether the science was being properly reviewed, we took that into consideration,” and noted that the government received more than 106,000 comments from the public. “We committed to issuing guidelines based on sound science in an open and transparent process. We believe that at the end of the day, that’s what we did,” he said.
The American Beverage Association, which represents drink makers including Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, urged the government to keep the 10% added-sugars limit during a public meeting in August. In response to the new guidelines, the organization’s president and chief executive Katherine Lugar said in a statement, “America’s beverage companies appreciate the common sense approach taken by USDA.”
The alcohol industry also lauded the government’s decision, with a spokesman for the Beer Institute praising “maintaining the long-standing definition of moderate alcohol consumption.”
WIND: it’s 80% about preserving profits for BigFood and BigAg, along with deferring to medical myths from “experts” that have vested interests (some good, mostly bad or ignorant).
The USA and many countries suffer from high-calorie malnutrition!
- If a food is not whole* and unprocessed, it’s a Bad Idea to eat it.
- If a food has more than 3 ingredients, it’s a Very Bad Idea unless all those ingredients are equivalent to eating those ingredients as whole foods, separately.
- Added sugar of any kind is a Very Bad Idea. Natural sugars (including honey, agave, etc) are a very bad idea beyond a small amount.
- If it’s an animal-derived food the animal was fed an an unnatural diet (e.g., corn for a cow, animal scraps to pigs, etc), it’s a Very Bad Idea.
- If it’s a “vegetable oil” (a seed oil eg Canola/rapeseed oil—TERRIBLE idea (olive oil is fine, but it’s from a fruit).
- Grains in general are not a good idea, and directly harm the health of many people. Moderation.
* Examples of whole foods: grass-fed chicken eggs, grass-fed meat, grass-fed ghee, vegetables, fruits, nuts.