Column #12     October 3, 2015

Nutritional information spans the gamut from ridiculous to peer-reviewed science. The public rightfully thinks most of what it hears is probably nonsense. Thus the majority assumes it really doesn’t matter what they eat as long as they eat a variety of foods.

For decades I’ve dealt with professional scientists and professional marketers. Generally, I’ve found that their worlds are far apart with scientists being as dry as rice cake and marketers being flamboyant and stimulating. Scientists are focused on their specialties and reluctant to even express opinions on issues only slightly removed from their specialties. Marketers are generalists with answers for everything. Scientists are recognized for the integrity of their observations and statistics while marketers are recognized for their sales.

The dissonance between the two camps is obvious. But in both cases, motives can be examined. Too often marketers use hyperbole to gain a sale. For instance corn is promoted for its Omega-3 (n3) fatty acids, which is true. One ounce of corn has 4.5 mg of n3. But, it also has 152 mg of Omega-6 (n6) and the ratio of n6 to n3 (34:1) is an extreme example of the n3 deficiency which scientists say is destructive of body function.

Some “scientists” publish studies that are eventually rejected in peer review. Too many studies are funded by organizations (on both sides of the aisle) that have objectives that require certain outcomes. Scientists hungry for sponsorship gladly structure studies to suit a sponsor. Often the outcomes of these questionable studies are widely promoted in the media because they are “exciting.”

Medical doctors also provide nutritional advise to patients with chronic diseases (which are mostly caused by improper diets). Patients respect doctors but don’t recognize that medical schools are routinely funded by pharmaceutical companies. Only about 6% of the graduating doctors are exposed to more than remedial nutritional education. So when doctors offer nutritional advice they usually follow USDA guidelines because it’s prudent and it’s all they know. It’s also the same advice one usually reads in the media.

Nutritional science is very sophisticated and, when presented in scientific jargon, is virtually unintelligible because so much is based on chemistry and biology, two topics few understand. Many consumers assume all “chemicals” are poison especially if man is involved. This thinking, which ignores food chemistry, is behind the demand for organic products that are supposedly “chemical free.”

Nutritional science recommends foods that are low glycemic, nutrient dense and diverse, with balanced weights of n6 and n3 fatty acids. Few foods fit that criteria and the recommendations are the same year in and year out. This perfect diet is mundane, without sublime sweetness and crunch, a break with tradition and social norms, and it requires people to overpower their addictions.

Americans pay less for food and more for healthcare than anyone in the world. Then they blame the food industry for their health issues which are the result of their own food choices. I wonder if nutritional science will ever be valued.

To your health.

Ted Slanker

Ted Slanker has been reporting on the fundamentals of nutritional research in publications, television and radio appearances, and at conferences since 1999. He condenses complex studies into the basics required for health and well-being. His eBook, The Real Diet of Man, is available online.

For additional reading:

Our Diets Are Killing Us and Doctors Aren’t Trained to Help by Emily M. Broad Leib, Drs. Stephen Devries and Walter Willet from The Hill